English
because it is not clear by its enclosure. There, if the first village precincts are for showing the forest boundary... If it is said, there it should not be said, “Having gone out from the boundary post, all this is forest.” It should be said, “Having gone out from the boundary post, all this is forest.” When this is so, the definition of forest is shown more clearly, and there is no wrong grasp. For if it is said, “the throw of a clod by a middle-sized man,” this is the village precinct itself as forest, because it is a division of the village precinct. If it is said to show the definition of forest, it is as if unsaid, and there is a wrong grasp of “beyond the forest.” But was it not said, “this was said first to define the precinct of a delimited village”? Although “village precinct” and so on was begun to show the definition of forest, the purpose of such a statement is the throw of a clod by a middle-sized man standing at the boundary post. And it is said that this is the definition of the precinct, which is the throw of a clod of an undelimited village, as stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. How is this understood? Because the word “village precinct” is extracted, without extracting the word “forest.” There, by extracting the word “village precinct,” which is not in the Mātika, it shows three meanings. Namely, the showing of the definition of forest is one meaning; the showing of the definition together with the precinct of an undelimited village is one; and it should not be shown that only the precinct of an undelimited village is useful in the Vinaya context, but also the useless precinct of a delimited village is obtained by this method, and this associated meaning should be understood as one. “The throw of a clod by a middle-sized man standing in the house precinct of an undelimited village”— the Blessed One spoke this with reference to three meanings. Namely, the showing of the definition of an undelimited village is one; the showing that this same village precinct is in the context of the avippavāsa boundary is one; and the showing that the second throw of a clod there is a functional precinct in all training rules connected with the village is one. Thus, the Blessed One, in his delightful way of teaching... It should be understood that by extracting each word, three meanings are shown. Similarly, in the boundary-setting for non-residence, in the phrase "except for the village and the village precincts" (Mahāva. 144), if there is an enclosure, the meaning is "except for the village"; if there is no enclosure, it means "except for the village precincts." This method is very applicable when establishing a non-residence boundary in an monastery that is between an enclosed and an unenclosed area. Or, by the method mentioned previously, both are obtained in both cases by avoiding both. It is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada that "monks who are accustomed to it establish a non-residence boundary in the inner monasteries." Some say, "Since the sekhiya rules related to inside the house cannot occur in inner monasteries, an inner monastery does not count as a village; therefore, a non-residence boundary can be established there." These monks should be refuted by showing that such a second non-residence kammavācā is not possible for them, as the second village precinct is not considered a village. However, an inner monastery, even if it is a village, should be understood as a permissible area, like a dwelling for heretics. To show the limit of an offense, and also of non-offense; In explaining the training rules related to the village. Two, village and village precinct, are shown here by the Tathāgata; But boundary and boundary precinct are not extracted as they are not constant. And there are two precincts, outer and inner; And if divided into enclosed and unenclosed, there would be four. This word "precinct" (upacāra) is seen in the Vinaya Piṭaka in phrases like "Monks, I allow holding an umbrella in the monastery and in the monastery precinct even for one who is not sick" (Cūḷava. 270), referring to an outer precinct. An outer precinct is a distance of one clod's throw from the enclosure or from a place worthy of enclosure. However, in phrases like "An inner monastery is the inside of an enclosed monastery, or the precinct of an unenclosed one. An inner dwelling is the inside of an enclosed dwelling, or the precinct of an unenclosed one" (Pāci. 506), the word "precinct" refers to an inner precinct. And an inner precinct is A throw, and a place worthy of enclosure. But here, the enclosure is not called "within the monastery," or "within the dwelling," but simply "within the monastery," or "within the dwelling." Among these two precincts, distinguished by outer and inner divisions, in the context of the boundary of non-separation, where it says "except for the village and the village precinct" (Mahāva. 