Happy 2013! Would be deeply grateful for a guide!

[Critterfan]

Things have been a little crazy here, and i've been really sick.

You must immediately consume mass quantities of either chicken soup or veggie broth if you are a vegan. Have a nice cuppa tea. Or a hot toddy, extra lemon. Get rest, get sleep, get well.

satisfaction show up? discomfort show up? giddiness shows up? many flavors of Life show up... but is there an actual "I" there anywhere???

Wow -- I will be going through your comments and will respond. Meanwhile, take it easy. Did you skip the flu shot this year? Tsk tsk!!!

Love

[Critterfan]

keep investigating direct experience and see if there is any inherent "I", or point of focus, or center, or focus of individuality anywhere. Look as nakedly as possible, without referring to thought. Is anything you find any more than just experience? Is there a separate self there at all?

Without referring to thought or dipping into trances...

Hard to do. Continually stepping back from/dropping language and explanation and questioning. Naked Presence in direct Experience occurs briefly, punctuated by distraction and sometimes by absorption. But those are experience also. No self exists behind any experiences: cognitive nakedness, distraction, or infused contemplation.

It's a paradox: one constantly and reflexively seeks one's inherent being as if it would suddenly be revealed and thus resolve the hollow empty hunger that leads to seeking in the first place. That wild goose chase must be responsible for most of the spiritual discomfort and pain that haunts the world.

One has no inherent being -- but the impression that it is there and just out of reach drives so much seeking and searching, not only for spiritual but for cultural, economic, psychological, emotional, even chemical or addictive solutions. Some of these efforts can cause real harm or at least waste time and energy.

But no matter how deeply one goes, how intensively one penetrates, it's just more experience.

I'm trying to keep "naked looking" from being morphed into seeking, the predatory hunt for enlightenment as if it were a great Prize, a Reward for supreme effort.

There are some concepts that came up during our Skype that I'd welcome further discourse about. Don't feel obliged to critique other teachings or indulge what may be no more than my philosophical curiosity, but I am just trying to distinguish between subtleties to avoid being drawn in the wrong direction(s) (e.g., diverted away from "nakedness") as I look... look... look... look....

> I'm not 100% sure what "Naked looking" is or is like. Is it an utterly simple way of encountering direct Experience? Is it shikantaza, Soto "just sitting," or something like those. (I feel sure it should not be regarded as a method or technique or recipe for enlightenment, but can it be clarified? -- since it is an orientation you suggest that I utilize.)

> You alluded to the "I am That" trap: the advaita fallacy -- identifying with "That" and projecting/idealizing personal self into some sort of cosmic consciousness. (Question: could Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, et al have been somewhat (benignly) deluded or short of full understanding? Certainly many of the internet neo-advaitists seem fixated on a Super Self (sometimes it would seem foolishly or toxically) -- maybe they are just misunderstanding Ramana and others like him. It's ironic that in Exodus, Moses' burning-bush Jehovah calls himself "I Am that I Am." That vain, jealous and bloodthirsty Deity is definitely NOT enlightened :)

> Some of your messages during Skype have alluded to sort of a universal self-lessness (not your exact words, perhaps a misstatement due to lack of a transcript), an infinite or omnipresent non-inherency ("Emptiness" as G. Buddha understood it) that is more than personal self-lessness (there's an oxymoron perhaps). I wonder if that is Reality and bridges the distinction between No-self and "Great Self" (by which I do not intend a theistic or deistic notion).

Please don't think I am trying to start a philosophical discussion. I just think that by putting to rest some cognitive/conceptual puzzles, I can be more non-conceptual.

Love

[cosmiK]

:)

Without referring to thought or dipping into trances...

Hard to do. Continually stepping back from/dropping language and explanation and questioning. Naked Presence in direct Experience occurs briefly, punctuated by distraction and sometimes by absorption. But those are experience also. No self exists behind any experiences: cognitive nakedness, distraction, or infused contemplation.

no it's not hard to do because there is nothing to do. it's really important to look in to the very 'process' of this. it seems you are still seeing this as some "process of awakening". it's really important to look at if there is anything at all that can be awakened. this is the "I" ... the self, and the seeker

just put your attention on that

there is no one there that can be awakened

is experience personal at all? and if so in what ways?

