English
is made clear. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.148) it is said: "By 'intermingled branches' the closeness of one to another is shown. 'It is bound' is said referring to the boundary in the western direction. 'Its area' is an area where monks can perform an act by standing there. But those who bind by including an area where they cannot perform an act by standing there are said to 'confuse boundary with boundary'. 'It becomes a mark of two boundaries' is said because the mark is outside the boundary, so there is no boundary confusion. 'It makes a boundary mixture' is said because when it has grown and entered the boundary area, the location of the two boundaries becomes difficult to discern, and it is not meant to show that it is not permissible to perform an act there. For the boundary does not become a non-boundary by that much; rather, two boundaries are overlapped and bound together by a tree that has grown later. Therefore, those who perform an act while standing in one place should purify the other and perform it." Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The Ornament of Boundary Determination Discourse is the twenty-fourth chapter. Discourse on the Determination of Boundary Binding Having thus explained the determination of boundaries, and since the discourse on boundaries in the Pāli text is included in the Uposatha Khandhaka, and immediately after the Uposatha Khandhaka comes the Pavāraṇā Khandhaka, even though it was intended to explain the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā from the determination of boundaries in that sequence, for the sake of the growth of the Dispensation, the binding of the boundary, which is the place for performing Vinaya acts such as Upasampadā, For the generation of wisdom, mindfulness, and energy in monks who are modest, gentle, learned, and desirous of training, the discourse on the demarcation of boundaries is begun by us. Therein, the boundary, being the place for performing the four kinds of acts such as declaration, is of two kinds: bound and unbound. Even therein, the bound boundary is of three kinds: a broken boundary, a boundary for common residence, and a boundary for non-separation. Likewise, the unbound boundary is also of three kinds: a village boundary, a water-throwing boundary, and a seven-cubit boundary. This was said by the Elder Acariya Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya: "By division into broken, common residence, and non-separation; Thus, the bound is said to be threefold, the unbound is also considered threefold. From a village, by water-throwing, and also by seven cubits; Therein, the demarcation of a village, is called a village boundary." Therein, by one wishing to bind a bound boundary, having avoided these eleven faulty boundaries, namely: too small, too large, with broken marks, with shadow marks, without marks, approved while standing outside the boundary, approved in a river, approved in the ocean, approved in a natural lake, approved by one who joins boundary to boundary, approved by one who overlaps boundary with boundary; having made it endowed with the three perfections, namely: perfection of marks, perfection of the assembly, and perfection of the formal act, it should be bound by connecting the first proclaimed mark with the very last proclaimed mark. This was said by the commentator in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: "Therein, a boundary that has avoided the eleven faulty boundaries, is endowed with the three perfections, and is approved by connecting mark to mark, is called a bound boundary." By this, it is shown that if even one of these eleven faults is present, or if even one of the three perfections is absent, or if it is approved without connecting mark to mark, then it is not a valid boundary. Thus, by a monk wishing to bind a boundary, great effort must be made for the fulfillment of all characteristics. Therefore, at the time of binding the boundary, among the three perfections, the perfection of the assembly... For success, first, the village boundary should be examined. Here it is asked: "Should not a consecrated boundary be established? Then why should the village boundary be examined?" Because a consecrated boundary is to be established while standing within the village boundary. For this was said by the Blessed One: "Bhikkhus, when a boundary is not approved, not established, whatever village or town one dwells relying upon, that village's village boundary, or that town's town boundary, this is where there is common residence, one Uposatha." (Mahāva. 147) Although not explicitly stated in the Pāli here, in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147) it is said that "by the mention of 'village' here, 'city' is also included." Therefore, the city boundary is also included. Thus, in an unconsecrated monastery, where bhikkhus dwell relying on a certain village, the boundary of that village is called the village boundary. Where they dwell relying on a certain town, the boundary of that town is called the town boundary. Where they dwell relying on a certain city, the boundary of that city is called the city boundary. All of these are called village boundaries. For those bhikkhus, these are suitable for performing Sangha acts like Uposatha together, as if they were a consecrated boundary of common residence and one Uposatha. And it is said that one should establish a boundary only in such a place, not in a place unsuitable for Sangha acts like Uposatha. There, by the commentary's statement: "In whatever area the village chiefs of that particular village receive taxes, whether that area be small or large, it is reckoned as the village boundary." Thus, the place where the village chiefs and others receive taxes is the village boundary. And this is said for the most part. Even if they do not receive taxes, in the area recorded in royal decrees, that is still the village boundary of that village. For it is said in the Vimativinodanī: "That 'they receive taxes' is said for the most part. But in the land areas recorded in royal decrees, such as 'this village has so many karīsa-shares,' wherever there are ponds, canals, cemeteries, mountains, etc. where they do not collect taxes, that too is a village boundary. For all land divisions demarcated by kings and so forth, except for rivers, salt marshes, and lakes, are to be known as village boundaries. This is called a natural village boundary. "And also, if a king demarcates a certain area within a single village territory, saying, 'Let this be a separate village,' and gives it to someone, that too becomes a separate village boundary," as stated in the commentary. The area that the king gives, saying, "Let this area, within the natural village territory itself, be a village separate from the natural village, unmixed with the natural village," is called a separate village boundary. Thus, the natural village boundary and the separate village boundary, which arise according to the wishes of kings, are like a consecrated boundary, suitable for all monastic acts. Therefore, those who wish to consecrate a new consecrated boundary must purify either the natural village boundary or the separate village boundary and then perform the act. As it is said in the commentary: "Therefore, that and the other natural village, town, and city boundaries are indeed like consecrated boundaries." And in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: "For there, that new boundary, which has arisen by changing according to the king's wish, and the other, unchanged, natural village boundary, are like a consecrated boundary in that all monastic acts may be performed within it; they are similar in being suitable for all acts, like a consecrated boundary. The intention is that they share a common dwelling and a single Uposatha." However, some teachers, saying, "We wish to consecrate a boundary, therefore, let this much land division be a separate field," consult the king, and when he grants the space, they mentally resolve, "Let this place be a separate village territory." Then, having purified the monks there by bringing them within arm's reach and so forth, they perform the removal of boundaries, the consecration of boundaries, and so forth. This action seems to accord with the commentary's statement, "if a king demarcates a certain area, saying, 'Let this be a separate village,' and gives it to someone," and with the statement in the Vimativinodanī sub-commentary, "that new boundary, which has arisen by changing according to the king's wish." is not seen. How? In the Commentary's statement, "Let this be a separate village," it shows that not only the former village is a village, but also the now demarcated area is a separate village, thus making one village territory into two villages. "The king gives to someone" proclaims the giving to a village headman. But here, it neither makes two villages, nor gives to a village headman; it merely makes a space by temporary residence with the permission of the bhikkhus. Thus, even with the Commentary's statement, it does not seem to fit. Even with the Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā's statement, "having been transformed by the king's wish," it shows that a non-village field becomes a village by being transformed by the king's wish. "And new" shows the characteristic of a separate village, unmixed with the former village, meaning the old village boundary and the new village boundary. But here, the field's becoming a separate village by being transformed by the king's wish, and the characteristic of a separate village by being new, are not seen. Thus, even with the Ṭīkā's statement, it does not seem to fit. And in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, "village demarcation" is said to be "a village area properly demarcated in all directions, 'this much tax for this area,' thus an area fixed by tax," thus a demarcation by revenue is stated, not merely by granting permission. Therefore, due to not having the characteristic of a separate village,