I think you are confusing metaphysical existence, ontological existence, and phenomenological existence. A particular dominant trend in English-language Dhamma is that the teaching of the Buddha is completely phenomenological, and does not address metaphysics or ontology. Setting aside the issue of if that is correct or not, from a phenomenological angle, the Buddha does thoroughly dismiss selfhood, notions and realizations thereof, etc.srivijaya wrote:The linked suttas do not appear to contain speculative doctrinal expositions on the existence/non-existence of atta. If they do, then please make it more explicit. I would like to see why you consider they do.
If something does not exist phenomenologically, such as the self, it does not exist for me, for you, for anyone, other that someone who can see reality "as it is", with no phenomenological filter. Only people like that have access to non-phenomenological space. So with that in mind, if one wants to/needs to interpret Buddhadharma phenomenologically, for right or wrong, you will find refutations of selfhood all the same. To the best of my knowledge you wont find the exact words "And then the Blessed One said: 'There is no self'" because, like I said before, that would be a highly clumsy and ambiguous statement that would be more likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding than actually illuminate anything.
From the phenomenological-Buddhist perspective, the Buddha is silent on issue of selfhood, but only because from this perspective, he is silent on the existence or non-existence of anything, selfhoods included. Look into the lists of all of the things that are called "not the self".