English
eighteen great monasteries were consecrated as a single boundary by the Dhamma-senāpati Elder Sāriputta. In Sri Lanka, the Mahāvihāra boundary, including Anurādhapura, was consecrated by the Great Elder Mahinda. This is seen in the texts. But it is not seen that in this particular country, a two-yojana or three-yojana boundary was consecrated by such and such a monk. And in this Myanmar country, the non-existence of such boundaries should be examined and known. Indeed, consecrated boundaries that have existed for hundreds and thousands of years are seen in those places with stone pillar markers. And in Arimaddanapura, Anuruddha A great boundary, one hundred and sixty-two cubits long, and one hundred and forty-seven cubits wide, approved by the great king, is seen with its mark. And in Ratanapura, during the time of King Narapatijeyyasūra, in the four hundred and seventy-eighth Kaliyuga, a boundary approved is seen with a stone inscription. If there were great boundaries extending up to three yojanas, the ancient teachers would not have established new and new consecrated boundaries; but they do establish them, and in these new boundaries, they perform Sangha acts like upasampadā. And from that, monks, countless in number, increasing in succession, have established the Dispensation up to the present day. And for this reason, it is understood that in this region there are no three-yojana boundaries. Or else, because it is stated in the Vimativinodanī Tīkā (Vi. Vi. Tī. Mahāvagga 2.144) regarding the gathering of boundaries, "within the monastery enclosure and outside, all around, as far as a clod of earth can be thrown," that is, within the monastery enclosure and in the area of the monastery precincts, and outside, as far as a clod of earth can be thrown, it is understood that such great boundaries do not exist. If they did exist, the authors of the treatises would not speak of gathering boundaries. Even if they did speak of it, they would cleanse the area of three yojanas all around and then gather the boundaries. But since they do not speak thus, and speak only of gathering boundaries within the monastery and its precincts, it is understood that great boundaries of three yojanas and so on do not exist. Or else, from the statement in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144): "But knowing a broken boundary, even without knowing the non-separation, they will be able to gather and establish it," it is understood that in those various countries, there are no great boundaries of three yojanas and so on. How so? If such boundaries existed, the authors of the Commentaries would not speak of gathering boundaries without cleansing the entire boundary. But since they speak of the ability to gather and establish a boundary even by knowing a broken boundary and without knowing the non-separation, that statement, being only an interval between broken boundaries, from that In a village territory, there should be a non-separation boundary. Therefore, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers say it is possible to revoke it by staying in that place. It is not that it is possible to revoke a boundary of three yojanas or more, which has been established by encompassing various village territories, even if there are other bhikkhus in other village territories. By this, it is known that "great boundaries of three yojanas or more do not exist in all places." Such reasons should be repeatedly considered and examined by those who know the Vinaya, the Vinaya-holders, who respect the Buddha's command. And other reasons should also be sought out. Furthermore, from the saying "If they wish to include other village territories, the bhikkhus residing in those villages must also come" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), they do not establish a boundary in just one village territory. Rather, they establish it by including other village territories as well. Therefore, it should not be thought that the ordinary village territory or separate village territory, which is the basis for the boundary to be established now, has been purified. To resolve doubts, at the time of reciting the formal act of revoking the boundary, the bhikkhus residing in other village territories connected with that village territory should also be asked and made to stay far outside that village territory. By doing so, even if there is an old boundary encompassing other village territories, they cannot form a faction. Then the formal act of revoking the boundary succeeds. Therefore, such a subtle and profound meaning should be considered by the Vinaya-holders. Thus, by this method of revoking a boundary, it becomes free from the two faults of transgression mentioned as "established by breaking one boundary with another boundary" and "established by overlapping one boundary with another boundary." Then, to be free from the faults of transgression mentioned as "too small, too large" (Pari. 486), the measure of the boundary should be known. How? A boundary is called "too small" if it is insufficient for twenty-one bhikkhus to sit. it is not valid, and even if approved, the sīmā is not valid. If even a hair's breadth of space beyond three yojanas is included, it is called excessively large, and even if approved, the sīmā is not valid. Therefore, starting from a space sufficient for twenty-one bhikkhus to sit, not exceeding three yojanas, wherever the Saṅgha desires a certain size, making that size there, the sīmā should be approved. