Volo wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:56 pm
Okay, one could say (as Ven Thanissaro did) that in some ceases parimukham
had been used figuratively. May be also in the ānāpānasati instructions not a particular place on the body is meant. Or one even could say that there are some chances that it was referring to chest, etc. Although all these are speculations, still they might be considered. But to say it "cannot mean" is clearly biased, it's preaching not a study.
Even looking at the pali references alone, 57 occurrences which I've detailed with pail+english, is enough to see that parimukha can't be spatial location focus near the mouth. About 18 of the 57 are breath meditation, but almost all the rest are general meditation and other meditation subjects, such as brahma vihara, or even vipassana meditation. Explain why you would need to focus attention at the physical mouth area to do either of those meditations?
Now when you also take into consideration the EBT of the chinese agamas (including breath meditation), where it NEVER means spatial location, always the figurative meaning of making sati establishment (or another topic) your main priority. In Mahayana buddhism (such as pure land practices which have nothing to do with facial/mouth perception), and in contemporaneous chinese non-buddhist literature, that same expression used for pari-mukha in chinese is not spatial, it means the figurative "main priority".
Also, see B. Sujato's comments on the prati-mukha (vs. parimukha) and sanskrit EBT.
Taking all that into account, I have no doubt pari-mukha in sitting meditation is definitely not spatial face area focus.
Even the 57 pali sutta references alone is enough to establish that.
That's funny you would accuse me of a biased study.
If you look through the references in my study where I participated in forum discussions, you can see as early as 6 years ago, I was translating pari-mukha as (near the mouth), even though I felt in breath meditation both literal (spatial) and figurative meanings were intended.
It was after a friend kept complaining to me about my pari-mukha translation being wrong, that I did a detailed study, and came to a conclusion.
And this was after I queried the experts recently:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... in-16.html
Does that article sound like someone jumping to a biased conclusion?
All I care is about is truth and integrity. I translated it wrong for 6 years, and I admit it. I changed as soon as I was convinced I was wrong.