On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Ann <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ** > > > > > --- 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? > Teacher Xeno only focuses on abstract, Universal constructs so his response will be along those lines. > > > > >
