English
Generally, when it is said "like a consecrated boundary," people might consider only the boundary for not being separated from the three robes as a consecrated boundary. Therefore, to show that the similarity also exists for the boundary within seven cubits above, by way of refuting that similarity, the phrase "only" and so forth was stated here to show the relevance of that method. In a forest like the Vindhya forest, where there is no village designation such as "this field belongs to such and such a village," where where they neither plough nor sow, in such a wilderness. Fishing grounds, uninhabited places, islands in the ocean, are also included here. For whatever land is unsuitable for cultivation, a region devoid of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all that is to be known as a wilderness boundary. And that, without a seven-cubit boundary, is itself a common residence, like a bound boundary; just as in riverine and other boundaries, all Sangha acts may be performed here. The boundary status of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes is established by what is said in the commentaries, "they are like bound boundaries by their very nature." But how is the boundary status of a wilderness? By the power of the Sutta authorizing the seven-cubit boundary. Just as many bound boundaries are allowed in a village boundary to prevent schismatic acts, and boundary intervals are allowed between two of them to prevent their intermingling, so here in the wilderness too, there is a seven-cubit boundary. And by the power of the provision in the Pāli commentaries for a boundary interval even between two of these, the boundary status of the wilderness, like that of rivers and so forth, is established by its very nature, precisely because the seven-cubit boundary is allowed there to prevent schismatic acts. For it is within the boundary itself that those within the boundary perform schismatic acts, not outside the boundary, like those standing in the air performing acts in the air. Thus, taking this power, it is to be understood that the boundary status of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, which are prohibited as bound boundaries — "All rivers, monks, are not boundaries" (Mahāva. 147) — is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) to be by their very nature. "From his standing place" means from the standing place of that monk. Even if a thousand monks are standing, the seven-cubit boundary that arises by itself from the outer edge of his standing place, when the need for a boundary arises to prevent schismatic acts among the monks, is a common residence — this is the intention. But where, in a small wilderness, it is filled with many monks, Because there is no doubt about a group act, there is no need for a seven-cubit inner boundary; there, a seven-cubit inner boundary does not arise. Only in a pure forest boundary, there, the Sangha should perform the act. The same method applies to rivers and so on. For it is said, "If the river is not too long, from its source to its mouth, the Sangha sits everywhere, there is no act in a water-throwing boundary" and so on (Vin. Sangha. Aṭṭha. 167). And by this very statement, it should be understood that to avoid a group act, only when there is a need for a boundary, do water-throwing and seven-cubit inner boundaries arise, not when there is no need. Some, however, say, "A boundary arises only by measuring and defining the inner space all around, not by itself." That should not be accepted. For if a boundary were to arise by the method of defining the inner space, then there would be no unestablished boundary, since the bhikkhus' actions would be accomplished. Moreover, because there are many kinds of carpenters' cubits and ordinary cubits in the world, and because it is not stated in the Vinaya, "a cubit of such and such a measure," there would be doubt about the validity of the boundary, "was it measured by any cubit allowed by the Blessed One, or not?" And because those who measure would be unable to measure without even a tiny bit of less or more, there would be an invalidity. And this boundary, increasing by the assembly, increases or decreases by their measuring. And when the Sangha has performed the act and departed, does this boundary, arisen by the bhikkhus' use, cease by their use or not? How could it not remain like an established boundary until the disappearance of the Dispensation? And for its permanence, as in ancient monasteries, there would be no doubt of confusion for a boundary made separately in the entire forest. Therefore, it should be understood that it arises only by the need for a boundary, and ceases with its cessation. As it is here, so it is in a water-throwing boundary and in rivers and so on. For there too, a middle-sized man is not known, nor is throwing with full strength. And in both cases, in which direction the seven-cubit inner space, the water-throwing... or if that space is not sufficient, how could there be measuring, or throwing there? If a boundary, by entering village fields etc., enters a non-field, how could that boundary not fail? But where a boundary can arise by expectation, there, boundaries of seven cubits and a water-throw arise of themselves, complete. But where it cannot arise, there they arise only by the measure of their own field, not outside. And what is the showing here of the measure of inner measuring and the act of throwing sand etc., that is done to define the standing place of self-arisen boundaries, like the showing of the method of throwing clods and winnowing baskets etc., for knowing village and house precincts. Therefore, in the Mātikā Commentary (Kankha. Comm. on the 19-year training rule), it is said: "One either consecrates a boundary, or defines a water-throw." Even when this is done, because it is impossible to know the exactness of that definition, those remaining within should know it broadly and stand in a place free from doubt, and those doing something outside should be sent to a place far away, free from doubt. Others, however, say: "There is no need for a boundary by expectation, when even a single bhikkhu, for purposes like walking on a path or bathing, enters a forest or rivers etc., surrounding him, a boundary of seven cubits and a water-throw arises of itself, like the light of a lamp." When he merely enters village fields etc., it disappears. Therefore, here, for two Sanghas performing separate acts, it is permitted to place an intervening boundary, another seven cubits and a water-throw, between the two boundaries. For indeed, a boundary arisen around a bhikkhu sent for some act at the edge of a boundary, might touch the boundary of others and cause a boundary-breach, so that it may not happen, otherwise, an intervening boundary of merely four finger-breadths of a hand would be permitted here. Moreover, this is also accomplished from the statement that the act is spoiled for one standing in the intervening boundary in both places, and by the boundary that arises of itself surrounding him, for both of the boundaries, or by the mixing of a single one. Otherwise, the statement of the spoiling of his act would not be fitting. For it is said in the commentary on the Mātikā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā): ‘Even one who stands outside the boundary, having left the arm's reach within the defined area, and even one who stands without having crossed another defined area of the same size outside the boundary, spoils the act.’ Moreover, for a bhikkhu who is staying in a village-less forest, even without the intention to perform an act, the Buddha permitted the absence of the robe in an open space defined by seven cubits. And that defined area is a boundary, thus arising without expectation. Therefore, it is said here: ‘This boundary also obtains the exemption for the absence of the robe’ (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 147). Therefore, they say, ‘the arising should be understood in the manner stated, even without the intention to perform an act.’ That is not fitting, because of the possibility of the fault of mixing many boundaries that arise individually around the bhikkhus who are present there when the Sangha or a group performs an act, due to the possibility of individual boundaries for all persons, like the light of a lamp. And its increase and decrease can occur according to the assembly; there would be the arising of new boundaries for those who come later, and the destruction of the surrounding boundaries for those who have left. However, in Pāli (Mahāva. 147), only one seven-cubit area and water-casting area are permitted, with phrases like: “Around, seven cubits, this is a common dwelling there.” And this boundary does not arise by its nature, or by the power of a cause, like the light of a lamp, but only by the Buddha's permission. And the Buddha permitted these for the ease of performing acts for bhikkhus, by avoiding the spoiling of group acts. So how can there be the arising of such boundaries all around, even for those who have entered for bathing and other duties, since there is no purpose? And if there is a purpose, it is only one purpose, so how can there be the arising of many boundaries according to the number of bhikkhus? For it is said: “Those who stand without leaving the arm's reach of one boundary” (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā). But what about two boundaries And in between, the statement about establishing an intermediate boundary by that very demarcation, and the statement about invalidating acts for those standing there, that too was said to avert from afar the doubt of boundary confusion and the doubt of invalidation of acts, due to the difficulty in understanding the demarcation of these boundaries. And that seven-cubit boundary shown by the Blessed One in the open air for the purpose of not being separated from the robe, that is not a sīmā itself. It is just one boundary here, like the boundary of a field or a pond. And there, when many monks are standing together,