Going be the Pali texts, I meet with contradictions on the matter. Is they due to later "developments"? Is it just my lack of capacity to understand there isn't any contradiction actually?

I've given up trying to figure it out. I've taken the Buddha's advice:
Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

With that peace, who cares if there's a self or anything that's left that can't even be called "self"?
Well, I think some people do care: those who cling to a sense of self.

The Path is not for the faint-hearted.

kb

Nina van Gorkom wrote thus at 04:45 PM 07-09-13:

Dear Bryan,
Op 4 sep 2013, om 05:46 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

"The processes arise and the processes cease,
they arise with causes, and they cease with causes,
with causes for the process of rebirth, [thus] monks, does the Realised One [explain] ‘self’ and ‘the one who takes up.’" And then again, he repeats the nidānas.

The phenomenologists assert that there must be some basic subjectivity which realizes these truths (not an atta, but nevertheless some fundamental awareness or beingness). Khristos has a very good article on this subject in the current issue of the Buddhist Studies Review.

Nina, perhaps this question is addressed in the Abhidhamma?

-------
N: Suppose, there would be a basic subjectivity, is it conditioned or unconditioned? Nibbaana is the unconditioned element. Other phenomena, apart from nibbaana are conditioned. This means, they are dependent on other realities for their arising. Nobody can make them arise at willl, whenever one wishes. Understanding this must lead to detachment.
If one takes awareness for self, the "I" will grow bigger and bigger and it will lead one away from the truth of <all dhammas are anattaa>.

Nina.