Sounds like the sort of shifting meanings that happens when texts get translated from one language to another and close synonyms are chosen that aren’t quite equivalent. I deal with that 100% of the time with Chinese. Perhaps this happened with Pali too, assuming it wasn’t the original language of all Buddhist texts. Which doesn’t seem to be the case when I compare different versions of proper names, etc.
4 Likes
Might it be a confusion with the passage on the iddhipadas and energy, yathā pure tathā pacchā? In that context I think the main idea is that one’s efforts are sustained continuously.
Indeed yes, thanks for checking them.
2 Likes
Oh, the passage does the typical Mahavibhasa thing and gives a collection of different popular interpretations. In this case it starts with a simple meaning that looks to be related to the etymological connection to the face… But then it goes into other things like saying that correct mindfulness implies that birth and death is behind you, and Nirvana is ahead of you. Things like that. Lots of, “Moreover, it also means…” type interpretations.
3 Likes
These things are manna from heaven for Dhamma teachers, and a nightmare for translators. When teaching, it’s great to have the option to spin out a simple theme and bring lots of things in. But a translator has to narrow it down to one and only one choice.
3 Likes
Might be related, but maybe not related.
The standard posture of meditation in Tibetan Buddhism is called “Vairocana seven point posture”.
It is nice because there are list of 7 things to adjust before we begin.
But I always have a problem with one point.
" With eyes half closed, see downward front to the tip of the nose."
Try it. Practically, it is impossible to see the tip of the nose. You will get dizzy instead. And it always affect my breathing, it became more erratic.
I give up doing that and instead close my eyes fully, then observe the sensation around the below tip of the nose. Just like the Visuddhimagga said. And it work well.
I wonder if “seeing the tip of the nose” is just another mistranslation. Maybe not seeing with eyes, but observing the sensation?
1 Like
I can see it and my upper lip aswell 
Yeah, some of the interpretations are rather fanciful and seem very after-the-fact. They’re sort of expanding on the phrase and giving it more meaning by tying it to more Buddhist themes. But there was likely a fairly simple and concrete meaning originally.
3 Likes
For what it’s worth, there are parallel khandaka passages to the Pali. But the relationship is complex and unclear.
Sarvastivada: 佛在王舍城。爾時六群比丘。手摩鬚髮。如牛舌舐。是事白佛。佛言。從今不聽手摩鬚髮犯者突吉羅。
One time, the Buddha was in Sravasti. The group of six monks shaped their beards and hair with their hands, like cow tongue licks. This matter reached the Buddha. The Buddha said, from now I do not allow the shaping of beards and hair with the hands and the wrongdoer incurs a duskrita.
Dharmaguptaka: 時六群比丘以剪刀剪鬚髮。佛言不應爾。彼剃髮不剃鬚。佛言應剃鬚髮。彼剃鬚不剃鬚。佛言應剃鬚髮。彼拔髮。佛言不應爾。彼留髮佛言不應爾。彼撚髭令翹。佛言不應爾。
At that time, the group of six bhikkhus used scissors to cut their beard and hair. The Buddha said this is not to be done. They shaved the hair but not the beard. The Buddha said, both hair and beard are to be shaved. They shaved the beard but not the hair (鬚=>髮). The Buddha said, both hair and beard are to be shaved. They pulled (out) the hair. The Buddha said this is not to be done. They left hair remaining, the Buddha said it was not to be done. They twisted their moustaches to make the ends stick up. The Buddha said this is not to be done.
Msv : the summary verse says that nails are to be cut and hair to be completely removed. 剪瓜(瓜=>爪)髮揩光
However, only a confusing story involving Master Upananda is supplied re nails. I am quite perplexed about the styles of nail cutting requested from the barber such as “rice grains”, “human head”, “razor”, “axe”, and “half moon”, there may have been some conflation. I have a feeling that the list underlying this madness was originally linked to the Pali beard styles: the order is similar.
Mahisasika: has different but related topics of allowability of plucking long nose hair, proper cleaning of hair shavings, etc.
