Irritation; A "natural" reaction?

The above quote I copied and pasted here, is from a conversation on SpiritualTeachers.org forum.

While I do agree that IF irritation is arising, noticing that and owning up to it is indeed a display of self-honesty and that that is indeed important, an emphatic 'No', to the premise that 'getting annoyed' is a 'natural reaction' to being talked down to.

First and foremost, one must read the words of the other to 'determine' that he is being talked 'down to.' That requires some very specific, subjective, personal judgements. It's entirely possible that one can disagree with you and even speak from a position of what he himself deems to be authority, without you perceiving that you are in fact being spoken down to.

Even if I do conclude that another is speaking down to me, annoyance on my part is only a 'natural reaction,' IF, I am identifying with an image of self that is limited.

Absent that identification, the way another speaks to me will have no bearing upon my equanimity. If one who has realized that neither he nor the other, is a separate, finite, limited 'thing,' and he is operating from clearly seeing that Truth, there is nothing there to give rise to irritation or anger. Does that mean that a sage never gets irritated or angered? Not necessarily. After all, There is still a human being, still experience happening, but if irritation while conversing with another should arise, it's seen for what it is, a momentary hitch in mind, created by a very specific, limited focus, rather than a natural, inevitable arising.

There are sometimes folks who on one hand, very much want to paint themselves as being fully self realized, enlightened, awakened, whatever, but who are still experiencing the trivial, emotional ups and downs that are indicative of an experience rife with a sense of being separate.....of identifying with limitation....of essentially, still being fast asleep and simpy dreaming that they are awake. These are the ones who will argue for the continued existence of petty irritations in circumstances that are wholly benign.

Do you necessarily get angry when you feel another is 'talking down to you'? It's actually a really good litmus test for whether or not you are identifying with a self image.

The self that gets irritated and then is self honest or not about it is observed by that which neither gets irritated or needs self honesty.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Well, I tested the limits of the projection of non-attachment among the aristocracy; Enigma, Laffy and Reefs. I was able to prove that it was only intellectual and conditional non-attachment. Meaning non-attachment doesn't mean absolute non-attachment under all conditions. That's when Reefs stepped in as sheriff to restore the shattering of their imagined non attachment and loss of credibility.

Enigma and Laffy are also problem ? Enigma is very sensitive guy but not problematic he always makes sure he is on the safer side. Laffy fights with people a lot but he is not dangerous he is a good guy as well. Only Reefs is dangerous,a mindless idiot. He is mentally unstable.

And I forgot to write about ZD , this guy always wants some people to teach, he wants to perform the teaching role, if you continue to question his theory he will be happy, if you starts to talk against his theory then he won't reply. He will say you need a non-conceptual awareness experience.