text:
Does false self = no self?
My new understanding (based on this post) is that the self is not permanent and is always changing. However, I still can't make the logical assertion that the self does not exist at all. At this point, it makes more sense for me to say: "there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version 1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc".
In short, here are my present assertions:

a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is what we understand as self.
if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed. Example: without a self, there would be no one to respond to this post.

Are my assertions correct? Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?

Imagine a river flowing over some rocks. At one point where the river bed makes a sudden turn, the flowing water forms eddies - little spinning whirlpools of water.
Does an Eddy exist? Well, yeah. Is it permanent? No. But it gets more interesting than that.
Does an Eddy exist intrinsically, as an entity? -- now, this is a more interesting question...
The water an eddy is made from is different every second. And yet it looks like the same eddy stays in place for minutes or even hours.
Looking at one particular Eddy - what is it, really? What is its real identity? Is the water = Eddy? No! Is this bank = Eddy? No! Is that bank = Eddy? No! Is this section of the river bed = Eddy? No! But if you take exception to the water, to this bank, to the other bank, to the river bed - where can you find the Eddy?
It is exactly thanks to the water flowing, thanks to this bank, thanks to the other bank, thanks to the river bed - that here emerges a little whirlpool, an eddy.
In Buddhism we call this "samskara" (Pali "sankhara") - an assembled phenomenon or simply an assembly. Assemblies are not just impermanent - we say they are "empty of identity" or "coreless". Meaning, if you deconstruct any one of them, like I just did with this eddy - you will not find any core, any "main thing" that is responsible for its existence and for it staying itself. Assemblies emerge from interplay of multiple causes and conditions.
According to Buddhism (both Theravada and Mahayana) "self" as well as all other phenomena are assemblies. They are not just impermanent, they are empty of core, empty of identity. They are not entities, they are patterns of behavior emerging from interplay of causes and conditions.
Because self is an assembly, a different self can get assembled in different circumstances. For example, when you visit your parents, the self assembled with them is probably different from the self assembled at work, or the one assembled at the bachelor party. The feeling that self is the same entity that has continuity from moment to moment is a perceptual illusion, just like with Eddy. In fact, both our perceptions as well as our actions come from interplay of causes and conditions, with identity overlayed on top by the imputing conceptual mind (which is itself an interplay).
This is why when Buddha was asked whether Tathagata exists after death, he said, Tathagata cannot be identified even when alive, it's an assembled phenomenon emergent from an interplay of factors, including such factor as the presence of students imputing the label "Buddha" on the teaching situation.

Thanks @AndreiVolkov, I see little to no daylight between this and my answer :)

Thanks for the post @AndreiVolkov. I enjoyed the eddies analogy and it makes sense to me that self is an assembly of many things. Given that, perhaps it would be more correct to say: "without the evolving assembly of self, the subject of knowledge could not come into contact with the object of knowledge and no perceptions could be formulated". Thoughts?

Delineating the objects, contacts, perceptions, and subject (in this order) are phases of "evolving assembly of self".

Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?
In the Self-Doer Sutta (below), the Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self at all. How could one moving forth and back by his own will, say that there is no self at all?

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

Saying that there is an eternal permanent self is a view of eternalism, while saying that there is no self at all, is a view of annihilationism. This is the message of the Acela Sutta (which is summarized below from here). Instead of resorting to either eternalism or annihilationism, the Buddha prefers to explain using dependent origination.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S.
  XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

Is the self impermanent? Everything apart from Nirvana, is considered a sankhara - phenomena which is conditioned by other phenomena, and/or phenomena which is compounded or composed of other phenomena.
How the self comes about is discussed using dependent origination, and is dependent on the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness. As the five aggregates keep changing, one's identity views related to them will also change. One day you may see yourself as young and talented, while many years later, you may see yourself as old and worthless. Yet another day, you might compare yourself to a wealthier person and consider yourself poor.
Another interesting sutta is the Lute Sutta (below) which compares the self to music which arises from the inter-working of the different parts of the musical instrument. Of course if the musical instrument is played differently, different kind of music comes out. But if you break down the musical instrument to its constituent parts, you cannot find music.
The self is like music, the sentient being is like the musical instrument, the five aggregates are like different parts of the musical instrument, and dependent origination is like the mechanism of how the different parts of the musical instrument work together to produce music.
Just as there is no standalone entity called music, there is no standalone entity called self. To say that there is a standalone entity called self is eternalism. To say that there is no self at all is annihilationism. Both are false views.

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

The last sutta I would introduce you to, is the River Sutta (below):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a
  river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift,
  carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa
  grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing.
  Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa
  grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would
  come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the
  reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away,
  and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears
  away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster. (and
  the same applies to the other four aggregates)

What does this mean? When you get hurt, you may say, "I got hurt". This is associating the self with the body. If you are getting old, ageing and dying, then you are suffering. You suffer because you associate your self with that which is getting old, ageing and dying. This shows how associating with the self causes suffering.

"However, I still can't make the logical assertion that the self does not exist at all."
That's good because such an assertion would be preposterous and obviously wrong! The Buddha never said the self does not exist at all because of course the self does exist. You and I exist. Persons exist. This is not in dispute by any serious Buddhist that I know of. The question is how we exist. The answer is not at all like how we think we exist :)
"there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version 1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc".
Can't you divide further? Can't you find self 1.0.0.1? 1.0.0.0.1? 1.0.0.0.0.1? What is the limit to how fine of granularity you can make out? Is this a continuum along the real number line or is it discrete like the integers? Also, when you say "pass through time" do you mean that self at 1.0.0.1 exists for multiple moments or for only one moment? What is the measure of that moment?
"a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is what we understand as self."
Your matter continually changes over the course of your life. The atoms that make up "you" right now are different than the atoms that made up "you" when you were a baby. Moreover, there are more of them now. And less of them then. So if the matter that makes you up is not "you", what is? You said energy and of course by Einstein's equation we know that matter and energy are related. So, let's say we cooled you down to near absolute zero and let all the energy that is "you" convert into matter. Your body would have zero kinetic or potential energy at that point. Would "you" still be "you" after some new energy was pumped into the system and heated you back up?
"if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed."
Right, Buddhism does not assert that the self does not exist. People exist! Saying otherwise is silly.
Are my assertions correct?
Not all of them. People and selves do exist and asserting otherwise is nonsense. I think your breaking the self down into versions is not very illuminating. I don't think you've yet discovered how persons exist, but it sounds like you are on your way! Keep investigating :)
"Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?"
I don't know of any orthodox Buddhist philosophy that teaches the self does not exist at all, but you never know who you could find espousing to be a Buddhist and what crazy things they might say :)
It is true that the self is utterly impermanent, but that is not all that one can say about how it exists. The self is not unitary either. It is also completely dependent upon others. It comes from causes and conditions that are themselves impermanent, non-unitary and dependent on other causes and conditions as well. Ultimately, the self is merely a label that we conventionally designate on the illustration of a person. It is not real and it lacks true or inherent existence. This is how the self exists. However, this is deep and subtle and hard to understand. Usually when we hear the above we immediately leap to thinking the self does not exist at all, but that is not what those words mean. The self exists like an illusion, but it does exist.
Here is a really good book that lays out in pretty simple terms the ideas I'm fumbling with above. How to See Yourself As You Really Are by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. To go along with this book I'd highly advise watching Venerable Thubten Chodron who has a series of Youtube videos that follow along as you read.
Hope this helps!

