Many of the people on my list of my all-time favorite people
including
Alan Watts,
the erstwhile Episcopal priest who
Self-made,
became a foremost exponent of Zen in the west, have espoused ideas
along the lines of "All you have to do is be" (which roughly
translates to "All that's required of you is to be")
or "Being is enough" (which roughly translates to "The experience
of being, in and of itself, is whole, full, and complete") ...
something along those lines. Yet given our
already always
listening,
when we hear "Being is enough" we come perilously close to hearing
it as "Doing nothing is enough", in which we hear "doing nothing"
as "doing no-thing", like doing no
action,
like being bone-idle. That's a far cry from the actual authentic,
good Zen of "doing nothing" which paradoxically is anything but
being idle.
Be clear about this: given life is the way it is, doing nothing
like doing no
action,
like being idle, isn't a working option (that's not a judgement:
it's my opinion). And I'm not even sure if it's even completely
possible - or perhaps it's possible, but only if you're in a coma
or half past
dead.
Listening
Werner,
I've resolved for myself that purely being, doesn't equate to doing
nothing like no
action,
like being bone-idle. That's a misconception of what purely being
is. Being and
action
aren't an either / or. Being and
action,
while distinct, are inseparable. If you be, you can't avoid
action.
You be ... and you act, with or without
intentionality. That's how it is for us humans. So what are we
saying by "being is enough", by being is "whole, full, and
complete"? Is becoming inactive the path to experiencing being as
enough? These questions get to the heart of the matter ie they dig
into what promotes being as enough.
|
