Nimitta Clarification: To Stephen Hodge

Dear Stephen Hodge (and all)

Stephen Hodge made an interesting observaton as follows.

"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."

As I wasn't following the thread properly, I wonder if you could
give some examples of the material "which employs and defines e.g.
terms for perceptual / conceptual processes in a very nuanced
manner."

Aakaara and Nimitta are important terms in Pali, but they carry many
meanings varying from context to context.

So, when you wrote the following:

"The popular translation of "nimitta" as "sign" seems laughably
crude to me in the context of Buddhist accounts of perceptual
processes."

your remark may have been out of focus because "nimitta" in some
context perfectly means 'sign'.

In fact, when you wrote: "but I understand "nimitta" to be roughly
equivalent to basic sense, perceptual data or just percepts, such as
colours, shapes, sounds and so forth", you appeared to be
contradicting your own assertion made in the beginning, namely "You
have chosen to translate "nimitta" as "object" which seems somewhat
vague to me."

Percepts such as colours, shapes, sounds, smells and the like are
all sense objects.

If you had understood "nimitta' to be percepts, why would you have
found translation of "nimitta" as "object" to seem vague? Do you
want to mean that colours, sounds, and smells are not sense objects?

As you mentioned that you were accustomed to the material which
employs and defines terms more rigorously, it would be good for all
of us to have a chance to read some examples of that material.

I wrote this post to merely seek clarification - not to engage in
argument one way or another.

Tanking you in advance.

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...> wrote:

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