English
is also prohibited. "From there" means from that branch. Regarding "the ground level of the great boundary," it should be understood that since the established boundary itself is taken, without taking even a closer village boundary, there is no fault of intermingling even in the connection of trees, etc., between village boundaries and established boundaries, because they exist in a relationship of support and supported. For if there were a fault of connection even for them, how could an established boundary be consecrated within a village boundary? For if there were a fault in the connection of any boundary with any other boundary, it would not be proper to establish it there, just like an established boundary within established boundaries and water-casting boundaries, and just like a water-casting boundary in village boundaries, etc., which are not its support. Therefore, it is shown that the fault of connection is only with village boundaries, etc., which are not the support of a water-casting boundary, as in "if, however, a branch of a tree or an aerial root that has emerged from the wind is established on the bank of an outer river, or in a monastery boundary, or in a village boundary," etc., not with a river boundary. It should be understood that it is the same here. This meaning will become clear later. "Touching" means coming into contact with. "Or having purified the great boundary" means having purified the entire great boundary by bringing all the bhikkhus within the great boundary within arm's reach, by obtaining their consent, etc. By this, having removed all defects, even for two established boundaries that were well-established before, due to a later connection with trees, etc. It shows that such a fault of connection, being outside the Pāḷi, arises from its origin. And that, by rejecting the overlapping of boundaries of bound boundaries with each other, with the words, "Monks, a boundary should not be joined with a boundary," and so on, and by allowing the binding of two bound boundaries by placing an intermediate boundary between them, with the words, "I allow, monks, when consecrating a boundary, to consecrate the boundary by placing an intermediate boundary," (Mahāvagga 148) it is established that even the binding of those boundaries by touching each other, as in the case of overlapping, is not permissible. Therefore, even after they are bound, their standing later by touching each other with a tree or the like is not permissible. This has been determined by the compilers of the Councils, who understood the Buddha's intention, because it is an improper conformity to the fault of connection that was prohibited at the time of binding. However, this fault of connection, having arisen later in boundaries that were well-bound before, cannot make them non-boundaries as if at the moment of binding. Therefore, when the connection with a tree or the like is merely removed, those boundaries become normal. And just as this is not permissible later, so too, at the moment of binding, if there is a connection of those boundaries with a tree or the like, it should be understood that it is not permissible to bind them. Some, however, in the phrase "or by purifying a great boundary," say, "Here, purification means that the monks in the great boundary do not touch that branch or aerial root with their bodies or things attached to their bodies; it does not mean the purification of the entire boundary." That is not appropriate because it contradicts the commentaries. Thus, it is stated that the standing of branches and aerial roots touching the great boundary, such as "the surface of the earth of the great boundary or trees and the like growing there," is the cause of the fault of connection, not the touching of branches and the like by monks standing there. For if the standing of monks touching a branch or the like were the cause, then the touching by a monk would be stated as, "a certain monk standing there touches its branch or an aerial root that has sprung from it and entered the great boundary." Thus it should be said. For whatever is the reason for clearing the great boundary, that same should be shown as primary in that statement. For a bhikkhu standing touching a branch, etc., that is close by, is not to be cleared only because a bhikkhu standing touching a branch, etc., in the air, must also be cleared. Why the useless mention of standing close by? For touching a bhikkhu on branches in the air is stated as the reason, and clearing is stated as bringing that bhikkhu within arm's reach, etc. But here, by the statement "having cleared the great boundary," clearing is stated as common to the entire boundary. Moreover, if it were intended to clear only a bhikkhu standing touching a branch, etc., then the specific mention "the ground surface of the great boundary" would be useless, since one standing anywhere, even in the air, touching a branch, etc., must be cleared. "Having cut, they should be made outside," from this statement of disjoining the state of being established there, it should be understood that this one defect of connection, established by the commentaries, exists due to the mere touching of dissimilar boundaries, causing the clearing of the entire boundary. Therefore, even in the account of the water-throwing boundary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147), "established in a monastery boundary or a village boundary," and "but it is not permissible to tie to a boat that is tied to a stump cut on the river bank," and "but if a bridge or bridge supports are established on the outer bank, it is not permissible to perform the act," thus, in dissimilar village boundaries, the mere touching of branches, etc., is stated as the cause of the defect of mixture, not the touching of a bhikkhu. For thus, "the act should be performed by tying to trees grown in the middle of the river," tying a boat in the river is permitted, because the river boundary is similar, being dependent on water-throwing. For if the defect of connection were stated everywhere due to the mere touching of bhikkhus, then tying in the river should also be prohibited. For even there, the touching of a bhikkhu would be a cause of spoiling the act. Therefore, having entered similar boundaries, and having touched the ground, etc., having touched a branch, etc., if he is standing on it, the bhikkhu must be purified by touching that branch, etc. But in dissimilar boundaries, if he is standing having touched a branch, etc., even without touching that branch, etc., all bhikkhus must be purified. But if he is standing without touching, the bhikkhus must be purified only by touching that branch, etc. This conclusion should be reached here. As to what some here say: "Just as two consecrated boundaries are mutually connected, so too, if there is a connection of trees, etc., between a consecrated boundary and a village boundary, and also between all other boundaries of common residence, then both should be purified as if they were one boundary, and the act should be performed in one place. Otherwise, the act performed will fail. There is no distinction here of similar and dissimilar." That is merely their opinion. For the absence of a fault of connection between similar boundaries, and its presence only in dissimilar boundaries, is established by the Suttas and the Vinaya methods that follow the Suttas. Thus, "I allow, O bhikkhus, to consecrate a boundary" (Mahāvagga 138) means that it is allowed to consecrate a boundary only within a village boundary. Therefore, they are similar by way of dependence and dependent. And the absence of faults of mingling and overlapping is established by the Sutta itself. And as for a connection of trees, etc., that arises later, it is also permissible for them, in accordance with the connection that was allowed at the time of consecration. "Whatever, O bhikkhus... ...is suitable, and rejects what is unsuitable, that is permissible for you" (Mahāvagga 305). Since this is stated, thus far, the similarity between village and consecrated boundaries, and the absence of faults of mingling, etc., is established by the Suttas and what follows the Suttas. By this same method, the similarity between forest boundaries and boundaries within seven cubits, and between river boundaries, etc., and water-casting boundaries, and the absence of faults of mingling, etc., is established by the Suttas and what follows the Suttas. This should be understood. However, from the establishment of prohibition against consecrating a consecrated boundary with another consecrated boundary or with river boundaries, etc., and from the power of the Sutta that prescribes that water-casting boundaries and boundaries within seven cubits are to be made only in rivers, etc., the prohibition of making them in consecrated boundaries and village boundaries is established. And their mutual similarity, at the moment of origin and afterwards, and the possibility of faults like intermingling with trees, etc., are established in accordance with the suttas, in the manner stated. Therefore, in the commentaries, having shown the fault of connection for dissimilar boundaries only, with words like 'banyan tree', etc., the fault of connection for similar boundaries, such as consecrated boundaries and village boundaries, was not shown. And not only was it not shown, but also the absence of fault, even in the connection of those similar boundaries with trees, etc., was indeed made known in the Pāli and commentaries. For thus, in the Pāli (Mahāvagga 138), growing marks like "mountain mark, rock mark, forest mark, tree mark" were permitted. By that, the absence of the fault of intermingling for consecrated boundaries and village boundaries when these tree-like marks grow is indeed made known. However, such a connection is not permissible for two consecrated boundaries. For it has been said: "Even one tree can be a mark for two boundaries,