Thanks for that interesting sutta. Unfortunately, it does not help me, though it may help you.
I think one must decide which (interpretation of the) definition of the First Noble Truth one wishes to follow. The traditional one that assumes less than half (birth, aging and death) of the details given in the First Noble Truth is physiological, and the whole Truth has to be summarised as:
“in short the Five Aggregates are suffering” (leaving out clinging)
or, a different one that does not assume that, but rather takes into account the whole of the details (especially all the other items that would be psychological: https://suttacentral.net/pi/dn22#82: sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi dukkhā, appiyehi sampayogopi dukkho, piyehi vippayogopi dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ) and the repeated psychological meanings (redefinitions) the Buddha gave to key terms, clearly including ‘death’ and one then accepts the summary:
“in short the Five Clinging Aggregates are suffering”.
Since I take the second approach, after many years of testing the first approach, which you clearly follow, I do not accept teachings that promote the idea:
‘Having reflected thus, he becomes indifferent towards past form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), he does not seek delight in past/present/future form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), and he is practising for revulsion towards past/present/future form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), for its fading away and cessation.’
Because, for me Nibbāna is the fading away and cessation of the Five Clinging Aggregates, not the Five Aggregates.
Since it seems you are happy with the first, I certainly doubt further conversations will be of any benefit, but to correct your misunderstandings of what I have said:
It does not sound that way to you because, I believe, you do not read clearly what I have written because your ego edits things out or adds things, to protect itself. I have said I accept multiple births (not RE-births) that are pscylological, that is, I accept the arising of ego multiple times in this very life and a different ego each time. I understand and you have confirmed that Bh. Buddhadāsa taught psychological-only-RE-birth, which I do not accept. I have given up Bh. Buddhadāsa’s teaching of psychological-only-RE-birth. Hopefully I have made it clear enough this time.
It seems I have developed this interpretation independently of any other person claiming to be a disciple of the Buddha.
at least we agree on that.
To me, the rest of your post is just repetition of the traditional views/interpretations, which I don’t accept and will not discuss once again. As I feel certain you cannot provide a clear example in the First Four Nikaya of any language source, where, for example, the Buddha said ‘I teach one truth, ultimate truth/reality’ as you understand it. If you can, please do so.
Otherwise I do not wish to continue thrashing the same old arguments and hope you one day decide to step out of what I think is your (ego) comfort zone and question them.
So, it seems you agree with me that, they are not universal characteristics, but you could not say that clearly and in appreciation, establishing common ground, but rather you choose only point to difference.
My point is (once again), the first and last of the Three Characteristics (anicca, anattā) would apply to all conditioned things, including the Five Aggregates, but the second would only apply to the Five Clinging Aggregates, which are the definition of dukkha, imo, but I think you could not accept that, due to your understanding of the First Noble Truth.
I think it’s best to say goodbye and