|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 23:03:12 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. This is quite brilliant. It comes out of blood, sweat and tears (IMvhO). This is one of the best posts I have ever read here. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 2, 2024 0:26:35 GMT -5
Wow, that's 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. The quoting is hard, because once you start cleaning up a mess, you find another mess concealed by the first. In this job, for example, and entire back area was inaccessible due to giant palm fronds, fallen logs and branches and tangled weeds and saplings, so I cleaned out the tangle and made the area accessible, as tasked. Then I noticed some concrete under the detritus and mud, so I started clearing it away to see what's under all the muck. It turned out there were cement paths and a concrete deck, all with lovely pine pole borders, buried in decades worth of fallen vegetation, humus and erosion run-off. Well, you can't walk away leaving that mess (hidden by the first mess), so I cleared the branches and weeds and shoveled, trimmed and blew to reveal a very functional, usable, and beautiful setting.
I couldn't have priced that at the outset because it was entirely invisible and one would have no reason to assume a paved area even existed. It's turning out to be a very well thought out yard, and just by adding a bit of extra cleaning up to my regular mow, I think I can bring it back to its former glory over the year.
I like to go in big on price because these overgrown gardens are rarely as straightforward and you'd first think. They turn out to be very hard on the machines (including the biological one), and you don't come out without at least a couple of scrapes and bruises, but I find it joyful, I love the process, and the end result has a good 'wow' factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2024 3:26:54 GMT -5
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. The quoting is hard, because once you start cleaning up a mess, you find another mess concealed by the first. In this job, for example, and entire back area was inaccessible due to giant palm fronds, fallen logs and branches and tangled weeds and saplings, so I cleaned out the tangle and made the area accessible, as tasked. Then I noticed some concrete under the detritus and mud, so I started clearing it away to see what's under all the muck. It turned out there were cement paths and a concrete deck, all with lovely pine pole borders, buried in decades worth of fallen vegetation, humus and erosion run-off. Well, you can't walk away leaving that mess (hidden by the first mess), so I cleared the branches and weeds and shoveled, trimmed and blew to reveal a very functional, usable, and beautiful setting.
I couldn't have priced that at the outset because it was entirely invisible and one would have no reason to assume a paved area even existed. It's turning out to be a very well thought out yard, and just by adding a bit of extra cleaning up to my regular mow, I think I can bring it back to its former glory over the year.
I like to go in big on price because these overgrown gardens are rarely as straightforward and you'd first think. They turn out to be very hard on the machines (including the biological one), and you don't come out without at least a couple of scrapes and bruises, but I find it joyful, I love the process, and the end result has a good 'wow' factor.
That's why I rarely give a fixed price on a project anymore, and explain to clients that there are going to be phases. I sometimes offer estimated range of prices for the phases other than the first, which I'll start on a hard limit. Of course this is just a form of finding the market, negotiating what they're willing to pay, as they always have some sort of total limit in mind for the project overall (unless you're lucky enough to attract a client that has deep pockets relative to your rates of labor). The challenge after that is reining-in perfectionism.  I've started keeping track of time with a stopwatch to get honest about what labor rate I'm eventually charging.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2024 7:26:48 GMT -5
Wow, that's 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)
Sounds like a textbook case of LOA.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 3, 2024 7:35:55 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. He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. It's a good place for logical inference that might even help open up some trans-rational insight. Like, I wonder if Jesus ever said anything similar and/or about Adam, too. The way I interpret it, the poetic prose of the Garden of Eden somewhere uppish on the scale of Gurdjieff's model. But I'll leave that to SDP. I'm sure he has thought about it. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 3, 2024 7:44:18 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. Nice stuff! Pings a few things on my radar. Will come back to this. Meanwhile, |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 3, 2024 8:19:36 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. He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. With an appropriate realization/insight, everyone else could say exactly the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 3, 2024 9:09:17 GMT -5
He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. With an appropriate realization/insight, everyone else could say exactly the same thing. Interestingly, I just opened up Ramana's Forty Verses on Reality to a random page. And there they were, Verses 14 and 15. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 3, 2024 11:27:30 GMT -5
With an appropriate realization/insight, everyone else could say exactly the same thing. Interestingly, I just opened up Ramana's Forty Verses on Reality to a random page. And there they were, Verses 14 and 15. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 4, 2024 21:32:36 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. The alt/anon world is full of speculation that the Vatican Archives (53 miles of underground tunnels and shelving) containing vast quantities of long suppressed books, documents, reports, scrolls, artifacts, etc., some centuries and centuries old, have been captured and will be released to the public over next several years. If true, it will be interesting to see what comes out. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 5, 2024 4:09:33 GMT -5
