The Buddha teaches that a permanent self does not exist, not that it's merely a useful fiction.
The Buddha's central claim is that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul (anatta in Pali, anatman in Sanskrit). This is not a pragmatic claim about usefulness. Rather, it's a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality. The Buddha explicitly rejected the idea that a permanent self exists, whether as a useful illusion or otherwise.
In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha teaches his disciples to contemplate the five aggregates—form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness—and recognize that none of these is the self, nor do they belong to a self. His repeated refrain is that clinging to any of these as "I," "mine," or "myself" leads to suffering.
If the self were merely a useful fiction, the Buddha would have a pragmatic reason to teach it or at least tolerate it. Instead, he identifies belief in a permanent self as a fundamental delusion (moha) that directly causes suffering. The second Noble Truth teaches that craving and clinging arise from this false sense of self. In other words, treating the self as real—even as a useful fiction—perpetuates the very suffering he aimed to end.
The Buddha's point is not that we should use the concept of self as a convenient tool while knowing it's false. Rather, we should understand deeply that there is no permanent self to protect, defend, or gratify, and this understanding itself liberates us from suffering.
Buddhist philosophy later developed a framework of two truths to clarify this teaching. Conventional truth (samvriti-satya) refers to everyday language and concepts, including the word "I" or "person." Ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) refers to how things actually exist.
At the conventional level, we can use the word "self" as a practical designation for the body-mind stream. At the ultimate level, however, there is no permanent self. The Buddha teaches understanding both levels. We use conventional language while recognizing its limitations. This is different from saying the self is a useful fiction—it's saying the self-concept is a useful conventional designation that doesn't correspond to ultimate reality.
A natural question arises: if there's no self, what continues from moment to moment or from life to life? The Buddha taught dependent origination (pratityasamutpada), which explains how phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions. Mental and physical processes continue without requiring a permanent self as their ground.
The five aggregates themselves are always changing, yet they function as a causal stream. Consciousness in one moment conditions consciousness in the next. Actions carry their effects forward. Rebirth occurs without a soul transmigrating, through this causal continuity alone. The teaching is sophisticated precisely because it denies a self while explaining continuity.
Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Vajrayana Buddhism all affirm anatta as central to the Buddha's teaching, though they elaborate it differently. The Dalai Lama, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, explicitly states that Buddha taught the non-existence of a permanent self, not its utility as a fiction.
Where Buddhist schools do differ is in how they understand what is empty of self. Some emphasize the emptiness of a separately existing self. Others extend this to all phenomena. But none teach that the self is a convenient fiction we should pragmatically accept while knowing better.
Understanding anatta experientially, not just intellectually, is transformative in Buddhism. It's the difference between thinking "the self is not real" and actually perceiving the absence of a permanent self in your direct experience. This shifts how you relate to emotions, identity, and death. You stop defending a solid self and begin relating more flexibly to your changing experience.
This is why the Buddha called it a truth to be realized, not simply a theory to accept. The teaching that there is no permanent self is meant to be verified through practice and meditation.