Under the premise of no, or emptiness of, self-nature, the belief in an independent self is not only an error but is utterly absurd: no-one 'believing' an inconceivable object to be real. Such an object, in fact, never arises, is never seen or touched or felt, rather, what it amounts to is relations of priority between various passing present and absent experiences. It is a matter of 'this is more of the self than that' or of 'this is to bring about a result favourable to self' and so on, a whole web of this stuff seeming to have a depth dimension, to allow for parallaxes. Under no-self the whole thing is utterly flat, things relate to each other, apparently causally, but none is more true to the underlying reality than any other, all are equally products of the same depthless process, call it what you will. If in spite of this a depth dimension were to open, would that now entail something like a self, or Self, after all?