They don't originate from any particular location, they arise from nowhere. No, never had control over them. Don't choose to think or what thought pops up.
Possession is created by thoughts. Presently arising thoughts of the past. The thoughts of say "My computer" arise out of that story (memory). The thought my computer is also used by thought as a pointer, pointing towards a subject, the me who owns a computer. In this way they infer a subject.
Funny side note with the thoughts that arise here, I don't think this is common with most people, but my thoughts never come with the word my. If I was talking to you in conversation I would say my computer, but the thoughts say "don't forget to turn off your computer" or "you are hungry", which makes it a bit more obvious. They still infer a subject, but in a more obvious manner.
Either way the subject is always inferred from the object, this is how the "I" gets reinforced over and over. This and through other people of course.
Anyone ready to look right now?
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
My post must not have gone through. I replied but I guess I will try again. If you get two different responses you will know why.
The thoughts arise from nowhere and have no location.
I cannot control them or what I think.
Possession is created from memory, which is simply present thoughts of the object referring to a past. The thought says its mine. Saying my computer, the thought infers a subject, it uses each object to point to a subject, thus inferring the subject and reinforcing that inferred subject time and again.
The thoughts arise from nowhere and have no location.
I cannot control them or what I think.
Possession is created from memory, which is simply present thoughts of the object referring to a past. The thought says its mine. Saying my computer, the thought infers a subject, it uses each object to point to a subject, thus inferring the subject and reinforcing that inferred subject time and again.
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Jason - Excellent on the thoughts.
They just arise, not really yours.
One after another... no real ownership of them.
You don't choose your thoughts or really have any control over them.
Possession of items, thing etc is by created by thought.
Very good. Its important we go over this as we build from here.
What about the body?
Is it owned by a YOU?
Who or what controls the body?
Go about your day and see if you can see a separate self in charge of the body.
Look at something simple like walking. Who's in charge? making the body walk?
Look at other things, eating, drinking, typing. Who or what is in charge here of making
the body do these things? Is there anyone? Really look.
Are there maybe just thoughts ABOUT everything, including a self, apparently living your life?
Just look at what comes up. Keep returning your focus to the thoughts. Is there anything
real, besides a thought, that owns or moves the body around.
Let me know what you find.
Keep it in experiential language as much as you can.
We want to really look at these simple things and see what is going on.
Bill
They just arise, not really yours.
One after another... no real ownership of them.
You don't choose your thoughts or really have any control over them.
Possession of items, thing etc is by created by thought.
Very good. Its important we go over this as we build from here.
What about the body?
Is it owned by a YOU?
Who or what controls the body?
Go about your day and see if you can see a separate self in charge of the body.
Look at something simple like walking. Who's in charge? making the body walk?
Look at other things, eating, drinking, typing. Who or what is in charge here of making
the body do these things? Is there anyone? Really look.
Are there maybe just thoughts ABOUT everything, including a self, apparently living your life?
Just look at what comes up. Keep returning your focus to the thoughts. Is there anything
real, besides a thought, that owns or moves the body around.
Let me know what you find.
Keep it in experiential language as much as you can.
We want to really look at these simple things and see what is going on.
Bill
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Bill,
I don't want to risk starting us going backwards again, but the inquiry on those points at an experiential level has been thoroughly looked into already. I see that the body is an object in awareness, same as the computer, the phone and the desk in front of me. No control over it whatsoever. Sure feels like it but there isn't. Thoughts have nothing to do with the actions of the body. Hearing, tasting, touching, seeing and feeling happen but the I thought neither hears, tastes, touches, sees or feels. That is all readily apparent experientially.
Upon reflection, where the difficult had been arising is not so much in seeing the false as false as attempting to grasp the real. The sense of "I" is clearly there at all times and it is clear the thought "I" is using the sense of I for it's existence, if I may caricature the mind a bit. But there was a continuous attempt to find that sense of "I." I noticed on the forum here, you had told someone to place their attention in certain spots and then move it to the sense of "I Am." Well, that is always what I was trying to do. To look for that sense of I Am and stay with it, Nisargattta style. So at times it felt like I could do so, and at other times like I couldn't. But, in reality, when you look for the sense of "I Am", it, like the separate entity of Jason, can't be found. However, unlike the separate entity of Jason, however, it is clearly known, without any doubt, that "I Am". I couldn't say I am not, without being first. That was the sticking point. Hard to negate the separate entity without first being clear on what I am.
