<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Plato's Cave</a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/BxveP.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/BxveP.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>There are 3 groups of peoples are there.</p>

<p>1). Prisoners  (  world of faculty's)-Believe perception.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived
  chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.
  The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in
  front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these
  shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing
  reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>2). Philosophers (world of sankara) - Believe Reality.   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed
  from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do
  not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of
  reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>3). Those who escape from the cave.(Buddhists who liberated from the samsara)<br>
<em>Nirvana - Beyond the world</em> - who can see through the reality.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Socrates remarks that this allegory can be taken with what was said
  before, namely the <strong><em>analogy of the sun</em></strong> and the <strong><em>analogy of the divided
  line</em></strong>. In particular, he likens our perception of the world around us
  "to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight
  here, the ascent and the view of the upper world [to] the rising of
  the soul into the world of the mind" (517b).</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-03T19:24:55.293Z
The question is about Buddhist teachings (not Plato's cave).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-04T01:04:15.243Z
This question is about perception and reality. The two truths for two steps (analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided line.) that need to follow to realize truth.(Awake) @ChrisW Buddhist teaching shows the path for escape from the cave.
Shrawaka
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-03T18:20:54.953Z
2015-10-04T00:57:40.877Z
2015-10-04T00:57:40.877Z
Shrawaka
<p>It is a topic expounded in:</p>

<ol>
<li>philosophical texts</li>
<li>classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. <em>grub mtha'</em>)</li>
</ol>

<p>In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how <em>Sankha Kulathantille</em> understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth. </p>

<p>I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (<em>grub mtha'</em>) define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's <em>Presentation of Tenets</em> and Geshe Sopa's <em>Cutting Through Appearances</em>. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.</p>

<p><strong>Vaïbashika</strong> definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending  that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.</p>

<p><strong>Sautrantika</strong> definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.</p>

<p>(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)</p>

<p><strong>Cittamatrin</strong> definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.</p>

<p><strong>Madhyamika-Svatantrika</strong> definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.</p>

<p><strong>Madhyamika-Prasangika</strong> definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.</p>

<p>The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T15:33:48.083Z
2015-10-03T08:37:35.187Z
2015-10-03T08:37:35.187Z
Tenzin Dorje
<p>Reality is that which stays the same when you try to subdivide. They are called <a href="http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/paramattha-dhamma/index.html" rel="nofollow">Paramatta Dhammas</a>. Perception is that which changes when you subdivide the supposed object it points to.<br>
ex: Table is a perception. If you break it into pieces, it becomes a pile of wood. It's not a table anymore. Man is a perception. If you pile up the bones and flesh separately, it's not a man anymore. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T01:43:20.930Z
Is there "a table" before  break it into pieces.?
Shrawaka
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T01:47:04.347Z
There's a perception of a table. That is merely a Cetasika which rises and passes away. Not a table.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T06:17:46.673Z
The general usage term for this "The perception of a table" is  "Nama-rupa" . We had detail discussion on this topic [in this Question](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11816/5513). like to know is there any ambiguities.
Shrawaka
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T07:58:20.483Z
Nama-rupa is the whole experience containing the 5 skandhas. Perception is what gives the sign of the table.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T08:55:15.743Z
Is this in the same line of [aggregate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na#The_aggregates)
Shrawaka
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T09:14:09.033Z
[These five](http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/fiveAggregates.htm)
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T09:27:05.960Z
"Right view, right understanding, is actually knowing the characteristics of paramattha Dhammas as they really are." So  why can't just have a right view and understanding on just a part of reality? Let's say only my reality excluding all others. After viewing this reality correctly I could tell you how to do it...
draks ...
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T01:39:05.867Z
2015-10-02T01:39:05.867Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<p>How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception ? </p>

<p>Can anyone point me to on-line resources where in I can read more about this topic ?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-01T19:06:03.707Z
There's a helpful Wikipedia page that might be useful to you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
Ejoso
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T13:03:47.310Z
According to which school?
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-02T14:57:28.763Z
I would be happy to hear thoughts for different schools @TenzinDorje
amijjm
<philosophy><teaching>
How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception?
# How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-10-01)

How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception ?

Can anyone point me to on-line resources where in I can read more about this topic ?

**Tags:** philosophy, teaching

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There's a helpful Wikipedia page that might be useful to you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism  
> **username_2**: According to which school?  
> **username_0**: I would be happy to hear thoughts for different schools @TenzinDorje  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-10-02. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

It is a topic expounded in:

1. philosophical texts
2. classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. *grub mtha'*)

In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how *username_5* understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth.

I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (*grub mtha'*) define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's *Presentation of Tenets* and Geshe Sopa's *Cutting Through Appearances*. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.

**Vaïbashika** definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.

**Sautrantika** definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.

(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)

**Cittamatrin** definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.

**Madhyamika-Svatantrika** definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.

**Madhyamika-Prasangika** definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.

The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-10-02. Score: 3

Reality is that which stays the same when you try to subdivide. They are called [Paramatta Dhammas](http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/paramattha-dhamma/index.html). Perception is that which changes when you subdivide the supposed object it points to.  
ex: Table is a perception. If you break it into pieces, it becomes a pile of wood. It's not a table anymore. Man is a perception. If you pile up the bones and flesh separately, it's not a man anymore.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Is there "a table" before  break it into pieces.?  
> **username_5**: There's a perception of a table. That is merely a Cetasika which rises and passes away. Not a table.  
> **username_3**: The general usage term for this "The perception of a table" is  "Nama-rupa" . We had detail discussion on this topic [in this Question](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11816/5513). like to know is there any ambiguities.  
> **username_5**: Nama-rupa is the whole experience containing the 5 skandhas. Perception is what gives the sign of the table.  
> **username_3**: Is this in the same line of [aggregate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na#The_aggregates)  
> **username_5**: [These five](http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/fiveAggregates.htm)  
> **username_6**: "Right view, right understanding, is actually knowing the characteristics of paramattha Dhammas as they really are." So  why can't just have a right view and understanding on just a part of reality? Let's say only my reality excluding all others. After viewing this reality correctly I could tell you how to do it...  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-10-03. Score: -2

[Plato's Cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/BxveP.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/BxveP.png)

There are 3 groups of peoples are there.

1). Prisoners ( world of faculty's)-Believe perception.

> Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived
> chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.
> The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in
> front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these
> shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing
> reality.

2). Philosophers (world of sankara) - Believe Reality.

> He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed
> from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do
> not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of
> reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

3). Those who escape from the cave.(Buddhists who liberated from the samsara)  
*Nirvana - Beyond the world* - who can see through the reality.

> Socrates remarks that this allegory can be taken with what was said
> before, namely the ***analogy of the sun*** and the ***analogy of the divided
> line***. In particular, he likens our perception of the world around us
> "to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight
> here, the ascent and the view of the upper world [to] the rising of
> the soul into the world of the mind" (517b).

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: The question is about Buddhist teachings (not Plato's cave).  
> **username_3**: This question is about perception and reality. The two truths for two steps (analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided line.) that need to follow to realize truth.(Awake) @username_4 Buddhist teaching shows the path for escape from the cave.  

---

