SuttaCentral
What the texts say is this …
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
sn12.15
Yes, i belief lack of control seems to be the most important meaning related to anatta, based on anatta lakkhana sutta. We do not have a direct control, but still some indirect control over conditioned reality. This is because conditioned reality is anicca, is ever-changing, unstable, things come and go and things happen upon their own conditions. A tulip does not grow because i want it. Conditions must me met like water, nutrition, light etc. My wish is not part of it. Conditioned reality is inconstant. I like that word. We seek for constancy and control but can it be found in conditioned reality, in samsara? What mission are we involved in? What do we seek? What are we doing?
Taken the things together one sees immediately one cannot freeze reality, not internally concerning body and mind but also not externally. And the more one wants to freeze things, hold on, -and that is very normal for a human being- the more one becomes helpless, desperate.
Anicca, dukkha and anatta are like a realitycheck. Often we are on a mission impossible.
The most nice interpretation i find is:
-conditioned reality, the reality of body and mind, is ever changing, inconstant, arising and falling, becoming otherwise, unstable, if this than that…if not this than not that
-because of this it cannot be froozen. It cannot protect, function as refuge, an island, a stable ground. It is fundamentally unreliable, not trustworthy, i.e. dukkha. Seeking security or safety in something with this characteristics is not wise. Expacting no-change of something which must change is not wise.
Trusting upon conditioned reality is like building a house on unstable ground. We must see the Path to the unconditioned which has not these qualities.
-something which is so unstable and unreliable is not fit to be seen as essential, nor Me nor mine. Because it is not under direct control it is also not worth to invest in it a lot, and given it much attention. Ofcourse you want health and happiness but it cannot be froozen. It becomes otherwise. That is reality. Modern people claim happiness by therapist. It is not realistic.
Trying to control the conditioned one become more desperate and not in control.
Seeing what is in control and not . Seeing the possible and impossible that helps.
I think this is all in line with EBT
There are sutta’s that teach that agitation is due to clinging and ends due to non-clinging (SN22.7 +8) If there is no clinging how can there be agitation?
No, the sutta’s are quit clear about this Stu.
If a Buddha’s mind is still agitated because there is rise and fall of sense-experiences ( and there is during life, ofcourse) the Dhamma makes no sense at all. Not only bodily suffering would remain but even mental suffering would be there for a Buddha.
No, once all the anusaya are gone, sense objects rising and falling do not lead to any agitation because there is no cause for any mental fixation, grasping etc anymore. But if there still are active anusaya in regards to the sense-object, or some subtle grasping, mental fixation etc, such as in people who can enter jhana’s but have not a purified mind, there is still some burden in experiencing things like vicara and vitakka or even the base of nothingness etc .
From there sutta you quoted:
When that form (feeling, perception, choices, consciousness) of theirs decays and perishes, it doesn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Not ‘before’, ‘when’.
Perhaps you are referring to the two types of ‘feeling’ (vedana)? As in the two arrows - sn36.6?
@stu , for me this feels like some kind of ‘war’ in which we use the texts as weapens. I do not like this. But, just to end this, there are many texts who declare this:
“Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’” (Bodhi, MN11)
"…Contemplating thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.(Bodhi, MN37)
"Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations (these are abhisankhara’s. Green), he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbna. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had
to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’ (SN12.51)
There are many sutta’s with this message.
Rise and fall of formations is an-sich no cause for agitation. Only within a not purified mind.
There is only agitation in as much there is clinging to what arises and falls. And that is gone when there is no tanha, no asava, no anusaya.
The cessation of the khandha’s does not give rise to agitation too because there is no clinging to it. It is not seen as me, mine my self. If that still exist there will be still some agitation.
I am not confused about this, i belief 
Dukkha has different meaning, like so many words, in different context. In the context of the first noble truth it refers to: rebirth, pain, sickness, death, not getting what one wants, decay etc.
In the context of contemplation dukkha nupassana means that one sees conditioned phenomena in fact as danger, as a boil, as affliction, as a tumour, a menace, as no refuge, no protection etc.
This is to remedy the distorted perception of sukha, i.e. seeing things/formations as happiness, which instigates avijja, tanha and attachment. For example, nice feelings, bodily and mentally, almost everybody sees that as sukha, as happiness, while Buddha instructs us to see it as dukkha. One starts to understand this at a certain moment. What i formerly experienced as sukha, i now more experience like a conceited state, more like excitement, maniclike, a burden. But there was a time i really believed this maniclike state was happiness.