Something clicked here though, and let me know what you think. See, for me, I can't do what you asked that person to do, I can't place my attention on the I AM because I can't find the I AM, and every time I looked, it wasn't there, but yet I AM. I have been grasping for a point when it really is a pointless point, with no fixed location in space. That is why the mind can't grasp it, and the grasping was resistance, which I clung to as Jason, per se. Not sure that makes sense, but it is hard to explain.
So, then I pursue that a bit further right. Of course the I AM can't find the I AM because it is the I AM. At this point there is absolutely nothing left to conceptualize. The search for true identity is being witnessed by my true identity, so where can it go? Or where can "I" go?, to be more specific.
You feeling me at all here? Cuz this profoundly changed the game here.
I don't want to risk starting us going backwards again, but the inquiry on those points at an experiential level has been thoroughly looked into already. I see that the body is an object in awareness, same as the computer, the phone and the desk in front of me. No control over it whatsoever. Sure feels like it but there isn't. Thoughts have nothing to do with the actions of the body. Hearing, tasting, touching, seeing and feeling happen but the I thought neither hears, tastes, touches, sees or feels. That is all readily apparent experientially.
Upon reflection, where the difficult had been arising is not so much in seeing the false as false as attempting to grasp the real. The sense of "I" is clearly there at all times and it is clear the thought "I" is using the sense of I for it's existence, if I may caricature the mind a bit. But there was a continuous attempt to find that sense of "I." I noticed on the forum here, you had told someone to place their attention in certain spots and then move it to the sense of "I Am." Well, that is always what I was trying to do. To look for that sense of I Am and stay with it, Nisargattta style. So at times it felt like I could do so, and at other times like I couldn't. But, in reality, when you look for the sense of "I Am", it, like the separate entity of Jason, can't be found. However, unlike the separate entity of Jason, however, it is clearly known, without any doubt, that "I Am". I couldn't say I am not, without being first. That was the sticking point. Hard to negate the separate entity without first being clear on what I am.
Something clicked here though, and let me know what you think. See, for me, I can't do what you asked that person to do, I can't place my attention on the I AM because I can't find the I AM, and every time I looked, it wasn't there, but yet I AM. I have been grasping for a point when it really is a pointless point, with no fixed location in space. That is why the mind can't grasp it, and the grasping was resistance, which I clung to as Jason, per se. Not sure that makes sense, but it is hard to explain.
So, then I pursue that a bit further right. Of course the I AM can't find the I AM because it is the I AM. At this point there is absolutely nothing left to conceptualize. The search for true identity is being witnessed by my true identity, so where can it go? Or where can "I" go?, to be more specific.
You feeling me at all here? Cuz this profoundly changed the game here.
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Hi Jason,
Sorry, I've been gone for a little while...
The sense of beingness, of amness, of being alive is certainly one that can be felt by anyone. I can't remember asking anyone to find the sense of "I am" recently. You're bringing the "I" into it. We don't really use the "I am" idea here.
Yes, I know you can meditate on that for 30 years and then you just MAY see through the I that way but its not what we do here.
Am is, I is not.
I think I understand what you're trying to say.
I would say 'you' can go no where. Because there is no I in reality.
Its only a thought.
Tell me more about this and how it relates to seeing through the self?
Explain how Jason's identity is constructed through thoughts.
When did it start? What keeps it going?
Is there anything real in this identity? What is before or behind this 'I' ?
Sorry, I've been gone for a little while...
The sense of beingness, of amness, of being alive is certainly one that can be felt by anyone. I can't remember asking anyone to find the sense of "I am" recently. You're bringing the "I" into it. We don't really use the "I am" idea here.
Yes, I know you can meditate on that for 30 years and then you just MAY see through the I that way but its not what we do here.
Am is, I is not.
Well, maybe I'm feeling you here.So, then I pursue that a bit further right. Of course the I AM can't find the I AM because it is the I AM. At this point there is absolutely nothing left to conceptualize. The search for true identity is being witnessed by my true identity, so where can it go? Or where can "I" go?, to be more specific.
