Requesting a guide.

[Vivien]

There is a strong wish to see what is going on here with thought. Thought asserts a pull each time thought content is entered into. They tend to transfix but subside and looking takes place.

The simplicity is just to look and know when it is remembered to simply look. It takes a favouring of looking over thought content.

Yes. I'm not sure how much we dived into seeing the difference of the realness of the presence of a thought vs. the content of a thought. Regardless, let's looking that.

Thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

Let me know how it goes.

Vivien

[IainB]

Hey Vivien,

When a thought is seen only as a container...the content ignored, is...the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

I like how you say the 'the realness of the presence of a thought'

I would like to be honest here and say I find it difficult to seperate the content of thought from the knowing that thought is a container or presence.

I know I said transfixed before. I don't want to empower thought with power it does not hold because of course thought in itself holds no special power. But when the content appears, it is taken as having a pull, a gravity, a veracity, as though the message it offers holds a meaning...and a meaning for me!

I suspect this empowers the illusion of Ian/me/personhood/I as having realness. In my ignorance, it is as though the 'message' or 'story' in thought is the imporant bit, and the knowing that thought is simply a container with presence is missed, almost like I'm getting it the wrong way around.

I do know that E.T. is not real when the thought E.T. appears. And I do know that the thought chair is separate from the colour and sensation of the object sat upon.

the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

I can see this. Sensation is known. Thoughts are quick to latch on. However if I look closely the sensation itself is neither good or bad. The thought might appear 'just allow this sensation for a time and don''t fixate on the thought that something is bad or wrong about it...just let it be, and don't feel the need to change it', even with visceral feelings of unease.

check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

I can do more of this.

Thanks,

[IainB]

Of course, as soon as the thought passes, the thought content no longer appears, it is clearly known by default that there was no truth within the thought content. It was like a symbolic echo or whisper replaying/suggesting, not a real experience.

When a thought is seen only as a container...the content ignored, is...the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

It is as though I take the thought content as being the actual experience, instead of knowing the container presence to be the actual experience, or the two are mixed.

Not always though. A times thought content is absent, there is simply existence of colour/sensation/sound. Then thought content begins to appear and there is knowing "here we go again...thought content is about to take precedence" the thought content is fully known exerting its pull, and then it's over as is known only as thought..."ahh that thought is over...maybe there will be a break from thought for a moment...".

With love

[IainB]

I slept poorly overnight but this did allow me some hours to watch many thoughts as the appeared.

Many of these replayed situations of potential conflict with others, suggesting something was wrong. These thoughts 'stand out' and this could be useful in working with them. Pleasant thoughts tend to slip by less noticed.

I looked for thought as the container / the presence of thought, rather than focusing on what the symbolic content was (the thought images, the thought characters or words).

At one point there was a complete 'loss of interest' in the content of the thought, as though the movie frames blurred out the symbols on display entirely and it was just a case of a potential set of symbols but no care what they might represent.

In this way, the thought shifted and became more like sensation in character. Like a known feature, experienced, but absent of symbolic meaning separate from just being experienced. There was a suggestion of shape and colour in the thought but what it might be trying to say was disregarded.

Thanks,

[IainB]

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Thought is true as a phenomenon, its content is ephemeral.

As each thought captures the attention and is known a turnaround can take place. The thought is looked back upon and is re-evaluated: that thought was known, but its message had no truth.

Of course the separate character I/me/personhood exits only within the movie frames of thought content. It's nowhere to be found in sensation, sound or colour.

If this is known/seen then surely gating has to take place.

Thank you.

[Vivien]

Hi Ian,

Sorry for not replying sooner. I've been very busy. I will be able to write a proper reply in a day or two.

Thank you

[IainB]

No worries whatsoever. you are a great guide, but I know the ropes and know ultimately I have to do this myself in this thing/space here. I hope everything is okay for you. It has to be okay to step away when a wave comes up.

As for personhood/I/me/Ian I will ramble on a bit as it helps to get my lookings down.

Upon seeing that all parts of me come only in thought.

There has to be a fierce "I won't let thought get a hold of this and make something of it".

Thought can almost be felt waiting at the sidelines desperate to grab the mike and shout an explanation over what is.

However, as all the confusion came from believing in thought in the first place, so it has to be resisted as a place of refuge and explanation.

Of course, thoughts still flow over. They are slipped into like a warm welcoming bath (or sometimes as a nasty electric shock). But then always it can be seen again, when thought passes, that they are movie frames and symbols and conceptual suggestions and imaginings.

Not only all thought but all thought explanation about thought has to be placed in the zone of disbelief and 'won't let get sucked in'.

With love

[IainB]

It's very common to mistake our understanding for seeing. Way too common. But understanding is not seeing. Understanding is a belief, seeing is an experience.

I really welcome your support to avoid making this mistake. I looked in the past but there was no real break with believing in thought, when looking took place each time.

But do you really, really SEE this in experience? Do you see this right now? And now? And what about now?

Before there was a belief that something outwith thought established the validity of personhood/me/I/self. This is seen as just another thought belief. All aspects of self are only contained within thought content.

[Vivien]

It's very common to mistake our understanding for seeing. Way too common. But understanding is not seeing. Understanding is a belief, seeing is an experience.

I really welcome your support to avoid making this mistake. I looked in the past but there was no real break with believing in thought, when looking took place each time.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you a step-by-step recipe how to do that. Since that's about not seeing the thought to be a phenomenon only, and not taking the content for granted, as something real, something actual.

Of course, as soon as the thought passes, the thought content no longer appears, it is clearly known by default that there was no truth within the thought content. It was like a symbolic echo or whisper replaying/suggesting, not a real experience.

