Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your interesting and well-worded response. I'm afraid I
know so little about the subject-matter that there isn't much more for
me to say. It would require a long-term investigation of the Pali
texts on my part to gain a better understanding of the canonical and
post-canonical explanations of perception and its processes. The word
'nimitta' has long been a difficult one for me to grasp and I noticed
that it shows up in many of the verses in the Abhidhaanappadiipikaa
suggesting that its usage is fairly complex. I haven't come across too
much in the way of commentarial explanations of the word and the
passage I reproduced from the AN commentary in my previous message is
the most extensive I've seen so far which I thought was helpful.
'aaramma.na' is also another difficult term for me to grasp and I
couldn't even tell you how 'ruupaaramma.na' differs from 'ruupadhaatu'
or 'ruupaayatana'. I've hardly studied any of the texts of other
Buddhist schools.

Best wishes,
Jim

> 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

<snip>