You feeling me at all here? Cuz this profoundly changed the game here
I think I understand what you're trying to say.
I would say 'you' can go no where. Because there is no I in reality.
Its only a thought.
Tell me more about this and how it relates to seeing through the self?
Explain how Jason's identity is constructed through thoughts.
When did it start? What keeps it going?
Is there anything real in this identity? What is before or behind this 'I' ?
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
No problem Bill, busy weekend for lots of people.
Different "I" being brought into it. Call it Am, I Am, Sam I Am, whatever, I wasn't referring to the separate "I" thought. I do agree, you can meditate for 30 years on that and get nowhere. That is what I like about what you do here. Without negation, true identity cannot be seen. It shines through the cracks of what has been seen to be false. I just think when I popped in here I was getting pretty clear on the negation. So the focus was on what the "I thought" was using to create its false identity, the sense of "Me" rather than the thought of "Me." But I was grasping on that one. That just ended. And it profoundly relates to seeing through the self. Thought has absolutely nothing to do with it. That sense of existence, or existence, to be more specific is everything. Prior to thought, sees thought, thought is made of out of it. It has no independent existence.
Jason's identity is created in real time, moment by moment through the activity of thought. Each thought refers, not always directly, but always, to a me. That me sort of an unthought thought. By that I mean, it is merely an assumption, that assumption is in place as each thought arises. So with the assumption of Jason, the thoughts can then refer to Jason, ie. they are either about Jason, or Jason is the thinker or both. That believe in and of itself is a thought, the assumption. The unthought thought I refer to. Can't tell you when it started.
I could spout out about how it formed around 2 or so when language kicked in, but that would be an assumption also. I don't quite remember my infant days so well. It has always just been here for me. But it clearly is there to protect the mistaken assumed entity from the big, bad assumed separate world. It also serves well to function in the assumed world.
The identity is not real. Behind the identity and prior to the identity, "I Am" or as you would say "am". Existence is, I is. I know you seem to be about focusing on the negation of the separate identity but at this point that seems to be a bit ludicrous. I think I just jumped in at a different point. Hope that makes some sense for you.
Different "I" being brought into it. Call it Am, I Am, Sam I Am, whatever, I wasn't referring to the separate "I" thought. I do agree, you can meditate for 30 years on that and get nowhere. That is what I like about what you do here. Without negation, true identity cannot be seen. It shines through the cracks of what has been seen to be false. I just think when I popped in here I was getting pretty clear on the negation. So the focus was on what the "I thought" was using to create its false identity, the sense of "Me" rather than the thought of "Me." But I was grasping on that one. That just ended. And it profoundly relates to seeing through the self. Thought has absolutely nothing to do with it. That sense of existence, or existence, to be more specific is everything. Prior to thought, sees thought, thought is made of out of it. It has no independent existence.
Jason's identity is created in real time, moment by moment through the activity of thought. Each thought refers, not always directly, but always, to a me. That me sort of an unthought thought. By that I mean, it is merely an assumption, that assumption is in place as each thought arises. So with the assumption of Jason, the thoughts can then refer to Jason, ie. they are either about Jason, or Jason is the thinker or both. That believe in and of itself is a thought, the assumption. The unthought thought I refer to. Can't tell you when it started.
I could spout out about how it formed around 2 or so when language kicked in, but that would be an assumption also. I don't quite remember my infant days so well. It has always just been here for me. But it clearly is there to protect the mistaken assumed entity from the big, bad assumed separate world. It also serves well to function in the assumed world.
The identity is not real. Behind the identity and prior to the identity, "I Am" or as you would say "am". Existence is, I is. I know you seem to be about focusing on the negation of the separate identity but at this point that seems to be a bit ludicrous. I think I just jumped in at a different point. Hope that makes some sense for you.
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Jason,
We are talking a little different language than each other...
Honestly its a bit difficult to understand at times.
But it does appear to me you have thoroughly seen through the illusion of self,
even though you're talking a slightly different tongue.
If you can think of something more we have here that you haven't
received, and think that we can provide....please lay it out for me.
You also said that you've popped, and that something is different for you.
Tell you what I'd like to do.
