Cocnlusion to no-self is usually something like this: I cannot point where the "I" or the observer is, therefore it doesn't exist. However sensations in the present moment exist, there is no "I" experiencing but there is just experience that comes with sensations. ("I am nothing, I do not exist" kind of people)

Some people also conclude that since I am not, but the experience is, in a way I am the total experience. ("I am everything/everyone" kind of people)

Others will understand it this way: I am something, but it cannot be seen, because how can an eye look at itself? You can not see it, you can only be it. So there is the awareness, and all the experience to be aware of. ("I am the everpresent awareness/silent observer" kind of people)

But what I want to focus on in this thread is: how can you even know, whether there is "observer"/the Self or not? Just because you cannot find it, does it mean you are not it and it doesn't exist?

I think there is just no way to come to such conclusion, whether there is the Self or not. How can you? How can a knife cut itself, eye look at itself? I know we heard this so many times it sounds a bit cliche, but it IS a really good point!

Buddha would not answer such questions, because they don't really help. But perhaps another reason is that you simply cannot really find that out

any one of us could come up with a theory of how things work.  without doing a precise experiment though we are only led by what seems probable given our history, training, common sense, education and other biases.

we start out 'knowing' that we exist as durable, seperate, personal entities.  we can subject this belief to intellectual rigor, like nagarjuna's rational methods and come to an intellectual understanding of how our previous 'knowing' may not be the only way to view this 'self'.

with personal investigation via special techniques we can test this new theory on our own psycho-physical laboratory.  some who do this with dilligence, come to 'know', for themselves that upon deeper understanding of how things are stitched together this illusion of self is a process and not a thing.  a process with mysterious beginnings and endings perhaps, but a process and not a thing. 

the thing (self) is just a label stamped on the flowing process to allow communication about the process and to feed the natural tendency toward continuation, rebirth, a desire for permanancy.

so , its not JUST the negation of the illusion, but rather seeing for oneself how this illusion cannot exist as presumed.

Yeah, exactly, which of the experiences/sensations/thoughts/conclusions are delusions and which aren't?  Certainly I used to have a definition of self that was not thought much about but involved some kind of vague feeling.  Then later I started looking more and it was clear that I could not point to the source of awareness.  Thoughts just seem to stir and then show up.  Yes, there were thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc but those things, although seeming to  have some link and also influence to my sense of awareness do not in any obvious way seem to the main crux of it.  

But from another perspective it could be more that I have only redefined my concept of self.  Whereas before I probably kind of assumed that awareness was some kind of amalgum of thoughts and the feelings and the physical self and probably some other mystery meat in there.  But now it's more like I am fine with saying I don't know.  Meanwhile it seems that Buddha just said just use whatever works at the time and then discard it without clinging when it's time to use something else.  Very practical. 

Maybe this excerpt will help in this Investigation.  It is by the Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, from link after...  This bead and thread metaphor is really cool.
Along with the full article by Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, there is a huge chunk of stuff on Anatta in the link, if anyone is interested...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html#advantages

Psi

It's ultimately irrelevant. They're both just concepts appearing. The self and the no-self and all the other descriptions. If there is psychological suffering going on there is a cause for that and the cause is always some invested interest and importance to a concept. Without the interest in any of the concepts then who cares, life's good and kind as it is. No need to create imaginary obstacles and challenges to overcome.

What you consider to be self is just an opinion.

Buddha wanted his followers to consider body, sensation, emotions, ideas, opinions etc not-self because that would help them to let go of attachments and aversions to those things. He explained why those things and more should not be considered self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html  

As was said, he didn't answer when asked directly is there an eternal self or soul.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

Buddha, remembered his past lives
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

, told about other realms to be reborn into
http://www.leighb.com/dn13.htm

but also taught that at each moment we die and are reborn
https://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

- so in that sense there is no eternal self.

I suppose if you see that in meditation that each moment you die and are reborn, you will understand differently than an ordinary person. In the mean time I have no problem with "I think therefore I am." and the view that body, sensations, emotions, ideas opinions, etc are not part of an eternal self, for the reasons Buddha explained. I don't perceive myself generating thougths, they just appear in my mind.

When viewed this way, I don't feel there is a conflict or anything else that needs to be explained.

I don't care how self or soul is defined, what is important is there is an apparent "continuity" or "sequence of cause and effect" of consciousness from moment to moment and into the afterlife. That truth is what is important, if  you don't call that self or soul, it doesn't change the reality of continuity or sequence of experience.

Michal:



Just to add to this, I think a huge part of the Buddha's method is deconditioning the instinct to answer these questions.  The process of asking is a manifestation of dukkha.

Yes I think so too.  I think the goal was to not need to cling to beliefs too hard, just use them as tools when useful and let them go when their work is done.  Belief in self, belief in not self, both are security blankets IMO.  People like to think they have THE answer and then cling to it.  Buddhism is a bit like the bible in that whatever opinion you have, you can probably find some famous guy that says things that seem to support it.  Then another guy with the opposite view comes along and finds quuotes to suppport the opposite view.  But it does seem to say rather clearly in the pali canon that various views are debunked not for the purpose of elevating other views but for the purpose of not clinging to ANY views. 

yep, its beyond imagination, as you know you can imagine only things what you have seen previously and can then create all sorts of "new" things and theories, inventions, methods.

So you need to cultivate and reap better states and there will be revelations, you get to know things you haven't seen before.