Why must it be my cross to bear, by repeating my same old tired refrain, over and over again?
In MN 22, these are the 2 parts -
Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent (asati) 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.”
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?”
“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
For the second, I've cited Peter Harvey's lovely analysis of this syllogism according to the Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. It's somewhere in that recent thread on anatta.
As for MA 62, see http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ra#p390127