English
the regular Uposatha should not be done. This is an exception. It prevents the general rule from being applied elsewhere than the place of exception. "How far indeed is harmony?" Herein, this is the meaning: Harmony is indeed the gathering of those who are alike. And those who are alike, are they all those who share the Dhamma? Or are they called "alike" by virtue of sharing the same dwelling? Therein, if the harmony of those who share the Dhamma is called harmony, then the harmony of all those who are separated is desired. But if by way of dwelling, it is said to be of those who share one dwelling. Otherwise, it follows that harmony is in one dwelling. May it not come to us. May it not have come to be. Explanation of the Permission of Boundaries 138. Having rejected unity based on those who have gone to one dwelling, the Blessed One, desiring to permit based on those who have gone to one boundary, said: "Monks, I permit you to establish a boundary." Then he might wish to speak of the definition of a dwelling. As far as one dwelling, so far as one boundary. He would say: "Monks, I permit you to establish a boundary." Therefore, here the definition of one dwelling is not based on a permitted, fixed boundary, but it should be understood that it is based on a conventional boundary. How is this to be known? From the Pāli itself, as it says: "Now at that time, the venerable Upananda the Sakyan, being alone, resided for the rains in two dwellings... (etc.)... with one intention." (Mahavagga 364). Otherwise, there would be an undesirable consequence of breaking the rains retreat. How so? If unity were only based on one dwelling, it would not be possible in multiple dwellings or non-dwellings. Then, going to that dwelling, he would perform the Uposatha outside. This would contradict the Pāli text (Mahavagga 181) which says, "Monks, on that Uposatha day, a monk should not go to a non-dwelling," and so on, because the Uposatha should not be performed in a non-dwelling even if there is a Sangha. If unity is found even in a non-dwelling, then it should not be said, "Unity is as far as one dwelling." Therefore, understanding that the former method is entirely rejected by the latter, it should be known that unity is possible even in multiple dwellings. They say: "Just as in cases like 'Having said "We will do that act," they did not do it,' it also refers to the future. Therefore, if 'We will do' is said, it is not valid." It is written: "It is permissible to mark the boundary even without purifying the boundary." At the lowest point, eight and a half cubits high, the measure of an elephant. If one is bound, it should not be done. In this regard: Because they stand on stones like flat rocks beneath four mountain peaks in the four directions, even if they are bound together, if there is no connection upwards from the earth, it is permissible to mark them, treating as non-conventional only the connection that has gone down to the earth. Therefore, even if a flat rock is very large, it is considered a stone... it is said, "it goes by itself." It is said in the gloss, "If its great size is taken from the earth below, it becomes a mountain." Dhammasiri Thera says, "If grass, bushes, and trees grow on a heap of earth piled up, it is a mountain." Upatissa Thera says, "No," it is said. Regarding "stone," some say, "a white-washed stone is also acceptable." It should be investigated, as it is rejected for bricks. The measure is by weight, a lump of thirty-two palas, not by counting scales. "That too" means a stone standing up like a stump. Regarding "even a mere sign of four or five trees," in some places the word "sign" is absent. Here, if there are three strong trees and two weak trees, the majority of strong trees is desired. It is said, "Even a cemetery here is counted as 'a forest' because it is self-grown." Some, however, say, "If two out of four are heartwood, it is acceptable. If heartwood trees are more, or equal, it is acceptable. Therefore, even if there are two heartwood trees among many, it is acceptable." Regarding "other part," here they say, "it is acceptable because it has gone from the place where these were tied. Similarly, on a long road, the place gone to is different from the place taken." Regarding "every half-month," here it is written, "a continuous half-month, or near the half-month." Since it is said, "the undergarment gets wet," some say it is acceptable to do it only in that much water. By "gets wet," the characteristic of a river at its lower end is stated. Some say that in such a river, in a place where water flows, whether little or much, for four months, it is acceptable to do it even if there is little water in that place. Since it is said, "the sign of a river in the flowing place," they say, "if that much water flows beyond the bridge, it is indeed a river." In natural lakes and so on, standing water in places like natural lakes can be made into a sign immediately, like a sign at the boundary of a river. If that