This is a weird post. I’ll bite. Are you claiming that MN119 is suggesting that we should have our eyes open in meditation since mindfulness takes you to the far shore since the far shore is equal to literal “seeing”?
With the pāli:
The brahmin has stepped over the boundary;
Sīmātigo brāhmaṇo tassa natthi,
knowing and seeing, they adopt nothing.
Ñatvā va disvā va samuggahītaṁ;* (Note that samuggahīta is used here in the same sense as Snp 4.3:6.2 or Snp 2.12:11.1, i.e. the “adoption” of a theory or view.)
sīmā (boundary) atigo (overcome) brāhmaṇo (a brahmin) tassa (for/of him/that) natthi (it isn’t)
I don’t see a strong reason to say this is a reference to the far shore metaphor, sīmā and sīmātigo aren’t used like that anywhere else, but it’s still technically probably talking about enlightenment.
How could you make that relation to the previous line? It grammatically doesn’t imply that, and I don’t see how that could make sense myself. Knowing and seeing are just synonyms for each other, you see them paired with each other in many other places.
Arahants sense, and those who have total cessation of feeling aren’t necessarily arahants; they may still have delusion, which is what it’s actually about.
parimukha isn’t in Snp 4.4 and there’s nothing that says that sutta is directly related to the guide on meditation. Meditation is only part of the path of developing wisdom, it’s not literally what enlightenment is, especially considering any layperson can do it and does it. You shouldn’t make such stretched extrapolations, it sounds like you already had an opinion and needed a passage to justify it.
sits down cross-legged, sets their body straight, and establishes mindfulness in front of them.
nisīdati pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā.
parimukhaṁ = pari (around) + mukha (mouth/face/front) = “in front of” or even “around face” adverb
satiṁ = mindfulness (accusative) object
upaṭṭhapetvā = one makes (such) established/put forth (causative verb)
“One makes mindfulness established in front of themself”.
“in front of” is “the seen”? Like, you are seeing what is literally in front of you? If it’s talking about being mindful of the seen, then why does it immediately start talking about mindfulness of the breath - in the “Mindfulness of The Body” sutta?
You’re saying that Snp4.4’s use of “seeing” is a reference to the far shore, and since mindfulness eventually takes you to the far shore (which it doesn’t alone do that; it’s not the full path, so those developing a soul theory probably do that exact same meditation). Therefore the guide on mindfulness is about “seeing”.
Then you relate this to the literal eyes. Enlightenment definitely isn’t from the literal eyes. I’d even guess that path is open to blind people. The mind is the primary faculty, and the goal is to give up the eyes.
Eyes can be relaxed or unrelaxed with or without depth perception, and with or without being closed. Unless your focus is on sight itself, it’s easier to do real seeing and understanding when you aren’t distracted by what your eyes are seeing (also known as physical seclusion viveka), but whether you have your eyes open or not in meditation is meaningless, just do whichever one makes mindfulness stronger and let go of the eyes. The goal is happiness, not strictly following guides (even in this sutta, the Buddha is just answering “how is mindfulness cultivated?”, which isn’t a literal guide, but a (model) example), and the goal especially not trying to convolute the meaning of text.
That part of MN119 clearly isn’t suggesting opening, closing, or using your eyes and it doesn’t even use the word “see”.
Even if it did, the word “see” doesn’t literally mean seeing with eyes in English, it means know, understand, perceive See Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. The same is true in pāli (disvā); they have also abstracted the word “see” to also mean understand.
You probably wish to question the supposed orthodoxy (many teachers are not strict about this anyway) around people wanting to close their eyes in meditation, which is good to question if it’s for the sake of improving meditation, but this is a complex language, and you don’t need to distort it to try to make a point… the teachings corrupt very slowly. Just test it yourself to figure out if eyes open/closed is better as a real proof. If you want to question the teachings, question the important philosophical parts that connect with suffering, and then go and see (see, I also did a pun at the end like you did) for yourself how things really work with meditation, because that’s where suffering ends, with or without your eyes closed, standing or sitting — in my opinion.