English
Because it is said, 'from villages or from forests,' rivers, oceans, natural lakes, and so on, are also forest. Here, But since rivers and so on are taken as separate boundaries, only the remainder, the forest, should be taken. And there, in whatever area they call 'a forest', this is one forest boundary. Indeed, all Indapura is one forest boundary. Likewise, cities of asuras, yakkhas, and so on. But the celestial abodes of devas and Brahmas, circumscribed by space all around, are each a forest boundary, like island mountains in the middle of the ocean. There, everywhere, within the seven-cubit boundary, or indeed within the forest boundary, the act should be performed. Therefore, here too, since there is no designation of 'forest' for the ground below together with the forest level above, it should be taken as a separate forest boundary. That is why, in the commentary on village, river, etc., boundaries, the method shown for a fixed boundary, "a bhikkhu with psychic power, standing on the ground below, invalidates the act" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), is not shown here, they say. And this showing of the lower limit for these village boundaries and so on seems appropriate, as there is no contradiction with the suttas and so forth. It should be investigated and taken. And if taken thus, the fixed boundary agreed upon for a village boundary extends over the village boundary above, and the forest boundary below to the water's edge, thus its forest boundary also becomes a field. And by the Blessed One, "All rivers, monks, are not boundaries," and so on (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147), rivers, oceans, and natural lakes are said to be not fields for a fixed boundary, but not the forest. Therefore, the forest too should be taken as a field for a fixed boundary. If so, why is it not fixed there? Due to lack of purpose. Because immediately after considering a boundary, a seven-cubit boundary arises. And for that, due to the overlapping and covering by the agreed fixed boundary above, it would be a faulty boundary. But having stayed in a village field, even if a boundary is agreed upon, including a part of a non-village forest, even if well-agreed, it is not invalidated by the seven-cubit boundary prescribed by the Blessed One in a non-village forest. But for those who have entered to perform an act there, and for those performing it outside that, in a pure forest, there are three seven-cubit intervals should be established, otherwise there would be a failure. So it should be understood that establishing a boundary in a forest without a village is entirely meaningless. "On a branch that has entered the river" means on a branch that has touched the riverbed and is standing there, let alone one that has not touched it. The same applies to aerial roots. This shows that even if it is touching a similar river boundary, a connection to the water-throwing boundary through a dissimilar boundary-related branch, etc., is not permissible. It should be understood that this also implies that a connection to a chapter-house boundary through a branch, etc., that is touching a great boundary or a village boundary, is not permissible. "Only in the river" means it excludes being on the bank, which is an upādāna (grasping). This shows that there is no intermingling even if it is established in the river outside the extent of the water-throwing boundary. Therefore, it says, "established on the outer bank," etc. For if there were intermingling when established even in the river outside the water-throwing boundary, that too would have to be rejected, because the fault in the act would be the same, but it is not rejected. Therefore, it should be understood that there is no fault of intermingling with one's own supporting boundary anywhere. "By an obstruction" means by digging in wood, etc., and preventing the water. "By building a dam" means by filling with earth, etc., and building a dam. Both show an obstruction. "Having destroyed the river" elaborates the meaning already stated: "a barrier is built below," meaning a barrier is built by obstructing the river below. "Discarded water" means excess water. "From the place where it flows, having overflowed the river" indicates that it is not permissible in the place where ponds and rivers flow into each other. "Having risen up" means having become vast by breaking the banks, etc. "Monastery boundary" means a fixed boundary. "On a path of no return" means where one cannot go and return on the same day. "It goes by the designation of a forest boundary" refers to a forest boundary without a village, which is established by common usage. "There" means on the islands on the paths where fishermen naturally go. "That place" means the place where pits, etc., have been made, not an unmade one. Ho. Loṇī is the sea water, flowing down like a canal due to the force of its rise. 148. Sambhindantīti (He breaks up) where four bhikkhus cannot sit, from that point onwards, even if it's just a hair's breadth within the boundary, doing so, he breaks up. From the point where it's sufficient for four bhikkhus, up to including the whole, it should be understood as ajjhottharantīti (he overwhelms). Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti (intertwined branches) are the bases of large branches standing intertwined with each other; by this, it shows their closeness to each other. For branches touching branches could be far apart, so to show that the characteristic of breaking up would not be shown unequivocally, the mention of "branches" is made. For thus, making a place insufficient for bhikkhus to sit to be within one's own boundary, when making an old monastery, one breaks up boundary with boundary, and not beyond that, is indeed shown. Baddhā hotīti (it is bound) is said with reference to the boundary of an old monastery. Ambanti (mango tree) at a later time, due to the destruction of the enclosures of the old monastery, for those who do not know, that mango tree is a mark of the old boundary. Making it to be within one's own boundary, praising the rose-apple tree which is on the old monastery boundary, and the space between the mango and rose-apple trees, including that within one's own boundary, they bind it, is the meaning. And here, even if the village mango tree, which is a mark of the old boundary, has intertwined branches with the rose-apple tree within one's own boundary, at the time of binding the boundary, there is no fault, or later no breaking up with the village boundary, or no fault in the act, is said directly, it should be understood. Padesanti (a place) a place sufficient for the Sangha to sit. "Sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā" (excluding the boundary interval) and so on, shows that even a boundary bound without breaking up or overwhelming, by making bound boundaries touch each other without interval, is still not a boundary. Therefore, even a boundary interval of one or two finger-breadths is indeed permissible. But since that is difficult to discern, in the commentaries, four finger-breadths and so on are mentioned, it should be seen. Dvinnaṃ sīmānanti (of two boundaries) of two bound of the boundaries. A mark becomes a boundary: the intention is that since the mark is outside the boundary, there is no fault of confusion at the time of demarcation. And not only does a mark cause confusion, but also any other tree standing in the boundary interval causes it. Therefore, trees and the like growing in a small boundary interval are not permissible. And here, since the fault of confusion is shown everywhere only in the entry of visible trunks, branches, etc., it is established that there is no fault in the entry of invisible roots because they are part of the earth. But if the roots also enter visibly, then it is confusion. Mountains and rocks, even if visible, are part of the earth. But if, at the time of demarcation, one large tree stands touching both boundaries, then the boundary demarcated later should be considered no boundary. "Boundary confusion" means boundary mingling. But what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī, "It causes boundary confusion because when it grows and enters the boundary area, the place where the two boundaries meet becomes difficult to discern," (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.148) is not appropriate, because it is also said that it causes confusion with the village boundary. For there too, when the mark grows, the meeting place of the village boundary and the demarcated boundary becomes difficult to discern. But since it is not said there, and confusion is spoken of only for two demarcated boundaries, it should be understood that the aforementioned related fault is expressed by the word "confusion." But in the Pāli, by way of the cause, even though it is said, "Monks, for whom the boundary is approved later, that act is unrighteous" (Mahāva. 148), referring to the non-boundary status of a later approved boundary, it should be understood that the non-boundary status of two boundaries approved together at one moment by completing the kammavācā, by standing in two village boundaries, or by two Sanghas causing mingling or overlapping, or by not establishing a boundary interval, or by not separating connections like trees and creepers, is also declared. The explanation of the village boundary and so forth is concluded. The explanation of the Uposatha divisions and so forth. 149. They act against the Dhamma. Here, when there are four bhikkhus within one boundary, only the recitation of the Pātimokkha is allowed. With three or two, only the purification Uposatha. But here, because it was not done that way, it is said "against the Dhamma." And because the purification of consent comes only in the Saṅgha, not in a group, nor in an individual, it is said "they act against." But if two Saṅghas, having brought consent to each other within one boundary, perform Saṅgha-kamma separately at the same time, how is that? Some say this is permissible, but that should not be accepted because it is a divisive act.