Let me clarify what I mean when I refer to the "map".Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:13 pm...the map is the only experience here, albeit an illusory dream object, it's still an experience...no thing is experiencing.
To say there is no direct experience of an object as an illusory thought, is to negate the direct experiencer which is awareness. They go together, arise mutually in the same instant. And that they arise mutually in the same instant ..this can also be seen that there is not-a-thing being experienced directly, nor is there a direct experience of an experiencer being experienced experiencing not-a-thing...you see?
To me, the map is the objective world that is (seemingly) created by conceptual thought. Of course thoughts/concepts are known (not by a separate knower etc etc.. we have established the details already...) - they are as much "part of" direct experience as seeing or hearing, but the ideas they contain, the things and objects they refer to are NOT. The world of separation, the world of borders, of independently existing, separate objects is thought into "existence" - as such it isn't real. And what isn't real can never be directly experienced. It can be thought of, the thought is experienced, but what the thought talks about, can not be experienced.
Eg: You can think about an apple, but you can never experience the object "apple". Yes, you can experience the thought/concept "apple" but not the thing/object.
This becomes obvious when investigating experience and realising that one never actually experiences separation, never experiences borders, distance, time, processes or things.
You always experience the undivided whole - while thought, on the other hand, constantly talks about the parts of the whole. Now people tend to believe that they also experience these separate parts, that they experience distance or time, but this is ultimately not true - you always only experience the absolute.
Now, saying that "the map is the only experience here, albeit an illusory dream object" is, in my opinion, not correct. As I never experience "illusory dream objects" - I always experience reality/the absolute. A dream object can not be experienced, it can be thought of, believed in, and thus taken for real, but never directly experienced.
"To say there is no direct experience of an object" is NOT to "negate the direct experiencer which is awareness" - it negates the idea that separate objects, which are what conceptual thought points to, can actually be experienced. It also negates the experiencer, but it doesn't negate awareness, which, to me, is the same as reality/the absolute. As such, awareness does not experience but rather IS experience/reality itself.