Conventional reality

Zen talk February 2026

Recently, someone raised an interesting question: Is impermanence absolute reality or relative reality? This question is interesting not because of the answer, but because of its implicit assumption. In Western Buddhism, there is a widespread belief that absolute reality is the only real reality, and that relative reality is an illusion. Does this mean that such an essential Buddhist concept as impermanence is an illusion?

In my view, the terms “absolute reality” and “relative reality” are a very unfortunate recent Western translation of various Sanskrit and Chinese words that refer to the middle way, a term which already appears in the Pali Canon. This translation begs for misunderstanding. If there is an absolute reality, why should we even be interested in relative reality? In that case it would no longer be a middle way.

Inspired by Nagarjuna, I feel more comfortable with the translation “conventional” reality, rather than “relative.” It is the organized reality in which we live, and which we organize together. That is convention. Language plays an important role in this. Language is convention par excellence. If we do not agree on the meaning of our words, language becomes meaningless.

It is impossible to find a good word for the opposite of conventional reality. As soon as we use a word, we are by definition in the realm of convention. Language is conventional. I do like Thich Nhat Hanh’s translation, who talks about “ultimate” reality. And I recently discovered in his poetry collection that ultimate here translates the Chinese “本,” which literally means “original.”

Buddhist texts sometimes try to escape the conventionality of language by using unconventional language, such as the paradoxes of the koans or the hyperboles of the Avatamsaka Sutra. It is worth a try.

It is a middle way. Ultimate reality is not superior to conventional reality. An interesting text on this subject is the Cantongqi by Shitou Xiqian (China, 8th century). The title is often translated as “The harmony of relative and absolute.” Shitou writes: “Seeing the absolute is not yet enlightenment.” Further on, he writes: “It is like the front and back foot in walking.” These are important points. I have seen too many Zen practitioners limping along on one leg, desperately searching for an elusive absolute reality.

What does Buddhism have to say about conventional reality? To begin with, there is the “tilakkhaṇa,” the three characteristics: anicca, dukkha, anatta. You can translate this as: not permanent, not satisfying, and without a firm foundation. When the word illusion is used here, it is not as a characteristic of conventional reality. It is the tendency we have to create illusions, to think that there is something that is not impermanent, that there is something that will make us permanently happy, that there is a firm foundation.

These three characteristics say something about what conventional reality is not. But what is it then? It is conventional, and there are different conventions in the world. It differs from culture to culture, from worldview to worldview. Buddhism has always expressed itself in the language, worldview, and conventions of the culture in which it found itself.

A modern term for the conventional is “social construct,” as in the statement: “Gender is a social construct without a biological basis.” That is correct. And the sentence itself is just as much a social construct. This can lead to extreme relativism. A wall is a social construct. Suppose someone were to say, “The wall is nothing more than a social construct, so I’m not going to go out through the door, but through the wall.” Good luck, but don’t complain about your bruise. Not every social construct is equally useful. Jung said, “Wirklich ist was wirkt.” “Reality is what works.” Not every social construct works.

When we look at the multitude of social constructs in Buddhism in different cultures, does Buddhism have something to say that works?

What stands out for me is causality. And more specifically, the causal effects of my behavior. What I do, or don’t do, can cause suffering or well-being. I don’t know of any Buddhist tradition that would contradict that. The word karma means behavior, and in this context it points to behavior and its consequences. No one says that our behavior is the only cause. But our actions influence the chain of cause and effect that leads to suffering or well-being. This makes me responsible.

It is not just about my own suffering and well-being. I do not meditate in the hope of putting a definitive end to my own suffering. That would be another illusion. But my meditation practice helps me deal better with myself and with others. At least, that is the intention.

The time scale in which this takes place depends on our worldview. There are different answers to the question of how long a human being lives. From the perspective of ultimate reality, I live only for a moment, now. The rest is story, and that story is conventional reality. It doesn’t really matter whether I let that story begin at my birth and end at my death, or before and after.

As for me, in the conventional reality of which I am a part, there is no rebirth. I realize that it is fundamentally impossible to say anything meaningful about this, but to me it seems logical that I will be the first to forget that I ever lived. I have no problem whatsoever with others having different opinions about this. But what I do find important is the causality of my behavior from moment to moment and my responsibility for it.

What I also find in Buddhist traditions is the realization that I will cause suffering if I strive too desperately for immediate gratification. It is called the three poisons: desire, aversion, and confusion. The confusion here is the illusion that immediate gratification will make me happy. That illusion has been contradicted countless times in our lives, and yet it continues to lurk.

Finally, I find that all traditions share the realization that we can help each other in this. This is called sangha. After all, conventional reality is a shared reality. By definition, we do not do this alone. This can be a great source of support.