It’s not specific, but it is clear that the experience of stream-entry happens at a certain time, like the flash of lightning in a dark night.
Absolutely. Much of what is called disagreement is merely bad communication. In part, this precisely what I am concerned about. When we say that Buddhist insight is not “logically valid” or an “absolute truth”, then I am concerned about misunderstanding. I don’t have much doubt that Bhante Sujato knows what he is talking about, and to be honest, you seem like a very astute person yourself. What I am concerned about is that it is too easy to read too much into these statements. In other words, someone might easily assume that we are saying that the mathematical truth is somehow better or more solid than Buddhist insight.
Let me expand a bit on the law of the excluded middle. This axiom of logic says that something is either true or false. No other possibilities are envisaged. But is this really how the world always works? If the answer is no, then we have found a problem at the very root of western logic and, by implication, mathematics. And if there is a problem at the root, then regardless of how logical the rules of inference are, it is clear they will sometimes yield unsatisfactory results. We are using a system of perfect logic resting on a foundation of flawed assumptions.
Ancient Indian logic is famously based on different axioms. In addition to something being either true or false, there are also the possibilities of something being both true and false, or neither true nor false. This difference between western and Indian logic is not just theoretical. In fact it applies directly to the way the Buddha teaches. Most famously, perhaps, the Buddha says there is a middle between existence and non-existence. According to western logic, such a middle ground is excluded by its root axioms. Yet this insight into a third alternative that is neither existence nor non-existence is the basis for the entire Dhamma. This is the critical insight that made the Buddha’s awakening possible. As you would know, it’s called dependent origination.
It’s beginning to look - at least to me - as if the core insight of Buddhism is excluded from western logic. This is more than a little problematic and it feeds into the question of what we mean by “logically valid” or an “absolute truth”. If a system of logic is not commensurate with an experiential insight, then it is clear to me which one needs to yield. It is also clear to me which one I would prefer to call “valid” and “true”.
So, to be clear, I don’t think I disagree with either of you. I just want make sure we don’t speak past each other.
5 Likes
That’s a main problem Bhante. This is not clear in suttas. How ones go about verifying sutta and ones own experience? Like comparing what is written. It’s not clear. But I noticed 7 days is most common used number for bliss. Then again sutta doesn’t explain what a bliss experience must be like. Or if seeing the Path and attainment of the Path must be after at different time. Very hard for this generation not being around Arahants or Buddhas. 
1 Like
This is different, it is talking about the Buddha’s experience of sitting meditation for seven days straight after awakening. That does not apply to stream-enterers, or for that matter, most arahants!
1 Like
What about Buddha’s past friend getting bliss after hearing that Buddha came for alms. And it is said the mother too. But I think there is 1 or 2 instance of a longer experience. I read a sutta I never found it back, it was Buddha going to village just to preach to girl that practiced loving-kindness meditation for 7 years. After Buddha preached to her. Actually she was late. So Buddha preached especially for her. And attained a Path and she experienced a longer bliss. I don’t know where was this from. I read many years ago. Maybe a Agama story. Or commmentary. I don’t know.
Then, sire, joy and happiness did not leave Ghaṭīkāra the potter for half a month or his parents for seven days.
I wonder
1 Like
Oh right, yes. Well here I think it is more just that they were super-happy for the rest of the week. Wouldn’t you be?
3 Likes
A core insight of mathematics is that there are truths that cannot be formally provable using mathematics for any given axiomatic system. Mathematics itself would therefore agree with you. 
My error (and resulting confused hyperbole) resulted from my misunderstanding of the Buddhist use of “infer”, which I now see includes sequential experience and conditioning. I had neglected to see that Bhante Sujato chose “inferential knowledge” for the actual translation and had incorrectly assumed that the OP was using the phrase in the mathematical sense of infer, which explicitly disallows sequential experience as proof (i.e., never seeing a royal flush is not a proof it doesn’t exist).
Others with mathematical training will probably be initially confused by this extension of the word “infer” to include experience and association. But that confusion would be cleared up simply by explaining that Buddhist “infer” is a superset of mathematics “infer”. I wouldn’t change Bhante’s translation term either, since colloquially “infer” does include the mathematical horror that is experience and association. 
