How to reconcile Mahayana ideas of "nama-rupa" with the Pali definition?

I read the following ideas on the internet by Mahayana faithful: > Namarupa means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of > form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and > internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea > of self. So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our ideas of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development. And, in affirming the above idea and negating an alternate explanation, another Mahayana said: > But your understanding of consciousness and name-form is not Buddhist. > It's not even logically correct. Now, in the Pali suttas of SN 12.2 and MN 9, "nama-rupa" is described as follows: > And what are nama and rupa? > > Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? > > Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention. > > Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro— > > This is called nama. > > idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. > > The four primary elements and form derived from the four primary > elements. > > Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. > > This is called rupa. > > Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. In his translation of the Majjhima Nikaya in 1995, Bhikkhu Bodhi translated 'nama-rupa' as 'mentality-materiality' as follows: > When, friends, a noble disciple understands mentality-materiality, the > origin of mentality-materiality, the cessation of > mentality-materiality, and the way leading to the cessation of > mentality-materiality, in that way he is one of right view…and has > arrived at this true Dhamma. > > Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention—these are called > mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from > the four great elements—these are called materiality. > >MN 9 Also, in the Pali, the word "nimitta" is often found, to mean "theme" or "sign". For example, ideas such as "beautiful" are said to be a "nimitta". The Pali (MN 43) says such nimitta are produced by greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, the impression is these nimitta are much more than mere "perception" ("sanna"). At least in the Pali, "nimitta" appear to be "mental formations" ("sankhara"). My questions are: 1. How does the Pali definition above about "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention" describe the Mahayana idea of "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? Particularly how do the Pali terms "contact", "intention" and "attention" operate as part of this Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? 2. How is the Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form" different to the Pali "nimitta"?