Dear Jim,

> I just checked the Pali commentary (reproduced below) on what it has
> to say about the word 'nimitta' in the AN I.11 passage. I think the
> explanatory word 'aaramma.na.m' supports Connie's choice of 'object'.

Not necessarily. It now depends on how you define or translate aaramma.na /
aala.mbana. This in turn depends upon what model of perception you adhere
to. I know that the Sarvaastivadins (Vaibhasika version) were realists, so
perhaps the Theravadin position is the same. However, the realist position
is easy to demolish as was done many times by various Indian Buddhist
masters. Part of the reason why the Vabhasika faded away so quickly was
because its theories concerning perception and related matters did not
survive the onslaught of such critiques. Theravadin doctrines are rarely
mentioned per se, I suppose because of the geographical separation and
because they may have been viewed as a provincial sub-set of the Vaibhasika
position.
Anyway, I base my understanding of this kind of terminology upon a
representational model of perception as espoused by the Sautrantikas, the
Yogacarins and the Madhyamikas (some of them, at least). Thus, I consider
aaramma.na / aala.mbana to also be a mental construct -- it is the objective
pole of consciousness within the mind or the cognition of an object. Note
that Asanga glosses aala.mbana in perception as pratibimba = reflection,
image.
Four vippallasa / viparyaasa have also been mentioned in connection with
nimitta. Serendiptously, Asanga mentions a fifth vippallasa / viparyaasa
which is extremely relevent here, namely viewing the nimitta as the vastu,
which I would translate as mistaking the "perceptual image for the bare
object" !

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

PS: There are quite a number independent sastras written by the
Sautrantikas, the Yogacarins, Pramaa.nikas and the Madhyamikas dealing with
perception. I believe this is because of a degree of polemical debate
between the various Buddhist schools but more importantly as a result of
extensive contact with non-Buddhist schools like the Nyaiyikas and the
Samkhyas. Since, there do not seem to be anything equivalent in the
Theravadin tradition due to geographical distance, could this be the reason
why their model of perception is less developed than elsewhere ?