As always, @YesheTenley I really appreciate your thoughts and practical suggestions. I will look into all of the resources you have suggested!

Happy to help a bit :) have a look at Andrei’s answer above too as he gives a vivid example of the eddy which is an awesome illustration of the very insubstantial nature of how things exist.

My new understanding (based on this post) is that the self is not permanent and is always changing.

The Pali suttas say the journey starts by listening to the True Teachings made by Worthy Persons (AN 10.61).

However, I still can't make the logical assertion that the self does not exist at all.

The Pali suttas describe the assumption of self (SN 22.81) as the arising of suffering (SN 12.15; SN 5.10); as a disease (Ud 3.10). All that exists is a "disease" and "ignorance & craving", which produces the false idea or assumption of "self". However, since the ordinary person (called "puthujjana") cannot remove the thick covering of ignorance; the ordinary person can't make the assertion that the self does not exist at all. This is the difference between the ordinary person and the enlightened mind. The enlightened mind is very rare in the world (SN 56.47).

At this point, it makes more sense for me to say: "there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves
  being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version
  1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc".

There are multiple assumptions of self. There are multiples diseases that are named "self" by the sick mind; similar to having influenza; then an infection; then diabetes; then depression; then cancer; etc.

a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is
  what we understand as self.

SN 22.81 says the assumption of self is produced from when ignorance clouds the sense bases and craving arises from that. To quote:

Assumes to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the
  coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that.
SN 22.81

if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed. Example: without a self, there would be no one
  to respond to this post.

'Self' does not "observe". The element of consciousness observes. Also, the mind thinks and responses to a post, rather than the self.

Are my assertions correct? Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?

The assertions made are obviously incorrect. Buddhist truth teaches self is a superstitious assumption born from ignorance & craving; that the assumption of "self" is the name the world of the unenlightened gives to a disease or mental illness.
When a mind with mental illness believes it is Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar; it is taken for granted such a mind has a mental illness. Similarly, in Buddhism, any mind that believes it is a "self" has a mental illness. All that exists is mental illness (or "disease") rather than any permanent or temporary self.

This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a
  'self.' By whatever means it construes [anything], it becomes
  otherwise than that. Becoming otherwise, the world is     attached to
  becoming  afflicted by becoming and yet delights  in that very
  becoming. Where there's delight,  there is fear. What one fears   is
  stressful. This holy life is lived for the abandoning of becoming.
Ud 3.10

Thanks for your answer @Dhammadhatu. However, given the idea that self is a superstitious assumption born from ignorance & craving, then what is the entity making the superstitious assumption? What is the correct way to articulate or identify the entity that makes a "superstitious assumption"? To say "the world makes a superstitious assumption" implicates all beings / entities across time and space, does it not?

The "mind" makes the assumption (as was written). In Buddhism the thinking mind is called "citta" or "sankhara khandha". As was quoted, "self" is a "sankhara" (thought fabrication). It is thought that creates self rather than self that creates thought. Regards

what causes the mind want to assume anything? Or, put another way, what causes the mind to desire to "become" something other than what is already is? Apologies if my questions are not skillful, I am new to all of this.

Ignorance; as written in the sutta. Please read the sutta quotes when they are posted. Read them again & again until they are clearly comprehended.

Ignorance & craving are called "anusaya" or "underlying tendencies" in Buddhism. A scientific term for these things are "survival instincts". Each organism is born into the world with reproductive & survival instincts. This is where craving comes from and this is what the self idea is born from. "Self" is a survival instinct. Craving also makes the mind blind; which is ignorance.

Read this: https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf

Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?

This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.

If self exists, then let us rigorously, precisely determine its boundary so that we may understand what is self and what is not self. Is your hair you? And ater a haircut? Pursuing this inquiry near and far, high and low we arrive at the rather odd conclusion that there is watching but not self.


text:
What is Buddhist doctrine on the question of counterfactual definiteness?
Counterfactual definiteness is, "is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed."
The classic question to illustrate is, "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?"
Another classic example is Einstein asking Bohr whether he really believed that, "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?"
What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?
The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined. However, doesn't this procedure implicitly rely upon the supposition that existing things can be found if one investigates and looks for them? That which can't be observed must not truly exist?
Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all? -- are you asking what can we say as Buddhists or you are asking for sutra references.

