SamKR wrote:From the practical point of view, understanding any "thing" to be "not self" or "no self" is much more useful than leaving a scope for possibility of "true self".
If we have a view that there is a possibility of "true self" (to be realized at a higher level of our Dhamma-practice), then whenever we perceive any permanent-bliss like state we may regard it as "true self" and so we may get stuck with that experience (thinking it to be nibbana), and stop further development. (Contemplation of "not self" alone is not sufficient, it should be supported by understanding of impermanence and others: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html.)
But if we regard everything (any experience whatsoever, permanent or impermanent, Dukkha or sukha, even if it is nibbana) as "not self" or "no self" then there will be lesser possibility of being stuck in any particular experience (for example, the so called "non-dual" experience). If we have really realized nibbana then there's no harm in considering it as "not-self", but if we haven't then understanding that particular experience as "not-self" will help to develop further to realization of nibbana.
So, having the view that "there is no self" is a right view and it's a right strategy (no-self strategy) since it leads to the elimination of Dukkha. But any view that hints that "there is possibility of 'true self'" is terribly inclined towards wrong view since it may hinder the process of elimination of Dukkha or the realization of nibbana itself.
IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.
If each generation changes the doctrine a little, adds some of their element to the doctrine or explain in their view, then the dhamma will disappear sooner. Look at Mahayana, I feel that Therevada is lucky because the tradition tried to preseve thing as clear as possible