This succinctly states two misconceptions about the EBT’s and provokes me to address them so thank you @Ceisiwr !
Firstly, the Ānandasutta is probably the shortest, most garbled, and as I have implied above latest of the Vachagotta suttas.
It takes a story, that of the silence of the Buddha in response to Vacchagotta’s questions, and then gives a much shorter, philosophically less clear and less satisfying explanation of that silence than in all the other accounts of the encounter.
MN72 the Aggivacchasutta is the longest account of the Buddhas silence in response to Vachaggota’s questions.
This sutta is framed by two other vachagotta suttas, on either side, the first devoted to repudiating the view that the Buddha claimed omniscience and second a (heavily) modified form of the sekkha patipada applied to vacchagotta himself after he ordained.
these 3 suttas make up the first 3 chapters of the wanderers section of MN, indicating that they where considered important by the redactors of that Nikaya.
IN MN72 vachagotta asks 10 questions:
“Master Gotama, is this your view: ‘The cosmos is eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti? Variant: evaṁdiṭṭhi → evaṁdiṭṭhī (bj, sya1ed, sya2ed, km, mr)
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, ‘asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘The world is finite. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘antavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘antavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘The world is infinite. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, ‘anantavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘anantavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are the same thing. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are different things. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, ‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo”ti?
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi: ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
“Master Gotama, when asked these ten questions, you say: ‘That’s not my view.’
“‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. Variant: moghamaññan’ti vadesi → moghamaññantīti vadesi (bj); moghamaññanti iti vadesi (?) ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, antavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— antavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, anantavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— anantavā loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññanti— evaṁdiṭṭhi bhavaṁ gotamo’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho ahaṁ, vaccha, evaṁdiṭṭhi— neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’ti vadesi.
Seeing what drawback do you avoid all these convictions?”
Kiṁ pana bho gotamo ādīnavaṁ sampassamāno evaṁ imāni sabbaso diṭṭhigatāni anupagato”ti?
“Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. They’re beset with anguish, distress, and fever. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.
“‘Sassato loko’ti kho, vaccha, diṭṭhigatametaṁ diṭṭhigahanaṁ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkaṁ diṭṭhivipphanditaṁ diṭṭhisaṁyojanaṁ sadukkhaṁ savighātaṁ saupāyāsaṁ sapariḷāhaṁ, na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṁvattati. Variant: diṭṭhikantāro → diṭṭhikantāraṁ (bj, pts1ed) ‘Asassato loko’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘antavā loko’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘anantavā loko’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīran’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīran’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, vaccha …pe… ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, vaccha, diṭṭhigatametaṁ diṭṭhigahanaṁ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkaṁ diṭṭhivipphanditaṁ diṭṭhisaṁyojanaṁ sadukkhaṁ savighātaṁ saupāyāsaṁ sapariḷāhaṁ, na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṁvattati.
Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”
Imaṁ kho ahaṁ, vaccha, ādīnavaṁ sampassamāno evaṁ imāni sabbaso diṭṭhigatāni anupagato”ti.
“But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?”
“Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?
“The Realized One has done away with convictions.
“Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṁ tathāgatassa.
So. First, it is clear that the Buddhas says that he rejects holding any of these ten views for THE SAME REASON, not for an eclectic grab bag of specific reasons, different for each one, but because 1. they lead to suffering, and 2. because he has done away with “convictions”.
Second, the (really ridiculous) explanation that the Buddha remained silent when asked if the soul survived the body because there was no soul to begin with simply makes no sense as an explination for why he remains silent on the question of if the soul and the body are different things (if the soul is a fiction and the body is real they clearly are differnet things), or for the questions about the world (unless you think he didn’t think there was a world). Actually this reminds me of another thread where a poster was wondering if the buddha was omniscient and I posted the MN71, the first Vacchagotta sutta where the buddha says he is not, and the poster wrote back and said that the buddha was just saying he wasn’t omniscient WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP 
TLDR the buddhas silence is not just him being rude and unhelpful when people missphrase questions by making assumptions. Guess what, If you ask someone “does the soul survive the body?” and the person holds the view “there is no soul” it’s pretty straight forward for even an unenlightened person to simply say “your question is poorly phrased, there actually is no soul to begin with” in fact the suttas are littered with points where “your question is poorly phrased” is actually used!
Again, this explanation fails for the question of rebirth, in that if “the self is a fiction and therefore doesn’t apply” is the answer then that applies equaly to the fictional selves of unenlightened people as well as the fictional self of the Buddha, but that is not what is meant at all, but also because it is not what is given as the explaination by the Buddha:
“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”
“Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they not reborn?”
“Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?”
“Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?”
“Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Master Gotama, when asked all these questions, you say: ‘It doesn’t apply.’
“‘Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ upapajjatī’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upetī’ti vadesi. ‘Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upetī’ti vadesi. ‘Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upetī’ti vadesi. ‘Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upetī’ti vadesi.
I fail to understand this point, Master Gotama; I’ve fallen into confusion.
