Hi Vivien,
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?
Not any that can be found. There never could have been one; if there is an assumption of a separate "me", it is still appearing in this already immediate beingness.
2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?
It is a collection of thoughts, assumptions and ideas that make it seem as if there is a separate self. There might for example be a thought like "I shouldn't have done that" or "why is this happening to me" that hold in them the assumption that there is a separate "me" doing those things. The most crucial thing was to realize that it is an assumption, that there is no actual proof for the existence of a separate "me".
When inquiring, when looking now, it is quite easy to see that no "me" can be found, whereas before there was an underlying conviction that the "me" must be operating there somewhere, it just needs to be grasped and articulated somehow. Now it's much clearer that it is impossible to find any "me" and even if such a thing were to be found, it would immediately be seen as just another appearance in consciousness/awareness, and thus could not be the one that is living/being this life in its totality. Any thing that can be found or grasped must be limited, and could never touch the unlimited totality of this life happening here now.
3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.
Nothing much is different. All of the operations of the body are happening, thoughts are happening, feelings, sensations etc. are happening mostly as before. There is however less "stickiness" to these appearances, there is a sense that they cannot truly touch what is here now, what is happening. So there is less worry about what will happen as well.
A certain sense of ease is more readily available at times, but even as this was being written, there was a tenseness and a sense of contraction going on. What tends to happen is that that contraction and tenseness in the body is going on most of the day, but as I write about it or look into it like here, it is immediately seen in this essential spaciousness, where the tense body is just appearing. So when looked at, it is not a problem at all in any sense. Only in thoughts might there ever appear to be a problem, but when looked, no problem is available.
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?
I can't say it was any specific bit, but looking at "proof" for the self, and then looking at where the "doer"/"me" is located was perhaps the most fruitful for seeing what is going on. Looking at the idea of free will was also helpful.
5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.
Decision = thoughts that arise when something is happening that is assumed to be done by an assumed separate self that seems to be making a choice between options. Actually, whatever happens, just happens, no decision is even needed.
Example:
"deciding" to go to the store to buy food. --- Reality: The body is sitting there, then a thought pops into mind about how I should eat something, how the fridge is empty. There is even a feeling of hunger in the body. Then the body gets up and goes to the grocery store to get food, comes back and eats. No "decision" was made at any point, things just unfolded.
Intention = a narrative in the mind consisting of thought that holds the assumption that a separate self is there and that it could somehow intend to do something.
Example:
"intending" to lift the water bottle on the table. --- Reality: there is a thought "I will lift that water bottle" a certain anxious/apprehensive sensation in the body, and another thought about how "this is my intention". But really those were all just appearances, and there is no one to intend or to anticipate doing something. Sensations or thoughts that are interpreted as such (by more thought) could appear, but they don't make it real, true intention in any way.
Free will = a belief in a self that has will, and can freely choose what that will is used for.
Example:
A sock is thrown across the room, almost landing in the laundry bag. If there is an assumption of free will, it might look something like: thoughts: "I chose to throw that sock across the room, I could have thrown it anywhere, but I threw it over there, I could have walked over and placed it there, but I chose to throw it" etc. In reality: the impulse to grab the sock simply appears as a thought, then the sock is grabbed, then it is thrown and it flies and lands. Thoughts popped up from nowhere, with no one choosing them, and then the events unfolded, without any free will there. There is no "me" to have any more free will than what the sock has as it is in the air, flying across the room.
Choice (had to come back to this one) = The concept of choice tends to hold in it an assumption of a "chooser", a person that is choosing between different options freely. So in that sense choice doesn't even happen. But there could be an appearance of choice, but only within thought stories, not "beyond" them. Thoughts might be going on about how "I will choose the red apple instead of the green one", the body will likely act in accord and pick up the red apple. But the thoughts about choosing the red apple were never chosen by anyone, so in this way there is really no true choice happening at all, just a story of it. How much does a snowflake "choose" where to land? That's the same amount of choice that exists in regard to what thoughts appear.
