English
should not be appointed by those sitting in a partial boundary after going to a partial boundary. It should be appointed right in the middle of the monastery by means of a *kammavācā* or by announcement, in the manner of 'May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint such and such a monastery as a storehouse.'" Thus, the precinct boundary... that it is proper to appoint by a motion of declaration with a second. They should be told thus: Even if you, venerable sirs, thinking that the phrases "within the monastery" and "in the middle of the monastery" found in the commentaries were said with reference to an Upacāra boundary, spoke thus, those phrases were not said by the commentary teachers with reference to an Upacāra boundary, but rather with reference to a Mahā boundary, which is called an Avipavāsa boundary. How is this understood? Because it will be spoken of in relation to a Khaṇḍa boundary. For a Khaṇḍa boundary is indeed the counterpart of a Mahā boundary. If it is asked how this meaning of Upacāra boundary is to be known, it is to be known by the commentary passage (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138) which states: "However, for those who are appointing this boundary of common residence, a Khaṇḍa boundary should first be appointed for the ease of Sangha acts such as ordination and higher ordination…pe… When boundaries are thus established, bhikkhus residing in a Khaṇḍa boundary do not disturb those performing acts in a Mahā boundary, nor do those residing in a Mahā boundary disturb those performing acts in a Khaṇḍa boundary. But those residing in the space between boundaries do not disturb either." Or else, this meaning is understood by the passage on the appointment of a storehouse brought by those venerable sirs. How? The appointments of individuals such as robe-receivers may be made within the monastery, even in the midst of the entire Sangha, or in a Khaṇḍa boundary. But the appointment of a monastery, which is called a storehouse, is only in the middle of the monastery, as stated in the commentary. There, a special reason should be sought. There, such a special reason is understood: it was said to avoid the fault of saying "the ground of one boundary is the motion of declaration of another." For individual appointments, since they concern an individual, if they wish to perform them within the monastery, which is a Mahā boundary, they should place that individual, who is the ground, within arm's reach in the midst of the entire Sangha and perform them. If they wish to perform them in a Khaṇḍa boundary, they should bring that individual, who is the ground, to the Khaṇḍa boundary and perform them with the Sangha qualified to act, assembled there. They should make it with eight boundaries. In either way, there is no fault as stated. But the storehouse appointment, because the storehouse is part of the monastery, cannot be brought into a partial boundary. Therefore, if they were to make that appointment standing within a partial boundary, the basis would be in the great boundary, and the formal act in the partial boundary, thus there would be the fault as stated. And when that fault exists, due to the failure of the basis, the act fails. Therefore, that appointment must be made only within the monastery which is the great boundary itself – this is the opinion of the Commentarial masters. A declaration-second act should not be performed within a conventional boundary. Now, if they were to say thus: "By the word 'monastery' is meant only the great boundary, which is the non-separation boundary, not a conventional boundary" – how is this statement to be believed? By this very commentarial statement. For if a conventional boundary were meant, a conventional boundary, even without encompassing a fixed boundary, operates, and when dwellings or monks increase, it increases indefinitely. Therefore, because it operates without encompassing a partial boundary, the partial boundary with the monastery is just one boundary. If this were the case, it would be possible to appoint the storehouse situated in the monastery by standing within a partial boundary. But it is not possible, because it is forbidden in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343) with the statement: "It is not proper to appoint by those seated within a partial boundary." By this, it is known: "In this context, by the word 'monastery' is meant the great boundary, which is the non-separation boundary, not a conventional boundary." How is it to be known that a conventional boundary increases indefinitely? "A conventional boundary is delimited by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery, and by a place worthy of enclosure for an unenclosed one. Moreover, a conventional boundary should be understood as within two clod-throws of a man of medium strength, from the place of constant assembly of monks, or from the refectory situated at the edge, or from the regularly inhabited dwelling. But it increases when dwellings increase, and decreases when they decrease. