When it comes to describing what we believe to be real, we enter subtle territory where language is wildly inadequate. That's why we're so adamant here about sticking to what we experience directly.
In that light, I can't help noticing a shift in your responses between the first few and the last:
I know what you're saying here. I know there are many teachings that make statements like this as part of an educational path. And I'm not trying to deny the sense that you are present. That would be impossible. Of course there's always a sense of presence, a sense that experience is happening (as you said).The "I" is awareness. it's an awareness machine.
Sticking with what's experienced directly when talking about "I" and awareness:
Do you experience an "I" that's creating awareness?
Do you experience an "I" that's an object in any way?
Do you experience awareness as an object?
Do you experience a relation between two objects, "I" and awareness?
If there is no separate "I" (an object), does it even make sense to say that "I" is awareness or "I" is aware?
Now what can you say about "What is aware?"
With love,
Steve

