SuttaCentral
In MN85, Buddha was explaining to the Prince about his past practices. And why does one practises? Isn’t it obvious that it is for the long term benefit of self? So that one can experience its benefits.
I’ve explained the understanding based on SN22.59 Anattalakkhaṇasutta. You may want to clarify your views as it is not clear what you are asserting.
You are right! My earlier understanding was too shallow. 
Some more clues -
SN22.151 (and others)
Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what,
“Kismiṁ nu kho, bhikkhave, sati, kiṁ upādāya, kiṁ abhinivissa:
does someone regard things like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassatī”ti?
SN22.72
Surādha, one is freed by not grasping having truly seen any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
“Yaṁ kiñci, surādha, rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya disvā anupādāvimutto hoti.
Yes, of course it doesn’t make any sense to term an external form as me or mine. And terming external form as non- atta makes sense only if Atta has a meaning beyond me and mine.
So, how about an updated proposal? 
Atta = Some thing or some state, whether internal or external, whether related to one’s aggregates or to the world, which can be found, realized, achieved or merged with in some way which has the characteristic of being without change and without suffering, which can control itself or whatever belongs to it in any way it wishes.
The stuff that Rohitassa, Sariputta, Moggallana and even the Bodhisattava left home in search of?
Your thoughts?
I think the implication of the texts is that we (i.e. the faculty of intention or will-power) can control the atta the way we wish. Which would make the intention the superior and the atta the subordinate quality.
I was referring to ordinary unenlightened sentient beings!
An enlightened one has seen through the nature of experience. Hence though they still have contact, sensation and cognition, they do not create any volitional construct (sankhara) around it, and they do not think in terms of ‘I am’. (See Advice to Bahiya).
The enlightened one of course, can still move around in the world, perceive objects, use language such as ‘I’ etc. but this is without any delusion.
This is in contrast to the experience of ordinary sentient beings who automatically color all sense input with volitional constructs rooted in the sense of ‘I am’. So they are unable to let go of their experience - they just cannot accept it as it is- they feel the need to hold on or change it in some way viz Craving.
This difference of experience is illustrated in MN1 where the ordinary being ‘perceives’ Earth, while the enlightened being ‘knows’ Earth.
To clarify with an admittedly imperfect simile, imagine someone is wearing a Virtual Reality headset. Would they have any doubt that whatever is perceived within that virtual reality is simply based on the sense input received - its not real? Yet they would still be able to see VR generated body parts on looking down (red furry arms? 
), they could move around in that world seeing departmental stores, parks etc, talk to others within the simulation etc…
(My understanding is EBT based, I find that Abhidhamma inspired hyper technical concepts to be often at odds with what is given in the suttas.)
When something very valuable to you is gone, such as when your house got destroyed, when your money got scammed away, when you loved ones leave you forever, does it hurts?
If they are just external form that has nothing to do with you, why do you suffer on the account of their changes?
My suggestion is to look at what is bothering you and find out the root cause rather than theorizing atta.
The meaning of atta is literally the topic of the discussion.
For understanding the meaning of atta in early Buddhism, I think one needs to first know (1) the reason why anicca ‘impermanence’ is dukkha ‘suffering’, and (2) the various terms for the notion of anatta ‘not-self’ in SN/SA:
Pages 55-60 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (447.3 KB)
Understand from the angle of dukkha, don’t theorize it if one is truly devoted to the practice.
MN2 Sabbāsavasutta
“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’
“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
To give still more info: In AN, note 1823, translation Bodhi it is said (refering to commentary):
"The perception of non-self is stabilized (anattasanna santhati): the perception of non-self consists
in the contemplation of non-self, which occurs thus: ‘All phenomena are non-self’ because they are coreless; because we have no mastery over them; and because they are alien, void, hollow, and empty. This perception is stabilized, firmly established in the mind."
It is also said that the perception of non-self stabilizes when the perception of anicca stabilizes.
Consider also the notion of the ‘middle way’ in SN/SA suttas in connection with ‘not-self’ anatta (as ‘right view’), e.g.:
Pages 60-66 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (484.6 KB)
See also SN 12.15 = SA 301 for the notion of ‘middle way’:
Pages 192-5 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (274.5 KB)
Thanks. Can you provide the link?
It’s in the notes of the AN translation of Bodhi. In the book.
The complete texts of note 1823 is:
Mp: “When the characteristic of impermanence is seen, the characteristic of non-self, is seen. Among the three characteristics, when one is seen, the other two are also seen. Thus it is said: 'When one perceives impermanence, the perception of non-self is stabilized/” Mp-t, commenting on 9:3, says: “One who perceives impermanence (aniccasannino): one who perceives impermanence by way of the contemplation of impermanence, which occurs thus: ‘All conditioned phenomena are impermanent’ because they cease to be after having existed; because they arise and vanish; because they are fragile; because they are temporary; and because they exclude permanence. The perception of non-self is
stabilized (anattasanna santhati): the perception of non-self consists in the contemplation of non-self, which occurs thus: ‘All phenomena are non-self’ because they are coreless; because we have
no mastery over them; and because they are alien, void, hollow, and empty. This perception is stabilized, firmly established in the mind.”
I take the Dhammapada verse to be saying that we are heirs to our kamma, and so we should act with restraint, and take responsibility for our own actions.
“Self” is used here in the conventional sense, and it’s not a teaching on anatta.
@faujidoc1 and @Gabriel an alternate translation of “creatures” is “beings”
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings, he conceives himself in beings, he conceives himself apart from beings, he conceives beings to be ‘mine,’ he delights in beings.
this came up in my feed as a recent topic idk why, but i just scrolled past all of it hoping a monastic would reply & explain the pali usage of atta here–which i’m personally still at a loss about. it could be just the way the word is used in pali & how it’s translated. 
I’m not quite sure if this has already been said in this thread, if so let me know, because I tried to read through most of it.
Something that I struggled with for a while learning Buddhism is that the specific terms used by Buddhism - ‘jargon’ - can have a specific definition that is distinct from the normal meaning. I got very confused learning about the different Cetasikas, mental factors, until someone explained this to me.
For example “greed” in its normal usage differs from “greed” used in a Bhuddhist context or suttas, which is more broad.
In the same way, the normal word “self”, which can be used for convenience, is different from the thorough explanation and principle of annata.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with this is to focus on the way the Buddha explains annata. If a sutta uses the word “self”, it is probably in the normal worldly meaning.
I’m repeating myself but: do we get a direct justification from the pali texts that atta means self?
Don’t follow the simple reflex of “what else should it mean” or “the dictionary says so” or “the teachers say so”. Follow the original texts, not their interpretation or common translation.
The 5 aggregates, not atta, are commonly believed to comprise a ‘self’.
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.
and the same for the other 4.
And it is often mentioned:
…assutavā puthujjano rūpaṁ ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati.
(for instance, see SN 22.100 Dutiyagaddulabaddhasutta)