English
This "forest dwelling" is outside the boundary of a bounded area, and outside the boundary space of an unbounded area, whether with trees or without trees, even if mixed with small rivers in a monastery, it is called a forest. Similarly, it is said: "One for him who falls behind the group." This is also a forest. This, however, being of the same definition as stated earlier in the context of being village-less, makes only one offense when one goes out beyond the city gate-post, abandoning the range of sight. Beyond that, there is no offense. But what is called "one of the rules concerning arrangements" makes an offense at every half-yojana, not closer than that. The other three, within the stated limits, do not fulfill the stated method there, but fulfill it beyond. Thus, their mutual differences should be understood. Among the five kinds of villages, that which is called "the throw of a clod from one standing at the city gate-post of a bounded village" (Pārā. 92) is not used anywhere in the Vinaya Piṭaka. It is mentioned only to show that another clod-throw from the boundary space of an unbounded area is called the village precinct. If even for a bounded village, one clod-throw is called a precinct similar to permissible ground, how much more so for one from the boundary space of an unbounded area. But that, being well-known, and... And one who enters the open air incurs an offense, except for a bhikkhunī's offense of entering a village. For bhikkhunīs, dwelling in that village precinct called the second clod-throw, incur an offense; and entering the village, they incur the offense of entering a village. Indeed, their dwelling place is counted as a forest, according to the saying: "Only so far as the shadow extends... ...you should declare to her the three supports and the eight things not to be done." And because the training rules related to the forest, and the training rule of entering a village at the wrong time are not common for bhikkhunīs; and because the inner monastery, bhikkhunī-residence, and places of retreat, etc., are declared to be suitable places; and because of the promulgation of training rules like "If a bhikkhunī in a non-village forest, separated from the group, abandons the range of sight or the range of hearing of her companion bhikkhunī, she incurs an offense of grave fault"; or by the method of the Bhikkhunī Khandhaka, since it is taken from the village gate-post of a delimited village, and from the precinct of an undelimited village; where, when robes are placed within the houses, bhikkhus dwell with the four conditions met; therefore, it is called "with a village." One name for the "non-separation boundary" is that it is established that there is no forest dwelling for bhikkhunīs, according to the saying: "Monks, a bhikkhunī should not dwell in the forest. If she dwells, there is an offense of wrong-doing." For her, even if there is a bhikkhunī-residence in the forest, if she abandons the range of sight or hearing of her companion within the dwelling, there is an offense. Therefore, in the section on the non-separation boundary, where it is stated: "except for the village and the village precinct," the bhikkhunī-residence is permissible only in that place which is excepted, not beyond that. And because in the kammavācā for their non-separation boundary, the phrase "except for the village and the village precinct" is not present, it applies only to those villages and village precincts. Beyond that, in the second clod-throw, etc., because those places are not suitable for them, there is no common residence. A field extends into the forest, like the approach of bhikkhus to village after village. Therefore it is said, "for a bhikkhunī, except for an offense between villages." Thus, having understood the five kinds of village distinctions and the forest distinction, now it should be understood that there are distinctions such as "there is a village that nowhere obtains the protection of a village." In this regard, what is said in the commentary as "a non-human [village] is one that, due to the complete absence of humans, is possessed by yakkhas," that village nowhere obtains the protection of a village in any training rule. For it is with reference to this that it is said in the commentary, "This [place] is a city in the time of the Buddha and the time of a Cakkavattī, but in other times it is empty and possessed by yakkhas." But a village that has been plundered by enemy kings, thieves, and so on, or abandoned merely out of fear, and has become a village that has disappeared along with its houses, generates the pācittiya offense mentioned as "an offense of pācittiya between villages, between villages," and generates four offenses in the Sekhiya rules for entering a village at the wrong time. But a village that is said to be one from which people have departed with the intention of returning again for some reason, that non-human [village] is just like a normal village. Regarding "there is a forest that nowhere obtains the protection of a forest," here it should be understood that which is called "different approaches" in the statement, "an open space with a single approach is a forest without a village, within seven cubits all around is a single approach, beyond that is a different approach." But a village that is enclosed and is called a village approach, measured by the throw of a single clod of earth, or a caravan that is not settled for more than four months, is a village that does not perform the function of a village. For one who enters that place does not incur an offense of entering a village. But a forest that is included within the village boundary and is a place for human use, is called a forest that does not perform the function of a forest. For a forest boundary is not obtained there. Thus far, the characteristic sub-enactment of "from a village or from a forest" has been explained. the three states are shown. "Even a village where cattle are settled" – if that village has a defined village-field, the whole of it is one village. If not, it should be defined by proximity or by by enclosure. If there is a village-field, and some of those houses are built far apart, exceeding the range of mutual proximity, then for entering the village at an improper time, proximity is the measure. For the sekhiya rules concerning intervening houses, and for nuns' offenses of entering a village, the area suitable for enclosing houses is the measure. For Uposatha and other acts, the village-field is the measure. For a forest dwelling, the distance of five hundred bows from the second stone-throw of the nearest house is the measure. Thus, say the teachers, is our understanding. "Even if, within one village-field, a king defines one area, saying 'Let this too be a separate village,' and gives it to someone, that too is indeed a separate village boundary." From this commentary statement, a nun entering it incurs the offense of entering a village. If there is no monastery, or temple, or assembly hall, or house there, but only a mere plot of land, it is still a village, and all Vinaya acts are permissible there. For it is said, "A village without people." And if that place is within the enclosure or within the proximity of another village, entering it at an improper time must be done after asking permission. If not, it may be entered as one pleases, like a forest. If there is a park there, or one of the abodes of heretics, it is permissible as obtained. If it is a nun's residence, a nun entering the village for alms must avoid the offense of entering a village. "Forest is that which remains apart from the village and the village proximity." (Pārā. 92) Here, if there is an enclosure, apart from the village itself as defined above, the rest is its proximity, and beyond that... the rest is called forest, is the meaning. Thus, when it is said, "having gone out beyond the city-pillar, all of this is forest" (Vibh. 529), in such a described, village-less forest, there is an offense of falling behind the group. There, the extension of the non-residence boundary, and the non-offense of entering a village at the wrong time, such Vinaya rules are consistent. Otherwise, they are not consistent. When it is said, "excluding the village precincts, the rest is called forest" (Mahāva. 144), if it is established that beyond the village precincts is forest, then the special meaning of "excluding the village" is not seen. Is it said due to fear of the village becoming forest? No, because of the possibility of the village precincts not existing. For when there is a village, there are village precincts. And by your opinion, that is forest. From where then are the village precincts? If the village precincts also fall into the category of forest, then it is not proper to say "the village is beyond," and also because of the village becoming forest. Therefore, in "from a village or from a forest," the village precincts are also included as "village." Therefore, the possibility of the village becoming forest is not fitting. If so, should only this much be said: "excluding the village, the rest is called forest"? No, because of the possibility of knowing the boundary of the forest. For it is said, "the boundary of the forest is not known," that is our doctrine. Indeed, here, the village is named up to the village precincts. If so, in the commentary, it should be said: "It is said to show the boundary of both the village and the forest." Why then is it said: "It is said to show the boundary of the forest"? It is said: The commentator, referring to the first village precincts, said "to show the boundary of the forest." For in all training rules, from outside the city-pillar, up to the village precincts, is called forest. There is no purpose here in stating the village boundary, because it is already clear by its enclosure. Only the second village precincts are stated to show the boundary of the village,