Greetings, Friendlies!
Could it be that Skillfulness, at least in some part, is an overcoming of reactivity?
“Reactivity” is not a translation of a Pāli word, so less concern about heresy; was Stephen Batchelor the first to use it in a dhammic sense? Dunno.
It might be useful at times to differentiate between neuro-biological reactivity and psycho-behavioral reactivity. Not to invoke body-mind dualism. But there may be a level of zoom at which differentiation could be useful.
Beginning with neuro-biological reactivity: some aspects may be a factor of our evolutionary construction. Though not afraid of snakes per-se, we do seem to have “a built-in template that elicits a fear reaction when we detect certain types of motion, such as slithering in the grass” or in the case of big cats, “sharp teeth, forward-facing eyes, body size, and shape”. [1]
Other aspects of neuro-biological reactivity are clearly learned. The amygdala can learn almost anything as dangerous. My amygdala thinks that cockroaches are dangerous. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
For the psycho-behavioral aspect, we are returning to the realm of the Interpreter Module. Remember split-brain patient V.P. who’s right hemisphere was shown a frightening video? Her left hemisphere (Interpreter Module) initially reported feeling fear. But when it found no obvious cause for the emotion, it made one up, saying it was Gazzaniga whom she was afraid of.
Of course neuro-biological and psycho-behavioral are not actually separate, construction/constraint goes both ways. Or maybe better said, construction/constraint is a fundamental aspect of the system. (See Saṅkhāra as “Principle of Construction”.)
How might we overcome this?
One framing may be the Threefold Training, Sīla, Samādhi, Paññā.
With [[Samādhi]], we are learning to calm the neurological system. All of it. Biological, psychological, the whole thing. Calming and coalescing the organism before, during, after moments of reactivity. Also developing familiarity and sensitivity to the system such that disturbances can be noted earlier and earlier in the construction/arising.
Paññā is getting at the root of the reactivity. Exploring and working with the underlying views, saṅkhāras, etc; what cannot be rewired can be understood and made allowance for.
And Sīla, as Akincano Weber said, Sīla is the last line of defense. If the reactivity comes (ie, paññā was not sufficient) and we can’t calm or contain the reactivity (ie, samādhi is not sufficient), we can at least try not to hurt ourselves or others too much.
Your thoughts?
***
[1] Gazzaniga from Who’s In Charge?. He is citing other articles I don’t have access to: Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Domain specificity and intuitive ontology. And Barrett, H. C. (2005). Adaptations to predators and prey.
Dharma PhD 