--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson_on@...>
wrote:

>
> Dear Mahinda,
>
> Shouldn't "the 1st member" read "the 2nd member"?

Of course. I too deteected it after posting. Another pamaada on my
part.

> Although the a.t.thakathaa on DN 31 doesn't comment
> on "juutappamaada.t.thaanaanuyoge", it does, however, comment
> on "suraamerayamajjappamaada.t.thaanaanuyoge" as follows (in
> part): "pamaada.t.thaananti pamaadakaara.na.m. . . anuyogoti tassa
> suraa-merayamajjappamaada.t.thaanassa anu-anuyogo punappuna.m
> kara.na.m." --- Sv III 944 (PTS). I think this is applicable to

our

> compound on gambling. "juutappamaada.t.thaa.na.m" occurs at D I 7

and

> Sv I 65 comments on it as follows: "pamaado ettha ti.t.thatiiti
> pamaada.t.thaana.m. juuta~nca ta.m pamaada.t.thaana~ncaati
> juutappamaada.t.thaana.m." which makes it a kammadhaaraya compound.

In the latter case, pamaada.t.thaana is taken as that in which,
metaphorically, heedlessness 'stands'. Not altogether different
from "that which is the cause of heedlessness" of the former.
Commentaries give, as seen here, several alternative ways to handle
a
text. Often the final result is practically the same.

Best wishes.
Mahinda