Investment of being vs. doing

Investment of being = identity investment, i.e. ego itself.
The investment of being ‘somebody’.
When you say – I am a student, doctor, engineer, husband, wife, citizen etc.
Investment of doing = all other smaller investments.

‘Power’ and ‘Doing’ in the world

In the regular worldly sense, all power comes from structure.
And maintaining structural integrity is essential for doing anything.
Like imagine instead of tongs, you had 2 feathers.
Can you then even pick up a cookie with those 2 feathers?!
The power of the tongs comes from its structural resilience.

People in the world who are committed to being objective,
Are essentially committed to power itself.
Power here is holding one perspective “as absolute” and then changing/altering the surroundings with that in mind.
The example I used of the “feathers vs. tongs”, applies to the intangible and invisible mind levels too.

There is no “essential difference” between objective and subjective.
Objective = Solidified subjective.
“Doing something” implies “achieving some goal”.
And so the “goal” becomes the “organizing principle” for “the structure” you decide to cathect into.
And the goal itself comes from the “belief structure” which conditions the person’s vision, into seeing the goal as relevant/important in the first place.
The “belief structure conditioning” is from programming, environmental, social, cultural, parental, childhood influences, and the person’s own innate tendencies/nature/potentials/level of evolution/level of vision capacity etc. (referred to as samskharas, vasanas etc. in yogic terminology)

So there are different manifestations of power from:
Subtle —-to—– Gross
Spanning from the subtle and extending all the way to the gross.
For instance, which is more powerful?
A burned solid clay pot OR a ball of clay?
Generally we define power by our notion of usefulness/goals.
From that notion, the burnt clay pot is much more powerful to hold something inside it.
But metaphysical speaking and from a broader context, the ball of clay is actually more powerful. Because it can be shaped into anything.
Just like water is more powerful than anything solid.
Because the solid is rigid, and rigidity is also fragility.
However strong the solid is, it cannot match the strength of water.
Bruce Lee is known to have had profound insight from striking water, which is why his famous expression came out: “…Be like water my friend…”.

So there is apparent power and there is real power.
Like supposing a gunman is hired by a secret agency to threaten someone.
Who is more powerful? The gunman? OR the agency?
The gunman has the gun, and looks to be the one in power.
But really he is only carrying out the agency’s bidding who have convinced him that being an instrument for their cause would be in his interest.
So it is the agency that is actually in power, is it not?

Lets take another example that challenges our standard notion of what power is.
Is an adult more powerful than a child?
Well from the looks of it, it seems like obviously the adult is more powerful.
But the child can be programmed to become anything.
Actuality is ONE, but POTENTIAL is Infinite.
I think the essential difference I am pointing out here is of:
The power to do —-vs—– The power to be.
And I would argue the power to BE vastly trumps the power to DO, from a metaphysical context, because it is prior to the doing, and it is what shapes the doing itself.

All practices/doing crystallize the very structures that justify them

Every ‘doing’ is driven by a structure.
Like say, you want to make your life more meaningful.
You feel that desire in you that drives you to do things in order to achieve the same.
So now you are invested in the ‘doing’, the verb/action of it.
But ‘doing’ is impossible, unless there is a belief structure in place to validate it in the first place.
So the investment in ‘doing’ fortifies, crystallizes, and solidifies the very structure that justifies it (in you consciousness).
For example, only if you believe, your current life is not meaningful enough [Abstract notation: X is not enough] will you have the doing energy/force itself arise.
Another example would be, you defend only when you have something to protect.
If you have nothing to protect, then defense would vanish too.
So all doing is a mirror to your belief structures.

Like say, if you believe life is terrible and you also believe that you can escape it with effort, then these 2 stacked belief structures will initiate a lot of doing energy in order to make life good and escape the terrible parts.
The interesting aspect in this example here is that, the 2 stacked beliefs initiate the doing.
So there can be multiple stacked layers of beliefs.
Let’s say layer 2 of this belief stack falls apart – i.e. the belief that this terrible life can be escaped is dissolved.
Then, the person is left to experience his original belief that life is terrible. He will now feel the terribleness of life and feel powerless to escape it because the belief that it can be escaped has been dissolved.
So in work towards self-transcendence, such regression of belief structures can materialize hellish despair like states of mind.
That is the DARK SIDE of self-transcendence.
The people who seek it, usually suffer a GREAT deal.
Because what can be the motivation for self-transcendence intense seeking.
It is a deep deep core belief that life is abjectly terrible.
So in the final stages of self-transcendence, like they say, a finger nail can block the sun.
Similarly, you might encounter the worst root belief in your stack – the worst fear, the worst terror or condition, just before you totally let go.

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’)

Energy for BEING vs DOING

Doing follows being.
First it takes energy to BE.
Then it take energy to DO from that BEING.
Being is the structure from which doing operates.
If you cannot BE, then its impossible to DO anything
Because you will have no structure from which to channel the force of doing at all