English
If so, at the time of tying, there is no re-climbing. It comes to mean that it climbs only when tied. But a tree that grew later, being connected to it, has reached the count of the boundary itself. Thus, it should be understood for a tree that grew earlier too. By the phrase "whatever it may be," even grass and the like are included. Even the Great Elders do it only after clearing the grass. 140. Since it is a corner from the middle, therefore it is said "from corner to corner." They say, "He incurs an offense due to not having intention." "Pārayati" means "overwhelms." What is that? The boundary. Some say it is said because "that which by the very last... carries" means that which is below it does not count as a boat. That is not appropriate, as it is also implied in the second Pārājika, in the section on boat-borne goods. Some say it is said by the measure of a middle-sized man's burden. Since a boundary across a river is possible for bhikkhunīs too, the teacher's conjecture is that it is to avoid the fault mentioned for them: "or one may go across the river." In both cases, the word "fixed" is taken. Therefore, to avoid an obstacle to the Uposatha, the Uposatha day is definitely stated. Here, "boat" means a standard, common, fixed boat, not a small boat, so says the teacher. The meaning is "made by cutting a tree." If it is one village area, the bhikkhus standing within all the marks should be appointed, bringing them within arm's reach. If it is different village areas, not coming is also permissible. By merely proclaiming marks on both banks, an island is not included. Therefore, marks must be proclaimed on the island itself. They say, "A bhikkhu sitting below the river spoils the act. For the river is indeed above." The commentary on the discourse of the permission of boundaries is finished. Commentary on the discourse of the Uposatha hall and so forth. 141. By the saying, "Whatever the Saṅgha desires, whether a monastery... or a cave," it is established that not only on the ground, but also above monasteries and the like, a boundary is permitted, because the Uposatha act is primary. If it is asked, "How is it known that the boundary is based on that?" Because it is permitted by that authority, and in the convention, though "of common residence" is sufficient, it is separately said "of one uposatha." It is written: "Excluding the uposatha, the remaining acts are called 'of common residence'." The Pāli reading is "having removed one." 142. "Having completed the rains" is said referring to those united within one boundary. Otherwise, it would lead to an undesirable outcome where hearing is the measure for those in different boundaries, or even for those in one boundary who are outside arm's reach. There, "whether agreed upon or not agreed upon" refers to the convention of the uposatha hall, not the boundary convention. How is this known? From the authority, from the subsequent rule regarding giving consent, and from the rule regarding giving purity. There, the former reason prevents the former undesirable outcome, and the latter prevents the latter, so it should be understood. "Uposathamukha" means the uposatha place. It is written: "'Uposathamukhassa' means 'of the uposatha hall place'." How is it known that "whatever marks are suitable to be recited"? Because only this much is said: "First, the marks should be recited, having recited the marks." If it is said that because it was said first, they are not mentioned? But that is not a reason, for there is no laziness in the teaching of the Buddhas. Some say that at the time of revoking a boundary, the revocation of the boundary is accomplished only by revoking the uposatha hall. The teacher says, "That is not appropriate, for the convention of the uposatha hall is established even for an unestablished boundary, so we do not think so." The teachers say "Uposathamukha" means the entrance of the uposatha hall. The recitation of the marks of the uposatha entrance should be done in the manner stated for the boundary. Some say that it is permissible for even one person to recite them. They say: "Let it be a palace, or one of the pavilions, etc. But in the formal act, it should be called 'uposathamukha'." It is written: "'Ancient residence' means 'original residence'." For the characteristic is that it speaks of the measure of a jar. Explanation of the account of permitting a non-residence boundary 143-4. Or the reading is "entered into the mind." There, "entered into the mind" means the mind entered. This is the meaning of "ho amhīti". "Except for the village and its environs" means except for the village and its environs, which are called the inner dwelling. Some say, "The word 'village' refers to an enclosed village, and 'environs' refers to an unenclosed area," but this contradicts the commentary. Therefore, "village" refers to dwellings and roads, and "environs" refers to places suitable for enclosure. Here, there are many