[ Then I'd read it as "having heard dhamma, confidence in the buddha arose for the householders". I'm much inclined to agree with you, and take the householders as the subject. There is a very similar syntactic construction in DN 16 - Atha kho bhagavato vassūpagatassa kharo ābādho uppajji...

Since it does not seem related to the philological issues I have in mind, may I trouble you come back to the thread proper, if that's the purpose of your visit.

Indeed you can, as articles are not a feature of Sanskrit or Pali. They have to be inferred from context.

Actually, attā does not merely mean "self". Based on how it is used in the Upanisads, it can only mean "the Self". Translating it as merely "self" completely obscures the fact that attan here is not functioning as an adjective, but as a substantive noun. Part of the war...

Pali is treated a little differently. The grammarians classify their Pali stems by their endings. So, some a-stems are dhamma, buddha . n-stems include rajan, attan, kamman in-stems include vādin, passin . i-stems include isi u-stems include bhikkhu The terminal consonants and vowels are not dropped...

Depending on who consecrated the image, the seated figure could be either the Puranic Brahma, or the Buddhist Brahma Sahampati.

Coëmgenu wrote: A user pointed out that "anattā" frequently means "not-self", not "no-self"

So, do you think the more common anattā even means "not-self", or should it be "not the Self"?

binocular wrote: Do Pali nouns have basically the same system as Latin ones?

What do you mean?

Coëmgenu wrote: Wait, is the nom singular "Theravadī" or "Theravado"?

A theravādin is someone who adheres to the theravāda.

English works will almost invariably take the anglicised Indic from the lemma, not from any of the inflected forms. Occasionally however, when quoting a passage, the words are given in their full inflected glory, if there needs to be a discussion on the meaning of the inflection. When loaning words...

Dhammaŋ sutvā gahapatīnaŋ Buddhe saddhaŋ uppajji. (Exercise A #15, from lesson viii of Nārada's "An Elementary Pali Course") First of all, I was confused by the lack of a nominative, but now believe that the nominative 'te' or even "gahapatī/īni" is implied--correct? But this do...

This is an utterly mundane question, but does anyone have any idea why we say "Theravada" and not "Theravado", which seems like it would be the correct nominal form of the word? Hi Coëmgenu In English discourse using Pali terms, only the uninflected forms are used. The reason fo...

... Hi L.N. I had earlier hoped to avoid getting entangled in that endless disputation on whether "not-self" means no-self, or "there is a self to be found outside of the All". My project here is less ambitious and it had only the philological objective of establishing the meani...

As for the English rendering, 'without self', it makes little sense in light of Buddha's explanations in Chachakka and other suttas: "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & fall...

Hi Dmytro This is where I think we need to distinguish between how a lexicographer and a morphologist work. You'll note that the CPD offers the bracketed option. A lexical project like the CPD will treat attan and its derivative atta as "words" through lemmatisation from the inflected form...