English
and disappears with its disappearance. Just as here, so too in water-throwing boundaries, and in rivers and so forth. For there too, a middle-sized man is not known. Similarly, throwing with full strength, and in both cases, in which direction there is no space for seven cubits, or for a water-throw, how could there be measuring or throwing there? By entering into village fields and so forth, if a boundary has entered into an unsuitable area, the boundary would fail. But when a boundary arises by expectation, where it is possible, the seven-cubit and water-throwing boundaries themselves become complete. But where it is not possible, they arise only according to the extent of their own area, not outside. What is seen here regarding the measure of measuring inside, and the act of throwing sand and so forth, that is done for the purpose of defining the fixed location of boundaries that have arisen, like the showing of the method of throwing clods and winnowing baskets for knowing the village-approach and house-approach. Therefore, in the Mātika Commentary, it is said: “one either defines a boundary or delimits a water-throw” (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Even when this is done, due to the inability to know the exactness of that definition, having known it broadly, those remaining inside should stay in a place free from doubt, and those doing other things outside should be sent to a place free from doubt, far away. Others, however, say: “There is no need for expectation of a boundary. When even one bhikkhu enters a forest or rivers and so forth, for purposes of going on a path, bathing, etc., surrounding him, The boundary of the water-throwing distance within seven cubits arises by itself, like the light of a lamp. In villages and fields, as soon as one enters it, it vanishes. Therefore, for two Sanghas performing separate acts, between the two boundaries, a boundary-interval, another seven-cubit space, and a water-throwing distance are allowed to be established. For if a bhikkhu, sent for some act at the edge of a boundary, were to have a boundary arise all around him, it would touch the boundary of the others and cause a boundary-mingling. So that this may not happen, otherwise, a boundary-interval of about four finger-breadths should be allowed here. Moreover, this is also established from the statement that even one standing in the boundary-interval invalidates the act in both places. This too, being encompassed, by the boundary that arises by itself, there is a mingling of both boundaries, or of one. Otherwise, his invalidation of the act would not be appropriate. For it is said in the Mātika Commentary: “Even one standing within the defined area, leaving a hand’s reach, or one standing outside the defined area, not having gone beyond another similar defined area, invalidates the act.” (Kankha. Attha. Nidanavannana) Furthermore, for a bhikkhu residing in a non-village forest, even without the desire to perform an act, the Buddha allowed the non-wearing of the three robes in an open space defined by seven cubits. And that defined space is a boundary. Thus, it arises without expectation. Therefore, it is said here: “This boundary also obtains the exemption from the three-robe non-wearing.” (Mahava. Attha. 147) “Therefore, its arising in the manner stated, even without the desire to perform an act, should be understood,” they say. That is not appropriate, because, like the light of a lamp, with the possibility of a boundary for each and every individual, when performing an act in a Sangha or a group, there would be the fault of mingling of many boundaries arising individually all around the bhikkhus in that place. And its increase and decrease would be possible according to the assembly. For those who arrive later, there would be a new boundary-interval arising, and for those who leave, the boundary standing all around them would also be destroyed. In Pāli, p "All around, within seven cubits, this is a common dwelling there" and so on (Mahavagga 147), there is only one seven-cubit area. And water-throwing (boundaries) are permitted. This boundary does not arise by its own nature, nor by the power of a cause, like the light of a lamp. But only by the Buddha's permission. And the Buddha, permitting these, permitted them only for the ease of performing acts, by avoiding the disruption of acts for the bhikkhus. So how can the arising of those boundaries all around, even for those who have entered for bathing and other duties, be without purpose? If there is a purpose, and there is only one purpose, how can many boundaries arise according to the count of each bhikkhu? It is said: "Standing without abandoning the arm's reach within one boundary." (Kankhavitarani Atthakatha, Nidanavannana) And as for the statement about establishing an intermediate boundary between two boundaries by a certain demarcation, and the statement about the invalidation of acts for those standing there, that too was said