Both are welcome

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?
That's easy to answer: the only good use of mano ("mind") for anybody who want to stop dukkha is the yoniso manasikara ("appropriate attention"), which is, in one word, phrasing sati (awareness, mindfulness) and what you do with sati, in terms of mano. This is the first step of the path (after, of course, hearing the doctrine to remember) -- the famous "proper attention" on the source and ending of whatever is dukkha, from the reply "you need a good friend and proper attention" of the buddha, when he was asked what is required to reach nibanna.
Also, The standard procedure for understanding anatta has nothing to do with "investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined." Leave drawing conclusion to the toxic puthujjanas (wordlings): the logicians, the daydreamers, the creators of views, the people who love to argue about views.
Use mano only for ascertainment, for attestation, for witnessing, of the source and fall of phenomena, of vedana (feelings), of sanna (perceptions) and so on -- and of course, for the ascertainment of the failure or the success, from the activities you have done so far, of your practice (then you pursue successful activities and you abandon failing activities).
Here is what happens when a puthujjana uses mano for something else than yoniso manasikara:

Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention (SN 9.11)
I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:
From inappropriate attention
  you're being chewed by your thoughts.
  Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
      contemplate
      appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
  the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues
  you will arrive at
      joy,
      rapture,
      pleasure
      without doubt.
Then, saturated
      with joy,
  you will put an end
  to suffering & stress.
The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Here is the proper use of mano:

Natumha Sutta -- Not Yours (SN 12.37)
Channa Sutta -- With Channa (SN 35.87)

Use mano for striving to find the sources of what comes to be, and the ending of what came to be -- of how things arise and how they pass away (and not "see things as they really are", contrary to the worst translation ever, created by a puthujjana craving to cram the word "real").
Now, tHe standard procedure to "understand anatta" is the one to become an arahant -- and the standard procedure to become an arahant is for the citta to have samadhi, and once the citta has stable samadhi, to use sati to focus on anatta through the sequence anicca, dukkha, anatta -- or to just hear the discourse by a Buddha which will be about this sequence anyway.
Since the bikkhus  do not know what is anicca, but are already more or less good at getting the citta in samadhi by being good ascetics, they once more rely on a discourse, this time directly from the Buddha, like the second one (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta -- The Not-self Characteristic) where as usual the five aggregates that any human knows and experiences are anatta -- so no need to go deep looking for anatta.
Now atta is  only a word, so what experience is there behind this word?
Well as usual the answer is given, and it is:

This is mine, this is I, this is my self

... and what does this apply to? The 5 aggregates -- which is the sakya-ditthi (i.e. the view that the aggregates are self) and the only ditthi (view) that you must care about and reject, once you want to stop dukkha --- which of course has nothing do with eternalism or annihilism, and the fantasy of some puthujjanas that the dhamma is some middle way between the two, because those people love to (very dubiously) tack their favorite  words like "existence", "real", "self" on their experience and these words are even more meaningless when they are used to talk about the Buddha.
The (non-ascetic) lay people who stop being puthujjanas do so by listening to the Buddha, and they become stream-enterers. After that the remaining work no longer concerns views. Instead the remaining task is to destroy various lusts, and the energy spent fueling those lusts. A puthujjana is done with views as as soon as the puthujjana become a sotapana.

Thanks @RuthLydia, but I can’t make heads or tails of this and have no idea how it answers the question.

I thought this answer was clear: It addresses what it considers to be some misconception in the question. it disputes the OP's assertion about what "the standard procedure for understanding anatta" is -- instead that's done by seeing the three characteristics, and not by logic about existence or reality. It says that discarding sakya-ditthi (the view that the aggregates are the true self) is necessary and sufficient understanding of anatta -- and that after that any progress is not about views any more but about destroying lusts and energies which fuel those lusts (e.g. asavas, effluents).

Perhaps I skipped or shortened a step, it should say, after discarding sakya-ditthi (a.k.a. Sakkaya Ditthi) and listening to the Buddha, then people develop confidence in the Dhamma (and hopefully sila too), after which point progress is no longer about "views", but about lusts and related energies (and "attending appropriately", mindfulness and so on).

The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined.
Anatta is not-self. It is not no self. From MN 148:

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be
  tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when
  its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My
  self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone
  were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone
  were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus
  the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say,
  'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...
  Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye
  is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,'
  that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are
  not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is
  not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't
  be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self,
  consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self,
  feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,'
  that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are
  discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would
  follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be
  tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is
  not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self,
  contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is
  not-self.

Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?
I've heard Advaita adherents saying that the one cannot see his own eye, because the eye cannot see itself, but it doesn't mean that the eye is not there. Here, the self is equated with some kind of universal consciousness (the same "I" in every being, the silent witness). But the Buddha debunked this by his analysis on consciousness in MN 38.
Now back to the context of what's useful in Buddhism. The question as you ask it does not contribute to the cessation of suffering. It will simply result in a lot of philosophical speculation and intellectual gymnastics. Why? Once suffering has ceased for an enlightened one, it doesn't matter whether there is still a self sneakily hiding somewhere or not, because he has already understood through wisdom how dependent origination works.
But the analogy of the unobserved tree can be re-purposed and reframed to make it useful for the ending of suffering.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no observers, would there still be the sound of it? The answer is NO. Why? When a tree falls, it simply causes air molecules to move as waves. It only becomes a sound when there is an observer i.e. the movement of air molecules have to have contact with the ear drum to cause the stimulation of the auditory nerves, which in turn causes the brain to perceive sound. The same applies to sight and photons.
Similarly I can ask, if there is no clinging to what is felt through the six senses, would there still be the experience of suffering? The answer is NO. There is only the experience of suffering, when there is clinging to what is felt through the six senses. When there is no clinging to what is felt through the six senses, there would be no experience of suffering.
This is based on MN 148:

"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
  The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or
  neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure,
  one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then
  one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a
  feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's
  breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't
  get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor
  pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination,
  passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's
  ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through
  abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure,
  through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of
  pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling
  of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving
  rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the
  here & now: such a thing is possible.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds...
"Dependent on the nose & aromas...
"Dependent on the tongue & flavors...
"Dependent on the body & tactile sensations...
"Dependent on the intellect & ideas ...

And clinging to what is felt through the six sense bases, is based on association of the five aggregates with the self:

"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'
"One assumes about the ear...
"One assumes about the nose...
"One assumes about the tongue...
"One assumes about the body...
"One assumes about the intellect ...

I'm not sure of the last paragraph, whether that's right -- maybe that's stretching the analogy too far -- because semi-enlightened noble ones still perceive suffering, and because dukkha is a characteristic of (inherent in) the "thing" (i.e. of sabbe sankhara)..

@ChrisW I have updated the answer to be more sensible.

