--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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. :-)
Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. What can you say about the button pushers of the world? What motivates them? What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? Does a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what they call button pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed by the button pusher that others take a disliking to? Is this 'reaction' ever valid or warranted by the pushees? And finally teacher, what does is say about a person who sits by and allows others to throw shit around the room and not get up and at least leave or, better still, confront the shit thrower? >
