Here’s a thought of making it clearer on these 4 things: Truly Exist, dependently exist, dependently ceased, truly not existing
-
Properties of truly exists: self, permanent.
-
Properties of dependently existing things: impermanent, suffering, not self.
-
Properties of dependently ceased things… depends, it’s a bit complicated.
-
Properties of truly not existing things: not existing, cannot be characterized as this or that because it’s not existing in actuality. Unchanging.
This is just some rough mapping. If I made an error please feel free to quote a sutta to correct me.
2 and 3 is how things arises and ceases. When arising, they are at 2, when ceasing they go to 3. But causes at 2 would make things arise again from 3 to 2. Attainment of arahanthood is when all the causes at 2 ceases to become 3 and the causes for the causes also ceases at 3, and so on. Namely, ignorance, craving, clinging etc. Then when parinibbāna happens, the rest of the links in dependent origination ceases then it all becomes 3 from dependent cessation, where it doesn’t arise again forever.
The world is trapped in duality, meaning when people see 2, they project 1 onto the 2, thus thinking that what is impermanent to be permanent. Or when they see 3, like parinibbāna, they project 4 into 3, like parinibbāna is not possible? Well, I think it’s less of an issue to project 4 into 3, since there’s no arising in both 4 and 3 (parinibbāna). Perhaps there’s some objections?
Buddha said when arising is seen, the notion of non-existing is not there, so this means seeing 3 become 2 means one cannot project 4 onto 3. Seeing cessation, the notion of existing is not there. So seeing 2 becomes 3, one cannot project 1 onto 2.
Exception would be parinibbāna, where arising is not seen anymore, so there’s really no need to worry about the difference between 4 and 3 after parinibbāna. (Maybe someone has an objection to this?) Both 4 and 3 (for parinibbāna) has no experience.
Experience exists only at 2. When stream winner sees nibbāna, it is to see 2 ceases to become 3, and 3 doesn’t arises to become 2. It is using perception, consciousness etc existing at 2.
The notion of self is defined to be 1, independently truly existing. Mistaking 2 as 1 is the fundamental reason for 2 to continue to arise, as it’s part of the causes (ignorance, self view etc) which generates all the rest of the links in dependent origination.
The Buddha’s claim is that 1 doesn’t exist, no self exist. So self is actually at no. 4. Truly not existing thing. The property of seeing 5 aggregates as empty, foam, plaintain tree, bubbles, mirage, etc is to be applied to 2, not to no. 4 or 1.
Ultimate self is no. 4, which is no self.
Conventional self is no. 2, dependently existing, empty aggregates.
In MN2, no self exists absolutely as a view which is a thicket of views, maybe to refer to all 4 levels, no self. Which means it denys the no. 2 conventional self, or 5 aggregates as dependently existing, and thus lead to complete derangement, or moral breakdown, or simply misunderstanding what no self means.
I hope this is clear for conversation about these truly exisiting or not things.