English
the robe should be placed within the seven-cubit boundary all around, starting from each one's own standing place, not from the edge of the assembly. For if it is taken from the edge of the assembly inwards, the robe placed at the end of seven cubits would be outside the seven cubits for one standing in the middle. Thus, it would be subject to forfeiture at dawn. But a sīmā, it must be taken from the edge of the assembly. The avoidance of robe separation is stated here because of the existence of the open-air boundary, not because it is obtainable up to the sīmā boundary, like the designation of a great sīmā as a non-separation sīmā. Even in a great sīmā, the robe is forfeited in villages and their vicinities. Here too, for one in the middle, it is forfeited at the sīmā's edge. Therefore, it is our view that the origin of those seven-cubit and water-toss boundaries, and their destruction upon departure, should be understood only in relation to the aforementioned sīmā. This should be accepted after investigation. Or another method, more suitable than this, should be sought. Here, however, in the Pāli (Mahāva. 147), it is stated: "in the wilderness, seven cubits all around." And in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147): "in a wilderness like the Vindhya forest, seven cubits all around." Since the seven-cubit boundary is prescribed even in a wilderness dense with trees and the like, there is no fault in its connection with trees and the like, together with the forest boundary which is its support. Much less so in a place dependent on trees in a village-less area, for the avoidance of robe separation, the protection of trees... without it, the removal of the open space is allowed, thus it is established, it should be understood. For the purpose of proximity, that is, for the purpose of a boundary interval. More than seven cubits is permissible, but less is not permissible, because the demarcation of seven cubits is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, without the Saṅgha, even by one bhikkhu standing outside, having passed beyond another seven cubits, one should stand far away. Otherwise, there would be a mixing of the kamma. Even in the case of a water-boundary, this is the same method. For that reason, it will be said, "but less is not permissible" (Vinaya Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 167). And here, this rule for a boundary interval for two consecrated boundaries is established in accordance with the Sutta that permits boundary intervals, it should be understood. Although indeed by the Blessed One, as a primary instance, for two consecrated boundaries which are dependent on one village and are of the same kind, a boundary interval was permitted for the avoidance of the fault of mutual confusion and overlapping; nevertheless, in accordance with that, for two boundaries of seven cubits which are dependent on one forest boundary or a river etc. boundary and are of the same kind, and also for water-throwing boundaries, mutual confusion and overlapping, and standing without an interval, without separation, knowing that this was not approved by the Blessed One, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers made a rule for a boundary interval here too. Indeed, even for dissimilar boundaries, if there is the presence of two factors, namely dependence on one boundary and being of the same kind, then standing without a boundary interval leads to confusion, not otherwise, it should be understood. And by the very power of the rule for a boundary interval, even the connection of these (boundaries) with trees etc., like consecrated boundaries, is not permissible mutually, this too should be taken as shown by the method. 167. "By its very nature" - by this it shows that it is an unconsecrated boundary, like a village boundary. That all Saṅgha-kamma can be performed here, shows that it is a common residence and a single Uposatha. "By whatever" - even by a being like a pig. But by a great flood, falling from a high place to a low place, whether small or large, a marked place is called "jātassara" (a natural pond). Even here, In small waters, there is no need for a water-throwing boundary. But in the ocean, everywhere, the act must be done only within the water-throwing boundary, because it is difficult to purify (otherwise). Again, there, in those three unbound boundaries of rivers and so on, established by common usage, again, to avoid a schismatic act, the intention is to show the demarcation by the unbound boundary established by the Dispensation's usage. In the Pāli (Mahāvagga 147), in phrases like "that which is for a middle-sized man," 'udakukkhepa' means 'where water is thrown up and cast down,' the place where water falls. Therefore, it is 'udakukkhepa.' And here, the meaning according to the connection of words is: starting from the boundary of the assembly, all around, as far as the water-throwing (the place where water falls) of a middle-sized man, that demarcated place, this is another water-throwing boundary for common