Dear Stephen,

I am sure most scholars and writers would forgive meditation teachers and
practitioners for their inaccurate language. Indeed I know from many translations of
the teachings of meditation teachers, terms are never as accurate as one would expect
them, not by scholar standards, anyway. They use a sort of "twilight language" or
conventional language.

However, there is almost no problem in transmitting the intentions of the teacher as
it is a direct transmission of the teaching (as in the Buddha's own days). I think
being exact in the letter is more a problem of the modern scribal tradition as very
often individual scholars working on their own need some sort clear terminology in
order to build a paradign or work with one.

However in spiritual training the purpose is ultimately to dismantle or disconstruct
all such paradigms (which are after all mental constructs).

Moreover, English is a living language, so we can invent new words, give new meanings
to old words, or simply use loan words. The important thing is to define our usage
and be consistent.

As such, I find no problem when a meditation teachers say something like "the
meditation sign appears like such and such". Understandably exacting scholars might
find this laughable, but I wonder if one might be more tickled to be so exact about
something one has not experienced at all!

It's like a bunch of fairytale writer arguing over the exact features of a unicorn
(let me not bring in the tale of the blind men and the elephant). Scholars who have
seen nimittas, please disregard this statement.

To rephrase an imagery from the Tevijja Sutta, it is like one who say he wants to
marry the beauty queen of the country. In this case, one is able to define and
describe exactly what or who one wants. The only problem is that one has not met such
a beauty.

I say all this in good humour and out of the love of learning. Indeed the ideal is to
have scholars who are able to see nimittas and then give them a proper English word.
I think that age is slowing dawning upon, if not already.

Spirituality needs to be tempered with scholarship, and scholarship needs to be
enlivened by spirituality. (Oh dear, now I think someone might take issue with the
word "spirituality"). Words, words, words, Polonius.

Today, during the Theravada Conference at the National University of Singapore, Prof.
Mun-Keat Choong (a Malaysian scholar resident in Australia) of the University of New
England, Australia, showed how a section is missing from the Brahmavihara Sutta (A
10.208) but which is supplied by its counterpart in the Madhyama Agama 15. I have to
examine this more closely once I receive the hard copy of his lecture notes.
(Woodward makes a note of this in his own translation, A:W 5:193.

BTW, Stephen, I really hope you would put your Chinese Buddhist texts online for our
benefit.

Sukhi [be happy]!

Piya.

------------------

Stephen 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
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>