user21427: What is it that experiences life from this particular body & mind that I have?
i.e. why am I experiencing the world from my body instead of yours?
I feel like an answer could be: because there isn't really any 'separate bodies' or selves & you just don't have the realization (Anatman) yet. Still, what causes the subjective  'self' to appear as a particular body experiencing life from its limited perspective, or is it all one giant reification error for someone who hasn't detached from egotic self yet? & then karma, the 12 links, mindstream identifies with this, attaches to this body, so on and so forth...

user11278: Your world is a process which you collect stimulus from sensory organs and then interpret them, identify and categorize them using previous memories and behaviors. If you take for an example your eyes. Eye receives a picture, sends it to the brain. brain interprets it based on previous memories, experiences and behaviors. Then a value is assigned in your mind as; this is good or bad.
A very important phenomenon takes place here. The moment you interpret the outside stimuli, the mind which allowed the process (chakku viknknana) and the outside world you perceived are one and the same. But you interpret it as there is an outside world, and 'I' perceived it. In fact with everything we perceive, what we primarily do is to ascertain our-self that there is 'me', perceiving the world. This is the reason we assign a value to the outside stimuli as good or bad (it is good or bad to 'me'). In reality, only the perception process exists, creation of 'one-self' within that process is unawareness (moha) in action, its the deception we fall into. We build the world in our mind to assert the sense of 'me' (sathwa pudgala saknkna).

user20497: The confusion lies within mistakenning a 2nd body just as this body.
The 2nd body, or any other bodies, is an image in your sight. Anything more than an image, is fabricated upon it.
Although it is not to declare the other bodies don't exist. It is merely stating in your experience, there is no other body except body images.
Thus in your experience there is only this body sensing everything.

user19480: The question of why ‘awareness’ has a perspective, why is it not free to roam, so that now it is seeing things from the perspective of your physical body, and now seeing things from the perspective of my physical body, is an explosion of phantasms of conceptual ideas littering your understanding. However, the major oversight is not seeing that your question assumes that non-individuated awareness would be all-perceiving. Why must that be? Isn’t this just the concept of God reemerging, but now called ‘awareness’?
In Buddhist philosophy there is no God. Why then rename God “awareness”?
It is a basic, but profound insight that there is nothing that endures permanently, and thus nothing that has an intrinsic self. Therefore our ‘physical’ bodies are constructions of our mind. This does not mean that there isn’t the appearance of a body, it means that the appearance of a body is conceptually structured. Why then fail to see that we are simply transferring the independent selfhood and permanence of existence of our naïve understanding to ‘awareness’?
But there is another taint in the framing of this question. You are assuming that this ‘awareness’ is basically a ‘seeing’ of what it is aware of. But this is just our naïve understanding put into a new box labeled “awareness.” It’s carrying an important misunderstanding forward in a different guise. Change it slightly and perhaps we can make this misunderstanding more uncomfortable to live with: let’s assume that ‘awareness’ doesn’t see, it hears. This means there is no perspective from your body, and none from mine. Sound pervades all directions, and so as long as we are standing near each other, ‘awareness’ will hear the same thing.  But it won’t know what anything looks like. It will be like a blind man.
Let’s go a step further: the blind man goes deaf. Why, after all, is this ‘awareness’ framed as a perceiving, when what we really need it to be is a knowing. That is why we abstracted it out of ‘our’ experience and made it something separate from what is experienced, after all. But if it is a knowing, rather than a perceiving, how does it know, if it is something other than what is happening?
I leave you with that to ponder.
In my own case, I came to the insight that knowing is not different than appearing, and thus, ‘awareness’ knows by doing, not perceiving. And because of this, ‘my’ ‘awareness’ is locked into my body because that’s what it’s doing. And similarly for ‘your’ ‘awareness’.
Take out the imputed self-identities of ‘me’ and ‘you’, and the conceptual image of an all-perceiving ‘God’, and you’re getting close to the truth.

