Bhante, the point is that you are trying to convince us that there is no Self. I have no slightest idea what this “self” is which you say it is non-existent.
All I know there is such phenomen as attāvada which is connected with sakkayaditthi. And I am certain that this is our task as Buddha followers: abandon sakkayaditthi and attavada.
So while it is good idea to agree upon definition of “metaphysical” for the purpose of this discussion even
better idea is to define what we mean by “attā”. And to reaped by attā I mean certain subjective experience which is present in every puthujjana experience and which is associated with perception of permanence and mastery over things which puthujjana describes as “my self” and in the Buddha Teaching is known as attavadupadana and sakkayaditthi.
In common sense language there is such thing like ego and self, so this is a problem since because of it people are egoistic and selfish. And here is difference between your stance and the Buddha since while there is no single Sutta which deny in direct way “self” sometimes Lord Buddha speaks to outsiders about the states of being in the terms of self alluding to nibbana cessation of being.
“There are these three types of acquisition of self: the gross, the mind-constituted, and the formless…. The first has (material) form, consists of the four great entities and consumes physical food. The second has form and is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty. The third is formless and consists in perception…. I teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling qualities may be abandoned and cleansing qualities increased, and that you may, by realisation yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding’s perfection…. If it is thought that to do that is a painful abiding, that is not so; on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness, and a pleasant abiding.”
The Buddha went on to say that from one rebirth to another any one of these three kinds of acquisition of self can succeed another. That being so, it cannot be successfully argued that only one of them is true and the others wrong; one can only say that the term for any one does not fit the other two; just as, with milk from a cow, curd from milk, butter from curd, ghee from butter, and fine-extract of ghee from ghee, the term of each fits only that and none of the others, yet they are not disconnected. The Buddha concluded:
“These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions, by which a Perfect One communicates without misapprehending them.”
D N. 9 (condensed)
So Bhante, please clarify this point, what is this self which you say that it doesn’t exist. Because as I understand Dhamma, self and conceit “I am” are things which can be classified as delusion or ignorance and as such they have to be removed from experience. And it should be quite obvious that what has to be removed in certain sense must exist. And this is precisely reason why in Dhamma there is no place for affirmation nor negation of self.
Or perhaps do you mean there is no such thing as “my self” in the case of sotāpanna?
“This world, Kaccāna, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence.31 But this one [with right view] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’32 He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccāna, that there is right view.
SN 12: 15
This passage above seems to say that notion “my self” is the state of dhukkha. The dhukkha which is not understood by the puthujjana.
Dhukkha has to be understood. What are liberatering qualities of view “there is no self”? How such view can help to abandon self-identification with things if one insist that there is no such thing with which other things are identified? or how can one see the body as a self? You seem to say that it is impossible, since there is no such thing as self. Or perhaps you mean some Hindu Self?
But than, what it has in common with the doctrine of anatta which is directed to Buddhist puthujjana in order to help him to abandon sakkayaditthi?
I hope Bhante that you will not see these questions as a kind of disrespect, I just want to clarify certain very important point out of respect for Dhamma, not out of disrespect for you.