How I interpret anatta (not-self)

I have been getting in Buddhism again lately and here is how I interpret anatta:

The Buddha said that the self we have does not exist but this does not mean that there is no self at all. It is called "not-self". "Not-self" is not equated to "no-self" because no-self assumes the premise that there is no self to identify with. Whereas, "not-self" can leave the possibility that a true self can exist. The Buddha indeed does not negate the possibility of a true-self. * Yet he does not say if such exists either. The illusion of the self does not mean the existence of a true self or the lack of a hidden self.

There are some websites like this one (Link: https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/how-to-understand-the-5-skandhas-in-buddhism/) that implies that there is a true self, something where "who you really are", but the Buddha never mentioned the existence of such a thing.

Where did the idea of a True Self actually comes from? Is there places where the Buddha does mention of a True Self?

submitted by /u/fourandahalfcoins
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2Q7NeBD