Dear Stephen,

Stephen wrote:

From: "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@...>
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:45 am
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Pali] AN Ones, 11 [Dimitry]

Dear Dimitry,

Thank you for your comments and lengthy set of quotations which
corroborate
my contention that nimitta is a mental product not a sense object.
I
agree
with you that these terms must often be seen in the light of what
we
would
call meditation. Even when this is not made explicit in the
Buddha's
dialogues, it is often the underlying assumption. If one overlooks

this,
then one can go astray both in one's understanding of teh text and

also in
one's meditational practice.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

Piya:
This is very interesting. I wonder is a "sense-object" is a mental product or mental
construct, too? After for an unawakened being, his sense-experiences are all
formations, aren't they?

Perhaps deep in meditation, when one sees breath, for example, as being impermant,
etc.

Sukhi

Piya



Ong Yong Peng wrote:

> Dear Connie, Dmytro, Nina, Piya, Stephen and friends,
>
> thanks for the reminder, Dmytro. Nina mentioned Connie attempted AN1
> translation before. It has slipped from my head she posted it to the
> list.
>
> Nina, Connie's message is here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/5244
>
> Accordingly, it seems that Stephen and Dmytro had concluded nimitta as
> a mental construct. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/message/5273
>
> What is tricky here is the Buddha saying "such a dhamma ... nimitta"
> rather than "such a mental construct ... nimitta".
>
> Secondly, the Buddha really talked about two types of nimittas giving
> rise to two type of impediments, and how to abandon the impediments
> (not nimittas) with something else.
>
> 1. subhanimitta (gives rise to) sensual pleasure (negates with)
> asubhanimitta.
>
> 2. pa.tighanimitta (gives rise to) ill will (negates with) mettaa
> cetovimutti.
>
> We have to establish certain things first.
>
> (1) What exactly is cetovimutti?
> (2) asubhanimitta is different from pa.tighanimitta?
> (3) can sensual pleasure be stimulated without an external object, i.e.
> by mental contruct?
> (4) is imagination a mental construct?
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dmytro O. Ivakhnenko wrote:
>
> > Since the passage you are translating, you can use nimitta as "sense-
> object" which is canonical usage.
>
> It is not a canonical usage.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>