Nothing more to add. :)
Doug

Further thoughts on enjoying the enjoyable....

The old definition of suffer is to bear, to endure. Sometimes apparent choice is enduring the unenjoyable. But towards what end? I would argue that there is a greater enjoyable that is ultimately the desired end.

I found some time in my weekend, so here is the rest...

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

Actually the process of breakthrough happened in two parts. First, when you asked me if I was seeking a persistent state of no-self, there was an aha moment as previously ...

I had typed such a long completion to the questions that I unknowingly timed out. When I submitted the reply it disappeared :( Shit happens! When motivated to, I will re-attempt. Don't hold your breath...it may be a while!!

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

There used to be a belief in a subjective experiencer. Now it is seen that there is only experiencing with neither experiencer nor objectively existing content of experiencing.

2) Explain ...

Go for it!

Yes there most certainly has been a shift. The initial trigger was when you asked me if I was looking for a persistent state of no-self. I suddenly realized that indeed I had been for quite some time. I have been seeking identity in no-self...a contradiction. You told me to let go of the teachings ...

"Is consciousness a separate thing? Can you point to life, and separately point to consciousness? So, when the feelings come up, are they IN anything?"
Appearing in consciousness is the same as saying just appearing, experiencing, without any reference to a separate consciousness. No, there is no ...

"If I say that there is no separate self, what comes up? Any resistance to that idea?"
What comes up is, Yeah, but then why do I feel so small and contracted when someone criticizes me? I am confusing emotional responses with a sense of a separate self. When I feel into a memory of being criticized ...

Yes I looked and inquired and could find nothing but thinking, no thinker. Thinking arises first, then the I appears as content. So how could I be the thinker if thinking comes before the I content?! I arises later and tries to claim authorship. This is very clear now in experience. Not simply ...

The thinker is invisible, inconceivable. Rather there is just thinking happening. Not TO a thinker. The thinker is in the content of thinking, not outside as the originator of thinking. No objective thinker can be found.

The nebulous me is found in the thought that I exist. That I exist seems self-evident. So my sense of self has been described as a body sensation and is now more subtly identified as something mental, a thought.

I don't know. I refer to this body as my body. So I guess it belongs to a nebulous me.

OK! Point taken. I do trust you and this process. To answer your last question, this aware presence feels like it belongs to the body. The body carries this presence wherever it goes. It is most strongly felt in the eye area. It's also a generalized body sensation.

Is this all there is to "no self"...not being a 'thing'? I already know that. So I guess I'm confusing feelings and other appearances as constituting 'me'. There is only ever the experiencing. What else could there be?