Dear Dr. Pind,

> The translator has overlooked the negation

Well, this IS getting interesting! Now we have three
interpretations.

But where in the passage do you perceive a negation ? Surely
"ariyasaavakaana~n~n' eva" needs to be analysed as
"ariyasaavakaana.m eva", (as in Kaccaayana 32 and
Ruupasiddhi 50) ? Are you suggesting that it should be
"ariyasaavakaana.m na eva" ? If so, which rule of sandhi do
you have in mind ?

> The text says that "these six anusssatis, moreover, are of
> no use at all to the ariyasaavakas."

This is untenable. Your proposed reading is contradicted by
the fact that the passage is followed by citations from
several suttas showing that the anussatis ARE indeed useful
to ariyasaavakas.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu