Is the knowledge obtained at stream-entry inferential or direct knowledge?

Discussion
41

In MN147, we see that some time had passed…

MN147:2.2: “Today the Buddha will lead Rāhula further to the ending of defilements!”

…before Rahula could understand this:

MN147:2.7: Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”
MN147:2.8: “Impermanent, sir.”
MN147:2.9: “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
MN147:2.10: “Suffering, sir.”

The direct knowledge that Rahula required was the witnessing of impermanence as well as the witnessing of the associated suffering. Given that Rahula had found no counter-examples during his own examination, the inference was that it is universally true. Without that direct experiential knowledge we cannot make that inference required for stream entry.

Notice here that I use “infer” in the “hypothesis” sense. From a statistical point of view, this inference is actually logically invalid. It is exactly like experiencing many poker hands and never seeing a royal flush dealt to us in our lifetime. A royal flush is not impossible, but it is empirically useless. One can never count on being dealt a royal flush. Likewise, if there was some permanence in the eye, it would be of no use to us. Before stream-entry, we believe that some attainable trick or skill will allow us to delight without suffering. After stream-entry, with the direct experiential knowledge of impermanence and suffering witnessed during immersion, we throw up our hands and say, “OK, That’s it! I give up! Here there is always suffering attached to impermanence! The Buddha was right!”

3 Likes
42

I can’t say why Ven Bodhi chose “entailment”. However, I don’t believe that it is meant to convey a different understanding of the term. It is a rare case where both the usage and the etymology are nice and unambiguous: anu means “along”, aya means “go”, anvaya means “following along after”.

This idea is based on the suttas:

https://suttacentral.net/sn25.1/en/sujato

There are a number of similar passages, and the idea is developed at some length especially in the Patisambhidhamagga.

Of course there is an aspect of the experience that is (more or less) direct, as there is with all experience. The question is, is this a separate kind of knowing that supervenes and displaces other forms of knowing as it is a direct vision of an otherwise hidden “absolute”? It is this form of metaphysical interpretation that I am pushing back against.

While the Theravada tradition went to great lengths to try to define the nature of the awareness at the time of awakening, the Suttas focus more on what kinds of understanding lead to awakening.

Indeed.

The orthodox Theravada is that either conventional or absolute knowledge can lead to awakening. As far as the inference at the time of seeing all things as impermanent, I believe they would say that the fundamental insight happens in a single mind-moment, and hence cannot be inferential.

Indeed, it is a pragmatic truth, not a means of arriving at “absolute” truth.

2 Likes
43

I don’t think so. And I am puzzled by Bhante Sujato’s agreement:

The way we understand impermanence is by seeing the cessation of things. If something can disappear from our perception and there is no way of accessing it, then by definition it cannot be permanent. The scope of this is limited to experience—the range of the perceivable—because anything outside of experience is irrelevant as far as suffering is concerned. (There is a nice little passage in AN 3.61, where the Buddha says he teaches for “those who feel”, ie, sentient beings with experience.)

Now, as you would know, there is an attainment called the cessation of perception and feeling. This is when everything ceases. Because everything ceases, you know that everything within your experience is impermanent, including consciousness. Because consciousness is impermanent, all the content of experience must also be impermanent. This is a direct experience. I don’t think “logically invalid”, in any sense of the expression, applies to this insight.

The streamenterer’s experience is slightly different, but again, I don’t think any aspect of it can be considered logically invalid. Instead of seeing the absolute cessation of everything, the streamenterer sees that the five khandhas, the five aspects of personality, exist in dependence on craving. If craving ceases, the five khandhas must cease. Because the five khandhas are what make up our experience, all experience must cease.

I suspect Bhante Sujato agrees with this, in which case it would be good to get some clarity about what he means by “absolute truth”.

6 Likes
44

Wouldn’t any inferential knowledge be an object of consciousness? Can consciousness itself be witnessed as Anatta without recourse to some fundamental empty field?

So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’

Tasmātiha, ānanda, ‘parisuddhaṃ paramānuttaraṃ suññataṃ upasampajja viharissāmā’ti
MN121

If they feel a pleasant feeling, they understand that it’s impermanent, that they’re not attached to it, and that they don’t take pleasure in it. If they feel a painful feeling, they understand that it’s impermanent, that they’re not attached to it, and that they don’t take pleasure in it. If they feel a neutral feeling, they understand that it’s impermanent, that they’re not attached to it, and that they don’t take pleasure in it. If they feel a pleasant feeling, they feel it detached. If they feel a painful feeling, they feel it detached. If they feel a neutral feeling, they feel it detached.

