Just briefly on MN131 MN132 MN133 and MN134 they make an interesting collection.
The MA has no parallel to MN131, but it’s parallels to MN132 and MN133 are MA167 ans MA165.
There is a 3rd sutta on the verse in MA, MA166, but this has no parallel in the Pali.
So the MA sequence is MA165, MA166, MA167.
Now I am relying on machine translation here, but basically MA omits the story of the Buddha giving the verse and the explanation ala MN131, and starts with the story of the monk at the hot springs being visited by a goddess, and being instructed to seek out the meaning of the verse, with the analysis being provided by Mahakaccana, using the 6 sense fields as the mode, and omitting the aggregates. MA166 retells the same sequence, with different charterers and locations, a monk is visited by a god, the verse is discussed, its meaning sought, and the monk goes this time to the Buddha for the analysis, which this time gives the aggregates instead of the sense fields. MA167 gives Ananda giving the analysis, using the aggregates, and being summoned by the Buddha, the Buddha approves the analysis.
So a few thoughts. MA has no account of the Buddha giving the teaching first, ALL three accounts give other monks giving the teaching and the Buddha giving approval. 2 out of the 3 accounts give the initial source of the discussion of the verse as being a supernatural visitor and the third gives Ananda giving the teaching, being summoned by the Buddha to discuss it, and being approved.
Finally, MA puts the sense field analysis as the first version of the sutta. Note that in the MN sequence we start with a very clean and straightforward text of the Buddha reciting a verse and then analyzing it in terms of the aggregates. this is followed by a sutta where it is Ananda giving the teaching and the Buddha asks him how he was teaching it (why?) and Ananda literally qoutes the preceding teaching and the Buddha approves. Then in the final sutta in the sequence all sorts of bizzare things are going on, first, A monk is bathing in the hot springs at night (for the passage to make sense paccūsasamayaṁ must mean here before dawn) then a Deva appears, asks if the monk remembers the verse or the explanation, the monk admits they don’t, then the deity admits they don’t either, then the deity encouraged the monk to go find out about this not remembered verse and it’s not remembered explanation. The monk then goes to the Buddha, who recites the verse, but omits to give the explanation, then the original monk simply vanishes from the narrative and those bhikkhūnaṁ who where there seek out Mahkaccana to give the analysis which he does, using the sense bases not the aggregates. (the fourth MN sutta MN134 gives a god who remembers the verse but not the analysis and the Buddha giving the aggregate analysis)
All this is to say, for the one or two posters on here who are from the “text-critical” school of thought, that the only way any of this makes sense is if MN133 is in fact the original text, and that it was revised into increasingly conservative forms until it arrived at MN131, which must have been a step too far for the Sarvastivadans, who where happy enough to swap out the senses for the aggregates (since it makes no fundamental philosophical difference) but where unwilling to completely erase the controversy of the origin of the poem and/or it’s analysis (by putting the whole thing directly and originally into the mouth of the Buddha as the Theravadans did.)
It should probably go without saying that the poem itself is unique to this sequence.
As are the renderings
(i.e practically half the individual words in the poem)
To the 4 NIkayas and in many cases to the entire canon.
(T77 another parallel, is of the form God appears to Monk, Monk doesn’t know the verse, God recites verse, doesn’t know the meaning, monk visits buddha, buddha gives aggregates.
Finally, the last parallel I am aware of, T1362, gives the hot springs location, gives both the monk and the deity being unfamiliar with both the poem and the analysis, the monk then goes to the buddha who recites the poem but instead of an analysis there is a long section of how beneficial the poem is as a protective mantra.)