English
and this characteristic should be understood in the former way as well. But this is the distinction – there, it is not permissible to perform by having them lifted; he must be brought within arm's reach. If a mountain rises up within the sīmā, a bhikkhu standing there must be brought within arm's reach. The same rule applies even if one has entered inside the mountain by psychic power. For a sīmā being established does not extend to an immeasurable area, but whatever arises within an established sīmā, connected in any way, anywhere, goes by the designation of sīmā. But a sīmā (is limited to) a maximum of three yojanas. When consecrating, standing in the middle, so that in all four directions it is one and a half yojanas, thus it should be consecrated. But if, standing in the middle, they make it three yojanas in each direction, it becomes six yojanas, and that is not permissible. When consecrating a square or a triangle, it should be consecrated so that from corner to corner it is three yojanas. For if by any boundary, even by a hair's breadth, it exceeds three yojanas, one incurs an offense, and the boundary becomes no boundary. 164. "Monks, a boundary across a river should not be consecrated; whoever consecrates it incurs an offense of wrong-doing" (Mahāva. 140) - by this saying, a boundary across a river should not be consecrated. However, where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge directly opposite the ford, it is permissible to consecrate such a boundary across a river. For it has been said: "Monks, I allow that where there is a permanent boat or a permanent bridge, such a boundary across a river may be consecrated." If there is no permanent boat or permanent bridge directly opposite the ford, but it is a little upstream or downstream, even then it is permissible. But the Elder Karavikatissa said, "It is permissible even within the distance of a gāvuta." However, when consecrating this boundary across a river, one should stand on one bank, mark a sign on the riverbank upstream, and from there, enclosing oneself, as much area as one desires, at its end, mark a sign on the riverbank downstream as well, and then mark a sign on the riverbank on the opposite bank at the corresponding spot. From there, according to the extent one desires, up to the sign on the riverbank opposite the first marked sign upstream, one should mark it, bring it back, and join it with the first marked sign. Then, with the monks standing within all the signs, within arm's reach, the boundary should be consecrated with a formal declaration. Those standing in the river, even if not present, do not invalidate the act, at the conclusion of the consecration, excluding the river, within the signs... On the far bank and on the near bank there is one boundary, but the river does not count as a bound boundary. Indeed, it is a separate river boundary. If there is an island in the middle of the river, for one wishing to make it part of the inner boundary, by the former method, having marked signs on the bank where one stands, a sign should be marked on the near side and on the far side of the island. Then on the far bank, on the near side of the river, having marked a sign opposite the sign, from there, by the former method, up to upstream, a sign opposite the first marked sign, should be marked. Then having marked a sign on the far side and on the near side of the island, having brought it back, it should be joined with the first marked sign. Then, with all bhikkhus on both banks and on the islands within arm's reach, the boundary should be approved by a motion. Those standing in the river, even if they do not come, do not invalidate the act. At the conclusion of the approval, excluding the river, the two banks within the signs and the island become one boundary, but the river is just a river boundary. If, however, the island is further upstream or downstream than the monastery boundary demarcation, then, directly opposite the sign of the monastery boundary demarcation, on the near side of the island, having marked a sign, from there, encircling the peak of the island, again on the near side of the island, opposite the sign, a sign should be marked on the far side. After that, by the former method, taking the opposite sign on the far bank as the starting point, having marked signs on the far bank and signs on the far and near sides of the island, a joining should be made with the first marked sign. Having marked thus, the approved boundary is mountain-shaped. If, however, the island is further both upstream and downstream than the monastery boundary demarcation, by the former method, encircling both peaks of the island, by one marking signs, a joining of signs should be made. Having marked thus, the approved boundary is drum-shaped. If the island is beyond the monastery boundary Its inner part is small. By the very first method, the marks on the island should be recited. Having recited thus, the approved boundary is drum-shaped. Thus, the binding of the boundary should be known. 165. But when does a boundary thus bound become no-boundary? When the Sangha revokes the boundary, then it becomes no-boundary. But how should it be revoked? "Monks, when approving a boundary, first the boundary of common residence should be approved, afterwards the non-separation from the three robes should be approved. Monks, when revoking a boundary, first the non-separation from the three robes should be revoked, afterwards the boundary of common residence should be revoked." According to this saying, first the non-separation should be revoked, afterwards the boundary should be revoked. How? By a competent and capable monk, the Sangha should be informed – "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That non-separation from the three robes approved by the Sangha, if it is suitable for the Sangha, may the Sangha revoke that non-separation from the three robes. This is the proposal. "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That non-separation from the three robes approved by the Sangha, the Sangha revokes that non-separation from the three robes. To whichever venerable one the revocation of this non-separation from the three robes is agreeable, let him be silent. To whom it is not agreeable, let him speak. "That non-separation from the three robes has been revoked by the Sangha. It is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold this." (Mahāvagga 145) – Thus, first the non-separation should be revoked. "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That boundary of common residence and single Uposatha approved by the Sangha, if it is suitable for the Sangha, may the Sangha revoke that boundary of common residence and single Uposatha. This is the proposal. "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That boundary of common residence and single Uposatha approved by the Sangha, the Sangha revokes that boundary of common residence and single Uposatha. To whichever venerable one the revocation of this boundary of common residence and single Uposatha is agreeable It is, so he is silent. Whoever does not agree, he should speak. “That boundary has been removed by the Sangha, of common dwelling, of one Uposatha. The Sangha agrees, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold this.” Thus a boundary should be removed. But the bhikkhu who removes it should know the duty. Here is the duty: standing in a fragmented boundary, a non-separation boundary should not be removed; likewise, standing in a non-separation boundary, a fragmented boundary should not be removed. But standing in a fragmented boundary, only a fragmented boundary should be removed; likewise, standing in the other, the other. A boundary is removed for two reasons: to make a naturally small one large for the purpose of increasing the dwelling, or to make a naturally large one small 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 remove and bind. But knowing the fragmented boundary, even not knowing the non-separation, they will be able to remove and bind. Not knowing the fragmented boundary, but knowing only the non-separation, standing in secure places like the cetiya-courtyard, bodhi-courtyard, uposatha-hall, etc., they might perhaps be able to remove, but they will certainly not be able to bind. If they were to bind, they would create a boundary confusion and make the monastery a non-monastery; therefore, it should not be removed. But those who know neither will be able neither to remove nor to bind. For this boundary becomes a non-boundary either by 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 removed. But knowing it well, it should be removed and bound. This is the decision regarding a bound boundary. 166. An unbound boundary, however, is of three kinds: village boundary, seven-cubit boundary, and water-throwing boundary. There, as far as one village field, this is called a village boundary. By the term "village" here, a city and a market town are also included. This is how it is. There, in whatever area the village headmen of that village receive tribute, whether that area be small or large, it is counted as the village boundary. The same method applies to town and city boundaries. Even if a king demarcates a certain area within one village field saying, "Let this be a separate village," and gives it to someone, that too becomes a separate village boundary. Therefore, that and the other ordinary village, town, and city boundaries are similar to fixed boundaries, but they do not receive the exemption for being away from the three robes. However, in a village-less forest, the "seven-abbhantara boundary" is seven abbhantaras all around. There, a village-less forest is found in places like the Vindhya forest,