Hi yifertw and group,
Here's the verse with the diacritics rendered in velthuis:
atta.m pahaaya anupaadiyaano
ñaa.ne pi so nissaya.m no karoti;
saa ve viyattesu na vaggasaarii
di.t.thim pi so na pacceti kiñci
Here's my take on your two questions. If
anything's unclear let me know and I'll try to
expand on it.
anupaadiyaano = an (not) + upaadiyaano < upaadiyati
upaadiyati = appropriates to oneself, takes as
one's own, adopts, lays hold of, grasps, uses,
takes as material source, derives, evolves from.
(Cone)
It's not the prefixes anu + pa, but an + upa.
This can be a little tricky. Often when it's anu
+ pa you'll see the form anuppa with double-p. So
I think the word 'again' is added by Norman
without being explicitly stated in the Pali.
Perhaps the context implies it.
nissayam karoti is an idiom meaning "rely on"
(PED). Literally 'make a shelter'. The thing
relied on (ñaa.ne) is put into the locative . So
it literally says 'does not make a shelter of',
or 'does not rely on'. Norman renders it
'_should_ not depend on'. Again, the 'should' is
perhaps implied by the verse without being
explicitly marked. I don't find anything strange
about that if the description is supposed to be
about how a sage behaves, and is meant as a model
for others to emulate. 'Should' could make sense
there, despite the verb simply being in the
present tense.
'no' here is an emphatic negative, rather than the enclitic pronoun.
best regards,
/Rett
>Dear Bante and Dhamma friends,
> I can not match K.R. Norman's translation with SN verse 800.
> Please help me why Pali words translated into "and not taking it
> up(again)", why "nissayam no karoti" translated into " depend upon."
>
> "Attam pahaya anupadiyano
> nane pi so nissayam no karoti;
> sa ve viyattesu na vaggasari
> ditthimpi so na pacceti kinci"
>
> Abandoning what has been taken up, and not taking it up (again),
> he should not depend even upon knowledge.
> He indeed does not follow any faction among those who
> hold different views.
> He does not fall back on any view at all.
>