Do you have a reference or details on this?
That is at least how I understand Bh. Anālayo’s treatment of the text… Here are the quotes:
“Regarding the subject of mindfulness of breathing, the two versions [MN 62 and EĀ 17.1] exhibit some interesting differences in their detailed exposition of this topic… The Majjhima-nikāya account at this point recommends establishing mindfulness “in front” (parimukha), an expression that according to the explanation given in the Vibhaga and the Paaisambhidāmagga refers to the nostril area as the proper location for being mindful of the breath. This explanation is reflected in the Ekottarika-āgama discourse, which explicitly instructs that one should be “keeping the mind at the tip of the nose”.
The standard pericope description of sitting down for meditation in other Ekottarikaāgama discourses, however, does not mention the nose tip, but speaks just of putting mindfulness “in front”. This leaves open the possibility that the instruction to keep the mind at the tip of the nose in the Ekottarika-āgama parallel to the Mahārāhulovāda-sutta could have been an explanatory gloss on the practice of mindfulness of breathing that, either during the period of transmission or at the time of translation, became part of the discourse itself.”
The footnote here quotes: “Vibh 252,12: “mindfulness is established, well established, at the nose tip or the upper lip, therefore it is said: ‘having established mindfulness in front’”, sati upaaahitā hoti supaaahitā nāsikagga vā mukhanimitte vā, tena vuccati parimukha, sati, upaaahapetvā ti”
Oh, okay, he’s saying that the commentarial gloss “at the nose tip” became included in the sutta. The fact that the explanation is found in both an EA sutta and the Abhidhamma Vibhanga suggests that it quite old and/or widespread.
To establish that the phrase in fact refers to the nose tip, we would first need to establish that the passages where parimukha is used without preceding anapanasati are spurious. That’s possible, but I haven’t seen the case made.
3 Likes
But couldn’t it also mean that anapanasati was ‘the’ Jhana method? That unless otherwise mentioned the royal way to Jhana was not asubha, the saññas or the anussatis but anapanasati? In that case parimukha would be the hint and the seperate mention of anapana would have been deemed unnecessary.
But in fact the only way this could be true is if the stock passage with parimukham was produced around anapanasati and then indiscriminately used in all kinds of meditation introductions. The uniformity of this passage and the inexplicable use of parimukha as an adverb (and not the use of a more common word) could be an expression for that. But it is a strong assumption nonetheless.
I’d need to see a strong textual argument for this. It seems to me there are just so many different forms of meditation through the suttas, I doubt if we can reduce the complexity with such ease.
2 Likes
So I used the SuttaCentral search engine to browse through all parimukha references.
They are found equally in AN, SN and MN - less in DN and KN.
Most references don’t mention any meditation method, they just generally describe going into the forest… entering the jhāna. In about another 30% we have parimukha --> hindrances --> jhāna. In the MN this is mostly in the context of describing the gradual training.
And then there are a few suttas with more interesting content relating to our question - and they mostly have parimukha (in the following ‘p’) indeed in connection with ānāpānassati. Most of these are connecting not defining but by sequence, with three exceptions describing ānāpānassati with p. In detail:
AN 3.63 is THE exception. Here we have p --> jhāna, p–> brāmavihāra, p–> understanding I cut off greed, hatred delusion. No mention of ānāpānassati or kayagata sati at all
AN 10.60 is as one of the main meditation suttas of interest. Here we have the 10 saññā, but only ānāpānassati (which is not litereally a saññā) in defining connection with parimukha: “And what, Ānanda, is mindfulness of breathing? Here, a bhikkhu, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree…”
SN 54 as the ānāpānasamyutta has in each of the 20 suttas p in connection with ānāpānassati
MN 10 has the many meditations, but again p only before ānāpānassati
MN 119 is the same, p only before ānāpānassati
MN 118 obviously too
MN 62 as another main meditation sutta is peculiar. Rahula sits with parimukha, Sariputta sees him and THEN tells him to do ānāpānassati . Further on more meditations are described, but again, only in connection with ānāpānassati we have p.
DN doesn’t provide interesting details, just DN 22 is as MN 10
KN has a few instances…
Iti 85 is interesting. It has a) ānāpānassati, b) sabbasaṅkhāresu aniccānupassanā and c) asubhānupassanā. p again only in connection with ānāpānassati with the sentence: “ānāpānassati vo ajjhattaṃ parimukhaṃ sūpaṭṭhitā hotu”
“When mindfulness of breathing is inwardly well established parimukham (before one? at the tip of the nose?)” - is the rest an exact translation? I count this is as a defining connection of p and ānāpānassati too.
Ud 7.8 has p with kayagata sati in general, with no mention of ānāpānassati. So that is the second kind-of-exception.
Ps 1.3 again p with ānāpānassati
Finally in the Vinaya we have another direct link of p. and ānāpānassati
Pi Tv Bu Vb Pj 3: “And how is samādhi by mindfulness of breathing developed and cultivated in this way? “A monk sits down in the wilderness, at the foot of a tree, or in an empty hut. He crosses his legs, straightens his body, and establishes mindfulness in front of him”
Conclusion: If parimukha appears in connection with a specific meditation it is in overwhelming majority with ānāpānassati. Sometimes we have other meditations in the same sutta but only ānāpānassati with parimukha (AN 10.60, MN 10, MN 62, MN 119, Iti 85), and two-three times even explaining ānāpānassati with the parimukha passage (AN 10.60, Iti 85, Pi Tv Bu Vb Pj 3).
I didn’t expect this clear connection, but now I think that ānāpānassati actually from the beginning (and not just in Abdhidhamma and commentaries) is described as watching the breath literally ‘around the mouth’ or ‘around the face’ or ‘at the tip of the nose’.
If this is the case, and parimukha would always hint ānāpānassati, then the passages with parimukha that are directly followed by the first jhāna would mean that it was achieved by ānāpānassati.
Open question: has someone already collected the meditations that explicitly lead to the first jhāna other than by ānāpānassati and/or the parimukha passage? (except maybe AN 1.395-574 where almost every dhamma aspect seems to be suitable to develop jhāna…)
8 Likes
Richard Shankman made this argument in The Experience of Samadhi .
Shankman in his appendix I think rather relates the Visuddhimagga and tries to make sense of the Rahulasutta, anapanasati and parimukham in order to get to an opinion if parimukha is supposed to be understood metaphorically or literally. I was rather trying not to go by sense but by seeing the suttas as an interrelated corpus of texts, in which contexts parimukha appears and in which not. I have my doubts if the Buddha really mechanically repeated this passage verbatim over his 50 years of teaching. But to see that the texts make this close connection of anapanassati and parimukham is I think significant for the understanding of the time of compilation.
That’s an interesting argument, thanks Gabriel. there certainly does seem to be an association, but I am still not clear why. It seems to me we have two approaches:
- Spatial interpretation: As you argue, anapanassati is directly connected with parimukha. In this case the other contexts would be secondary, in some cases clumsily, eg the Rahula Sutta.
- Non-spatial interpretation: Anapanassati is not directly connected with parimukha. The reason for the prevalence is because anapanassati was the prime example of meditation, especially mindfulness meditation, and its association with parimukha is secondary.
How are we to say which hypothesis is right? Well, one test would be to look at the parallels in Chinese and Sanskrit, etc. Not so much the actual translation of the term as the patterns of usage.
If we find that contexts that suggest anapanassati is not connected with parimukha are similar in the parallels this tends to confirm the non-spatial hypothesis. If they are different it supports the spatial hypothesis.
As you’d expect, it’s complicated! EA 17.1 is the parallel for MN 62, and the opening narrative is very similar. However it seems to use an unconventional phrase to describe the sitting in meditation, and it’s not clear if it’s a translation of parimukha.
專精一心，念色無常，念痛、想、行、識無常
He focussed with all his heart, mindful that form, feeling, perception, activities, and consciousness are impermanent.
in the Sanskrit texts, we regularly find pratimukha rather than parimukha, something that further complicates the issue. Parimukha is not attested at all in the Sanskrit texts on SC. (In most cases we can expect the Chinese to have translated from something like this as well.)
Note that pratimukha is attested across multiple schools, including Mahasanghika (Mahavastu) and Sarvastivada, and early and late texts. In the 19 hits I get for these on SC, none of them, from a cursory examination, appear to deal with anapanassati at all. But like I said, this is just a quick skim.
In the Sanskrit dictionaries, the dominant sense of pratimukha seems to be “presence”. This sense is quite widely attested, so it would be interesting to check these passages. In Manusmriti 8.291 it’s used in the context of a chariot accident, meaning tiryakpratimukhāgate, meaning that the chariot is turned aside or backwards (or something like that!). In a commentary to the Bhagavadgita it’s used as a gloss on abhimukha, in the sense of rivers “facing” the sea.
Parimukha in the Sanskrit dictionaries is only referenced in Panini, which seems to confirm that it is not used in a doctrinal sense by the Sanskritic Buddhists at all.
The strong prevalence of pratimukha is very noteworthy, and it suggests we should be cautious about interpreting solely based on the Pali meaning of parimukha, which might not even be the original term. If it is indeed the case that the Sanskritic texts don’t associate it with anapanassati, perhaps that association is an accident arising from editorial choices in the Pali.
