English
a mark should be declared on the riverbank. From there, according to the desired extent, up to the mark on the riverbank opposite the first declared mark upstream, one should declare marks, and bring them back, and connect them with the first declared mark. Then, with the bhikkhus who are within the reach of hand and within all the marks, the boundary should be established by a formal act. Those standing in the river, even if not present, do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the agreement, excluding the river, within the marks, on the far bank and on the near bank, there is one boundary. But the river does not count as a bound boundary, for it is indeed a separate river boundary. If there is an island in the middle of the river, by one wishing to make it part of the inner boundary, in the same way as before, having fixed marks on the bank where one stands, a mark should be fixed on the near side and on the far side of the island. Then, on the far bank, on the near side of the river, a mark should be fixed opposite the mark, and from there, in the same way as before, a mark should be fixed upstream, opposite the first fixed mark. Then, having fixed marks on the far side and on the near side of the island, they should be brought back and joined with the first fixed mark. Then, having made all the bhikkhus on both banks and on the island within arm's reach, the boundary should be agreed upon by a formal declaration. Those standing in the river, even if they do not come, do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the agreement, excluding the river, within the marks, both banks and the island become one boundary, but the river is just a river boundary. If, however, the island extends further up or down from the monastery boundary demarcation, then, straight opposite the mark of the monastery boundary demarcation, on the near side of the island, a mark should be fixed, and from there, encircling the peak of the island, a mark should again be fixed on the far side, opposite the mark on the near side of the island. After that, in the same way as before, starting with the opposite mark on the far bank, and having fixed the marks on the far bank and the marks on the far and near sides of the island, a joining should be made with the first fixed mark. Having fixed marks in this way, the agreed boundary becomes like a mountain range. If, however, the island extends further both up and down from the monastery boundary demarcation. In the same way as before, by one fixing marks encircling both peaks of the island, a joining of marks should be made. Having fixed marks in this way, the agreed boundary mu it is shaped like a drum. If the island is small within the boundary of the monastery, the marks on the island should be designated first. Having designated them thus, the approved boundary is shaped like a drum. The discourse on the approval of boundaries is finished. Discourse on Uposatha Halls, etc. 141. By "in each precinct" means in each precinct of a large monastery with a single boundary. By "without a signal" means without making a signal. By "having gathered one" means having gathered by means of a formal act. 142. "From where he hears the Pātimokkha" means that wherever a bhikkhu is seated within arm's reach of other bhikkhus, from where he hears the Pātimokkha; it means his Uposatha has been performed. This is stated in terms of the object, but even if one seated within arm's reach does not hear, his Uposatha is still performed. "Marks should be designated" means that for the Uposatha, it is permissible to designate any small or large stones, bricks, pieces of wood, sticks, etc., whether in the open air or in pavilions, etc., by making a sign wherever they may be. Or, "marks should be designated" means that they should be designated, whether they are associated with marks or not associated with marks, for the purpose of knowing the boundary. "There, the bhikkhus should assemble first." Here, if the Mahāthera does not arrive first, there is an offense of wrong-doing. "All should assemble together and perform the Uposatha." Here, if the old residence is in the middle of the monastery, and there is enough seating for the bhikkhus, the Uposatha should be performed there. If the old residence is very dilapidated and crowded, and another residence that arose later is not crowded, the Uposatha should be performed there. "Or where the elder bhikkhu resides." Here too, if the elder's residence is sufficient for everyone and is comfortable, the Uposatha should be performed there. But if it is in a remote, difficult place, the elder should be told: "Venerable sir, your residence is an uncomfortable place, there is no room for everyone here. There is room in such and such a residence, it is proper to go there." If the elder does not come desires, having brought his pure consent, in a comfortable place, suitable for all, the Uposatha should be performed. Story of the authorization of a non-residence boundary 