Would existence has any meaning without change? For example, what makes X what it is except its endurance of change? or how would we know X without distinguishing it from what is changing?
This is called by bhante as existential thinking, what buddha called as inappropriate thinking by thinking you exist, who am I? What am I?
See … in the experience , from colour or ideas, come the contact and feeling, then you create your existence based on your reaction to thinking.
When these colour, image or ideas doesnt come, where is the so called existence?
Why do we even want to sustain our existence, it is created by delusion all the time
Of course it is different, we cannot stop delusion from within the delusion, how will we ever get out?
Very good question. See this is it, existences , beings always want to find meaning in change, it doesnt want to go along with the change,
While the nature change all time, but we want to sustain, so we can distinguish and say “this is me”. I exist, and so on. Delusion drives us but we cannot see through.
Universe kept telling you the message, see how vast the universe, we not even size of an atom compare to observeable universe
And we are just 80years of a life in trillions of history after bigbang, how small we are? Yet in our tiny little house or apartment, we are such a big existence happening.
Look through your 5 khanda, and tell me which one does really exist? They appear and cease one after another all the time.
So go through the suttas. 8noble paths, put end to our existence and live like a flower or a blade of grass, thats the most meaningful thing we can do as a human, flourish
This is called by bhante as existential thinking, what buddha called as inappropriate thinking by thinking you exist, who am I? What am I?
And existential thinking equally implies the opposite, that i don’t exist. So, any negation of existence is a futile act in the sense that it acknowledges existence in order to deny it, similar to atheists who are obsessed with denying god.
See … in the experience , from colour or ideas, come the contact and feeling, then you create your existence based on your reaction to thinking.
When these colour, image or ideas doesnt come, where is the so called existence?
The idea of existence here describes/refers to my ability to recall your description of experience and potentially make use of it in the future. Is this problematic? Unless you acknowledge this ability, you would not have gone into these lengths to deny existence.
Why do we even want to sustain our existence, it is created by delusion all the time
Of course it is different, we cannot stop delusion from within the delusion, how will we ever get out?
Who is sustaining our existence? the existence that you are denying? and if you truly believe that you cannot stop delusion from within delusion, then what is the added value of doing anything? (except possibly your own belief that your utterances are free from delusion).
Very good question. See this is it, existences , beings always want to find meaning in change, it doesnt want to go along with the change,
If you don’t believe in a meaningful impact of your words on those who read them, then why would you say them in the first place? And what constitutes a meaningful impact except the change that your words might have?
While the nature change all time, but we want to sustain, so we can distinguish and say “this is me”. I exist, and so on. Delusion drives us but we cannot see through.
If nature is something definable, then it cannot be completely based on change. Its worth noting that nature does not equal good or real. Appealing to nature in order to determine truth from delusion or good from bad is a logical fallacy:
Universe kept telling you the message, see how vast the universe, we not even size of an atom compare to observeable universe
I personally have not received any messages from the universe 
And we are just 80years of a life in trillions of history after bigbang, how small we are? Yet in our tiny little house or apartment, we are such a big existence happening.
It depends who you compare us with. We are huge when compared to subatomic particles for instance. Our brains, i ve read, has more cells than planets in the universe.
Look through your 5 khanda, and tell me which one does really exist? They appear and cease one after another all the time.
The five of them seem to exist by virtue of you naming them (hence acknowledging their existence or engaging in the futility of denying it)
So go through the suttas. 8noble paths, put end to our existence and live like a flower or a blade of grass, thats the most meaningful thing we can do as a human, flourish
Sounds like Buddhist romanticism to me. Thanks for the advice anyway.
Sure, and that was a slightly jokey example. The firefox app is still a process though. What if one could hugely increase the complexity of such a process until it was capable of creating models of itself and the things (external world) it was interacting with and reasoning about these? Very simple organisms can get away with having no nervous system (have rather simple forms of reaction to the environment) or specialized senses. Beyond a certain point, evolution seems a favour more developed sense organs and specialized neural equipment to process all this information, allow more complex patterns of action and reaction to the environment (pleasure-pain reward systems to nudge behaviour in patterns favouring reproduction and eventually mental models of the environment and its place in it). Seems reasonable that evolution would end up with organisms with a sense of self. Maybe it’s a simple matter of degree of complexity of the process (from a Firefox process to an intelligent process). Or perhaps the process of a living being has non-material aspects also (psycho-physical rather than just physical or hardware based)? I don’t know.
To think that you don’t exist you must first believe in existence, that things can really exist. The point is that existence as a notion on itself is delusion and illusion, dream, but every normal person is entangled in it by not seeing the five constituents of process of perception rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa, by not seeing paticca samuppada, by not seeing three supernormal realities sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā, sabbe dhammā anattā, by not seeing how it all came to be, by unconsciousness of reality avijjā.
Maybe.
The point i was trying to make is: craving for non-existence (nihilism) is possibly more delusional than craving for existence (eternalism). Even using the term “deception” in this context can be quite misleading as conventional reality is based on the assumption that words stands for the things they describe. To use the conventional notion of “delusion” would imply there is “no self out there” which is based on the conventional division between the internal and the external.
