Dear Stephen,

> "Perception" is
> by no means the generally accepted translation -- Tilmann Vetter has a
> useful discussion about the term in his book on the five khandhas, where he
> says "...the often used translation "perception" is misleading ..." (p24).

There's what Luis Gomez and Peter Harvey say on this subject:

Proto-Maadhyamika in the Paali canon
By Luis O. Gomez
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/gomez.htm

That the meaning of the term is close to some of the Western
philosophical uses of "apperception" is clear from the scholastic
literature and from scattered contextual evidence.(43) In the Sn,
sa~n~na is the basis for conception and verbal distinctions (874) ,
apperceptions are formed or fashioned (pakappitaa... sa~n~naa) (802),
they can be the object of attachment (792, 847), and together with views
they are the primary object of grasping (847) . It is also difficult to
see how the term sa~n~naa could mean "perception" in the context of the
Sn, where the sa~n~naa are found to be formed or fashioned by the mind,
and where we are told that dualities arise from the apperception of
permanence (886). But then, is the Upasiivamaa.navapucchaa speaking of a
cessation of apperception or conceptualization when it defines the
highest goal as "the release from sa~n~na"? This question is best
answered by the Kalahavivaada. The problem there is how to bring to rest
all "name and form."(44) In other words, how do you stop the conflict of
dualities which is at the root of all worldly conflicts? Form is made to
cease in the following way according to the sutta:

When he has not an apperception of apperceptions, when he had not an
apperception of non-apperception, when he does not not apperceive, when
he does not have apperceptions without an object, for him who has
attained to this, form ceases, for apperception is the cause of
dispersion and conception. (874)(45)

A Review of The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravaada Psychology and
Soteriology
By Peter Harvey
http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/3/harvey2.html

In the chapter on "The Sa~n~naakkhandha", Boisvert emphasises the role
of sa~n~naa in helping vedanaa lead on to craving. He prefers
"recognition" as the translation of sa~n~naa as it "tends to imply that
the subject imposes certain categories upon the percept in order to
classify it" (p.78 ). Yet while the latter statement is an appropriate
one on sa~n~naa, "recognition" has the unfortunate connotation that it
is always a form of correct knowledge. In English, to say one
"recognises" something or someone precludes any error in cognition.
Sa~n~naa certainly is a form of classificatory, labelling, interpreting
activity, but it includes both correct labelling ("recognition") and
incorrect labelling (misinterpretation). For this reason, I prefer the
more neutral "cognition". The more usual "perception" is certainly too
broad, as it covers the combined activity of sa~n~naa and vi~n~naa.na,
and in any case hardly covers sa~n~naa of a mental object.

> Also see the relevent entry in Edgerton's BHS Dictionary (which also rejects
> the "perception" translation), where a large number of meanings are
> distinguished, amongst which these are noteworthy:
>
> 1. notion, conception, idea, thought
> 2. interest in, inclination to, purposeful thought towards ...

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is much less psychological and more scholastic
than Pali. So the meaning of the mental process of apperception became
diffused in more common meanings.

Vihi.msaasa~n~na is not an inclination - it is apperception preceding
intention:

“Vihi.msaadhaatu.m, bhikkhave, pa.ticca uppajjati
vihi.msaasa~n~naa; vihi.msaasa~n~na.m pa.ticca uppajjati
vihi.msaasa"nkappo …pe… vihi.msaachando… vihi.msaapari.laaho…
vihi.msaapariyesanaa… vihi.msaapariyesana.m, bhikkhave, pariyesamaano
assutavaa puthujjano tiihi .thaanehi micchaa pa.tipajjati– kaayena,
vaacaaya, manasaa.

SN 2.151

Best wishes,

Dmytro Ivakhnenko