Dear Rett,

Thanks! It does get me out of my puzzles.
For the first word of SN verse 800, It sounds to me "Atta.m." is
skipped in Norman's translation.
"anupaadiyaano" has been translated as "not taking it up " by
Norman, is that right?
In Norman's remarks, viyattesu is trated as " set apart, separate",
"vaggasaarii" is treated as "paravada, people who has different
views".
Could you please comments it?
By the way, In Pali, S1.2.10, Buddha called that devata "yakkha",
which is not shown in the teanslation of both "Chinese Samyutta
Agama 1078 Sutta" and Bhikkhu Bodhi's.
Is there any explanation to call a devata yakkha?

The reason we go to SN Verses 796 to 803 is:
We are reading S1.2.10 Samiddhi, and find it difficult to explain
why Bhikkhus should not perceive "I am superior", "I am equal" or "I
am inferior". We propose the Paramatthaka Sutta of SN may echo or is
the sources of it.

Yifer

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett <rett@...> wrote:
> 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.
> >