Realization
Re: Realization
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.
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.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Realization
Direct perception of dharmata, not inferential.
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm
Re: Realization
I tend to think of understanding as something intellectual that typically is not that difficult. Many understandings can come from short teachings or even just reading books and articles. Realization, however, would be to actually directly experience that something that you understand. Something that was letters and speech becomes present in an immediate way.
Understanding involves the intellect whereas realization involves experience.
As an example, looking at pictures of the mountains and reading about them (understanding) is a very different thing from physically visiting them and seeing them firsthand up close (realization).
In my own small understanding, this is how I have perceived the difference between the two.
Understanding involves the intellect whereas realization involves experience.
As an example, looking at pictures of the mountains and reading about them (understanding) is a very different thing from physically visiting them and seeing them firsthand up close (realization).
In my own small understanding, this is how I have perceived the difference between the two.
Re: Realization
Former is related with the wisdom of hearing (srutamaya).
Later is related with the wisdom of meditation (bhavanamaya).
I have just related them with the three prajnas—hearing, contemplating and meditation.
Re: Realization
Let's say I have a direct perception of impermanence by watching/experiencing a thought arise and decay.
It would not be correct to say "I have realized impermanence" right? That would take many such direct perceptions + something else, mysterious, a kind of transformation of my body-brain-mind's apprehension of the fleeting nature of phenomena.
It's this spin on realization that I'm asking about here: X has (fully) realized this or that teaching, there is no 'coming back' from what has been realized.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Realization
Makes sense ... though the act of intellectual understanding is also an experience, right?LoveFromColorado wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:52 pmUnderstanding involves the intellect whereas realization involves experience.
I don't know these terms, but will look them up.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Realization
You see a white cup. You realize it’s white. The day turns to night. You realize the day is impermanent. You were young and got old. You realize life is impermanent. You look within during yoga practice, you see light. You see it is not material or madeRick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:34 pmLet's say I have a direct perception of impermanence by watching/experiencing a thought arise and decay.
It would not be correct to say "I have realized impermanence" right? That would take many such direct perceptions + something else, mysterious, a kind of transformation of my body-brain-mind's apprehension of the fleeting nature of phenomena.
It's this spin on realization that I'm asking about here: X has (fully) realized this or that teaching, there is no 'coming back' from what has been realized.
Of parts. Not arising from some location based on various conditions. You realize the dharmata. Does that mean you are always in such direct realization? Only if you really remain that way. You also look up and are not looking at the cup. Sometimes you forget what time it is or your lost in thought. But there is no spin. It’s a basic definition of direct perception. Of course you cannot directly perceive atoms and that’s ok. You can directly perceive dharmata with yogic methods.
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm
Re: Realization
Understanding is an experience but I would say it is substantially of a different type than what I mean colloquially by "experience" as one intellectually "experiences" study and learning about something vs. directly "experiencing" something when you directly encounter it. To be intellectual about it, they are two different types of engagement with a subject.Rick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:44 pmMakes sense ... though the act of intellectual understanding is also an experience, right?LoveFromColorado wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:52 pmUnderstanding involves the intellect whereas realization involves experience.
Of course, I suppose a prodigy would be able to do both at the same time (learn about something and realize it immediately) in some cases. I'm sure for fairly simple things we do this all the time (for example, I understand that the sun is crazy hot but don't need to go take a cosmic stroll through its corona to realize it).
Re: Realization
To me, the experience of a thought *is* a direct experience.LoveFromColorado wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:38 pm... what I mean colloquially by "experience" as one intellectually "experiences" study and learning about something vs. directly "experiencing" something when you directly encounter it.
Let's say you experience a tree by walking up to it and touching it. What does that mean? That you directly experience sensory objects (colors/shapes, felt textures, smells, etc.) and name this experience: tree.
Now let's say you experience the thought of a tree while sitting in your room and thinking of this tree you walked up to. What does that mean? That you directly experience mental objects (internal thoughts and imagined sensory inputs) and name it: tree.
These are both direct experiences of something that you name tree, no?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Realization
Afaiu this would mean that one could realize emptiness (authentically, not faux) during a retreat ... and then lose all trace of this realization afterwards, i.e. "be none the wiser for it."Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:51 pmYou realize the dharmata. Does that mean you are always in such direct realization? Only if you really remain that way.
