|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2024 11:35:11 GMT -5
Just one comment. THIS includes everything, including what we call the past and the future, so it's entirely possible that various sages have had CC's during which various past lives were remembered, but would such past lives be personal? No, because what we are includes every life that's ever been lived. I've often joked about the fact that people who remember past lives don't remember their lives as a fly, fish, bird, or dinosaur.  The Buddha, Papaji, and many other sages have claimed to have remembered past human lives, but those lives couldn't have been personal in the sense of a "me," because there is no "me" that's a separate volitional entity. Various people foresee things that will happen in the "future," and if the NT record is correct, Jesus foresaw what was going to happen to him. Whether he was SR or not seems questionable, but he was clearly one with THIS in a rather unique way, and this has been true for many human beings. During a CC in 1984 that happened to this character it was seen that humans are an aspect of something incomprehensibly vast that is beyond birth or death. What we are is a living presence that the universe IS, and it's possible to see that even if this "physical" universe totally disappeared, what we are would remain untouched. There's no way to communicate this kind of seeing to someone else, but for any human through whom this seeing occurs, reality is never thought about in the same way again. SR just puts the final nail in the coffin of "me." So you think you could be beyond Jesus in Realization. That explains everything. What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 1, 2024 11:45:12 GMT -5
Interesting because people either say it is the problem, the cause of suffering, or they say say it isn't a problem, everyone desires, so what?
From the Buddhist perspective where craving causes suffering it's the former view, but to have a 'right view' is to have no view, so it isn't a nugget of knowledge that goes in the 'known' basket with the rest of your jewels. The view is a facet of wisdom rather than an article of knowledge and the reader is forced into self-reflection to understand 'this' is how I generate my own suffering.
The type to be wary of is the reactionary type where on the aversion side there's resistance, avoidance, ignoring and denial which relates to cravings as one needs the distraction from 'what's true' to succeed in avoidance, and it goes without saying that this dynamic comes from the belief that all this is happening to me.
I just think there's different levels and that pathway from suffering to liberation may or may not be be ended in this lifetime, but when I do a lawn I start at the beginning by cutting in edges as a first step, where this step is this moment, and made abstract in the sense that the step is to stop taking steps. Let everything be as it is and you are just as you are.
That is not to say the state of suffering is to be accepted and things can continue the way it's been up until now. The avoidance, resistance etc isn't acceptable. It has to stop because the natural conclusion of that is babies risen on spikes, and to say 'it's not happening to anyone so it doesn't matter' is true, but that doesn't make it less evil. It's just that you understand the evil better because you understand yourself, and who can say they are not part of the problem when you're part of that reactive cycle?
We arrive at the question of good and bad intent, the moral foundation of spirituality, and the step is to be good according to the basic tenets of truthfulness, consideration, generosity, compassion etc. The ten commandments or five precepts are a typical rule of thumb, but all the misdoings like deceit, theft and all nature of misconduct stem back to the volition that impels it, so further to obeying ethical tenets, one needs be aware of their underlying motives.
Desiring something else other than what's happening here actually brings the suffering here. We miss the root cause and try to fix the suffering but it would never come to an end. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 1, 2024 12:14:00 GMT -5
So you think you could be beyond Jesus in Realization. That explains everything. What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. Well, for what it’s worth, I heard you say similar to what Jesus reportedly said: “Before Abraham was, I am”. Those words are worth pondering, too. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 1, 2024 13:37:23 GMT -5
What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. Well, for what it’s worth, I heard you say similar to what Jesus reportedly said: “Before Abraham was, I am”. Those words are worth pondering, too. Yes, the I AM shows up in several places in the OT and the NT. There are some interesting takes on how the modern linguistic translations/interpretations of the original Ancient Greek kinda snorta miss the mark and/or the original intent, but I agree there's some contemplative value. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2024 13:40:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas? I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause. I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.
