Rick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:37 pm
Sure.
Buddhism (all schools, afaik) and most other Eastern teaching methodologies differentiate very strongly between understanding and realizing.
'Understanding' is ... understandable: an intellectual/rational comprehension. But 'realizing' is quite mysterious.
For example, consider the profound difference between:
I understand the unity of the two truths.
I realize the unity of the two truths.
Just noticed this now, Rick. It's a distinction I'm interested in and have done some writing on. I think the real differentiation ought be made by distinguishing 'realisation' and 'experience'.
I say that 'experience' is a transitive verb i.e. a verb that requires an object: 'I experience it'. So whenever and whatever we experience, there is a knowing subject that is experiencing some phenomenon or sensation. So to that extent, experience implies a duality of subject and object.
However a realisation might not comprise an experience. When you realise something, it might or might not involve or trigger or require an experience. But a realisation of some profound truth might not be an experience, but an insight or an intuitive grasp of an idea. It operates along a different kind of plane to that of experience.
I think that non-dualism 'gets' this. A typical non-dualist saying is that in non-dual awareness, 'knower and the thing known are one'. This is made explicit in the higher stages of jhana and implies a kind of perspective on the nature of knowledge which transcends the division of subject and object. One aspect of that, is the loss of the sense of being a separate self or subject standing apart from existence. That is the domain of 'realisation' as distinct from 'experience'. So my aphoristic way of parsing that is that 'reality is realised, existence is experienced'. So - 'realising emptiness' is a cognitive shift; it's not an experience, although it might give rise to experiences (especially when a vivid realisation occurs, like tearing up.)
The best and most succinct statement of this distinction I have found is by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, who says:
In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate.
The distinction between spiritual experiences and realizations is continually emphasized in Buddhist thought. If we avoid excessively fixating on our experiences, we will be under less stress in our practice. Without that stress, we will be better able to cope with whatever arises, the possibility of suffering from psychic disturbances will be greatly reduced, and we will notice a significant shift in the fundamental texture of our experience.
Letting go of spiritual experience