[7HlBQS8j]

Greetings,

Source; http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index...d=44&Itemid=72


Metta,
Retro.

Hmm. I deeply respect what Nanavira Thera wrote, but I'm not sure where he's coming from in this respect.

Na ca so na ca añño, 'Neither he nor another'. This often-quoted dictum occurs in the Milindapañha somewhere, as the answer to the question 'When a man dies, who is reborn—he or another?'. This question is quite illegitimate, and any attempt to answer it cannot be less so. The question, in asking who is reborn, falls into sakkāyaditthi. It takes for granted the validity of the person as 'self'; for it is only about 'self' that this question—'Eternal (so) or perishable (añño)?'—can be asked. The answer also takes this 'self' for granted, since it allows that the question can be asked. 6. The king said: 'Is there such a thing, Nâgasena, as the soul 1?'

'In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing 2.'



p. 112

'Very good, Nâgasena!'

____________________

7. [72] The king said: 'Is there any being, Nâgasena, who transmigrates from this body to another?'

'No, there is not.'