About ‘Doing’ and its implications

Another way to put across the principle would be:
Every assertion requires an assumed denial (as base state)
Every denial requires an assumed assertion (as base state)
This is the inherent dilemma with all “Doing” itself

Another way to put it would be: Doing is secondary to the structure that causes and justifies the doing.
For example: If I want to help someone, I have to first assume that he needs help and cannot help himself, and that I know what help he needs, and that I know the best thing he should do to help himself. All this is the narrative/background structure behind my action of helping.
Doing is like watching the ball roll down a mountain. But there are lot of things that have to be in place for that – the mountain, the slope, the gravity force and so on. That is the background set (as in cinema parlance)
The narrative I create behind the doing is the higher dimensional structure. That is my creation too. That is why it is said “Belief creates reality”.
Doing is simply the manifestation/symptom of the structure I have assumed/believed in.

Surrendering of all “Doing” is to live in the causeless
Where everything simply happens and doing happens too, but there is no “Doing” by an agent/ego/self(with small ‘s’)