On not doing meditation

And what Descartes might have said

Doing

Verbs are often explained as “doing-words” to small children learning English. When you think, you “do thinking”. When you walk, you “do walking”.

But, when you meditate, do you “do meditating”?

Not quite. At least according to some instruction I received.

To meditate, I was told to sit still and do nothing.Or in other words, I was to do “not doing”. I should have been able to describe myself as,

“I do not do”.

But how can one do not doing? Because if one is doing, one does. And if one is not doing, one does not.

But from the pure experience of meditation, it seemed perfectly possible to do “not doing”. But logically, and syntactically, the phrase “I do not do” seemed paradoxical.

Being

And then I realised the problem. I was not doing not doing.

There was a higher verb at play: Being. And when one is “being” one doesn’t necessarily have to be “doing” anything.

Hence, I should have said, “I be not do”.

Or more grammatically,

“I am. But I am not doing”.

And this can be applied to all types of doing, like thinking.

“I am. But I am not thinking”.

Or as Rene Descarte might have said,

“Ego sum. Sed non cogitabat”.

So, I suppose not all verbs are doing words. Some are also “being” words.

Not being?

We went from doing verbs to being verbs. But what about beyond being verbs?