different readings. What of that? Having thoroughly examined the Pāli and the commentary, it should be taken in a way that makes them consistent. The former kammavācā of the bhikkhus is not valid if the village and its environs are included in the agreed-upon sīmā for common residence, and then an avippavāsa sīmā is agreed upon above it. But where only a forest is agreed upon, how is it not valid? In that case, is the phrase "except for the village and its environs" meaningless? It is said: It is so, but due to the possibility of losing the announcement, that phrase must be spoken. It might be said that "the former kammavācā is not valid" is said with this intention. Or it is said that there is no need for two kammavācās for one purpose. If it is said that "they are not completers of each other's acts," this same rule would apply to two Sanghas of different residence, would it not? It does not apply, because the acceptance and proximity are permitted, because the factors like disparagement are not different, and because it only expects the cessation of the act. "Of that" means of the bhikkhunī Sangha. "They do not make the kammavācā a group" means they do not invalidate the act. "Here" means in "except for the village." "If the avippavāsa sīmā of the bhikkhus does not extend to the village and its environs, then why do they agree upon avippavāsa when binding the sīmā in the village?" It is written: "By customary practice, not expecting any other meaning from it." It is said: "In reality, it is not bound even outside." The sīmā for common residence, bound within the inner village, does not count as a village, because some say, therefore. That too goes to the reckoning of a boundary, meaning it goes to the reckoning of a non-separation boundary. This should be considered here – should the non-separation boundary act of speech be performed in a wilderness area, having made the village internal to the boundary that has been established, or should it be performed in the village? Even if performed in the village, it extends to the permissible ground. Since it is in conformity with the faults of a boundary established outside, it should not be performed on impermissible ground, that is not our reasoning, this is the method for removal too, say the teachers. In the case of a broken boundary, in phrases like "non-separation boundary," the great boundary is said to be a "non-separation boundary." 146. "Whatever venerable one approves of the removal of this boundary for common residence and a single Uposatha, let him be silent" – this reading is found in the Andhaka manuscript and in some Sinhala manuscripts. In some, they first write "removal of this boundary," and in some, "removal for this boundary." Description of the discourse on village boundaries, etc. 147. "And that" means that village boundary given by demarcation, and the other. Which is that? It says "natural village," etc. The meaning is that they are similar to established boundaries, so that one is and the other is. Therefore, "obtains the exemption from separation from the three robes" is in the singular, which some say is not appropriate as both are villages. And they also use the plural "are, do not obtain." "That and the other" refers to "village boundaries given by breaking in the middle, and natural villages, etc., which are unbroken," they say. The reading is "dwelling of monks," and it is also written "they dwell." Since it says "from his standing place," the singular is appropriate. "All rivers, monks, are not boundaries" – which boundary does it reject? The established boundary, due to the possibility of one of the eleven boundary transgressions, say the teachers. If rivers, etc., come into existence after a boundary has been established, then the rejection would be applicable, therefore it rejects only an unestablished boundary. Just as every village is a village boundary, so every river is not a boundary. But as for that monk, does it show a boundary difference as a water-toss boundary? No, that is not the argument, say the teachers. That which is said as a water-toss all around for a middle-sized man, is said to show the boundary division when various Sanghas, such as those of four monks, on one river, perform their separate four-monk duties and other acts. And to show the distinction of dwelling or not dwelling with the three robes, it is like showing the division by a seven-cubit boundary, say the teachers. Therefore, it is established that it is permissible to perform acts within the river, even without a water-toss division. This, however, is the distinction: If he has come by boat, it is according to what is said about a boat. If he has come by caravan, it is according to what is said about a caravan. If he has stayed for more than four months, the non-separation from the three robes should be understood according to what is said about a village. Even there, this is the distinction: If the caravan is within the water-toss,