to avoid from afar the doubt of boundary confusion and the doubt of act invalidation, due to the difficulty of understanding the demarcation of these boundaries. And the seven-cubit demarcation shown by the Buddha in the open air for the purpose of not being separated from the robe, that is not a boundary itself. It is just one demarcation here, like the demarcation of a field or a pond. And there, when many bhikkhus are standing together, the robe should be placed within the seven-cubit demarcation all around, starting from each one's own standing place. Not starting from the edge of the assembly. For if it is taken within, starting from the edge of the assembly, a robe placed at the end of the inner area would be outside the inner area for one standing in the middle. Thus, that would be subject to forfeiture at dawn. But a boundary must be taken from the edge of the assembly. And the avoidance of separation from the robe is mentioned here because of the existence of the open-air demarcation, not because it is obtainable up to the boundary demarcation, like the designation of a "non-separation boundary" for a great boundary. For even in a great boundary, the robe becomes subject to forfeiture in villages and their vicinities. And here too, in the middle... For one standing outside, at the boundary of the *sīmā*, it is *nissaggiya*. Therefore, it is our view that the arising of these seven-cubit and water-throwing *sīmās* is to be understood as dependent on the aforementioned *sīmā*, and their destruction by its disappearance. It should be taken after investigation. Or another method more suitable than this should be sought. Here, however, in the Pāli, it is said: "in the forest, seven cubits all around," and in the commentary: "in a forest like the Vindhya forest, seven cubits all around." And also, because the seven-cubit *sīmā* is prescribed even in a forest dense with trees and so forth, it should be understood that there is no fault in its connection with trees and so forth, together with its supporting forest *sīmā*. It is already established that for the *cīvara-vippavāsa* (being separated from one's robes), even in a place without a village, dependent on trees, only the open-space boundary is allowed, without the tree boundary. For the purpose of *upacāra*, that is, for the *sīmantarika* (intermediate boundary), more than seven cubits is permissible. Less, however, is not permissible, because the demarcation of seven cubits is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, a monk standing outside, without the Saṅgha, should stand very far away, having passed beyond another seven-cubit boundary; otherwise, there is a risk of invalidating the act. The same method applies to the water-throwing boundary. Therefore, it will be said: "Less, however, is not permissible" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). And here, this provision for an intermediate boundary is to be seen as established in accordance with the Sutta that allows an intermediate boundary for two consecrated *sīmās*. Although the Blessed One, as a basis, allowed an intermediate boundary for two consecrated *sīmās* that are dependent on a single village *sīmā* and are of the same type, in order to avoid the fault of mutual confusion and overlapping, nevertheless, in accordance with that, knowing that mutual confusion and overlapping of two seven-cubit *sīmās* and water-throwing *sīmās* of the same type, dependent on a single forest *sīmā* or river *sīmā* etc., and standing without an intermediate boundary, is also not approved by the Blessed One, the commentators made a provision for an intermediate boundary here as well. Even for *sīmās* of different types, dependent on a single *sīmā*... that, when endowed with these two factors, namely, being of one assembly and being of one kind, a place becomes subject to division without one boundary, not without it, it should be understood. And by the very power of the boundary-setting ordinance, even the connection of trees and so forth among these (boundaries) is not permissible among themselves, like those with a fixed boundary, and this too is shown by way of principle, so it should be taken. “By its very nature” shows that it is an unfixed boundary, like a village boundary. It shows that all Sangha acts are permissible here, meaning they are of one communion and one Uposatha. “By any means whatsoever” means even by an animal such as a pig. But a lake is one that is marked, small or large, dug out by a great flood falling from a high place to a low place. Here, in a small one, there is no need for the water-throwing act, but in the ocean, the act must be done only within the water-throwing boundary, because it is difficult to purify. Again, there, the intention is to show a demarcation of an unfixed boundary established by the monastic convention, in order to prevent the breaking up of the group act, in these three unfixed boundaries such as rivers and so forth, established by common usage.