Control = the assumption that there is someone or something "managing" freely how something happens. Really there is no such thing, in the sense that there is a person that can control something that is happening. What we might call "control" could be substituted for "seems to affect". For example, the sunlight affects the trees, the thoughts affect the body. The sunlight doesn't control the tress, and the thoughts don't control the body. But they do seem to affect them.
Example:
Maybe the most fun example is the idea of "controlling oneself". Some people might say to other people "control yourself!" or something along those lines. What is commonly meant by that? It's clearly a common belief that there is a self in each body, some kind of central control unit, deciding what to do and what not to do and how to do things. "Control yourself" implies firstly that there is an entity in each body that is responsible for what the body does, and secondly that that (nonexistent) entity could affect what the body does or does not do. Really the impulses simply arise, the body simply reacts in way that it might be used to, or the thoughts might cause a certain reaction based on prior conditioning. It's interesting how the "controller" is just not in there like we commonly have thought. And it can be seen very simply by looking at the "most obvious" as you say.
b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.
I cannot be responsible for anything, because there is no "me" at all freely making decisions, choosing between options or controlling what happens. There is simply that which happens. Responsibility would require someone with free will choosing what they do and making decisions.
Example:
Thoughts may appear about how I am responsible for taking care of the houseplant, watering it and keeping it alive. There is an assumption there in that narrative, that there is someone who can choose to water the plant, or that can control what happens to the plant and is "responsible" for the plant. In reality what might happen is that the plant might be drying up. thoughts might appear about how the plant should be watered, the body might then act to water the plant, and this way the plant keeps living. All of that can happen without any idea of responsibility ever even appearing. There is no one that is choosing to take on the narrative of responsibility, it simply happens and then it may or may not result in the body watering the plant. The key thing here is that there is no one to be responsible in reality, even if thoughts about being responsible might appear. So there is not TRUE responsibility, there can only be seeming responsibility.
Another example would be the idea that I am responsible for eating healthy and training the body. Really what happens is that there are thoughts, there are sensations, perhaps emotions, but the person responsible for me going on a run, or drinking 2 liters of coca cola can't be found. No one to blame or praise!
6) Anything to add?
There's one more thing that is bugging me a bit. ---- (was resolved below :)
In regard to choice. I have two apples in front of me. A green one and a red one. Someone says I need to make a choice between them. ok. Then thoughts might appear about how "I will choose the red one". Then the body picks up the red one. Now. Why is it that the thoughts are never "surprised" by what the body does? In the sense that there would have been a thought "I will pick the red one" and then the body just goes ahead and picks the green one. The "choice" or what occurs, seems to always be in accord with the thought. This makes it seem as if the thought is affecting the "choice". This is springing up some doubts.
So, what is actually happening here? If there is no choice, why is the thought and action in "agreement"? I see how thoughts might be commenting after an event has happened afterwards about how the thoughts made that happen, and clearly those are just thought stories. But in this case it seems as if thoughts can either somehow "predict" what will happen, what the body will do, or even that they are actually affecting what is happening. Ohh wait now I see what's going on!
---->
The thoughts are appearing as they do out of nowhere, and the thoughts actually are in a sense "causing" (or rather affecting) the body so it pick the red one
BUT the important thing is not that the thoughts are affecting the body, but that the there is NO ONE here thinking up the thoughts in the first place! SO it doesn't matter at all that the body is reacting to thought, because the thought is not thought up by anyone! I see I was subtly still holding onto the belief that there is a "freedom of thought" in the sense that thoughts can be chosen. Now I see, this resolves my question. I could delete the above text, but I will leave this up just to show what went on. I was assuming that either the different aspects of appearance need to be independently arising, happening independently of each other or otherwise it would mean there is an aspect of control. Now I see that what is happening and how it is operating is much more dynamic. Thought/sensation/smell/taste/emotion/sound are all affecting/interacting with each other in complex ways, sometimes "boosting" each other, snowballing on each other; but the only thing that is relevant is that there is no original cause, no original person that "gets the snowball rolling" and somehow begins that chain of things happening or directs it.
This just resolved my own question :)