I'm going to give you the final questions we ask people at this stage.
Please answer them in depth. Our other guides will be looking at them and
looking for clarity in what you have written.
They may have some more questions for you after this.
Please answer these in full.
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
3) How does it feel to see this?
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.
5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
6) In real life, what have you noticed that is different, if anything? How about your feelings, thoughts, reactions to life?
We are talking a little different language than each other...
Honestly its a bit difficult to understand at times.
But it does appear to me you have thoroughly seen through the illusion of self,
even though you're talking a slightly different tongue.
If you can think of something more we have here that you haven't
received, and think that we can provide....please lay it out for me.
You also said that you've popped, and that something is different for you.
Tell you what I'd like to do.
I'm going to give you the final questions we ask people at this stage.
Please answer them in depth. Our other guides will be looking at them and
looking for clarity in what you have written.
They may have some more questions for you after this.
Please answer these in full.
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
3) How does it feel to see this?
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.
5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
6) In real life, what have you noticed that is different, if anything? How about your feelings, thoughts, reactions to life?
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Bill,
I think we just arrived at this from different from directions. I don't even think it was that different. When I talking about when I "popped in here" I wasn't literally referring to any type of pop inside. I was literally referring to when I joined this forum and first spoke to you. Sorry, I know it wasn't so eloquent. I do better with this stuff speaking and writing very spontaneously, which means I write as if I am speaking off the top of my head. It might work in conversation, but I understand how it wasn't so eloquent in a response. So anyway, what I really meant, is that when I came into this forum I was pretty far along in this process, speaking on the relative level of course. I was frustrated because it felt like the illusion was seen as an illusion but something hadn't quite clicked. We were discussing how your site really comes to this through negation, ie. seeing the false as false, but I was merely stating after you see the false as false at some point some essence of the real certainly leaks through. So I was more focused on that then on a continued investigation of the "I" thought. And most of this inquiry was done on my own, and not necessary following any procedure, so my language may indeed be different in that regard.
So did anything pop? Not at all. I would say clarified. I would not say I have seen through the illusion of self, since that doesn't really make sense. I would say the illusion has been seen through.
1. There is no "me." Me is a concept. Concepts have no existence, and no time when they could have ever existed.
2. The separate self is created in real time, moment by moment through the activity of thought. Each thought refers, not always directly, but always, to a me. That me is the assumption. That assumption is in place as each thought arises. So with the assumption of a separate entity, the thoughts can then refer to that entity, ie. they are either about this "me", or "me" is the assumed thinker or both. That believe in and of itself is a thought, the assumption. As far as when it started, I can't go there without jumping into speculation. I know it is often spoken of that this assumption starts around 2 or so with the development of language, but there is no recollection of it beginning. That memory cannot be recalled. I try to stick with direct experience, so I don't want to speculate other than to say it would appear the separate "Me" entity comes about because it is is a useful conceptual framework for the survival and fitness of any apparent separate entity and society teaches us to be separate entities.
3. This was a very gradual process for me, relatively speaking. A slow dissolving into reality rather than a a sudden realization so I can't speak of it like that. Ultimately who sees this? There is no one left to see anything. Just a recognition of seeing itself.
4. I actually wouldn't describe this to someone who had never heard of it. A description that the you you think you are is not a separate, independent entity is going to carry absolutely zero weight with someone who has never heard of the concept. So, in my opinion, a description would bare no fruit. I would have the person merely question there identity. I would ask them to contemplate thoughts, to wonder why they have thoughts. Who exactly are these thoughts talking to. If the thoughts are really themselves, why would they have to tell themselves what they think? Wouldn't they already know? I would ask them if they were the thinker of their thoughts. I would then ask them, if they said yes, which is likely, for them to think only happy thoughts for a few minutes, or to stop thinking, or to tell themselves what their next five thoughts will be. In other words, have them begin to question who controls the thoughts and who the thoughts are referring to. Then go from there. It would be absurd for me to describe the illusion in a brief summation to someone who has never heard about this illusion. "Me" as the person is too ingrained in someone. That won't get you anywhere with the average person who has no knowledge of this stuff. The illusion must be questioned piece by piece before telling them it is an illusion. Otherwise, one of two events is likely to occur with this supposed person who has never heard of this, 1) they would reject it outright, say I am crazy or get angry and split or 2) They would jump right into that concept that they are no person and not a doer of life, thus taking on another belief system prior to investigation.
