And with regards to the nimmita/mind thing. I have read quite a few times that the nimmita represent the mind (you don't know how to interpret it so you do so by way of a sense) ontop of experiencing this directly. So no - I'm not having some weird meditation trip - the pros agree with me on this.
But does Gotama? You're still failing reference any of this.
Also - if nama is the mind-sense like you describe
I don't think I said this. To quote from a sutta I already quoted on what nama actually is:
""Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name(nama)."
If you do not know what this refers to, then go learn about the five aggregates.
...then it's quite contradictory when they say that vipassana done purely on any 1 of the sense doors can lead to enlightement but that vipassana is done simultaneously on nama-rupa.
I don't see what this has to do with what we've been talking about.
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.'
it's stage 12 or something of anapanasati
Doesn't sound like what you were talking about, "consolidating it to a single point".
the buddha could only say "it is that on which reality is based"
Source? I don't think so. The "base of reality" isn't an issue in Buddhism, Theravada anyway.
what am I copping out from exactly
Backing up your statements with coherent explanations and legitimate sources.
I am pretty sure that the nimmitas are nama - so yeah - they do.
We have passed this point and I continue to disagree. You haven't coherently defended this statement. They are mental experiences, yes, but nimitta does not equal nama, as a broad statement.
Also - I have several times seen the word "sign" (which is what the word nimmita is translated as) in the commentaries on insight meditation. They only call them nimmita in sammatha - it's a sign.
Yeah, the samatha nimitta is something that comes up in the commentaries and abhidhamma (though not the suttas), a phenomena that precedes full jhanic concentration. But that's a different thing entirely from vipassana, in that context.
Otherwise I believe Vipassana calls them nama - but it's the same thing I think
So you're saying that in the context of vipassana, nimitta = nama? I think you're incorrect, but I'll eat my words if you find a source which contradicts me.
You can't persuade me otherwise unless you are actually properly a vipassana pro who meditates on nama-rupa (as I have argued above - your definition of nama wouldn't tie up).
On the definition of nama, you've been putting words in my mouth. I haven't said that nama = the mind-sense. I've stated my position on what it is
No - He never describes the citta because it is beyond words - as I have said.
It most certainly isn't. I don't know where you get this from, but I invite you to show me a source.
I'm trying not to come off as rude, but I probably am anyway. You're taking concepts and ideas and words from all over the place and sticking them together however you want to, and it's difficult to make sense of. The fact that you don't back up any of this with other sources makes it even more difficult.