English
This, then, by way of revoking the common residence boundary, when the boundary is abolished in that monastery, if there is a broken boundary or even a great boundary, those bhikkhus, being in the midst of them, must revoke them in one place for the bed. Then only the village boundary would remain. Here, knowing the boundary or its limits is not a factor. But placing it within the boundary and performing the formal act with "We will revoke" is a factor here. In the commentaries, it is said that 'those who know the broken boundary, even if they do not know the non-separation, will be able to revoke and establish it,' thus revocation is mentioned even without knowing the limits of the great boundary. And when only the village boundary remains, it is permissible to establish both types of boundaries there as one wishes and to perform acts like ordination. They say this, and it seems appropriate. It should be examined and accepted. The explanation of the allowance for the non-separation boundary is concluded. Explanation of the Village Boundary, etc. 147. In the Pāli, with "O bhikkhus, in an unapproved boundary," etc., the village boundary itself is the field for a fixed boundary, like forests, rivers, etc., for those within seven cubits, or a water-toss. And that village boundary, in a place without a fixed boundary, itself becomes a common residence, so it shows. That which is the village boundary of that village, here, referring to the entire village area, including fields, grounds, forests, mountains, etc., both inside and outside the limits of the village boundary, is called "of the village," not just the area within houses. Therefore, the meaning should be understood as: the village boundary is connected to that entire village area. Indeed, the term "village" which is designated by people as a single entity in many land divisions such as areas within houses, fields, etc., that same is also called "village boundary" here, so is the intention; for the village itself is the village boundary. In the same way, above, the state of being a forest boundary, etc., should be understood for forests, rivers, oceans, natural lakes, etc., which are designated by people as a single entity in those land regions. But in the world, the v- The usage of 'village boundary' and so on is appropriate to speak of only the limits of villages and so on, not everywhere in village fields and so on. But in the Dispensation, those villages and so on, by the meaning of excluding others, are themselves their own limits, so it is said that "the village itself is the village boundary, the forest itself is the forest boundary ...and so on... the ocean itself is the ocean boundary" by the usage of 'boundary'. This should be understood. The phrase "or of a market town" was said to show all these kinds of village boundaries by way of example. Therefore it is said, "a city is also included." The phrase "they receive tribute" was said mostly, but in those parts of the land recorded in royal documents as "this village has so many acres," and so on, in whatever places like ponds, canals, cemeteries, mountains, and so on, where they do not collect tribute, that too is a village boundary. Indeed, all land portions delimited by kings and so on, except for rivers, salt-producing areas, and natural lakes, should be understood as village boundaries. Therefore it is said, "the king, having delimited it, gives it to someone." But if the king there connects any area with another village, that area attains the state of being an included village boundary. The same method applies even when rivers and natural lakes are destroyed and made into ponds and so on, or filled in and made into fields and so on. But those villages abandoned by people afflicted by fear of kings, thieves, and so on, and remaining uninhabited for a long time, but around which there are villages, they too are individually village boundaries. For in these, kings either have them cultivated by residents of surrounding villages, or, having recorded the cultivated areas by whomever, they collect tribute, or they bring them into unity with another village. But those villages abandoned even by kings, contiguous with village fields, and united with a great forest, they attain the state of a non-village forest boundary. The former village boundary is destroyed. But kings, having made a large village in a certain forest area and so on, and having settled many thousands of families there, designate it as a 'village for enjoyment' for the residents there, and having delimited the existing villages around it, they give them. But they do not destroy the old name and the delimitation. They too are individually village boundaries. By this much, the state of being a former village boundary is n... They do not abandon. This is an explanation of the meaning of the Pāli phrase "of common residence, of one Uposatha," referring to "that and the other." There, that one is new, arisen by royal wish, having changed. The other is the unchanged, natural village boundary. Just as all Sangha acts are proper to perform within a consecrated boundary, so too these are like a consecrated boundary, being suitable for all acts. That is the meaning of "of common residence, of one Uposatha." Generally, when "like a consecrated boundary" is said, people think only of the boundary for not separating from the three robes as a consecrated boundary. To show that the similarity of the seven-abbhantara boundary also exists above, by way of preventing that similarity, and to show the relevance of this method of demonstration here, "only" and so on was said. In a forest like the Vindhya forest, where there is no village designation like "this field belongs to such-and-such a village," and where they do not plough or sow, in such a forest. Islands in the middle of the ocean, uninhabited by humans, where fishermen do not go, are also included here. Whatever region is without villages or fields, and devoid of rivers, oceans, or natural lakes, all that should be known as a forest boundary. And that, even without a seven-abbhantara boundary, is by its very nature like a consecrated boundary, of common residence. Just as in river boundaries and so on, all Sangha acts are proper to perform here. The boundary status of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes is established because it is stated in the commentaries, "by their very nature they are like consecrated boundaries," and so on. But how is the boundary status of a forest? By the authority of the Sutta that permits the seven-abbhantara boundary, and so on. Just as many consecrated boundaries are permitted for a village boundary to prevent schismatic acts, and an intermediate boundary is permitted between two of them to prevent their intermingling, so too here in the forest is the seven-abbhantara boundary. And by the authority of the provision for an intermediate boundary between two of them in the Pāli and commentaries, the forest also, by its very nature, has the status of a boundary like rivers and so on, because the seven-abbhantara boundary is permitted there precisely to prevent schismatic acts. should be understood. There, those standing in the boundary itself perform the group act in the boundary area, not like those standing in the sky perform the sky area act. In the same way, taking the capacity, it is to be understood that even for rivers, oceans, and lakes whose fixed boundaries are rejected by the statement, ‘‘All rivers, monks, are without boundary,’’ their own nature is a boundary, as stated in the commentary. Then, "from his standing place" means from the standing place of that monk. Even if a thousand monks stand, from the outer edge of his standing place, for the avoidance of a group act by the monks, when the need for a boundary arises, the seven-cubit boundary, which arises by itself along with that need, is of common residence—this is the meaning. But where, in a small forest, due to being full of many monks, there is no fear of a group act, and thus no need for a seven-cubit boundary, there the seven-cubit boundary does not arise. Only in the boundary of the mere forest should the Sangha perform the act there. The same method applies to rivers and so on. For it will be said, ‘‘If the river is not too long, from its source up to its mouth, the Sangha sits everywhere; there is no act of a water-throwing boundary’’ (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). And by this very statement, it should be seen that the water-throwing seven-cubit boundaries arise only when there is a need for a boundary to avoid a group act, not when there is no such need. Some, however, say, ‘‘A boundary arises only by measuring and defining a seven-cubit inner area, not by itself.’’ That should not be accepted. For if a boundary were to arise by the method of defining an inner area, then there would be no unfixed boundary, and the monks' method of action would not be established. Moreover, because there are many kinds of cubits in the world— those of carpenters and ordinary cubits— and because such a cubit measure is not stated in the Vinaya, if it were measured by anyone, there would be a doubt about the validity of the boundary, whether it was measured by a hand authorized by the Blessed One or not. And it is impossible for those who measure to measure without making even a tiny bit less or more. by inability, there would be a failure. And this, increasing by the assembly, increases or decreases by their measuring. And when a Kamma has been done in the Saṅgha and they have gone, this boundary, arisen by the effort of the bhikkhus, does it disappear by their effort or not disappear? How would it not remain, like a bound boundary, until the disappearance of the Dispensation? And for its stability, how would there not be a doubt of boundary confusion in the entire forest, as in old monasteries? Therefore, it should be understood that it arises only by expectation of a boundary,