It's a paradox: one constantly and reflexively seeks one's inherent being as if it would suddenly be revealed and thus resolve the hollow empty hunger that leads to seeking in the first place. That wild goose chase must be responsible for most of the spiritual discomfort and pain that haunts the world.

the paradox is only thought stuff

the seductive nature of thought to draw one in to the story should be looked at closely. there is always an "I" in that seductive story, and when we look at reality, we can NEVER find an "I"

paradox for who? look closely at the belief in "I" at the cornerstone of all of this

But no matter how deeply one goes, how intensively one penetrates, it's just more experience.

there is no one that can go deeply :) that's the whole point of this seeing

there is no one that can penetrate anything. only thought speaks of an individual seeking awakening, those are all thought-stories.

yes... it's always and forever experience. impersonal, alive, boundless

but does that experience belong to an individual???

I'm trying to keep "naked looking" from being morphed into seeking, the predatory hunt for enlightenment as if it were a great Prize, a Reward for supreme effort.

don't try
notice if there is anyone that could try

it's obvious that that type of seeking will happen with you. it's a part of how you have approached spirituality.
just notice it...

is there a self or individual there apart from thought?

is there a seeker? or just seeking?
seeking for what? where? why? will you ever find the truth anywhere but right here in this moment?

> I'm not 100% sure what "Naked looking" is or is like. Is it an utterly simple way of encountering direct Experience? Is it shikantaza, Soto "just sitting," or something like those. (I feel sure it should not be regarded as a method or technique or recipe for enlightenment, but can it be clarified? -- since it is an orientation you suggest that I utilize.)

it's just what is arising

it's the easiest and most natural thing to notice

just what is going on

don't see it as some big thing... a technique, a practice, a treasured state/skill

the faculty of attention is the simplest one because it's always happening

watch thoughts come and go
is there a self or "I" there before thoughts?

does individuality exist anywhere in any form?

> You alluded to the "I am That" trap: the advaita fallacy -- identifying with "That" and projecting/idealizing personal self into some sort of cosmic consciousness. (Question: could Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, et al have been somewhat (benignly) deluded or short of full understanding? Certainly many of the internet neo-advaitists seem fixated on a Super Self (sometimes it would seem foolishly or toxically) -- maybe they are just misunderstanding Ramana and others like him. It's ironic that in Exodus, Moses' burning-bush Jehovah calls himself "I Am that I Am." That vain, jealous and bloodthirsty Deity is definitely NOT enlightened :)

All of this is irrelevant. Concepts about the absolute nature of reality are pointless, because once you see through "I", all of this becomes clearer, and you will start to see this for yourself. The answers are all right there. You have to Look though. That is why a guide is important ;) I am guiding you now to put all of your focus on this. Forget everything you know about reality. challenge the very foundation of it. that you are an individual.

Some of your messages during Skype have alluded to sort of a universal self-lessness (not your exact words, perhaps a misstatement due to lack of a transcript), an infinite or omnipresent non-inherency ("Emptiness" as G. Buddha understood it) that is more than personal self-lessness (there's an oxymoron perhaps). I wonder if that is Reality and bridges the distinction between No-self and "Great Self" (by which I do not intend a theistic or deistic notion).

:) there can not be a personal self-lessness. that assumes that there is an individual... a person ;)

where is this individuality?

focusing and seeing the lack of individuality in experience is really the most important thing.

if you were to drop all assumptions that you have about everything

is there any individuality that exists?

Please don't think I am trying to start a philosophical discussion. I just think that by putting to rest some cognitive/conceptual puzzles, I can be more non-conceptual.

It's okay... do you have control over what you think? how conceptual or non-conceptual you are?

is there an "I" that can choose and control such thinking and behavior?

good hearing from you,
please investigate these pointers and get back to me.
Lots of Love my friend.

