SuttaCentral
Buddha denied saying “There is a self” or “There is no self” from what I can see. From this, saying “Buddha denied the reality of Atta substance” is a stretch. If that can be arrived at this, then the opposite could be correct: That same argument can be used to say “Buddha asserts the reality of the atta substance.”
I don’t think you can find Buddha saying “There’s no self” in Pāli Canon.
This is literally the definition of phenomenology, my good friend.
In the sutta you are alluding to the Buddha said he would have declared there is no self if it were not the case that his confused interlocutor would mistake it for Annihilationism, i.e. the destruction of a real self (the atta substance) “the self I had no longer exists”. Furthermore, if you read the agamas the Buddha there says numerous times “there is no self”.
Phenomenology is a great deal more than empiricism.
I’m enjoying too! What I see are a bunch of dhamma friends with different perspectives coming together to discuss dhamma with enthusiasm and joy. It warms the heart! 
I think the Great Hero would have approved of this discussion.
Anatta is frequently mistranslated in different languages. That’s no surprise. That’s why I specified Pāli Canon. 
I don’t think it’s right put words into Buddha’s words when he knew certain phrasings weren’t a proper way to express his views.
This just means “Is there a self?” is a wrong question, not that the answer is “There is no self”.
I’m not putting anything in his mouth. He literally said he didn’t say no self because Vacchagotta would have misunderstood it, as many do to this day. Read the sutta again please.
I do. Allow me to demonstrate.
If I ask you “Have you stopped murdering people?”, this is a wrong question (assuming, you haven’t actually killed anyone that is!). Saying “Yes” means you used to, but now you don’t. Saying “No” means you used to, and still. This question is invalid.
The question “Is there a self?” is invalid. Doesn’t mean either answers are applicable.
I think the question is more like why is @Dogen not happy with metaphysics? What does it matter that there are metaphysics in the dhamma?
I think it cannot be argued that the Buddha didn’t say no self. All dhammas are not self and the world is empty of self are strong enough to deduce no self.
I have seen repeatedly the equation nibbana == samsara as a shorthand for Nagarjuna’s famous verse that no true distinction can be found. I think this shorthand can lead to grave misunderstanding. Since it isn’t the point of this thread, I won’t go into how it misunderstands the verse here, but it is perilous enough to my mind that I thought it prudent to speak up. It isn’t the case that Nagarjuna asserted nibbana == samsara to my mind
God! No! Amused? Sure. Amazed? No. Would he have put a stop to it? Most definitely.
We must assume ourselves modern. In the derogatory sense.
And work with that.
One reason is that anti-metaphysics views arose as part of the anti-religion movement in Western science and philosophy, along with the rise of analytic philosophy and the logical positivists. Basically, ‘metaphysics,’ like ‘religion,’ became a bad word in many circles. Part of the problem is the lack of knowability. The idea being that ‘metaphysics’ is a kind of unanswerable question that keeps being asked, and is often resolved through religious faith. So people wanted to start asking questions that could be categorically answered.
‘Metaphysics’ has a broad meaning, but the more specific meaning related to unknowable speculation with the above connotations is what was emphasized. ‘Metaphysics’ was also replaced with more metaphysics that pretended it wasn’t, I think. And now here we are; recovering.
The Great Seer approved of people discussing the finer points of Dhamma.
I think, though, that it would be best to stay on topic in this thread about ‘the world’ for Venerable Sunyo’s convenience!
I’ve perhaps been a bit too harsh on Phenomenological Buddhism here. I know good and devout people who practice in that tradition and get a lot from it.
I don’t think it is the case that Buddha was concerned with physics, chemistry, metaphysics, astrology, so on and so forth. Repeatedly Buddha says “All I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.” Doesn’t sound like a person interested in science or philosophy for the sake of it. He was more interested in “Am I suffering? Yes? That’s bad. No? That’s good.” And the whole exegesis is based around that.
We can all verify for ourselves whether we experience feeling suffering or seeing the cessation of suffering. Everything else is, frankly, irrelevant.
This is I think one of the reasons Ven. @Sunyo also gets frustrated with the metaphysical discussions. I think they kind of miss the point. Asserting the realities of realities is a monumental task - even Buddha claimed there were questions beyond the scope of his sight and reason.
They’re not really relevant, though, for remedying suffering. And talking about suffering is unmistakenly a personal affair, about personal experiences.
Let us posterize and frame this. Then burn the poster and the frame.
From internet: The examples of the metaphysics are BEING, EXISTENCE, PURPOSE, UNIVERSALS, PROPERTY, RELATION, CAUSALITY, SPACE, TIME, EVENT
Being is in the suttas, existence too, purpose is to walk the path, universals are the 3 characteristics, property of conditioned things is to arise and fall, relation between craving and suffering is cause and effect, which is also causality.
There’s talk on space, time and event in the suttas as well. How far can a Buddha’s voice reach, how long hell and heaven are, how rare is the appararance of a Buddha, which is also an event.
Then you’re saying “there’s no difference” is not equal to “=”.
What’s the difference between them?
Metaphysics, Empiricism, Phenomenology all are concerned with similar words, but from a completely different perspective.
The difference is, metaphysical assertions should be correct even if no one is observing (though quantum/relativity might get weird).
Atta would be an amazing example. Buddha doesn’t concern with the existence or non-existence of atta. It’s an irrelevant point.
I can’t know anything I can’t experience. So I can only talk about my experiences. Which is all we can do. Buddha only talked about his experiences and sight. I think it’s ultimately a mistake to confuse this for metaphysical concerns, but point is pedantic for the most part, as long as we realise the important thing is 1. Suffering. 2. Cessation of suffering.
Which is why I’m looking forward to Ven. @Sunyo’s articles!