English
according to this saying in the commentary, standing in a minor boundary, only the minor boundary should be revoked. Standing in a major boundary, only the major boundary should be revoked. Standing in another boundary, another boundary should not be revoked. In the commentary, the non-separation boundary refers to the major boundary, because mostly one separates from the robes there. ‘‘There, if they know both the minor boundary and the non-separation boundary, they will be able to revoke and establish. But knowing the minor boundary and not knowing the non-separation boundary, they will still be able to revoke and establish. But not knowing the minor boundary, and only knowing the non-separation boundary, standing in places free from doubt like a cetiya courtyard, a bodhi tree courtyard, or an uposatha hall, they might be able to revoke, but they will certainly not be able to establish. If they were to establish, they would cause a boundary confusion and make the monastery a non-monastery. Therefore, it should not be revoked. Those who know neither, for that reason, will not be able to revoke or establish. For this boundary becomes a non-boundary either by a formal act or by the disappearance of the Dispensation. And it is not possible for those who do not know the boundary to perform a formal act. Therefore, it should not be revoked. But having known it well, it should be revoked and established,’’ according to this saying in the commentary, ‘‘Now we will revoke the boundary,’’ within the village boundary thus delimited, The existence or non-existence of minor boundaries and major boundaries, and the limits of those boundaries, they do not know. Monks, thus not knowing, would not be able to abolish those old boundaries. And being unable to abolish an old boundary, how would they be able to establish a new boundary? Relying on the proper method, correctly determined by successive teachers, having made great effort, without diminishing any part, they will be able to abolish the old boundary in a properly arranged manner. How? At the time of that boundary abolition, if undertaken in a normal village boundary, that village limit; if undertaken in a separate village boundary, that separate village limit; having caused a well-arranged protection all around, so that other monks do not enter. Together with a Vinaya-holder, who is capable of reciting the formal act, accomplished and strong, and with co-residents, who are conscientious and scrupulous. Since this act requires a quorum of four, four monks, or taking more monks than that, due to the difficulty of discerning the normal state of the monks present for the act. Standing or sitting, without leaving arm's reach, in every place, in every spot the size of a bed, within the boundary to be established now, within the limits of the monastery, and everywhere outside, all around, within a stone's throw. First, having recited the formal act of abolishing the non-separation boundary, then having recited the formal act of abolishing the co-residence boundary. When the boundary is abolished, even if old boundaries exist, since at least twenty-one monks are required to sit, the monks standing in every spot the size of a bed within the boundary would necessarily be standing within those boundaries. Therefore, being within the boundary, they should abolish those boundaries by reciting the formal act of boundary abolition. Then, because the old established boundaries are abolished, only the village boundary would remain. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): "Some..." But in such monasteries, taking five or six bhikkhus, starting from the edge of the monastery, within and without the monastery boundary, all around, within a stone's throw, in every place, a bed's length, a bed's length, standing continuously in that space, first the avippavāsa boundary, then the samānasaṃvāsa boundary, by way of abolishing them, when the boundaries are uprooted, even if a minor boundary and a major boundary exist in that monastery, necessarily, in one bed-place, those bhikkhus, being in their midst, should abolish them. Then only the village boundary would remain. "Indeed, having known well, they should be abolished and established," by this statement in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), only those knowing the boundary can abolish it. How can those not knowing do so? In this matter of abolishing boundaries, the state of knowing the boundary or its demarcation is not a factor. The state of being within the boundary, and the performance of the kammavācā, "We shall abolish the boundary," these two alone are the factors. Therefore, when these two factors are met, even those not knowing it can abolish it. When these two factors are met, how is the ability of those not knowing the boundary to abolish it to be understood? In the Commentary, it is said: "Indeed, those knowing the minor boundary, even not knowing the avippavāsa boundary, can abolish and establish it." Thus, even in the case of not knowing the demarcation of the major boundary, abolition is mentioned. And in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) it is stated: "Here, knowing the boundary or its demarcation is not a factor. But being within the boundary, and performing the kammavācā, 'We shall abolish the boundary,' these are the factors. Because in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144) it is said: 'Indeed, those knowing the minor boundary, even not knowing the avippavāsa boundary, can abolish and establish it.' Thus, even in the case of not knowing the demarcation of the major boundary, abolition is mentioned." Then, because the old established boundaries are abolished, only the village boundary would remain. What should be done after that, when it is established? When the village boundary is established, having purified and protected that village boundary in the manner previously stated, one may establish a small boundary and a large boundary within that village boundary as one wishes. Or, without establishing a boundary, one may perform Sangha acts such as upasampadā within the entire village boundary. Indeed, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): ‘When the village boundary is established, it is proper to establish both types of boundaries there as one wishes, and to perform acts such as upasampadā.’ ‘This seems appropriate, and should be taken after investigation.’ Therefore, if one wishes to make a small boundary sixty cubits long and forty cubits wide, taking a bed-space in such an area, a bed of suitable size is a bed of the smallest possible size. It is nine spans or eight spans by ordinary span. A bed smaller than that, after placing a pillow for the head, is not sufficient to stretch out the feet and lie down. Since the length of the smallest bed is stated in the Samantapāsādikā, a bed of greater length is also certainly possible. The width of the bed, however, is half its length. Therefore, taking the bed-space as five cubits in length and five spans in width, when calculating with that measure, a boundary area sixty cubits long becomes twenty-four bed-spaces, and forty cubits wide becomes eight bed-spaces. Calculating thus, the bed is oriented north-south. A boundary area sixty cubits long becomes twelve bed-spaces, and forty cubits wide becomes sixteen bed-spaces. Calculating thus, the bed is oriented east-west. In both ways, multiplying the length by the width, the entire inner boundary area becomes one hundred and ninety-two bed-spaces. The outer boundary area should also be taken as one or two bed-spaces all around. The calculation should be increased with that. Vimativin... Regarding 'odaniya' (a boundary), it is said, "a clod-throw all around." But that might have been said with reference to the outer precinct of the monastery enclosure at the time of binding a great boundary. Even in a fragmented boundary, there is no fault in sweeping from afar. But because it is difficult, the measure for those who do it should be known. But in the boundary called Kalyāṇī, both in length and in width, a place of five cubits in measure, having made it one division, they sweep. That too was done having considered it to be more than the measure of the last couch. But the place mentioned as "now for us" should be seen as more appropriate, because it corresponds with the method of the treatise. But the manner of sweeping should be understood thus: For the boundary to be bound now, both inside and outside the marks, the boundary place to be swept in the manner described, like a mirror surface, having made it even, clean, and pure. A place of the measure of a couch, as described, like an eight-square board drawing, with a rope or with a stick, having caused a line to be drawn. According to the line, with red clay powder or with white clay powder, having caused a special color to be made. Row by row, having caused it to be division by division. In the manner previously stated, having caused protection and purification to be made. Saying, "Now we will sweep the boundary," four or more bhikkhus of the same communion having been taken. In the first row, in the first division, standing in the couch-place. First, the formal act of sweeping the non-separation boundary, then, having recited the formal act of sweeping the boundary of the same communion. In that very division, having changed and changed their standing places for each other, having swept three times or seven times. Then having exited, in the very first row, standing in the second division, having done the same. Then, in the very first row, in the forward direction, up to the last division, in each and every division, having done the same. When the first row is finished, standing in the last division of the second row, having done the same. From there onwards, in the very second row, in the reverse direction... by which, up to the first section, having done likewise,