...and before anyone says that this is the interpretation Thanissaro forces on the Thai Ajahns then I will offer some quotes from Ajahn Chah, Ajaan Lee, and Ajahn Maha Boowa that indicate that they regard them as meditative techniques that take you to the goal and nothing more:
"The original heart / mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and no self, beyond birth and death. To see a self to be reborn is the real trouble of the world. True purity is limitless, untouchable, beyond all opposites and all creation."http://groups.yahoo.com/group/giftoflov ... sage/12113
"Atta-Anatta are Dhammas that are paired off together until the ultimate limit of the mundane relative world (Sammuti) — until the Citta is free from the Kilesas and has become a special Citta, a special person. Atta and Anatta then disappear of themselves and there is no need to drive any of them out anywhere, for there is just the purity of the Citta entire which is "Eka-Citta," "Eka-Dhamma"  — no duality with anything further.
The word Anatta is a factor (Dhamma) of the Ti-Lakkhana  and someone who aims for purity, freedom and Nibbana should contemplate "Aniccam, Dukkham, Anatta" until they see and understand these Ti-Lakkhana clearly. Then it may be said that the Citta has "well gone free." Because Nibbana is not Anatta, for how can one force it to be Anatta which is one of the Ti-Lakkhana, which are the path for getting to Nibbana?"http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... ondon.html
"We may decide that nibbana is extinguished; that nibbana is null and void; that nibbana has no birth, aging, illness, or death; that nibbana is the self; or that nibbana is not-self. Actually, each of these expressions is neither right nor wrong. Right and wrong belong to the person speaking, because nibbana is something untouched by supposing. No matter what anyone may call it, it simply stays as it is. If we were to call it heaven or a Brahma world, it wouldn't object, just as we suppose names for "sun" and "moon": If we were to call them stars or clouds or worlds or jewels, whatever they really are stays as it is; they aren't transformed by our words. At the same time, they themselves don't announce that they are sun or moon or anything. They are thiti-dhamma — they simply are what they are."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... html#p2-29
The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation.
Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done.
Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).
This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html