This follows the post and discussion here:
In that post I said:
I’ve taken a closer look at Sanskrit sources, and I think there is a little more to that.
The commentary to Panini 4.4.29 has a nice explanation:
If pari has the force of exclusion (1.4.88) then parimukha will mean “a servant who always avoids the face of his master”, and if pari means “all round” then the word will mean “a servant who is always in the presence of his master”.
It seems pretty clear that the rather rare sense of “exclusion” for pari is not meant here, so we are left with the second. And it is from here that we get the sense “in the presence”. In fact, the passage in Panini is discussing the formation of the abstract noun pārimukhya, which is then given in Sanskrit dictionaries as meaning “presence”. This isn’t much, and I haven’t been able to trace it in any actual Sanskrit texts, but it is something.
An alert suttavadin will immediately notice that this is reminiscent of a famous sutta on satipatthana, the Sūdasutta (“Cooks”) at SN 47.8.
There, a foolish cook “serves” a master with dishes they dislike, while a clever cook observes what their master likes and dislikes and only gives what they like.
Now, the word to “serve” is paccupaṭṭhito. This is basically the same word that is the second element of satipatthana, namely upaṭṭhāna, with an added prefix that doesn’t change the meaning very much. The literal meaning of upaṭṭhāna is to “stand near”, and applied meanings include “attending to, serving”, “standing nearby (in attendance)”, “nursing, looking after”, “establishment”, “appearance, manifestation”.
So both upaṭṭhāna and parimukha, it seems, convey the sense of being in the presence of something or someone, while attending carefully. This is a nice meaning for mindfulness in meditation.
Sanskrit upasthāna
Let’s have more of a look at Sanskrit upasthāna. It has a similar range of meanings as upaṭṭhāna in Pali, but in addition, it’s commonly used in a religious sense, as in to worship, or enter reverently the place of god.
May the adorable gods, devoid of malice, sit down today nigh to you both to drink the Soma.
The most common sense in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇ is to “stand near” the fire in worship (eg. 6.8.1.12), i.e. to come into the presence of the god. It’s also used in the sense to “make come near”, or “bring into presence”, specifically in invoking the presence of Agni (6.3.1.38, 6.3.2.9, 6.4.1.1, 6.4.1.2).
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 1.9.3.18 puns on two meanings:
Thereupon he steps to (upa-sthā) the Gārhapatya fire. Twofold is the reason why he steps to the Gārhapatya: the Gārhapatya is a house, and a house is a safe resort, hence he thereby stays in a house, that is, in a safe resort. And, besides, what full measure of human life there is for him here, that he thereby attains (upa-sthā). This is why he steps to the Gārhapatya fire.
This shows us that, already before the Buddha, upasthāna had both a literal sense of “standing near”, “in the presence of”, as well as a more abstract sense of “attaining” or “establishing”.
It’s worth noting that in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the most common term in this sense is not upasthā “standing near”, but upās, “sitting near”.
The three stages of the gāyatrī, and the fourth
Now let’s look at an altogether more subtle passage, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.14, for which I’d recommend the translation of Radhakrishnan.
This passage analyzes the gāyatrī or sāvitrī mantra, the most important verse for brahmins, and one with which the Buddha was familiar. So familiar, in fact, that he specifies that it is recited in the gāyatrī metre, in accordance with the tradition of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka/Śatapatha, and against “some”, who in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5.14.5 are said to teach it as an anustubh metre. Thus we have one clear and distinct point of contact between this Upanishadic passage and a statement by the Buddha.
The analysis of the gāyatrī here relates each of the three lines to a level or attainment or understanding.
- The first line gives you the “three worlds”, i.e. secures benefits in the round of existence.
- The second line wins you the “three knowledges”, i.e. the wisdom of the Vedas.
- The third line is the breath or life force; or the organ of speech from which the Vedas arise.
So with each step we go deeper, into more subtle realms of knowledge. All these concepts—the three worlds, the three knowledges, the breath—are commonplaces in Buddhism.
But knowledge is not limited to words. So beyond the three lines of the verse is the “fourth” (turiya), which is visible, as it were, above the darkness, shining yonder above and beyond all that is dark. This is literally the sun, and metaphorically the knowledge of brahman and the self.
What’s interesting is that the interpretation shifts the verse from being a straightforward invocation of solar worship to a meditative and contemplative reading.
- First we have the winning of the “three worlds”, which is essentially the aim of the Vedas themselves, their purpose being to ensure prosperity.
