English
But since it is not permissible to do so, therefore, the statement "because it is a water-throwing boundary" is incorrect. Because a Sangha act requires a group of twenty, it is said that "twenty-one bhikkhus, including the one performing the act, cannot sit down." The intention is that they sit down comfortably. In the commentary, it is said, "to sit in a circular arrangement." "Exceeding three yojanas" means standing in the middle and making it one and a half yojanas (in each direction, totaling three). For from corner to corner, it exceeds three yojanas, and one incurs an offense, and the boundary becomes no boundary. "Having named" means even if the marks are complete, by reversing their names for each other, and by naming those without marks; that is the meaning. Even a heap of earth, when trees grow on it, becomes a pure earth-mountain. The size of a lump of jaggery is by thickness, not by weight. By "established on the ground," it rejects what is planted in pots, bowls, etc. But if it is removed from there and planted in the ground even for a moment, it is permissible. However, the emergence of new roots and branches is not a condition. But if it is planted after cutting the trunk, this is applicable. The size of a needle-stick is about the size of the little finger. By "eight fingers high," the height is defined. By "the size of a cow's horn," the circumference. "Even so, there is no specific measure for the circumference of a cow's horn, therefore, they say that both small and large are permissible." Seeing that the water in a natural lake is full and suitable for marks, the statement "approved in a natural lake" does not incur a failure for what is not full but remains in between. Even in "approved in a river, approved in the sea, approved in a natural lake," the saltiness is not taken into account. "Without encroaching upon a bound boundary, or a river, sea, or natural lake" and here too, "O bhikkhus, in a river or in the sea, or in a natural..." "or a lake" (Mahāva. 147) is not included here. Therefore, is a salt lake not a bounded area? It is indeed a bounded area. Because it is said (Kaṅkhā. Atthakathā, Nidāna-vaṇṇanā): "Even a pond made by water that has burst forth from a river or a sea reaches this characteristic, this too is a natural lake." Therefore, it is included by the term "natural lake," though not stated explicitly in those places. Because it is said, "As many as are in that village area," when establishing a common residence boundary including another village, whether monks come to that village or not, it is permissible. When establishing a non-absence boundary, they must come. Regarding "on impassable paths," they say it means places where one cannot go and return in a single day. The meaning is to reject the state of being a bounded area. Because it is said, "water-splashes all around," should it be taken in all directions? It should be taken from where it is available, because it is said: "The area where natural waves spread out and settle, from there onwards is permissible ground. It is permissible to perform Uposatha and other acts standing there." "Anubandha" means half a month, or following half a month, or according to half a month. The meaning is that it is not made by anyone, not even by an animal, by digging. Because it is said, "Even one who stands without exceeding the same extent of boundary invalidates the act," Elder Upatissa says it is thereby indicated that one who stands exceeding it does not invalidate it. But that contradicts the statement: "Between two water-splashes, another single water-splash should be placed for the purpose of proximity." Indeed, in the Samantapāsādikā, the phrase "the same extent of another" is not present. Therefore, its meaning should be sought. The meaning to be taken is: without exceeding the boundary of water-splashes placed for proximity within the water-splash boundary. It was written by the Elder with a different elaboration. Because it is said, "A light offense with a similar basis," is it permissible to declare a similar Saṅghādisesa? It is not permissible. Here, it refers to an offense leading to confession. because it was said. Therefore, in the Samuccayakkhandhaka, it was said: “It is not proper to reveal to one who has committed a saṅghādisesa offense of the same class. If one reveals, the offense is revealed, but one is not freed from a dukkaṭa offense.” Just as it is permissible for the Saṅgha to perform the Uposatha after saying, “May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me… (etc.)