Hello to all i would like to examine sutta mn15

Maha nidana sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

the sutta describes depending origination

but i'm not really interested in that yet

i'm interested how it describes self and not self

so there is 3 sections description.

1)Delineations of a Self

2)Non-Delineations of a Self

3)Assumptions of a Self

lets take the first one

Delineations of a Self

"To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self?

Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.'

Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.'

Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.'

Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite,

either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present,

or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death],

or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'

This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite,

either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present,

or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death],

or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.

' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite,

either delineates it as formless and finite in the present,

or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death],

or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'

This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite,

either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present,

or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death],

or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'

This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite obsesses him

I'm interested what others think about this first part of explaining Self.

metta please post your opinion.