English
for the purpose of an intermediate boundary." However, as much as there is no boundary-break, so much is permissible to establish. Therefore the ancients said: "as much as there is no boundary-break, even so much is permissible to establish." But "less is not permissible" this too, it is said, was stated only to prevent the doubt of a boundary-break, since it would arise due to the expansion of the water-casting boundary by way of the assembly. And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 147) – "the water-casting all around of a middle-sized man" this, however, was said for showing the boundary delimitation at the time of performing acts such as the separate four-group acts for the four-group and other Sanghas on this river, and the delimitation of dwelling and not dwelling without the three robes. Even for a horse's standing place, like showing a demarcation within a seven-cubit boundary, so say the teachers. Therefore, even without a water-tossing boundary, it is established that it is permissible to perform an act within the river. But this is the distinction: If one has come by boat there, by the method stated for a boat. If one has come by caravan, by the method stated for a caravan. If he has resided for more than four months, the non-separation from the three robes should be understood by the method stated for a village. There too, this is the distinction: If the caravan is within the water-tossing boundary, some say the water-tossing boundary is the measure. The teachers say the caravan itself is the measure. If, in the phrase "many bhikkhus" here, etc., some desire to say "determination Uposatha," some "group Uposatha," and some "Sangha Uposatha," it is said "bhikkhus" without saying "many Sanghas." But that which is insufficient is not permissible, because a boundary confusion is possible here, says Thera Upatissa. Indeed, when establishing, what is insufficient should not be established. It is said that "it is permissible even not to establish it at all." That is the boundary. "It quickly crosses over" – by this, it shows that it is permissible to perform the act by remaining within, without crossing it. Indeed, for this purpose, the boundary is demarcated with sand, etc. Otherwise, there would be a doubt about the validity of the act, wondering: "Has it revolved outside, or not?" "Proclamation for another" means a proclamation for the entire river boundary. "On a tree growing within the river" means on a tree standing outside the water-tossing boundary. Indeed, the river bank outside is the place where it should not be bound, due to being a dissimilar boundary. Not the river itself, due to its nature as a support. Therefore, by "on the river bank outside, or in the monastery boundary," etc., the bank itself is shown as the place not to be bound, but not the river. "Even by those standing on a growing tree" – this is said with reference to a place within the water-tossing boundary. For it is not permissible for bhikkhus to stand outside the water-tossing boundary. "Of the tree" means of that very tree within the water-tossing boundary. "Or having purified the boundary" means the monastery boundary and village boundary, as stated, making it outside the reach of the bhikkhus standing there, bringing it beyond their arm's reach. By dwelling, having purified. And just as by those performing acts in a water-casting boundary, so too by those performing acts in a fixed boundary or a village boundary, it must be done only after purifying the water-casting boundary area. By this, with the seven-cubit inner forest boundaries, and with the water-casting boundary, the fault of connection with trees and so on for these is also shown by method. By this same method, with the seven-cubit inner boundary, with fixed boundaries and village boundaries, and the fault of connection of these with the seven-cubit inner boundary should be understood. In the commentary, however, all this can be understood by the method stated, so only the proximity of each other is shown here. Herein, this is the way to grasp the method in accordance with the Sutta: Just as, indeed, a fixed boundary agreed upon within a fixed boundary becomes a faulty boundary, so their mutual connection with trees and so on is not allowed. Similarly, a fixed boundary agreed upon in rivers and so on also becomes a faulty boundary, so its connection with trees and so on with these is not allowed, thus it is established. By this method, the seven-cubit inner boundary with villages, rivers, and so on, and the water-casting boundary with forests and so on, the non-allowance of connection with trees and so on should be understood. Thus, these boundaries allowed by the Blessed One – the fixed boundary, the seven-cubit inner boundary, the water-casting boundary – when there is a connection with trees and so on, both among themselves and with other dependent boundaries devoid of their own dependence, fall into the fault of confusion. This method in accordance with the Sutta must be understood. However, the connection with trees and so on of the three, the fixed boundary and so on, with their respective dependent villages and so on, is also allowed, in accordance with the overlapping of confusion allowed by the Blessed One at the time of their arising. This should be understood. If so, why is an intermediate boundary not prescribed between the water-casting boundary, fixed boundary, and so on? Because they are inherently distinct due to differences in their dependence and nature. Indeed, this meaning is stated: that an intermediate boundary causes destruction only for those of a single dependence and a single nature. By this, for a boundary fixed by making a river its mark, when the Sangha performs an act... Even in a river, up to the boundary of the village field, where the water-throwing limit stands, it is established that it is permissible to perform acts for others. But these five boundaries, of village, forest, river, ocean, and natural lake, established by common usage, even if connected by trees and so on, do not incur the fault of confusion, because there is no such common usage. For people do not say that villages and so on are confused with other villages and so on, or rivers and so on, merely by being connected by trees and so on. And for those established by common usage, confusion or non-confusion should be understood from common usage itself, not otherwise. Therefore, in the commentaries, the method of their confusion with each other is not shown anywhere; only that established by monastic usage is shown. Here, however, for a consecrated boundary, the lower boundary is fully shown in the commentaries, saying, "the boundary extends, making the water that supports the earth below its limit." But for village boundaries and so on, it is not shown. How should this be known? Some here say, "Village boundaries and so on, like consecrated boundaries, stand reaching the water that supports the earth." But some, rejecting that, say, "River, ocean, and natural lake boundaries, and the water-throwing limit dependent on them, stand only on the surface of the earth and in the areas submerged by water below, not below that, because there is no submergence by water below. If, however, due to a flood or similar, there is a depression even a yojana in extent, these are still river boundaries and so on, not below that. Therefore, a bhikkhu who enters below the rivers and so on, through a tunnel outside the bank, or by psychic power, does not invalidate the acts of those standing in the river. But he invalidates the acts of bhikkhus in the nearby village. If he is seated between the two bank villages, he invalidates the acts of both village areas. If the bank is not a village field, it is merely a non-village forest. There, on both banks, without a seven-cubit boundary, he invalidates the act only in the mere small forest boundary. If he acts within a seven-cubit boundary then, if the boundary of their seven cubits is beyond this seated space, having passed one seven-cubit measure, standing, there is no offense. If not, there is an offense. But in a village boundary, having dug inside a tunnel or a hole, or where it is possible to enter, or where it is thought possible to dig up and take gold, jewels, etc., that far down is also a village boundary. There, even one seated inside by psychic power commits an offense. But where there is no possibility for ordinary humans to enter, all that, down to the water supporting the earth, is a forest boundary, not a village boundary. The same rule applies to a forest boundary. For there too, only in the area where entry is possible, does the forest boundary extend on the surface. Below that, it is not a forest boundary, because there is no designation of it as one forest with the surface. For they do not say that what has entered there has entered the forest. Therefore, one who is there does not commit an offense against the upper forest area, just as one standing in an underground river does not affect those standing in the river above. Indeed, in one world system, excluding what is born in villages, rivers, seas, and lakes, all the rest, which is the abode of non-humans, including the deva and brahma realms, is forest. Because it is said, 'from villages or from forests,' rivers, seas, lakes, etc., are also forest. But here, since rivers, etc., are taken as having separate boundaries, only the rest is to be taken as forest. And there, in whatever area they call 'one forest,' that is one forest boundary. For the entire city of Indra is one forest boundary, as are the cities of asuras and yakkhas, etc. But the celestial palaces of devas and brahmas, being surrounded by space on all sides, are each a forest boundary, like mountains and islands in the middle of the ocean. There, in all places, within the seven-cubit boundary, or only within the forest boundary, the action must be performed.