Feeling the end of the body approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end of life approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of life approaching.’ They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’

Suppose a person were to remove a hot clay pot from a potter’s kiln and place it down on level ground. Its heat would dissipate right there, and the shards would be left behind.

In the same way, feeling the end of the body approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end of life approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of life approaching.’ They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’
SN12.51

you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.

Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṃ uppajjati, dukkhaṃ nirujjhamānaṃ nirujjhatī’ti na kaṅkhati na vicikicchati aparapaccayā ñāṇamevassa ettha hoti
SN12.15

1 Like
45

Following is what Bikkhu Bodhis Manual of Abhidhamma says about the moment of realisation for each of the four attainments. But this is preceded by insight meditation.

The path consciousness(maggacitta) simultaneously performs four functions, one with respect to each of the four truths. These four functions, mentioned here, are the full understanding (pariññā) of suffering; the abandoning (pahāna) of craving, its origin; the realization (sacchikiriya) of Nibbāna, its cessation; and the development (bhāvanā) of the Noble Eightfold Path.

After each of the four
supramundane path attainments, the disciple reviews the path, fruition,
and Nibbana; usually, but not invariably, he reviews as well the defile-
ments abandoned and the defilements remaining.

2 Likes
46

This very interesting from Grounds for Knowledge (2nd)

And also their knowledge that even this knowledge of the stability of natural principles is liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.

yampissa taṃ dhammaṭṭhitiñāṇaṃ tampi khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammanti ñāṇaṃ.

1 Like
47

You had indicated previously the reasons why it must be inferential. You think an inferential knowledge can be non conceptual?

To contrast with the Pramana approach: Dharmakirti considers that every inference is conceptual. And that is because it doesn’t deal only with the object directly perceived in the present moment. It must associate it with a generality, an idea of an object that has existence over different periods of time (although direct perception is like a flash of a moment, without the idea that the object has extended existence over time).

1 Like
48

We can also add MN140 to the suttas you referenced Bhante…

There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness.
…
This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the earth… water… fire… air…space element, detaching the mind from the earth… water… fire… air…space element.

There remains only consciousness, pure and bright. And what does that consciousness know? It knows ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. Pleasant… painful… neutral feeling arises dependent on a contact to be experienced as pleasant. When they feel a pleasant feeling, they know: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling.’ They know: ‘With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as pleasant… painful… neutral, the corresponding pleasant… painful… neutral feeling ceases and stops.’…

There remains only equanimity, pure, bright, pliable, workable, and radiant.

They understand: ‘If I were to apply this equanimity, so pure and bright, to the dimension of infinite space… infinite consciousness … nothingness … neither perception nor non-perception, my mind would develop accordingly. But that is conditioned.’

They neither make a choice nor form an intention to continue existence or to end existence. Because of this, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

2 Likes
49

I am a layman bro. :grinning:

3 Likes
50

… And a very good Pali scholar too- so much so, I thought you must be ordained !!!
:pray: :joy: :pray:

3 Likes
51

Ajahn Brahmali, apologies for my lack of explanation. :pray:

By “logically invalid”, I mean not mathematically rigorous in an “absolute knowledge” sense. Mathematicians use the word “inference” and “truth” in a very precise way. Mathematically, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely true (i.e., logically valid) because it is provable formally by anybody who uses the mathematical methods of proof. Aliens and computers will come to exactly the same conclusion about mathematical proofs. Mathematical proof is powerful because it can be used to prove theorems that we haven’t thought of yet. However, Goedel mathematically proved that the scope of truth provable by mathematics is limited. There will always be truths that cannot be proven mathematically in any given mathematical system. The Noble Truths are not mathematical proofs. They are not absolute mathematical knowledge.

But, the word “inference” is also commonly and confusingly used for statistical inference, i.e., “pragmatic proof” or “experiential proof”. Our faith in the Triple Gem is not a mathematical proof. Mathematics can’t prove the Noble Truths. But we can each experience the Noble Truths deeply and personally. In this sense our faith is inferred from personal experience, confirmed and supported by the Sangha, and illuminated by the Teachings as taught by the Buddha and the Noble Ones. Yet statistical/experiential inference, is also limited. The earth was flat until we experienced otherwise. Identity view made sense until we heard the Dhamma and paid attention. Statistical and pragmatic inference can never be generalized to absolute proof in the mathematical sense of proof.

