Buddhists, like neo- and pseudo-Hindus, often get tangled up in issues or questions that are *all in their heads* -- questions without answers, essentially ways to waste time and waste one's life pondering things they'll never know the answers to. Some of these silly ponderings/discussions/arguments have to do with "What is the worst of the afflictive emotions or traits?" I've always thought that even conceiving of arguing about such a thing is too much like Catholics arguing about "What is the deadliest of the mortal sins?" for me to be interested in, so I've never really indulged in such discussions. But just for fun, tonight I will.
Some of these stuck-in-their-heads Buddhists think that anger and hatred are the most afflictive of the afflictive emotions/traits. Others -- especially the ones who are trying to be or pretending to be celibate -- actually think that *romantic love* is the lowest-vibe, because it can lure people "off the path." But both of these groups seem to agree that anyone who consistently displays the emotion or trait they deem "worst" is low-vibe, "not very evolved." My view is much more pragmatic, and simple. If there is an emotion, action, or trait that indicates "not very evolved" to me, it's reactivity itself. If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you to react to them, over something -- anything -- then they OWN your ass, and you aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or "evolved" as you think you are. It really doesn't *matter* in my opinion what the "trigger" for the reactivity is. It could be someone calling you a name, or saying something about you that you feel is not true, or calling into question the "image" you've labored long and hard to project. None of this shit matters a damn, so if you *believe* that it matters, enough to *react* to the provocation and feel that you have to "defend yourself" or lash out at the person who did this, IMO you're still way down there on the evolutionary scale with the slugs and the cockroaches. Only an ego -- and a strongly entrenched and established one -- can react that way, especially consistently. So if you think of "evolved" as being synonymous with having less ego, then reactivity of this type should be considered synonymous with being "unevolved." That's my theory, anyway. Tonight. At 9:00 p.m., as I'm about to go out on the town in Paris. I may have a different theory later on. But if you find *that* offensive and unevolved, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't react. :-)
