Some time ago we discussed the tricky term parimukha/pratimukha, to inconclusive results. I am just reviewing the evidence and gathering my thoughts.
First, we have two distinct forms: parimukha in the Pali and pratimukha in the Sanskrit. (The Chinese translations do not seem to add any clarity, and I haven’t examined the Tibetan.)
Parimukha is famously defined in late Pali canonical texts Vibhanga (Vb 12:43.4) and Patisambhidāmagga (Ps 1.3:47.11) as:
nāsikagge vā mukhanimitte vā
at the nose-tip or at the mukhanimitta
I’ll come back to the latter term.
In the Vinaya we find the same term used in the context of shaving, where monks are forbidden to shave parimukha. The commentary defines this as “the chest” (ura). I find this unlikely. The next term is aḍḍhaduka, where the commentary continues its southward journey, labeling it as “the stomach" (udara), which I find equally implausible. Aḍḍhaduka means “half a pair”, and surely it refers to shaving one half of the face. Likewise, parimukha here probably simply means “around the mouth”, i.e. shaving so as to leave the hair around the mouth, as in a “circle beard”.
So of the two ancient references to parimukha, one is connected with the nose, and one with shaving the face. That’s pretty specific!
Back to the passage on meditation. It normally appears in the passage on starting meditation. The line says one goes to the forest, sits down, sets the body upright. It is very concrete, and I think this setting rules out any abstract or metaphorical reading, such as “prioritized” (for which there is a perfectly good word, purekkhāra). This is for the early texts; it is likely that over time it became read in a more abstract way.
We return to the fact that the Pali and Sanskrit use different words here. Why is that? Perhaps they both derive from a dialectical word ambiguous to the two forms? Or perhaps the idiomatic senses were slightly different?
- mukha is extremely broad in meaning, but fundamentally means “face, mouth”.
- pari- has the root sense “around” (cf. English perimetre.)
- prati- has the root sense “against”, especially in a reflective sense.
Now, the Sanskrit dictionaries give the following relevant senses for pratimukha:
- the reflected image of the face
- standing before the face, facing
- being near, present
- towards, in front, before
Up until now I have relied on the third of these senses, understanding the word in the sense of “presence” and translating it as “right there”. But I am now thinking this is too abstract.
Sanskrit also records parimukham but only in a single reference to Panini, “round or about the face, round, about (any person, etc.)”. On the other hand, Pali does not seem to record patimukkha at all.
Let me return to the phrase mukhanimitta. As noted, mukha is extremely variable in meaning, while nimitta is scarcely less so. The basic sense is a “sign”, while it may also mean an “indication, hint”, a “cause”, etc. Mukhanimitta, however, has a much more specific sense, “the reflection of the face” (mn15:8.3).
Now, you will notice that this accords exactly with one of the senses of pratimukha in Sanskrit, and more generally with the sense of the prefix prati-. I take this as a hint, however slender, that prati- may have been the original form, since its meaning is echoed in the Pali explanations. If so, this solves the fundamental problem that focusing attention “around the mouth” (parimukha) seems strange and is not supported by ancient sources.
What does it mean, however, to say one establishes mindfulness at the “reflection of the face”? I think it means just what it says. When you meditate, you bring up mindfulness in front of you, as if looking at your own reflection in the mirror.
This solves the problem of the inconsistent association of this phrase with breath meditation. If you review the old thread you’ll see that the phrase usually, but not always describes breath meditation. The two senses given in the Pali allow for this, either a direct spatial focus at the “tip of the nose”, or a more general awareness at the “reflection of the face”, i.e. “in front”.
One final detail that is easy to overlook. Since this is a stock passage that simply describes when a person is meditating, it is used not infrequently from the perspective of someone looking at the meditator. They see someone sitting, with their body straight, and their mindfulness established. Obviously mindfulness is an internal quality and cannot be directly observed. Still less could one observe the specific point at which a meditator is focusing. But there is something in the presence of a focused meditator. They have a posture of alertness, a sense of focus. I think this is what the observer is noticing. They are not just lounging around or drifting off.
And so, like the wayfinding bird, having examined every direction, I find myself returning to the comforting roost of agreeing with Bhikkhu Bodhi and most other translators. Thank you for joining me on my journey!
