Dear Suan Lu Zaw,

First, I should make clear that my comments, naturally, the way people
translate and not necessarily the texts themselves. Moreover, in what I
said, it was not my intention to denigrate Connie's efforts or to deter her
or others from trying their hand at translating Pali or other texts. When I
look back at stuff I did many years ago, I feel quite embarrassed with my
efforts. One problem for beginners, one which I laboured with for years when
I first started translating myself decades ago from other Buddhist
languages, is that the dictionaries we have available are often rather old
and do not reflect the findings of more recent research. My solution was to
compile supplementary glossaries of key terminology over the years, based on
exegetical commentaries and the findings of recent scholars.

> 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."

I'll mention some later.

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

Of course, as in other Buddhist languages. But frequently one finds them
translated with the same English word, thereby possibly obscuraing the
intended meaning.

> 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'.

Again, I am aware of that. But in many cases I believe "sign" is totally
inadequate and misleading in the context of perceptual processes and
meditational processes.

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

No, a percept is in your head while a sense object is exterior to your
senses, outside of your body, with the exception of dharmas as objects of
mano-vij~naana or its equivalent. Nimittas are created inside the
individual by sa.mj~naa / sa~n~naa. Thus, Buddhaghosa defines sa~n~naa as
"nimitta-kara.na", which corresponds exactly to the understanding of other
Indian Buddhist schools. A nimitta is a result of synthesized raw sense
data, combined with vedanaa, and, usually, also involves a labelling
process -- which is why sa.mj~naa / sa~n~naa also means "name" etc. Indeed,
sa.mj~naa / sa~n~naa can describe, according to the context, either the
process and the product. Hence, the Chinese version of the Anguttara text
in question does not actually translate nimitta as such but instead has the
standard equivalent for sa.mj~naa / sa~n~naa.

> 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?

Yes, colours, sounds, and smells, by the time you identify them as such, are
not sense objects, they are mental constructs. To translate nimitta as
"object" is misleading and obscures what the Buddha was saying. If one
wants to use the Buddha's teachings as a means to liberation, then surely
one must first understand accurately what he meant. I am sorry if anybody
feels a little hurt (not my intention) but I think it is the duty of
translators to continually strive to improve their work -- though I
understand that in this context Connie is probably (and laudably)
translating bits of the AN as a learning exercise.

> 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'll just give the names of a few of the scholars whose findings I think
worth taking into consideration.
For Pali studies:
among others Tillman Vetter, Rune Johansson, Sue Hamilton, Rupert Gethin,
Richard Gombrich, and our very own Nina van Gorkom.
For non-Pali sources:
Herbert Guenther, Georges Dreyfus, Dan Lusthaus, William Waldron -- but
there are many others, especially working in the Tibetan Buddhist field..

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

There: no arguments but a bit of clarification I hope.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge