The Difference Between Understanding and Direct Realization

There is a great difference between intellectual understanding and direct realization. Direct realization means genuinely realizing it, being able to personally observe one's own true mind of suchness in present awareness; what is observed is fact, a valid direct cognition. Intellectual understanding merely comprehends the principle, feeling that the tathāgatagarbha is just like that, but it has not been personally realized; therefore one cannot observe suchness in present awareness. If one cannot engage in genuine contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) as it truly is, then there is no way to truly accomplish the transformation of the basis upon the principle of suchness.

To better understand where the difference between the two lies, let us use an analogy. Intellectual understanding is like studying theories and knowledge about apples. One may study the theory quite well, and quite exhaustively too, covering the apple's place of origin, variety, transportation, storage, appearance, color and luster, and so on. Yet since one has never actually eaten an apple, one does not know what an apple really tastes like, does not know how sweet, moist, and pleasing it is, and thus one's body and mind have received no real benefit. Direct realization is like having personally eaten the apple, truly knowing its sweet taste; one's experience of the apple is real and not false, and one's body and mind have already received its benefit.

However, it is possible that the person who has eaten the apple cannot yet express its taste very well, and knows nothing of its place of origin and other such information. The person with mere intellectual understanding may know all the theories about apples, yet has not tasted a single bite; all his theories are merely theories, bringing no real benefit to his own body and mind. It is like the dullest disciple of the World-Honored One Śākyamuni who, after realizing the fourth fruit of arhatship, could not expound the dharma principles of the path of liberation—yet he had already attained genuine liberation, could truly end birth and death, transcend the cycle of saṃsāra, and in the future would not experience the slightest suffering. But worldly beings today have flourishing theories: they can not only talk eloquently and produce volumes of writings, expressing themselves in speech like sages, yet within their minds there is not a trace of liberation. They speak like sages, but when they act they are utter worldlings (pṛthagjana). Not a single trace of greed, hatred, and delusion in their minds has been subdued; their pride blazes fiercely, and others simply dare not provoke them.