English
In the Pāli, in phrases like “of a middle-sized man,” “water-throwing” (udakukkhepo) is where water is thrown after being scooped up, it is the place where water falls, hence “water-throwings” (udakukkhepā). Here, the meaning by way of word connection is this: from the edge of the assembly all around, up to the water-throwing place where water falls for a middle-sized man, that delimited place, this is another water-throwing boundary of one communion in rivers and so forth. “Within its boundary” means within the boundary delimited by water-throwing. And not only within its boundary, but also outside of it, the statement that “it is not permissible to stay within one water-throwing” means that there is a suspicion of the act being invalidated due to the difficulty of knowing the water-throwing demarcation. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is said: “Even one who stands leaving a hand’s reach within the demarcation, or one who stands outside the demarcation without exceeding another demarcation of the same extent, invalidates the act.” This is all in the Aṭṭhakathā. is a swift establishment. What is extensively explained in the Sāratthadīpanī, saying, "He who stands within its reach, but having abandoned it, disturbs the act," and "by this, from the external boundary, wherever he stands, he does not disturb the act," and rejecting even the statement of the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā, saying, "it is found neither in the Pāli nor in the Aṭṭhakathā," is not good, because here, the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā is consistent and in harmony with the statement of the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā. Thus, having established a boundary interval of only a span and four fingers between the two water-throwing boundaries, it is said, "another water-throwing boundary should be placed at the boundary interval; more than that is certainly permissible, but less is not permissible." By this statement of the Aṭṭhakathā here, when placed less than the water-throwing boundary by way of the boundary interval, the disturbance of the act due to the breaking of the boundary is also stated. And since it is stated in this way, when even one bhikkhu enters there, due to his being within the boundary, the disturbance of the act is stated. And this statement in the Aṭṭhakathā, "less is not permissible," is said to avoid the doubt of boundary breaking even by one who does not easily understand the water-throwing boundary. From the statement that a boundary interval of that much extent is to be made between the seven inner boundaries, the difficulty of understanding their extent, and the doubt of disturbing the act for those standing there, are established. It should be understood that the teachers, to avoid the place of doubt of disturbing the act from afar, establish it by saying it is a place of disturbing the act. This means the boundary. By "swiftly crosses," it shows that it is permissible to do it by revolving within it, without crossing it. Indeed, it is for this purpose that the boundary is marked with sand, etc.; otherwise, there would be doubt of disturbing the act, whether it revolves outside or not. "Another announcement" means the announcement of a mere river boundary. Within the river. ...or on a tree grown, or on a tree standing outside the water-toss boundary. Indeed, the outer river bank is a place where a boundary should not be tied, being a dissimilar boundary. Not the inner river, being similar by dependence. Therefore, by "on the outer river bank, or of the monastery boundary," etc., the bank itself is shown as the place not to tie a boundary, not the river. "By those standing on a tree" refers to a place within the water-toss. For it is not proper for bhikkhus to stand outside the water-toss. "Of the tree" means of that very tree within the water-toss area. "Or having purified the boundary" means having purified the tied boundary in the monastery, as stated, and the village boundary, by moving it outside the reach of bhikkhus standing there. Just as those performing an act in a water-toss boundary, so too those performing an act in a tied boundary or a village boundary, must do so only after purifying the water-toss boundary area. By this, the fault of connection by trees, etc., of the seven inner forest boundaries with the water-toss boundary, and with this (tied boundary), is also shown by implication. In the same way, the fault of connection of the seven inner boundaries with tied boundaries and village boundaries, and of these (tied/village boundaries) with the seven inner boundaries, should be understood. However, in the Commentary, all this can be understood from the stated method, so only the closely related ones are shown here. Here is the method of understanding according to the Suttas: Just as a boundary approved within a tied boundary becomes a faulty boundary, and therefore their mutual connection by trees, etc., is not proper; so too, a tied boundary approved in rivers, etc., becomes a faulty boundary, and therefore its connection by trees, etc., with them is not proper – this is established. In this way, the impropriety of connection by trees, etc., of the seven inner boundaries with villages, rivers, etc., and of the water-toss boundary with forests, etc., should be understood. Thus, these tied boundaries, seven inner boundaries, and water-toss boundaries, authorized by the Blessed One, are mutually dependent boundaries for each other, being devoid of their own dependencies. And if there is a connection with trees etc., it incurs the fault of confusion, thus the method in accordance with the suttas should be known. But for the three kinds of boundaries, such as those tied to their respective villages, etc., the connection with trees etc. is also allowed, in accordance with the permission given by the Blessed One at their origin for the overlapping of confusion. This should be understood. If so, why is an intermediate boundary not prescribed between water-throwing boundaries and tied boundaries, etc.? Because they are naturally distinct due to differences in their basis and nature. Indeed, this meaning has been stated: that an intermediate boundary causes the destruction only for those of a single basis and a single nature. By this very reason, it is established that when the Sangha performs an act within a boundary tied with a river as its mark, it is permissible for others to perform an act within a water-throwing boundary located in the river, extending up to the village territory. But these five boundaries, established by common usage: village, forest, river, sea, and natural lake, do not incur the fault of confusion even with mutual connection to trees etc., because there is no such common usage. For people do not say in the world that villages etc. are confused with other villages etc., or with rivers etc., merely by a connection with trees etc. And for those established by common usage, confusion or non-confusion should be taken from common usage itself, not from anything else. Therefore, in the commentaries, the method of their mutual confusion is not shown anywhere, only that established by the usage of the Dispensation is shown. Here, for a tied boundary, the lower boundary is shown in the commentary in every way, by statements such as: "it becomes a boundary by making the earth-supporting water its limit below" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138). But for village boundaries etc., it is not shown. How is this to be known? Some here say that "village boundaries etc. also stand reaching the earth-supporting water, like tied boundaries." But some, rejecting that, say: "River, sea, and natural lake boundaries, and also water-throwing boundaries dependent on them, stand only on the surface of the earth, and below, in the region covered by water, not below that, in the water's... because there is no spreading out. But if there is a low place, even a yojana in extent, due to a flood of water or the like, it is only the boundaries of rivers and so on, not below that. Therefore, a bhikkhu who has entered below rivers and so on, through a tunnel on the outer bank, or by psychic power, does not disturb the acts of those standing in the river. But he disturbs the acts of bhikkhus in the nearby village. If he is seated between the two villages on the banks, he disturbs the acts of both village areas. But if the bank is not village land, but only a non-village forest. There, on both banks, without a seven-cubit boundary, he disturbs the acts of those performing acts with only a small forest boundary. If they perform acts within a seven-cubit boundary, then if the demarcation of their seven-cubit boundary is beyond this seated place, exceeding one seven-cubit distance, there is no disturbance of the act. If not, there is disturbance of the act. However, in a village boundary, within a tunnel or a hole, where it is possible to enter, or where gold, jewels, etc., are dug up and taken, or where there is a possibility of taking them, that far below is also the village boundary. There, even one who has entered by psychic power disturbs the act. But where there is no possibility of ordinary humans entering, all that, down to the water supporting the earth, is a forest boundary, not a village boundary. The same applies to a forest boundary. For there too, the forest boundary extends only as far as there is a possibility of entry in that area on the upper surface. Below that, it is not a forest boundary, because there is no designation of a single forest with the upper surface. For they do not say that one who has entered there has entered the forest. Therefore, one who is there does not disturb the acts of those in the forest above, just as one standing in a tunnel-river does not disturb those standing in the river above. For in one world-system, excluding what is born in villages, rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all the rest, from the abodes of non-humans to the deva and brahma worlds, is forest.