Dear Nina van Gorkom
Here are our trying of analysing the verse.

The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:

> Naaphusanta.m phusati ca, phusanta~nca tato phuse;
> tasmaa phusanta.m phusati, appadu.t.thapadosinan.
> Ven. Bodhi's translation is:
> [It does not touch one who does not touch,

It (the object) does not touch (give effect/wavering)
one who does not touch (who takes object as it is
without craving/clinging)

> But then will touch the one who touches.

But then will touch (gives effect/wavering) the one
who touches (who is not taking an object as it is,
takes with craving/clinging)

> Therefore it touches the one who touches,

Therefore it (the object) touches (gives rise to
wavering/suffering in) the one who touches (who does
take an object with craving/clinging)

> The one who wrongs an innocent man.

The one (an object) wrongs (ruins) an innocent man
(unprotected from desires man).

Could this be possible meaning of this text? We tried
to analyse it according to the position of Phassa -
cakkhupasadassa phasso, etc., (as in the link of Law
of Dependent Originations) contact based on the
eye-basement, and accordingly eye-object will take
place of "It". And so on, for all objects.
In the last sentence, "the one" might be the object
again, not a person, for it says that it
wrongs/harms/ruins/distructs "an innocent man", in
here We used unprotected man + from desires, for only
a man who is not guarding his sense-faculties will
fail to protect oneself from desires/defilements to
arrise.

The questions you raised will remain partly not
answered, but what we think, is : "it"s stand for
something that causes an action of touching. Therefore
we assume it to be an object of contemplation. "The
one" in the last sentence is assumed as in explanation
above.
If We are wrong, waiting for corrections.





Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com