I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest. I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place. I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires. rather fascinating to consider it from that perspective. I've always just figured people are interested in what they're interested in, without bothering with the opportunity for compassion that you imply. Things could have gone even more more perfectly if the client had agreed that he had to pay for the additional haul as it was out of the understood scope of the work. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 14:27:33 GMT -5
So you think you could be beyond Jesus in Realization. That explains everything. What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. You wrote that whether Jesus was SR is questionable. I don't know any other way to read that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 14:37:24 GMT -5
Well, for what it’s worth, I heard you say similar to what Jesus reportedly said: “Before Abraham was, I am”. Those words are worth pondering, too. Yes, the I AM shows up in several places in the OT and the NT. There are some interesting takes on how the modern linguistic translations/interpretations of the original Ancient Greek kinda snorta miss the mark and/or the original intent, but I agree there's some contemplative value. There are 4 different versions of the trial of Jesus (M, M, L, J). In one the Chief Priest, Ciaphias, asked Jesus if he was God's son. In the English it says he answered: I am. And then it says Ciaphias tore his clothes. I think here, Jesus used the most holy name of God, never spoken, Yod He Vav He, or in Hebrew, He Vav He Yod (Hebrew is read backwards, and also from the back of a book toward the front). So, basically, Jesus was saying: I Am [God]. For the Jews, being God's son would mean being equal to God. Elsewhere, too, Jesus is accused of making himself equal with God. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 14:45:23 GMT -5
I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas? I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause. I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.
I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest. I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place. I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires. rather fascinating to consider it from that perspective. I've always just figured people are interested in what they're interested in, without bothering with the opportunity for compassion that you imply. Things could have gone even more more perfectly if the client had agreed that he had to pay for the additional haul as it was out of the understood scope of the work. It may have been a contract job. My boss (company owner) probably hated figuring plans the most, giving a contract price. On new construction of houses he had a set formula, the price was calculated after the job was finished, all our contractors knew that (so it was rare to have a contract on a house). But on commercial jobs he had to figure plans and give a price. You could miss one tiny little thing, and that could blow your profit, or you could even lose money on a job, but a contract is a contract....unless...some general contractors did not pay us (him) for work done. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2024 15:17:32 GMT -5
What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. You wrote that whether Jesus was SR is questionable. I don't know any other way to read that. Ok. Let me explain. A CC can unify the mind with THIS, and it can put a human into a completely different state of mind, and it can even activate "superhuman" siddhis, but it doesn't necessarily remove the idea that one is a SVP. It is quite common for a human to have a huge CC and come away thinking that s/he is special and that s/he is a SVP who had a CC. SR is far more subtle than that. It is a sudden realization that there is no separate "me" and that all there is is THIS/Source/Reality/God/etc. In the NT Jesus often refers to himself as separately special, and at other times in ways that imply that everyone is equally special ("ye are all gods"). Whether or not the quotes are all accurate is highly questionable because they were apparently written down many years after his death. The NT simply doesn't contain quotes that make it clear exactly what Jesus realized. Zen people often refer to "the Zen Circle." One quadrant of the circle involves miracles, visions, siddhis, powers, and all kinds of supernatural stuff, but Zen emphasizes that one must continue until all of that is left behind, and one returns to being an "ordinary person" (which is not ordinary in the usual sense). There's no way to know exactly what Jesus' state of mind was when he supposedly said on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Maybe that quote is incorrect and maybe some of the other quotes are incorrect, but can you imagine Ramana or the Buddha saying something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 16:45:08 GMT -5
You wrote that whether Jesus was SR is questionable. I don't know any other way to read that. Ok. Let me explain. A CC can unify the mind with THIS, and it can put a human into a completely different state of mind, and it can even activate "superhuman" siddhis, but it doesn't necessarily remove the idea that one is a SVP. It is quite common for a human to have a huge CC and come away thinking that s/he is special and that s/he is a SVP who had a CC. SR is far more subtle than that. It is a sudden realization that there is no separate "me" and that all there is is THIS/Source/Reality/God/etc. In the NT Jesus often refers to himself as separately special, and at other times in ways that imply that everyone is equally special ("ye are all gods"). Whether or not the quotes are all accurate is highly questionable because they were apparently written down many years after his death. The NT simply doesn't contain quotes that make it clear exactly what Jesus realized. Zen people often