- Then there is knowledge of knowledge, the three Vedas being regarded, not merely as effective poetic vehicles for invoking the gods, but as a source of wisdom. The Upanishads constantly emphasize that the true value of the Vedas only comes for “one who knows thus”.
- Next we have the introduction of the breath. Throughout the Bṛhadāraṇyaka this is imbued with complex mystical significance, which, in my view, arises from the development of breath meditation, originally as a contemplation of that from which the Vedas arise. For if the Vedas are divine wisdom, and if they arise from divinity itself, then that divinity must be the breath.
This suggests that the breath, and the wisdom that arises from it, surpasses even the Vedas themselves. And our text goes so far as to suggest as much, saying that if there are two men, one of whom says he “hears” something, and one who “sees” it, we trust the one who sees. Personal vision and experience, i.e. the “visible fourth”, trumps the passed-down knowledge of the texts.
The breath, then, when contemplated properly in the light of the Vedas, leads beyond the breath itself to the “fourth”.
The course of practice here maps closely on that of Buddhism. Beginners do worldly acts of merit to secure prosperity with the “three worlds”. Then one undertakes learning the scripture, gaining wisdom so far as words go. Next one undertakes meditation, observing the breath. This leads to a realization of the transcendent truth.
This is all rather round-about, but I hope to have shown that this specific passage, for all its apparent mysticism and different context, shares more in common with Buddhism than one might think. Indeed, I believe it is likely that the Buddha studied this before his awakening.
How is this relevant? Because this chapter contains a rare use of upasthāna in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka. It begins verse 7, with “This is its upasthāna”. Here, upasthāna is variously translated as “salutation” or “veneration”.
But the passage that follows includes two rather different kinds of things. It starts with lines in salutation to the verse, then shifts over to various curses for enemies. It seems that true knowledge gives you a whole range of possibilities! The commentary says that upasthāna can be either blessings for oneself or curses for another. Perhaps a better translation, then, would be “invocation”, i.e. a “calling up”, which is coming closer to the Buddhist sense of “establishing”.
One implication of this is that upasthāna has a more active sense than simply “standing near”. And we find this, too, in the ideas of caring for, nursing, or attending on. So to establish mindfulness is to actively bring up the presence of mindfulness.
There’s another noteworthy detail here in verse 4:
That Gāyatrī protects the Gayas. The organs/breaths are the Gayas; so it saved the organs/breaths. Now, because it saved the organs/breaths, therefore it is called the Gāyatrī.
In the word Gāyatrī, the element gāya is derived from the sense “song”. But here it is identified with gaya in the sense "what has been conquered or acquired’, a house, household, family, goods and chattels, contents of a house, property, wealth. More specifically, it is the priests and others who attend to the verse whose organs/breaths are protected by the verse itself. Again, we see a parallel with Buddhism, as it is said that the Dhamma protects one who practices it.
translation
As a translator, how does this help me? It doesn’t solve my problem per se, but it does suggest that the sense of “presence” applies to parimukha, rather than indicating a physical location specifically. And it tends to confirm my earlier suspicion, that parimukha is quasi-synonymous with ajjhattaṁ in the sense of “regarding oneself”, and also to upaṭṭhāna in the sense of “presence”. It also suggests that we should perhaps be looking for a rendering that is a little warmer than “establishing”, something that retains something of the sense of “care for”, “attend to”, “take care of”. But I’m not sure what that might be.
Return to the stock Pali passage on meditation, here is a literal rendering. Notice the parallel constructions with the absolutive verb.
pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā “having folded (legs) cross-wise”
ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya “having set the body upright”
parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā “having established mindfulness in one’s presence”
And with the non-standard inclusion of ajjhattaṁ we have:
pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā “having folded (legs) cross-wise”
ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya “having set the body upright”
kāyagatāya satiyā ajjhattaṁ parimukhaṁ sūpaṭṭhitāya “with mindfulness of the body well established in one’s presence internally”
Here, despite the -āya ending shared with the absolutive paṇidhāya, kāyagatāya satiyā … sūpaṭṭhitāya are not verbs but nominals, and should probably be read as instrumental. And here we can readily read ajjhattaṁ and parimukhaṁ as quasi-synonyms, both referring to the setting up of mindfulness inside oneself.
A similar construction occurs with:
ānāpānassati ca vo ajjhattaṁ parimukhaṁ sūpaṭṭhitā hotu
Let mindfulness of breathing be well-established in your presence internally.
So on reflection I think my former translation of “presence” was better, and my corrected translation “in front” worse. sighs
So maybe a discussion of what these words feel like to you belongs in a different thread? 