English
the measure is the water-toss boundary, say some. The caravan itself is the measure, say the teachers. If, in the phrase "if there are many monks here," some wish to say "ordination-Uposatha," some "group-Uposatha," and some "Sangha-Uposatha," it is said "monks" without saying "many Sanghas." But as for "what is less is not permissible," here there is the possibility of boundary confusion, says Thera Upatissa. When establishing, what is less should not be established. It is said, "it is permissible even not to establish." As for "while it is moving," it is written, "it is permissible to do it while it revolves without exceeding the water-toss." As for "the declaration of another boundary," etc., is it said due to fear of failure of the act because of the boundary, or because of the assembly? Because one act cannot have multiple boundaries, it is due to the boundary. Because one act cannot be performed by a Sangha in multiple boundaries, it is due to the assembly, say some. "It causes the omission of the hearing," that is not the argument, due to the arising of the fault mentioned. For one who does not complete one act in one boundary, causes omission, say the teachers. As for "by a branch of a tree grown on the river bank that has entered the river," and as for "having cut a stump on the river bank," if, however, a bridge or bridge supports are established on the outer bank, Here, "hitāti" means the purification of the boundary, which is bringing within arm's reach what is in the village boundary. It is proper to do it by separating it from a tree standing in a broken boundary. Why? Because the village is supported by a boat tied to a tree on the bank. It is also written: "A dam standing touching the village boundary on both sides should be compared to a tree standing touching the broken boundary and the great boundary." There, in the former method, this should be considered: Does an act performed in such a place count as performed in the river, or in the village boundary, or in both? And if it counts as performed in the river, only the water-throwing boundary should be purified, not the other. If it counts as performed in the village boundary, the water-throwing boundary should not be purified. If it counts as performed in both, the undesirable consequence arises that one act can be performed in two boundaries. Then, "the motion is for one boundary, the announcement is for another," and "it is proper to perform an act with the physical unity of the broken boundary and the great boundary" — these undesirable consequences arise. Here it is said: The act as described counts as performed in both, and the undesirable consequences as described do not arise. Why? They say: "Because the motion and announcement occur in each boundary, or because the performing bhikkhus stand in each boundary." But since it is possible to stand in both places, that is not the reason. The unshakeable reason is this: Because it is performed in a boundary area that has become unified. Indeed, it is proper to perform an act in two river and village boundaries that have become unified. If there is a river, or the sea, or a natural lake within the seven-cubit boundary, a bhikkhu standing in them does not count as standing within the seven-cubit boundary. If there is an island, a rock, or a tree there that does not reach the characteristic of a river, etc., it counts as within the seven-cubit boundary. If it is a place used by humans, it counts as a village field. Which village field? From which humans travel, if all travel they cry out, and it goes to the count of village-fields, say the teachers. In the later method, if the bridge stands without touching the river-mark place, it goes to the count of the village boundary. If there is one village there, having purified it, if there are two on both banks, having purified both villages, the act should be done. For thus done, it is done in both. By this method, the success of one act in two rivers and in natural lakes should be understood. This method indeed applies even to broken boundaries and great boundaries. If the bridge stands touching the river-mark place, the water-throwing boundary should also be purified. If the boundaries are indeed one, having gone without being in the air; Knowing this from the boundary of a single act, one should declare this. One boundary, or two boundaries, three boundaries, four boundaries; There may be one act for it, there may be anger from the assembly. Herein this is the distinction – for those acting in a river, the connection of trees etc. outside the water-throwing is immeasurable. For those acting in a village, a monk standing outside the water-throwing of a connected tree in the river is immeasurable, below that is measurable. It should be understood that a monk standing within the bound boundary of a connected tree in a bound boundary is measurable, therefore it is said, "having purified the boundary, the act should be done." The saying, "If, however, the bridge or its supports are established on the outer bank, it is not proper to perform the act," also proves that the purification of the entire boundary, as in the case of sprouts etc., should be done; it should be investigated. Here, regarding "in the time of excessive rain," excessive rain should be understood as like the four-month period, therefore, if there is only excessive rain for four months, all the area covered by the flood is indeed a river. Or if the flood from even one excessive rain stands or flows for four months, all the area covered by the flood established on the outer bank is indeed a river. "From the place where it covers and flows as a river" means it is proper from the place where it covers and flows, having attained the characteristic of a river by its own flow, whether that same river, or another, or a new area. covering the village and town boundary... Ritvāti, it is said with reference to the four-month period. It is written: “On a path of no return, where one cannot go and return on the same day.” But what is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā should not be taken. Why? Because the same fault would apply to a river. In “tipusakādi,” the word “ādi” (etc.) also includes lotuses and water lilies. If it is said that all of it is an uncultivated area and only goes by the village boundary, then it means it goes by the village boundary, or if it is made by the villages on the surrounding banks, then by the boundary of all villages, or if it is a place not connected to other village fields, then it goes by a separate village boundary. 148. “Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti” by this, proximity is indicated, and by that, the merging of areas is indicated here as a merger. If it grows, it causes a boundary confusion, and by entering a place with a defined boundary, it is called “a partially defined boundary,” thus there is a fault of confusion. In “Monks, a boundary should not be merged with a boundary,” some explain the meaning as “a boundary to be defined later should not be merged with a boundary defined first.” Since there is no merging in a boundary agreed upon first, that interpretation is justified by overlapping; therefore, a boundary defined first should not be merged with a boundary to be defined later. For it is called merging when, by including the entire or a part of the boundary markers within the first defined boundary, one defines it without leaving a boundary interval; it is called overlapping when one includes the entire or a part of the boundary markers of others’ defined boundary. Therefore, it is said, “When defining a boundary, leaving a boundary interval,” etc. Its meaning is: leaving the boundary interval of the first defined boundary, which is to be the marker for the boundary to be defined later, one should define the boundary later. These two faults do not occur between the boundaries of monks and nuns. In “If it grows, it causes a boundary confusion,” it merely causes a boundary confusion. In that act performed Some say they do not become angry, that is not proper, because of what is said about cutting branches, sprouts, and purifying boundaries. All this, having been well considered, having served at the teacher's residence, what is fit to be taken should be taken, the rest should be discarded. Description of the discourse on the breaking of Uposatha, etc. 149. "These are two Uposathas, monks," was said then, because the Uposatha of unity was not permitted. In the preliminary duties of the Uposatha of unity, it should be said: "Today is the Uposatha of unity." But by the Blessed One, no procedure was shown in a formal declaration. According to the Pāli method, the method of recitation was shown by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. Similarly, the method of reciting the five Pātimokkha recitations is established, so it should be understood. Whether three or two recite the Pātimokkha, "It is called united by unrighteousness"— in this context, it is indeed called the unity of the Saṅgha, because unity is established according to the action in the discourse on factions. Nevertheless, it is called united by being the opposite of a faction, and it is called a faction by being the opposite of unity. Or it is said because of the possibility of individual or group actions, etc., and the possibility of their being united or a faction, so it should be understood. "A faction by righteousness"— here, purification is righteous, and it is called a faction because the consent comes from the Saṅgha itself, not from a group. "Done once, it is well done, but one incurs an offense, and cannot do it again," they say. "It is permissible to recite the Pātimokkha with four, having brought the consent of one out of five," they say. That is proper, because when the consent-bearers reach the monks, the Saṅgha is complete by that. Therefore, it is said that the consent has reached the Saṅgha. Description of the discourse on the recitation of the Pātimokkha 150. In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kankhā.