Dear Stephen Hodge, Nina, Tim and all

Thank you, Stephen, for your clarification.

Thank you, Tim, for producing OED defintions of object, percept and
sign.

Here is Webster's Third New International Dictionary definitions
of 'percept' and 'perceive' on page 1675 in the first and second
columns.

percept 1: an object perceived. 2: the meaningful impression of an
object obtained by uses of the senses: sense-datum.

perceive 1a: to become conscious of; b: to recognize or identify; 2:
to become aware of through the senses; 3: receive.

If we link the definitions of the noun 'percept' and the verb 'to
perceive', we can see that a percept in the sense of the definition
one of it is an object that we perceive or become aware of through
the senses.

In other words, the verb 'perceive' used in defining the
noun 'percept' refers to the definition two of the former (the
verb 'perceive'), namely, becoming aware of through the senses.

Thus, when I wrote "Percepts such as colours, shapes, sounds, smells
and the like are all sense objects.", I used the first definition of
the noun 'percept'.

As it turned out, Stephen Hodge understood a percept to be in the
sense of something in the head as he put it, which seems to follow
the second definition of the noun 'percept' by OED, namely the
mental product or result of perceiving as distinguished from the
action.

On the other hand, I use the term 'percept' to cover any instance of
external sense objects such as colours, shapes, sounds, smells,
tastes, and touch.

In short, percepts are the external objects that stimulate or are
taken by one of the five sense-door consciousnesses
(pan`cadvaaravinÞnÞaa.na).

If I remember correctly, scientists who provide terminology entries
for a Dictionary Of Science and Techology also accept percepts as
external objects perceived by the senses. As all my books are
currently packed and kept in the boxes, I am afraid I am unable to
reproduce their definition. Someone who has a Dictionary Of Science
And Technology may kindly volunteer.

I use the term 'concept' to cover any other instance of objects or
stimuli both conventional and ultimate that stimulate or are taken
by the mind-door consciousness (manodvaaravinÞnÞaa.n). In short, a
concept is a dhammaaramma.na.

With regards,

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org

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

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