The term half-moon in Msv may have originally been from aḍḍhaduka, but I couldn’t find Apte’s “L.D.B” source for Āḍū meaning “moon”. Compare Tamil ari, moon; also Sanskrit aru, sun (a shining body). The “human head” style of nailcutting might have originally come from parimukha. It is not very clear at all, I am still very puzzled as to how rice grains came into it in Msv. Maybe by reading godhumaka (wheat) for golomika, given that l/d substitutions are very common for this genre.
4 Likes
Thanks Ayya, that is exactly as clear as I would have expected.
Given that this is not in the Pali, I wonder whether it could have been aḍḍhadukaṁ kārāpenti? “Shaved one of the two”.
What about ardhendu?
https://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=ardhendu&lang=sans&action=Search
2 Likes
The only thing I got out of the khandaka trawl was that nobody except the Pali atthakatha-acariyas has brought chests and stomachs into things.
3 Likes
Right, I always found that suspect.
2 Likes
Hello Sunyo. Since my understanding is “sati” means “recollection” or “remembering” or even “governance” (for example, as unambiguously practically explained in SN 46.3, MN 117, AN 7.67, AN 10.58, etc), I think this leads to “parimukha” being interpreted to be “abstract” or “mental” rather than explicitly refer to a physical location. I am not aware of any place in the EBTs where “sati” is used synonymously with “consciousness”, as is for example used by the Western Secular tradition.
I agree.
I guess because intention (which enacts mindfulness) seems somehow generated in the forebrain (such as if a meditator suppresses thoughts, their forehead may wrinkle or frown), the establishment of Right Mindfulness (recollection of Dhamma) causes the sense/sensation of consciousness manifesting in a facial location internally from the inside. However, for me, that manifestation of consciousness awareness is not “mindfulness”. For me, the “remembering” or “governing” to keep the mind free from unwholesome qualities is not a form of “looking in the mirror”. 
Hello, Bhante Sujato. This would be a bit unorthodox (I hope we are allowed to do this), but could the word mukha also mean “surface”?
The sentence “parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā” could be an idiom that literally translates into: to be mindful of what arises around the surface.
For most cases:
The hindrances are latent unskillful qualities and will be noticeable when they ‘arise on the surface’.
For the Buddha and Arahants cases:
Skillful qualities may ‘arise’ instead.
So, I think that sentence should be understood as: to be aware of what pops out (noticeable) within oneself at that present moment.
Part of your translation “establishes mindfulness” is great but perhaps it would be better if it could be added a bit to be something like “establishes mindfulness inward (within oneself)”.
Please share what do you think about it. Thank you in advance.
I’ve my thoughts and conclusion here:
Anapanasati Revisited.pdf
(119.82 KiB)
It’s “Appendix 11: Ānāpānasati Revisited” from my book What You Might Not Know about Jhāna & Samādhi. (How to get “What You Might Not Know about Jhāna & Samādhi” by Kumāra Bhikkhu - JustPaste.it)
1 Like
Hi Ven,
I’m wondering, if we take your sense “make it it the foremost priority”, it seems it’s similar in sense to purakkhata, is that right?
Ajahn Brahm also interprets it in that sense, but I find it problematic, because it assumes that the verb upaṭṭhapetvā is used in some idiomatic way, it seems. Because everywhere else where inflections of the verb are used in combination with sati, it always means ‘established’ in the sense of mindfulness ‘being present’. E.g.:
[…] on that occasion unmuddled mindfulness is established [or present] in that bhikkhu. (upaṭṭhitāssa tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhuno sati hoti asammuṭṭhā) SN54.13
So by itself satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā means “having made present mindfulness”. But if we say parimukhaṃ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā means “having established mindfulness as a priority” then the verb ‘established’ means something quite different. Because it refers semantically to the priority, not to mindfulness. You “establish” the priority of mindfulness.
I’m failing to get across exactly what is in my mind, but I hope you all get the feeling that ‘establish’ is used very differently in both cases.