Is this recognized only AFTER the thought passed, or is it known/seen the very moment when a thought is present?

Focus on this... so see a thought to be a thought and not more than that in the VERY MOMENT when it appears.
Stay with this and look at this as often as possible during the day. Aim for 100+ times.

Vivien

[IainB]

I worked out how to do quote within a quote. I can't tell you how happy this makes me feel. I won't use it just yet.

I cannot give you a step-by-step recipe how to do that [avoid mistaking understanding for seeing]

Is gating not synonymous with no longer mistaking experience-seeing for understanding-belief (not always, but when remembered and looked towards? Is that not at the heart of the guiding process?

If you're saying that it's hard for a guide to really know if someone has seen, or if the client just 'thinks' they have seen and are just adopting a new position in understanding while using the right combination of words that indicate seeing, then I know what you mean.

If you're saying that it is for this location here to be 100% honest, 100% willing to look and to genuinely value looking-seeing over understanding after a lifetime of valuing understanding with no insight into an alternative, then I further do know what you're saying.

It takes more than just looking-seeing. It's looking-seeing that turns the table on value-belief in thought. You could look a million times but unless there is a willingness to push back from the thought banquet table and it turn over, seeing may still be evaded as thought remains valued.

Is this recognized only AFTER the thought passed, or is it known/seen the very moment when a thought is present?

Initially only after really. But I'm getting better at seeing thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment when it appears. I did this lots today, possibly close to the 100 mark. I was able to do it in the midst of severe busyness also, always fun.

Focus on this...

This felt nutty at first, as if I was becoming schizophrenic. There was a bit of shock at how shifting this was. Then I remembered that was what I was here for.

So yes, a surprise to see experientially that all of personhood/me/I is only in thought content. This makes the future exciting with what can be done with this experiential-seeing-knowing, and how limited any work of any type is without this basis.

Thanks!

[IainB]

I'm getting good at seeing a thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment.

This tends to cause thoughts to fizzle out after a few movie frames. Also this causes frustration and anger to be known but drop more quickly.

I shared in the summer of my experience a year or two back where there was a strong knowing that I didn't have to believe in thought any more (and of course that what I was was not defined/constrained/contained or limited by thought). But following that thought still sucked me in lots, and there was no shift in looking-experience. I looked outwith thought a lot, but I never got good at seeing a thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment.

I might try to go a whole day seeing each thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment ♥️

[Vivien]

Is gating not synonymous with no longer mistaking experience-seeing for understanding-belief (not always, but when remembered and looked towards? Is that not at the heart of the guiding process?

If you're saying that it's hard for a guide to really know if someone has seen, or if the client just 'thinks' they have seen and are just adopting a new position in understanding while using the right combination of words that indicate seeing, then I know what you mean.

If you're saying that it is for this location here to be 100% honest, 100% willing to look and to genuinely value looking-seeing over understanding after a lifetime of valuing understanding with no insight into an alternative, then I further do know what you're saying.

What I meant that I cannot give you a prescription how not to mistake thoughts for reality. You are the one who needs to discover how to do that. I can give you pointers, but cannot do it for you. Just like when you learn how to ride a bike, I can try to describe how to balance and not fall off, but I cannot really tell you exactly how to do it, you need to discover for yourself how to balance.

V: Is this recognized only AFTER the thought passed, or is it known/seen the very moment when a thought is present?

I: Initially only after really. But I'm getting better at seeing thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment when it appears.

Well, if it's just after, then it's not a seeing, but an intellectual understanding.

This is how it goes:
thought 1 appears - which is not seen to be a thought in the very moment to be a thought only
thought 2 appears - saying that thought 1 was just a thought. But even this thought is not seen to be a thought, but the content is believed.

So the whole process stays on the intellectual level. Both thought is taken for real, it's just happens that the second thought comments on the first...

Seeing is not a thought commenting after it.... seeing happens REGARDLESS of a commenting after thought.
Seeing happens in the very moment when the thought is present.
If it's not seen in that moment, then the following thought is just an intellectual reasoning on the first one.

I'm getting good at seeing a thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment.

Excellent! :)

I might try to go a whole day seeing each thought to be a thought and not more than that in the very moment

Yes, please do that.

[IainB]

do that

Thoughts seem radically changed by being seen.

When they are really looked at many do not really reach the narrative stage...they fizzle out before becoming fully formed and their content/message/symbol does not fully arise...as though the content-belief is magnetically reflected away.

Or the sensation that would usually arise just before, or simultaneously with a thought is felt to arise, but seeing steps in and rather than the thought content-belief taking over, the thought wave just calms by itself.

Some still suck in though. To get through a whole days feels like a marathon task. But fun to try, and revolutionary though...unleashing.

It was your guiding plus luck that allows thought to be seen in this way.

I must make a note in my diary when this started....as it is like 'life before thought was seen' and 'life after thought was seen'.

How ironic that I spent the last three years emphasising/valuing not being in thought, and repeating that many times...but to see thought has great weight and changes everything.

[Vivien]

Great! Please spend a few days with this, and then come back to me.

[IainB]

Oh you're there. I had this second bit line up too:

I cannot give you a prescription how not to mistake thoughts for reality.

Sure. But short of entering my being and pointing out the mistake made I think you're doing the best that can be done. How interesting that some beings can see easily, some take years, and some never see (though I wish all could, surely we would be much less harmful to each other). Balancing the bike happened remarkably easily, a few nerves, a little confidence and a push from dad and off I went with surprise/delight. It must have been nice for dad too. This is a little bigger.

a few days

Sure. I'll keep on it and come back in some days or only before if I forget and need help.