residence in rivers, etc. "Within that" means within that place demarcated by water-throwing. And not only within that, but also outside of it. The saying, "it is not proper to stand within one water-throwing boundary," (implies that) because the water-throwing demarcation is difficult to ascertain, there is a suspicion of invalidating the act. Therefore, in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā), it is said: "Even if one stands leaving a hand's reach within the demarcation, or stands outside the demarcation, not exceeding another demarcation of the same extent, one invalidates the act. This is the conclusion in all Aṭṭhakathās." As for what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.147): "If one stands leaving a hand's reach within it, one invalidates the act," by this, it is said that "if one stands anywhere outside the demarcation, one does not invalidate the act," and even rejecting the statement of the Mātikaṭṭhakathā, and elaborating much with "it is found neither in the Pāli nor in the Aṭṭhakathā," etc., that is not good, because here, the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā is consistent and reconcilable with the statement of the Mātikaṭṭhakathā in terms of method. For thus, between two water-throwing demarcations, even a span and four fingers... Having not established an intermediate boundary, "Another water-toss should be set for the intermediate boundary. More than that is permissible, but less is not permissible." Thus, by this commentary statement said right here, if less than a water-toss is set in the vicinity of the intermediate boundary, the breaking of the boundary of the sīmā, and thus the invalidation of the act, is indeed stated. And since it is stated thus, then even if one bhikkhu enters there, because of his being within the boundary, the invalidation of the act is indeed stated. And this statement in the commentary, "less is not permissible," was said for avoiding the doubt of boundary-breaking, even by those who find the water-toss measure difficult to know. And from the statement that the establishment of an intermediate boundary between seven inner boundaries is by that very measure, the difficulty of knowing their measure, and the doubt of invalidation of acts for those standing there, arises. It should be understood that teachers, to avoid the place of doubt of invalidation of acts from afar, establish it by saying "place of invalidation of acts." But in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.147): "Aparicchinnāya" means "for an unmeasured (boundary)," that is, one whose measure has not been made in terms of a fixed boundary. "Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akato" means "not dug by anyone," that is, not dug even by an animal. By "one who stands having left the inner arm's reach invalidates the act," it is shown that one who stands anywhere outside that measure does not invalidate the act. But what is said in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidāṇavaṇṇanā): "Even one who stands having left the arm's reach within the boundary, or one who stands outside the boundary without exceeding another such measure, invalidates the act; this is the established conclusion in all commentaries." There, "one who stands without exceeding another such measure also invalidates the act" – this is found neither in the Pāli canon nor in the commentaries. And if this is said in the context of two Sanghas performing separate Uposatha and other acts, then for performing Uposatha and so forth without exceeding another water-toss outside the water-toss... if it were said with this intention: "the Sangha, being established, due to the arising of a boundary-break, invalidates the act," even so it would be fitting. Therefore, in the Līnatthappakāsanī of the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. ṭī. Nidāṇavaṇṇanā) it is said: "another, just so much, they delimit, and even without exceeding the second water-casting, it invalidates. Why? Because one's own water-casting boundary is overlapped by the water-casting boundary of others, there is a boundary-break, therefore it invalidates." And "this is the conclusion in all the commentaries" should be taken as said with this very intention, since a boundary-break is not desired in any of the commentaries. For this very reason it is said: "between one's own and others' water-casting delimitations, another water-casting should be established for the purpose of an intermediate boundary." Others here explain it differently, but that should not be taken. "The Sangha sits everywhere" means it sits without abandoning the arm's reach. "There is no act in a water-casting boundary" means that since the entire river area is overlapped by bhikkhus, therefore, due to the absence of a river all around, there is no purpose for a water-casting. An intermediate boundary of the measure of a water-casting is more easily understood, and there would be no doubt of a boundary-break; for showing what is proper, it is said: "another water-casting should be established