SuttaCentral
Thanks!
I find the discussion a bit hard to follow since there seems to be varying ideas of what ‘momentary’ might mean.
A comparison of the nidanas to the causality of kamma-vipaka would be a different interpretation than the one offered by Ven Nanavira, correct? He seems to reject any temporal framework. (Perhaps this aligns with definition #2 and rejects #1)
The Buddha’s insight, and what is supposed to be the knowledge of all arahants, repeated dozens of times in the suttas, is that they have ended rebirth and continued existence. This is not something Ven. Ñāṇavīra would have disagreed with as far as I understand him; maybe someone will say otherwise. So how does the Buddha know that, then? That is referring to something in the future, the effect of a change that is due to removing the conditions for a particular dependent condition to not come about or arise. We can word this in a structural way, as several suttas do: “Rebirth is dependent on continued existence. Continued existence is dependent on grasping. With the cessation of grasping, there is no condition for continued existence, and therefore rebirth would come to an end.” Structurally this is true; but it also refers to the fact that future rebirth will not arise. There is the prior vipāka of the grasping from a previous life, which is why the current rebirth or life of an arahant must be exhausted until the end of their life-span. This is referred to as ‘remannt’ or ‘remainder’ (sesa; sa-upādisesa). What does that remnant of existence contain? Consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form (nāma-rūpa), the six senses (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). See SN 12.19 for a clear discussion of this. So the resultant links which are equivalent to jāti remain, it is just that the conditions for future jāti have been removed, and the arahant understands that conditional structure, which leads to their knowledge that no more rebirth will arise once the current vipāka is exhausted.
If he did reject this framework, it would be the equivalent of saying the Buddha did not, in fact, know what he claimed to know and what he claimed was the knowledge of any arahant. Keep in mind that change and time are inseparable in terms of our perception, and the doctrine of kamma is a core idea that is really talking about the role of ethical intentions in shaping how change occurs, rather than change being completely random and chaotic. So even if we talk about, say, the potential of dying being present to us, that still must refer to a real event of change that can occur, otherwise it loses all meaning. I’m not sure if this has answered your question, but it may shed some light on the whole issue.
Knowing deed as deed, and result as result;
Kammaṁ kammanti ñatvāna, vipākañca vipākato;
seeing dependently originated phenomena as if they were in a clear light.
Paṭiccuppannadhammānaṁ yathāvālokadassano; …
Thag 6.8
Supporting this, a legitimate aspect of knowing in the suttas can be by inference, as in SN12.33:
"A noble disciple understands choices, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation. This is their knowledge of the present phenomenon.
Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako evaṁ saṅkhāre pajānāti, evaṁ saṅkhārasamudayaṁ pajānāti, evaṁ saṅkhāranirodhaṁ pajānāti, evaṁ saṅkhāranirodhagāminiṁ paṭipadaṁ pajānāti, idamassa dhamme ñāṇaṁ.
With this present phenomenon that is seen, known, immediate, attained, and fathomed, they infer to the past and future.
So iminā dhammena diṭṭhena viditena akālikena pattena pariyogāḷhena atītānāgatena yaṁ neti."
Perhaps more clearly, grammatically speaking, in MN12:
" But there’s no way Sunakkhatta will infer about me from the teaching:. Ayampi hi nāma, sāriputta, sunakkhattassa moghapurisassa mayi dhammanvayo na bhavissati:‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’"
“Bhikkhus, an instructed noble disciple does not think: ‘When what exists does what come to be? With the arising of what does what arise? [When what exists do determinations come to be? When what exists does consciousness come to be?]132 When what exists does name-and-form come to be?… When what exists does aging-and-death come to be?’
“Rather, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple has knowledge about this that is independent of others: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises.
SN 12: 49
But of course regarding future appearing of the new body in the field of consciousness we may say that Venerable Sariputta has no any such direct knowledge, so you are justified to say that he "inferred it:
But, Sāriputta, if they were to ask you: ‘Friend Sāriputta, through what kind of deliverance have you declared final knowledge thus: “I understand: Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being”?’—being asked thus, how would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, venerable sir, I would answer thus: [54] ‘Friends, through an internal deliverance, through the destruction of all clinging, I dwell mindfully in such a way that the taints do not flow within me and I do not despise myself.’ Being asked thus, venerable sir, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, Sāriputta! This is another method of explaining in brief that same point: ‘I have no perplexity in regard to the taints spoken of by the Ascetic; I do not doubt that they have been abandoned by me.’”
SN 12: 32
In other words Venerable Sariputta has a direct knowledge:
‘This field of perception is void of the taint of sensual desire; this field of perception is void of the taint of being; this field of perception is void of the taint of ignorance. There is present only this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ Thus he regards it as void of what is not there, but as to what remains there he understands that which is present thus: ‘This is present.’ MN 121
Whether “this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life” will be replaced or will not be replaced by another body without supernormal powers, you are right, arahat only inffers.
And I inffer, that it doesn’t matter, since it is enough to know:
I have no perplexity in regard to the taints spoken of by the Ascetic; I do not doubt that they have been abandoned by me.’”
Definitely ven Nanavira is right when he says:
ariyasàvaka has direct, certain, reflexive knowledge of the condition upon which birth depends. He has no such knowledge about re-birth, which is quite a different matter.
