Bakmoon wrote:He repeatedly enjoined that the aggregates and the sense bases are without any kind of self
and also denied that there is anything beyond them as well.
Also I think you misunderstand the concept of the self not being the aggregates nor "in" the aggregates. Basically he means the self remote controls the body rather than being in it, not that there is no self controling the controlable actions of the body. [Yes, spasms and things like that are not controlable; does not mean a thing.]
With the origination of name-and-form there is origination of mind [citta]. With the cessation of name-and-form there is passing away of mind.
An unfortunate case of Pali words having multiple meanings like dhamma does "teaching, phenomena, thing"...citta means both "mind" (an immaterial mind distinct from the nama) and "thought". Here he is talking about "thought" not "mind". Of course thoughts are impermanent, since they arise in the mind and pass.
In any case I have little will to keep debating a subject I think is completely settled by the question "Did Buddha teach suicide or the eight-fold noble path as the means to liberation?" which nobody here seems to want to tough because you know the implications: If the body is all there is then liberation comes merely from death and enlightenment is not necessary, everyone on their deathbed is liberated, arhat or not. You could not come up with a better way to undo the entire dhamma! A self beyond the body is required to make enlightenment/arhatship necessary for liberation. Therefore, its impossible that Buddha did not teach a self.
You also know that Buddha taught the 5 aggs are not the self and NEVER actually said that beyond them there is no self. That comes only from materialistic bias being put on the text.