Dear Robert,

> I think it is worth noting that Theravada tradition prior to the BPS
> (which began in the 1950's) rejected the Vimuttimagga.

Why do you think so? The events you describe relate to the rejection
of 'vetulya' doctrines, much later than the time when Vimuttimagga was
composed (1st century CE). Vimuttimagga is a perfectly Theravadin
work, without any elements of 'vetulya'.

The attitude of the Mahavihara members to the Vimuttimagga is well
expressed in the commentary Vimuttimaggapakaranam,
http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/e0105n/e0105n-26.html
The venerable author just tells that it is a work similar to
Visuddhimagga, and indicates differences and similarities between
these two works. Evidently there was no blunt rejection. The members
of Mahavihara just had their own viewpoint on some controversial issues.

r> The term nimitta has to be undertsood in context. The commentary
r> make this clear and explains carefully. I see no reason to doubt it.

Would you please explain what exactly you don't doubt?

The Patisambhidamagga verse

Nimitta.m assaasapassaasaa, anaaramma.namekacittassa;
ajaanato ca tayo dhamme, bhaavanaa nupalabbhati.
Nimitta.m assaasapassaasaa, anaaramma.namekacittassa;
jaanato ca tayo dhamme, bhaavanaa upalabbhatiiti.

- Ps 1.170

is interpreted very differently in Patisambhidamagga-Atthakatha and in
Visuddhimagga.

PsA says that the 'nimitta' in this verse is the nose-tip or upper lip
(see note 8 to chapter III). However the Visuddhimagga (chapter VIII,
paragraph 217) interprets this 'nimitta' in the context of samadhi, as
a 'perceptual image' used in the development of collectedness
(samatha).

With which of these interpretations do you agree?

r> The Vibhanga is not a commentary it is part of the Tipitika, and
r> Buddhaghosa does not disagree with it.

If you read the Vibhanga, you would notice that it is in effect
largely a commentary to the suttas (though of course it does not
belong to the Atthakatha literature, being composed much earlier).

Specifically, the explanation of 'parimukha.m' mentioned:

"Parimukha.m sati.m upa.t.thapetvaa"ti tattha katamaa sati? Yaa
sati anussati pa.tissati …pe… sammaasati - aya.m vuccati "sati".
Aya.m sati upa.t.thitaa hoti supa.t.thitaa naasikagge vaa
mukhanimitte vaa. Tena vuccati "parimukha.m sati.m
upa.t.thapetvaa"ti.
Vibhangapali .252

belongs to the Jhaanavibha"nga section of Vibhanga, which is a
commentary to the concise explanation of jhanas in the suttas.

In the passage above Vibhanga clearly explains 'parimukha.m' as 'the
tip of the nose (naasikagge) or lip of the mouth (mukha)'.

However the interpretation of Patisambhidammagga-Atthakatha is
completely different - "Having established mindfulness as the embraced
outlet of the in-breaths and out-breaths" (see note 14 th the chapter
III of Patisambhidamagga).

As for Buddhaghosa, he interprets this phrase in Visuddhimagga
(chapter VIII, paragraph 161) as "having placed mindfulness facing the
meditation subject".

So Buddhaghosa does contradict the Vibhanga.

Best wishes,
Dimitry