Is that what you are saying? If so, this is a very different vibe of 'realization' than I have run into: an abiding shift in one's sense of reality.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm
Re: Realization
Indeed, but the direct of experience of engaging with a tree would be different than reading and thinking about a tree before ever encountering one (or perhaps arguably even afterwards). The immediate tactile sensation and the anticipation of or memory about what touching the tree is like would be substantially different, at least to me.
I can also think of some memorable concerts, for example. I can recall them quite well but the experience of being in the sound waves vs. thinking of what it was like are two different forms of experience for sure (again, to me).
When we talk about realizing things such as emptiness, of course, that can stay with you when you bring it to mind as it is ever-present. Still, reading about emptiness would be different than experiencing emptiness in an immediate sense (again, to me and my small understanding).
Re: Realization
Gotcha. The appearance is clearly different. But the reality ... ?LoveFromColorado wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:39 pmIndeed, but the direct of experience of engaging with a tree would be different than reading and thinking about a tree before ever encountering one (or perhaps arguably even afterwards). The immediate tactile sensation and the anticipation of or memory about what touching the tree is like would be substantially different, at least to me.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Realization
Well, yes you can be in such perception in retreat and then rejoin society and get caught up in deluded perceptions. A vidyadhara is someone who has habituated to the perception of dharmata so that it is unbroken waking or sleeping.Rick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:46 pmAfaiu this would mean that one could realize emptiness (authentically, not faux) during a retreat ... and then lose all trace of this realization afterwards, i.e. "be none the wiser for it."Crazywisdom wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:51 pmYou realize the dharmata. Does that mean you are always in such direct realization? Only if you really remain that way.
Is that what you are saying? If so, this is a very different vibe of 'realization' than I have run into: an abiding shift in one's sense of reality.
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
Re: Realization
You are probably asking the wrong question. You would have seen both words used as translations of other terms. The usage of these two words will not be consistent across translators - they would have considered the meaning of the original term (which itself may have been in translation - Chinese or Tibetan from Sanskrit, for instance), and then picked a term in English that they feel is close to it, based again on their understanding of that term in English, which will differ across speakers.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.
So you're trying to infer semantics on different translators' translations of different translators' translations. Not likely to be helpful. You would probably gain more by looking at what these terms translate and understanding the meaning of those words. One of the marks of a good translator is that they are very transparent about how they render technical terms. That way you know what they're doing, whether or not you agree with their choices.
Re: Realization
Yeah, good point about the translation ... it does seem like it could be a semantic thingie.
I'm'a ask my teacher what he means by realization so I don't get myself tangled up in conceptual knots.
Thanks, everyone!
I'm'a ask my teacher what he means by realization so I don't get myself tangled up in conceptual knots.
Thanks, everyone!
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm
Re: Realization
I am reading The Magic of Awareness by Anam Thubten. As is typical, his simple and straightforward style tends to be very clear and profound (at least to me).
Something I read this morning struck me in light of this conversation on realization:
Something I read this morning struck me in light of this conversation on realization:
Maybe that is why Buddha explained the truth with language of negation. That is also why he said the truth is too subtle to teach. Up to now the human mind has the propensity to often miss what is subtle and profound. It tends to be attracted to what is coarse. When it contemplates higher realities, it tries to figure them our through beliefs and images. So this notion of luminous mind is very subtle. It can never be realized by theorizing about it or believing in it.
Re: Realization
You cannot experience impermanence directly, you can only infer it. When you think that you are perceiving impermanence, what you are perceiving is your own delusion.Rick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:34 pm Let's say I have a direct perception of impermanence by watching/experiencing a thought arise and decay.
It would not be correct to say "I have realized impermanence" right? That would take many such direct perceptions + something else, mysterious, a kind of transformation of my body-brain-mind's apprehension of the fleeting nature of phenomena.
It's this spin on realization that I'm asking about here: X has (fully) realized this or that teaching, there is no 'coming back' from what has been realized.
Re: Realization
Subtle mind-coarse mind.LoveFromColorado wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:55 pm I am reading The Magic of Awareness by Anam Thubten. As is typical, his simple and straightforward style tends to be very clear and profound (at least to me).
Something I read this morning struck me in light of this conversation on realization:
Maybe that is why Buddha explained the truth with language of negation. That is also why he said the truth is too subtle to teach. Up to now the human mind has the propensity to often miss what is subtle and profound. It tends to be attracted to what is coarse. When it contemplates higher realities, it tries to figure them our through beliefs and images. So this notion of luminous mind is very subtle. It can never be realized by theorizing about it or believing in it.
Is that the realization that dozgchen is concerned with ?