Existence and Essence
The Mūlapariyāya Sutta goes further:
(1) The ordinary person concludes that the solid exists and also of what it is made (paṭhavito maññati paṭhaviyā maññati).
(2) The Arahat does not conclude that it exists or of what it is made (paṭhavito namaññati paṭhaviyā namaññati).
It is useful to compare this statement with the statement of existential philosophers who distinguish between existence and essence. Existence is expressed by the statement, “that it is” and the essence expressed by the statement, “what it is.” For example, if there is a cup made of clay its existence is expressed by the statement, “there is a cup.” Its essence is expressed by the statement, “it is made of clay.” This is how Jean-Paul Sartre made the statement, “existence precedes essence,” for something must exist before we can talk of what it is made. Sartre considered this to be the essential premise on which existential philosophy stands.