The statement–“I’m told that I am awareness, but I don’t think so”–is parsed in terms of superimposition.

Superimposition: How It Works

1. There’s a habitual association between experience #1 and thought #2. 

2. That association, in fact, is only announced in #2. You’ll never find that association, of course, in experience #1. Whenever there’s a sensation, there’s just a sensation appearing to awareness. Whenever there’s a visual perception, there’s just a perception appearing to awareness. And so forth.

Ex) Pain:

• Experience #1: Sensation arising.
• Experience #2: Thought arising: “That’s some serious pain!”
• Is there anything to experience #1 other than sensation? No. Is there anything to sensation other than sensing? No. Is there anything to sensing other than the knowing of it? No. There’s only knowing. Knowing knowing itself.

Ex) Sense of me:

• Experience #1: Sensation arising.
• Experience #2: Thought arising: “Here I am in this area behind both eyes and between them.”
• Let’s look at experience #2: Is there anything to this thought other than thinking? No. Is there anything to thinking other than the knowing of it? No. There’s only knowing. Knowing knowing itself.

There’s, Ultimately, No Superimposition

Ultimately, there’s no superimposition because, ultimately, there’s no ignorance. Ultimately, there’s no one taking her stand as the mind and thus able to state, “I hear that I am awareness, but I don’t think so.” That thought isn’t there because that somebody isn’t there. There’s only awareness here.