12 Likes
Just to throw out a few examples of later uses of the phrase, here are a few I thought might be accessible.
T 275, Sarvavaidalyasaṃgrahasūtra, Vinītaruci
爾時世尊
At that time, the Bhagavān
正念現前
with correct mindfulness before him,
從三昧起
arose from samādhi,
遍觀大眾
and observed the entire assembly [of humans and non-humans].
T 279, Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, Śikṣānanda
念念明達
illuminating and penetrating each thought,
一切佛法
all buddha-dharmas,
正念現前
with correct mindfulness at the fore,
無所取著
without grasping or attachment.
In the 600-fascicle Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (T 220), it appears four times, always in the form:
端身正願住對面念
Adjust body, correct intention, abide with mindfulness at the fore.
In later Chinese Buddhist literature, the phrase also continued to be used. T 1972, Questions on the Pure Land, is one example. At the time of death, with a fearless mind, and “with mindfulness at the fore” (正念現前), one is able to see Amitābha Buddha and his noble saṃgha, and experience rebirth there, pulled from a golden lotus flower.
4 Likes
Thanks for bringing the Sanskrit and Chinese parallels into the picture. I tend towards an editorial artefact in Pali as well. If originally there really was a connection between parimukha and ānāpānassati, what would have been easier than “paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ ānāpānassatiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā”?
The passage in Sanskrit is indeed revealing, and I wonder if the following reasoning holds up to a literal translation of the Chinese as well…
The expression in Sanskrit goes: pratimukhāṃ sṃrtim upasthāpya
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read upasthāpya as a gerund of the causative of upastā with a meaning of “to be made stood near” and with upasthāpana having the connotation of “causing to remember”, upasthiti “the faculty of memory”.
So it might turn out that the passage goes “causing the to-be brought about remembering” of… pratimukhāṃ sṃrtim.
- pratimukhā = pratimukha = towards / near / facing / in front
- sṃrti = memory / the meditation subject
So my interpretation of the Sanskrit version is that this preparatory meditation passage describes the location (root of a tree etc.), posture (bent at the lap) and mental direction (recollecting what I want to do in the upcoming meditation session) of the meditation.
The Sanskrit doesn’t hint at anapanassati at all, neither by proximity nor by explaining parimukha. Obviously (some) Pali editors had something else in mind (as seen in AN 10.60, Iti 85, Pi Tv Bu Vb Pj 3 and the Vibhanga).
Now my question to the Chinese text would be if it goes along with the gerund/future-passive-participle interpretation of the Sanskrit. Meaning:
- does the passage have the bhikkhu active in a form of ‘mindfulness’, already meditating?
- or is he busy mentally preparing, “facing” the future/upcoming meditation?
Unfortunately Bh. Anālayo’s commentary doesn’t mention how literal his translation “establishing mindfulness” is.
1 Like
Over the recent past I came to a satisfactory, admittedly personal, understanding on parimukha. I came to understand mukha as: opening, entry point. And hence parimukha as ‘around the opening/entry point’.
It came about when I read in ‘The Gospel of Ramakrishna’ that his disciple ‘M’ himself wrote/translated into English. There I found
Remain in bhavamukha, on the threshold of relative consciousness
I understood that mukha is still in use in a metaphorical sense as ‘opening, threshold, entry point’. And when I was looking for similar uses in pali they were not difficult to find…
AN 1.319 has “Just as a trap set at the mouth of a river” (nadīmukhe)
AN 4.198 mentions some ascetic practices and for the opening of a pot and bowl kumbhimukha and kaḷopimukha
So with the literal meanings as ‘mouth’ and other meanings as ‘face’, or ‘direction’ we also have very clear meanings as ‘opening…’. That to me makes sense now. I see that this is not a proof, but still going from here I see three possibilities of interpreting mukha in the context of parimukha and meditation:
- mukha as ‘the opening of the mouth’
- mukha as ‘the opening of the nose’
- mukha as ‘the opening of the mind’
Of those three I see the third as the least probable. And the first two would speak for a very clear connection with anapanassati and indeed focusing on where the breath goes in and out, i.e. the nostrils.
