From Kaccānagotta sutta(SN 12.15)
Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, the concept of non-existence regarding the world does not occur.
And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, the concept of existence regarding the world does not occur.
Existence
And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, the concept of existence regarding the world does not occur.
Experience originates due to contact between sense and sense-objects. Apart from this experience, we can’t know anything about the objects. When contact ceases experience also ceases. We can’t know if the object exists after the experience ends. Normally we assume that objects exists even outside of our experience. This is a false assumption, a delusion - it goes beyond what’s discernible(by our senses and experience).
Non existence
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, the concept of non-existence regarding the world does not occur.
When contacts cease we don’t experience objects. When contact happens we can experience them. You can’t say a pink elephant doesn’t exist - You can only say you haven’t/aren’t experienced/experiencing it. You can’t say that something ceased existing - you can only say contact ceased.
Materialism
What if objects do exists outside of our experience, it would show why objects appear the same way - books act like books not cats. Suppose all objects exist. Then our senses are created by matter, our experience is shaped by matter. Contact is the physical collision of senses and material objects. Our perception is similarly a configuration of matter (brains and neurons).
But what properties of an object is determined due to contact. Color is determined by eye contact - not a property of the object. Even if the same light is emitted different people and animals see different colors. Sense of heat, shape, lines, sound etc every property is determined when contact happens. Outside of contact we can’t assign any property to the object. Thus why still assume that the object exists apart from all the properties? It’s a delusion to assume such objects exist.
Senses
We experience sense objects through sense contact. Experience doesn’t exist without senses and it is easy to assume senses exist. But only experience define the senses. Without experience we can’t know whether there are eyes/ears etc. So senses doesn’t exist apart from experience.
Form
Since experience and senses doesn’t exist apart from contact, does form exists? But form is defined by the senses. You can only see specific colors and you can only hear a specific range. Thus form doesn’t exist apart from contact either.
Unity and Plurality
From SN 12.48,
“Mister Gotama, does all exist?”
“‘All exists’: this is the oldest cosmology, brahmin.”
“Then does all not exist?”
“‘All does not exist’: this is the second cosmology.
“Well, is all a unity?”
“‘All is a unity’: this is the third cosmology.
“Then is all a plurality?”
“‘All is a plurality’: this is the fourth cosmology.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. … Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
Unity - All is a unity
“All is a unity” is a view held by many practitioners. Since experience, senses,sense-objects arises together and we can’t assume or know anything when they are not together, it makes sense to assume that they are in fact one entity. But if everything is one entity, where does the different perceptions and properties come from? These different properties seem to persist across time as well. We may be tempted to say that Unity(God/Brahman/Mind/Universe/One) has differentiated and thus we see distinct objects. Since we can only see/know this reality of distinct objects, why assume there is/was a Unity?. As such this view is a delusion we must discard.
Plurality - All is a plurality
Since we see/know distinct objects with different properties why not assume that they are in fact distinct?. Although they are distinct, but we can see that perceptions are the same across different objects. Colors are the same for all the objects - they don’t have infinite primary colors for infinite objects. We see that due to our senses we have a unified view of these objects. Since we can’t know beyond our senses, we are unable to discern if they are in fact distinct. As such we should also discard this view.
Being - Unified Senses
Since sense are unified and sense objects are distinct- why not assume that a being(Unity) exist apart from world(Plurality). But such a being only exists with sense experience and sense objects. This being is not discernible without sense experience. Thus it’s a delusion to assume such a being exists apart from experience.
From SN5.10,
Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Contact
If experience only occur due to sense contact, and sense objects and senses can’t be defined apart from experience - how does contact occur?. Contact is the coming together of senses, sense objects and sense experiences.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the thought, ‘my self’, 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.