[Critterfan]

Amigo!

Just a quick note to say that in your latest post you hit every single nail squarely on the head, each with a single well-aimed blow. Have you ever considered taking up master carpentry? The housing recovery is producing more work (and higher paying jobs than psychology) ;) It's definitely true here in Florida. You could relocate to a warmer climate, and your son would be in driving distance of Disney World and Universal Studios (with the new Harry Potter attraction!) :)

I'll be responding later this week after investigating your pointers, but I just wanted to say Thank You for helping me move away from all these fascinating topics of discussion to a simple and direct responsibility.

Ironically/coincidentally, there is fascinating and in-depth coverage of this "topic" in the latest (23 February) issue of New Scientist, "The Great Illusion of the Self." http://www.newscientist.com

Full access to the several articles on "The I" is limited to subscribers, but if you are interested and are not a subscriber, a library should have a copy (in a few weeks). The magazine is published in the UK but widely circulated here too. Let me know if I can assist.

As you wake up each morning, hazy and disoriented, you gradually become aware of the rustling of the sheets, sense their texture and squint at the light. One aspect of your self has reassembled: the first-person observer of reality, inhabiting a human body. As wakefulness grows, so does your sense of having a past, a personality and motivations. Your self is complete, as both witness of the world and bearer of your consciousness and identity. You.

This intuitive sense of self is an effortless and fundamental human experience. But it is nothing more than an elaborate illusion. Under scrutiny, many common-sense beliefs about selfhood begin to unravel. Some thinkers even go as far as claiming that there is no such thing as the self.

In these articles, discover why "you" aren’t the person you thought you were.

Mucho love,
Stan

[Critterfan]

Hi

As I said in my most recent post, your latest comments were incredibly helpful. (Of course, they are always helpful, but maybe I'm becoming more receptive.)

the seductive nature of thought to draw one in to the story should be looked at closely.

I'm seeing that more clearly.

do you have control over what you think? how conceptual or non-conceptual you are?
is there an "I" that can choose and control such thinking and behavior?

I can learn to keep it simple.

it's not hard to do because there is nothing to do.

it's just what is arising
it's the easiest and most natural thing to notice
just what is going on
don't see it as some big thing... a technique, a practice, a treasured state/skill
the faculty of attention is the simplest one because it's always happening

I've spent more time this week than ever before really focusing in the simple way you describe. Pushing back lots of temptation to escape, distract myself, indulge in amusement or boredom, all the ways we immerse ourselves in the tragicomedy we think we are the protagonist of. "All the world's a stage...."

yes... it's always and forever experience. impersonal, alive, boundless

I'm beginning to see and FEEL what THIS will be, what it's already like, it already is....

but does that experience belong to an individual???

How could it? It's all of nature.
This is hard work, but that's OK. Really OK.

I'll continue keeping it simple, which is quite a challenge. :)

Love,

[cosmiK]

Hello! :)

Just a quick note to say that in your latest post you hit every single nail squarely on the head, each with a single well-aimed blow. Have you ever considered taking up master carpentry? The housing recovery is producing more work (and higher paying jobs than psychology) ;) It's definitely true here in Florida. You could relocate to a warmer climate, and your son would be in driving distance of Disney World and Universal Studios (with the new Harry Potter attraction!) :)

Becoming a carpenter and moving to Florida is sounding mighty good right now ;)

Full access to the several articles on "The I" is limited to subscribers, but if you are interested and are not a subscriber, a library should have a copy (in a few weeks). The magazine is published in the UK but widely circulated here too. Let me know if I can assist.

Would be great to have a read of that. NEws of that has been floating around in LU as well :)

cosmiK wrote:

do you have control over what you think? how conceptual or non-conceptual you are?
is there an "I" that can choose and control such thinking and behavior?

