Thanks Bhante, I think it is of much value to collect this explicit source at Sbv I 158.
MA 62 was already mentioned by @Sylvester. And we are grateful to find a translation of MA 1-71 here.
On page 384/385 we find:
there is no self; there is nothing that belongs to a self; [all this] is empty of a self and empty of anything that belongs to a self. When phenomena arise, they arise; when phenomena cease, they cease. All this is [just] a combination of causes and conditions, giving rise to suffering.
We find the explicit “There is no self” in this edition in: MA 6 (p.37), MA 62 (p.384).
MA 10 (p. 58) on the other hands lists “there is truly no self” as one of six wrong views resulting from wrong attention.
So is the ‘No-self doctrine of Buddhism’ in the end a limited MA doctrine?
Personally I took ‘no-self’ as a given. I think it was first reading Wynne - The Atman and its Negation (2010) that raised a question mark. Still I thought ‘What the heck is he writing about?? anatta is all over the place!’ But slowly I realized that the flat-out denial (like in MA 6, MA 62) is very hard to find.
Again, I understand how one could see Pali Buddhism as advocating an anatta-view. But in order to discuss it properly I would like to separate the explicit from the suggestive textual basis.