The Difference between Understanding through Comprehension and Understanding through Realization

The difference between intellectual understanding and direct realization—the gap between interpretive awakening and direct realization is very great. Direct realization means genuinely realizing it, being able to personally observe one's own true mind of suchness in the present moment; what is observed is all fact, and it is direct perception. Intellectual understanding merely comprehends the principle, feeling that the tathāgatagarbha is just like that, but without having personally realized it; therefore one cannot observe suchness in the present moment. If one cannot engage in genuine contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) as it truly is, 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 theoretical knowledge about apples. The theory can be studied quite well and perhaps quite exhaustively, including the apple's place of origin, varieties, transportation, storage, appearance, color and luster, and so on. But after all, one has never personally eaten one, so one does not know what an apple actually tastes like, how sweet and delicious it is, and thus one's body and mind have received no real benefit. Direct realization is having personally eaten the apple, genuinely knowing its sweet taste; the experience of the apple is real and true, and the 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, let alone know information such as the apple's place of origin. Meanwhile, the person with intellectual understanding may know all the theories about apples, yet has not tasted a single bite; all his theories are merely theories, and his body and mind have gained no real benefit. 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 liberation path, yet he had already attained genuine liberation, could truly end birth and death, transcend the cycle of saṃsāra, and in the future would not have the slightest experience of suffering. But the worldlings of today have flourishing theories: not only can they talk glibly and produce writings stacked as high as themselves, expressing themselves in language like a sage's, yet within their minds there is not a shadow of liberation. They speak like sages, but when they act they are utter worldlings; their greed, hatred, and delusion have not been subdued in the least, their pride blazes fiercely, and others simply dare not provoke them.

Intellectual understanding and direct realization are two levels, and the distance between them may be enormous. It is like many people who have clearly grasped the concept, connotations, place of origin, and varieties of apples, and can even write papers about apples, yet have never eaten one, and so do not know its concrete, real taste. Meanwhile, someone has already eaten the apple, though much information about apples is still unknown to him for the time being, yet he can personally enjoy the apple and genuinely taste its sweet deliciousness. The difference between interpretive awakening and direct realization is just like this.

During the Buddha's time, Cūḍapanthaka was an arhat of the fourth fruit, yet he could not expound the dharma principles of the liberation path; whereas today's worldlings have countless papers and books, yet do not even have a shadow of the first fruit. Nowadays there are very many people who study Buddhist theory and can expound one grand theory after another, but after all they have not realized it, merely circling outside the door, like scratching an itch through a boot—just like those who study apples: only the person who has eaten an apple can accurately describe its taste. Liberation is a realm of actual realization, not something that intellectual understanding can resolve. Only one who has actual realization can receive genuine benefit, whether or not he can articulate it. Liberation is not on the lips but within the mind.

The difference between intellectual understanding and what is realized through direct realization is extremely great, yet others cannot perceive it. The one who merely understands can express himself very well, and others will think his wisdom is profound—but in fact it is not. One who has realized the true mind through enlightenment speaks of the tathāgatagarbha based on direct realization, whereas intellectual understanding contains an element of imagination. With interpretive awakening, things may be even worse—it would be better not to awaken at all for the time being, and instead wait until conditions ripen to attain direct realization. The path after interpretive awakening is hard to walk, extremely difficult; it is like picking unripe fruit—having picked unripe fruit and taken it home to ripen artificially, it still does not taste as good as fruit that ripened naturally.