I can learn to keep it simple.

more importantly, just notice, even in the 'learning to keep it simple' is there an "I" that is in charge of this? directing this?

it's just what is arising
it's the easiest and most natural thing to notice
just what is going on
don't see it as some big thing... a technique, a practice, a treasured state/skill
the faculty of attention is the simplest one because it's always happening

I've spent more time this week than ever before really focusing in the simple way you describe. Pushing back lots of temptation to escape, distract myself, indulge in amusement or boredom, all the ways we immerse ourselves in the tragicomedy we think we are the protagonist of. "All the world's a stage...."

Yes... good... keep noticing... even in the distraction, the temptation to escape, indulging, boredom, amusement, just keep noticing... is there an "I" that does any of this? is there a "me" that all of this happens to? Use that naked directness of experience to check this. The answer is always clear and is always there, and it is only the focus on thought that distracts this recognition.

I'm beginning to see and FEEL what THIS will be, what it's already like, it already is....

Yes... and as attention deepens in to that which is always here, keep noticing... is there an "I" that notices this?

but does that experience belong to an individual???

How could it? It's all of nature.
This is hard work, but that's OK. Really OK.

make sure the answer to this comes PURELY from the directness and immediacy of experience

in experiencing... is there an "I" there experiencing? and if an answer pops up..... isn't that just more experience?

I'll continue keeping it simple, which is quite a challenge. :)

keeping it simple happens, challenges happen.... but is an "I" involved at all?

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi

I'm reporting in although there is not much substance to report.

By the way, I think the New Scientist article was interesting but was mostly about "small" stuff. The youtube lecture by Metzinger that I linked was meatier -- very technical and challenging. At the very end he says something about the ego/self not being an illusion -- because there is nothing to perceive the illusion. (That sounds to me like a very deep and profound notion of non-self.) There is no "tragedy of the ego" -- we never die because we were never born in the first place.

Every day, hour, moment I am noticing...

Contentment happens, discontentment happens, understanding happens, confusion happens, S--T happens :\

even in the distraction, the temptation to escape, indulging, boredom, amusement, just keep noticing... is there an "I" that does any of this? is there a "me" that all of this happens to? Use that naked directness of experience to check this. The answer is always clear and is always there, and it is only the focus on thought that distracts this recognition.

Understood.

just notice, even in the 'learning to keep it simple' is there an "I" that is in charge of this? directing this?

There is a lot of experiencing, sensation, affect, cogitation... sometimes like a whirlpool. There are days when it feels like I am spinning around in it, overexposed to everything, trying to resist or redirect the current, trying to maintain the superfluous role of general manager of my life --

make sure the answer to this comes PURELY from the directness and immediacy of experience
in experiencing... is there an "I" there experiencing? and if an answer pops up..... isn't that just more experience?

-- and sometimes there is just the flow of motion gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream...

a dream dreamt by no one.

Love

[cosmiK]

Hey,

Every day, hour, moment I am noticing...

Contentment happens, discontentment happens, understanding happens, confusion happens, S--T happens :\

there is no "I" noticing :) just noticing :) just happening

There is a lot of experiencing, sensation, affect, cogitation... sometimes like a whirlpool. There are days when it feels like I am spinning around in it, overexposed to everything, trying to resist or redirect the current, trying to maintain the superfluous role of general manager of my life -

the illusion, this "self", kicks and screams. in a sense it is as if thought is desperately struggling to maintain it's self-referencing throne, so it constantly projects this "I", this "self".

"I am spinning around... overexposed... trying to resist or redirect... trying to maintain the role of general manager... my life..."

this whirlwind, this drama, is just the last desperate attempts of a belief structure that is crumbling under the light of investigation... under direct scrutiny.

keep looking and challenging this assumption.

Look directly... in direct experience, is there an "I" there that is spinning around, overexposed, resisting/redirecting, maintaining... is there an 'owner' who has a portion of Life separate from everything else?
is there any direct evidence for this?

are "you" doing any of this? is there a "me" at the mercy of any of this?
is that ever anything more than a present appearing story... of thought?

is there really a "you" AT ALL in this?

~

sending Love,
no sender,
no receiver.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

Still here....

But am "I" still here? Perhaps, but stillness is all.