refer to "the Zen Circle." One quadrant of the circle involves miracles, visions, siddhis, powers, and all kinds of supernatural stuff, but Zen emphasizes that one must continue until all of that is left behind, and one returns to being an "ordinary person" (which is not ordinary in the usual sense). There's no way to know exactly what Jesus' state of mind was when he supposedly said on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Maybe that quote is incorrect and maybe some of the other quotes are incorrect, but can you imagine Ramana or the Buddha saying something like that? We know this quote is correct, because Jesus was quoting the Tanakh, the OT. Now why he said it is a different matter. Gurdjieff said "Jesus" preexisted before incarnating, that he was a messenger from above. (He said the same of Moses, Buddha, Muhammed and Saint Lama, a Tibetan, well, a guy from India who relocated to Tibet). IOW, Jesus said it for a reason, it didn't necessarily describe his state. You know also you can't always trust maps or GPS...or maybe absolutely, realization. I was following a map once and the road was blocked at a creek. You could look across and see the same street was blocked on the other side of the creek. I had to drive way around to get where I needed to go for a service call. Funny how, Christians can see that Jesus is perfectly described in the Tanakh, as the Messiah. Yet Jews are still looking for the Messiah. Can they both be correct? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2024 17:25:12 GMT -5
Ok. Let me explain. A CC can unify the mind with THIS, and it can put a human into a completely different state of mind, and it can even activate "superhuman" siddhis, but it doesn't necessarily remove the idea that one is a SVP. It is quite common for a human to have a huge CC and come away thinking that s/he is special and that s/he is a SVP who had a CC. SR is far more subtle than that. It is a sudden realization that there is no separate "me" and that all there is is THIS/Source/Reality/God/etc. In the NT Jesus often refers to himself as separately special, and at other times in ways that imply that everyone is equally special ("ye are all gods"). Whether or not the quotes are all accurate is highly questionable because they were apparently written down many years after his death. The NT simply doesn't contain quotes that make it clear exactly what Jesus realized. Zen people often refer to "the Zen Circle." One quadrant of the circle involves miracles, visions, siddhis, powers, and all kinds of supernatural stuff, but Zen emphasizes that one must continue until all of that is left behind, and one returns to being an "ordinary person" (which is not ordinary in the usual sense). There's no way to know exactly what Jesus' state of mind was when he supposedly said on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Maybe that quote is incorrect and maybe some of the other quotes are incorrect, but can you imagine Ramana or the Buddha saying something like that? We know this quote is correct, because Jesus was quoting the Tanakh, the OT. Now why he said it is a different matter. Gurdjieff said "Jesus" preexisted before incarnating, that he was a messenger from above. (He said the same of Moses, Buddha, Muhammed and Saint Lama, a Tibetan, well, a guy from India who relocated to Tibet). IOW, Jesus said it for a reason, it didn't necessarily describe his state. You know also you can't always trust maps or GPS...or maybe absolutely, realization. I was following a map once and the road was blocked at a creek. You could look across and see the same street was blocked on the other side of the creek. I had to drive way around to get where I needed to go for a service call. Funny how, Christians can see that Jesus is perfectly described in the Tanakh, as the Messiah. Yet Jews are still looking for the Messiah. Can they both be correct? That was my point. We can't know exactly IF Jesus said what he is reported to have said, WHY he said what he is reported to have said, and exactly what he meant by what he reportedly said. We also can't know his exact state of mind or exactly WHAT he had realized. I obviously don't care what G said about Jesus ITSW that I don't care what any other guru, sage, or saint said about anything existential. What supposedly enlightened humans have said is interesting and worth contemplating, but what matters is that each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself. Only if one sees into the true nature of THIS, and penetrates a substantial number of commonly-accepted and culturally-conditioned cognitive illusions does one attain a reference for words that point beyond the concensus paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 20:01:33 GMT -5
We know this quote is correct, because Jesus was quoting the Tanakh, the OT. Now why he said it is a different matter. Gurdjieff said "Jesus" preexisted before incarnating, that he was a messenger from above. (He said the same of Moses, Buddha, Muhammed and Saint Lama, a Tibetan, well, a guy from India who relocated to Tibet). IOW, Jesus said it for a reason, it didn't necessarily describe his state. You know also you can't always trust maps or GPS...or maybe absolutely, realization. I was following a map once and the road was blocked at a creek. You could look across and see the same street was blocked on the other side of the creek. I had to drive way around to get where I needed to go for a service call. Funny how, Christians can see that Jesus is perfectly described in the Tanakh, as the Messiah. Yet Jews are still looking for the Messiah. Can they both be correct? That was my point. We can't know exactly IF Jesus said what he is reported to have said, WHY he said what he is reported to have said, and exactly what he meant by what he reportedly said. We also can't know his exact state of mind or exactly WHAT he had realized. I obviously don't care what G said about Jesus ITSW that I don't care what any other guru, sage, or saint said about anything existential. What