Siebe said: “I have seen most buddhist teachers explain it this way. In this context Anatta is almost always translated as no-self. In the sense of ‘there is no-real ego-identity’. I do not see what is wrong with this meaning of anatta.”
Actually, the next sutta “Channa Sutta (SN 22.90)” clearly says anatta does not mean “no-self”, even in the English translation: “Channa Sutta: To Channa (SN 22.90)“:
“Everything exists”: That is one extreme. “Everything doesn’t exist”: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”
“Everything doesn’t exist” in the above translates to “no-self” when applied to a “living being”. As far as a “person” is concerned, “self” is one extreme and “no-self” is the other extreme: it wrong to say either “a person exists” or “a person does not exist”.
So, even though most Theravada websites (including the above sites) translate “anatta” as “no-self”, it is clear from their own translation above that the Buddha rejected this “no-self” view.
I had decided not to answer any more questions from Siebe on this issue, but I can see that he is agonizing over it. And truly, it is not easy to grasp. That is why in the above sutta, it is stated that Ven. Channa meditated for years trying to get rid of the perception of “me” (“pancakkhandha are not mine”) and could not. That is impossible to do. One first needs to realize that it is not fruitful to take pancakkhandha as mine.
I and others have described the relationship between asmi mana and sakkaya ditthi, and also why they are different too. It may be a good idea to read all those exchanges under the following two topics. No point in repeating:
“Two unbroken streams of consciousness (DN28)”
and “Wrong English translations of Aniccha, Anatta, Sakkaya ditthi… etc“.
This is at the heart of understanding Tilakkhana, so I suggest to all who have questions about this to read them. There is a lot of information under those two topics.
Bottom line is that a Sotapanna is one who has seen (with wisdom; and has become dassanena sampanno). Thus a Sotapanna knows that “it is not fruitful to take pancakkhandha (including one’s body) to be mine”. That is removing sakkaya ditthi.
It is only an Arahant who has actually fully comprehended and experienced the full release from suffering and thus has removed the perception of “me”. That is removing “mana” or more specifically “asmi mana” (other components of “mana” are removed at lower stages of Nibbana.
To say it in yet another way: Removing sakkaya ditthi is done as first step in comprehending anatta. Comprehension of anatta becomes complete with the removal of “asmi mana” at the Arahant stage.
Finally, I have been getting requests to post a desana on Tilakkhana for a while. This may be the best time to do that since I need to take some time off to focus on another project soon. I hope to do that in a week or so.