Every day brings numerous opportunities to see and see through the unnecessary and somewhat amusing activity of the fictional self and let the activity coast to a halt, unless it was needed for practical or compassionate purposes. But nothing special happens. And who does the seeing?

There are still stories, but fewer and fewer characters, less and less of a plot, not much in the way of narration. That's why I am not frequently reporting.

This seems to be an unfolding experience -- but not a "process of [someone] awakening."

I hope you are well.

Love

[cosmiK]

Hey,

But am "I" still here? Perhaps, but stillness is all.

What the "I" points to ultimately is the sense of knowing, beingness, presence and aliveness. The confusion is when it is assumed that the person is the one that knows, is present and alive.

Every day brings numerous opportunities to see and see through the unnecessary and somewhat amusing activity of the fictional self and let the activity coast to a halt, unless it was needed for practical or compassionate purposes. But nothing special happens. And who does the seeing?

Is there a "seer" + seen?

or just the seen?

This seems to be an unfolding experience -- but not a "process of [someone] awakening."

is there a self there that notices this unfolding?

is this unfolding personal at all?

There are still stories, but fewer and fewer characters, less and less of a plot, not much in the way of narration. That's why I am not frequently reporting.

It's important to keep the process going, which means continuing the dialogue. I gave you lots of pointers previously but didn't receive any answers/reports from them. The continuation of the dialogue reveals sticking points and then I am able to point you to seeing through them, and rinse and repeat until of course the insight is triggered.

Am well,

Lots of Love to you.

[Critterfan]

Hi cosmik,

Sorry -- I wandered off into the clover for a while. (It's very fresh and fragrant these days.) I'll get back to your questions.

Look directly... in direct experience, is there an "I" there that is spinning around, overexposed, resisting/redirecting, maintaining...

No "I" in reality, just the experience of motion and stillness.

is there an 'owner' who has a portion of Life separate from everything else?
is there any direct evidence for this?

Life, the universe, is not in portions -- it's all one big helping, super-sized. We can recognize that boundaries exist as conveniences and conventions once we become clearly conscious of them. Indeed, every boundary is really an interface of connection. "Good fences make good neighbors."

are "you" doing any of this? is there a "me" at the mercy of any of this?

It's all just happening. To be "at the mercy" of something implies helpless vulnerability to a threat, to being controlled and dominated. It does not work that way at all. There is pure liberty in this absolute determinism of non-doership since we fully share being and identity with the forces that move us. Our awareness is one awareness, an integral interval in the universal waveform, riding its continuous collapse: the wicked quantum surf dudes.

is that ever anything more than a present appearing story... of thought?

Thought dressed up in shapes and colors, but nothing more.

is there really a "you" AT ALL in this?
is there a self there that notices this unfolding?

Analytical thought, autobiographical memory, practical identity, and other apps are fully in place, but are just features of experience.

is this unfolding personal at all?

Not personal in the egoic sense, but fully alive.

is there a "seer" + seen?
or just the seen?

The seer and the seen are fused into seeing. It makes no sense to refer to them separately.

______________________

The dialogues in Gateless Gatecrashers end successfully but rarely with revolutionary transformations, unless the individual had lots of issues and torments.

I'm not looking for a stamp of approval, and I do not feel "enlightened" in the way I used to imagine it, but just wondering if the "house of cards" is already disintegrating. It feels that way. It lets in lots of light and warmth.

Question: What is the "reveal"? What am I missing if I don't feel like I am missing anything? Should I expect some sort of "crossing over?" The "sudden" school of Zen emphasizes major transitions in consciousness -- the gradual school more of an organic, holistic development. I've sometimes thought of these differences as being based on nothing more than diverse personality types among roshis and monks, cultural locales or different scales of reference or magnitude. For example, Sudden Enlightenment/Rinzai Zen acknowledges multiple, progressive, smaller-scale kensho surrounding more dramatic satori. There are the Five Ranks, the Ten Stages of Taming the Ox, etc. Soto Zen speaks of all experience as being enlightenment: we are already Buddha, as are the mountains and rivers.

