WokeBloke

Experiences are not experiencing. This means that the experience is not the experiencer. In other words, The seen can't see. The heard can't hear. The thoughts can't think. The actions don't act. Etc.

there's good reason to think I'm the whole body. But no reason to think I am the universe considering I am viewing the universe as a piece of the universe.

The seen can't see (no eyes) Do sights have eyes? The heard can't hear (no ears) Do sounds have ears?

because the content of awareness is not aware of itself.

So you don't make any distinction between the content of awareness and awareness?

Trees are probably not experiencing anything.

my body is certainly a part of the universe. Why do you think I'm the whole universe?

Are you aware of your awareness? or are you are aware of stuff that is not awareness?

Does the word/idea/concept refer to a real "thing"? Computer refers to an observable object. Awareness seems to refer to something invisible.

its not contradictory. I am not a part of the body. I am the whole body seeing parts of my body.

sorry I'll answer them. 1. I think no part of the body is aware of the body. 2. If anything is aware of the body it is either the entire body or some sort of non-physical awareness in my view If I take aware parts of my body my experience is severely hindered. If I take away my whole body I think there would be no experience. But the expereincer or the ability to experience (awareness) might remain. If the body is aware of itself then I am wherever my body is. The one who is aware of the body must be here.

Is the body the subject or is the subject not the body in your view? Direct experience suggests that the body sees the body with the body making the body the seer/subject but Sadhguru says I am not the body. What is your take on this?

If you don't think the body is aware then certainly the computer is not aware.

I am 100% in agreement with I am not the mind. Each body has a mind or thought process. I can thus not be reduced to my mind. Still from the outside it looks like a body saying that it is not a body!

Did the computer create the computer or did something else create the computer?

why do you say they aren't to be taken literally?

I guess I could say I see my perception of my body.

Perhaps the dreamer/expereincer is not an experience.

The problem with Sam Harris is he denies that he's also the puppet master. And indeed desire is my gas. But it's my gas after all.

seeing is a part of experiencing. Do you equate awareness with the experience or is awareness not an experience?

I am not forced to act on my desires though. But also desiring is my nature. It's sort of like saying I am enslaved my my own being. At least though I am the prisoner and the prison. As long as I'm not imprisoned by something other than myself then I'm okay.

What occurs to me to do is determined by my desire at any given moment. If my desires come from me then ultimately I am responsible for my desires.

I agree the body is a part of my experience. Also I can only see parts of my body. Still by looking at other people in the world I infer that I must be seeing my body with my body as my body.

I regard myself to be the changing body. So wherever the body is, is where I am. The computer is not my body but a part of my experience.

@Vincent S My computer is within my being but is not my being.