144), the term "village precinct" is intended to mean the inner precinct, not the outer. Because for a bhikkhunī, that outer area is considered a forest, and because the inner precinct is the place for her offense of going between villages— these two reasons should be understood here. Here, in the analysis of the Pārājika for taking what is not given, the first village precinct shown is the outer one, and the second should be understood as the inner one. And by the first (method), for an unenclosed village, the outer precinct is reckoned as the second stone's throw. And by the second (method), for an enclosed village, the inner precinct, which is outwardly reckoned by its enclosure, should be understood as shown by implication. Thus, all four precincts are shown here by the Blessed One with an elegant and graceful teaching style. This method should be well-observed, discussed by teachers, and applied appropriately there. Otherwise – Not understanding the Buddha's great power; And the Dhamma's profound method; Whoever, unwise, praises this Vinaya; He is hard to see, a cause for the Dispensation's ruin. The Pāli text and its meaning, indeed, not understood; Whoever destroys and the commentary's method; What is undecided, by others as decided; "Village!" (he says), and he is honored by them. Gradually, by the great mass of people; Honored, a monk who fancies himself wise; Not dispelling the doubts of the unwise; He puts forward the manner of a teacher. For there, in the Pāli text, having extracted (the definitions) "the precinct of a village is a village precinct, the precinct reckoned as a village is called a village precinct," when showing the precinct of a village, it says "a stone's throw by a medium man standing at the village gatepost" (Pārā. 92), and again, when showing the precinct reckoned as a village, "a stone's throw by a medium man standing in the house precinct..." "Upāto" is said. Referring to this meaning, in cases like entering a village at the wrong time, not staying in another village, and similar agreements, the area worthy of enclosure is called "gāmūpacāra" (village precinct) —so it is written. Here, "atthatoekaṃ" (one in meaning) equates the word "saṅkhā" (number/reckoning) with "saṅkhāta" (reckoned/counted). "Ādiyeyyā" (should take) is a common term for the twenty-five kinds of theft. The meaning is: by moving from its place, and by removing stakes and the like, and by taking fields and so on. In moving from its place, just as an offense occurs without considering the owner's laying down of burdens, so too here, it should be understood. "I will steal such and such an article" —because all have one intention, "by one person" is said. If a command is desired, then one kind of theft, called "saṃvidhāvahāra" (theft by agreement), should be omitted. In the case of a designated place, even if taken by moving from its place, it is protected because it is a designated place. Exceeding the designated place is the measure, because it was previously taken with impure intention. They say that even if taken now with pure intention, it still occurs, but that is not good. Here, however, the decision should be taken by consulting the Samantapāsādikā. "There is no removal" means "there is no moving from its place." Theft occurs as soon as it is removed, because the entire act is completed, not in the sense of achieving the purpose. "It is protected only by removal" —here, even though the meaning "it is not protected by dropping" is established by the word "eva" (only), to show the meaning in the sense of achieving the purpose, "having removed it," and so on, is said. "There are many kings like the kings of the earth and regional kings, to include them, the plural 'rājāno' (kings) is used" —so it is written. Although the plural is used, this should be understood as referring to King Bimbisāra alone. Although "kings" is said in a general sense, without specifying anyone, this refers to Bimbisāra alone. In "pubbappayoge" (in the prior application), when clearing the path while traveling, in the domain of apācittiya, it is a dukkaṭa offense. In cutting creepers and so on, it is an apācittiya offense. But having gone, in cutting creepers and the like growing on the top of a pot, because it is a joint application, it is a dukkaṭa offense. "In one article, this is so heavy, 'you too, one side...'" having agreed, ‘You take one side, and I will take one side,’ and by the effort of both, it is moved from its place, it arises from body, speech, and mind. Otherwise, it is not an element of a self-done act, nor is an act by command an element of a self-done act, as it would contradict the definition given.” This is written in the Vinaya Gaṇṭhipada. The word “pi” here is written in the same place. From which an offense Arises from body and speech; There, the vocal element, like the mind, Is not considered an act. Whatever act or non-act, And whatever three kinds of acts there may be; They are not suitable due to contradiction, Only one act is appropriate. (Vajira. Ṭī.