--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- 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? > > > Reactivity might be a good criterion for spiritual progress, at least in > 'normal' people. For example, a sociopath may not react at all to certain > emotional cues thrown at them; they are free as the wind while the more > empathetically inclined are like fish on a hook in the same situation. My own > experience is that meditation results in less reactivity. Doesn't eliminate > it. There is no guarantee that at some point something will hook you. > > Most people don't realise they have been hooked, that they have a button > pushed. They don't know they have these buttons. Becoming aware that one has > them is a good start. This forum is a place where everyone, one would think, > would be aware of this process of button pushing. When the button is pushed, > the awareness contracts and being becomes identified with what goes on in the > mind, and that becomes, for that moment, one's reality. It is a conditioned > response. It is perfectly natural and mechanical, but also extremely annoying > because we lose awareness of our essential nature when it happens.
Now maybe you can answer my questions above Teacher Xeno. Barry is not only incapable of answering them he will use the usual excuse for why he won't answer them but those excuses will not include why he literally CAN'T. You, however, could. Want to give it a try? >
