Thanks Gabriel. I’m happy to see you engaging on this delicate issue with such an open mind! So here goes -
For this, let’s take a look at the text that follows this. Taking just the bit about the “internally” -
“Siyā nu kho, bhante, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā”ti? “Siyā, bhikkhū”ti—bhagavā avoca. “Idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa evaṃ diṭṭhi hoti: ‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṃ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti. So suṇāti tathāgatassa vā tathāgatasāvakassa vā sabbesaṃ diṭṭhiṭṭhānādhiṭṭhānapariyuṭṭhānābhinivesānusayānaṃ samugghātāya sabbasaṅkhārasamathāya sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggāya taṇhākkhayāya virāgāya nirodhāya nibbānāya dhammaṃ desentassa. Tassa evaṃ hoti: ‘ucchijjissāmi nāmassu, vinassissāmi nāmassu, nassu nāma bhavissāmī’ti. So socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohaṃ āpajjati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā hotī”ti.
Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent internally?”
“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone has the view: ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbāna. He thinks thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally.”
per MLDB
As you know, asati is the locative of asanta, the present participle of natthi (does not exist). I agree with the MLDB in taking this to be a locative of reference, giving “about what is non-existent” (although my OCD self may translate it as “with reference to what does not exist”). It does not seem to be the weaker ‘not-being’, which would probably be the function of the hoti verb, instead of this atthi verb.
From this passage, we can tell that it is definitely not the “view” or “regarding” that do not exist, since the preface reads -
evaṃ diṭṭhi hoti
This asserts the presence of the view concerning Selfhood, which then leads to anxiety about what does not exist, ie the Self.
Does this clarify the intent of the passage?
Now, moving on to the other reasons offered by the Buddha in MN 22. For this, I think it’s safe to go on a short digression into Logic, so that the reference to Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens makes sense.
Modus Ponens is a form of reasoning that goes like this (minus the formal symbolic stuff) -
If A, then B.
A
Therefore, B
From this, we arrive at Modus Tollens -
If A, then B.
not-B
Therefore, not-A
And finally, we have the process of transposition which asserts that “if A, then B” is logically equivalent to “if not-B, then not-A”.
So, let’s see how the Buddha applied this in MN 22 -
Attani vā, bhikkhave, sati ‘attaniyaṃ me’ti assā”ti?
“Evaṃ, bhante”.
“Attaniye vā, bhikkhave, sati ‘attā me’ti assā”ti? “Evaṃ, bhante”.
“Attani ca, bhikkhave, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne, yampi taṃ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṃ: ‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṃ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti—nanāyaṃ, bhikkhave, kevalo paripūro bāladhammo”ti?
Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall > endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
per MLDB
Now, let’s take “attani sati”. Attani is the locative singular of attan, while sati is the locative of santa, present participle of atthi. Taken together, they form a type of locative absolute which we discussed previously. Referring back to p.238 of Wijesekara, this means that “attani sati” is properly translated as “If the Self exists”.
Now we can see the Modus Tollens reasoning take shape -
If the Self exists, there would be for me what belongs to a Self.
What belongs to a Self is not apprehended as true and established.
Therefore the Self does not exist.
Hope this helps!
As for the MA sutra, it is MA 62, previously discussed in Not-self and no-self and possibly non-self. Totally different - #34 by Sylvester
The relevant passage reads -
於是，諸摩竭陀人而作是念：「若使色無常，覺、想、行、識無常者，誰活？誰受苦樂？」
世尊即知摩竭陀人心之所念，便告比丘：「愚癡凡夫不有所聞，見我是我而著於我，但 無我、無我所，空我、空我所。
Then the citizens of Magadha thought: If Material form is impermanent, if feeling etc is impermanent, then who lives and who who experiences suffering and happiness?
The World Honoured One, knowing the thoughts of the citizens of Magadha, told the monks: An ignorant worldling, one who is not learned, regards himself as “I am a self” and is attached to that self. However, there is no self; there is nothing that belongs to a self; [all this is empty of a self and empty of anything that belongs to a self…
p.384, The Madhyama Agama, Vol 1, BDK 2013