supposedly enlightened humans have said is interesting and worth contemplating, but what matters is that each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself. Only if one sees into the true nature of THIS, and penetrates a substantial number of commonly-accepted and culturally-conditioned cognitive illusions does one attain a reference for words that point beyond the concensus paradigm. I can take the words of Jesus merely from the NT, adding the Gospel of Thomas in OK too, I can *~ see~* Jesus was one of the highest beings to ever walk the planet. Ya know they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying he believed there were other planets and life on other planets. Jesus was smart enough to watch what he said to stay alive until he was ready to die. And he taught the masses in parables, word story-pictures. He told his disciples, I don't have to talk to you in parables, I can talk directly to you (my paraphrase). I'd say he penetrated to Truth as much or more than anybody ever. That's not difficult to see, for me. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 1, 2024 21:14:57 GMT -5
I'm not one to say thoughts just appear and disappear as a way to disclaim that I generate my thoughts. Hence I don't say craving is what ego does, but rather, craving is the type of thought that perpetuates egocentricity, and I am the one who thinks that way. It is said to be an ego which craves because that reactionary mind-state becomes habitualised and perpetuates unintentionally, automatically, and becomes invisible to the one who does it by hiding in plain sight under a veil of normalcy, remaining unchecked. Hence people will say, it's what ego does, not what I do, but at the same time retain one's own power to stop doing that, implying that I am the one who causes ego. If so, how do you cause ego? By craving? Then how can you say craving is what ego does and not something you do yourself?
I don't know about you, but my encounter with ego was very much as if it had a mind of its own, so it is understandable to say ego does the craving, aversion etc. because that is in fact all it ever does, but when you detatch from it as its observer, you cease to do it, and the now exposed ego continues, and even amplifies the antics which up until now have worked to keep you distracted, even though you have ceased to perpetuate them and remain quietly observant, as if it has not only momentum, but a reserve of energy that can accelerate the tendencies - for a time. However, if you do not re-engage in the activities, by remaining aware, the energy is being spent without being recharged, and the reactive tendencies we identify with as ego subside, just as a bonfire does when you stop giving it wood.
Hence, self awareness is your friend. Being conscious of what you do without a reactionary response. Like if sweeping, there is no second thoughts about sweeping: I don't like it, I wish I was done etc and so on - just the simple fact of knowing 'this is what sweeping is like'. When the reactionary thoughts occur unintentionally, as they have a habitual tendency, it remains simple, 'these are are reactionary thoughts. See how they cause my suffering'. Yes they do appear and then disappear, but they are not 'just happening' as if inevitable. They do not need to happen recurrently as they have up until now. The very facet of noticing it is in itself the cessation of that activity (on your part). The fire is still loaded with fuel, so you can sit back and watch the flames, which will subside seeing you give nothing more to perpetuate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 1, 2024 21:41:06 GMT -5
What generated that crazy conclusion? Just curious. FWIW, it helps to have a reference for both kensho and SR to understand what's often pointed to here. Well, for what it’s worth, I heard you say similar to what Jesus reportedly said: “Before Abraham was, I am”. Those words are worth pondering, too. He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 1, 2024 21:46:23 GMT -5
I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas? I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause. I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.
I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest. I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place. I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires. rather fascinating to consider it from that perspective. I've always just figured people are interested in what they're interested in, without bothering with the opportunity for compassion that you imply. Things could have gone even more more perfectly if the client had agreed that he had to pay for the additional haul as it was out of the understood scope of the work. I was messy because the client was a renter, and doesn't own the yard, so the landlord is supposed to pay for the trees and overgrowth, and tenant is responsibe to maintain. He wanted to save disposal costs and utilised the city's free disposal service, but the city takes little bundles of stuff, and not 5 cubes of spiny phoenix palms. I was also trying to keep his costs down and did the prog at sub-cost rates on the condition of having the ongoing mowing and maintenance contract, and he's a nice bloke with a beautiful little family, so I'm interested in making a little paradise for the children to play in an be happy.
Then it blew up in my face - and two guys did a morning's labour to clean up the refuse, and I told the client it's fine - just pay the disposal cost and throw 50 in for fuel - but I still get the mowing, which is the recurring revenue I need to back-bone the service. Winter is a better time for cleanups and landscape work whereas summer is best for standard mows and edges. Offering cheap cleanups in winter is a good way to secure the summer's ongoing/recurring rev.
IOW everyone's happy and his kids have a safe place to play
(except I was stabbed by palm spikes about 100 times in the process) (google phoenix palm thorns and you'll see how ouchy they can be)
|
|
