Dear Ven. Dhammanando and Rett,

In Verse 799,
Ditthim pi lokasmim na kappayeyya nane na va silavate,
Na vapi samoti attanam anupaneyya hino na mannetha visesi vapi.
Norman's translation is"
Nor should he form a view in the world
because of knowledge or virtuous conduct and vows.
He should not represent himself as equal,
nor should he think of himself as inferior, nor as superior.

According to "Concise P-E dictionary" by Mahaathera
Buddhadatta, "ditthi" means belief and "dittha" means views and
vision. Norman translated it as view instead of belief. Is there a
conflict between these two explanations?
Also, Shall I treat both "loke" and "lokasmi.m." as locative, is
there any difference between these two words?

Thanks for your passion to explain these simple questions for me.

Yifer
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "dhammanando_bhikkhu"
<dhammanando@...> wrote:

> Dear Yifer,
>
> > For the first word of SN verse 800, It sounds to me
> > "Atta.m." is skipped in Norman's translation.
>
> No, he hasn't skipped it. The point is, there are two ways
> of construing atta.m in this verse.
>
> 1) The Mahaaniddesa glosses atta.m pahaaya as attadi.t.thi.m
> pahaaya.
> 2) The Suttanipaata Atthakathaa takes atta.m as being a past
> participle of aadadaati. Norman has chosen to follow the
> Atthakathaa and so translated it as "what has been taken up."
>
> Actually the meaning ends up being the same, for "what is
> taken up" refers to the sixty-two wrong views.
>
> > "anupaadiyaano" has been translated as "not taking it up " by
> > Norman, is that right?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Is there any explanation to call a devata yakkha?
>
> You might check the entry for yakkha in Malalasekera's
> Dictionary of Pali Proper Names. There are many sorts of
> beings who are on occasion called yakkhas, besides actual
> yakkhas. In the Upaali Sutta even the Buddha is called a
> yakkha!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dhammanando