With all due respect I must disagree with our author. Anatta does not mean no self or not self. These are a different word in Pali. Anatta means non-self. There is a difference.

The Buddha taught that there is no permanent, unchanging, indivisible self. So he advised that we not become attached to it. When asked what our self really is or what happens when we die the Buddha maintained a "noble silence," that is, he did not answer. In one sutta he is pushed to answer and he says, "there is no self and no non-self," and goes on to describe that both what we would call a soul and what in Buddhism is called annihilationism (the belief that there is nothing left of us when we die but material) are both incorrect. There is Nirvana which surpasses all understanding and categories. In other teachings we find discussions of rebirth, not as retribution, but as the natural unfolding of the order of the universe, in countless places.

There is a well known Buddhist scholar and Pali interpreter, who is also a Thervadan monk named Bhikkku Bodhi. He advises that anatta is a metaphysical concept and we should not spend time trying to translate it. For this reason and all of the above I do not take the annihilationist view, but try to see where I am attached to all the things mentioned in the quotation in today's article and find space to let go of them. The more I let go, the less I am and the more I am at once.