5. Again, tough to answer. Looking had been going on for quite a while. The negation thing was really at its end so for me truly understanding that the actual identity, that the "me" actually uses to seem substantial, is non-local, beyond conception and beyond perception. Therefore, immediately it was seen that thought cannot ever grasp this, or get this. This is hard to explain why that was so liberating, but at that point it was. To put it another way, I am not sure exactly what you believe here on this site, but negation taken to the end does not liberate. It just takes you to point of liberation. Concepts cancel out concepts, but the "I" thought see through nothing ultimately. That final seeing comes from SEEING, not from me. That hit me. That was freedom. You don't ultimately have to puzzle this out at the end. There is nothing to get.
6. Nothing is different at all. Imagine having somewhat blurry eyesight that came on so slowly you didn't notice you weren't seeing as clearly. Then someone hands you glasses with just the right prescription for you. Everything appears a bit different right? Has anything changed? Absolutely not. Feelings and thoughts certainly are lighter when they are feelings and thoughts, not my feelings and thoughts. A bit premature for me to discuss reactions to life. I would say this has to sink in before that can be noticed.
I think we just arrived at this from different from directions. I don't even think it was that different. When I talking about when I "popped in here" I wasn't literally referring to any type of pop inside. I was literally referring to when I joined this forum and first spoke to you. Sorry, I know it wasn't so eloquent. I do better with this stuff speaking and writing very spontaneously, which means I write as if I am speaking off the top of my head. It might work in conversation, but I understand how it wasn't so eloquent in a response. So anyway, what I really meant, is that when I came into this forum I was pretty far along in this process, speaking on the relative level of course. I was frustrated because it felt like the illusion was seen as an illusion but something hadn't quite clicked. We were discussing how your site really comes to this through negation, ie. seeing the false as false, but I was merely stating after you see the false as false at some point some essence of the real certainly leaks through. So I was more focused on that then on a continued investigation of the "I" thought. And most of this inquiry was done on my own, and not necessary following any procedure, so my language may indeed be different in that regard.
So did anything pop? Not at all. I would say clarified. I would not say I have seen through the illusion of self, since that doesn't really make sense. I would say the illusion has been seen through.
1. There is no "me." Me is a concept. Concepts have no existence, and no time when they could have ever existed.
2. The separate self is created in real time, moment by moment through the activity of thought. Each thought refers, not always directly, but always, to a me. That me is the assumption. That assumption is in place as each thought arises. So with the assumption of a separate entity, the thoughts can then refer to that entity, ie. they are either about this "me", or "me" is the assumed thinker or both. That believe in and of itself is a thought, the assumption. As far as when it started, I can't go there without jumping into speculation. I know it is often spoken of that this assumption starts around 2 or so with the development of language, but there is no recollection of it beginning. That memory cannot be recalled. I try to stick with direct experience, so I don't want to speculate other than to say it would appear the separate "Me" entity comes about because it is is a useful conceptual framework for the survival and fitness of any apparent separate entity and society teaches us to be separate entities.
3. This was a very gradual process for me, relatively speaking. A slow dissolving into reality rather than a a sudden realization so I can't speak of it like that. Ultimately who sees this? There is no one left to see anything. Just a recognition of seeing itself.
4. I actually wouldn't describe this to someone who had never heard of it. A description that the you you think you are is not a separate, independent entity is going to carry absolutely zero weight with someone who has never heard of the concept. So, in my opinion, a description would bare no fruit. I would have the person merely question there identity. I would ask them to contemplate thoughts, to wonder why they have thoughts. Who exactly are these thoughts talking to. If the thoughts are really themselves, why would they have to tell themselves what they think? Wouldn't they already know? I would ask them if they were the thinker of their thoughts. I would then ask them, if they said yes, which is likely, for them to think only happy thoughts for a few minutes, or to stop thinking, or to tell themselves what their next five thoughts will be. In other words, have them begin to question who controls the thoughts and who the thoughts are referring to. Then go from there. It would be absurd for me to describe the illusion in a brief summation to someone who has never heard about this illusion. "Me" as the person is too ingrained in someone. That won't get you anywhere with the average person who has no knowledge of this stuff. The illusion must be questioned piece by piece before telling them it is an illusion. Otherwise, one of two events is likely to occur with this supposed person who has never heard of this, 1) they would reject it outright, say I am crazy or get angry and split or 2) They would jump right into that concept that they are no person and not a doer of life, thus taking on another belief system prior to investigation.
