English
prohibited at the time of binding, is in accordance with what is not allowable. But this fault of connection, because it arises later for those well-bound previously, cannot make them non-boundaries as if at the moment of binding. Therefore, as soon as the connection of trees, etc., is removed, those boundaries become normal. And just as this is not permissible later, so too, it should be understood that if there is a connection of trees, etc., at the moment of binding, it is not permissible to bind them. Some, however, say: "Here, in 'or having purified the great boundary,' the purification intended is that the monks who have come to the great boundary do not touch that branch or shoot with their bodies, not the purification of the entire boundary." That is not appropriate, because it contradicts the commentaries. For thus, "It stands touching the ground surface of the great boundary or the trees, etc., grown there," thus, for branches and shoots, touching the great boundary... The mere standing there is said to be the cause of the connection fault, but not the touching of branches etc. by monks standing there. If indeed the mere standing of monks touching branches etc. were the cause, then a branch of that (tree) or a shoot sprung from it, having entered the great boundary, a certain monk standing there, touching it, then the touching by the monk itself should be stated. For whatever is the cause for purifying the great boundary there, that alone should be primarily shown in that statement. For not only a monk standing touching branches etc. that are directly present should be purified, since one standing touching branches etc. in the air also needs to be purified. What is the point of the meaningless phrase "directly present"? And regarding branches in the air, the monk's touching itself is stated as the cause, and the purification is stated as the purification of that very monk by bringing him within reach etc. Here, however, by the phrase "having purified the great boundary," purification common to the entire boundary is stated. Furthermore, if the purification of merely a monk standing touching branches etc. were intended, then the specific mention of "the ground surface of the great boundary" would be meaningless, since one standing anywhere, even in the air, touching branches etc. needs to be purified. And from the phrase "they should be cut and placed outside," which means the removal of their being established there, by the mere touching of dissimilar boundaries, which is the cause for the purification of the entire boundary, it should be understood that this one connection fault, established by the commentary, certainly exists. Therefore, even in the discourse on the water-boundary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147), "established in a monastery boundary or a village boundary," and "on the river bank, having cut a stump and tied a boat there, it is not permissible," and "if, however, a bridge or bridge-supports are established on the outer bank, it is not permissible to perform an act," in such dissimilar village boundaries, the mere touching of branches etc. is stated as the cause of the defilement fault, not the touching by a monk. Thus, "an act should be performed by tying (the boat) to a tree grown within the river," tying a boat in the river is permitted. Due to the river boundary's shared nature, being dependent on the water's throw. If indeed, merely touching by bhikkhus were said to cause a fault of connection everywhere, then even in a river, the binding should be prohibited. For there too, a bhikkhu's touching becomes a cause for the invalidation of the act. Therefore, in shared boundaries, having entered, whether touching the ground etc. or not, if standing on a branch etc., the bhikkhu should be purified only by touching that branch etc. But in unshared boundaries, if standing having touched a branch etc., all bhikkhus should be purified, even without touching that branch etc. But if standing without touching, the bhikkhu should be purified only by touching that branch etc. This is the conclusion to be reached here. What some here say: "Just as two consecrated boundaries are mutually connected, so too, if there is a mutual connection by trees etc. between a consecrated boundary and a village boundary, and also among all other boundaries of common residence, then both should be purified as if they were one boundary, and the act should be performed in one place. An act performed elsewhere becomes invalid. There is no distinction here of shared or unshared." That is merely their opinion, because the absence of the fault of intermingling among shared boundaries, and its presence only among unshared boundaries, is established by the suttas, their commentaries, and other Vinaya methods. Thus, "I allow, bhikkhus, to consecrate a boundary" was allowed for consecrating a boundary only within a village boundary. Their shared nature, by way of dependence and being depended upon, and the absence of faults like intermingling and overlapping, are established by the Sutta itself. But in accordance with the connection allowed at the time of consecration, even a later arising connection by trees etc. is certainly permissible for them. As it is said: "Whatever, bhikkhus... (etc.)... is in accordance with what is allowable, and rejects what is unallowable, that is allowable for you." (Mahāva. 305) Thus, the mutual shared nature of consecrated boundaries and village boundaries, and the absence of faults like intermingling, are established by the Sutta and its commentaries. In this same way, the forest boundaries and the seven-cubit inner boundaries, and the water-throw boundaries like rivers etc., are mutually (shared) according to the Sutta and its commentaries. their similarity, and the absence of the fault of intermingling is understood as established. However, from the establishment of the prohibition against binding a delimited boundary to another delimited boundary, or to boundaries like rivers, and from the strength of the Sutta's rule that boundaries for water-scooping within seven cubits must be made only in rivers and the like, and from the establishment of the prohibition against making them in delimited boundaries, village boundaries, and so forth— it is established that these are dissimilar to each other, and that the fault of intermingling with trees and so forth can occur at the moment of their arising and afterwards, in the manner stated, in accordance with the Sutta and its commentaries. For this reason, in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 148), after showing the fault of connection for dissimilar boundaries with words like "banyan tree," the fault of connection for similar boundaries like delimited boundaries and village boundaries was not shown. Not only was it not shown, but the absence of fault even when these similar boundaries are connected to trees and so forth is made known in the Pāli and Commentaries. Thus, in the Pāli, "mountain as a mark, rock as a mark, forest as a mark, tree as a mark," and so forth, growing marks are permitted. Thereby, it is made known that there is no fault of confusion for delimited boundaries and village boundaries even when these marks like trees grow. However, such a connection is not permissible for two delimited boundaries. It has been said: "Even one tree can be a mark for two boundaries, but if it grows, it causes boundary confusion, therefore it should not be made." This is also made known from the statement: "I allow, monks, to delimit a boundary up to three yojanas." For a boundary up to three yojanas, since connection between delimited boundaries and village boundaries with trees, creepers, bushes, and so forth is necessarily possible all around its perimeter, it is not stated in the Commentary either that "a boundary must be delimited only after destroying such a connection." If there were a failure of action here due to connection with trees and so forth, it would certainly have to be stated. For, in order to prevent failure, teachers repeatedly stated even what was already established, even in places free from doubt, with phrases like "without plastering the wall." But here, " They make monasteries in the midst of the forest, saying, "The forest should not be praised," and they spoke of boundary-marking even in the midst of the forest, which is dense with trees and creepers. Likewise, the marking of boundaries on upper floors of palaces built on pillars, which are connected to the pillars below, has been stated in many ways. Therefore, the connection of trees and so forth to fixed boundaries and village boundaries is established by them directly. Moreover, since village boundaries are individually similar to fixed boundaries, those performing acts in one village boundary, if connected even by a blade of grass, would have to purify successive village boundaries, forests, rivers, and oceans. Thus, it would have to be done after purifying the entire island. However, if not purified in this way, the acts of ordination and so forth, and the boundary designations, performed since the time of the First Great Council, would become invalid. And the suspicion of all monks being unordained would be unavoidable. And this is not proper. Therefore, it should be understood that the fault of connection with trees and so forth applies only to dissimilar boundaries, as stated, not to similar boundaries like fixed boundaries and village boundaries. Because purifying a great boundary is difficult, he said that Sangha acts are mostly performed in a small boundary, starting with "in the boundary pavilion." However, when a great assembly of the Sangha gathers, and a small boundary is insufficient, even if acts are performed in a great boundary, this method should be adopted. By "having lifted up," it shows that one touching the boundary, even with something connected to the body, is within the boundary. And in the former method, even in the case of a branch