Perhaps there is a memory of the "I" character in the sense that I can lucidly remember what my inner life was like before going the distance with this practice. There is a faint muscle memory of identity and self structure. But it's like remembering a story and knowing it's a story. My present perception of non-self is vastly more vivid and clear than before beginning this dialogue. Thank you. Insights into the fusion of experiencing and what is experienced have arisen smoothly and more and more frequently. Of course, it's not always possible to effectively express these things verbally. However, it is clear that there is nothing in present consciousness that is not experience, including this clarity. There is no expectation of attaining anything at all.

I enjoy this and am not looking for it to end. My question does not come from confusion or anguish but curiosity and a concern that after nearly 70 posts your time not be wasted on me when there are so many others that you are helping or could be helping.

Nonetheless, I'll continue to rinse and repeat, starting from, continuing and ending in direct experience.

Love and gratitude

[cosmiK]

Hey,

Your answers are very clear.

I'm not looking for a stamp of approval, and I do not feel "enlightened" in the way I used to imagine it, but just wondering if the "house of cards" is already disintegrating. It feels that way. It lets in lots of light and warmth.

I would imagine so, from the simple clarity that is apparent in your words.

What do you think? Is the house of cards already disintegrating?

Question: What is the "reveal"? What am I missing if I don't feel like I am missing anything? Should I expect some sort of "crossing over?" The "sudden" school of Zen emphasizes major transitions in consciousness -- the gradual school more of an organic, holistic development. I've sometimes thought of these differences as being based on nothing more than diverse personality types among roshis and monks, cultural locales or different scales of reference or magnitude.

Indeed... it is very personal. There are many ways to describe and conceptualize and perhaps even 'measure' realization, but for the purposes of this investigation we are just focusing on this belief in being a separate entity that is living, doing, choosing, controlling and experiencing Life. The insight reveals that Life lives itself, doing, choosing and controlling happen effortlessly and there is never an "I" doing, choosing or controlling... and that the person is just part of experiencing, not the experiencer. This is what is important for you to look in to.

Perhaps there is a memory of the "I" character in the sense that I can lucidly remember what my inner life was like before going the distance with this practice. There is a faint muscle memory of identity and self structure. But it's like remembering a story and knowing it's a story. My present perception of non-self is vastly more vivid and clear than before beginning this dialogue.

Right... and is that story of a "you" any more self than the story of "others"? is any of it more personal?

Insights into the fusion of experiencing and what is experienced have arisen smoothly and more and more frequently.

did experiencing and what-is-experienced ever fuse? was there ever really two to begin with?

did an actual "self" fuse with "everything else"? was there ever really a self to begin with?

However, it is clear that there is nothing in present consciousness that is not experience, including this clarity. There is no expectation of attaining anything at all.

Yes... the "Gateless" Gate... is it clear that there is no Gate at all?

is it clear that there is no "you" at all in reality?

I enjoy this and am not looking for it to end. My question does not come from confusion or anguish but curiosity and a concern that after nearly 70 posts your time not be wasted on me when there are so many others that you are helping or could be helping.

Nope, there is no wasting of time at all. It's my pleasure. Just wanting to make sure that you are clear on the insight of no self, and if not, then we 'keep going'.

Nonetheless, I'll continue to rinse and repeat, starting from, continuing and ending in direct experience.

Right, and in that continuing to rinse and repeat... is it clear that there is no one there doing it?

even the experience of someone doing it is JUST simply experience, and that experience isn't self any more than the sun, moon and the stars.

~~

We can do a few clarifying questions. Please answer them thoroughly WITH reference to Direct Experience. Elaboration is fine, but make sure it comes from your own investigation of experience. That is KEY.

Is there a "I" that is experiencing? Explain the answer with respect to direct experience.

Is there anything that "you" can do? Do you have control of Stan in any way? Yes/No/Somewhat? Explain with respect to dE.

Are you the thinker of thoughts? Can you think and choose thoughts? Explain with r. to dE.

Of all that arises and passes away in experience/awareness, is ANY of that "me" or "self"? Explain why it is or isn't.


