Being -not -Doing.

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Law <martin.rainbowmaker@gmail.com> wrote:

                          
         
                                             'Being-not-Doing.'
I feel inclined to insert at the outset, that i am not attempting to dismiss 'doing', as an integral aspect of 'being'.  Rather, to suggest, that in our present system, the obligation to be doing, tends to be at the expense of our sense of well-being.
That the pressure of what we are required to do, in order to be, has the effect of limiting, if not preventing our freedom to be, in it's optimum potential.
Doing, is a natural aspect of being, and not the other way around.  Looked at this way, it may help to relieve some of the stress of our preoccupation with activity as a way of defining ourselves.
To be, is to gravitate towards food, shelter, and shared interaction.  Yet we stress this natural response as an obligation, which then tends to create a stressful sense of being.
Simply being, doesn't imply that nothing happens through us.  We gravitate towards our basic needs in the same way that we breathe.
But, (and this is the point) to make a compulsion out of what happens naturally by itself, is to generate a prevailing consciousness of needless and counterproductive stress.  Rather as if we were to declare it illegal to stop breathing.Everything, is just being what it is, and so, grows and evolves naturally.  Only people, seem to be obsessed with doing.  Which is why they imagine that, if they weren't busy doing, nothing would happen.  When was nothing ever happening?
Is being born, a doing, or is it just happening?  A division in consciousness comes, when the doers, who are already doing, coerce the being into doing something.  The origin of the sensation of a doer separate from the action.
Call it a self if you like.
Everybody loves babies, animals, birds, flowers, because they are just being what they are, and don't have some idea about doing.
In a natural world, we would help everything to be what it is, and not force it to do something about it.  We live in a system that has to do things to people to make them do what the system of doers wants, and not do what it doesn't want.
Having no self-trust, it's afraid to let anything be.  The fear is rationalized as: "You can't just let people do what they want."  Why not let them be, instead?
'Civilization', is a system of people telling each other what to do, and never letting them be.
It's out of control because, having been long based on the assumption, that you can't trust anybody to be what you want them to be.  Backed up by a long history of, somebody always telling somebody what to do.  History is the perpetual justification of a mistake.  Which explains why nobody learns anything different from it.
It's the emphasis on doing, backed by thousands of years of bitter experience that keeps the thing going, and gives rise to the conclusion that: 'You can't trust human nature.'
When was the last time you saw a human, being, without the compulsion to be doing?
What we call religion takes advantage of this, by stating that humans are basically born flawed.  Instead of seeing that such a presumption itself is what is flawed.Would you entrust your being, to the concept of a 'creator', who seemingly creates endless flawed beings, (makes boo-boos) and got it right only once in a period of thousands of years?  Well, would you? Do you?
Not to mention, the notion of killing somebody for killing somebody.  'So it won't happen again.'  When did killing ever stop killing?
How about, 'be' unto others?  'Others', brothers, what a lot of bother.
You can't make somebody be, because they already are.  So you threaten to 'do' something. 
If you can't trust yourself to be, without having to do something, then you can't trust your mistrust either.  A vicious circle?
Circles are not naturally vicious.  Quite the opposite.  If they were we wouldn't be.  Circles have been given a bad name in the square world.  No, the real problem all around the world, is 'corners.'  They lock bad energy. The 'four corners of the globe', indeed! 
Corners.  This much this way, and this much that way, "chunk"!  This bit's mine and that bit's yours.  'Owned Property. No Trespassing!'  What in the wiggly world...?  Structurally sound?  Sound is round.
In a circle, the Yin and the Yang, so-called 'opposites', are quite happy, interrelating by virtue of each other, like eternal lovers.  It's called 'non-duality'.
You wouldn't be a you without a so-called other, so be thankful.
They should teach that in primary school.  What we are in the habit of calling 'education', is to 'make' people 'do' well.  When it should really be helping them to 'be' well.  After education, there should be a 'de-education'.  Otherwise people grow up thinking that 'things' really are separate.
So now it's come to a head, (according to the body of opinion).  "What do we 'do' about a system that won't let us be?  And the circle becomes a vicious whirlpool.  Do you really expect me to tell you what to do?  As if i could.
One simple answer might be, to be as you are, and to do only that which best serves the truth of what you are, shared freely to the benefit and well-being of others also.  While avoiding doing whatever would restrict this natural response.  Which is what present patriarchal fake authoritarian systems are still in the habit of doing.  Be what you are.  Don't do what doesn't come from the best of what you are.  Share and help.

If i see the absurdity of our present paradox, you can too.  And probably do.  We're all symptoms of something larger.  There's hope in that, if you focus on what's right about the way you just are, and not think you're just a flawed human being.
Valuing simplicity helps. Not thinking that what's true has to be complex.  We were all told that being simple is the same as being stupid, when it's the other way around.  So we're afraid to be simple in case we appear stupid.
'The simplicity of childhood'.  Children aren't stupid.  Babies even less so. 
Why did Lao-Tzu honour the infant as being an example of the natural way to be?  The 'Tao', which means something like, 'the natural way,' 'nature's way'.
It's worth reading his description.  Lao-Tzu.  'The Tao Teh Ching', (the way and it's power.)  Verse 55.
Who's more stupid, a baby or an adult?
One is simply being, the other suspects he's flawed.  One simply experiences what is, the other suspects that the truth, whatever it might be, must be complex.
There's an art in all this, and one we have to unlearn.  And it doesn't have to be complex.  You don't have to do anything.  We've all been conned into thinking we have to do something complex, (the more so the better) to simply experience what just is.  We call it, 'having a complex'.  Whether inferior, or superior, a complex pure and simple.
So i'd say, do what you like.  Like what you do.  If, and when you do. 
Think what you like, (you do anyway).  Might as well like what you think.
But i won't say "be".  Otherwise you might think i'm telling you what to do, and nobody likes that.  So i'll let you be.  Be what?  Well you can only be as you are now can't you, and what's wrong with that? 
You can't 'be' in the future.  So i wouldn't worry unduly about being or not being in the future.  You don't, in this moment, have to do anything in particular, to fully be what you are.  What nonsense.  Feel free.  So be it.
><>< ><><
Rainbowmaker/

artwork:
Crystal of Love, martin law, May 2008
Androgyne Star, martin law