From what I’ve read in his books, it seems that Thanissaro’s interpretation about anatta as being a value judgment doesn’t really come from him, but I just used his name because I don’t know whose it is exactly, so I’m sorry for that. I also do NOT want to make this a personal criticism, but rather a discussion about his ideas.
The idea of anatta being a value judgement, instead of a metaphysical claim, can be found in his book, First things first:
When you see that the happiness isn’t worth the effort of the clinging, you realize that it’s not worthy to claim as you or yours. It’s not-self: in other words, not worth claiming as self. In this way, the perception of not-self isn’t a metaphysical assertion. It’s a value judgment, that the effort to define yourself around the act of feeding on those things simply isn’t worth it.
This interpretation is totally different from what I’ve read and heard from other Buddhists: that the Buddha taught that there was no self. Before reading Thanissaro’s books, I thought that anatta was simply denying the existence of a permanent self or self lasting through time, which is an interpretation that Thanissaro explicitly objects. In his book, Selves and not-self, he says:
One misinterpretation is that the Buddha’s not-self teaching is aimed specifically at negating the view of self proposed in the Brahmanical Upanishads — that the self is permanent, cosmic, and identical with God — but the Buddha is not negating the fact that we each have an individual self. In other words, he’s saying, ‘Yes, you have an individual self, but, No, you don’t have a cosmic/God self’.
The second misinterpretation is the exact opposite: The Buddha is negating the idea that you have a small, separate self, but he’s affirming the existence of a large, interconnected, cosmic self. In other words, he’s saying, ‘Yes, you do have a connected self, but, No, you don’t have a separate self’.
The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don’t really qualify to be called a self because they aren’t permanent. They’re just processes. In other words, ‘No, you don’t have a self, but, Yes, you’re a bunch of processes; the aggregates are what you are’.
None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha’s actual teachings, or his actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons — the fact that they give an analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside — and for reasons of content: They don’t fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic of self and not-self…
I know it isn’t a universal interpretation, so I want to know what others think. Any objections or supportive arguments?