I’m still floored by this sutta and would quite miss our nice roof if the mendicants took our roof for the Buddha. But I’m being silly and have more to meditate on…
1 Like
The thing I see. Why the difference between the son and the mother. Joy and happiness is probably a mental state. It’s probably feeling that only. To a meditator even thinking about the Three Gems the whole day can bring that joy and happiness. It’s gets triggered when actually feeling deep joy and happiness about them. It’s not of the world. I don’t think here is talking of worldy joy and happiness. The mother has faith probably so she felt it 7 days. And Ghaṭīkāra who has attained further in the Path felt it half a month.
Yes. But even if the Unbinding is directly seen, it does make sense to say that stream entry implies both direct (non conceptual) vision and also inferential (conceptual) seeing. As argued above, how can you see a compounded thing as impermanent if you don’t associate the direct perception of it with the idea of it’s past or future state?
The experience of impermanence contributes significantly to the attainment of stream entry because it undermines both personality view and doubt, and is a real phenomenon. Impermanence is cultivated by studying dissolution in natural materiality, as well as in the human body as outlined in the latter three exercises under the first foundation of mindfulness. This should be the first ‘real’ experience that a western beginner strives for, as it is the bedrock of practice.
“The (Satipatthana) “refrain” instructs the meditator to contemplate “the nature of arising”, “the nature of passing away”, and “the nature of both arising and passing away”.37 Paralleling the instruction on internal and external contemplation, the three parts of this instruction represent a temporal progression which leads from observing the arising aspect of phenomena to focusing on their disappearance, and culminates in a comprehensive vision of impermanence as such. 9
Thus the direct experience of impermanence represents indeed the “power” aspect of meditative wisdom.40
These passages clearly show the central importance of developing a direct experience of the impermanent nature of all phenomena, as envisaged in this part of the satipatthãna “refrain”. The same is reflected in the commentarial scheme of the insight knowledges, which details key experiences to be encountered during the path to realization, where the stage of apprehending the arising and passing away of phenomena is of central importance.41 The other two characteristics of conditioned existence – dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and anattã (absence of a self) – become evident as a consequence of a direct experience and thereby realistic appreciation of the truth of impermanence. The discourses frequently point to this relationship between the three characteristics by presenting a progressive pattern that leads from awareness of impermanence (aniccasaññã) via acknowledging the unsatisfactory natureof what is impermanent (anicce dukkhasaññã) to appreciating the selfless nature of what is unsatisfactory (dukkhe anattasaññã).42”—- Analayo
There is a temporal aspect to recognizing impermanence as the future dissolution of the subject is apprehended, causing dispassion to arise. This recognition is cultivated slowly through directing oneself to awareness of dissolution in materiality against the mind’s tendency to the growth aspect of the cycle, but eventually becomes instantaneous, and consitiutes the ‘memory’ aspect of mindfulness.
This involves formal activities such as visiting morgues, watching post-mortems and keeping a real skeleton in your room, as well as observation of dissolution in daily activity. This orientation of mind direction and experience of reality is not to the liking of what can be broadly called the ‘millennial mindset’ which prefers exclusively mental activity, and the shunning of direct experience is to the detriment of Buddhist practice to which it is fundamental.
2 Likes
I hope you will indulge me a bit further, Karl. I am still not happy with your analogy for Buddhist insight:
According to this, you come to the inferential conclusion that there is no self because you have never seen one. So far as I can see, this misses the point. When you have a full insight into nonself, you know there cannot be a self in the five khandhas, “the five aspects of personality”, which in your analogy is be equivalent to the pack of cards. If there were any scope for doubt, the insight could not lead to streamentry. Streamentry is a revolution in consciousness. It turns your world upside down—in a very happy way, of course! You cannot have a revolution in outlook without being absolutely certain of what you have seen.
