The Distinction Between Conceptual Understanding and Direct Realization

The difference between intellectual understanding and direct realization is vast. Realization means genuinely attaining it, being able to personally and presently observe the true suchness of one's own mind; what is observed is factual and experiential. Intellectual understanding merely grasps the principle conceptually, thinking that tathāgatagarbha is like that, without having personally realized it. Therefore, one cannot presently observe true suchness. If one cannot genuinely observe it as it is in the present, it is impossible to truly align with the true principle of suchness.

To better understand the difference between the two, an analogy can be used. Intellectual understanding is like studying theories about apples—one might master the theories thoroughly and in great detail, covering the apple's origin, varieties, transportation, storage, appearance, color, luster, and so on. Yet, since one has never actually tasted an apple, one does not know its true flavor—how sweet, refreshing, and palatable it is—and thus gains no real benefit for body and mind. Realization, on the other hand, is like having personally eaten an apple and truly knowing its sweet taste; the experience of the apple is genuine and undeniable, and the body and mind have truly benefited.

However, it is possible that the person who has eaten the apple cannot express its flavor well, nor does he know details like its origin. Meanwhile, the one with intellectual understanding might know all the theories about apples but has never tasted even a single bite. Thus, all his theories remain merely theories, bringing no real benefit to himself. It is like the dullest disciple of Śākyamuni Buddha, who attained the fourth stage of arhatship but could not explain the Dharma principles of liberation. Yet, he had genuinely attained liberation, truly ended birth and death, transcended the cycle of saṃsāra, and would never again experience even a trace of suffering in the future. In contrast, ordinary people today may possess strong theoretical knowledge—they can talk eloquently, produce voluminous writings, and express themselves like saints—yet not a shadow of liberation exists within their minds. They speak like saints but act as thorough ordinary people; their inner greed, hatred, and delusion remain unsubdued, their arrogance blazing fiercely, so much so that others dare not provoke them.

Intellectual understanding and direct realization belong to two different levels, and the gap 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 academic papers about it, yet have never tasted one. Thus, they do not know its actual, true flavor. Meanwhile, someone who has eaten an apple might not yet know much information about it but can personally enjoy the apple, truly tasting its sweetness and deliciousness. The difference between intellectual understanding and realization is likewise.

During the Buddha’s time, Cūḍapanthaka was a fourth-stage arhat but could not expound the Dharma principles of liberation. Yet, ordinary people today produce countless books and papers without even a shadow of the first fruit of arhatship. Nowadays, many people study Buddhist theories and can articulate elaborate sets of principles, but since they have not attained realization, they merely circle outside the gate. It is like scratching an itch through a boot, or like those who study apples—only those who have eaten an apple can accurately describe its taste. Liberation is a state of actual realization; it cannot be resolved through mere understanding. Only those with genuine realization can truly benefit, regardless of whether they can articulate it. Liberation does not lie in words but in the mind.

The difference between intellectual understanding and direct realization is enormous, though others may not perceive it. Those with intellectual understanding may express themselves exceptionally well, leading others to believe they possess profound wisdom, but this is not actually the case. Those who realize the mind and comprehend tathāgatagarbha speak based on direct observation, whereas intellectual understanding involves elements of imagination. Intellectual understanding might even 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 quite arduous, like picking unripe fruit. Bringing home unripe fruit to ripen still falls short of the flavor of naturally ripened fruit.