u/CrumbledFingers

Hi everyone. I am an Advaitin who practices Kriya 1 occasionally (once or twice a week) and have been doing so for about 4 years. An Advaita master, named Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, was one of the only such teachers who spoke of meditative experiences similar to what is seen by kriyabans. To my knowledge, he did not have contact with any prominent Kriya Yoga teachers. I thought this may be of interest to some here. These quotes are all taken from the book Self-love: The Original Dream, a collection of remarks he made in talks with visitors in his Mumbai home near the end of his life. They are translated from Marathi to English, so the emphasis may differ, but they are pretty clear overall.

• When you sing the bhajan, you utter the word ‘Ghanashyama’ which means the deep blue.
• With closed eyes, there is no seeing. Still you see the deep blue or dark black, for which the above two Sanskrit words are used. That is also called as Ghananeela, which is very cool and has the capacity to preserve all. That dark field is so vast that many worlds play in it like tiny particles.
• With your eyes you see a lot. But, what you see with closed eyes contains multitudes of Yogis. This is seen without seeing. This vision is the realization of fullness. All wise people, Sadhus, Yogis and Sages got merged into that consciousness. Even Brahma is the expression of movement of this consciousness. A small speck of it amounts to an ocean of knowledge.
• With closed eyes you are able to see a dark blue or dark black shade. It is an outcome of coming together of the five elements. You meditate and become one with that shade. You can imagine it to be an idol or an ocean, it’s up to you.
• In meditation you see a dot of sattva, which indicates washing of all sins. This is a sign of your closeness to Self-knowledge.
• There is nothing outside your aperture of Brahman. Whatever is seen or appears is all in Brahmarandhra only.
• What you see with closed eyes is Ghanashyama or deep blue or deep black. One who is absorbed in seeing Ghanashyama becomes free of all troubles.
• It is very fortunate to see shining white light like a diamond in meditation, which is termed as an astral or ethereal body. That leads to Self-realization. The body functions by the power of that light.
• You can always see without seeing – with your eyes closed – the deep blue shade which is very natural. It is formless. The Self cannot be seen. It is our direct perception of our being. With closed eyes you see the dark blue canopy over the Self.
• The first sign of spiritual progress is to see with closed eyes a diamond-like luminous star. The Adinarayana is residing in the aperture of Brahman in the crown of your head.

These statements indicate to me that Nisargadatta had easy, almost instant access to deep samadhi states. In addition to being a knower of consciousness he was a natural yogi, though not part of any Kriya lineage.

I can't seem to untangle myself from a loop while practicing self-inquiry. No matter how much I succeed at turning within to investigate myself apart from all other phenomena, there is always a little "narrator" who immediately inserts itself into the equation to say I am now investigating myself: this is it! As instructed by Bhagavan, I inquire: to whom is this thought appearing? to me; who am I? and it subsides... but here comes the narrator to say I made that thought subside by asking who am I: so this is it!

In rare moments, the futility of the mind's role occurs to me, and it (the mind) dies down, but sooner or later, that event again becomes subsumed into yet another thought ABOUT all this, and I get drawn into the stream of thoughts, which is why I am writing this post. By posting this, I'm feeding that impulse to think, analyze, strategize, and take credit for self-inquiry as an individual. This is counterproductive, I know, but I hope to get some insight that will go past the "asker" of this question.

My initial response to this problem is that I am not ready for self-inquiry and need to purify the mind through other means before attempting it.

Nonduality is the name of an understanding of reality that is arrived at in multiple ways both experiential and logical, but I would argue that it has the distinction of being a perspective that requires one to believe absolutely nothing that is not given directly in first-person experience. All other metaphysical positions come with some baggage that can never be proven, or even evidenced, in our experience. Nonduality proceeds directly from a standpoint of universal skepticism about all assumptions not given in our direct perception of life, whatever life may be. This post will give a (probably lengthy) account of the chain of reasoning that leads to the non-dual conclusion: that you alone are what actually exists, and you are just the simple awareness of your own existence.

We begin with the observation that, while we know that we exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, we can have all kinds of doubts about what we are. We seem to be a person with a body and a mind, but this may be an illusion, since we have the clear experience of believing ourselves to be a particular body and mind and being mistaken about that, such as when we are dreaming. Thus, the fact that it strongly seems as if we are a body with a mind is not evidence that we are actually a body/mind.

When do we seem to be a body/mind? In our experience, we seem to cycle through three distinct states. In our current state, the waking state, we seem to be individual beings with bodies and minds located in a world. In a very similar state, dreaming, we seem to be different bodies located in different worlds. But are these the only two states of being we know?

Importantly, there is a third state we experience: the state of dreamless sleep. In dreamless sleep, we have no awareness of a body, a mind, or a world, nor do we experience space and time. However, we are aware of our own existence, because when we leave the state of dreamless sleep, we clearly know that we were in a state with no awareness of any phenomena. Otherwise, we would experience an unbroken series of waking and dream states, and would have no concept of deep sleep; we would simply assume that for the entire time we slept, we were dreaming. We do not assume this, because we have clear introspective knowledge of having been in a state where no phenomena were present.

So, are we the bodies that we seem to be while waking or dreaming? If we were these bodies, then we would not be able to experience our own existence in their absence. Yet, while we are sleeping dreamlessly, we are aware of our existence while there is nothing else present, and certainly no body present.

