SUTTA 138

[^1249]: It is strange that the Buddha, having announced that he will teach a summary and an exposition, should recite only the summary and leave without giving the exposition. Although elsewhere the Buddha departs suddenly after making an enigmatic statement (e.g., in MN 18), on those occasions he had not previously declared his intention to give an exposition. MA offers no explanation.

[^1250]: MA: Consciousness is "distracted and scattered externally," i.e., among external objects, when it occurs by way of attachment towards an external object.

[^1251]: MT: The form itself is called the sign of form (rūpanimitta) in that it is the cause for the arising of defilements. One "follows after it" by way of lust.

[^1252]: MA: The mind is "stuck internally" by way of attachment to an internal object. The text of the sutta itself makes the shift from viññanna in the Buddha's summary to citta in Mahā Kaccāna's exposition.

[^1253]: All known editions of the Pali text of MN 138 read here anupädā paritassana, literally "agitation due to nonclinging," which obviously contradicts what the Buddha consistently teaches: that agitation arises from clinging, and ceases with the removal of clinging. However, this reading apparently precedes the time of the commentaries, for MA accepts anupädā as correct and offers the following explanation: "In what sense is there agitation due to non-clinging? Through the non-existence of anything to cling to. For if there existed any formation that were permanent, stable, a self, or the belonging of a self, it would be possible to cling to it. Then this agitation would be agitation due to clinging (something to cling to). But because there is no formation that can be clung to thus, then even though material form, etc., are clung to with the idea 'material form is self,' etc., they are not clung to (in the way they are conceived). Thus, what is here called 'agitation due to non-clinging' is in meaning agitation due to clinging by way of views." Ñm had followed this reading, and on the basis of MA's explanation, had rendered the phrase "anguish [agitation] due to not finding anything to cling to." He did not discuss the problem in his notes. A sutta in the Samyutta Nikāya (SN 22:7/iii, 16) is virtually identical with this passage of MN 138, except that here it reads, as we should expect, upädä paritassana, "agitation due to clinging." From the Samyutta text we may safely infer that the Majjhima reading is an ancient error that should be discounted. My rendering here is based on the reading of SN 22:7. Horner too follows the latter text in MLS.

[^1254]: MA explains the unusual phrase paritassana dhammasamuppädä as "the agitation of craving and the arising of (other) unwholesome states."

[^1255]: The agitation thus results from the lack of any permanent essence in things that could provide a refuge from the suffering precipitated by their change and instability.

[^1256]: This phrase is identical in both the Majjhima and Samyutta versions.