Dear Sitala, Yifer, Ole.
thank you, Sitala.
Let us look at what Ole said.
See below.
op 02-08-2005 17:55 schreef Sitala (Zorigto) op sitalatwo@...:

> 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.
>------

Ole: The "it" refers to paapam "evil action" of the next verse.
Phusati occurs in a similar context with paapam as subject at It IV 10 verse
four: tam eva paapa.m phusse/ati.
------
Nina: I followed the Thai and Commentary: Vipaaka will not touch the person
who does not touch kamma (performs kamma), etc.
It seems to me that this sutta deals with kamma and vipaaka.
Nina.