Hi, Derek and Sean,

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

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

To the people who give requisites. Such interpretation suits
the next sentence.

The construction is essentialy the same as ya.m ... ta.m ..., only
with genitive/dative case.

Yous should change the order of two clauses and translate genitive
case as 'belonging to'.

ya.m X ta.m Y

ya.m jaanaami ta.m bha.nami

what I know that I say

I say what I know

yesa.m ciivaraa tesa.m kaaraa

of whom the robe of those deeds

deeds of those whose is the robe

SW> Yesa.m and tesa.m are genitives refering to the requisites. This is seen
SW> clearer when the alternate reading in the Thai, Sihala, and Khmer versions
SW> is used which ends in -aana.m (i.e. the gen pl).

Donors are also plural. I can't understand how yesa.m and tesa.m can
refer to requisites. Would you translate the sentence?

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

SW> Amhaaka.m is referring to the we (maya.m), i.e. the monks. 'Of
SW> us'. >> Our

Indeed.

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

Future tense per se denotes only probility or a general truth, and as
such does not fit here without 'if'.

DC> `yesañca maya.m paribhuñjaama ciivara- pi.n.dapaata- senaasana-
DC> gilaanappaccaya- bhesajja- parikkhaara.m, tesa.m te kaaraa
DC> mahapphalaa bhavissanti mahaa-nisa.msaa, amhaakañcevaaya.m pabbajjaa
DC> avañjhaa bhavissati saphalaa sa-udrayaa'ti.

DC> `The gifts *OF* the requisites which we use - the robes, alms-bowl,
DC> chair, bed, and medicine in support of sickness - will have great
DC> fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and *OUR* going
DC> forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.'

I don't comprehend the source of 'gifts of requisites', and agree with
'our'.

>> 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')

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

You I right, I have searched this word on Chattha Sangayana CD and it
turned out that it indeed means something like 'seeing', especially
with reference to the future, such as 'seeing future dangers' or
'seeing benefit'.

SW> Hope you guys don't mind me butting in every once in a while.

Everybody is welcome.

Dimitry