English
but growing, it causes boundary intermingling, therefore it should not be done." And this is also made known from the statement (Mahāvagga 140): "I allow, monks, to consecrate a boundary up to three yojanas." For in the surroundings and edges of a boundary up to three yojanas, due to the inevitable possibility of mutual connection of village boundaries consecrated with trees, creepers, bushes, etc., it was not stated even in the commentaries: "Having destroyed such a connection, a boundary should be consecrated." If there were a failure of ritual here due to connection with trees, etc., it would certainly have to be stated. For indeed, to avoid failure, teachers repeatedly stated what was already established, even in places without doubt, with phrases like "without consecrating the wall." But here, they spoke of consecrating a boundary even in the midst of a dense forest with trees, creepers, etc., with phrases like "They make a monastery in the midst of a forest, the forest should not be consecrated." Similarly, the consecration of boundaries on upper levels, etc., in palaces, etc., built upon pillars, which are connected below by pillars, etc., has been stated in many ways. Therefore, the connection of consecrated boundaries and village boundaries with trees, etc., by those... It is established from the mouth, and also, because the village boundary is like a separately bound boundary, when performing an act within one village boundary, even with a mere blade of grass connecting them, the continuous succession of other villages, forests, rivers, and oceans must be purified. Thus, the entire island must be purified before it can be done. If it is not purified in this way, from the time of the First Great Council onwards, the acts of ordination and the like, and the declarations of boundaries, would be invalid. Thus, the suspicion of all monks being unordained would be unavoidable, and this is not proper. Therefore, as stated, the fault of connection by trees and the like applies only to dissimilar boundaries, not to similar boundaries such as bound boundaries or village boundaries. This should be understood. Because the purification of a great boundary is difficult, Sangha acts are mostly performed within a partial boundary. This is stated by "in the boundary pavilion," and so on. However, in great Sangha gatherings, since a partial boundary is insufficient, even when acts are performed within a great boundary, this method should be adopted. By "having caused to be lifted up," it is shown that even one who touches the boundary with a body part is considered to be within the boundary. In the former method, too, even in the case of branches entering the great boundary from a partial boundary. One sitting on a branch of a tree within the boundary is considered to be within the boundary. This is stated by "he should be brought within arm's reach." And here, some say: "When partial boundaries are connected to each other by tree branches and the like, three monks in a partial boundary and two in a great boundary, thus, in these two boundaries, without touching the space between the boundaries, and without leaving arm's reach, it is permissible for five monks standing there to perform acts of ordination and the like." That is not proper, because of the statement "if the fourth monk standing in a different boundary performs the act, it is not an act that should be done," and so on (Mahāva. 389). Therefore, even here, the performance of the act is prescribed only in the pavilion boundary after purifying the great boundary. Otherwise, due to being in a broken boundary, the one there would not be a quorum member, and the act would be invalid. If so, how is the purification of the great boundary by bringing the purity of consent? Even that is not desired by those who know the Vinaya, because of bringing within arm's reach and outside the boundary. And here, they desire purification by way of performance, because the one in the great boundary, by the non-arrival of the given consent, invalidates the act. If his consent, etc., does not arrive, how will he invalidate the act? Due to the fault of connection between two dissimilar boundaries, and that fault of connection is by the authority of the Aṭṭhakathā's words. Indeed, it should be understood that in the Vinaya, the reason for everything cannot be known, as it is within the range of the Buddha's knowledge. Some, however, say: "If, when bhikkhus are performing an act, filling both boundaries and standing continuously, the assembly, the ordination candidate, and the announcer all stand in one boundary, the act is well-performed. But if the one fit for the act or the announcer is in an intermediate boundary, the act fails." And that applies only to similar boundaries, such as a consecrated boundary or a village boundary. In which there is no fault even in the connection of trees, etc., between them; but in those where there is, it does not apply. When there is a connection of trees, etc., in dissimilar boundaries, one standing in one place certainly invalidates the act of the other place, because purification in general is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā. This is our view; it should be taken after investigation. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138) it is said: "It is not proper to perform by having it lifted up, because the tree is inside the broken boundary, and one standing there must bring it within arm's reach; thus, it is not proper to perform by having it lifted up." However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138) it is said: "It is not proper to perform by having it lifted up. Why? Because it is inside. Indeed, the root of a tree, gone into the earth below, belongs to the broken boundary itself. Others say it is 'not for use'. And it is also said: 'But if it is cut in the middle, the root standing in the great boundary belongs to the great boundary itself, and the root standing in the broken boundary belongs to the broken boundary itself, because it is supported by the earth, etc., dependent on it.' Having said: 'It is proper to perform an act while sitting on a tree that grew after the boundary, like in a house built after the boundary,' it is then said: 'It is not proper to perform an act while sitting on a tree that was there at the time of consecration.' They say the reason is because it does not go above the boundary. This being so, there is no re-ascending at the time of binding; it means that it ascends at the time of binding. A tree that grew later, being connected to it, has gone into the boundary. Thus, it should be understood that a tree that grew earlier is also included. By the phrase "whatever it may be," even grass is included. It is said that the Great Elders would make it only after clearing the grass. "It does not descend" means that it does not descend to a place below the measure in drum-shaped mountains and so on. Although at the moment of binding, it does not ascend to a mountain and so on that is immeasurable above, yet that later becomes a boundary by being within the boundary. But a drum-shaped place below does not go into the boundary, even if the boundary is bound above. It is said "it does not descend" with reference to that very thing, otherwise it would be said "it does not descend" and so on in a general way for descending and ascending. "Whatever has arisen" means whatever exists, has arisen, was there before, arose later, or entered above the completed boundary, whether animate or inanimate, all of it. For a bhikkhu sitting on an elephant's back or other animate beings within the boundary is still within the boundary. "To the bound boundary" this is said by way of indication according to the context. In all unbound boundaries too, whatever is there goes into the boundary. "Gone by one connection" is said with reference to trees, vines, and whatever has grown there. For such a thing is worthy of being called "gone from here." But what about a rope or pole that has fallen across between two bound boundaries or village boundaries, or across rivers where water is scooped, which cannot be said to be "gone from here" or "come from there"? What should be done there? Here, the part resting on the bound boundary is the bound boundary; the part resting on the village boundary is the village boundary, like a mountain and so on that is within both boundaries. And in the aerial roots of a banyan tree that has grown from the bound boundary, and in the aerial roots of a banyan tree that has grown from the village boundary in the village boundary, even if it rests on the bound boundary, this is the case. This is the method. From the time it is established at the root, since it cannot be said ‘it went from here, it came from there,’ that part goes by the designation of a boundary entered as it is. Among those tree shoots, however, some say that the aerial branches form both boundaries by the measure of the boundary division on the ground. But since the shoot of that branch, even after being established by roots in the earth of the entered boundary, cannot stand without the branch, it does not relinquish its status as being within the root boundary. When it can stand, only the shoot itself attains the status of an entered boundary. Therefore, in our opinion, the entire aerial branch part does not relinquish its former boundary status, because the part that came from it has not been relinquished. The same method applies to water-lifting rivers and so on. There, the purification of the entire boundary when entered by a dissimilar boundary, and the purification of only the monks who are touching when entered by a similar boundary, are all in the manner stated before. 164. Here, in the discourse on the river-bank boundary, ‘it crosses over’ means ‘it pervades.’ A boundary established on both banks of a river is called ‘river-pervading,’ thus it says ‘pervading the river.’