I found different interpretations of this passage. Does anyone know what is the correct interpretation of the mentioned view?
Etadaggam bhikkhave bahirakanam ditthigatanam yad idam no c'assam,|| no ca me siya,|| na bhavissami,|| na me bhavissanti ti.|| ||
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/p ... ali.bd.htm
Monks, of outsiders who hold views, this view: Were I not then, it would not now be mine; I'll not become, 'twill not become in me - is the topmost.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... od.pts.htm
This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
"The supreme view-point external [to the Dhamma] is this: 'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’
See If Not "Mine" for some discussion as to the difficulties translators have had with the little ditty found in this and other suttas.
No 'were that my',
and no 'would that my',
no 'mine' becoming,
no becoming 'my'.
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexe ... nipata.htm
The problem in these translations stems from trying to make sense of the words hearing the emphasis on the idea of 'being', thinking: "existing" as in ultimate reality or as an ultimate self.
Because of hearing the emphasis on the idea of 'being', the debate is thrown off onto the issue of existence versus non-existence, whereas another way of hearing the same words is that the idea is the identification with being: "If it had not been identified with; there would not have been a "mine" 'for me' now. Hear the five-year-old claiming his toy: "My toy!" This is not easy to put into writing, but is a simple matter of inflection (the "in quotation marks" inflection) when speaking.
Think facing the consequences of some bad deed. If I had not lied, stolen, injured then, because of strong desire and identification with something or another, then I would not be suffering this outcome now.
If there had been no identification with form, sensation, perception, own-making or consciousness in the past,
there would not now be any identified with experiencing of this dukkha painful ugly ukky k-kha now.
Not doing any own-making such as to cause becoming now, there will not become any identified-with experiencing of dukkha in the future.
Said like it is said, it can be adopted to any situation that arises.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhamma ... t_mine.htm