I think your last two post have improved dramatically, I may delete this comment later for the sake of harmony, but well done!
I think it is because if the self where something impermanent, that is destroyed and annihilated, then there would be no escape from this world, only doom, as in MN63 (paraphrased);
When there is the view that the self is eternal or that the self is not eternal, there is rebirth, there is old age, there is death, and there is sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
‘Sassato atta’ti vā, mālukyaputta, diṭṭhiyā sati, ‘asassato atta’ti vā diṭṭhiyā sati attheva jāti, atthi jarā, atthi maraṇaṁ, santi sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā;
Yes, obviously, the Sydney Opera House exists, Unicorns don’t exist.
You’ve gone off the rails again here tho @Notez , I can’t pin down a Unicorn in truth and reality, but I can still absolutely talk about them not existing.
but
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is feeling made by oneself? Or by another? Or by both oneself and another? Or does it arise by chance, not made by oneself or another?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkatā vedanā , paraṅkatā vedanā , sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca vedanā , udāhu asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā vedanā ”ti?“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, feeling is not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance, not made by oneself or another.
“Na kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkatā vedanā , na paraṅkatā vedanā , na sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca vedanā , nāpi asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā vedanā .
SN12.67
so it is wrong view to assert that feeling is made by not-self.
further;
by the same reasoning if there was no one, one couldn’t ask the question.
Again, this goes off the rails a bit, at no stage does the buddha claim that this is a complete map. only that it is a map of the arising and ceasing of suffering. see here;
“What do you think, mendicants?
“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave,
Which is more:
katamaṁ nu kho bahutaraṁ—
the few leaves in my hand, or those in the forest above me?”
yāni vā mayā parittāni sīsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni yadidaṁ upari sīsapāvane”ti?“Sir, the few leaves in your hand are a tiny amount.
“Appamattakāni, bhante, bhagavatā parittāni sīsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni;
There are far more leaves in the forest above.”
atha kho etāneva bahutarāni yadidaṁ upari sīsapāvane”ti.“In the same way, there is much more that I have directly known but have not explained to you. What I have explained is a tiny amount.
“Evameva kho, bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṁ yaṁ vo mayā abhiññāya anakkhātaṁ.
And why haven’t I explained it?
Kasmā cetaṁ, bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṁ?
Because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It doesn’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.
Na hetaṁ, bhikkhave, atthasaṁhitaṁ nādibrahmacariyakaṁ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṁvattati;
That’s why I haven’t explained it.
tasmā taṁ mayā anakkhātaṁ.And what have I explained?
Kiñca, bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṁ?
I have explained: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.
‘Idaṁ dukkhan’ti, bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhasamudayo’ti mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodho’ti mayā akkhātaṁ, ‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti mayā akkhātaṁ.And why have I explained this?
Kasmā cetaṁ, bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṁ?
Because it’s beneficial and relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It leads to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.
Etañhi, bhikkhave, atthasaṁhitaṁ etaṁ ādibrahmacariyakaṁ etaṁ nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṁvattati;
That’s why I’ve explained it.
tasmā taṁ mayā akkhātaṁ.
SN56.31
secondly it does NOT follow that only dukkha arises, the “map” itself says that existence arises, pleasure arises, consciousness arises, etc etc. to paraphrase SN12.67 again;
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is existence made by itself? Or by another? Or by both itself and another? Or does it arise by chance, not made by itself or another?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkatā bhavo, paraṅkatā bhavo, sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca bhavo, udāhu asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā bhavo”ti?“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, existence is not made by itself, nor by another, nor by both itself and another, nor does it arise by chance, not made by itselfor another.
“Na kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkatā bhavo, na paraṅkatā bhavo, na sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca bhavo, nāpi asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā bhavo.
SN12.67
that is quite right, nor is there such a thing as a “not-self” on this map, nor both, nor neither.
and also , the map is not the territory.
and also
Such a one does not take anything
Yaṁ kiñci diṭṭhaṁva sutaṁ mutaṁ vā,
seen, heard, or thought to be ultimately true or false.
Ajjhositaṁ saccamutaṁ paresaṁ;
But others get attached, thinking it’s the truth,
Na tesu tādī sayasaṁvutesu,
limited by their preconceptions.
Saccaṁ musā vāpi paraṁ daheyya.Since they’ve seen this dart
Etañca sallaṁ paṭikacca disvā,
to which people are attached and cling,
Ajjhositā yattha pajā visattā;
saying, ‘I know, I see, that’s how it is’,
Jānāmi passāmi tatheva etaṁ,
the Realized Ones have no attachments.”
Ajjhositaṁ natthi tathāgatānan”ti.
AN4.24
Anyway, all this is simply to say that “there is no such thing as a self” and “there is such a thing as a self” are both wrong view, and the abyakata suttas make this very clear, all that can be said are that phenomena are not the self, or to quote you;
to infer form this that “there is no one” is to go beyond
Have we “gotten to the bottom” of this yet?