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, [it is said]: 'Even when monks increase...'" It is said to be half. Therefore, if the bhikkhus assembled in the monastery become united and sit filling even a hundred yojanas, even a hundred yojanas becomes the precinct boundary, and the gain accrues to all, according to the statement in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379). If so, why is the spreading of the Kathina said to be in the precinct boundary? The spreading of the Kathina is not a Sangha-act, it is an individual act. Therefore, it must be done in the precinct boundary, which is the field for the Rains-retreat. But the motion and declaration is a Sangha-act, therefore, it is not proper to do it in the precinct boundary. It should be understood that it is proper only in a well-purified assembly within a bound or unbound boundary. But, sirs, "Who are allowed to spread the Kathina, and who are not? By way of counting, at the lowest limit, five persons are allowed, even up to a hundred thousand, but below five, they are not allowed," so it is said in the Commentary. Then why is it said, "The spreading of the Kathina is not a Sangha-act, it is an individual act"? Because it is said in the Parivāra (Pari. 414), "The Sangha does not spread the Kathina, the group does not spread the Kathina, an individual spreads the Kathina," and because it is excluded from the four Sangha-acts like the declaration-act. However, in the Commentary, it is said with reference to the time of reciting the Kathina-giving kammavācā, which is preparatory to the spreading of the Kathina. At that time, there are four givers of the Kathina and one recipient, so at the lowest limit, there are five. Below that, it is not allowed. How is the Sangha-act nature of the motion and declaration to be known? Because it is stated, "Kathina-giving is in nine instances of the motion-second act among the four Sangha-acts," and because it is said with "May the Sangha, sirs, listen to me, this Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha," and so on. But other teachers say, "The Kathina-giving kammavācā, called ñatti in other languages, enters into the act of spreading, and the act of spreading must be done in the precinct boundary." , therefore, they say that the formal declaration of the kathina offering should also be done within the precinct boundary. Their intention is this: in the Mahāvagga Pāḷi (Mahāva. 306), starting with "And thus, bhikkhus, the kathina should be spread," and then "A competent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha...pe... Thus, bhikkhus, the kathina is spread," the text from the formal declaration of the kathina offering up to the approval is given. And in the Parivāra Pāḷi (Pari. 412), in the explanation of the heading "The spreading of the kathina should be known," raising the question "If a kathina robe has arisen for the Saṅgha, how should the Saṅgha proceed? How should the spreader proceed? How should the approver proceed?" it is stated, "It should be given by the Saṅgha, by a ñatti-dutiya kamma, to the bhikkhu who is to spread the kathina...pe... We approve," the text from the formal declaration up to the approval is given. Therefore, all the procedure from the formal declaration up to the approval enters into the act of spreading the kathina. Since the act of spreading the kathina must be done within the precinct boundary, the formal declaration of the kathina offering, which is the ñatti, must also be done within the precinct boundary. In this regard, the following consideration should be made: if the act of spreading had not been mentioned separately, it would be appropriate to say, "All the procedure enters into the act of spreading." However, in both the Mahāvagga Pāḷi and the Parivāra Pāḷi, the act of spreading is mentioned separately. Therefore, the formal declaration of the kathina offering, which is the ñatti, does not enter into the act of spreading. It is merely stated in sequence from that point onwards because it is preparatory to the act of spreading. Just as, having permitted, "I allow, bhikkhus, to consecrate a boundary," and showing the procedure for consecrating a boundary, "And thus, bhikkhus, it should be consecrated," it is taught, "First, the marks should be recited...pe... Thus I hold this," the formal declaration for consecrating a boundary is taught along with the recitation of the marks. There, the recitation of the marks is the act of consecrating a boundary. It is not. The formal act alone is the boundary-defining act. Nevertheless, because the formal act of defining a boundary is a proximate cause, the formal act of defining a boundary is taught together with the declaration of the marks. Just as, when teaching the procedure for the act of ordination, the act of ordination is taught together with making one accept a preceptor first, saying "First, a preceptor must be taken... ...I hold this thus." Therein, making one accept a preceptor and so on