Hi,

The OED's >basic< registering of object, percept and sign are as follows. T=
he CAPS are the
OED's.

object: classical Latin obiectum something presented to the senses, in post=
-classical Latin
also goal, aim (13th cent. in Aquinas), thing thrown before or presented to=
(the mind or
thought) I. Senses relating to the presentation of something to the sight, =
senses,
understanding, etc. 1. a. Originally: something placed before or presented =
to the eyes or
other senses. Now (more generally): a material thing that can be seen and t=
ouched. 2. a. A
goal, purpose, or aim; the end to which effort is directed; the thing sough=
t, aimed at, or
striven for. 3. A person or thing to which a specified action, thought, or =
feeling is directed;
the person or thing to which something is done, or on which something acts =
or operates.
[SNIP]  5. Philos. A thing which is perceived, thought of, known, etc.; sp=
ec. a thing which is
external to or distinct from the apprehending mind, subject, or self. Oppos=
ed to SUBJECT


percept: [f. L. perceptum (a thing) perceived, neut. of pa. pple. of percip=
re to PERCEIVE:
after concept.]  1. The object of PERCEPTION. 2. The mental product or res=
ult of perceiving
as distinguished from the action.


sign: [a. F. signe, sine, ad. L. signum mark, token, etc.] I. 1. a. A gest=
ure or motion of the
hand, head, etc., serving to convey an intimation or to communicate some id=
ea.  2. a. A
mark or device having some special meaning or import attached to it, or ser=
ving to
distinguish the thing on which it is put. 3. A mark of attestation (or owne=
rship), written or
stamped upon a document, seal, etc. Obs. 4. A figure or image; a statue or =
effigy; an
imprint. 5.    a. A device borne on a banner, shield, etc.; a cognizanc=
e or badge. Obs.  II.
7.    a. A token or indication (visible or otherwise) of some fact, qua=
lity, etc. d. Theol. Phr.
outward visible sign and varr., in sacramental ordinances, the outward and =
visible aspect
which symbolizes the inward and spiritual aspect. 8. a. A trace or indicati=
on of something;
a vestige. Chiefly in negative phrases. b. A mere semblance of something. O=
bs.  9. An
indication of some coming event; spec. an omen or portent.

 

hth,

tim

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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