Some of my favorite people, principal among whom is
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
"Being is whole, full, and complete") ... something like that. And
when they say "Being is enough" we come perilously close to hearing it
as "Doing nothing is enough" ie the "nothing" like "doing no-thing"
like no action, like being idle permanently (rather than the exquisite
Zen of "doing nothing" which is the subject for another conversation on
Life being what it is, doing nothing like no action, like being idle
permanently, isn't practical (I'm not even sure if it's possible -
unless you're in a coma).
Listening Werner, I've resolved for myself that purely being, isn't
doing nothing like no action, like being idle permenently. Being and
action, while distinct, are inseparable. If you be, you can't avoid
acting entirely. You be ... and you act. That's how it is for us
humans. So what is it then, when "being is enough", when "being is
whole, full, and complete"? That's the nature of this inquiry (in
particular, what promotes being as enough, and what gets in its way
of being enough).