SuttaCentral
It’s funny to me it’s the other way around. I can’t see why Nibbana would be a phenomenon (or a thing, a dhamma): it doesn’t have the characteristics of the phenomena. It’s neither impermanent nor dukkha, it’s not conditioned. I am quite convinced by this interpretation. But, I don’t know, it seems to reintroduce a subject/self that didn’t exist in the historical understanding of Buddhism.
Interesting…
I had this exact response in mind but Bhante beat me to it!! 
I, personally find that all apparent debates about Anatta come from people having unconciously adopted differing versions/ definitions of what “ATTA” viz Self means to them. So before debating, we should at least agree on mutually acceptable definitions.
It is best to use the definition the Buddha himself provided.
How did the Buddha define"Self"?
For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
SA34 is even more clearly worded (or translated?)
Thus have i heard. At one time the Bhagavān was dwelling in Vārāṇasī, at the Deer Park of Ṛṣipatana. At that time, the Bhagavān told a group of five bhikṣus, “Form does not exist as a self. If form existed as a self, then form would not be associated with the arising of illness and suffering. Regarding form, it is also not possible to cause it to be like this, or not like this, because form is not oneself. From form and the arising of illness and suffering, one also grasps the desire to make form like this, or not like this. For sensation, conception, synthesis, and discrimination, it is also such as this.
So, Self should (a) not lead to affliction and (b) be completely under voluntary control and bend to the whims.
viz. There should be complete and absolute ownership, with no possibility of what is considered as Self changing on its own or causing unwanted distress.
It is because this definition is adopted that the examination of a potential candidate for Self proceeds as (a) Is it permanent, stable, unchanging and under complete control? (b) Does it cause Suffering?
When it doesn’t fulfil these criteria, it fails the test and has to be classified as Not-Self.
Feeling is impermanent…. Perception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
With this definition and methodology being adopted as the framework for all further discussion, how can anyone view any of the 5 aggregates or even Atman/ Brahman as Self?
I’m skeptical towards this line of reasoning. I’ll try to explain why 
The goal one is to arrive at is:
“So you should truly see 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.’
I.e. the point is to see one’s own body as “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
And look at the phrase “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
Two thirds of it “This is not mine, I am not this”
So while the Buddha is perhaps speaking to a group that has an idea of a controllable, blissful self, the point doesn’t seem to be to refute just that view and nothing else.
IMO, the underlying point seems to be “form, feeling, perception, will and consciousness are suffering, don’t identify with things that are suffering.”
I don’t think the particular theory of self/soul that existed in ancient India is that important compared to the proposal that we’re wrong when we think “this is me, I am this” in regards to our body and mind.
Anyway, just my two cents.
"So the Buddha himself says that he transcends all things, is unsullied by all things, is unlinked from all things and has crossed over all things. So obviously, “All phenomena” is excluded from the enlightenment that the Buddha achieved (Nirvana).
And so, Nirvana is excluded from the not-self reflection – Nirvana is NOT anatta – Nirvana is NOT not-self. Here, we have a double negative – a negation of a negation – which cancels the original negation out." (Quoted from the document you cited)
The words “transcends, unsullied and unlinked” all refer to what the Buddha let go. That means the Buddha first realized Nibbana as said in SN 56.11 “This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.” “Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ sacchikātabban’ti” If it is a realization
it cannot happen without the senses which means it is a Dhamma.
The only difference here is that the Buddha let go that realization too which is described with words such as “transcends” etc.
IMO the words mislead us and we should be mindful of the fact that the language itself is a mental creation.
With Metta.
The Parivara describes Nibbana as a dhamma. No, it’s not an EBT, but it lies a lot closer to the early texts than we do, and was written by someone with far better knowledge of Pali. Moreoever, the Suttas do call Nibbana a dhātu, a word that is very similar in meaning to dhamma.
Words are okay. I wouldn’t say that they mislead us; but it’s certainly true to say that insisting too much on them misleads. Clearly Nibbana does not mean dhamma in the sense required by the passages quoted (sabbe dhammā anattā and so on), but dhamma has many meanings, and language is endlessly creative.
I find it hard to understand why Nibbana would be the cessation of two trilakkhanas (anicca and dukkha) but not of anatta, which would remain valid until the end. 
I have always felt that these three truths should be understood as a whole. Impernanence being a source of dukkha for the one who clings to it (who makes it his own).
All composed things being impermanent (anicca), impermanence being unsatisfactory (dukkha), these things can not be considered as oneself (anatta).
If you have any good books to recommend on anatta, I’ll take them! I’ve been told to look into Nagarjuna… Maybe the problem is that I wonder too much about what Nibbana is, almost thinking in terms of substance, instead of what it is not (sunyata).
This method is what I have used and it has been very useful. Looking at absence. And then really focusing on extinguishment, from the perspective of the flame.
All a wonderful adventure 
A living being is a flame burning with greed, hatred and delusion due to conceit of self . When the flame extinguishes, the conceit of self disappears simultaneous with greed, hatred and delusion. When we all reach that level of realization we can know for ourselves if Nibbana is Dhamma or not and more specifically what self or not self is and let’s all strive for that goal.
With Metta
May it be so
You may find this article of Ajahn Brahmalis of interest
Perfect!
So, is anatta ‘not-self’ / nibbana ‘cessation of dhamma’ a dhamma ‘phenomenon’?
Perhaps when we’ve achieved extinguishment, we’ll no longer worry too much about it.
