English
extending from a small boundary into a great boundary. He said that one sitting on a tree branch within the boundary is within the boundary, "he should be brought within arm's reach." And here, some say that it is permissible for five monks — three in a small boundary, and two in a great boundary, which are connected to each other by tree branches and so forth, without touching the space between the two boundaries, and without leaving arm's reach — to perform acts of ordination and so forth. That is not proper, as it says, "If the fourth stands in a different boundary, the act is not an act, and should not be done," and so forth. Therefore, even there, having purified the great boundary, the act is performed only within the boundary of the chapter house. Otherwise, due to being in a broken boundary, the one there not being a quorum member, the act would be spoiled. If so, how is the great boundary purified by bringing in the purity of consent? Even that, those who know the Vinaya do not accept. They desire purification here only by bringing it within arm's reach and making it outside the boundary. Even with consent given, if it does not come, the one in the great boundary spoils the act. If his consent, etc., does not come, how will he spoil the act? Due to the fault of connection between two dissimilar boundaries. And that fault of connection is according to the authority of the commentaries. For in the Vinaya, it is not possible to know the reason everywhere, as it is within the Buddha's range of knowledge. Some, however, say: "If, when performing an act with monks continuously present, filling both boundaries, the quorum, the candidate for ordination, and the announcer are all in one boundary, the act is well done. But if the one fit for the act or the announcer is between the boundaries, the act fails." And that is applicable only in similar boundaries like a consecrated boundary or a village boundary, where there is no fault even in connections like trees between them. But in those where there is, in dissimilar boundaries, when there is a connection like trees, one standing in one place spoils the act of the other place, as purification is generally stated in the commentary. This is our view. It should be examined and taken. "Does not descend" means it does not descend to a place below the measure in drum-shaped mountains, etc. Although at the moment of consecration here, it does not ascend mountains, etc., which are also without measure above, yet that later becomes a boundary by being within the boundary. But the drum-shaped place below, etc., does not attain the status of a boundary even for a boundary consecrated above. It is said "does not descend" in reference to that, otherwise, it would be said "does not descend," etc., in a general way for both descending and ascending. "Whatever" is finished. Born above the boundary, existing, previously established, later arisen, and whatever has entered, whether conscious or unconscious, all of it – this is the meaning. Indeed, even a bhikkhu seated on conscious beings like elephant-shoulders within the boundary is considered to be within the boundary. And this phrase "within the consecrated boundary" is stated by way of illustration due to the context. Even that which is established in all unconsecrated boundaries is reckoned as belonging to that boundary. "Gone by a single connection" refers to what has grown there, such as trees and creepers. Even such a thing is fit to be called "gone from here." But what cannot be said to have "gone from here" or "come from there" in both consecrated and village boundaries, or in water-throwing rivers etc., such as a rope or pole fallen across, what should be done there? Here, the part established in the consecrated boundary is the consecrated boundary; the part established in the unconsecrated village boundary is the village boundary, like a mountain standing on both boundaries. In the case of aerial roots of a banyan tree arisen from a consecrated boundary, or aerial roots of a banyan tree arisen from a village boundary, even if established in the consecrated boundary, the same rule applies. Indeed, from the time of its root establishment, since it cannot be said "gone from here" or "come from there," that part is reckoned according to the boundary it has entered. However, some say that the aerial branches between those aerial roots, to the extent of the boundary division on the ground, become a boundary for both. But since an aerial root of a branch, even after establishing itself with roots in the earth of the entered boundary, cannot stand without the branch, it does not abandon its original boundary status. But when it can stand without it, even then only the aerial root itself attains the status of being in the entered boundary. Therefore, all parts of the aerial branch do not abandon their original boundary status, because the part that came from there has not been abandoned – this is our view. The same rule applies to water-throwing rivers and so forth. And there, when it has thus entered a dissimilar boundary, the entire boundary is purified; when it has entered a similar boundary, it is merely touching and standing The purification of monks, all of it, is in the manner stated before. 140. "It crosses over" means it completely covers. A boundary that rests on both banks of a river is called a "river-crossing boundary," thus it is said, "crossing over the river." For a boundary does not descend into the middle of the river. But if there is no river-mark, it does descend, and then it is not a boundary across the river, thus it is said, "the mark of the river is in the manner stated in the river-mark." "Should be" means "would be." But a permanent boat is certainly obtainable, this is the connection. By "not by boat," it shows that even without a boat, a boundary is well-bound, the boat is for the purpose of avoiding offenses. "Made of a collection of trees" means a bridge made by joining many trees together. "Made by cutting a tree" is a remaining part of the text. "Having made the monks within all the marks to be within arm's reach" this is said with reference to the two banks being part of one village field. "In the form of a mountain" is said because it is a peak of an island that rises up as one. The commentary on the allowance of boundaries is finished. Commentary on the Uposatha-house, etc. 141. "Having removed" means having destroyed, the meaning is "having uprooted." And this is said for the purpose of avoiding offenses. 142. "Whatever" is said here because the marks of the boundary are not explicitly stated in the Pāli text. The commentary on the Uposatha-house, etc. is finished. Commentary on the allowance of the non-residence boundary 143. "Eighteen" is said including the Andhakavinda monastery. "Their boundary" means in those great monasteries. The explanation of "mana" is "slightly," the meaning is "it grew slightly." To show this very meaning, it is said, "it was in a state of not having grown." "Not paying attention" is stated as the reason for not transgressing by psychic power. 144. "He" means the community of nuns. "Both" means both non-residences of common residence. "Non-residence boundary" refers to the great boundary. "Mostly non-residence there." "Even not knowing the non-residence" this is said with reference to those who do not know the existence or non-existence of the great boundary, and its outer demarcation. Even by those who do not know thus, having stood within the boundary, when the formal act is performed, that boundary is indeed abolished. Thus it is said: "They will be able to abolish and to bind." "In a place free from doubt" means in a place devoid of a partial boundary. And this, even when a great boundary exists, for the ease of performing acts, a partial boundary is desired. Thus it is said that it should not be bound in places of large gatherings like the cetiya courtyard. Even there, if it is bound, it is well-bound, just like a great boundary. "But they will not be able to bind" - this is said with reference to the binding of a great boundary, because the partial boundary is not abolished, and because of not knowing its non-existence. But a partial boundary, they will indeed be able to bind in a place free from doubt. "Having caused a boundary confusion" means: in the case where a partial boundary exists, having caused a confusion of overlapping boundaries; and even in the case where it does not exist, by not turning back due to doubt of confusion, having caused doubt of confusion. "They would make it not a monastery" means they would make it unfit for Saṅgha acts. Indeed, formerly, it was possible to perform acts in places free from doubt like the cetiya courtyard. Now even that is destroyed, is the intention. "It should not be abolished" means it should not be abolished by those who do not know the partial boundary. "Both do not know" means they do not know the specific location of both, or of either of the two, whether it exists or does not exist. There is only doubt everywhere. "They will be able neither to abolish nor to bind" - this is said with reference to this meaning: even though they are able to abolish by standing in a place free from doubt, they are not able to bind a great boundary. "And it is not possible... to perform the formal act" - this is said with reference to the formal act of binding a boundary. Therefore, since it is not possible to bind, therefore it should not be abolished, is the meaning. But some say: "In such monasteries, taking five or six bhikkhus, starting from the edge of the monastery, all around, both inside and outside the monastery enclosure, everywhere within a clod's throw, in a space the size of a bed, standing continuously, first, the non-separation...