Book of Analysis, the sense bases (Vb2): translator's introduction

[Adutiya]

Waltham St. Lawrence covers the six bases and how, unlike the first five, the mind base is non-material. You’ve made references to “mind objects” several times such as in the Theravada checklist discussion:

@sujato

Philosophically, an “object” is problematic because it implies something that exists “objectively”. What could an “object” be, if not something that exists “out there” independent of the observing mind? The purpose of the Buddha’s teachings on cognition is to undermine any such conception, speaking only of experiences that arise in a process of mutual interdependence.

and the satipatthana sutta discussion:

@sujato

Manasikāra as the origination of dhammas only makes sense when it is understood that here dhamma refers only to the hindrances and awakening factors, and maybe the four noble truths. This is, in fact, specified in the commentary to this passage. Translating dhammas here as “phenomena” (in the general sense) or “mind objects” is incorrect. It could be rendered as “principles”.

You’ve translated SN 35.156 as:
“The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind really is impermanent.”

Some other translations (such as Piya Tan’s below) use mind-objects:
“Monks, when a monk sees forms…sounds…smells…tastes…touches… mind-objects—that are actually impermanent—as impermanent, that is his right view.”

My questions:

• How would we succinctly replace the term “objects” with regard to the mind base?
• What do we call what arises with contact in the mind if the mind is non-material?
• Would we still use “sense objects” for the other five bases?
• How would we correct the following definitions:

Consciousness: The ordinary ongoing process of knowing the six sense objects.

Sati: That observing faculty of mind that comes face to face with sense objects with a remembering of what the object is and what is happening in the moment.

If you could elaborate I would be extremely grateful.
with metta