So take your time - investigate - and report and answer these questions.

Lots of Love my friend.

[Critterfan]

Amigo,

Thank you for the nutritious and provocative input. I will be deeply honored to answer those questions as best can be done. I will take enough time to ensure honesty and depth.

I will also be hosting my oldest friend, a deeply spiritual person, an artist, a gentleman and a scholar, as a houseguest for a few days. He is flying in from Northern Virginia on Sunday so I may not get back to you until middle next week. The intervening days will enhance my own consideration and precision.

Meanwhile, Happy St. Patrick's Day and céad míle fáilte: A hundred thousand welcomes, a hundred thousand smiles.

Critterfan

[cosmiK]

:)

wonderful! have a great time with your friend, and take time and enjoi the inquiry/investigation.

Lots of Love <3

[Critterfan]

What do you think? Is the house of cards already disintegrating?

A life in freedom is not a closed case. This learning experience will continue. Every incident in life opens an opportunity to see further into dE, into anatta. The house of cards collapses, but in sort of a graceful slow motion.

Life lives itself, doing, choosing and controlling happen effortlessly and there is never an "I" doing, choosing or controlling... and that the person is just part of experiencing, not the experiencer. This is what is important for you to look in to.

The insights are conclusive but not endpoints. Life goes on. Experience happens. As Gandhi said, "an experiment in Truth."

is that story of a "you" any more self than the story of "others"? is any of it more personal?

did experiencing and what-is-experienced ever fuse? was there ever really two to begin with?
did an actual "self" fuse with "everything else"? was there ever really a self to begin with?

"Fusion" implies unification of what was divided. The division was a story about self and other, enlightened and unenlightened, experience and experiencer. There was never any actual separate to begin with, therefore nothing needs to be unified.

is it clear that there is no Gate at all? is it clear that there is no "you" at all in reality?

There is no gate, no checkpoint, no passport verification, no long lines, no travel documents. Holding up a picture ID is a gesture for the sake of social functioning, but we are not what is referenced on a driver's license.

is it clear that there is no one there doing it? even the experience of someone doing it is JUST simply experience, and that experience isn't self any more than the sun, moon and the stars.

Is there a "I" that is experiencing? Explain the answer with respect to direct experience.

For my entire life, like everyone, I have wondered and searched for my true self. Sometimes its hide and seek, sometimes its cat and mouse. It's always a story. What's real is the feeling of the keyboard, the glow of the screen, the words as they tumble through my thinking process and appear across the page, the softness of the cushion, the sound of the telephone... Woops, I gotta get that!

Just a telemarketer :[

Is there anything that "you" can do? Do you have control of Stan in any way? Yes/No/Somewhat? Explain with respect to dE.

There is a story that sometimes plays out that creates the appearance of choice, volition, control, planning, deciding. But I look closely and see there is no way to manage this playful chaos. Even "looking closely" is spontaneous. The words I write come to me out of the mysterious mist between an instant ago and an instant in the future. I don't carve and shape and enliven them; I am not like Michelangelo's God giving life to Adam (or giving him the finger). A beautiful image, a powerful archetype, a monumental creation, but a myth, a legend.

Are you the thinker of thoughts? Can you think and choose thoughts? Explain with r. to dE.

Thinking goes along on its own. Coming up with an idea, or the next phrase to speak, or write, or reflect upon, is no more voluntary than the experience of suddenly remembering a word or phrase that was at the tip of the tongue but obscured by a "senior moment." There is no act of deliberately reaching into a container, feeling around, and pulling out the right memory, the right word. It's not there, it's out of reach, then >pop< it suddenly emerges. Every thought is sort of like suddenly remembering what you were about to say to someone but couldn't find the right word.

Of all that arises and passes away in experience/awareness, is ANY of that "me" or "self"? Explain why it is or isn't.

There is nothing in my reality that is not experience or awareness. If I am not experiencing, remembering, or thinking about it, it's not part of my reality at the moment. Awareness is without an owner, experience is unchosen.