Dear Lennart,

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

I agree that it is fairly straightforward (for the most part) but what
puzzles me is in the following:

<< Akusala~nca hida.m, bhikkhave, pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya
sa.mvatteyya naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m - 'akusala.m, bhikkhave,
pajahathaa'ti. >>

<< 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". >>

Take "If, verily, this unwholesome(ness). . . would conduce to suffering and
harmfulness. . ."

Here, "unwholesome(ness)" in the above translation is the subject of the
verb "would conduce" (sa.mvatteyya) which is not logical considering that it
was given up but it would make good sense if the subject were, instead,
"akusalassa pahaana.m" --- if the giving up of the unwholesome would conduce
to suffering, etc. One also has to wonder how the given-up unwholesomeness
per se could conduce to anything since it no longer exists.

Thanks for the links to Minaev and Pischel which you sent offlist.

Best wishes,
Jim