[JanetMorris]

the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self". Anatta means 'not-self'

on its most basic level, anatta means 'not-mine', i.e., it does not belong and cannot be possessed. thus 'not' is the correct translation

it is the same as when a mother tells their child: "Do not touch that thing. It is not yours!"

the mother teaches her child correct language. mother says: "Not yours!" rather than "no yours!"

on a further level, anatta applies to the conventional self, i.e., a 'self' that is not a real self. so, again, 'no-self' does not make sense

also, "self" is not a by-product of the [five] skhandhas. "self" is a misinterpretation of reality by one of the skhandas. "self" is a by-product of one skhandha rather than of five skhandhas

anyone with direct realisation would understand this. how can "self" be a by-product of the physical body, which is a skhandha?

kind regards

Dear Element,

In reality no self or not self indicate the same truth.
a) It has no self.
b) It has not self.

What is the difference in the meaning...They all indicate that that whatever it is, it has no self. That is as a conclusion, there is no self over there...

To feel a self, we need all the 5 skhandhas. Only one skhandha is not enough to feel the self.

Without any of these skhandhas one can not feel the self. So it is by product for sure...