143. Andhakavinda, at a gāvuta from Rājagaha, is named Andhakavinda. The elder lived relying on it. From there, he came to Rājagaha for Uposatha. Indeed, surrounding Rājagaha, eighteen great monasteries, all had one boundary. Their boundary was established by the Dhammasenāpati. Therefore, the meaning is, "coming to Veḷuvana to give unity to the Saṅgha." "Crossing the river" means crossing the river named Sippiniya. "His mind was carried away" means there was a slight state of not being carried away. Indeed, that river, descending from Gijjhakūṭa, flows with a fierce current. There, not paying attention to the water coming with speed, the elder's mind was carried away, but not (really) carried away; his robes, struck by the water, became wet. 144. That boundary, approved by the Saṅgha, for non-residence without the three robes, excluding the village and its vicinity – from the time this motion arose, the former motion for bhikkhus is not valid. Indeed, this alone is permanent. But for bhikkhunīs, this is not valid; the former alone is valid. Why? Indeed, the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha resides within the village. If it were so, they would not obtain the exemption of the three robes by this motion, but they do have the exemption; therefore, the former alone is valid. Indeed, for the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, both boundaries are obtainable. There, even overlapping the bhikkhus' boundary, or within it, it is permissible to approve a boundary for bhikkhunīs. For bhikkhus too, the same method applies to the bhikkhunīs' boundary. Indeed, they are not quorum-completers for each other's acts, nor do they make a motion into a faction. And here, towns and cities should also be understood as included in "village." "Village vicinity" means the enclosure of that which is enclosed, the space for enclosure of that which is not enclosed. In these, a bhikkhu who has established his three robes does not obtain the exemption. Thus, the non-residence boundary for bhikkhus does not include the village and its vicinity. it covers, the boundary of common residence also covers. This boundary of common residence proceeds by its own nature. But the boundary of non-separation, wherever there is a boundary of common residence, it goes there. For it, there is no separate declaration of a mark. If, at the time of the declaration for non-separation, there is a village there, that it does not cover. But if, after the boundary is declared, a village settles, that too goes into the reckoning of the boundary. And just as what settled later, so too, the area that expanded later from what settled first, goes into the reckoning of the boundary. Even if, at the time of the boundary declaration, houses were built, and there was an intention to enter, but people had not entered, or had abandoned the old village or their own houses and gone elsewhere, this is a non-village, the boundary covers it. But if even one family has entered or arrived, it is a village, the boundary does not cover it. And thus, monks, "the non-separation with the three robes is to be abolished" here, by the monk who abolishes, the duty should be known. Here is the duty: Standing in a fragmented boundary, the non-separation boundary should not be abolished. Likewise, standing in a non-separation boundary, the fragmented boundary should not be abolished. But standing in a fragmented boundary, one should abolish the fragmented boundary itself. Likewise, standing in the other, one should abolish the other. They abolish a boundary for two reasons: to make a naturally small one large again for the purpose of increasing dwellings; or to make a naturally large one small again for the purpose of giving space for other monasteries. There, if they know both the fragmented boundary and the non-separation boundary, they will be able to abolish and to bind. But knowing the fragmented boundary, even not knowing the non-separation, they will be able to abolish and to bind. Not knowing the fragmented boundary, but knowing only the non-separation, standing in places free from doubt like shrine courtyards, Bodhi tree courtyards, Uposatha halls, etc., perhaps they will be able to abolish, but they will certainly not be able to bind. If they were to bind, they would cause a boundary breach. they might make a monastery into a non-monastery, therefore they should not be uprooted. But those who know neither, they will not be able to uproot or to bind. For this boundary, is either without a formal act or by the disappearance of the Dispensation, and it is not possible for those who do not know the boundary to perform a formal act, therefore it should not be uprooted. But having known it well, it should be uprooted and bound. Discourse on Village Boundaries, etc. 147. Having thus shown common residence and the state of a single Uposatha by means of a bound boundary, now showing it even in unbound places, it is said: "Monks, by an unapproved boundary, by one not established," and so on.