Thank you. So that associates dukkha with "passion-obsession" or "tendency to desire", rāgā + nusaya ... IMO reminiscent of the 2nd noble truth, which doesn't talk about "self" as such, but which identifies "craving" as well as the "clinging-aggregates".

When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound?
I think Buddhism says something about "contact" between sense-object, sense-organ, sense-consciousness.
the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it
Maybe this calls for a joke, about enlightenment (of which the moon is a symbol) being non-self.
The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined.
That's not how I interpret the Anattalakkhaṇasutta -- I interpret it as saying that the aggregates don't obey our will, are impermanent, are dukkha, and are therefore not fit to describe as self -- not that "self doesn't exist" but that "it's not clever, healthy, proper" to describe the aggregates as self.
Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say ...
Yes it sounds to me like back-and-forth argument.
Quoting again from 7 Things the Buddha Never Said:

“There is no self.”
This is the other Big Lie. The one time the Buddha was asked point-blank if there is or isn’t a self, he refused to answer (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). In Majjhima Nikaya (the “Middle-Length Discourses” of the Buddha) 2 he stated that the views “I have a self” and “I have no self” are both a thicket of views that leave you stuck in suffering. When the Buddha taught not-self (anatta) — as opposed to no self — he was recommending a strategy for overcoming attachment, a way of cutting through the mind’s tendency to cling to things by claiming them as “me” or “mine.”
The Buddha never said that “There is no separate self” either. He declined to get involved in the issue of whether any kind of self exists or doesn’t exist.

See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
I think that "the self exists" and "the self doesn't exist" and so on are all categorised as "views of self" and a "thicket of views".

Thanks @ChrisW. I notice that you often turn to the “thicket of views” sutta. I do not think it means what you think it means :)

The quote above is from Ven. Thanissaro -- who quotes the phrase more than once in his essays. The word ("diṭṭhigata") appears in more than one sutta, e.g. MN 2 and MN 72, in a phrase or formula for which I don't find much commentary (perhaps because the meaning is obvious?), which e.g. the PTS dictionary gives as "groundless opinion, sophistical speculation".

Yes, I have seen if referenced many times on Accesstoinsight.

I agree with the accepted answer in that thread namely, “This nature of the self is beyond the level of understanding of Vacchagotta.” ie., this was a teaching specifically for one person and to cite it as definitive or a teaching for everybody is incorrect.

@YesheTenley IMO the Pali suttas tend not to pronounce on this kind of topic ("do things exist?") in that way. Instead they explain how things are things are perceived, and define views as "right" when they tend towards disenchantment -- and denounce e.g. "there is no teacher" as one of several wrong views, an extreme. In MN 2, question about the self are described as an asava (see What is effluent?).

If the Pali canon doesn't really answer the question you're asking -- if this is a question about Mahayana doctrine -- then it would be good of you in future to add the [tag:mahayana] tag to your question, which would exclude answers which aren't based on Mahayana doctrine.

Hi Chris, it was not specific to Mahayana I just wanted to know what others thought or if anyone could find a Sutta that could provide some insight into the question.

I don't have sutra reference but I am going to answer this as a personal understanding of the universe.
"the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?"
The black-holes cannot be seen, even if someone is looking at it, you cannot see them. The existence of a black hole was first predicted mathematically on paper. So did it exist then? Later its existence was confirmed only as an inference from the trajectory of nearby stars. So it does exist. Everything exists irrespective of a human or sentient entity of observation.
And also the tree does make a sound even when no animal is around to hear it.
But that is just one aspect of reality.
Actually, in a way, the moon does not exist when no one is looking at it. When you are not looking at it, the whole lump of matter called moon is just probability waves of subatomic particles moving in empty space. At that level of reality its just a distortion in space, a changing entropy. There really, in reality, is no moon.
Similarly, when the tree falls, there is no sound, just longitudinal waves which are a disturbance in the air. There is no sound. The sound is a mental construct of a sentient entity which can hear.
But there is also another twist in this.
According to recent work of scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, something like the color is inherently there. It's not because of the photon of particular frequency strikes on your retina and your brain interpreting in a particular way, but the information of the experience of green is inherent. So with or without the sentient entity, there are green trees.
So, maybe even if no animal is there to hear, there is sound which is heard by trees around, and even if we are not looking at the moon, the earth is looking at the moon.
So the short answer is it depends upon the vantage point of reality you are in, it depends on the frame of reference from which you are cognizing the reality.
Adding the Buddhist twist to this,

eye produces eye consciousness, ear produces ear consciousness and so on...
so consciousness is human experience product of senses.
                      OR

There is a plane of infinite consciousness and it being the aggregate it has an independent existence. So consciousness is just there.

So based on what you choose to believe you have your version of reality. it's not absolute.

Hi @FriedrickNietzsche, does not confuse me at all although I have a background in physics so that might explain it :). FWIW, I think Carlo Rovelli has it mostly right with Relational QM interpretation and I do not think conyerfactual definiteness is asserted.

No, Carlos interpretation does not infact support conterfactual definiteness i think it does the oppisite. I am saying the conclusion largely depends upon the nature you ascribe to Consciousness.  RQM entails that “a complete description of the world is exhausted by the relevant [Shannon] information that systems have about each other.” However, according to Shannon, information isn’t a thing unto itself. Instead, it is constituted by the discernible configurations of a substrate.

excuse me about the 'confuse' remark, I edited it out, I meant to say that, I had made arguments for both sides.

The Pali suttas say not-self (anatta) is the true nature of all things; even when there are no Buddhas in the world to reveal this truth. In other words, just because there is no mind to experience something (such as a sound or anatta) does not mean that something does not exist. The idea that a sound only exists when it is heard is Theism; the belief a God creates the world. It is Brahmanism.
Below is quoted the difference between Buddhism and Brahmanism:

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
  Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches
  it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it
  plain: All phenomena are not-self.
AN 3.136

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
  Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens
  to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through
  to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He
  reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as
  a requisite condition comes aging & death....From becoming as a
  requisite condition comes birth...
SN 12.20

Theistic Brahmanism:

'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be.'
DN 11

About the arising of sense contact, the Pali sutta say:

sense-object, sense-organ, sense-consciousness.