I’m sorry that you feel this way. I thought we were having a lovely discussion, trying to clarify points of Dhamma. Many apologies for upsetting you. 
For me that is not so logic. To ‘define’ agitation as arising and falling seems to me a bit strange. Many texts (i have allready given references) say that agitation is due to clinging and ceases when clinging ceases. Agitation is not the same as arising and falling. If there is detachment, and arising and falling formations are not clung to, there is also no agitation because of this arising and falling of formations. Otherwise an arahant and Buddha can never be without mental suffering too.
I use concepts of EBT texts and have studied them and study them.
ordinary happiness and pleasures are dukkha from the ultimate truth point of view. sukkha = dukkha is paradoxical in logical/semantic sense but not for those who has gone beyond. on our mundane level we must not pretend sukkha =dukkha(vice versa) because that would be denial/ignorance( we must see things as they are). aniccha, dukkha, anatta are ultimate truths that are interrelated but they are also each ‘stand alone’ truths. everything is dukkha not just because of aniccha but because of other fundamental reasons.
Hi @nobula
It is taught that sufferings like sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, sadness have a cause, are produced. It arises because of wrong view or wrong understanding (SN22.43). The cause of this suffering is an-sich not in the khandha’s, i belief. Not in their change, not in their arising, not in their decay, not in their impermanence or cessation, but in the wrong views and understanding of them and of yourself.
There is always this me and mine-making in the unenlightend mind in regard to the khandha’s and that causes the suffering, not the impermanent aspect of the khandha’s.
What reasons do you see to call everything dukkha?
I tend to see that as a strategy not as some kind of absolute truth. For example, to see the khandha’s as dukkha leads the mind to dispassion, to a point it understand and really experiences the khandha’s are an-sich not dukkha but the me and mine making causes dukkha.
Yes, i know the texts also teach that any birth is suffering but i think that is not the perspective of ultimate truth but seen from the perspective that any birth comes again with me and mine making of the khandha’s. This repeats again and again while avijja is still there.
sorry but you are wrong. five khandhas = dukhha, period(no this or that). me and mine as you point out is different, more related to anatta and ofcourse me/mine is always dukkha, nobody disagrees.
again wrong. the entirety of budhha’s teaching is about dukkha and the first noble truth is dukkha(implies an absolute truth). you are confused between ordinary dukkha(pain/suffering) versus ultimate dukkha on the level of khandas. when you reach to the level where you can experience rising and passing of each khandas individually, you would have already been far past beyond any me/mine and pain/pleasure polarity. at that level things just rise and pass away and they are dukkha not because they are painful but simply because they are karmic remnants from the past and you are looking from the point of view of nibbana where nothing rises and passes(total cessation). the complete truth is available at that point and anything below that point is dukkha no matter how much sukkha you have or how profound your knowledge.
Oke @nobula , you think i am wrong.
First of all, I belief, there is a difference between dukkha in dukkha-nupassana, in contemplating dukkha as a characteristic of the khandha’s, and dukkha as the noble truth of suffering. Contemplating dukkha in the khandha’s is, i belief, a strategy to remedy the perspective of sukha in the khandha’s, which is very usual happening and closely related to the arising of passion and avijja.
The role of insight is to remedy those usual perspectives in our minds (nicca, sukha, subha and atta) which are connected to the arising of passion and the blinding of the mind. Contemplating anicca, dukkha, asubha and anatta leads to dispassion. Once dispassionate, passion does not blind the mind anymore and cannot weaken wisdom anymore.
-"…a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. (SN22.1122)
The khandha’s are ofcourse not really a tumour, a disease etc. but contemplating that way one contemplates the dukkha aspect in it, and that remedies seeing the khandha’s as sukha.
It is like contemplating the body. Ofcourse the body is not really repulsive as some absolute truth about the body, but developing that highly subjective perspective on the body might lead to more dispassion in regard to the body, to detachment.
Why? The goal is to see and taste and realise, ofcourse, the totally purified mind. The mind without someone, a subject, an ego who suffers! This is ultimate happiness (see further).
