Beingness is Sattva Guna

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

M: All this manifestation is the ocean of that being. You may call it the ocean of Brahma or the ocean of Maya.

Q: Beyond Maya, beyond the ocean?

M: Where is the question of going beyond? There is beingness-beingness extinguished. It does not go beyond anything. Does it require an airplane, a Boeing, to go somewhere? From where has it come, where did it go? Prior to coming and going, you are.

That I AMness is pulsating "I AM-I AM". The feeling of "I AMness" is there because of the food body and the vital breath. When the food essence and the vital breath are gone, that pulsation of "I AMness" will not be there. Beingness goes into no-beingness.

For the sprouting of any seed, water is necessary. Similarly, for the sprouting of this knowledge "I AM", water and food essence are necessary. In the essence of the food the quality of "I AMness" is in a dormant state. The Atman - the core Self - He himself sees "I AMness" through the juices or essence of the food.

Q: The consciousness is common to all universal, spontaneous, one. Why does it appear in so many different forms?

M: That is its native quality. Although beingness is one, it manifests in plenty, many, multitudes.

Q: What is satva guna?

M: The quintessence of the food essence is that "I AMness," which is satva guna. Satva guna equals beingness. The beingness is activated in the manifest world through rajas and tamas (gunas). The rajas is activity. The tamas is the pride you take in doership or authorship. Satva guna is only beingness, just to be. These three gunas have sprung out of the essence of food. If the food is not there that "I AMness" will go, all the qualities will vanish.

Q: That flame of "I AMness" which we see in the present condition with the help of our intellect - it seems that there is a development, a sort of evolution going on. What does Maharaj think - which way is it moving?

M: Towards destruction. Whatever might be the evolution, finally it will be heading toward dissolution. Turning to what you were speaking about earlier: Is there something you either do or don't want to protect?

Q: I don't know.

M: All this depends on the consciousness, and you don't want to leave the consciousness.

Q: Not even the consciousness of consciousness do I want. I thought of bringing cotton to stuff in my ears when Maharaj is speaking of the Self.

M: Who says this?

Q: Words, just words.

M: What is the use of words if consciousness is not there?

Q: Consciousness is there. Why imply that that consciousness does not know?

M: What is the meaning of this? Explain what you have to say.

Q: What is the need of attaching any concept to whatever there is?

M: If you feel "It should be or it should not be,", what is there at the bottom of that?

Q: Whatever there is, there is.

M: It is evident that you feel you are, and therefore sprouts in you. When you feel that you are, all the trouble starts. If that feeling is not there, no trouble exists.

Q: Why should it give trouble? You attach names and concepts to that which is. Would you leave it alone?

M: Who says this?

Q: Understanding that appears in consciousness.

M: So who is really troublesome? Is the world troubling you, or the consciousness which appears on you?

Q: Nothing troubles me if I shut up.