@sujato, I’d be interested in your intuition here if you’d find a minute, knowing that in the end it cannot be definitely solved…
5 Likes
for the 16 steps of anapana and its prelude, where parimukha appears, i translated it literally as “near the mouth”.
it makes sense, with anapanasati being a kinaesthetic experience, and as one tries to stay continuously with the breath, the movement of wind and bodily tissue near the mouth, rise and fall of the front of the body.
it’s precisely because of the cool soothing kinaesthetic experience of in and out breathing that it works so effectively in its advertised benefit of cutting off thinking. By initiating the wholesome physical pleasure of breathing, described in SN 54.9 as peaceful, sublime, an ambrosial dwelling, how easy it is then to mindfully stay with that instead of running off with akusala thinking.
of course parimukham works metaphorically as well too, and we should consider the possibility that both the literal and metaphorical meanings may have been intended. i don’t know why people are always so quick to make things into an either-or situation, where you have to choose one or the other. the literal interpretation works very well as an entry level advise for beginners. just as the 3rd tetrad of 16 APS, vimutti can represent liberation (temporary) of 5 hindrances to enter first jhana, liberation from rupa to enter formless attainments, liberation from piiti to enter 3rd jhana, etc.
So just as vimutti in step 12 can apply to many stages of samadhi, parimukham could be intended to capture a wide range of possibilities as well.
unfortunately by translating parimukha as “near the mouth” in english would deprive us of the metaphorical dimension.
Ven. Thanissaro’s translation of “placing mindfulness to the fore” I’m guessing was intended to try to capture both.
4 Likes
even a literal translation stays cryptic. where do you find ‘near’ if I may ask?
for pari I find in pali ‘away from, off’ or ‘around’. Problem with ‘around the mouth’ is that it’s just not the primary experience in anapanassati. When you recall a cold where the nose is blocked you’ll know what I mean - when you breath through the mouth for a while the mouth gets completely dry, so an anapanassati-session is almost certainly through the nose, and since the Indics had a word for ‘nose’ it would be weird to use ‘around the mouth’.
That’s why it calls either for a metaphorical meaning, or we don’t understand what it means yet. I even played with the idea that the sati-recollection is subtely activated as unspoken words and hence the ‘mouth’, but the idea is too outlandish.
So it should be metaphorical, but I personally never understood what it’s supposed to mean ‘to establish mindfulness in front of me’ - so I started looking for other legitimate readings and am content now with the above ‘opening’.
i used “near” based on the “around” definition for “pari”.
since the openings of the nostrils and mouth are close together, I feel “mouth” is a more concise and unambiguous clue than “opening”, which could refer to many apertures of the body no where near the center of where breathing action is most easily detected at the coarse level.
even if our nose is plugged up from an illness, and breathing is difficult, there is still a physical kinaesthetic activity in which to focus our attention on, which serves the number purpose of cutting off unprofitable thinking and replacing it with something profitable, such as examining the causes of the unpleasant breathing experiences, and the ways to transcend it.
1 Like
I don’t see why “mindfulness to the fore” is difficult to understand. Certainly, you can recognize a foreground and a background in your mental experience?
The metaphorical usage is similar in the Nagara Sutta, which is what I believe @yogakkhemi was touching on in the other thread.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.063.than.html
Just as the royal frontier fortress has a gate-keeper — wise, experienced, intelligent — to keep out those he doesn’t know and to let in those he does, for the protection of those within and to ward off those without; in the same way a disciple of the noble ones is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. With mindfulness as his gate-keeper, the disciple of the ones abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is blameless, and looks after himself with purity. With this sixth true quality is he endowed.
2 Likes
So if I understand you correctly you mean the throat and not the mouth?
Of course I can read a meaning into it, but it’s not exactly self-explaining.
If taken as ‘in front’ parimukha doesn’t already mean ‘fore-ground’, so that even the metaphorical meaning would have to be streched. But even if we take it in that meaning, does it mean to say that my sati was in the background before? Again, of course it’s possible, but I think it doesn’t really stand Ockham’s razor?
Sorry, but I can’t see how parimukha or ‘foreground’ is similar to sati as the gatekeeper. Which similarity do you mean?
Yes!
It also appears in https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.245/15 (that has a parallel in SA 1175)
Monks in that time, had to remember a Teaching that was not written. Like the Brahmins had to remember their Vedas (or at least one of them - śrutidharā).
And in the practice of ānāpānāsati, for instance, (namely dwelling in the four tetrad,) they would remember it - because they had to apply the Teaching.
They had to put that Teaching in front (mukha); as a in “gatekeeping” the fortress of the body and its six senses. (Particularly when you deal with the “wise/yoniso” ānāpānāsati).
Right! - Thank you SCMatt.
Mudita
2 Likes
@yogakkhemi, I agree almost completely! For clarity’s sake, I would just add that although sati often refers to memory (nominalized sarati), it has another meaning of focusing awareness or presence of mind.
It is crucial that one must remember the teaching if one is to practice that teaching, yes; but it shouldn’t be overlooked that establishing presence of mind (focusing awareness) is the primary meaning for sati in a mindfulness meditation context.
2 Likes