I am not a typical Buddhist, and from my view, zen may was from Buddhism, but far beyond it.

To me, "the five aggregates of clinging", Skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi), means the five layers of mind (not thoughts), from consciousness to subconsciousness or unconscious mind.

The first, 色 are the obvious things grabbed by our mind such as color, view, sound, etc.

The second, 受 are not so obvious things, e.g. the smell, the taste, the feeling by touch, etc,

The third, 想 are the thoughts, etc

The fourth，行 are the sense of time, memory, etc

The fifth, 识 is nearly being totally overlooked by us when our eyes are open, although they could be leaked by our micro-expressions such as stuttering, spoken mistake, a frown etc, which could be without being noted by ourselves.

There could be sixth or seventh layers hidden deeply in our mind, which we don't even know they are there or not, just like we don't know if there really is Tao or God , or Śūnyatā / emptiness, or any other concepts referring to the source of everything.

(It is possible that there is no any source. Everything is independent and self sufficient, free from any depending on any source. It means all of the order we're observing are actually some illusion based on a chaos. E.g. a monkey randomly is typing out a novel such as "gone with the wind")

Some people believe they can reveal this ultimate secret by sleeping or other way such as meditation in order to suppress the surface layers of our mind and let the deeper layers show themselves in all kinds of dream.

But a dream is just a dream, you can even say that it is always a distortion or exaggeration, no matter how clear or lucid it seems.

All these spiritual experiences, no matter how special or even unique, are still blinders which hides that ultimate secret.

A person who cheated by them may consider himself a saint, but according to Śūraṅgama Sūtra, you could call them a servant of demon, who is a blind but don't know himself is a blind and try to guide other blinds.

For example, someone was cheated by an emptiness or nothingness they've experienced, (refer to my another answer Min John Zhou's answer to Can you offer an explanation of the Buddhist concept of emptiness/sunya and why it's important for Nirvana? Any way and school is fine.)

he may tell you that every thing is like a onion, pealing all the layers, what you get is an emptiness.

So nothing is really exist, and nothing is worthy.

To me, It could be a joke. He's forgotten the seeds of all the onions,

or it is like that he has forgotten, or worse he's pretending there is no Lego toy factory, so all the castles are built on those little Lego bricks, not based on that factory. It seems that he was blinded by those colorful little pieces even though he's talking about an emptiness.

You can see that he apparently thinks he's become a saint who have no self.

But if there is no me, who has gained this no-me.

Nobody can make himself from with a self to without any self.

It is an impossible mission to raise yourself by pulling your own hairs.

What we should do is unbinding and liberating ourselves from all the clinging, not only unbinding ourselves from clinging of images (phenomena, experiences) but also liberating from clinging of the mirror, the TV, the screen, the stage, the platform......(all kinds of concepts, imagines including a chaos or an emptiness).

What you finally gotten is not a "no self" or "no me", but a realizing that there is never an independent self or me from the beginning or before the beginning. And what we really depend on is an everlasting hidden secret base or source, which shouldn't be called anything including emptiness or no-self in case it would misguide others. (Someones may loss their curiosity in life and even kill themselves because of this kind of misguiding)

Let me quote some "key principle" from wikipedia as follow.

Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद pratītyasamutpāda; Pali: पटिच्चसमुप्पाद paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key principle in Buddhist teachings, which states that all dharmas ("phenomena") arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist".

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra tells me this "principle" could be wrong.

It is a joke to assume images are depending on each other, not depending on the TV set. Although this "TV set" could be "a typing monkey".

If you persist that you are independent (Otherwise how can you be free? And you may even wonder how can a dependant self be exist as an self. If there is no sense of an independent me, how did we develop a Self-consciousness?) then you should realize none of the dependent things are the real you or your true self, including both images or imagines of the mirror (and concepts based on these imagines, referring to the very early source or the ultimate base).

What we can gain someway sometime somewhere can be lost anytime anywhere in any way. What comes from the source would back to it eventually.

There is an ancient Greek aphoris: Know thyself or Know yourself.

To me, the bad news is I can never know precisely the real me or my true self, who are playing all these roles including a "no thoughts" or a "no me" or even a so strange role that couldn't be described by words.

Could some of them happen to be a reality show? Yes, if their followers are so lucky.

There are so many different theories, anyone of them could be the right one,

(Even the emptiness, which seems a joke to me, could be the right answer through a lucky blind guess.) and they can be all wrong. And it is even possible that all of them are right at the same time if you have a good imagination which can contain all of them.

But a guess is a guess, an assuming is an assuming,

although you may don’t realize that you’re assuming and guessing.

How can we be 100% sure, since as Confucius once said, there is always the unknown behind anything we’ve known.

Like a picture has to be based on a background. How can a god know why a human being have so many different kinds of emotions if he’s never given up his omniscience and born as a human to live a normal life? (If you think people’s emotions are simple and trivial, you may have already missed the real treasure in your life.)

If you can become omniscience one day in the future, can the present you and the past you lose the background of The Unknown because of it?

Once The Unknown is there, it would be there always and forever.

It could be a bad news, but also a good news.

By the way, from my view, if we must name "the mirror"or the TV or “the source"....., the best one is "The Unknown" although as I know it maybe sounds creepy in some cultures.

The good news is that it certainly be the same thing as Tao or God which should be there anywhere anytime, although it may be in a particular way different from other time other place. All of these ways disguise and conceal the really true actor.

Different from a body or other mediums or agents,

to this actor, who I call The Unknown, and who should be the real us, the true ourselves, there is no gain or loss, no death or birth, no beginning or end, no coming or going, but only being and living.

(There is a birth and death of your body. But your body is something belongs to you, not the really true you.)