Sorry for a late reply. I came here through this topic: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-thorny-issue-of-anatta/ which referenced a post on this topic I made 2 years ago, found here Bodhi vs Ṭhānissaro debate - #89 by Sunyo.
One argument I did not make there, because I found it a bit too cheap and didn’t reply to any specific statement in previous posts. But I’d like to add it here, because it is actually quite illustrative of how complicated discussions can get over things are actually very clear. We are here discussing particular phrases in a certain historical context in very particular suttas. That is perhaps part of the confusion for people. We look at the tree and miss the forest.
So what about the forest? Throughout the suttas anatta, dukkha and anicca are treated almost equally. Compare for example SN 22.9 till SN 22.11, and you’ll find similar phrases, such as:
Consciousness of the past and future is impermanent, let alone the present. (SN22.9)
Consciousness of the past and future is suffering, let alone the present. (SN22.10)
Consciousness of the past and future is not-self, let alone the present. (SN22.11)
Given their similarity, both in translation and the Pali, it makes no sense for one of them to be a strategy and two of them to be ontological truths! In other words, if anatta were a strategy, so would dukkha and anicca. Dukkha would be a strategy for what, exactly? Overcoming dukkha?.. I think you all get the drift.
(Sorry if something similar has been said before here or elsewhere. I skipped through the topics a bit – haven’t been here in a long time, and it’s too much to catch up!)