However, the Pali suttas do not say if there is no consciousness there is no sound.
Unlike the dodgy Buddhists who assert consciousness comes first, the Pali suttas say sense objects, such as sounds, come first:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises....
Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact.

I try to warn people about the danger of "Phenomenology" but the Phenomenologists trapped by the Phenomenological Spell of Mara believe Dhammadhatu (rather than Phenomenology) is Mara.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are all of the five aggregates saṅkhāras?
Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?
I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on?
Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?
Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?
If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all aggregates?
Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others? Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?

Yes, all khanda are saṅkhāra. They are all impermanent and dependently originated.

I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on
  sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on?

They are also dependent on objects and citta (if memory serves). Check out the Abhidhamma, and in particular the Dependent Origination chapter and the Patthana.

Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what
  (conditions or causes) do they depend on?

Yes, of course. They too are dependently originated. Form has 4 causes: kamma, temperature, nutriment and consciousness.
Consciousness can be caused by objects, Nibbana being the object for supra mundane consciousness and ordinary sense objects for the senses. Kamma can be a cause for all resultant types of consciousnesses. I would refer, again, to the Abhidhamma for further clarification.

Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind
  person, for example?

No, eye consciousness arises with an visible object. Light has to be there and attention. When the object ceases so does the accompanying eye consciousness. For instance, when one is in deep sleep, at those moments there is no eye consciousness, seeing doesn't take place. (Again, this is from an Abhidhamma point of view.)

If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the
  aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the
  meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one
  aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all
  aggregates?

Saṅkhāra khanda would, f.i., simply be thinking. Except for feeling and perception all other 50 mental factors are part of the Saṅkhāra khanda. That includes kamma, attention, contact, metta, karuna, and so forth.
The difference depends, imho, on the context in which the term is used, the form of classification used.

Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a
  dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not
  subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a
  meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others?

Depends what you mean here with Dhamma. Dhamma in the sense of doctrine: yes, that too will disappear, at least according to the Buddha. When you mean Dhamma in the sense of nature or natural law: then no, nature will always be nature. The way the law of nature works can be forgotten, of course. Till the next Buddha shows up and investigates and sees the truth and law of nature again.

Is awareness of
  (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact
  (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and
  impermanent?

Yes, it is.

If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)?
Please read this answer for more info on sankharas based on Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay "Anicca Vata Sankhara". I quote the TL;DR version from that answer:

Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other
  things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven.
  Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred
  translation.
There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions
  of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce
  results, including "rebirth".
The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all
  factors of mind except feeling and perception.
All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and
  computers.

The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?
Yes, in all the different meanings of sankhara, they are always impermanent and conditioned (depend on other things for their arising and ceasing).
Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?
MN 148 explains the arising of consciousness:

"Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there
  arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there
  arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors
  there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body &
  tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent
  on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
  'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'

Meanwhile, form as one of the five aggregates refers to body, and it being conditioned and compounded is explained in MN 74:

Now, Aggivessana, this body — endowed with form, composed of the four
  primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice &
  porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and
  dispersion — should be envisioned as inconstant, stressful, a disease,
  a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration,
  an emptiness, not-self.

Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?
According to SN 12.44:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The
  meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition
  comes feeling.

"Contact" in this quote refers to mental contact and not physical contact. When there is physical contact between eye and forms (in this context, "form" means visual objects), eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three would result in mental contact.
This is only my speculation, but presumably, a blind person can see darkness or black.
Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay
According to AN 3.134, the Dhamma does not depend on the coming of a Buddha:

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this
  property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. ... All processes are
  stressful. ... All phenomena are not-self.

According to this essay by Ajahn Sumedo:

Akalikadhamma means that Dhamma is not bound by any time condition.
  The word akala means timeless. Our conceptual mind can’t conceive of
  anything that is timeless, because our conceptions and perceptions are
  time-based conditions, but what we can say is that Dhamma is akala,
  not bound by time.

Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?
While the Dhamma (teachings) may not be sankhara, the mental concepts built around it definitely is sankhara, which is why seeing it through wisdom (through vipassana) is needed, as compared to intellectualizing it.

So "form" is used in two ways -- as an aggregate, it's synonymous with "the (e.g. human) body"; and as a cause of eye-consciousness, it's synonymous with (any) "visual object".

Yes, that's right.

And consciousness is conditioned by contact -- no contact implies no consciousness -- i.e. it's not that consciousness exists for as long as (whenever) there's a body, even during moments with no contact. And maybe contact is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness (e.g. there might be ear and sound but you're not listening)?

@ChrisW Physical contact yes, but not mental contact. SN 12.44 states "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling." That means that (mental) contact depends on consciousness and not the other way round. When there is the eye and there are forms, and presumably physical contact, then eye-consciousness arises. When the three meet, then there's mental contact.

In Abhidhamma contact is a mental thing. Not a physical thing. And with eye is meant eye sensitivity. Mental contact comes up together with the consciousness. It's not first this and later that. It's both at the same time. Just my bit of Abhidhamma perspective.

Yes. You're right. The sutta says "The meeting of the three is contact". It doesn't say that with the requisite condition of the three, arises contact.

-- "Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?"
In my understanding, it's the experience of "my life" that is a saṅkhāra - while the five aggregates (lit. "heaps") are called that because they are an analytical classification of the experience into functional groups, they do not exist as anything separate to begin with:

The Elder said: ‘A hard thing has the Blessed done, great king.’
‘Which hard thing has the Blessed done, venerable Nagasena?’
‘The hard thing the Blessed has done, great king, is the analysis of all the formless dhammas - of the mind and everything related to mind - that unfold on the same foundation: here is Phassa/Contact, here is Vedana/Feeling, here is Sanna/Recognition, here is Cetana/Intention, here is Citta/Thought.
‘Give me an example.’
‘For example, great king, someone were to sail out to the open sea, and taking some water in the palm of his hand, were to taste it. Would he be able to tell: here is water that came from the Ganges, here is from Jumna, here is from Aciravatī, here is from Sarabhū, here is from Mahī?’
‘That would be difficult to do, venerable.’
‘That which the Blessed has done, is even more difficult, great king - the analysis of all the formless dhammas - of the mind and everything related to mind - that unfold on the same foundation: here is Phassa/Contact, here is Vedana/Feeling, here is Sanna/Recognition, here is Cetana/Intention, here is Citta/Thought’