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" It is understood by the saying in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīya: "There, 'excessively small' is where twenty-one bhikkhus cannot sit. 'Excessively large' is that which, even by a hair's breadth, exceeds three yojanas, even if approved." Thus, by taking the measure of the sīmā, it is freed from these two faults mentioned as "excessively small" and "excessively large." Then, in order to be freed from the three faults of failure mentioned as "broken markers, shadow markers, no markers" (Pari. 486), the declaration of markers should be made. There, a sīmā with markers declared unconnectedly is called a "broken marker" sīmā. How? Among the markers placed in the four directions of the sīmā, having declared the marker in the eastern direction, then in order, having declared the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions, the marker in the eastern direction should be declared again. When done this way, it is called an "unbroken marker" sīmā. If, however, having declared the marker in the eastern direction, and then in order, having declared and placed the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions, the marker in the eastern direction is not declared again, then it is called a "broken marker" sīmā. Another type of "broken marker" sīmā is one approved by making a single marker between a stone that is not a marker, or an external tree, or a stump, or a pile of earth. A sīmā approved by making any shadow, such as a mountain shadow, as a marker, is called a "shadow marker" sīmā. A sīmā approved without declaring any marker at all is called a "no marker" sīmā. In order to be freed from these three faults, the declaration of markers should be made. How? By means of the formal act (kammavācā), having abolished the old sīmā, the assembly... For a complete village boundary, by the Saṅgha, for a boundary circle of a size taken as desired, in four directions or in eight directions, suitable for marks, with a minimum measure of a lump of jaggery weighing thirty-two palas, with a maximum measure less than an elephant's size, having placed stones, by the reciter of the kammavācā, who is a Vinaya-holder, standing within the marks, "What is the mark in the eastern direction?" should be asked. By another, "It is a stone, venerable sir," should be said. Again, by the Vinaya-holder, saying "This stone is the mark," it should be declared. In this manner, circumambulating the boundary circle clockwise, "What is the mark in the south-east intermediate direction, in the southern direction, in the south-west intermediate direction, in the western direction, in the north-west intermediate direction, in the northern direction, in the north-east intermediate direction?" "It is a stone, venerable sir. This stone is the mark," having declared, again, "What is the mark in the eastern direction? It is a stone, venerable sir. This stone is the mark," having declared, it should be concluded. Indeed, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, "Broken marks are called unsuitable marks," and so on. Thus, by declaring the marks, it becomes free from the three faults of failure called "broken marks, shadow marks, and no marks." Furthermore, to be free from the fault of failure called "approved while standing outside the boundary" (Pari. 486), the standing place of the Saṅgha during the recitation of the kammavācā for the boundary approval should be known. How? If, after declaring the marks, the Saṅgha stands outside the marks and approves the boundary with the kammavācā, it is called "approved while standing outside the boundary," and it is not a valid boundary. Therefore, after declaring the marks, the Saṅgha must stand within the marks and approve the boundary with the kammavācā. Indeed, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, "Approved while standing outside the boundary means approved by one standing outside the marks after declaring the marks." Thus, by this rule of the boundary approval place, "approved while standing outside the boundary" (Pari. It is freed from the aforementioned faults of invalidity. Furthermore, in order to be freed from the three faults of invalidity mentioned as: "approved in a river, approved in the ocean, approved in a natural lake," this should be kept in mind: "All rivers, bhikkhus, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries," because of the Buddha's saying. Therefore, a boundary approved in rivers, oceans, or natural lakes is not a boundary. Only a boundary approved