http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
The first is in reguards to this line
"I am not anything belonging to anyone anywhere, nor is there anything belonging to me in anyone anywhere"
In Bhikkhu Bodhi's notes he states
"MA calls this the four-pointed voidness and explains thus: (i) he does not see his self anywhere; (ii) he does not see a self of his own that can be treated as something belonging to another e.g. as a brother, friend, assistant etc; (iii) he does not see the self of another; (iv) he does not see the self of another that can be treated as something belonging to him. Ms has a note by Nm: "these expressions seem to have been stereotyped slogans or descriptions of the attainments of nothingness and neither-perception-nor-non-perception, primarily non-Buddhist, and sometimes used as a basis for the existing-body[=identity] view"
The part underlined im having trouble understanding, is he saying that the descriptions in the sutta are non-buddhist in origin and can lead to self view?
Also another question in relation to this extract
Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."
What does it mean by consciousness not depending on something and not sustained by it? Does it mean he doesnt take it as self? or does it mean something else?