It puzzles me that people search for not self. The logic would seem to be to keep searching for self and finally realise & accept that it’s not to be found … to the stage where one stops acting as if there is a self to direct and be protected.
(Not textually-based I’m afraid, unless someone can help me out.)
This is exactly what the Buddha said as cited by faujidoc1 above.
That would be fine, once that the question “what is self” has even been conceived of - which was part of the Buddhas enlightenment process, seeing causality and conditioning - to realise (Dependent Liberation) that Self wasn’t there.
See the citation on Bhantes work earlier in the posts (I clicked on the link and copied in a bit larger part of the post)
Ajahn Brahmali 's Paper, above, goes into detail, with full sutta references, on many of the issues of what exists or does not exist and what ceases, according to the Nikayas.
That is for sure! 
ie SA34?
I don’t follow … is there a main verb missing from this sentence?
Exactly.
And thanks. (Aside to Self: So why this thread?)
Paper downloaded before I myself posted but still not read.
How many times this has been discussed in the forum. Outcome is the same, endless debate and people come with their own view and go with the same, meanwhile try to convince others ones own view is correct. 
Never turned out so well. 
What is anatta?
yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā
What’s suffering is anattā. simple as that!
Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ. yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā; yadanattā taṃ ‘Netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attāti.
Yadaniccasuttaṃ
Mendicants, form is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self. And what’s not-self should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ (Ven. Sujato) (SN 22.12)
tadanattā 
|taṃ + anattā|
taṃ - that
anattā - (n. and predicative adj.) not a soul , without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca
May also be noted as non-self, not-self, etc. (Read also, PTS dictionary, pp 28.)
"na meso attā" would rather be translated as - this is not my soul (skrt: ātman).
Notes: na meso attā > |na eso me attā|
Na - a negator
Eso has base *e; where it means “this”.
Etad (pron. adj.) [Vedic etad, of pron. base *e; see Walde, Lat. Wtb. under equidem] demonstr. pron. “this”, with on the whole the same meaning and function as tad, only more definite and emphatic. Declined like tad.
Me- to me; my; mine;
attā - Attan (m.) & atta (the latter is the form used in compn.) [Vedic ātman] The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. (PTS Dictionary)
Sounds like what I said: 
Thank you!
My apologies, I think I have not been sufficiently clear.
You are absolutely right when you say that the goal is to arrive at the perception “This is not mine, I am not this, This is not myself”. The ultimate aim is to become dispassionate towards all things, thereby transcending desire and achieving Nibbana.
What I have endeavored to describe is not the Buddha’s theory of Self… we all know he maintained silence on that front! Rather this is his tactic, the technique used by the Buddha (as recorded in the Suttas in allegedly his own words) to examine all objects of experience, as well as experience itself, so as to see it as it really is. In achieving that final Right View, one loses desire for all objects/ experience. At that point, one is freed from Samsara. The question of “Self” existing or not becomes a non issue at that point.
A good start point to use this technique of insight is the experience of Dukkha. In doing this, one proceeds inwards from the external world deeper and deeper within the mind till one reaches the very innermost level of experience. Sila and Samadhi assist in achieving the quiet mind that is a necessary pre requisite of such emotionally jarring investigation.
A short example: -
Let us say, I feel bad because my car got scratched. I realize, I am suffering (at this time my sense of Self is still strong… and that’s OK as we will see later). I examine this feeling and perception. Why do I feel this way about my car? Did I expect it to last forever, unsullied? Isn’t it rusting, falling apart as it stands, getting depreciated, soon to end up at the junkyard? Attachment to such an object is just going to cause me Suffering, so I should let it go. The car is not really mine, I am not the car, neither is it an extension of me, it’s not my Self, I can’t control or make it Be. I realize the Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta nature of the car. Realizing this, desire for the car fades.
Next day, I sweep my house. I see bits of head and body hair and nail clippings mixed in with the dust. Just yesterday these bits were part of my body. Should I hold onto them as “Me”? I investigate all the 31 parts of the body in this way. I realize, my body is just like the car, falling apart, eventually to end up as an inanimate log being burnt in the pyre or rotting in the ground, attachment to it is Dukkha…I have no power to preserve it… this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my Self. Letting the attachment to the body go, not having desire for it to be this way or that, I experience Freedom. (Note, this doesn’t mean the body disappears or changes its nature- its just the perception of it and my attitude to it that changes)
And so it goes ever inwards, to the examination of feelings, one’s own perceptions, thoughts… deeper still to the very deepest layer of Awareness. Even the Jhana experiences betray themselves as Impermanent, not under control, longing after them brings Dukkha, they too are seen as Anatta and let go of. Yes, even within the 8th Jhana there is still that Perception and ultimately letting go.
Finally the stage is reached where one has examined all objects as well as Experience itself, realized their Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta nature and so let go of them all. In this penultimate stage is the final duality… whatever is left within me // /observing/// all of Samsara. At this point, I realize that the question of Self itself is meaningless, it was all a tactic anyways… now that the aim of release from desire has been achieved, that too can be let go of. In that final letting go lies Nibbana. At this point, “I” and “Samsara” go over the event horizon, into a place where there are no words or descriptions… #UNDEFINED, zero divided by infinity … Does the Self still exist at that point? Does it not exist? Does it both exist and not exist? Does it neither exist nor not exist?
Well, the Buddha refused to answer that question. And neither have any of the Arahants since, ever commented on the matter. Best to leave it sub-judice till we all become Arahants - and then we will know!!
