Dear Ven. Dhammanando and Yong Peng,

YP:

> > I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun,
> > if lokahita applies to bya~njana, it should have been
> > bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am I correct?

Ven. Dhammanando:

> No. If bya~njana and lokahita are both taken to be nouns as in my
> suggested translation, there would be no call for them to agree in
> gender.

I think Yong Peng is correct. I take it that 'lokahito' refers to a
person and is the agent of 'avoca'. Here's the verse again:

attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca
na bya~njana.m lokahito mahesii

My reading is as follows: 'attha.m', 'sara.na.m', and 'vya~njana.m'
are all in the accusative singular and are objects of the
verb 'avoca' whereas 'naatho, 'lokahito', and 'mahesii' are all in
the nominative singular and are agents of the verb 'avoca'. A
translation should go like this:

For the Protector, the World's Benefactor, the Great Seer,
Has said the meaning is the refuge, not the phrasing.

Best wishes,
Jim