Dear Jim and Yong Peng,
Jim, thank you very much for your help, most useful. I was so
intrigued by the word abhavissa, especially the 'a'prefix, and saw it
in Warder. But analysing a sentence like this it is quite complicated.

I repeat the text again for those who may not have followed it:

Akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahatha. Sakkaa, bhikkhave, akusala.m
pajahitu.m. No ceda.m, bhikkhave, sakkaa abhavissa akusala.m
pajahitu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m - 'akusala.m, bhikkhave,
pajahathaa'ti. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, sakkaa akusala.m pajahitu.m
tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami - 'akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahathaa'ti.
Akusala~nca hida.m, bhikkhave, pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya
sa.mvatteyya naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m - 'akusala.m, bhikkhave,
pajahathaa'ti. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, akusala.m pahiina.m hitaaya
sukhaaya sa.mvattati tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami, " 'akusala.m ,
bhikkhave, pajahathaa'"ti.

Nina.

Op 31-mrt-2010, om 19:59 heeft Jim Anderson het volgende geschreven:

> > 1. subordinate clause:
> > akusala~nca hida.m pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya
> >
> > subject: akusala.m (neuter singular)
> > main verb: sa.mvatteyya (Optative Parassapada 3rd person singular)
>
> I would suggest "ida.m" as the subject of the verb "sa.mvatteyya" and
> "akusala.m" as the subject of an implied verb "abhavissa" from the
> earlier
> clause beginning with "no ceda.m" with the conditional verb
> "abhavissa".
>
> My translation of "akusala~nca hida.m pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya
> sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya. . ." would go like this:
>
> And (if) akusala (were to be) abandoned, that it (ida.m) should
> lead to
> harm, to unhappiness; I would not say thus: . . .
>
> I think "ida.m" may be referring to a hypothetical situation in which
> akusala is abandoned.
>
> I would translate "ca" in "Yasmaa ca. . ." as "but" (= pana), hence
> "But
> because. . ."
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]