Not a “core” which implies a reification of something.
Actually, the Buddha does in many suttas that you’ve said you interpret as not being literal.
This is getting into abstract philosophical notions. When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of any and all conditions being dukkha can be known.
It’s not about getting into substantialist ideas or not, but about practicing direct knowing, beyond notions, ontological positions, etc.
Not disagreeable – just that the notions you ascribe to those who understand the aggregates as dukkha are not what’s actually believed. But that may also be due to my not expressing things clearly.
I mean, if you wish to continue to see the aggregates as dukkha-free that’s of course up to you. My point is that ascribing notions that come up through your viewpoint about substantialist, ontological, etc. are not applicable to how the aggregates can be understood as dukkha.
