I agree rapture (pīti) doesn’t always refer to jhānas. However, here it is mentioned in combination with “seclusion” (viveka) and “sense objects” (kāma) and “unskillful qualities”. Those all are terms used in the jhana formulas, so that must be what’s meant here, it seems to me. It’s the “rapture (and bliss) born of seclusion” mentioned in the standard jhāna formula. See also MN102, where this “rapture born of seclusion” is also mentioned.
But that’s exactly how it’s defined in SN48.36–39: “And what is the faculty of pleasure? Physical enjoyment, physical pleasure, the enjoyable, pleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact.”
There also isn’t a real difference between nirodha and vaya. I don’t think this is the right place to discuss this, though. I believe Ven. Sujato addressed these ideas here.
It’s commonly acknowledged that the word samādhi (“immersion” per Sujato) doesn’t always refer to the jhānas. The samādhi that’s lost here refers to pre-jhāna samādhi, in my eyes. The jhānas (i.e. right samādhi) are only achieved at the end, when the Buddha says : “I’ve given up my mental corruptions. Now let me develop immersion in three ways.’ I developed immersion while placing the mind and keeping it connected; without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected; without placing the mind or keeping it connected; with rapture; without rapture; with pleasure; with equanimity.” The nimittas are pretty close though, so they can also be called samādhi, though not samma samādhi.
Edit: exactly what @DeadBuddha also suggested.
Anyway, so you do think there are always these light/form nimittas inside the jhānas, then? Or how do you interpret MN128?
Aha. 
So venerables 
, you both agree the commentaries got something wrong: either the nature of jhānas as meant by the Buddha, or whether one needs jhānas for awakening.
The difference between these two I think is worth considering, though. The nature of the jhānas is something we can directly experience (and I think the compilers of the commentaries did just that). However, whether everybody in the world needs jhānas for awakening, cannot be more than a theory or something taken on faith (unless perhaps the person became fully enlightened without jhānas themself, or unless they have some special Buddha-like power to know the minds of all beings).
Another difference is that the jhānas are an intrinsic part of the eightfold path. Whether everybody needs them or not is—again—just a theory. Interesting to consider perhaps, but not really a major pragmatic concern, I don’t think.
Well, I’ll join the both of you: I disagree with some things in the commentaries as well. 
But for what it’s worth, I myself am quite happy that my ordination tradition agrees with my understanding of the pragmatic part of the jhānas, and that it also sees it reflected in the suttas, like I do. That it disagrees on a theory about beings in general, I don’t really mind. (I’m also not 100% convinced that it would be impossible to become awakened without jhānas, exactly because I don’t have the power to know, and will probably never have.)
Anyway, we’re discussing the commentaries, which isn’t really a major concern for all of us, I’m pretty sure, since this is SuttaCentral after all. So let’s recall how we got here. Venerable @Kumara, you said that the definition of kāma (plural) as the sense objects in the Critical Pāli Dictionary (though you mistook it to be Cone’s,), was only held by those who follow Ajahn Brahm or the commentaries. That just isn’t true, I don’t think. Aside from the examples I gave earlier, we got an example right here in this thread, namely Ceisiwr, and there are surely many others. I think it has also been shown in this thread how this definition of the Critical Dictionary is very well supported by the suttas. Unless I missed it, there’s not been evidence to the contrary, just a suggestion to translate it as “sensualities”. (And perhaps we should also keep in mind which intellectuals wrote and edited the Critical Dictionary, especially the volume that contains kāma. I mean, these people each individually understood Pāli better than I ever will, let alone as a team effort.)
I’ve looked at your book as you asked me to, Venerable, but I still don’t understand what “separation from sensualities” pragmatically means to you. Can you explain? 
Sorry, but I find this very vague English. You can blame me for that, perhaps, since I’m not a native speaker. But in more than a decade of using the language in daily speech I don’t think I’ve never heard anybody use ‘sensuality’ in the plural in normal speech.
You have a great ability to get across in writing your sincerity very well. I hope I can do likewise when I thank you for all the good questions, neutrality, and patience.
Also, if you (or others) are interested, a book of transcripted talks on these topics (talks by Ajahn Brahmali and me) is in the works. No promises, and I don’t know how long the people will take, but you may want to keep an eye out. 
It’s going to be good stuff, I think. (The talks addressed a more general audience, though, not as specific as this thread.)
I believe the Vimuttimagga suggested this too, but a big problem with this is thāt there is no mention of devas or divine eye in the text at all.
But it does mention developing the jhānas, and that’s exactly what the practical instructions of the sutta end with (followed by the Buddha’s awakening). When the divine eye is mentioned in the suttas, it always follows the jhanas. These light and form nimittas are before the jhanas, so that’s another indication that they’re something different.
I’ll let Ceisiwr answer, but I believe there’s an AN sutta that mentions visions and forms, and there those are indeed of devas. But imo that’s a completely different context, one that doesn’t apply to MN128.
I think another argument that’s sometimes brought up for this, is that MN128 was spoken to Anuruddha, who was famous for his ability to see devas. However, that’s a very weak and roundabout argument; I don’t think I need to explain why. Anuruddha also attained the jhanas, and that’s what he’s been taught here, not the divine eye.
I mean, the sutta is all about abandoning the hindrances and developing samādhi (samādhiṁ bhāvemi), how much clearer do we need the texts to be?
Anyway, all you lovely people 
thanks all for your contributions. Unless some really interesting replies come up, I’ll not be responding here for a while, to spend some more time actually practicing what I preach. 
(I’ll continue to read along, though.)