TAQ. Just be. No B2A

 Well…right now, are you being? Do you exist, do you be? Of course - or, sorry, you couldn’t be reading Quora.

Does that state of just ‘being’ depend on thinking? Of course not. You spend long dreamless hours every night with absolutely no thoughts, yet you still ‘be.’

So Being is simply your pure existence, the ‘am’-ness of “I am.” Thought and every shred of discrimination, evaluation, judgment and reaction, including all emotions, memory and so-called ‘knowledge’ or wisdom, are super-imposed on Being. So we are all already masters at ‘just Being.’ Even with an apparent body, mind and cacophony of thoughts darting around like mad electrons around a still nucleus.

The physics analogy is good, because as we all know, everything is just energy - either free-form or contracted into bodies and minds. And energy just be’s. It just is. All those judgments about whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ pleasure or pain, ease or suffering, come after just Being energy.

What if, several times in your thought-filled day, you simply allowed that non-state of Just Being to solicit you, to invite you to ‘realize’ that under all of that, you are actually just you-less, label-less Being? What if the realization was so radical, so stunning, so all-encompassing that there appeared to be a permanent shift, owned by ‘no one,’ to recognizing “your” true nature, and abiding in, Just Being? Even as thoughts cascade, pleasure & pain pass, energy contracts into bodies and disperses back into global energy at “your” death?

That’s exactly what’s happening - whether or not your mind’s misidentified dream-of separateness agree

A

You’re blending a few different ideas that feel mutually confirming, but don’t actually line up when you separate them carefully.

First, the dreamless sleep point: yes, there are periods with no reported experience and no explicit thought. But it doesn’t follow that there is a persisting “pure Being” as a separate substrate you can access or identify. What follows more conservatively is: consciousness is intermittent in its contents, and memory reconstructs continuity when it returns. The sense of “I was still there” after deep sleep is a post-hoc inference, not evidence of a continuously present witnessing entity during the gap.

Second, the “Being as pure am-ness” framing: this is a philosophical interpretation, not a direct observation. In lived experience, there isn’t a standalone “existence” apart from states like sensing, thinking, remembering, and perceiving. When those processes stop (as far as we can tell in deep sleep or anesthesia), there isn’t any reportable “Being experience” continuing in the background. So “Being” here is either a word for all experience in aggregate or a metaphysical claim about something behind experience. Those are very different claims.

Third, the energy analogy: physics doesn’t support the idea that “awareness just is energy” or that “energy experiences itself as Being.” Energy is a quantitative property in physical models; experience is a first-person phenomenon. Linking them directly is a category mismatch. It’s poetic, but it doesn’t explain consciousness—it renames it.

Where meditation actually lands, when described without metaphysics, is simpler and less dramatic: you can notice that thoughts, sensations, and emotions arise on their own, and that identification with them can loosen. That can reduce reactivity and increase clarity. But that doesn’t require positing a separate “you-less awareness” that exists independently of cognition. It’s enough to say: the brain can model its own activity, and that model can include a sense of “observer.”

If you strip it down further, what remains is not a discovery of a hidden essence called “Being,” but a change in how experience is organized—less fusion with thoughts, more capacity to see them as events.

The key fork in your view is this:

• either “Being” is a poetic label for everything you experience (in which case it adds nothing new),
• or it’s a separate, pure, permanent witnessing entity (in which case there’s no solid empirical ground for it).

Meditation doesn’t force either conclusion. It just makes attention more transparent. What you interpret that transparency as is where the philosophy gets added afterward.