5. Again, tough to answer. Looking had been going on for quite a while. The negation thing was really at its end so for me truly understanding that the actual identity, that the "me" actually uses to seem substantial, is non-local, beyond conception and beyond perception. Therefore, immediately it was seen that thought cannot ever grasp this, or get this. This is hard to explain why that was so liberating, but at that point it was. To put it another way, I am not sure exactly what you believe here on this site, but negation taken to the end does not liberate. It just takes you to point of liberation. Concepts cancel out concepts, but the "I" thought see through nothing ultimately. That final seeing comes from SEEING, not from me. That hit me. That was freedom. You don't ultimately have to puzzle this out at the end. There is nothing to get.
6. Nothing is different at all. Imagine having somewhat blurry eyesight that came on so slowly you didn't notice you weren't seeing as clearly. Then someone hands you glasses with just the right prescription for you. Everything appears a bit different right? Has anything changed? Absolutely not. Feelings and thoughts certainly are lighter when they are feelings and thoughts, not my feelings and thoughts. A bit premature for me to discuss reactions to life. I would say this has to sink in before that can be noticed.
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Jason - very nice in your answers to all the questions.
I feel you are very clear and so do all of of guides who looked this over.
No one had any more questions for you.
Can tell you did most all of this on your own prior to arriving here. Good work.
I will come back later this evening with some other info for you but wanted to let you know this now.
Is there any more inquiry you want to do?
What about guiding? Are you interested in that?
Namaste,
Bill
I feel you are very clear and so do all of of guides who looked this over.
No one had any more questions for you.
Can tell you did most all of this on your own prior to arriving here. Good work.
I will come back later this evening with some other info for you but wanted to let you know this now.
Is there any more inquiry you want to do?
What about guiding? Are you interested in that?
Namaste,
Bill
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Bill,
Thanks a ton for being there. I know because I did most of the work on my own, I probably was frustrating you a bit because I wasn't focussing so much on what you were asking, but an insight already made just ends up a dead concept, so it was hard to go backwards in some sense. Who knows what triggers this stuff, so our communications most certainly could have been quite effective. Knowing someone is there to help provides a lot of confidence.
I don't think I need to any more inquiry.
It is possible I could be interested in doing some guiding. At the moment I think I need to marinate with this a bit. I am also not sure how well my guidance will correspond with what you do here, if only because my inquiry resolved itself out of some slightly different methods perhaps. But I am not opposed to entertaining the idea.
Thanks a ton for being there. I know because I did most of the work on my own, I probably was frustrating you a bit because I wasn't focussing so much on what you were asking, but an insight already made just ends up a dead concept, so it was hard to go backwards in some sense. Who knows what triggers this stuff, so our communications most certainly could have been quite effective. Knowing someone is there to help provides a lot of confidence.
I don't think I need to any more inquiry.
It is possible I could be interested in doing some guiding. At the moment I think I need to marinate with this a bit. I am also not sure how well my guidance will correspond with what you do here, if only because my inquiry resolved itself out of some slightly different methods perhaps. But I am not opposed to entertaining the idea.
Re: Anyone ready to look right now?
Hello Jason,
Check your email and PM from here.
I sent you some info on what to do to join our post-gate Facebook groups.
You might find these very interesting for discussion.
Yes, it did appear you had done most of the work already... great work on your own!
It was my pleasure to be of whatever help I was for you and do look forward to seeing
you in the aftercare group.
Namaste,
Bill
Check your email and PM from here.
I sent you some info on what to do to join our post-gate Facebook groups.
You might find these very interesting for discussion.
Yes, it did appear you had done most of the work already... great work on your own!
It was my pleasure to be of whatever help I was for you and do look forward to seeing
you in the aftercare group.
Namaste,
Bill
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests