English
thus in the third row and so on, going once forwards, once backwards, when all sections in all rows are exhausted, this act of boundary removal is said to be completed. "Four or more" - this, however, is said because this act requires a quorum of four. In the Vimativinodani (Vinaya Commentary, Mahavagga 2.144), however, because the normal state of bhikkhus is difficult to ascertain, and because conscientious and virtuous bhikkhus are rare, it is said "about five or six". In the Kalyani boundary, however, by those who returned having received new training from Sri Lanka, not even a trace of blame or dispute being found, chosen and taken by King Dhammaceti, it is recorded in a stone inscription that it was done by fourteen bhikkhus. In Ratanapura, however, during the time of the minor king named Sirisudhammarajadhipati, the great elder named Sirisaddhammakitti, renowned as 'Mahasihalappatta', when establishing a boundary on a mountaintop not far from his dwelling place, not taking those dependent on him, but taking other great elders whom he liked, who were conscientious, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, they say he performed the act as the fourth himself. That, because this act requires a quorum of four, and because there was no doubt about the normal state of those elders, might have been done. Even so, because the normal state of bhikkhus is difficult to ascertain, and because there is no fault in performing an act requiring a quorum of four with more than four, it is more commendable for it to be done by additional bhikkhus. And for that very reason, in the Vinaya commentary named Vimativinodani (Vinaya Commentary, Mahavagga 2.144), it is said, "taking about five or six bhikkhus," and in the Kalyani boundary, it should be seen that it was done by fourteen bhikkhus. Even when the act of boundary removal is thus completed, however, for the satisfaction of the minds of bhikkhus of various views, various teachers, various schools, and various countries, and for the release from blame and dispute, again and again... It should be made to be done by those bhikkhus in the same way. For it is said in the commentary: "It should be done again and again. For it stands as the act of an act that is liable to be annulled, and it is for the permanence of an act that is not liable to be annulled." And for that very reason, it should be understood that the Great Dhamma King, lord of many white elephants, in the city of Hamsavati, at the time of the removal of the boundaries from the Great Cetiya, which was born of meritorious deeds, in the four directions, caused it to be done separately by the great elders residing in the Ramañña country and by the great elders residing in the Maramma country. If, however, one wishes to establish a great boundary, then, having marked out a space of one ox-length, or two ox-lengths, or more, and having caused an enclosure to be made, saying, "We will make a monastery in this much space," within that monastery enclosure, and everywhere outside it, all around, at the distance of a clod's throw, in spaces the size of a couch, having made boundary sections in the manner described below, standing continuously with the bhikkhus who are competent for the act, first, the non-separation boundary and then the common residence boundary should be removed. When the boundary has been thus removed, if there are both a minor boundary and a great boundary existing in that monastery, those bhikkhus, being in the midst of them at one couch-space, would certainly remove them. Then only the village boundary would remain. In that village boundary, two kinds of boundaries, namely, a minor boundary and a great boundary, should be established as desired. We will explain the manner of establishment later. But why was the removal of the boundary done even outside the boundary markers? Should not the new boundary be desired only within the boundary markers, and the old boundary be removed there to avoid confusion and overlapping? It is true, but it should be understood that it was done this way because it is difficult to ascertain. For the existence or non-existence of the old boundary is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, if one were to remove the boundary only within the boundary markers, then the old boundary would remain outside, and then there would be little If such a place were to enter inside, that place would not be sufficient for the Sangha performing the boundary removal, together with the reciter of the kammavācā, to stand upon. In such a case, that old boundary would remain unremoved. If, thinking it removed, they were to consecrate a place inside the boundary markers at the time of consecrating a new boundary, because it has entered the edge of the unremoved old boundary, there is the fault of one boundary breaking into another. But if that place were sufficient for four to sit, there is the fault of one boundary overlapping another. Even if it does not enter inside, but merely touches continuously, even so, there is the fault of boundary confusion. To be freed from these three faults, the boundary removal is done even outside the markers. For this reason, it should be understood that in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) it is said, "and outside, all around, a clod's throw," and so on. Some teachers, however, having stretched a rope inside all around the markers, stand inside, put their feet under the rope, and then, going a little beyond the rope, perform the boundary removal. This should be considered. The old boundary is not abolished merely by placing the tips of the feet. Rather, it is abolished by the standing of the Sangha who have attained the act, together with the reciter of the kammavācā, and by the recitation of the kammavācā. For it is said in the Vimativinodanī treatise (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): "And here, the standing inside the boundary and the performance of the kammavācā with 'we shall remove' are factors." Therefore, if the old established boundary, which has entered in part and remains connected in one way, is not abolished, one would not be freed from the three faults mentioned. Therefore, the act of performing the removal while standing even outside the markers is more commendable. Other teachers, however, perform the removal by connecting it to the footprints of the bhikkhus performing the act. If that is taken as done out of reverence, there is no fault. Some elders, however, say, "The boundary is removed only in the place trodden by the performing Sangha, not in the untrodden place." having first made the hall by perception, afterwards, when the boundary is removed, one cannot step on the pillar-place, therefore, they say, "the boundary is not removed." Even before, in the city of Sirikhetta, during the time of the Great Being King Dhammarāja, in front of the Nandanavihāra built by that king, the queen consort established a boundary. First, they made the Jetavana hall, and afterwards, they removed the boundary. At that time, in that city, a chief elder named Mahārukkhamūlika, said, "If I can pierce the pillar and place my foot there, then I will come," and he did not come. All the elders said, "The ancient boundary does not stand by a mere pillar. A boundary made by a kammavācā standing all around the pillar is removed." Disregarding his words, they removed and bound it. Even in the city of Haṃsāvatī, at the time of King Dhammacetiya's binding of the Kalyāṇī boundary, they first made the hall, and only afterwards removed it. And there is no passage in the Pāḷi, commentaries, or sub-commentaries that says, "the boundary should be removed by making a connection of foot-marks." But there is, "in places the size of a bed, in places the size of a bed." When a kammavācā for removing a boundary is made in one place, while staying within the ancient boundary, the entire boundary is removed. Therefore, the wise do not accept the saying, "it should be removed by making a connection of foot-marks." If such a saying is taken as having been spoken out of respect, although there is no fault, it becomes a cause for students and their students to follow a wrong view. For they, taking it firmly, "Our teachers say this, they do this," believe that if it is not done that way, the boundary is not removed. Therefore, it should be seen that doing it according to the method found in the texts is better and more commendable. Another deep and difficult-to-see point in this matter of boundary removal, which should be considered by those who respect the Dhamma and uphold the Vinaya, If it is asked, what is that? It is said: “I allow, monks, to consecrate a boundary up to three yojanas.” According to this, having covered various village territories, the great boundaries, such as three-yojana boundaries, allowed by the Blessed One, exist. Then, if one village territory is purified, protected, and the boundary is removed, and if there are monks in other village territories, the village boundary cannot enclose the consecrated boundary. Therefore, those monks would create a schism in that act. In such a case, the boundary would not be removed. When it is not removed, a new boundary should not be consecrated. Thus, this matter is difficult to know, difficult to see. Therefore, those who make the command of the Blessed One heavy, like a stone umbrella, those who are modest, skillful, learned, desirous of training, and experts in Vinaya should consider it well. Considering, seeking, and investigating in this matter, this reason appears: The great boundaries, such as three-yojana boundaries, might have been allowed by the Blessed One because it was possible for powerful monks during their lifetime to assemble or purify them. At all times, in all places, all monks cannot purify or assemble such a great boundary. Nor would the Blessed One speak of a matter that is impossible or unattainable. During the lifetime of the Blessed One, in Rājagaha city,