The Distinction Between Conceptual Understanding and Direct Realization

The difference between understanding and direct realization

The disparity between intellectual understanding and experiential realization is vast. Experiential realization means having genuinely attained it, being able to personally observe the true suchness of one's own mind right here and now; what is observed is fact, it is direct perception. Intellectual understanding merely grasps the principle intellectually, feeling that the tathāgatagarbha must be like that, without having personally realized it. Therefore, one cannot observe suchness directly in the present moment. If one cannot observe it as-it-is in the present, then one cannot truly turn toward and rely on the true principle of suchness.

To better understand the difference between the two, an analogy can be used. Intellectual understanding is like studying theoretical knowledge about an apple. One may study the theory quite well, even exhaustively—covering the apple’s origin, varieties, transportation, storage, appearance, color, luster, and so on. Yet, since one has never actually tasted it, one does not know the true flavor of the apple—how sweet, refreshing, and palatable it is—and thus the mind and body do not gain any genuine benefit. Experiential realization is like having personally eaten the apple, truly knowing its sweet taste. The experience of the apple is real and undeniable; the mind and body have already benefited.

However, it is possible that the person who has eaten the apple cannot express its flavor well, nor does he know information like its origin. Meanwhile, the one with intellectual understanding may know all the theories about the apple but has never tasted even a single bite. Thus, all his theories remain mere theories, yielding no real benefit to his own mind and body. It is like Śākyamuni Buddha’s dullest disciple, who, after attaining the fourth fruit of arhatship, could not explain the Dharma principles of the path to liberation. Yet he had genuinely attained liberation, truly ended birth and death, transcended the cycle of saṃsāra, and would never experience even a trace of suffering in the future. In contrast, ordinary people today may possess strong theoretical knowledge. They can talk eloquently, produce volumes of writings, and speak like sages, yet not a shadow of liberation exists within their minds. When speaking, they resemble sages; when acting, they are entirely ordinary beings. The greed, hatred, and delusion within their minds remain completely unsubdued; their arrogance burns fiercely, and others dare not provoke them.

Intellectual understanding and direct realization are two distinct levels, and the distance between them may be immense. It is like many people who clearly grasp the concept, essence, origin, and varieties of an apple and can even write essays about it, yet have never tasted one. Thus, they do not know the actual, true flavor. Meanwhile, someone who has eaten the apple may not yet know much about its background information but can personally enjoy it, truly savoring its sweetness and deliciousness. The difference between intellectual understanding and experiential realization is likewise.

During the Buddha’s time, Cūḍapanthaka was a fourth-fruit arhat yet could not expound the Dharma principles of the path to liberation. Today, ordinary people produce countless books and essays but lack even the shadow of the first fruit. Nowadays, many people study Buddhist theory and can articulate elaborate doctrines, yet since they have not realized it, they merely circle outside the gate. It is like scratching an itch from outside one’s boot, or like those who study the apple—only those who have tasted it can accurately describe its flavor. Liberation is an experiential state; it cannot be resolved through intellectual understanding alone. Only those with genuine realization can attain true benefit, regardless of whether they can articulate it. Liberation lies not in speech but within the mind.

The difference between intellectual understanding and direct realization is immense, though others may not perceive it. Those with mere understanding may express themselves skillfully, leading others to believe they possess profound wisdom—but this is not so. Those who experientially realize the enlightened mind and apprehend the tathāgatagarbha speak entirely based on direct perception, whereas intellectual understanding involves elements of imagination. Intellectual understanding may, in fact, be worse than not understanding at all for the time being; it is better to wait until conditions ripen before attaining realization. The path after intellectual understanding is difficult to traverse—it is exceedingly arduous. It is like plucking unripe fruit; taking home unripe fruit to ripen later still does not taste as good as naturally ripened fruit.