Maybe these above fragments need to be translated by someone else than Nanamoli? But maybe you are all overworked. I hope not.
I am especially interested in the right meaning and application of anatta nupassana.
i think it is correct that the idea of “atta” refers to a self-who-is-in-control, an autonomous agent.
For example: “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)
so the idea of a self refers to a kind of autonomous agent or entity which is in control.
I compare this with a tree. The tree is no entity or autonomous agent which decides to loose her leaves or to suck water or to grow. This happens due to causes and conditions and is not governed by some inner or outer tree-self or tree-soul or tree entity. The point of anatta is, i belief, all happens due to causes and conditions without there is some agency or self or soul or entity responsible for all this to happen.
In the old days they postulated endless such entities, such as all kind of Gods who ruled over lightening, the oceans, etc. Science has another approach and has made this entities needless. Causes and conditions are determining what happens.
The concept of anatta does not denie the (conventional) existence of ‘a person’ or ‘a being’, just like it does not denie the existence of a tree. And just like there is no tree-entity who decides to let the leaves fall, there is also no entity inside us who governs all those formations as breathing, verbal formations, mental formations, phyiscal formations. Those formations are not governed by a self, some psychological entity who rules, they arise due to causes and conditions.
I keep on investigating the right meaning and application of anatta nupassana and look forward to your answers and comment.
Siebe