Dear Connie,

> nimitta.m
> sign, cause, minor or major characteristics, object

You have chosen to translate "nimitta" as "object" which seems somewhat
vague to me. However, some technical terms seem to be used in Pali texts in
a looser manner than the way they are used in the texts I study, so I may be
completely wrong in this context, but I understand "nimitta" to be roughly
equivalent to basic sense, perceptual data or just percepts, such as
colours, shapes, sounds and so forth. Perceptual data derived from the
external world are mediated by consciousness (vij~naana / vi~n~naa.a) and
apprehended by sa.mj~naa / sa~n~naa. In other words, I believe that
"nimitta" are mental phenomena rather than external things per se, if that
is what you mean here by "objects". External objects in themselves are
neither pleasurable or otherwise -- is not that element introduced by the
person perceiving and labelling the bare object ? Though, of course, from
the viewpoint of the untrained person, it is the external itself which seems
to be pleasurable etc, so ultimately your translation is not wrong in that
sense. I normally translate "nimitta" as "perceptual form" -- I would
prefer "perceptual image" but I use that for "aakaara". The popular
translation of "nimitta" as "sign" seems laughably crude to me in the
context of Buddhist accounts of perceptual processes.
I would also like to comment on "manasi karoto" but will not into detail now
except to say that here again I personally would prefer a less vague
translation -- I understand that term and its derivatives to mean more than
just "consider". I think it implies a stronger, at times almost obsessive,
focussing on percepts. In other words, one is doing more that just
"considering" the "subha-nimitta" -- it involves entirely focussing or
giving one's full attention to them at any given moment. Again, this may be
due to exegetical differences -- the way people often translate such
terminology from Pali often seems less rigorous than the material I am
accustomed to which employs and defines e.g. terms for perceptual /
conceptual processes in a very nuanced manner.
Hope some of this make sense to you -- it is not meant as a criticism, just
an observation from another perspective.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge