I saw Jack Kornfield using the term “true self”. I agree that it is very poor terminology, especially for a Western teacher who should know the Western way of thing about the ego and the self.
But let’s take Ajahn Maha Boowa you mention. I can’t read a book of 117 pages, right now, leave alone the rest you mention, so I looked at the glossary in the book and how citta was explained.
The citta is the mind’s essential knowing nature, the fundamental quality
of knowing that underlies all sentient existence. When associated with
a physical body, it is referred to as “mind” or “heart”. Being corrupted
by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (avijjã ), its currents “flow out” to manifest as feelings (vedanã), memory (saññã), thoughts(sankhãra), and consciousness (
viññãõa), thus embroiling the citta in a web of self-deception. It is deceived about its own true nature. The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never
born and never dies.
Do you conclude from that that the Venerable believed in a self, as dxm_dxm wants to make us believe?
Same with Thanissaro, who says this:
“In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?”
(but one should really read the whole article to judge Thannisaro’s stance - and I am not saing that I agree or disagree with him (!)
( No-self or Not-self? )
Also from this, one cannot conclude that Thanissaro propagates the belief in a self.
I am showing proof here, but dxm_dxm comes with NO proof whatsoever for his allegiations.
I maintain it is slander.