The ocean metaphor used by Nagasena in Milindapanha serves to illustrate that our normal experience is completely unified, just like the water in the ocean is an indistinguishable blend of waters from multiple rivers. Separation of the fire of experience into the five heaps of fuel is an analytical exercise. The heaps themselves do not really exist as something distinct from each other.
-- "...I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on? Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?..."
Yeah, of course they are all impermanent and dependently originated. In fact in one of the suttas Buddha talks about this at length, pointing out how each of the five heaps is not reliable because it depends on some fluctuations outside of one's control. And yes, that included consciousness which depends on external stimuli (here, "rupa").
-- "Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?"
As @ruben2020 correctly said, it is Contact that depends on consciousness, not the other way around. This is because Contact is phenomenological contact, the experience of coming into contact with an object of sense.
And yet, as you correctly intuited, consciousness is not something that abides - it is an emergent phenomenon that is ephemeral and discontinuous. Continuity and integrity of consciousness(-es) of individual senses, experienced as one seamless whole is a convenient illusion. IMO consciousness is not a good translation for vijnana for exactly this reason - because it implies that it is something abiding that cognizes stuff. Instead, consciousness is ephemeral representation of a stimulus in the mind based on the stimulus relationship with sankharas - imprints left by the previous experiences.
-- "If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all aggregates"
The sankhara which is one of the five heaps is called so because it represents aggregation/accumulation of experiences over time, leaving imprints or memories, these imprints then acting as latent tendencies determining person's impulses and reactions. In both cases the word sankhara (lit. "together-made") means something that is constructed or assembled from multiple elements.
-- "Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others?"
The Teaching is called Dharma because it expounds the universal law. Indeed, in Chinese Buddhism the word for Dharma is usually translated as "The Law" or "The Rule". That said, in Mahayana Buddhism the fact that even The Teaching itself is conditioned and relative is universally recognized.
-- "Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?"
My teacher said that "Enlightenment is only a phenomenon, too" - so here you go, this piece is also "a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent".

What does "The Teaching is conditioned and relative" mean -- what is it conditioned by and relative to? In OOP terms, when you say "The Teaching" there, are you referring to an instance of the class (i.e. somebody teaching once, one person among many in history), or ...? And is that "instead of", or is it "as well as" (or neither, e.g. "in parallel to" or I don't know what)  the Dhamma's being universal and true?

I suppose it means that a particular way of presenting Dharma is a conceptual framework that (implicitly or explicitly) postulates some axioms and then builds a theory on top of them. So it's conditioned by and relative to those axioms. I suspect it's instead of. This is my personal understanding, I've never seen/heard this spelled out. But the statement that Teaching is conditioned/relative is something I've encountered many times, used in a matter of fact way, so I suppose it's a norm.

I think that the Pali suttas use "conditioned" as intended to imply "impermanent", right? So maybe "Dhamma as a raft" sort of thing. But a or the message from you (I don't know about the rest of Mayahana) is "choose your axioms wisely" (reference) -- and maybe vary the selection to suit the "job" at hand. Do you know why Mahayana describes it as conditioned? I suppose it's to fit the thesis that everything is empty.

In lectures it usually goes something like this: "Look folks, everything is empty, dependently arisen, and relative - even the Teaching because it depends on the circumstances of the students and teacher, and even Enlightenment because it depends on realizing it; blah blah blah" - I've not seen this properly elaborated. Perhaps Gelugpas with their propensity for exact logic have something clear to say on the topic?

The word "saṅkhāra" has many meanings, such as:

"Compounded things formed by causes & conditions"
Mental aggregate of thinking & creating (sankhara khandha)
"Mental proliferating of thought".
Etc; etc; etc.

This old blog may help; although I need to re-read it for accuracy.
Therefore, as "compounded things" (meaning #1), each of the five aggregates are saṅkhāras, as follows:

Rūpaṃ kho āvuso channa, aniccaṃ, vedanā aniccā, saññā aniccā, saṃkhārā aniccā, viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ, rūpaṃ anantā, vedanā anattā, saññā
  anattā, saṃkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṃ anattā, sabbe saṃkhārā aniccā, sabbe
  dhammā anattā
Form, friend Channa, is impermanent. Feeling is impermanent. Perception is impermanent. Mental formations (saṃkhārā) are
  impermanent. Consciousness is impermanent. Form is not-self. Feeling
  is not-self. Perception is not-self. Mental formations are not-self.
  Consciousness is not-self. All (sabbe) conditioned things (saṃkhārā)
  are impermanent (aniccā). All (sabbe) phenomena (dhammā) are not-self
  (anattā).
SN 22.90

Being compounded things, they must be impermanent and originated from causes (idappaccayatā).
It is important to distinguish between idappaccayatā and paticcasamuppada; otherwise we will fall into Mahayana by using the term "dependently originated" inaccurately.
Paticcasamuppada is about how ignorance manifests over 12 conditions to cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering.
Idappaccayatā is the general principle of cause & effect. Therefore, a physical eye, for example, is formed via idappaccayatā because it is made from atoms, neurons, skins, etc. Merely for the physical scientific reasons a physical eye is made up of different physical parts is why it is a sankhara. The interaction of the mind is not necessarily for the physical eye to be a sankhara.
Again, the more we fall under Mara's spell of Phenomenology; the more we spin around and around in questions.  The spell of Mara is like this; dragging into samsara.

Is vinnana conditioned (caused by or composed of) the bodily sense-organs (e.g. eyes) -- or is it conditioned by contact between sense-organ and sense-object -- is that defined somewhere, do you know?

And should "form" be understood as a person's physical/biological body, in this context (i.e. when "form" refers to one of the five aggregates) ... or is it more or less than that (e.g. the form of anything perceived, of "a chair" for example) or perhaps some mind-only aspect of that?

Sorry Chris but you seem stuck in Phenomenology. Please refer to SN 22.79; MN 62; and SN 12.2. Form is described as physical.

Vinnana  is complex. It can be experienced in many different ways. It can be of many different types and forms. It is the link between mind and matter.  vinnana can go from conditioned state to the unsullied. The purest level of vinnana is called the “citta”.  If one could understand it properly one will have the “nāmarūpa paricceda ñana“.

“Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.’ And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.’ (SN22.59)

@ChrisW Vinnana is conditioned by the sense objects. Without smell there will be no nose consciousness. Without taste no tongue consciousness. With practice you can actually see the consciousnesses fall away or cease together with their respective objects.

"Form" is ambiguous (or context-dependent), apparently (reference). I asked these questions in order to help answer this comment -- thanks for answering.

Are visual objects not comprised of earth, wind, fire & water?

Isn't it tactile objects that are comprised of elements? I imagine visual objects as composed of colours and brightnesses (from/in which a mostly-automatic neural network in the visual cortex detects edges).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Are there any Buddhist charities or organisations funding education in Buddhist studies?
Further to answers to this question, I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world.
I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

Maitripa College in Portland, Oregon has scholarship opportunities available: https://maitripa.org/event/scholarship-applications-are-available/

Thank you for the answer. As much as I would like to come to US, the entry requirements are stringent.

http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/buddhism.htm
https://www.woninstitute.edu/
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/index.htm
https://tricycle.org/magazine/where-to-study/

Please see the The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies. It says:

The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) announces the sixth
  year of an initiative supporting research and teaching in Buddhist
  studies, funded by The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation. In
  cooperation with the Foundation, ACLS offers an integrated set of
  fellowship and grant competitions supporting work that will expand the
  understanding and interpretation of Buddhist thought in scholarship
  and society, strengthen international networks of Buddhist studies,
  and increase the visibility of innovative currents in those studies.
These are global competitions. There are no restrictions as to the location of work proposed, or the citizenship/residence of applicants.
  The final products of research supported may be in any language.

In order to qualify for this, you can be doing your studies in any country in any language.

There are no real behind the Buddhas (re-)ligion, the "institution" of his monks, the Sangha. What ever other ways outside the Vinaya and tradition, one should know as corrupt in measures of Dhamma-Vinaya, not able to transport the Sublime Buddhas heritage, simply ways of livelihood and eager tries to make copies and deprive the world of the existence of his heritage.
The Buddhas "economy" is based on goodness with no interest to bind or increase and nurish debts to the world and not tending to leave home and stands.
Dhamma-Vinaya is nothing that can be studied in schools and out of books but requires proper cirumstances so that it is not hurtful at least.
Nothing to fear to get not really enough founded once having joined an upright Sangha and to life exclusively on generosity without objectives and impure motivations toward world but straight to liberation.
If not able to join the Sangha, the Ven. are usually open for serious questions any time. Also this, how ever, requires temporary leaving home and ones stand.
So you may be informed that such ways, either not knowing(aware) or deliberatly organised, are neither proper nor respectful but always "greedy" or "harmwishing" motivated. Be special careful if Monks join such improper undertakings.
There is only one "Buddhist organization" and this is the Sangha of the Buddhas good Bhikkhus. What ever organe else presented, one should know as "fake" and harmful for many.


text:
Can students evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?
Assuming students are unenlightened, how can students have the chance to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?
For example, recently there have been more sexual misconduct issues with famous teachers, such as Sogyal Rinpoche. Obviously, the students here were unable to evaluate the teacher.
What is the method for students to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?
How can a person that knows very little of the Buddha's teaching evaluate if a person is a Buddha?

Is this a sincere question? Are you looking for the viewpoint of others or do think you already know the answer and just looking to teach the rest of us?

It is a very important question that can help a person with what looks like the mental defilement of rebelliousness against the Dhamma and all things & beneficial.

What are you looking for in a teacher: only a lack of sexual misconduct? And, which school?

One can immediately eliminate from consideration any teachers who might incur censure per AN8.88:

The lay followers may, if they wish, make a proclamation of confidence in a mendicant who has eight qualities.
They don’t try to prevent the lay people from getting material possessions. They don’t try to harm lay people. They don’t insult and abuse lay people. They don’t divide lay people against each other. They don’t criticize the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. They’re not seen at an inappropriate place for collecting alms.

Note that many of the contemporary Sangha/teacher crises would raise doubts and lack of confidence because of the above.
The Rhinoceros Sutta suggests that we be prepared to wander alone as necessary in our search, not wasting our time, yet open to meeting the Sangha as found:

Follow that friend who’s deeply-learned,
Dharma-endowed and lucid, great,
knows meaning leading out of doubts,
fare singly as the rhino’s horn.

What is the method for students to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?
It is always said in India (Buddhists and Hindus alike) that, When the disciple is ready the Guru (Teacher) arrives. The trick is that you start your search to Nibbana in all dedication and sincerity, rest of the events unfold.
There is no way a student can evaluate a teacher. I mean how on earth I can know anything about, say a 'Geshe' degree or if you are an academic or an Arhant?
Altough what can be done is you can do some background check before you commit, but if there is a shady teacher who is not yet exposed in that case nothing can be done.
But there is another thing, that is called as Innocense. Knowing lot of spiritual con-men I can attest that those trying to achieve the ability to fly in the air end up with the con-men and those with a sincere search for Nibbana will end up with right teacher. The cunning end up at feet of cunning. It takes masive deal of Karma on one's part to arrive at true teacher of Dhamma (not to be confused with saaying that victime are responsible for their troubles).
How can a person that knows very little of the Buddha's teaching evaluate if a person is a Buddha?
No, you cannot eveluate a Buddha, you just evaluate your own truthfulness and your own intentions.
In other words, "appo dipo bhava", be a light (island) into yourself.

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves,[1] be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no other.
  SN 22.43
  -- Attadiipaa Sutta: An Island to Oneself

Also of interest is the Kalama sutta.

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

When the Buddha says that you can't go by logical deduction, inference, or analogies, he's saying that you can't always trust your sense of reason. When he says that you can't go by agreement through pondering views (i.e., what seems to fit in with what you already believe) or by probability, he's saying that you can't always trust your common sense. And of course, you can't always trust teachers, scriptures, or traditions. So where can you place your trust? You have to put things to the test in your own thoughts, words, and deeds, to see what actually leads to suffering and what leads to its end.
Also,

Schrodinger's Cat.

MN 95 also contains a teaching about this.


text:
Is it true that arahants don't have sati?
A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati.
He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).
I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami.
Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached.

