English
For a boundary does not descend into the middle of the river. But it does descend if there is no river characteristic. And then it is not a river-bank boundary, thus it says ‘the characteristic of a river is as stated in the river sign.’ It might be. But a permanent boat is necessarily obtainable, this is the connection. By ‘not by a boat,’ it shows that even without a boat, the boundary is well-established, and the boat is for the purpose of avoiding an offense. ‘Made of a collection of trees’ means a bridge made by joining many trees together. ‘Made by cutting down a tree’ is a textual variant. ‘Having made the monks standing within all the signs within arm's reach’ is said with reference to the two banks being a single village territory. ‘Mountain-like formations’ is said in reference to a beautiful island that has risen up as one. 165. In the discourse on the collection of boundaries, ‘so’ refers to the community of bhikkhunis. Both These are two boundaries of common residence and non-separation. By "boundary of non-separation" it refers to the great boundary. Mostly, there is non-separation right there. "Even not knowing the non-separation" - this is said with reference to those who do not know the existence or non-existence of the great boundary, and its outer demarcation. Even by those not knowing thus, when a formal act is performed while standing within the boundary, that boundary is indeed abolished. Therefore, it is said: "They will be able to abolish and to bind." "In a place free from doubt" means in a place devoid of a partial boundary. And this is said: even when a great boundary exists, a partial boundary is desired for the ease of performing acts, therefore it is not bound in places of many gatherings like shrine courtyards. Even there, when it is bound, it is indeed well bound, like a great boundary. "But they will not be able to bind" - this is said referring to the binding of a great boundary, because the partial boundary has not been abolished, and because of not knowing its non-existence. But a partial boundary, they will indeed be able to bind in a place free from doubt. "Having made a boundary transgression" means: in the case where a partial boundary exists, having made a transgression of overlapping one boundary with another; and even in the case of non-existence, having made a doubt of transgression by not turning back from the doubt of transgression. "They would make it non-residence" means they would make it unfit for monastic acts. Indeed, formerly it was possible to perform acts in places free from doubt like shrine courtyards; now even that is destroyed - this is the meaning. "It should not be abolished" means it should not be abolished by those not knowing the partial boundary. "Both do not know" means they do not know either the specific location of both, or the existence or non-existence of both of them or of one of them; there is only doubt everywhere. "They will be able neither to abolish nor to bind" - this is said referring to the meaning that even though able to abolish while standing in a place free from doubt, they will not be able to bind a great boundary. "And it is not possible... (etc.)... to perform a formal act" - this is said referring to the formal act of binding a boundary. Therefore, because it is not possible to bind, therefore it should not be abol- is the meaning. Some, however, say: "Even in such monasteries, taking five or six monks, starting from the edge of the monastery, within and without the monastery enclosure, everywhere within a stone's throw, standing continuously in a space the size of a bed, first the avippavāsa boundary, then the samānasaṃvāsaka boundary, by abolishing them, when the boundary is abolished, if there is a partial boundary or a great boundary existing in that monastery, those monks, being in the midst of them in one bed-space, would surely abolish them. Then only the village boundary would remain. Here, knowledge of the boundary or its demarcation is not a factor. But standing within the boundary and making the kammavācā, 'We will abolish them,' is a factor here. In the Aṭṭhakathā, it is said: 'Those who know the partial boundary, even if they do not know the avippavāsa, will be able to abolish and bind it.' Thus, even without knowing the demarcation of the great boundary, abolition is mentioned. And when only the village boundary remains, it is permissible to bind both kinds of boundaries there as one wishes, and to perform upasampadā and other acts." This seems to be correct, and should be examined and accepted, this is the decision given in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.144), however, it is said: "The avippavāsa boundary should not be abolished" refers to the great boundary. "Standing in places free from danger" is said because places like cetiya courtyards are not suitable for a partial boundary. For those binding a partial boundary, they abandon such a place and bind it in another secluded place. "Perhaps they will be able to abolish it" means they will be able to abolish only the avippavāsa boundary, not the partial boundary. "But they will not be able to bind it" means they will not be able to bind it due to ignorance of the partial boundary. "It should not be abolished" means it should not be abolished by those who do not know the partial boundary. 166. Having thus explained the decision on bound boundaries, now the decision on unbound boundaries will be shown. This says, "What then is an un-demarcated boundary?" He says, "How many kinds are there?" "Village boundary, seven-cubit-interval boundary, and water-throwing boundary, these are three kinds." In the Pāli (Mahāva. 147), starting with "monks, with an unapproved boundary," it shows that the village boundary itself is the field for a demarcated boundary, like forests, rivers, etc., for the seven-cubit-interval and water-throwing boundaries. And that village boundary, in a place devoid of a demarcated boundary, itself becomes a common residence. Here, in "that village's village boundary," "of the village" is said referring to the entire village area, including fields, building sites, forests, mountains, etc., both inside and outside the village enclosure, not just the inner houses. Therefore, the meaning to be taken is: the village boundary is connected to that entire village area. Indeed, the village designation, which is recognized by people as a single entity in many land divisions like inner houses and fields, that very thing is also called "village boundary" here, this is the intention. Indeed, the village itself is the village boundary. In the same way, above, forest, river, ocean, natural lake, thus, in those various land regions, the state of being a forest boundary, etc., should be understood for those very forests, etc., which are recognized by people as a single entity. In common usage, however, the term "village boundary," etc., is only appropriate to refer to the limits of villages, etc., not to the entire village area everywhere. But in the Dispensation, those villages, etc., are understood to be spoken of by the term "boundary" as their own limits, by themselves, in the sense of excluding others, so the village itself is the village boundary, the forest itself is the forest boundary, the ocean itself is the ocean boundary. In the Pāli, "or of a market town," this is said to indicate a type of village boundary by way of illustration. Therefore, it says, "a city is also included." "They receive tribute" this is said mostly. But in the land divisions recorded in royal decrees, such as "this village has so many *karīsa* shares," in whichever places like ponds, canals, cemeteries, mountains, etc., they do not collect tribute, that too is a village boundary. Indeed, all land divisions demarcated by kings, etc., except for rivers, salt-born is to be known as the village boundary. Therefore, it is said, "the king, having delimited it, gives it to someone." But if the king joins any area there with another village, that area then attains the status of being included within the village boundary. The same method applies even if natural lakes are destroyed and converted into reservoirs, or filled in and turned into fields. However, those villages that have been abandoned by people afflicted by fear of kings, robbers, and so forth, and remain uninhabited for a long time, but have villages all around them, these too are each a village boundary. For in these, kings collect taxes by having them cultivated by the residents of the surrounding villages, or by recording the cultivated areas by whomever they were cultivated, or they unite them with another village. But those villages that have been abandoned even by kings and are united with a great forest, adjacent to village fields, they attain the status of a non-village forest boundary. The former village boundary is destroyed. However, kings, having established a large village in a certain forest area and settled many thousands of families, delimit the surrounding existing villages as "villages of enjoyment" for the residents there, and give them, but they do not destroy the old name and delimitation. These too are each a village boundary; by this, they do not abandon the former village boundary status. This, and the other, and so forth, is the explanation of the meaning of the Pāli phrase "having the same communion, having one Uposatha" (Mahāvagga 143). For there, that which arose as new, having been altered by the king's will, and the other, the unaltered natural village boundary, just as all Sangha acts are permissible within a consecrated boundary, so too these are like a consecrated boundary, suitable for all acts, having the same communion, having one Uposatha—this is the meaning.