And unless we have strong reasons to belief that it is used in a different sense (which we don’t, since parimukhaṃ is so vague and there is not much context), I think the meaning of the verb in relation to sati should not change.
Also, “having established mindfulness as a priority” kind of assumes that you have no real mindfulness yet, otherwise it would not be necessary to make it a priority over other things. But when in other context mindfulness is said to be “established”, it means somebody is already well and truly mindful. For example “unmuddled mindfulness is established” of the above quote. There is no need to make it a priority anymore at that stage, since mindfulness is already there, “unmuddled”.
I don’t know for sure what parimukhaṃ means, and I’d be happy to be convinced of any interpretation, but I find such idiomatic suggestions too hypothetical. Unless I’m missing something, it’s not really considering how the verb functions elsewhere in relation to sati.
Just some thoughts.
1 Like
Your paper makes more concise sense than anything I’ve ever heard on the subject. Having initially learned anapanasati via the Goenka method, your eloquent description has cleared up subtle but important pitfalls for me.
sadhu! sadhu! sadhu!
2 Likes
You’we welcome. I was only able to rework my understanding of anapanasati after having some very fundamental ideas of Dhamma practice corrected through learning from my teacher Sayadaw U Tejaniya. Credit goes to him.
Without that change in understanding, I couldn’t make proper sense of the Suttas’ description of anapanasati.
Hi, bhante.
Seems little different.
Hello Venerable Sunyo,
Thanks for directing me to this thread and for inviting questions! My interest here is not as a translator (I’d be well and truly out of my depth) but as a practitioner. Most people struggle with breath meditation, for various reasons. It’s important to try and pin point what those reasons are. Sometimes having the right explanation/translation makes a big difference.
Today in class you suggested that it doesn’t matter too much what some of the literal details of the sutta are. For example, you said, we don’t have to go to the root of a tree or to cross our legs. So perhaps, you are right and it doesn’t matter that it means, the face or the opening. But I feel how or where we sit, is not as important as this is, because having a sense of what this means might enable someone to more accurately troubleshoot meditation issues.
Yes, exactly. I think this is why Ajahn Brahm teaches like this. (Maybe you can check? 
) Teaching like this means that people who struggle to be with their breath still can gain benefit from building up a habit of just sitting and letting things be. A lot of people benefit from the way Ajahn Brahm uses, the word, ‘priority’ for parimukhaṃ, it is just so practical and helpful and encouraging and also allows for happiness and some understanding to grow. So, to be clear, I am not knocking it as a teaching method, nor 'am I wishing to disrespect our wonderful Ajahn!
However, what I want to know is, what is the Buddha most likely to have meant in using this term (or a term like this)?
This is what I was trying to get at previously when I was asking if it’s possible that upaṭṭhapetvā is referring to having establised mindfulness already. That is, the previous factors of the 8 fold path have already done their job and when one sits, one already has enough mindfulness to have some kind of ease and happiness in being with one’s breath.
I think, from memory, Ajahn @Brahmali says that when the term is used elsewhere, it is referring to a present event and not to something done in a more distant past.
I can’t help asking which of these explanations fits in best with the bigger picture of how the Buddha taught the path?
Within the wider textual perspective, is the use of upaṭṭhapetvā, something that is repeated often or only a little?
It’s important to sit and learn how to let things be. Is there any support for this kind of thing in the suttas? If not, I’d like to know, because then a practitioner’s time might be better spent, reflecting on right view and refining sila; and this is, I think, actually, what ought to be the main focus of practise until we become happy and calm enough to be just mindful of breathing.
I feel the implications for practise are quite massive if as you say,
…because this means that people who keep hitting their heads against the brickwall of frustration, would do better to take a meaninful, long look at the previous path factors, as they are what cause mindfulness to arise.
Anyway, thanks so much for your time. I am actually not sure if anything meaningful can be added or if my questions can be answered, but I appreciate this opportunity to bring this up here. 
3 Likes