You existed a moment before and the moment before that and the
moment before that moment and so on.
No. The experience of life the moment before has vanished, forever. It did not "exist". It was only a "temporary existence". Therefore, it cannot be construed as "existence" or "non-existence". It is something that arises & ceases. Its an impermanent phenomena. Importantly, it was only an experience of life, that is, an experience of one to five aggregates. It was not a "Self". "Self" was only an idea imputed on that experience.
You can be sure that you were present before this moment because you remember your past.
Memory arises in the present. Most experiences cannot be remembered however. Also, what is remembered is not the same sense of 'self'. For example, the mind can think back to the past and think: "Was that really me in the past? How could I have been like that & how could I have done those things?". For example, since "I" become a Buddhist & experienced some mental transformations, I struggle to identity with things from the past. Today, I am a completely different person, to the point that the old 'self' has completely died. In other words, there are actions I did in the past which would be impossible for me to do today. This shows the idea of 'self' is a changing thing.
Note: This is unrelated to how the idea of 'self' can completely vanish in the mind; leaving only the experience of life. Life without self (which is peaceful).
Remembrance of past is the continuity, which is YOU.
No. It is not YOU. It is only the remembrance of life; the remembrance of the five aggregates. Please refer to the Khajjaniya Sutta, which states:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.
You took birth , you loved your parents , events happened in your life
No. There is no idea or thought of "self" when a baby is born from its mother. The idea of "self" only arises when the mind matures & is able to start identifying with things. Modern psychology studies this. A mentally retarded or brain damaged child may struggle to develop a coherent idea of "self". "Self" is a thought. Please refer to the Mahāmāluṅkya Sutta, which states a new born child has no thoughts of self-identity:
For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him?
all that contributed to your evolution as a Self.
This has some correctness. There is no inherent self but self is something that evolves. This shows self is not anything permanent or real but something that evolves & changes.
Being such, self can also devolve & disappear, such as in very old people who have dementia or in enlightened minds.
Rising of Self can be considered suffering
Very good. The Buddha taught the arising & conceiving of self is suffering (SN 12.15; SN 5.10) & a disease (Ud 3.10; MN 140). This is why it is not a self but is only suffering & only a disease. The Budddha said: "The world calls a disease 'self' " (Ud 3.10). Self is not a real thing but only a name, like calling a child 'John' or 'Mary'. There is nothing inherently real in the name John or Mary.
but one can not deny that you exist
No. 'Self' can be denied because it can be experienced to not exist. But life or the five aggregates cannot be denied. The original question is confusing 'self' with 'life'; confusing the 'name' with the 'thing'. Life is the thing. Self is the name. The name is not the thing. The name is only a name. Self is only a name given to a suffering disease. When the body of a child is hungry for food, the body cries. Later, when the child is older & can think, the mind develops the idea: "I am hungry". This shows self is the arising of suffering; is the arising of disease. 'Self' only arises when there is hunger & craving.
The rest of the question is just more non-sense & is produced by lust & fear. The question is a disease born from suffering.
