Dear John, Nina and friends,

thanks. Sorry for the confusion. Allow me to rephrase my question:

We have seen the words "clung to" each time at the beginning of the
five paragraphs. Can I say that "clung to" actually is a "short form"
of saying "whatever we clung to as self". Otherwise, I find "clung
to" grammatically meaningless.

For example, in the recent paragraph:

And what, Rahula, is the internal space element? That, internally,
and individually, is space, void, and clung to...

Can I interpret the Buddha's words as "whatever (that) is space,
having the characteristics of space (void) and which we
habitually "cling to" as self... If so, can I say "clung to" refers
to the generalised doctrine of non-self?

metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly wrote:
> Your initial interpretation is the same as my
> interpretation of the meanin. I'm not sure I
> understand what your problem is with the sentence.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: Re: Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta.m [12]akaasa.
> > the words "clung to" appear each time for the five
> > dhaatu (elements).
> > At first, I thought it refers to some form of
> > (mental) attachment to
> > these elements as permanent, self [... as is
> > concluded in each
> > paragraph with Ta.m 'neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
> > meso attaa'ti]. But
> > now, after five rounds, the words "clung to" seem to
> > be out-of-the-
> > place to me, as they do not seem to fit into the
> > sentence. Is my
> > initial interpretation correct? Thanks.