Hi, Dimitry

> yesañca = yesa.m [plural Gen/Dat of ya/ya.m] + ca
> yesa.m ... tesa.m ... = of whomsoever ... their ...

That's the bit I don't understand ... whom or what is the genitive or
dative plural referring to?

> amhaakañcevaaya.m = amhaaka.m [Gen/Dat plural] + ce 'if' + eva +

aya.m

>
> 'If' here makes much sense. If there were no 'if', imperative would

be

> used.

Again, what's this genitive/dative plural (amhaaka.m) all about? Of
us? For us?

Also, I read cevaaya.m as ca (not ce) + eva + aya.m

> sampassamaanena = sam + passa + maana 'completely seeing conceit'
> Instrumental
> Compare with manaabhisamaya
> (present part. 'sampassamaana' can 'visible',
> compare with 'sandi.t.thika', 'dissamaana',
> however its instrumental case does not agree
> with 'attha.m')

I just read that as a present participle, "completely seeing" ... no?

Derek.