Regarding this part about what I said regarding “not self” instead of “no self”/“self does not exist”/“self is illusion”/“self is a conditioned dhamma”, you seem trying to tell me that “not self” is too, just “the same idea”/“another theory about ‘self’”.
However, the Buddha always said about “not self” and he also told us not to make theory about “self”. So, if “not self” is also just “another theory about ‘self’” as you suggested, then the Buddha would have made a contradiction in what he said.
And since we can’t accept that the Buddha would have made a contradiction in what he said, we can conclude that “not self” is not just “another theory about ‘self’” as you suggested.
Maybe that kind of argument as above can convince you, or maybe not.
You can read more about that in a quite old topic that I have created and already brought up other kinds of argument here.
So, please again, as with Yeshe Tenley, I will have to ask you to excuse me from going into that topic.
