user471: Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?
Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?
There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?
Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view? 
From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.


user2282: Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".

user13190: On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.

user21029: Let's see what the Buddha has to say :

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of
a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self,
perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is
not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what
is not-self?"
Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of
thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible
that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving
— might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this
way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is
not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then
what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'
Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard
to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form
constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is
inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it
fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:
'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord."
"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or
stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is
inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my
self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come
to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it
has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in
the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given,
the minds of sixty monks, through lack of clinging, were fully
released from fermentations. - MN 109

Also, the predicament faced by Ven. Channa is quite similar to what several of us feel, hence Ven. Ananda gives him some advice :

Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, "I, too, think that form is
inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant,
fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is
not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications
are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are
inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not
leap up, grow confident, steadfast, & released in the resolution of
all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. Instead, agitation &
clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, 'But who, then,
is my self?' But this thought doesn't occur to one who sees the
Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the
Dhamma?"
Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, "This Ven. Ananda is staying
at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. He has been praised by the Teacher and
is esteemed by his knowledgeable fellows in the holy life. He is
capable of teaching me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma, and
I have sudden trust in him. Why don't I go to Ven. Ananda?"
So, setting his lodgings in order and carrying his robes & bowl, Ven.
Channa went to Kosambi to where Ven. Ananda was staying in Ghosita's
Park. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with the Ven.
Ananda. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat
to one side. As he was sitting there, he [told Ven. Ananda what had
happened and added], "May Ven. Ananda exhort me, may Ven. Ananda teach
me, may Ven. Ananda give me a Dhamma talk so that I might see the
Dhamma."
"Even this much makes me feel gratified & satisfied with Ven. Channa,
that he opens up & breaks down his stubbornness. So lend ear, friend
Channa. You are capable of understanding the Dhamma."
Then a sudden great rapture & joy welled up in Ven. Channa at the
thought, "So I am capable of understanding the Dhamma!"
"Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, friend Channa.
Face-to-face with him have I learned the exhortation he gave to the
bhikkhu Kaccayanagotta:[2] 'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is
supported by[3] a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But
when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with
right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does
not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it
actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the
world does not occur to one.
"'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get
involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of
awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on "my self." He
has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress
is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing
away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this
extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't
exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a
requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a
requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite
condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes
clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition
comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the
origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"'Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the
cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
mass of stress & suffering.'
"That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the
holy life like Ven. Ananda — sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, &
teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's
Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated."


user10100: It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.

user111: This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level. 
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.

471: <p>Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "<em>I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do</em>" when this seems to contradict anatta?</p>

<p><strong>Isn't thinking "<em>I am X</em>" contradicting the teaching of anatta?</strong></p>

<p>There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.093.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.93</a>. <strong>Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "<em>owner of kamma, heir of kamma</em>" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?</strong></p>

<p>Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "<em>there's no self in this body and mind doing anything</em>"? What's the consequence of this view? </p>

<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.57</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.</p>
</blockquote>
 2282: <p>Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".</p>
 13190: <p>On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.</p>
 21029: <p>Let's see what the Buddha has to say :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of
a certain monk: &quot;So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self,
perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is
not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what
is not-self?&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of
thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: &quot;It's possible
that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving
— might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this
way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is
not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then
what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'</strong>
Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard
to this &amp; that topic here &amp; there? What do you think — Is form
constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord.&quot; &quot;And is that which is
inconstant easeful or stressful?&quot; &quot;Stressful, lord.&quot; &quot;And is it
fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:
'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?&quot; &quot;No, lord.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;... Is feeling constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;... Is perception constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?&quot;
&quot;Inconstant, lord.&quot; &quot;And is that which is inconstant easeful or
stressful?&quot; &quot;Stressful, lord.&quot; &quot;And is it fitting to regard what is
inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my
self. This is what I am'?&quot; &quot;No, lord.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come
to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'</p>
<p>&quot;Any feeling whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any perception whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any fabrications whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it
has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am.'</p>
<p>&quot;Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'&quot;</p>
<p>That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in
the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given,
the minds of sixty monks, through lack of clinging, were fully
released from fermentations. - MN 109</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, the predicament faced by Ven. Channa is quite similar to what several of us feel, hence Ven. Ananda gives him some advice :</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, &quot;I, too, think that form is
inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant,
fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is
not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications
are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are
inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not
leap up, grow confident, steadfast, &amp; released in the resolution of
all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. Instead, agitation &amp;
clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, 'But who, then,
is my self?' But this thought doesn't occur to one who sees the
Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the
Dhamma?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, &quot;This Ven. Ananda is staying
at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. He has been praised by the Teacher and
is esteemed by his knowledgeable fellows in the holy life. He is
capable of teaching me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma, and
I have sudden trust in him. Why don't I go to Ven. Ananda?&quot;</p>
<p>So, setting his lodgings in order and carrying his robes &amp; bowl, Ven.
Channa went to Kosambi to where Ven. Ananda was staying in Ghosita's
Park. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with the Ven.
Ananda. After an exchange of friendly greetings &amp; courtesies, he sat
to one side. As he was sitting there, he [told Ven. Ananda what had
happened and added], &quot;May Ven. Ananda exhort me, may Ven. Ananda teach
me, may Ven. Ananda give me a Dhamma talk so that I might see the
Dhamma.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Even this much makes me feel gratified &amp; satisfied with Ven. Channa,
that he opens up &amp; breaks down his stubbornness. So lend ear, friend
Channa. You are capable of understanding the Dhamma.&quot;</p>
<p>Then a sudden great rapture &amp; joy welled up in Ven. Channa at the
thought, &quot;So I am capable of understanding the Dhamma!&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, friend Channa.
Face-to-face with him have I learned the exhortation he gave to the
bhikkhu Kaccayanagotta:[2] 'By &amp; large, Kaccayana, this world is
supported by[3] a polarity, that of existence &amp; non-existence. But
when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with
right discernment, &quot;non-existence&quot; with reference to the world does
not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it
actually is with right discernment, &quot;existence&quot; with reference to the
world does not occur to one.</p>
<p>&quot;'By &amp; large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
clingings (sustenances), &amp; biases. But one such as this does not get
involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of
awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on &quot;my self.&quot; He
has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress
is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing
away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this
extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.</p>
<p>&quot;'&quot;Everything exists&quot;: That is one extreme. &quot;Everything doesn't
exist&quot;: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a
requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a
requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
requisite condition comes name-&amp;-form. From name-&amp;-form as a requisite
condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes
clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition
comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &amp; death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair come into play. Such is the
origination of this entire mass of stress &amp; suffering.</p>
<p>&quot;'Now from the remainderless fading &amp; cessation of that very ignorance
comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&amp;-form. From the
cessation of name-&amp;-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
cessation of birth, then aging &amp; death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, &amp; despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
mass of stress &amp; suffering.'</p>
<p>&quot;That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the
holy life like Ven. Ananda — sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, &amp;
teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's
Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
 10100: <p>It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.</p>

<p>But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.</p>

<p><strong>Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I".</strong> therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.</p>
 111: <p>This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level. </p>

<p>The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.</p>

<p>Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.</p>
