Although we discussed this on many occasions already, I'll start, nevertheless, from the very beginning. First, I address the terminology. Where you use the word “awareness” I use the word “consciousness.” I use the word “awareness” in the sense of self-referential knowledge loop (if I was precise with my words, I would e.g. say that people can “fall unaware” in cases when the usual language would use “fall unconscious”, or I would talk about “aware choice” instead of “conscious choice”, etc.). The word “attention”, then, means to me a filter of “awareness”, that is, the direction and breadth of that self-referential knowledge loop. I'll further use the nomenclature as I described it.

Now, before I'll continue, I'll briefly address “paranormal” phenomena: I can vouch for remote viewing (i.e. what is known as access to “Akashic records”), shared shifts of awareness (but only while awake), telepathy, and partly also prophecy (if more or less accurate prediction of trends can be labeled as such). I'm sort of divided on synchronicities, simply because I can literally condition myself to experience them. Out of those mentioned phenomena, the most relevant to the topic at hand are shared shifts of awareness, because while I experienced “collective trips” that indubitably moved whole group to the same identical “perceptual sphere”, further discussions of the event always revealed individual discrepancies (I'll come to that later).

With all that being said, let me put it all together as I see it.

Consciousness, which is the same as existence, is all there is. It is without intrinsic properties and therefore perfect in itself, and also that which could be called fundamental. It is, however, neither a thing, substance, or force, nor a concept. Even using the word “consciousness” is in itself misleading, because it evokes a notion of all that which consciousness is not. This is a verifiable fact, and that in turn implies that all known phenomena (and substances) are in essence insubstantial, as if they even were not. That of course means that human, as a more complex form build from basic phenomena that are nothing more than consciousness itself, is no exception.

That, however, is sort of inconsequential. No matter how ephemeral human might be, human is. Of course, all a human can know is perception of human. You may therefore argue that world and perception are the same, but since people perceive the same world albeit in different ways, it's clear that human is a dream within a dream (and human dream is a dream within a dream within a dream). In other words, as human dream is different from human-as-a-dream, so human-as-a-dream is distinct from the dream that dreams human form (i.e. human-as-a-dream). This can be clearly observed in those collective shifts of awareness, and also in hypnagogic state.

Now, as you argued previously, that is still only perception, so perception still can equal world. However, considering those individual discrepancies in perception of what is the same phenomenon (and if we discard solipsism) either there is an overarching dream that dreams human form according to a given set of rules (which is the same as an “outer” world, no matter its description and the fact that it's still essentially you as your true nature), or that set of rules is applied via different means by some form of synchronization across all individual existing perceptual spaces. Suffice to say, both options are functionally identical in their outcome – the world of phenomena is one, similarly to that which “spawns” it (which is rather without other). As above, so below.

Considering that human-as-a-dream cannot awake to any overarching (dream) world, the synchronization option seems as a pretty plausible candidate. I like to use a metaphor based on computer technology and call it “perfect multithreading” – as if all sentient beings were separate, but synchronized, simultaneous threads running their perceptual bubbles on a single core processor. Then again, I think that these metaphysical talks are basically inconsequential. Not only is the “arising of Maya” (or the world of phenomena) inscrutable – the image always recedes like when one tries to reach the horizon – it's also counterproductive before self-realization (and totally unimportant after the fact).