What does pari-mukha mean in 16 APS anapana sati?

[frank k]

So, who is biased here? I just pointed out that your position (i.e. "this interpretation is definitely wrong") excluds the passage, where Buddha himself used parimukha referring to the place on the body. What do we get in return? - A blistering tirade of cursing the commentaries with all possible abuses. Anyway, I just wanted to point to the other readers, that they should be careful with this type of "studies".

Face (mukha) it Volo. You're having trouble confronting (mukha) reality/Truth/Dharma. However strongly I word my criticism of Abhidhamma, that has nothing to do with the solidity and rationality of my argument. There's a name for that type of logical fallacy that escapes me at the moment. Anyone?
Basically when people start doing that it's a tacit admission of defeat.

There is nothing more reprehensible than wrong views, and corrupting the Dharma. There's a time for gentle speech, and there's a time for speaking clearly and plainly so there is no misunderstanding or understating the harm and damage that comes from corrupting Dharma.

[ToVincent]

All this seems to be an "obvious", that seems a bit transpicuous to me. That is to say "easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety)".
In the link you provided, Volo, there is still the other factual definition of parimukha as "beginning, commencement, etc. You've got to read the all paragraph, Volo - like it or not.

I know you guys want to make Buddhism the "universalist" philosophy of the Upanishads, later Vedanta and of our modern "governance". But it is not.
Whishful thinking, I presume.

What I offer you is another "possibility".
I thought you were fond of "possibilities"; like all the pundits from the "establishment" of this world.
How do you call them frank k? - Oh yeah! - "the Chinese Agama experts"!
Oh dear!

Sounds to me like you're battling to know whose going to be the operator of the nonsense merry-go-round.

What is "obvious" to me is that genuine Buddhism has never considered making one with the internal and the external; like in the Upanishads.
May I remind you that this is just "wrong view".
Seclusion (vivekka) is about drawing one back in the internal and reaching back to the origin - that is to say directly from the namarupa's khandhas - and not from the external ayatanani.
Again, this is what parimukha means when it is translated as (turning the mano) "towards the beginning".
And again this is also what yoniso manasikara means, as stated before.

It seems that you are always avoiding that issue.
Maybe some people won't.
.
.

[Volo]

All this seems to be an "obvious", that seems a bit transpicuous to me. That is to say "easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety)".
In the link you provided, Volo, there is still the other factual definition of parimukha as "beginning, commencement, etc. You've got to read the all paragraph, Volo - like it or not.

I know you guys want to make Buddhism the "universalist" philosophy of the Upanishads, later Vedanta and of our modern "governance". But it is not.
Whishful thinking, I presume.

What I offer you is another "possibility".
I thought you were fond of "possibilities"; like all the pundits from the "establishment" of this world.
How do you call them frank k? - Oh yeah! - "the Chinese Agama experts"!
Oh dear!

Sounds to me like you're battling to know whose going to be the operator of the nonsense merry-go-round.

What is "obvious" to me is that genuine Buddhism has never considered making one with the internal and the external; like in the Upanishads.
May I remind you that this is just "wrong view".
Seclusion (vivekka) is about drawing one back in the internal and reaching back to the origin - that is to say directly from the namarupa's khandhas - and not from the external ayatanani.
Again, this is what parimukha means when it is translated as (turning the mano) "towards the beginning".
And again this is also what yoniso manasikara means, as stated before.

It seems that you are always avoiding that issue.
Maybe some people won't.
.
.

What you are doing is even funnier than frank k's "studies". Your approach: 1) take some term from the Pali sutta 2) find it in the MW Sanskrit dictionary (sometimes you cannot find the actual word then you have to split it, like in the case of parimukha). 3) Find a rare and barely ever used rendering. 4) Post in internet your revolutionary discovery.

Frank k's work is about creating his own version of Buddhism, but what your are doing is some kind of generator of random meanings.

[ToVincent]

...

You're the one who gave me the link (https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln. ... bhASya.jpg) on mukha, to prove to me that mukha meant "the mouth, the face". And now you say that I am splitting words!?!?!
This is veering into some kind of bad faith; isn't it?.

Also, I don't see what's so "revolutionary" in my approach.
The Chinese dictionary has exactly the same different translations,as I have shown before.
Why couldn't it be another sound possibility? - Because you've decided that my choice of translation in the dictionary is "a rare and barely ever used rendering". What make you say that? - if by the way,it has any relevance whatsoever.
The mere fact that my meaning went across Buddha's time,as I mentioned before (Brahamanas -> Mahabharata) is much sounder than a mere Rig Veda reference.

The real problem,as I already mentioned, is that you and your peers, are definitely avoiding to admit that one should first, get secluded (vivekka) in the internal, by avoiding the external - then turn one's mano towards the beginning/origin (mukha/yoniso); that is to say (directly) towards (pari) the khandhas in namarupa nidana.
I suppose, once again,that this goes against the "universalist" philosophy of the ruling "establishment" of this "world" [kama loka] (to say the least) - the "experts", as frank k is calling them.

You and your peers are just avoiding to tackle the real meaning of "right view". A right view that avoids the dukkha born from appropriating the khandhas through the external ayatanani - (what you are experiencing is just suffering, says Buddha).
And to avoid as well, in a second step, to also consider the khandhas (directly) in namarupa nidana as "ours".
The "mine" and the "I" thing - you know! (SN 22.47)
.
.

