Gena1480 wrote:any way is the any sutta that explains nonself by itself
thanks in advance.
explains non-self in a couple different ways. Both by itself by appealing to awareness of lack of complete control, and as a consequence of being unworthy of the label due to the other two characteristics of inconstancy and stressfulness. The sections regarding form are quoted below in each of these two formats, but the sutta contains a similar presentation for the other four aggregates.
SN 22.59: Pañcavaggi Sutta wrote:If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.
SN 22.59: Pañcavaggi Sutta wrote:"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"