As an example, eternalists and annihilationists are both guilty of the logical fallacy of asserting absolute truth from statistical inference. Grasping at the absolute, both generalize experience to the point of vehement disagreement and argument with each other. But such generalization is not truth let alone absolute. Indeed, the Buddha himself wisely avoided the trap of asserting absolute existence or non-existence.

SN44.10:1.3: “Master Gotama, does the self exist absolutely?”
SN44.10:1.4: But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
SN44.10:1.5: “Then does the self not exist absolutely?”
SN44.10:1.6: But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.

The Four Noble Truths are personally experienced. They’re not generalized to the point of absurdity. And the Buddha constantly advocated for personal experience and direct knowledge. He also emphatically discouraged generalization about self and cosmos.

MN8:3.4: “Cunda, there are many different views that arise in the world connected with doctrines of the self or with doctrines of the cosmos. A mendicant gives up and lets go of these views by truly seeing with right wisdom where they arise, where they settle in, and where they operate as: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

So by “logically invalid” I mean that our basis for faith in the Triple Gem is experience, not mathematics. And I also mean that those who pursue absolute truth in Buddhism are going off the rails like the eternalists and annihilationists.

6 Likes
52

Yes, Ven Sujato is wrong- inference and direct knowledge are not the same. A scientist makes an inference then tests it through experiment (direct knowledge). In Buddhism there is no need for inference as the path is laid out for us in the Four Noble Truths, what has to be done is to personally test it- suffering is caused by craving, removing craving results in the extinction of suffering. This is not beyond the ability of the average practitioner, indeed it has to be done through investigation of the results and effects of one’s thoughts and actions. It is important not to overlook that thoughts have effects even though it is not an understanding held by western culture.

Second Noble Truth:

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that ‘Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.’

Third Noble Truth:

“And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding.”—MN 19

Even though the Bodhisatta experienced this before enlightenment, he could see it was leading in that direction.

The recognition that there are effects resultant of thoughts and actions is mundane right view, but in the west the action of kamma is unknown and the focus is on personal expression and the individual as a self-contained phenomenon. Indeed this is the motive driving the protests against lockdown for corona, and thousands are going to their deaths as a consequence. What if the peace and harmony of nature is an actual reality unrecognized as such by science, yet if disturbed beyond a certain point will react? In that sense humanity is acting blindly not knowing what has caused the corona retaliation, due to ignorance of the action of kamma, and lacking the awareness that humanity acts within a responsive environment. The corona toll is highest in places like the US which promote individualism, and able to be controlled in places like China where knowledge of heaven and earth is part of the culture.

1 Like
53

If it helps, this is exactly what I thought you were saying!

I said no such thing.

3 Likes
54

Thanks so much, Karl, for your careful explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to explain this to a non-expert.

I certainly cannot fault this. But I suppose I am wondering how useful it is from a Dhamma perspective. I would argue that insight into the four noble truths is of a higher order than a mathematical proof. I am not saying this simply because the Dhamma is about spiritual insight, whereas mathematics is concerned with worldly phenomena. I am saying it because I believe the Dhamma insight actually is more certain.

Mathematics depends on a certain number of axioms. Any logical proof will depend on what those axioms are. Change the axioms, and you will be able to prove different theorems. An example, I am told, is the axiom of the excluded middle, which is part of the Aristotalian logic that underpins mathematics. Change this axiom and the whole of mathematics changes. So even though a mathematical proof may be true, it is only so in a limited sense. Deep insight into the nature of reality, however, is not limited by a set of given axioms.

So if we say that “The Noble Truths are not mathematical proofs”, are we saying anything useful? What does it mean for our appreciation of spiritual insight? Am I missing something here?

In the Kaccānagotta Sutta the Buddha makes it clear that the views of existence and non-existence do not correspond to experience. You might say that this is not an absolute statement, because experience may not capture all that exists, at least from a logical point of view. OK, but is it useful to make this point? Does it add to our appreciation of the Dhamma?

By the way, the sutta you quote does not, in my opinion, support the conclusion you have drawn. The sutta is quite explicit that the Buddha gave these replies because he did not want to confuse Vacchagotta, his protagonist. They are not meant to be ontological statements.