If there is detachment from the khandha’s how can they still be cause of suffering? Yes, if khandha’s are subject of clinging they are cause for suffering but what if they are not?
Why would the impermanence of the body be suffering for one in which there is no clinging to the body as me and mine?
Unlike the world the Buddha saw ulitmate happiness in the total purification of mind, even emptying the mind of it’s usual ego-conceit.
So, I belief a Buddha has transcended suffering during life. I know this can be questioned but it is what i belief. What do you and I or others really know about the life, the mind, the way of experiencing of a Buddha? We must rely on some texts but that does not mean a lot.
I choose for a Dhamma who leads to the total ending of suffering during life. A Dhamma in which life and khandha’s are only a burden inasmuch it is clung to and wrongly grasped. That is my choose and i belief there is support for this in EBT.
If there is no one home (No Me-making) who suffers? One can only talk about a burden when there is someone inside feeling and carrying that burden, an ego, but where is the burden when there is not someone feeling and carrying that burden inside? This is described as highest happiness:
"Dispassion for the world is happiness
for one who has gone beyond sensual pleasures.
But dispelling the conceit ʻI am’
is truly the ultimate happiness.” (Udana 2.1)
There can be ultimate happiness while living with khandha’s when there is no one home anymore to suffer and carry the burden of khandha’s. This is because the real burden is not the khandha’s but the clinging to them as me and mine creates the burden and suffering.
This is the escape which can be experiences by the wise. I do not think this is wrong. Maybe some feel this is all controversial but i feel the EBT give support for this kind of understanding.
Hard to image is the reality in which there is no one home, no ego to suffer or to be burdened. Even the most worse pains are no suffering for a mind that is pure. But even the smallest pains are a big burden for the unpurified mind.
Sannavedayitanirodha is the most comfortable abiding during life but one cannot maintain this state during daily life, but if one sees with wisdom, all asava’s end and one is free of any burden. Then ones mind is really purified. If this is really possible? I think it is. Dukkha is no absolute truth, it is caused.
what you are saying here is not incorrect but it only applies to sakadagami /arhats. for them khandas are no problem because they are already on their way out. their khandas are last remaining fuel. they are not creating any causes for new khandas. maybe you are an arhat and you are just expressing your experience but without disclaimer when you say things like khandas are not dukkha, dukkha is not absolute, you are being an irresponsible arhat. they don’t apply to us and it is not in line with practical teachings. dukkha is illusion like in a simulation(video game). everything inside that box is dukkha (both happiness and suffering) - only exception is if you are inside but you are very close on your way out with a guarantee.
I am not an arhant. For me it is not clear that change or impermanence is suffering, nor the khandha’s. That’s all. Is this irresponsible? I just do not understand it.
maybe you are thinking in terms of good/bad mentality. aniccha=good, dukkha=bad, khanda=good, me/mine=bad. yesterday you were feeling bad; today you feel good wow anicca is great, how can it be dukkha?
doesn’t mean you have to feel bad/wrong for having a good day because it is aniccha. just enjoy the day or whatever is there to enjoy without guilt. they are few drops in the ocean of dukkha, is not going to make waves, unless you break sila. apply mindfulness to your enjoyment, observe the arising passing of sukkha and attachment.
dukkha, aniccha, anatta are ultimate truths. they are experiences of those who have gone beyond and they are beyond good/bad dichotomy and ordinary logic. anicca=dukkha because everything is dukkha on the ultimate level. anicca is also different from dukkha. second and third noble truth (dukkha rise and dukkha pass) that is aniccha. aniccha is oscillation like a machine goes up/down, on/off, round and round(samsara) where we are all entangled.
Pending mod deliberation
Why? If dukkha is an ultimate truth how can there be an escape to dukkha?
I think in the context of contemplation anicca, dukkha and anatta also relate to value-judgements who are able to remedy passion, which is also related to value-judgements.
I am thinking about:
anicca…which might also have a connotation of unreliabe, unstable, insecure
dukkha…which might have also a connotation of not-safe, not-protective, no-refuge, no-shelter
anatta…which might also have a connotation of vain, idle, empty, void, valueless
Indeed. If dukkha were an ultimate truth, then there would be no escape from it, and no possibility of attaining Nibbana.
Saying that dukkha is a characteristic of conditioned experience seems nearer the mark.
As for anicca, I take it to mean impermanence and inconstancy.