[Ervntewc]

1. What is it that experiences anatta if there is no (intrinsic) self?

This is my understanding of this.

If you inspect closely, you find that the observer and the observed are the same thing. When you ask yourself the question, Who am I?, the observer and the observed are one. It is a misconception that the observer is a self or soul. It is merely thought that gives rise to a self or soul, my this, or my that, and to your question which really is "if not me, then who experiences anatta, there has to be a me, somewhere".

I think the Buddha has said something along the lines of there is no anatta nor atman, maybe to show the fragility of what real anatta is. Freaky, isn't it?

I could be totally off.

2. Assuming all phenomenon are the result of causes, does the idea that this is the case also have a cause. In some sense I'm asking where the chain of causes began.

I'd like to know the answer to this too.