In a sense you may well be right. My concern is that these sorts of statements are given the wrong spin, opening up for claims that Nibbāna is some sort of existing state. I suppose I am not sure how useful the methods of mathematics are to help us with spiritual insight. And if used wrongly, they may even lead us astray.

Please prove me wrong! :grinning:

4 Likes
55

Mendicants, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. A noble disciple comes to truly understand these five faculties’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. Such a noble disciple is called a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”
SN48.3

Mendicants, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. A noble disciple comes to be freed by not grasping after truly understanding these five faculties’ gratification, drawback, and escape. Such a mendicant is called a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment.”
SN48.4

It seems even Paññā is something to let go of. The path not the goal, the ship not the far shore.

Amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ,
Tadariyā saccato vidū;
Te ve saccābhisamayā,
Nicchātā parinibbutāti.

Satañca vivaṭaṃ hoti,
Āloko passatāmiva;

Ko nu aññatra mariyehi,
Padaṃ sambuddhumarahati;
Yaṃ padaṃ sammadaññāya,
Parinibbanti anāsavā”ti.

Snp3.12

1 Like
56

I lack the skill to speak as exactly as the Buddha, which is why I simply quote the Buddha when I can. I would not want to lead us astray. But I felt in this thread that we have been courting confusion with our choice of words.

Inferential knowledge clearly applies to mathematics. We all agree that theorems are inferred from chosen axioms. And that use of inference is ironclad and acceptable to all. And we can also all agree that mathematics is limited.

We should be careful in using the word “inference” outside of mathematics. By stepping away from mathematical rigor we subject ourselves to the trap of substitution. The trap of substitution is to mistake association for inference. Pavlov rang a bell and a dog salivated. That’s association, not inference. Yet it is way too easy to think “the dog inferred food and therefore it salivated.” That way-too-easy thought is a trap for both mathematics and the Dhamma. The dog did not infer anything. The dog was conditioned to link bell with saliva. Conditioning and association applies much more to the Dhamma than inference. Delight is associated with suffering. Association is conditioned. The Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned. Identity view is conditioned by grasping. Stream entry is conditioned by not grasping.

I stopped applying mathematics to the Dhamma when I read this:

MN44:10.2: “The noble eightfold path is conditioned.”

3 Likes
57

@karl_lew
Maybe you are bringing assumptions from western logic into Buddhism. Or maybe there is a translation issue here. If you think that inference is necessarily associated with mathematics (which is the case in western logic) which word do you think would best describe that which is called “inference” in the Buddhist teachings? As much as in western logic, the “inference” in Buddhism is said to bring certainty, so it seems to be a good word to use as translation.

@sujato, this is still not clear. Is this “inference” (anvaya-ñāṇa) conceptual? So are the conceptual and non conceptual aspects working together in the holistic wisdom that arises in stream-entry?

4 Likes
58

:open_mouth: You are quite right! Thank you for pointing this out. My headache is my own. :laughing:

SN12.33:7.1: Whatever 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.
SN12.33:7.2: This is their inferential knowledge.

Please continue using “inferential knowledge”. The headache is my own.

The Buddhist definition of anvaya is:

lineage, succession; what follows, (logical) connection, inference, consequence.
successor, immediate follower (see also anu-aya)

Apologies for my confusion. I’ve been conditioned my whole life to be very careful with inference and use it very precisely. Apparently in Buddhism, the term is broader. I’ll just need to condition my mind to allow that.

So the answer to the original post is actually…*both inferential and direct knowledge". And my befuddled Western brain would understand that the direct knowledge of stream entry is “inferred” (in the Buddhist sense of “linear logical consequence”) from the conditioning of the Noble Eightfold Path. It’s not “inferred” in the mathematical sense of proving a theorem. It’s “inferred” as conditioned.

Thank you for clarifying my confusion. :heart:
(and if I’m deluded in my “clarity” please do let me know)

:pray:

2 Likes
59

Bhante does the suttas say the duration of the experience? I remember seeing the examples of The potter bliss for 7 days but that’s not a experience of Sotapanna. Any of sotapanna?

60

“My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that ‘The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,’ still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. [2] It’s as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of ‘water,’ but he would not dwell touching it with his body. [3] In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that ‘The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,’ still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended.”—SN 12.68

Looking into a well and seeing the water is not a case of ‘inferring,’ it is direct vision.