user10950: I hear people saying this a lot regarding Annatta -  "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self." 
 But doesn't this only  apply if you're coming from the view that a 'self' must be permanent?   Why can't the self be impermanent?  If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.

user254: I think it's the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, which says e.g. that form is impermanent, therefore unsatisfactory (or painful) rather than pleasant, and therefore not fit to be regarded as "this is myself".

Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

Ditto the other aggregates (feeling, perception, etc.).
See also the first noble truth, which equates suffering with the "clinging-aggregates".
There's also the Alagaddupama Sutta,

“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

So it's not exactly that "it cannot be self" -- it's that "it's not fit to be regarded as self", or that "viewing it as self arouses suffering in one who clings to it."
If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.
According to the second sutta quoted above, you may cling to that doctrine if it would not arouse suffering ... but the Buddha didn't see any doctrine of self that wouldn't arouse suffering.
Conversely perhaps Buddhists seek a view of Nirvana (which is timeless rather than impermanent).

user11541: As per my understanding ,all phenomenon are nonself. Eventually any self identification which you have, will get discarded because it will pass away.
You think you are Arturia but Arturia will pass away. You will have no choice but to give up the identity of Arturia as an error,illusion or a dream and move on. You will adopt new identity which will again pass away...and so on. If we discard one identity as error , illusion or a dream then we must discard all identities as error,illusion or a dream. If there is no Self which can be considered as me, mine or myself then what should we conclude about yourself now? Now you are living an identity which will eventually pass away. This is not you. That realization is Wisdom. The Truth.
Below I quote from accesstoinsight.org:

There are three types of teachers, the first one teaches that the ego
  or the self is real now as well as in the future (here and hereafter);
  the second one teaches that the ego is real only in this life, not in
  the future; the third one teaches that the concept of an ego is an
  illusion: it is not real either in this life or in the hereafter.
The first one is the eternalist (sassatavaadi); the second one is the
  annihilationist (ucchedavaadi); the third one is the Buddha who
  teaches the middle way of avoiding the extremes of eternalism and
  annihilationism. (Here the middle way is the doctrine of dependent
  arising, or causal conditioning — Paticca Samuppaada).


user151: I asked Bhante Yutthaddhammo this question. I think he got frustrated with the question or maybe all questions.
Bhante was probably frustrated as a teacher because students often are thinking about Buddhism more than actually  practicing Buddhism not that pondering things has no place  in the practice.
All things are no self means whatever we experience, that experience is not a self, it's no self or soul. Just because we can't find something doesn't always mean it's not there. For all we know there is a self or a not a self or the self is imperminant or not imperminant or maybe it's just a giant hot dog floating somewhere in space. All we can know is what comes in through the eyes, ears, mind and body in the present moment.
Regarding a not so permanent self, you find impermanence in every moment... the Buddha's no-self teaching goes something like this: 
A soul is not to be found in any practice the Buddha teaches but he didn't necessarily say that there was no soul at all and it is important not to ponder it too much but instead try to understand you and what's the center of you by practicing some kind of meditation that will give you insights into yourself like Zazen or Satipatthana Vipassana.

user111: A self should be something under your total control. Impermanence is merely one aspect that proves something is not a self. Suffering is another. But Anatta(non-self) aspect can stand on it's own without impermanence and suffering. 
ex: Nibbana is permanent and peaceful, but it is still not a self. Why because you are unable to attain it at will. You have to cultivate the mind to attain it. It's the same with everything else. You cannot bring anything into existence, retain it, alter it or make it go away at will without being dependent on other conditions. Hence Anatta.

10950: <p>I hear people saying this a lot regarding Annatta -  "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self." 
 But doesn't this only  apply if you're coming from the view that a 'self' must be permanent?   Why can't the self be impermanent?  If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.</p>
 254: <p>I think it's the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta-lakkhana Sutta</a>, which says e.g. that form is impermanent, therefore unsatisfactory (or painful) rather than pleasant, and therefore not fit to be regarded as "this is myself".</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ditto the other aggregates (feeling, perception, etc.).</p>

<p>See also the first noble truth, which equates suffering with the "<a href="http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#upadanakkhandha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">clinging-aggregates</a>".</p>

<p>There's also the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1894/254">Alagaddupama Sutta</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it's not exactly that "it cannot be self" -- it's that "it's not fit to be regarded as self", or that "viewing it as self arouses suffering in one who clings to it."</p>

<p><strong>If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.</strong></p>

<p>According to the second sutta quoted above, you may cling to that doctrine if it would not arouse suffering ... but the Buddha didn't see any doctrine of self that wouldn't arouse suffering.</p>

<p>Conversely perhaps Buddhists seek a view of Nirvana (which is timeless rather than impermanent).</p>
 11541: <p>As per my understanding ,all phenomenon are nonself. Eventually any self identification which you have, will get discarded because it will pass away.</p>

<p>You think you are Arturia but Arturia will pass away. You will have no choice but to give up the identity of Arturia as an error,illusion or a dream and move on. You will adopt new identity which will again pass away...and so on. If we discard one identity as error , illusion or a dream then we must discard all identities as error,illusion or a dream. If there is no Self which can be considered as me, mine or myself then what should we conclude about yourself now? Now you are living an identity which will eventually pass away. This is not you. That realization is Wisdom. The Truth.</p>

<p>Below I quote from <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#fact" rel="nofollow noreferrer">accesstoinsight.org</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There are three types of teachers, the first one teaches that the ego
  or the self is real now as well as in the future (here and hereafter);
  the second one teaches that the ego is real only in this life, not in
  the future; the third one teaches that the concept of an ego is an
  illusion: it is not real either in this life or in the hereafter.</p>
  
  <p>The first one is the eternalist (sassatavaadi); the second one is the
  annihilationist (ucchedavaadi); the third one is the Buddha who
  teaches the middle way of avoiding the extremes of eternalism and
  annihilationism. (Here the middle way is the doctrine of dependent
  arising, or causal conditioning — Paticca Samuppaada).</p>
</blockquote>
 151: <p>I asked Bhante Yutthaddhammo this question. I think he got frustrated with the question or maybe all questions.</p>

<p>Bhante was probably frustrated as a teacher because students often are <strong>thinking</strong> about Buddhism more than actually  <strong>practicing</strong> Buddhism not that pondering things has no place  in the practice.</p>

<p>All things are no self means whatever we experience, that experience is not a self, it's no self or soul. Just because we can't find something doesn't always mean it's not there. For all we know there is a self or a not a self or the self is imperminant or not imperminant or maybe it's just a giant hot dog floating somewhere in space. All we can know is what comes in through the eyes, ears, mind and body in the present moment.</p>

<p>Regarding a not so permanent self, you find impermanence in every moment... the Buddha's no-self teaching goes something like this: </p>

<p>A soul is not to be found in any practice the Buddha teaches but he didn't necessarily say that there was no soul at all and it is important not to ponder it too much but instead try to understand <strong>you</strong> and what's the center of you by practicing some kind of meditation that will give you insights into yourself like Zazen or Satipatthana Vipassana.</p>
 111: <p>A self should be something under your total control. Impermanence is merely one aspect that proves something is not a self. Suffering is another. But Anatta(non-self) aspect can stand on it's own without impermanence and suffering. </p>

<p>ex: Nibbana is permanent and peaceful, but it is still not a self. Why because you are unable to attain it at will. You have to cultivate the mind to attain it. It's the same with everything else. You cannot bring anything into existence, retain it, alter it or make it go away at will without being dependent on other conditions. Hence Anatta.</p>