area later becomes a village or field, it is acceptable to establish another boundary there. Ukkhepima to be taken out. Regarding monasteries with unbound boundaries, it is written, "having set aside the upacāra of the boundary" means "having set aside a space for future agreement." Regarding those who have entered within the boundary marks, it is said, "because there is no purpose for everyone to come if one wishes to include half of one person within, it is said 'by those who have entered within the boundary marks,' and that is proper." It is written, "not coming is also permissible, because the boundary is not bound, there is no such thing as a 'group'." It is said, "there is no purpose for coming when the boundary marks are declared while staying in another village field, and when agreeing upon a boundary for common residence." Regarding the signal of a drum, it is written, "having said, 'we will conclude the agreement'," by that, it is established that it is permissible at such a time. What is the purpose of this? For the sake of ease, to avoid the trouble of gathering a large assembly, for the sake of ease with fewer people. Some say, "if there is an obstacle during the binding of a large boundary, the word 'first' is used to show that even with that much, it is a comfortable dwelling." How is it known that less than that is not permissible? Because the maximum for a Sangha act is twenty members. If one takes twenty-one bhikkhus including the one to be acted upon, it is permissible. That much is to be understood as the measure for comfortable sitting. Some say, "if others also declare the same boundary mark and bind it, it is permissible." "When boundaries are thus bound... and so on... the boundary interval indeed belongs to the village field," this is said to show that the definition of harmony is not based on residence, but on the boundary itself. "Having placed stones that are boundary marks" is said regarding a movable boundary mark beyond that. From here onwards, it is a commentary on difficult words – "they will not be able" means those who, not noticing the non-separation, strive, saying, "we will remove only the common residence," will not be able to remove it. "One ratana in measure" is said because it becomes a clearly discernible interval. Even one finger's breadth is permissible. Binding from a broken boundary mark onwards is customary. By customary practice, He becomes free from delusion. “Kuṭigeha” means a house with a roof, a house on the ground. “Udukkhalaṃva” means like a ground mortar, a small door. Some say that “pamukhe” refers to a ground hut. “It does not descend below” means that because the marks are placed and declared beyond the wall, it does not descend into the air below; it means it is in a palace built above. “Bhittilagga” means leaning against the wall. These, even though leaning against the wall, are not called “ekābaddha” (bound together). “Sabbo pāsādo sīmaṭṭho hoti” means whether the entire palace is bound together or not, it is within the boundary. “Tālamūlakapabbato” is a mountain that gradually tapers at its base. “Ākāsapabbhāra” means a cliff without a perimeter. “Susirapāsāṇo” means a cave. “Antoleṇa” means a cave inside the mountain. But “orato” (from below) is said later with reference to the door, the intention being that in any case, one descends into the cave from outside the boundary. “Mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā” means that even if a boundary-dwelling object is far away, it is still within the boundary, connected to the boundary. Therefore, the intention is that one should stand without touching it. If so, it should be said, “It is permissible to perform the act after removing that which is dependent on it.” Even in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, only this much is said: “It should be done after purifying the boundary.” Some say that the Mahātheras also say, “It should be purified.” And there is also the reading, “Or the act should be done after purifying the great boundary.” And it will be said later, “in the manner stated,” therefore some say that the common reading is better. “Purimanayepī” means even if one rises from a partial boundary and descends into a great boundary. It is not permissible to have it lifted and done. Why? Because it is inside. The root of a tree that has gone into the earth below is a partial boundary, or it is not to be used, say others. It is said, “But if it is cut in the middle, the root standing in the great boundary belongs to the great boundary, and that standing in the partial boundary belongs to the partial boundary, because it is not supported by the earth's sap, etc., dependent on it.” Having said, “It is permissible to perform the act sitting on a tree that has grown behind the boundary, just as in a house built behind the boundary,” it is then said, “It is not permissible to do it sitting on a tree that was standing at the time of binding.” They say the reason is "going beyond the boundary."