[Volo]

You're the one who gave me the link (https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln. ... bhASya.jpg) on mukha, to prove to me that mukha meant "the mouth, the face". And now you say that I am splitting words!?!?!

Well, my link was a response to your post, where you have split parimukha into pari + mukha and searched two parts separately. I tried to show that even if we follow this approach, we still end up with "mouth" as the most common.

Why couldn't it be another sound possibility? - Because you've decided that my choice of translation in the dictionary is "a rare and barely ever used rendering". What make you say that? - if by the way,it has any relevance whatsoever.

No, but because interpretation of the ancient terms is more complicated task than simply picking some renderings from the dictionary. For example the word "rendering" means also "a layer of plaster or cement on a wall" and "the process of preparing or treating the bodies of dead animals in order to take out the fat and other substances that can be used in other products". Both have nothing to do with the way I used it above. You can find all kind of weird translations in the dictionary. So far I haven't seen you providing a detailed study of the term: i.e. this it's usage in such and such text, the text is dated to that century, it's used in such context, etc. Therefore I criticize.

The mere fact that my meaning went across Buddha's time,as I mentioned before (Brahamanas -> Mahabharata) is much sounder than a mere Rig Veda reference.

You haven't even checked the passages in Brahamanas and Mahabharata to which MW refers. If I would do your type of work I would at very least provide the passage with the translation so that people can see that it's indeed an intended meaning.

[ToVincent]

...

That's all buncombe!

1. Doesn't parimukha in Pali = pari+mukha ?!?!?

2. Your bad faith goes on.
How can you compare the different translations of parimukha with your ludicrous comparison with "rendering". This is absurd.
As I said before, pari-mukka has also the same differrent meaning in Chinese.

3. I do'nt have to check the Brahmanas for your pleasure only. The MW is reliable enough to be trusted - (so is the Chinese Buddhist dictionary). The burden of proof is on you.
But I still might do it one day.

You are still avoiding the main issue, that is to say:
Turning the mano towards (pari) the beginning (mukha) of the commingling and arising of the khandhas in namarupa nidana - [as in "short-circuiting" the bahirani ayatanani in the process]".
I really don't see what's so "revolutionary" in all this.
https://justpaste.it/img/62c4c6b65f2a5b ... 710f2f.png
This translation as "towards the beginning" makes perfect sense in this "right view" kind of approach.
While your "mindfulness around the face" is so empty of any definite purpose and real profound meaning.
.
.

[sentinel]

Looking at both the English and Chinese(Agama)
, it goes ,

sitting upright with his body , one develop mindfulness in prior / in preceding .
Thus , heedfully mindful of in breathe
heedfully mindful of out breathe .

https://suttacentral.net/sn54.1/en/sujato

It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body straight, and establish mindfulness right there.

Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.

https://suttacentral.net/sn54.1/zh/zhuang

「比丘們！當一法已修習、已多修習時，有大果、大效益，哪一法呢？入出息念。
　　而，比丘們！當入出息念如何已修習、如何已多修習時，有大果、大效益呢？比丘們！這裡，比丘到林野，或到樹下，或到空屋，坐下，盤腿後，挺直身體，建立起面前的念後，他只具念地吸氣、只具念地呼氣：


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 he sat down at the root of a certain tree cross-legged, with his body straight, and established mindfulness right there.

2 he sat down cross-legged at the root of a tree, holding his back erect and arousing mindfulness in front of him.



https://suttacentral.net/sa803/lzh/taisho


何等為修習安那般那念、多修習已，身、心止息，有覺、有觀、寂滅、純一，明分想修習滿足？是比丘若依聚落、城邑止住，晨朝著衣持鉢，入村乞食，善護其身，守諸根門，善繫心住。乞食已，還住處，舉衣鉢，洗足已，或入林中、閑房、樹下，或空露地，端身正坐，繫念面前，斷世貪愛，離欲清淨，瞋恚、睡眠、掉悔、疑斷，度諸疑惑，於諸善法心得決定，遠離五蓋：煩惱於心，令慧力羸，為障礙分，不趣涅槃。念於內息，繫念善學；念於外息，繫念善學：

[ToVincent]

...

That is if you take the first definition in the Nikaya and in the Agama. Not if you take the second definition.
Remember that these Chinese translations were made around the 500CE; and that Buddha had said that his Teaching would be corrupted 500 years after his death.
Therefore, we can definitely say that the nonsense merry-go-round started it's operations around the beginning of Christ's era ;>).

I'm off.
The possibility is still on.
Each one it's own kamma, I suppose.
.
.

[sentinel]

Remember that these Chinese translations were made around the 500CE; and that Buddha had said that his Teaching would be corrupted 500 years after his death.

The Tipitaka that was transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of King Asoka were initially preserved orally and were later written down during the Fourth Buddhist Council in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha

[ToVincent]

The Tipitaka that was transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of King Asoka were initially preserved orally and were later written down during the Fourth Buddhist Council in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha

454 and a half.
.
.

[sentinel]

The Tipitaka that was transmitted to Sri Lanka during the reign of King Asoka were initially preserved orally and were later written down during the Fourth Buddhist Council in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha

454 and a half.
.
.

Are you not aware that Pali Canon scriptures in the self claimed Theravada Buddhist tradition, appear in written form was 500 years death of the Buddha and the Pāli language texts derives mainly from the Tamrashatiya school !