Fully understanding the five khandhas means either seeing their absolute cessation or seeing their conditioned nature. In either case you know that they are without essence, because an essence is defined as something which cannot cease. This is a direct insight. There is no inference involved. In your analogy with the pack of cards, it is equivalent to seeing that the pack is devoid of aces, and therefore can never produce a royal flush. Why? Because a royal flush is defined as including an ace.
The inference, rather, has to do with extending this insight into the past and future. In fact, this is how it is defined in the suttas. Here the analogy with the pack of cards breaks down a little, because it is possible that the pack of cards may have included aces in the past or will do so in the future. With insight into nonself, however, this inference is certain. This is so because, again, a self by definition is permanent. If it ever existed, it would still have to be there now, and it would be there in the future. The pack of cards has always lacked aces, and you know this must be true.
I don’t know how this fits with mathematical inference. But what I do know is that the knowledge is no less certain. Indeed, as I have argued above, in some sense it is likely to be more certain. When you fully see the emptiness of the five khandhas, the sense “I am”, known as asmimāna, disappears. When you become an arahant, the underlying tendency to asmimāna ceases. It is impossible for you, ever again, to take anything as a self. For this to happen there must be absolute certainty.
I hope we are not talking past each other. I am carrying on at some length because I think it is a very important point. If we get this wrong, it may open up all sorts of avenues for postulating a self, in which case we may actually block people from the possibility of awakening. If our discussions here on D&D should serve any purpose, it must surely be to help people understand the EBTS, and by extension to aid them on the path to awakening. Intellectual discussions that lead people astray are surely worse than useless.
Anyway, please forgive me for carrying on like this. 
11 Likes
Bhante, I am very grateful for your kindness, patience and consideration.
My royal flush example was an attempt to show that eternalism and annihilationism are not logical nor useful. I think we can agree that attempt failed. 
When I meditate, I notice that everything I thought of as my “self” was actually a craving. It might take a long time to find the craving. It might take a short time to find the craving. But it is always there, fighting change, seeking rebirth. And then I ask, is this a skillful craving or an unskillful craving? And if it is unskillful, I pull up the root. So in my experience, I very much see a lot of little “selfish mini-cravings” that bubble up and go. Some have gotten stuck and need a bit of help letting go. Interestingly, the study of ethics helps a lot.
This ongoing experience of impermanence has absolutely no relationship with mathematical proof. I find “inferential knowledge” a bit jarring and over-complicated as a phrase. To me it’s just “experience”. I’m not sure why we need two words. But that quibble is my problem to deal with.
Experience is quite important to me. Much more so than inference or proof. My training is as actually as an engineer, not a mathematician. I like to understand how things work. I am not driven to prove as mathematicians are. But I do like to use their theorems since those theorems work.
So my exploration of the Dhamma isn’t about mathematical proof. My exploration of the Dhamma is to see what works. And what I have found is that dependent origination works exactly as taught in SN12.23. As an engineer, when something works, I just use it. And dependent origination just works, so I use it. Dependent origination doesn’t say anything about self or not self, but it does talk about contact. And contact is quite interesting. So I examine the contacts, trying to understand how they work. Again, here there is no mathematical proof of any kind. There is, instead, a pragmatic and consistent experience of contacts.
What I infer from this experience is that it is wise to practice and study the teachings, listen to the Noble Ones and the Sangha. So in this very precise and careful way, I use the word “infer” mathematically in the sense of calculating expected outcome as for statistics. It is not a proof, it is a statistical inference from many many meditations that all revealed the same result: the Buddha was right. Just like scientists keep measuring Einstein’s theory of relativity, I keep meditating on the teachings. And just like the scientists, I find no exception.
And since the Buddha was a lot smarter than I am, I gave up trying to second guess him and decided to just try and understand him, to experience and practice the teachings. That’s going to take a while, hopefully not too long.
4 Likes
Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu
May it be so!
4 Likes
Thank you so much for your gentle, humble, and good-humoured engagement. It’s a true pleasure to discuss with you! The truth is, I have a lot to learn from you. 
3 Likes
Ajahn Brahmali, thank you for your kindness and patience in helping me sort out my own confusion. I have learned much from our discussions and even found new suttas to study! I look forward to studying your own translations of the Vinaya.
3 Likes