Hi Nina, Jim.

Maybe I am missing something but does not this passage seem actually pretty
straightforward?

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.

Give up, o monks the unwholesome. It is possible, o monks, to give up the
unwholesome.
If it were not possible, o monks, (no ce'dam sakkaa abhavissa -> see also A.
Fahs, "Grammatik des Pali" for all irregular forms of bhu) to give up the
unwholesome, I would not say thus: "Give up, o monks, the unwholesome".
But because, o monks, it is possible to give up the unwholesome, that is why
I say thus: "The unwholesome, o monks, give it up".
If, verily, this unwholesome(ness), o monks, which was given up (pahīnam)
would conduce to suffering and harmfulness then I would not say thus: "Give
up the unwholesome". But because, o monks, the given up unwholesome conduces
(samvattati) to happiness and welfare, therefore I say thus: "Give up the
unwholesome". (So also Nyanatiloka/Nyanaponika in their AN translation of
the passage)

When it comes to the grammar we have the "stock phrase"
sakkaa + abhavissa.
The pahiinam matches the akusalam and can best be translated in a
subordinate (conditional) clause

Instead of unwholesome of course one could translate "unskillful" etc.

metta,

Lennart

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Nina,
>
>
> > 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 agree. This is turning out to be a much more difficult passage than I at
> first thought and my earlier suggestions are now in doubt and probably off
> the mark. I don't know much about the usage of the conditional verb and
> don't have Warder at hand. I checked Duroiselle but it doesn't offer much
> of
> an explanation. The phrases akusala~nca hida.m...pahiiina.m and akusala.m
> pahiina.m have me puzzled. How do they function grammatically with the verb
> 'sa.mvatteyya'? I thought of an accusative absolute but not sure.
>
> Thanks for repeating the text passage.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
> __._,_._
>
>


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