… will rectify it,” so too, it is proper to perform the Uposatha after seeing another pure monk, either two or three, and saying, “We will rectify it.” It is proper for even one monk to perform the Uposatha after resolving, “I will rectify it when I find a pure monk.” And in the Aṭṭhakathā, it was said: “In ‘the neighboring monk should be spoken to thus,’ only one of the same class should be spoken to. For if spoken to one of a different class, quarrels, disputes, and schisms in the Saṅgha may arise. Therefore, without speaking to him, one should perform the Uposatha after resolving, ‘I will rectify it after rising from here.’” This was stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, and since it was not rejected, it is indeed shown to be proper. Because it was said, “When he sees another pure monk, one who is not guilty, then to him,” and because only a light offense is permitted, and because it was stated in the Samuccayakkhandhaka, it is not proper to perform the Uposatha after announcing a saṅghādisesa offense of the same class by a motion. However, Devabrahmā, omitting the phrase “who has entered the animal realm,” said “one whose ordination is forbidden” to show that even those not included by any other phrase are included by this one. It was not said, “to those who have performed Pavāraṇā in the Cātumāsī, or to one who has not arrived, or to one whose rains-residence is broken, or to one whose rains-residence is completed,” but only “to one who has not arrived, or to one whose rains-residence is broken.” A monk whose rains-residence is completed, since he has not arrived at that time, is counted as “one who has not arrived.” They say that when all have risen, it is not possible to gather all who have risen and gone. It is proper to gather some and announce the purification. Why? Because there is no Saṅgha-act to be done apart from a motion, it does not become a faction. At the Pavāraṇā, This is the method. Here is the distinction: If those who have come from the former group and those who have come from the latter group are fewer and equal, and they complete the quorum for the Saṅgha's Invitation, then the motion should be established by way of the Saṅgha's Invitation. "If there is only one bhikkhu... ...having known the non-arrival of others," because it is said, they say that it is not possible to perform the Adhiṭṭhāna Uposatha by entering the boundary. "What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?" This should not be said after establishing the motion. For that is done even before the motion. Therefore, it should be said: "May the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs, what is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha? If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha..." Even so, it should not be said. For it is not included within the motion. If this is the case, does it follow that it should not be said due to lack of purpose? No, because it is to be said in its proper place, it is said to be dependent on the subsequent words. The Saṅgha or the individual who performs the Uposatha ceremony without performing this preliminary duty incurs an offense of overstepping the field of establishment. For when that field is overstepped, there is no release from the offense in sweeping and so forth, because of the non-performance of the duty to be done before the Uposatha ceremony, which is the cause of that offense. That is not dependent on the completion of the act, like the offense of intentional false speech that occurs here. Therefore, the bhikkhu who recites the Pātimokkha, intending to say, "Venerable sirs, declare your purity," first reminds them of the preliminary duty, which is the cause of purity or impurity. When it is done, it is a cause of purity; when not done, it is a cause of impurity. For that very reason, with the intention of considering both, without saying "done" or "not done," he simply says, "What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?" In the case of not done, to show the sequence of declaring purity, he will later say, "If anyone has an offense, he should reveal it." And in the case of done, he will say, "If there is no offense, one should remain silent." "When four bhikkhus have assembled at the very last division," and "in the Saṅgha assembled for the performance of the Uposatha..." ...outside... they also say, "consent should be given by one who does not give." But it is valid even if not assembled. This was said to show the time for giving consent. And it was said to show the procedure for one who, having performed the Uposatha outside, comes back to the assembly gathered for the Uposatha. Those dwelling in the main house, desiring to enter the main house, give consent to their fellow bhikkhus, and if the Saṅgha assembles, they say, "my consent should be announced," and enter the main house. This is the practice in Sri Lanka. However, the announcer should announce it when assembled. Among five bhikkhus dwelling in one monastery, since it is permitted to recite the Pātimokkha for four, having brought the purification of consent from one, the statement "consent should be taken and announced when assembled" seems meaningless. "Even if brought by a novice, it is valid, as it is said, 'he acknowledges a thief-companion' (Mahāvagga 165). It does not invalidate the act." And it is written: "If one, having given consent before, goes outside the boundary and then re-enters, there is no need to take consent afterwards; its application