Sati is "non-forgetting" of the Dhamma Truth.

To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

This does not make sense because effort, determination, patience, etc are parami. Why would a mind that has destroyed/uprooted the defilements need effort, determination, patience, etc? Regardless, the Buddha never taught the 10 parami; particularly for Arahants.

I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati.

When the defilements are destroyed/uprooted; naturally the sati of a non-arahant (which includes the abandoning of wrong view) is not required. The sati of a non-arahant or learner is described as follows:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

This being said, the mind of an arahant obviously cannot forget the Dhamma Truth. Thus MN 117 also says:

Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.
MN 117

In short, the sati of an arahant is automatic because an arahant can never forget the Dhamma Truth.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that the link to the parami didn't make sense in this context. And thanks for the sutta text. (Accepted as answer to question since it was response to all points of my oq.)

Maybe your friend meant to say that an arahant no longer has to consciously make an effort to develop sati? An arahant has developed all 8 limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path to perfection such that they've become second nature. To him, sati's no longer an effort to be developed. It's become his way of life. It's like a novice martial arts student at first has to constantly practicing many drills to build up his reflex and awareness. Once he's become a martial arts master, it'd be absurd to say he "no longer has reflex and awareness", but reflex and awareness have become second nature to him.

The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak. This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-objectification, who delights in non-objectification, not for one who enjoys & delights in objectification. ~~ AN 8.30 ~~

I don't know what he (not my friend) meant. It's also not really of that importance, I think. I do very much like your explanation of sati basically being a second nature to an arahant. At least, that's how I look at it as well. Thanks.

That's not what DN 16 appears to say. The Buddha, who is also an Arahant, endured his physical pains mindfully (sati) according to DN 16.

After the Buddha had commenced the rainy season residence, he fell
  severely ill, struck by dreadful pains, close to death.
Atha kho
  bhagavato vassūpagatassa kharo ābādho uppajji, bāḷhā vedanā vattanti
  māraṇantikā.
But he endured with mindfulness and situational awareness, without
  worrying.
Tā sudaṃ bhagavā sato sampajāno adhivāsesi avihaññamāno.

And also:

But the mendicants who were free of desire endured, mindful and aware,
  thinking:
Ye pana te bhikkhū vītarāgā, te satā sampajānā adhivāsenti:
“Conditions are impermanent. How could it possibly be otherwise?”
“aniccā saṅkhārā, taṃ kutettha labbhā”ti.

To add, from DN 16: But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"

Thanks, @ruben2020. I went through the DN 16 just now. This one caught my eye as well: "So at the Cāpāla tree shrine the Buddha, mindful and aware, surrendered the life force.
Atha kho bhagavā cāpāle cetiye sato sampajāno āyusaṅkhāraṃ ossaji." Great source, thanks.

In my understanding, The Five Powers develop in progression:

Faith/Conviction (saddhā bala)
Energy/Effort/Persistence (viriya bala)
Mindfulness (sati bala)
Concentration (samādhi bala)
Wisdom/Discernment (paññā bala)

Each Power supercedes the previous, subsumes it and makes it obsolete.
First, the only Power helping the neophyte move forward on the Path is Faith in Buddha and Dharma.
Then the student, inspired by Faith, develops the power of Effort or "Working Hard", which, while not necessarily removing Faith, certainly supercedes it as the main factor of moving forward.
As the student applies Effort again and again, failing and trying again to overcome ignorance, desire, aversion, and the habitual pathologic mindstates - the power of Mindfulness (=remembering the Instructions during daily activities) develops and becomes the main engine and guardian of one's practice, superceding both Brute Effort as well as Blind Faith.
When the power of Mindfulness fully matures, it grows into ability to maintain the Dharmic perspective, which is a certain choice of interpretation of what's going on. It's not just remebering the teaching anymore, it's a kind of Focus or Concentration, keeping the mind on reality of Dharma-world. When this power fully matures it makes one a different person living in a very different world and supersedes the power of Mindfulness.
Finally, as the student acquires the wisdom of seeing "how things are", the power of Samadhi, or fabricating and maintaining a certain perspective, gives way to Prajna, also known as The Knowledge of All Modes - which is the power of seeing all realities beyond conceptual limitations and skillfully navigating them.
As you see, according to this model at some point sati is overgrown, subsumed and superceded by samadhi.

I have no references to texts, only personal experience. I hope I can still shed some light on your question though. Only so much can be learned through teachings. We must look to personal experience to answer these types of questions. You will never know the true answer until you experience enlightenment for yourself.
I am an arahant, if I can say that. There is no perminant, separate self to be an arahant. But enlightenment occurred, and the paradigm shift occurred.
Sati is translated many ways.
If you translate it as "Mindfulness", you are talking about keeping the teachings in mind to guide your mind towards enlightenment. Once you have awoken completely, there is no need for guidance.
I think what you may be hung up on is the concept of effort. I believed I was working hard to do the "right" thing. I thought I was making choices, and pushing myself where I wanted to go.
It was just belief though. When enlightenment occurs, you see there is no such thing as effort. It stems from a belief that the permanent, separate self makes choices and acts. We do not have free will. We do not choose and we do not act.
What is choice? Choice is a thought. Take the question, "Would you like soup or salad?". You might repeat the question as a thought in your mind. Then there is a pause. Then the thought "I would like salad" comes and goes. Then a thought occurs, "I made a choice".
There was nothing between the question and answer. Did you choose the answer to the question, or did it just appear? Perhaps you have a preference? Did you choose to prefer salad over soup? With the thought "I made a choice", the belief in choosing is created. A choice always appears after it has been made in the form of a present thought.
Why do we believe we have free will? It stems from an innate understanding of what we truly are. We are the universe, creating all minds and experiences. The freedom is in the infinite possibilities of what we can experience. We have no control over our experiences. I don't choose the colors of the trees or the sounds of traffic. All experience is uncontrollable and ever changing. How could effort exist without control?
I do not have sati. There is no I to possess sati. Nothing becomes. All things are.

Downvote because it's not an answer to my question. For the record: I'm not hung up on the concept of effort, as you put it. There is also no confusion about the nature of choice or free will. Thanks.