21427: <p>What is it that experiences life from this particular body &amp; mind that I have?</p>
<p>i.e. why am I experiencing the world from my body instead of yours?</p>
<p>I feel like an answer could be: because there isn't really any 'separate bodies' or selves &amp; you just don't have the realization (Anatman) yet. Still, what causes the subjective  'self' to appear as a particular body experiencing life from its limited perspective, or is it all one giant reification error for someone who hasn't detached from egotic self yet? &amp; then karma, the 12 links, mindstream identifies with this, attaches to this body, so on and so forth...</p>
 11278: <p>Your world is a process which you collect stimulus from sensory organs and then interpret them, identify and categorize them using previous memories and behaviors. If you take for an example your eyes. Eye receives a picture, sends it to the brain. brain interprets it based on previous memories, experiences and behaviors. Then a value is assigned in your mind as; this is good or bad.</p>
<p>A very important phenomenon takes place here. The moment you interpret the outside stimuli, the mind which allowed the process (chakku viknknana) and the outside world you perceived are one and the same. But you interpret it as there is an outside world, and <em>'I' perceived it</em>. In fact with everything we perceive, what we primarily do is to ascertain our-self that there is <em>'me', perceiving the world</em>. This is the reason we assign a value to the outside stimuli as good or bad (it is good or bad to 'me'). In reality, only the perception process exists, creation of 'one-self' within that process is unawareness (moha) in action, its the deception we fall into. We build the world in our mind to assert the sense of 'me' (sathwa pudgala saknkna).</p>
 20497: <p>The confusion lies within mistakenning a 2nd body just as this body.
The 2nd body, or any other bodies, is an image in your sight. Anything more than an image, is fabricated upon it.
Although it is not to declare the other bodies don't exist. It is merely stating in your experience, there is no other body except body images.
Thus in your experience there is only this body sensing everything.</p>
 19480: <p>The question of why ‘awareness’ has a perspective, why is it not free to roam, so that now it is seeing things from the perspective of your physical body, and now seeing things from the perspective of my physical body, is an explosion of phantasms of conceptual ideas littering your understanding. However, the major oversight is not seeing that your question assumes that non-individuated awareness would be all-perceiving. Why must that be? Isn’t this just the concept of God reemerging, but now called ‘awareness’?</p>
<p>In Buddhist philosophy there is no God. Why then rename God “awareness”?</p>
<p>It is a basic, but profound insight that there is nothing that endures permanently, and thus nothing that has an intrinsic self. Therefore our ‘physical’ bodies are constructions of our mind. This does not mean that there isn’t the appearance of a body, it means that the appearance of a body is conceptually structured. Why then fail to see that we are simply transferring the independent selfhood and permanence of existence of our naïve understanding to ‘awareness’?</p>
<p>But there is another taint in the framing of this question. You are assuming that this ‘awareness’ is basically a ‘seeing’ of what it is aware of. But this is just our naïve understanding put into a new box labeled “awareness.” It’s carrying an important misunderstanding forward in a different guise. Change it slightly and perhaps we can make this misunderstanding more uncomfortable to live with: let’s assume that ‘awareness’ doesn’t see, it hears. This means there is no perspective from your body, and none from mine. Sound pervades all directions, and so as long as we are standing near each other, ‘awareness’ will hear the same thing.  But it won’t know what anything looks like. It will be like a blind man.</p>
<p>Let’s go a step further: the blind man goes deaf. Why, after all, is this ‘awareness’ framed as a perceiving, when what we really need it to be is a knowing. That is why we abstracted it out of ‘our’ experience and made it something separate from what is experienced, after all. But if it is a knowing, rather than a perceiving, how does it know, if it is something other than what is happening?</p>
<p>I leave you with that to ponder.</p>
<p>In my own case, I came to the insight that knowing is not different than appearing, and thus, ‘awareness’ knows by doing, not perceiving. And because of this, ‘my’ ‘awareness’ is locked into my body because that’s what it’s doing. And similarly for ‘your’ ‘awareness’.</p>
<p>Take out the imputed self-identities of ‘me’ and ‘you’, and the conceptual image of an all-perceiving ‘God’, and you’re getting close to the truth.</p>
