Response to soul theories posted here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 19#p410708
"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
And neither is nibbana the opposite of anihilationism. That is why Buddha said anihilationism is the best out of wrong views.
As for the quote in question, it refers to the fact that there is no self that gets destroyed because there was never a self to begin with. There was just the opinion that there exist a self and this opinion is the one that disappears when achieving stream entry. Then, there exist conceit that exist until attaining arahanthip. As I have explained earlier:
Difference between nibbana and anihilationism:
1. Anahilationist claim it all ends at death and you have to do nothing to stop a round of rebirth.
2. Anihilationist claim that there is a self and this self is destroyed. Buddha claims there was never any self to begin with, just the 5 aggregates.
3. According to Buddha, nibbana is pleasant. Accoding to anihilationist view, it is neutral.
So much time time and energy is wasted trying to prove there is no self when in reality Buddha was only attacking the idea of viewing the body as the self because it militates against ascetism. Who would enter monasticism and live a celibate life thinking they are only the body? And who that might on a quirk do so would be consistent in it? These are rhetorical questions BTW, because not many people would or could, so the idea of the self being the physical thing, the body or aggregates is a hindrance to monasticism. Its really that simple.
I do not know where you got the idea that if the self is not found it consciousness it must be found in the body. Buddha said neither of the 5 aggregates is self.
The reason these kind of arguments are not even responded but simply moved into this topic is because they show a complete lack of understanding of buddhist doctrine. It is like people who never read the biology book having strong opinions about what is written in the biology book, saying things like humans been made out of metal etc. This is why in such cases a reading of the biology book is recommended not a debate.