if we become attached and try to hold on to things that will inevitably change and disappear, then we are bound to suffer. This argument also seems to be aimed directly at the early Upanisadic notion of the self as an unchaning, eternal absolute that is free from all suffering; in the phrase 'this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self' there appears to be a deliberate echo and rebuttal of the Chandogya Upanisad's 'this is the self, this is what you are'.10 (Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, p. 137)
Here seem to be two good books on topic of atta/anatta.
Where Joaquín Pérez Remón argues that we have made too much of the anatta teaching at expense of atta, and a true self lurks behind: "This transcendent self was the one asserted whenever one was made to say of the empirical factors, 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self', a formula that equivalently says, 'I am beyond all this, my self transcends all this'."
Peter Harvey's book argues against the above it seems. Look on amazon book reviews to see a little war where proponents of true-self sort of teaching are giving 1star reviews to Peter Harvey's book, and Steve Collins book selfless persons. Also 1 1star criticism of Joaquín Pérez Remón book.