Some belated comments on this part of the translation:

Ya.m ki~nci, Raahula, ruupa.m, atiitaanaagatapaccuppanna.m ajjhatta.m vaa
bahiddhaa vaa o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa ya.m
duure santike vaa, sabba.m ruupa.m 'neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na meso
attaa' ti evameta.m yathaabhuuta.m sammappa~n~naaya da.t.thabban' ti.

>Rahula, whatever form, - past, future or present, internal or
>external, gross or subtle, base or exalted, whether it is far or
>near, - all form should be regarded for the sake of perfect wisdom as
>it is in such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not
>me".

1) To avoid ambiguity I think it would be better to have the phrase "as it
is" (yathaabhuuta.m) come before the phrase about perfect wisdom. Thus:

"All form should be regarded as it really is..."

Otherwise it might seem that the "as it really is" refers to perfect
wisdom, when in fact it is form (and the other aggregates) that need to be
seen as they really are.

2) For da.t.thabba.m I would propose the more literal "should be seen"
rather than "should be regarded". One can *see* things as they really are,
but it seems odd to speak of *regarding* them as they really are. To regard
something in this way or that most often means to see it through the medium
of some prior attitude, opinion, expectation or conceit.

I think such verbs as "regard", "view" and "consider" might be better used
to translate the verb samanupassati. The following passage gives a
hint of the difference between passati/dassati and samanupassati:

Ye hi keci, So.na, sama.naa vaa braahma.naa vaa aniccena ruupena dukkhena
vipari.naamadhammena, 'seyyohamasmii' ti vaa samanupassanti;
'sadisohamasmii' ti vaa samanupassanti; 'hiinohamasmii' ti vaa
samanupassanti; kima~n~natra yathaabhuutassa adassanaa?

Sona, when any samanas or brahmins, on account of matter, which is
impermanent, suffering, and liable to change, regard (samanupassanti)
themselves thus: 'I am superior', or 'I am equal', or 'I am inferior', what
is that other than not seeing (adassana) things as they really are?
(So.na Sutta S iii 48)

Also:

Assutavaa puthujjano ... ruupa.m attato samanupassati ruupavanta.m vaa
attaana.m attani vaa ruupa.m ruupasmi.m vaa attaana.m

"The untaught worldling .... regards (samanupassati) matter as self, or
self as possessing matter, or matter as being in self, or self as being in
matter."
(Cullavedalla Sutta)

3) I am doubtful about translating "sammappa~n~naaya da.t.thabba.m" as
"should be regarded *for the sake of* perfect wisdom".

Most translations of this phrase take sammappa~n~naaya as being
instrumental rather than dative, i.e. it is *by* wisdom that one sees, not
*for* wisdom.

Grammatically both translations are possible. Pa~n~naa, being a feminine
noun, is actually inflected -ya in five different cases:

by wisdom, for wisdom, of wisdom, from wisdom, in wisdom.

Of these I suppose that the instrumental and the dative are the only
serious contenders. The difference between them, though amounting only to a
single preposition, does seem to be a significant one. Is one's initial
task to see the aggregates as not self in order to develop wisdom, or, to
develop wisdom first (by some means not yet specified) in order to have the
faculty by which one may see the aggregates as not self ?

Best wishes,

Robert