Reply To: Post on An Apparent “Self” Is Involved in Kamma Generation

Tobias G

Lal says under #4: “…That is why one cannot argue that ‘cakkhu is self.’ Thus cakkhu is ‘not-self’ or ‘anattā.”

Why is anattā “not-self”? Everywhere on the website it is stated that this translation is not correct. Would it be better to say: “chakkhu has no substance” or “one is not in control over chakku”?
Of course if one has no control over chakku then it implies that “one cannot be chakku” or “I am not chakku”.