You said there is "significant difference". Im just trying to find what is this difference.
How does the sense of the words change over time?I am talking about a semantic shift, when the sense of the words gradually changes over time.
There might be many reasons, why Pa-Auk Sayadaw doesn't talk about touch nimittas (especially since they occupy only a secondary position in Vism) 1. Touch is very easy to confuse. We always feel some sensations, and nimitta is something which everyone wants, so people would misinterpret their experience. It would be more difficult to understand, on what stage is the practitioner now. Light is more difficult to fake (although some people do see light on early stages, but they cannot focus on it), 2. For one who has genuine touch nimitta, the light might appear very soon, then one works with the light, 3. They might be rear, 4. Light as nimitta might be easier to focus on, etc, etc.
So... What is this quotation for? Does Pa-Auk Sayadaw teaches something else?All (saññā) has the characteristic of recognition (sañjānana); its property is the making of a representation (nimitta) that is a condition of noting again, 'this is the very same thing' - as carpenters and so on do with wood, etc.; its manifestation is the producing of conviction by virtue of a perceptual image that has been accordingly learnt - like the blind perceiving the elephant (Ud 68-9); its basis is whatever object that has come near - like the saññā 'people' that arises for young animals in respect of scarecrows.
And? Is it different from Sayadaw's approach?In Visuddhimagga nimittas are unique for each object-support, and represent its qualities.