hgg wrote:There was a double negation but with the first substitution its much better.
The word suffering (Dukkha) is more appropriate. That was the easy part. Now,
What is suffering, that is not self.
(what is suffering, that is the negation of a self)
Do you really understand the above sentence?
The only alternative that makes sense to me is the following:
-suffering is the illusory self-
Don't try to understand the sentence, but try to see what it is pointing to. If you want to know, you have to investigate what you take to be 'you' on a deep level beyond thoughts. Investigate attachments, the aggregates, meditate, walk the path. You are still at the level of intellect for which we've warned you multiple times won't cut it. It's like fishing in the desert. And the Buddha said the same thing. His path is not an intellectual challenge. The insights that make you understand these sentences in their context won't arise this way.
I hope you understand this is not to put you off, but that I say it to help you see that the way you are approaching things now is not fruitful. Even if you get close, no sigar.
But for what it's worth: What is suffering (aka the aggregates), that is not a self (aka that is not 'you' or 'yours'). You shouldn't read it as "suffering is not a self" (although that is also true).