If we exist and are aware of our existence in all three states, but seem to be a body in only two of the three, how can we assert that we are actually a body without accepting something we cannot experience directly? In our actual experience (in the uninterrupted awareness of our own existence), the phenomenon of seeming to be a body in a world rises and subsides. It rises in the waking state and the dream state alike, along with memories that create the impression of a continuous flow of time across multiple waking states.

Since we have the impression of continuity in both waking and dreams, there is no basis to conclude that the waking state is actually a continuous one while our dreams are intermittent and fleeting. The impression of continuity may certainly occur in a dream, where nothing exists independently of our perception of it. The same can be said of any justification we may provide in the waking state to establish it as primary or real relative to a dream.

In principle, there is no experience we can have in the waking state, when we are convinced that a world exists independently of our perception of it, that could not occur in a dream, when we have the same conviction even though it is known to have been mistaken when the dream ends.

Therefore, no evidence could possibly demonstrate that we are actually a body with a mind in an independently real waking world that exists even if we do not perceive it. As a result, the only reasonable conclusion is that the waking state is just a long dream, within which we seem to experience other dreams as well as dreamless sleep.

So, given all this, what are we?

The answer should be getting clearer now. We cannot be the bodies that appear in only two dreamlike states, since we clearly exist and are aware of our existence without the appearance of a body in the third state without dreams. We must therefore be whatever the appearance and disappearance of this erroneous body-identity occurs in. In our dreams, though we seem to be a dream character in a world of other characters, when we awaken we know none of them were real (not even the one we believed ourself to be). The same must therefore be true even of our waking experience, since as shown earlier, nothing experienced therein can unequivocally distinguish it from a dream. Taking ourself to be an individual in an independent world is a fundamental error.

What we actually are is formless, unlimited, infinite, and eternal awareness that is always aware of ourself, even when we seem to take the perspective of an individual (due to ignorance of our real nature) in the dream that is our life. But since dreams are unreal and do not really exist, the ultimate fact of the matter is that we have never actually made this mistake; we seem to undergo change while circulating through the three states, but in reality we are unchanging and do not have any state other than existing.

As a dream is nothing apart from the dreamer, and only exists in the view of the dreamer, the whole universe is your dream-projection (but not as the person you believe yourself to be; you are all the persons and the entire world). This is what non-duality, or advaita, means: other than you as unchanging awareness, there is no second thing, no countably separate reality; whatever seems to be separate from you is only an appearance that is made of you while appearing in you, which you mistake for something independent only when you take yourself to be an individual with a body.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which is to say, this nonduality stuff is not the unfounded belief that we "don't exist" or "nothing is real". We exist and are real, and are in fact all that is real, but we are mistaken about what we are. Since we make this mistake whenever we know ourself as an individual with a body in a world, the reality of whatever we perceive is also mistaken. However, so long as we are under the sway of this delusion, and by all means I still am, we have no reason to behave as if this world is false. We should not use nonduality as justification for being cruel to others, since the only reason we would want to is because we feel someone else has something we want. If we are cruel, it is because we see the victim of our cruelty as separate from us, so nonduality can never justify cruelty.

On the contrary, knowing that everybody (or every body) including "yourself" is an appearance in a vast, unlimited awareness is an excellent reason to recede from egotistical behavior and practice compassion. What is worth pursuing in this world if it has no reality apart from you the pursuer? The sting of desiring this or fearing that becomes weaker and weaker as we progress on the non-dual path.

I will do my best to respond to any earnest questions while completely ignoring personal attacks or bad-faith remarks. Thanks for reading all this, if you in fact did read it all. :)

There is no answer to the apparent dilemma of how our lifetimes are experienced, either one-by-one or all at once. Neither option makes any sense.

Simultanaeity is not absolute, so that cannot be a factor in how experiences are distributed. There is no universal clock that applies everywhere, such that we may say this event happening on Earth is happening simultaneously with an event in another galaxy. It's not that we can't know when things happen far away, it's that the concept itself is incoherent at those distances. Thus, if you want to claim as a brute fact that you are every conscious being everywhere "now", you are naming a category of beings that doesn't actually exist.

Sequences of events in time depend upon prior causes. My experience of being this person is one extended mental event, but what is its cause? I can in principle find the cause of all the *contents* of my experience, but the reason that I am experiencing this life now is not to be found in any experiential contents, since my access to any experiential contents whatsoever is what we are trying to explain.

But sequences of events in time can only meaningfully apply to those very experiential contents. In other words, time is a way of arranging objects, phenomena, things, discrete variables in awareness. It makes no sense to say that event A took place before event B if both events are totally undetectable by any conceivable means of observation.

Yet, that is exactly what would need to be true if "my next life" were a real event in time relative to "my current life". This is because the one subject of OI has no qualities of any kind other than awareness, so nothing can meaningfully be said to "happen" to that subject to push me from life A to life B rather than to life C, D, or n. What would it even mean to say that my featureless, unchanging locus of subjectivity has "moved" from one body to another, if any movement would need to involve being affected in some way by another object. What object could affect the subject?

Thus, it is incoherent to say you are experiencing all conscious lives right now as well as to say you will experience them all in a sequence. If open individualism is true, it must be true in a way that is not described by either of these options. It must be that time itself is just not the right category of relation to apply to what we actually are.