He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. It's a good place for logical inference that might even help open up some trans-rational insight. Like, I wonder if Jesus ever said anything similar and/or about Adam, too. The way I interpret it, the poetic prose of the Garden of Eden somewhere uppish on the scale of Gurdjieff's model. But I'll leave that to SDP. I'm sure he has thought about it. Whether Jesus said or not is another story. We are talking inside the story. Your thinking seems to be not clear much. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jun 5, 2024 4:10:44 GMT -5
He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. With an appropriate realization/insight, everyone else could say exactly the same thing. We already had this discussion before, but you have forgotten that. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 5, 2024 6:56:20 GMT -5
With an appropriate realization/insight, everyone else could say exactly the same thing. We already had this discussion before, but you have forgotten that. Some things are worth repeating.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2024 7:28:24 GMT -5
We already had this discussion before, but you have forgotten that. Some things are worth repeating.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2024 7:31:52 GMT -5
He was saying that he preexists before Abraham, nothing else. If you read the entire chapter, you would understand that meaning. It's a good place for logical inference that might even help open up some trans-rational insight. Like, I wonder if Jesus ever said anything similar and/or about Adam, too. The way I interpret it, the poetic prose of the Garden of Eden somewhere uppish on the scale of Gurdjieff's model. But I'll leave that to SDP. I'm sure he has thought about it. I didn't see this earlier. Christianity, as a whole, is a very deep and very good explanatory model, all the pieces fit. The more you look into it the better the pieces fit and the more it looks irrefutable. I still like to explore the Christian model. I found this guy about 20 years ago, Thomas F Torrance. He was a Scottish theologian, died somewhat recently, probably within the last ten years. But he was an exceptionally smart guy also, basically a scientist. He wrote a book on Maxwell's equations. So I started reading him. I had found this one book from an American publisher, it was about the theology of Torrance. Anything else had to be special ordered, from Scottland-England, Faber & Faber mostly. I knew about a reformed theological seminary in Charlotte, so ordered books through them. Torrance has this one fantastic book called Theological Science. He goes into Relativity and quantum physics as *designed* by God for it as to be a perfect/not-perfect world. I actually read only about 1/3 of it, but it's very good, maybe I'll get back to it. Got a little sidetracked. If you look at Christianity within the context of the Bible, nothing else, it's virtually irrefutable. But you need from Genesis to Revelation to explain it all. It's accepted that Jesus, appears in Revelation, even dictated it to John (Jesus also explained a lot in the Olivet Discourse in the NT, the Gospels, his future-history). Now, I don't recall in the Gospels that Jesus spoke about existing before Adam (I took that to be your question), but Revelation does. Christianity accepts, necessarily, that the ~Second Person of the Trinity~, existed from the beginning, there wouldn't be a Trinity if he didn't. But there is no name given for the Second Person of the Trinity, who existed before Jesus. He can't be called Jesus, because Jesus didn't exist, previously. However, Jesus Christ is called in Revelation, the Lamb Slain [read crucified] Before the Foundation of the World. That is, there was a plan from the very beginning, and the *Person* who said, before Abraham was, I Am, was in on the plan. (It's complicated, Gene Edwards goes a long way toward explaining it in Christ Before Creation, but don't bother). Another little aside, as you brought up Genesis. I used to wonder why we have two creation stories in Genesis. The one day it hit me. The first creation story is about the formation of man(kind), through evolution, "God" was working on getting the body right. Part of this formulating was seeing most of the TV series by Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man (actually the TV program further confirmed my idea). Wells is a genetic archeologist. But about 50,000 years ago, man(kind) had a quantum leap explosion in intelligence. Why? When God got the body as he wanted it, through tinkering with evolution (God left himself a back door into operating in-the-world, anonymously, quantum physics), we then have the second creation story. In this one God breathed into Adam the breath of life, God's own being, and the 'animal' Adam became the God-created man Adam. OK, just a little more. There is an ~undercurrent~ of a living hidden tradition in the Bible. There is a curious character that appears in the Abraham story, Melchi-zedek, or Melchi-the-Zaddik (or Tzaddik). It is said he was not born and didn't die. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. And the NT book of Hebrews explains Melchizedek a little more, it says Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. But Christians believe the Bible is history, the Bible isn't history, without qualification. The Jews knew the OT/Tanakh wasn't history, the Jewish sages knew. It's a lot of teaching stories, crafted, plus allegory. There is so much symbolism, that much of it basically has to be crafted symbolism. So Christians have a lot to learn from Jews, but Christians think they have it all correct, because the puzzle fits so nicely together. Gurdjieff said the ~Jesus-story~ was a play, a living crafted drama. |
|
I've started keeping track of time with a stopwatch to get honest about what labor rate I'm eventually charging. 
