"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
Now, is the existence of aggregrate solely a believe business?
Is the non-existence of aggregrate also solely a believe business?
Is the higher wisdom is the wisdom that make you not to believe?
But, the key question here based on what reason I shouldn't believe?
If this aggregate does exist, of course we have to believe it is exist.
Because Buddha said clearly: SEE REALITY AS WHAT IT IS.
...But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is...
So, after seeing reality as what it is, if we can see the aggregate, why I shouldn't believe it?
If I see there are feelings, and that is the reality that I see, why I shouldn't believe it?
It is then a big contradiction here: between see reality as what it is and whether you should believe it or not.
But, if you believe aggregate exist, you are extrimist.
"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view];
But, if you believe aggregate do not exist, you are also extrimist.
'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme.
So, how if we just see everything as such, without conceptual?
Isn't feeling just an alient concept?
Isn't perception just an alient concept?
Shouldn't we remove this extra layer of conceptual, throw that layer to the garbage, and just be there nakedly?