Dear Robert,

Thank you for thoughtful comments.

I agree with the first two points, so the translation goes:

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 seen as it is for the sake of perfect wisdom
in such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not
me".

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

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

The choice of dative is based on the Commentary:
Sammappa~n~naaya passatoti sammaapa~n~naa naama savipassanaa
maggapa~n~naa, taaya passantassaati attho.
(Nidanavagga-Atthakatha 2.32)

By the way, it's a commentary to Kaccaanagottasutta.m (Nidanavagga
2.17) so favored by Nagarjuna in his Mulamadhyamaka-karikas.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-15.html

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

So, seeing the aggregates as not self, one develops 'right wisdom' as
a part of Noble Path.

Best Regards,
Dimitry