What I am trying to say is that a person can believe in creationism, there is nothing wrong with that. Yet, you see few (probably zero) creationist claiming they teach creationism in biology books.
The situation is similar with Thanissaro. He can be an Ajnana (this is how the eer-wriggler philosophy school was called in Buddha times) - there is nothing wrong with being an Ajnana. Yet, it is quite ridiculous to claim the EBTs are teaching Ajnana doctrine. The teachings on no-self are the most fundamental Buddhist teaching. They are present in thousands of pages, they’re quite hard to miss. You can’t go around claiming Buddha had no opinion about weather a self exists or not and claim that you’ve read the EBTs.
In such a situation you just conclude that he has not read the books. It’s the only logical conclusion you can draw. There is nothing debatable, same as there is nothing debatable about weather they teach creationism in biology books or not.
Just because your conceptual understanding of a sutta is different from someone else’s does not in any way mean the other person is wrong or uninformed.
If a person claims they teach about Jesus in EBTs or in biology manuals, is that person simply having “a different conceptual understanding” of those books or is he simply not informed ?
All I asked of you was to cite your sources regarding where Than. B made the statement that there is a self - this was your claim.
I have retracted that claim. It was indeed a mistake for me to claim that. Thanissaro official philosophy is that of Ajnana and he also claims EBTs present an ajnana philosophy in them. He claims that Buddha did not have an opinion about weather a self exists or not. - and I can provide you tons of quotes regarding this, he doesn’t make a secret out of it
Giving how fundamental and how many thousands of pages can be found about the problem in EBTs, claiming such a thing is just like claiming they teach creationism in biology books. That’s why many people have concluded that Thanissaro case is similar to that of asian monks. The huge majority of asian monks never read the suttas, reading the suttas is an activity popular mainly in the west. There is even a whole tradition, that of Thai Forest, that believes in a “True Self”. And not surprisingly, that is the tradition Thanissaro comes from.
It is funny that Sujato himself never read a single sutta for a long time after becoming a monk. He has an article about how he came to read the first sutta and how he did it mainly because the other monks from his monastery were trying to convince him not to read them cause they contradicted their doctrine. I know it sounds strange to hear this but reading the suttas really is not a popular activity for monks.