Why so much emphasis on being?

You've probably heard the old:

"Its far more important how you do something than what you do."

and also "truths" like:

"You can chose any state of being regardless of circumstance."

But how realistic are these statements? And do they really stand up to the test?

Years ago I might've been one of the people to tout this sort of philosophy but real-life experience has shown me otherwise.

I've found that some activities and surroundings are more conducive to certain states of being than others.

The idea that we have complete control over our state of being and it therefore matters not what we do couldn't be further from the truth imo.

In fact I would like to balance the scales. I would like to propose that being and doing are equally important.

The reason I bring this up is that I think its important that we do things that resonate with us as opposed to living a life of denial and fake enthusiasm.

A friend once said to me when I first started this Journey - "Find your own Truth for these is none better. Take what resonates with you as your own and leave the rest behind because it is not yours." Sometimes the Path the gurus tell us to take aren't necessarily the Path we need to take, their Path is not ours but that doesn't mean we should disregard it completely. Use what works for you within your discernment.

If they are equally important to you then your Truth is that they are equally important.

What you do is the road, how you do it is how you travel on it.

Perhaps the practised guru can have complete control over their state after years of living in a Spiritual retreat, but for most people that just isn't practical. But then, When you are peacefully calm and aware and those around you are headless chickens?

I agree. But isn't being a reaction to doing? Or to experience?

I do have some control over my state of being. But it is more to do with having experienced mental illness - so finding that it is useful to be aware of where I'm at, and learning techniques to adjust where I'm at.

Perhaps the practised guru can have complete control over their state after years of living in a Spiritual retreat, but for most people that just isn't practical. But then, When you are peacefully calm and aware and those around you are headless chickens?

Ironically, psychologists would call the guru like calm, dissociation, and to me, it's more balancing to come down into the emotional sphere, while many spiritual philosophies are about dissociating. balance, balance, balance smile:

[Gem]

I think being refers to the consistent presence of self while experience undergoes continual change.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

A friend once said to me when I first started this Journey - "Find your own Truth for these is none better. Take what resonates with you as your own and leave the rest behind because it is not yours." Sometimes the Path the gurus tell us to take aren't necessarily the Path we need to take, their Path is not ours but that doesn't mean we should disregard it completely. Use what works for you within your discernment.

If they are equally important to you then your Truth is that they are equally important.

What you do is the road, how you do it is how you travel on it.

Perhaps the practised guru can have complete control over their state after years of living in a Spiritual retreat, but for most people that just isn't practical. But then, When you are peacefully calm and aware and those around you are headless chickens?

Thanks for your comment Greenslade.

I like the road analogy.

Its certainly easier to have a pleasant drive on a good road than one filled with nasty turns, cracks and pottholes!

Perhaps the practised guru can have complete control over their state after years of living in a Spiritual retreat, but for most people that just isn't practical. But then, When you are peacefully calm and aware and those around you are headless chickens?

Ironically though I've noticed that deeply spiritual people seem to have pretty strong preferences when it comes to the physical aspect of life.

Originally Posted by Meadows

I agree. But isn't being a reaction to doing? Or to experience?

I do have some control over my state of being. But it is more to do with having experienced mental illness - so finding that it is useful to be aware of where I'm at, and learning techniques to adjust where I'm at.



Ironically, psychologists would call the guru like calm, dissociation, and to me, it's more balancing to come down into the emotional sphere, while many spiritual philosophies are about dissociating. balance, balance, balance smile:

:) Hmm, some interesting food for thought...

I agree. But isn't being a reaction to doing? Or to experience?

Yes, being is certainly a reaction and yes we do have some control over it but ultimately we want to do things and be in places that resonate with our soul. Thats the key, surely.

You also make an interesting point about denial. Just pretending we're in la-la land when everything around us is falling to pieces doesn't seem too smart. Denial and repression are like putting out fire with gasolene.

Originally Posted by Gem

I think being refers to the consistent presence of self while experience undergoes continual change.

Sure but having that "consistent presence of self" doesn't really cover everything does it?

I mean you could have a consistent presence of self while doing something foolish or while having a miserable time.

So the point is, in order to get out of the misery/suffering one often has to DO something about it rather than just magically switching to "being happy".

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Dr.Truth

Sure but having that "consistent presence of self" doesn't really cover everything does it?

I mean you could have a consistent presence of self while doing something foolish or while having a miserable time.

So the point is, in order to get out of the misery/suffering one often has to DO something about it rather than just magically switching to "being happy".

It's seems to me that experiencing sadness, doing foolish things, having a miserable time and feeling happy, is part of the continually changing experience.

[Belle]

I am with Gem - I think it is vital to really experience these sadnesses, follies, miseries - as well as many other experiences - happy or sad - to create a full beingness. So many spiritual people want the light fluffies - and not the rest and it gets thrown out. And that to me is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To me it's about being in the sadness as well as the happiness.

But - maybe that's cos I'm a hard cynical old goat and I don't get the nice fluffies in my life so I think it is vital to experience the glums.

What I'm getting at is I think its important to DO what we came to the Earth to do.

Deep down I like to think that we all have something which we feel is important to do.

Otherwise there will always be that nagging sense of lack of fulfillment which will eat away at us and compromise our happiness.