As such, i am still waiting for the caveats (if any) that you are willing to provide along with your theme.
Delusion in terms of what? and then notice how whatever answer you might provide can be misleading.
Where i have said something to imply that one who has understood what i have said as i have said it would crave for non-existence? Did not i say that to believe in non-existence one must also believe in existence? Did not i say that existence is delusion again and again?
Delusion here means one believes in something that is not real, is of erroneous view, the belief is not in line with reality.
One can not arrive at full consciousness of reality by pondering about views on a level of philosophical discussion, we could talk like that all day and night and it would be of no use, but by seeing the five constituents of process of perception rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa, by understanding and seeing paticca samuppada, by understanding and seeing three supernormal realities sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā , sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā , sabbe dhammā anattā , by seeing how it all came to be , by eradication of unconsciousness of reality avijjā, leading to full consciousness vijjā!
Where i have said something to imply that one who has understood what i have said as i have said it would crave for non-existence? Did not i say that to believe in non-existence one must also believe in existence? Did not i say that existence is delusion again and again?
The title you chose for this thread reads" “there is no selfexisting thing in ones experience”
Do you believe the above to be a true statement? If you believe it to be true, then you have set the criteria of what is real which is negating existence in ones experience. Consequently, and by definition, those who don’t see the wisdom in this statement should use “wise contemplation” (to use your own words) in order to be awakened from the dream of existence (to use your own words once again).
So, your message to the rest of us seem to be rooted in the duality of existence and non-existence. Please note that i did not choose your words for you. I am simply quoting your own words, giving you the chance to reply if you choose to.
Delusion here means one believes in something that is not real, is of erroneous view, the belief is not in line with reality.
And what is reality? the one you stated in the title of your thread? which negates existence?
One can not arrive at full consciousness of reality by pondering about views, we could talk like that all day and night, but by seeing the five constituents of process of perception rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa, by understanding and seeing paticca samuppada, by understanding and seeing three supernormal realities sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā , sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā , sabbe dhammā anattā , by seeing how it all came to be , by eradication of unconsciousness of reality avijjā, leading to full consciousness vijjā!
And yet, you offered a view with the advice of contemplating it wisely. If contemplating views does not lead anywhere, then what was the point of your thought experiment?
I think the discussion generated by this is quite beneficial. You must remember that Buddha also used terms and concepts like ‘me’, ‘you’ even while he was not held to them.
And i ve never held you accountable for using concepts like “me” or “you”
Its not like you have understood what i have said and are presenting some arguments about it or agreeing or disagreeing with it, you have not understood the actual meaning of what im trying to get across and you continue to think in the same existential way the whole time, even the questions you are asking are all tied to preconception that there is real existence…
The important thing is that if you investigate rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa you will not find anything really existing thing there, thats the main thing. You will not find anything really existing there, you fill not find non-existence, you will not find any sort of existence there whatsoever - sabbe dhammā anattā. You will find that all your perceptions and conceptions are dynamic, dependently arisen, one building on another, unstable and that there is no constant self-existing permanent entity, soul or essence or truth of anything. If there is no real essence of anything what is truth? So holding to all views and truths are abandoned. But you can not just assume that and abandon all views before you have crossed over nor you carry and hold on to those views after that, look up the simile of the raft.
Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ. Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā; yadanattā taṃ ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā
Vedanā aniccā…pe…
Saññā aniccā … pe …
saṅkhārā aniccā …pe…
viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ (SN 22.15).
netaṃ mama - this is not mine,
nesohamasmi - I am not this,
na meso attā" - this is not my soul (na meso attā |na eso me attā|)
3 Likes
Please remember that this is a place for discussion of EBT’s and not a place to convince others that ones own ‘view’ is correct.
Please keep it non-personal.
metta and karuna 
7 Likes
[…] when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of absence regarding the world.
Lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.
And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of presence regarding the world.
Lokanirodhaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti.
The arising and cessation of the world is then explained with paticca sammuppada, funnily equating arising of it with arising of mass of suffering.
I wonder how people here understand ‘origin of the world’ and ‘cessation of world’ 
Are you wanting others to explain something to you? Or are you wanting to check that their understanding matches your own? I’m unclear about the purpose of your question at the end of the quote.
Personally I like to take time and reflect on the Buddhas words which you have quoted, keeping views flexible, until such time, that through contemplation one can see and know for oneself.
4 Likes
It is explained a few lines down as:
SN12.15:2.4: The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting.
Relinquishing the attraction, grasping and insisting, releases the shackles and therefore ends the suffering.
3 Likes
Interesting, can you explain in more detail how do you think ‘releasing the shackles’ amounts for ‘cessation of world’?
This thread still isn’t managing to focus on the discussion of particular EBTs or how a theme is developed across the suttas. So I’m going to close it. I suggest that if any pairs or groups want to go on talking to each other that you make contact by personal message.
With metta and karuna
7 Likes