For someone of limited understanding, namely me, this discussion is very confusing.
I am confused about the difference between no self and non self and this section of the Notes:
13.Annihilationism is one of the two extremes of wrong view criticized most heavily by the Buddha (the other is eternalism, as represented by the sixth of the six view-positions). Some interpreters, citing this passage, have tried to limit the meaning of annihilationism simply to the idea of the annihilation of an existing being. The teaching that there is no self, they then argue, does not count as annihilationism because there is no self to be annihilated. This interpretation ignores SN 44.10, which counts the statement "there is no self" as siding with annihilationism.
As for the term, "existing being": SN 22.36 and SN 23.2 state that a being is defined by his/her/its objects of clinging. SN 5.10 indicates that one of the ways of overcoming clinging is to focus on how the concept of "being" arises, without assuming the truth of the concept. And as MN 72, SN 22.85, and SN 22.86 maintain, when clinging is gone, one is called not a being but a tathagata — who, freed from clinging, cannot be classified as or identified with anything at all.
I think I understand to this level: the aggregates are processes that are dependently arisen based on causes and conditions. The aggregates are what we falsely take to be our “self” and then cling to causing the whole round of samsara and the 6 wrong views listed in this sutta.
So, if clinging is gone then that would mean that the aggregates are still present with no agitation? Is that the correct understanding of non self?
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for further reading and practice to correct and deepen my understanding.