English
there is a mixture with the natural village. One should not perform Saṅgha-kamma like Uposatha there. The act of combining boundaries and binding boundaries is also appropriate to be performed only in an area suitable for performing Saṅgha-kamma like Uposatha, because those acts are ñatti-dutiya-kamma. Therefore, other teachers do not approve of that action of those teachers. Other teachers, however, say: "When the king gives that demarcated area to someone, saying, 'Let this be a separate village,' and the village headman receives tribute from it, then it becomes a separate village, not before that." Their statement, "fixed by tax in this way," And the statement in the Vinicchayaṭīkā, "a region," and the statement in the Sīmālaṅkāragaṇṭhi, "a region all around, delimited by the collection of taxes from villages etc., is a village boundary," might have been said with reference to these. But in these, it is said, "this much tax for this region," thus, the delimitation of tax is mentioned, not the collection of tribute by the village headman. And in the Commentary, it speaks only of giving, "the king gives to someone," not of receiving, "and the village headman collects tribute." Therefore, other scholars do not accept that statement either. Therefore, the king, lord of the earth, delimits and gives, saying, "Let this region, of so many karīsas, in this village area, be a separate village from the former village." By this much, whether that region has received tribute or not, it should be understood to be a separate village. Thus, having truly known the characteristics of a natural village and the characteristics of a separate village, if one wishes to establish a boundary, and if the natural village boundary is not too extensive and is easy to guard, then, having had that natural village boundary well-guarded and well-cleaned, the acts of boundary-abolition and boundary-declaration should be performed. But if the natural village boundary is too extensive, or if they are town boundaries or city boundaries, and because they are places where many bhikkhus sit and move about, they cannot be cleaned or guarded, in such a case, having well-cleaned and well-guarded the separate village boundary delimited by the kings, lords of the earth, the act of boundary-abolition and boundary-declaration should be performed. But how should the thorough cleaning and thorough guarding be done? Indeed, by one wishing to establish a boundary, having asked the bhikkhus in the surrounding monasteries about the boundary delimitation of each monastery, having established an intermediate boundary for the boundaries of monasteries with established boundaries, and an approach area for the boundaries of monasteries without established boundaries, at a time when wandering bhikkhus are not moving about, if they wish to establish a boundary in one village area, to the bhikkhus in those monasteries that have established boundaries there, [they should say], "We will establish a boundary today. You, in your respective boundar... “Do not go beyond the boundary” should be sent. Where there are monasteries with unbound boundaries, the bhikkhus should be gathered together. The consent of those whose consent is needed should be obtained. When the bhikkhus are thus gathered, and the consent of those whose consent is needed has been obtained, then, in those various paths, and at river-fords, village-gates, and so on, for the quick bringing within reach and for the exclusion from the boundary of incoming bhikkhus, having stationed monastery attendants and novices, and having made a drum signal or a conch signal, the boundary should be removed. Now, this purification and protection was stated in the commentary at the time of the boundary designation. So why is it stated here regarding the removal of the boundary? It should be understood that this act of boundary removal is also a ñatti-dutiya kamma (motion-seconded act), and it is stated to ensure the completeness of the assembly. Even so, regarding this act of boundary removal, if there is an old designated boundary, even if other bhikkhus have entered the village boundary, while eight bhikkhus are within reach, there is no break in the act. If there is no old designated boundary, even then, since it is merely a village boundary, even if the act of boundary removal is not accomplished, there is no fault. So why is purification stated? It is true, nevertheless, the old boundary should be removed because its limits are difficult to ascertain. For if, when the Sangha is gathered to remove the boundary in one part of a large old designated boundary, and a bhikkhu enters another part of that same boundary, even unknowingly, the act fails. Therefore, it should be purified with great effort. Thus, the purification of the village boundary is a cause for the completeness of the assembly, as it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “Those who are fit for the completeness of the assembly are those bhikkhus who, having gathered with four bhikkhus at the outermost limit, without entering a designated boundary or a river, sea, or natural lake within that village area, are all brought within reach or their consent is obtained, and thus the boundary is designated.” This should be understood. then, in order to be free from the two faults of invalidity, which are stated as: "valid by overlapping boundary with boundary," and "valid by encroaching boundary upon boundary," the act of abolishing the boundary must be performed. How can these two faults arise if the boundary is not abolished, and even if the village boundary has been purified? If an old established boundary exists, and they, not knowing of its existence, establish a new boundary. Indeed, by including a mark of the old boundary, and making another mark near it, within the old boundary, they would establish a new boundary. This is called "valid by overlapping boundary with boundary." Therefore, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidāṇavaṇṇanā): "Valid by overlapping boundary with boundary" means valid by one's own boundary overlapping another's boundary. For example, if to the east of an old monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, whose branches are intertwined, and the rose-apple is to the west of the mango. And the monastery boundary was established by including the rose-apple and excluding the mango. Then later, bhikkhus establishing a boundary for a monastery built to the east of that monastery, establish it by including the mango and excluding the rose-apple. This is called "boundary overlapping boundary." And if they establish a new boundary by including a part of the old boundary or the entire old boundary, this is called "valid by encroaching boundary upon boundary." This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidāṇavaṇṇanā): "Valid by encroaching boundary upon boundary" means valid by one's own boundary encroaching upon another's boundary. For example, if they establish their own boundary by including the entire established boundary of others or a part of it, this is called "boundary encroached upon boundary." In a place where four bhikkhus cannot sit and perform an act, from that point onwards, even if it is only a hair's breadth, others Making a part of an old established boundary area within one's own boundary, is called 'breaking the boundary with a boundary'. Starting from a place sufficient for four bhikkhus to sit, up to the entire old established boundary area of others, making it within one's own boundary, is called 'overlapping the boundary with a boundary'. This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Līnatthapakāsanī: "By 'its area' is meant a part of it, where four bhikkhus can stand and perform an act, such a part is meant. But where standing, an act cannot be performed, making such an area within (one's own boundary) is called 'breaking the boundary with a boundary', but it should be understood that it is not called 'overlapping'." And in the Vimativinodanī it is said: "Where four bhikkhus cannot sit, from that much, even up to a hair's breadth, making it within one's own boundary, they 'break the boundary'. And from a place sufficient for four bhikkhus, up to the entire (area), making it within (one's own boundary), they 'overlap the boundary' — this should be understood." Let it be so. In that village boundary area, if an old boundary exists, the act of boundary removal is meaningful for avoiding the two faults. To remove the doubt: "How would it be meaningful if it does not exist?" If the act of boundary removal is not done, and a new boundary is established, doubt would arise. From the time the Buddha was alive, until today, bhikkhus, exceeding count, establish boundaries in various places for performing acts like ordination. It is not possible to know whether that boundary is here or not here. Therefore, the doubt would arise: "Might there be an old boundary in our boundary-establishing place?" If this is the case, that new boundary also becomes questionable. And the acts like ordination performed within that boundary also become questionable. Therefore, for the removal of doubt, by those excellent ascetics who wish to establish a new boundary, certainly... the act of revoking a boundary should be done. When revoking, ‘‘Monks, one who revokes a boundary should first revoke the non-separation from the three robes, afterwards the boundary should be revoked,’’ according to this saying, first the non-separation boundary should be revoked, then the common residence boundary should be revoked. And at the time of that revocation, ‘‘Standing in a minor boundary, the non-separation boundary should not be revoked. Likewise, standing in the non-separation boundary, the minor boundary should not be revoked. But standing in a minor boundary, only the minor boundary should be revoked. Likewise, standing in the other, the other should be revoked,’’