Etthāhaṁ, bho gotama, aññāṇamāpādiṁ, ettha sammohamāpādiṁ.
And I’ve now lost even the degree of clarity I had from previous discussions with Master Gotama.”
Yāpi me esā bhoto gotamassa purimena kathāsallāpena ahu pasādamattā sāpi me etarahi antarahitā”ti.
“No wonder you don’t understand, Vaccha, no wonder you’re confused.
“Alañhi te, vaccha, aññāṇāya, alaṁ sammohāya.
For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
Gambhīro hāyaṁ, vaccha, dhammo duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo.
It’s hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, preference, practice, and tradition.
So tayā dujjāno aññadiṭṭhikena aññakhantikena aññarucikena aññatrayogena aññatrācariyakena.
Well then, Vaccha, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like.
Tena hi, vaccha, taññevettha paṭipucchissāmi; yathā te khameyya tathā naṁ byākareyyāsi.
What do you think, Vaccha?
Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, vaccha,
Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know:
sace te purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāsi tvaṁ:
‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti?
“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“Sace me, bho gotama, purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāhaṁ: ‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti.
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you:
“Sace pana taṁ, vaccha, evaṁ puccheyya: ‘
This fire burning in front of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”
‘yo te ayaṁ purato aggi jalati ayaṁ aggi kiṁ paṭicca jalatī’ti, evaṁ puṭṭho tvaṁ, vaccha, kinti byākareyyāsī”ti?
“Sace maṁ, bho gotama, evaṁ puccheyya:
“I would answer like this:
‘yo te ayaṁ purato aggi jalati ayaṁ aggi kiṁ paṭicca jalatī’ti, evaṁ puṭṭho ahaṁ, bho gotama, evaṁ byākareyyaṁ:
‘This fire burning in front of me burns in dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”
‘yo me ayaṁ purato aggi jalati ayaṁ aggi tiṇakaṭṭhupādānaṁ paṭicca jalatī’”ti.
“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know:
“Sace te, vaccha, purato so aggi nibbāyeyya, jāneyyāsi tvaṁ:
‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi nibbuto’”ti?
“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“Sace me, bho gotama, purato so aggi nibbāyeyya, jāneyyāhaṁ: ‘ayaṁ me purato aggi nibbuto’”ti.
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you:
“Sace pana taṁ, vaccha, evaṁ puccheyya:
‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—
‘yo te ayaṁ purato aggi nibbuto so aggi ito katamaṁ disaṁ gato—
east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”
puratthimaṁ vā dakkhiṇaṁ vā pacchimaṁ vā uttaraṁ vā’ti, evaṁ puṭṭho tvaṁ, vaccha, kinti byākareyyāsī”ti?
“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”
“Na upeti, bho gotama, yañhi so, bho gotama, aggi tiṇakaṭṭhupādānaṁ paṭicca ajali tassa ca pariyādānā aññassa ca anupahārā anāhāro nibbutotveva saṅkhyaṁ gacchatī”ti. Variant: ajali → jalati (sya-all, km, mr)
“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future.
“Evameva kho, vaccha, yena rūpena tathāgataṁ paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya taṁ rūpaṁ tathāgatassa pahīnaṁ ucchinnamūlaṁ tālāvatthukataṁ anabhāvaṅkataṁ āyatiṁ anuppādadhammaṁ.
A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom,
Rūpasaṅkhayavimutto kho, vaccha, tathāgato gambhīro appameyyo duppariyogāḷho— like the ocean. seyyathāpi mahāsamuddo.
‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.
Upapajjatīti na upeti, na upapajjatīti na upeti, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti na upeti, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti na upeti.
Note that the argument is not that “there never really was a fire”.
Rather the argument is that “exists” and “doesn’t exist” for the fire DEPENDS on “exists” or "doesn’t exist for the fuel.
its the very CONCEPTS of “exists” and “doesn’t exist” (and “both” and “niether”) that the buddha relativises here, they all equally fall under the sway of dependence.
Also note that this sutta gives the source of vaccha’s confusion; he dosn’t understand because “this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute” i.e “dependant origination”, not “Anatta”.
This is the whole entire point of early buddhism as far as I can tell, to replace the extreem views of “exists” and “does not exist” with the more dynamic understanding of the contingency of existance and non-existance. the capital A Anatta crowd make conditionality something that happens inside an “Objective Reality” whereas te buddhas point was that reality is something that happens inside conditionality.
SO TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT:
- "When the Buddha was asked if there is a self, he says he would have said there is no self if his interlocutor wasn’t so confused. "
Not true. the Buddha refuses to say this becasue it would contracdict conditonality and he answers the question by explaining conditionality.
- “When questions of exist or does not exist arise, it’s framed in the sense of what happens after death.”
Not ture. there are plenty of examples where questions of existance or non existance are framed in other ways and the Buddha always answers that they have done away with such conceptions in favour of conditionality.
Metta.