Q: Yet, you must believe in having lived before.
M: The scriptures say so, but I know nothing about it. I know myself as I am; as I appeared or will appear is not within my experience. It is not that I do not remember. In fact there is nothing to remember. Reincarnation implies a reincarnating self. There is no such thing. The bundle of memories and hopes, called the ‘I’, imagines itself existing everlastingly and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are accusing me of having been born — I plead not guilty!
M - Nisargadatta Maharaj
Of course there’s direct knowledge. But that can’t be experienced directly with respect to future events.
Inference in this case depends on the context in which it is used.
Clearly, in the Discourse to the Kalamas, AN3.64, practitioners are taught not to rely on it. A different context than the suttas I cited.
Thank you, Venerable, for taking the time to give an extensive answer. I think we may be talking past each other regarding this, probably due to my own lack of clarity on the subject.
But I’ll continue to think about it and hopefully circle back soon.
According to the Sammohavinodani its referring to a single conscious moment.
Yes, this is an important point. As for the momentary process of the Abhidhamma - assuming this is the correct understanding - I am not convinced it is actually about DO. I have replied further over here.
This inference is about others, though:
Whatever [other] ascetics and brahmins in the future will directly know old age and death, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation, all of them will directly know these things in exactly the same way that I do now. This is their inferential knowledge.
Same in MN12, where people infer qualities of the BUddha.
I myself am hesitant to call the knowledge of the ending of rebirth “inferential”. It has too much of an intellectual slant. Either way, I don’t disagree that some knowledge is more direct than other. The knowledge of the ending or rebirth I say will be really direct, though.
I agree. It’s not about DO in the sense the Buddha meant it, and not in the sense that one has insight into it.
@Vaddha, sorry for getting off topic. To answer the questions: (1) I don’t know. (2) I don’t know either. 
Hello Bhante,
Thanks for your post and good point regarding the quote I cited.
Nevertheless, although about others, it is still via inference that we assert what they will directly know.
Another form of inference, it seems, can be made regarding Satipaṭṭhāna practice, when there is contemplation of the “external”. Although this is directly experienced by the meditator, it’s by inference that they contemplate the forms of others.
Finally, the assertion that
is itself an inference.
Regarding the cessation of rebirth, although there may be some inference in the earlier stages of practice, the direct experience of cessation, especially of consciousness, leads to the knowledge of the ending of rebirth, as you said.
I just have some problems calling something you know more certainly than about everything else you have ever known an “inference”.
The knowledge that we will die I would call an inference. You see others die, and you can infer that the same will happen to you. But the insight about the ending of rebirth is more direct. (Stream winners already have a preliminary version of this, knowing that existence will end at some point, rather than at the end of this life, which is the arahant’s insight.)
Thanks, Bhante.
Agree and sorry if my prior posts appeared to indicate otherwise.
My point was that inference, as cited in several suttas, can play a role in Dhamma practice --even as Insight/knowing is of course beyond inference and analysis.
I wanted to comment in this thread sooner, but have been tied up for the last few weeks. Hopefully my comments here will be of some use in the discussion.
The use of “moments” begins to wear when we consider the consistency of the themes that underlie these moments, which is to say there is that which persists from one moment to the next, thereby uniting these moments as a whole on a certain level. So, while it would be correct to say that there is change on a particular level (a fire that loses fuel over a period of time and goes out, for instance), such a change has no effect on the broader themes that underlie the experience as a whole - namely this mass of suffering. Any framework needs to be considered for its worth in the discernment of these themes, and while it could be said that things are rapidly changing, the fact remains that “wandering on” will not come to an end until the cause of enduring suffering is understood and worn away. From that point of view, there is a level of persistence in experience, and that is the part the Buddha seems to have emphasized.
With that said, there needs to be an effort to discern what is there no matter what is happening on that particular, moment to moment level. To that extent, time is not the most prominent, nor the most useful framework. Why? Because no matter what is happening: without discerning the four noble truths, wandering on - this mass of suffering - is there. It remains untouched by those smaller changes. Here and now, if the four noble truths are not understood: I remain subject to birth, I remain subject to death, I remain liable to this mass of suffering. This life, the next life or the previous, doesn’t make a difference - those 12 aspects of DO endure - they are the makeup of this mass of suffering.
Back to the OP…as to when such an interpretation came about…I think the consistency is right there in the suttas, and the only thing drawing the mind into what is dictated by time is simply a matter of perspective. Where in the suttas does the Buddha emphasize to give attention to the factual level of moment to moment change? Sure, it is a factual level, but what persists regardless is also regarded as true in thousands of suttas. So, it really comes down to what drums up the most accurate understanding of this mass of suffering, here and now in our respective experiences.
What strikes the seeker is one’s liability to suffering, and the fact that an escape is not at all apparent. This is beautifully illustrated in AN 3.39, where the intoxication with health, youth and life are undercut by exposure and understanding of sick, aging and death. So, while there may be some limited value in recognizing a lack of substance moment to moment, that is a lesser truth than the one that surrounds this experience: death and more wandering on. There needs to be a move away from the sort of attention that excludes what endures broadly, and frequent attention on change across moments obscures the possibility of discerning persistence where it matters.