First of all while the account of annihilationism in DN1 does talk of selves and thier annihilation it is not clear at all that some substantial hindu style atman is meant, nor how such a thing could be meant as how could something subst…
This conversation is moving too quickly for me to keep up on my phone so i will look to get to my computer this evening to really delve into all this stuff, but in terms of apples,
“These are not apples” and “There are no apples” do convey different things.
“This is not the self” and “there is no self” also convey different things.
And re
I think everyone (even me who thinks the “khandas” are a scholastic muddying of the philosophical waters) agree that they dont contain a self.
The problem is at
This is an inference from the observation that any phenomena or combination of 0henomena are not the self, and it is an unwarranted inference that the buddha does not make in the ebt outside of a handful of cases, mostly in SN, that i argue are late and that do in fact, contradict the abayakata, which is early and universally attested across all nikayas and agamas, something btw that cannot be said for khandas, or for the metaphysical reading of anatta as nominalist metaphysics.
Anyway, i will get on my compuyer later and see if i can address some of this in a more comprehensive fashion.