Past Participle

Dear Friends,

I have a question about transformation of a sentence from one form to another.
Pardon me if my poor grammatical knowledge skews the question I have to ask, but
it seems clear that when verbs are transformed into past participles, they are
generally construed as passive (e.g. karoti = he does, kata = it is done).  It
is not so clear with verbs having to do with motion (eg gacchati).  For example,
   "aha.m  buddha~nca dhamma~nca sa"ngha~nca sara.na.m gataa"

So, now I am looking at a verse in the Dhammapada that goes:

ga.no vo maa upaccagaa

I don't quite understand upaccagaa, but I understand that it means "may it not
overcome".

If I want to change this sentence, putting "vo" as the subject (or more
accurately, "so"), in order to say: "he who is not overcome by the moment" (i.e.
he who doesn't let the moment pass him by), would the following be correct?

ga.nena anupaatigato

I am concerned that it means instead, "one who doesn't overcome by (i.e. using)
the moment", because I don't understand whether "gato" should mean "that which
has gone" or whether it should mean "that which is gone to", and whether
"paatigato" should thus be construed as "that which overcomes" or "that which is
overcome".

I hope it is understood what I am asking - any help would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo