Dear Nina,
thank you very much fro replying. It's very helpful.

Regarding to Q1, the explanation in the Commentary brings some more
questions.
Aren't those bhuuta? The Initiates and ordinary men, etc.
Or the unborn human babies also are called those that yet seek to be?

btw, i found a freeware "ITranslator" which is pretty good at
editing/converting both Devanagari and Roman script. It's available
on http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org The 2003 version uses the
Unicode standard. It's a pretty good software to me so i'd like to
share the info.

virtually with real metta,
Traveller

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Traveller,
> Q. 1.
> ...
> bhuuta vaa sambhavesii va
> sabbasatta bhavantu sukhitataa.
>
> ---- what's the explanation here about "sambhavesii"? From my
> knowledge, the Theravada tradition did not believe there is a gap
or
> some exsitence inbetween two lives.
> --------
> N: right, the cuticitta is immediately succeeded by the
> pa.tisandhicitta.
> I have the Commentary (Minor Readings and Illustrator, PTS. I
quote:
>
> <That yet seek to be: sambhavesino=sambhavam esanti(resolution of
> compound); this is a designation for Initiates [N: sekha, ariyan
who
> is non-arahat] and ordinary men who still seek being (sambhavam
> esantaana.m) in the future because they have not abandoned the
fetter
> of being (existence). Or alternatively, in the case of the four
kinds
> of womb generation, (see e.g.M.I, 73), creatures that are egg-born
or
> uterus-born are called those that yet seek to be as long as they
have
> not broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane....However,
moisture-
> born creatures and those of spontaneous apprearance are called
those
> that seek to be in the first moment of their cognizance, and they
are
> cvalled those that are from the moment of their secondcognizance;
or
> else they are those that yet seek to be as long as they do not
reach
> any posture other than that in which they were born, while after
that
> they are called those that are.>
> --------
> Q.2.
> ...
> na pare para.m nikubbetha
> naatima~n~netha katthaci na ka~nci,
> byaarosanaa pa.tighasa~n~naa
> naa~n~nama~n~nassa dukkhamiccheyya.
> ....
> ---- this 2nd line seems having one more na?
> ------
> N: My text has katthaci na.m ka~nci..
> na.m means him.
>
> < Let not..undo (na nikubbetha): let him not betray.
> Nor slight (naatima~n~netha): nor (na) let him by surmounting
> (atikkamitvaa) show conceit (ma~n~neyya). Anywhere
(katthaci)...Him
> (na.m): that one (eta.m). At all (ka~nci)...>
>
> Nina.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>