Passage from MA iii.198

Dear Jim, Bryan, and other friends,

if someone has a moment to help me out with the end of this passage
from theMajjhima nikāya aṭṭhakathā, 2.3.2, para. 190, MA iii.198, it
would be much
appreciated.  The passage is from the commentary to M i.486, para. 190.
It's about the passage where Vaccha asks about whether a bhikkhu who is
vimutta-citta reappears/doesn't reappear/both/neither, and the Buddha
replies to each question with 'na upeti'.  Buddhaghosa is saying that, of
course, 'na upapajjati' should have been admitted, but that if it had been,
Vaccha would have interpreted it nihilistically, and so it, too, was treated
as 'na upeti'.  All of that is pretty clear.  It's the **last sentence**
that I'm not clear about (assuming that my take on the second to last
sentence is correct: I'm sure you'll let me know if it's not).  As for '
amarāvikkhepaṃ' my bet is 'eel-wriggling', but the other possibility sounds
very charming. ^__^


na upetī ti na yujjati. ettha ca "na upapajjatī"ti idaṃ anujānitabbaṃ siyā.
yasmā pana evaṃ vutte so paribbājako ucchedaṃ gaṇheyya, upapajjatīti pana
sassatameva, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti ekaccasassataṃ, neva
upapajjati na na upapajjatīti amarāvikkhepaṃ, tasmā bhagavā  "ayaṃ appatiṭṭho
anālambo hotu, sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ mā labhatū"ti ananuññāya ṭhatvā
anuññampi paṭikkhipi.

‘It does not apply [na upeti: lit., ‘it does not go up to’] (means) it is
not appropriate [na yujjati].  And here, ‘he does not reappear’: (the reason
is) if this were to be permitted, because of that, when he [sc. the Buddha]
spoke [vutte] thus, he, the wanderer, would have assumed [gaṇheyya]
annihilation [ucchedaṃ]; ‘he reappears’, on the other hand, is just
eternalism; ‘he reappears and he does not reappear’ is similar to [ekacca]
eternalism; he neither reappears nor does not reappear’ is [either] (1.)
eel-wriggling [amarā-vikkhepaṃ] /or/ (2.) immortal peace [amara-avikkhepaṃ]
[!?].  Because of that, the Blessed One (thought): “Let this person be
without a footing, unsupported, let him not obtain a standing-place for
entrance into happiness (satisfaction)”.  **Because of having stayed [ṭhatvā]
without sanction (unordained?) [ananuññāya], sanction (ordination?) also is
refused.**

Many thanks,
Khristos


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]