English
are to be understood in the same way as stated in the rule on taking what is not given" (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 512). Here, in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, it is also stated: "Without asking a resident bhikkhu...etc.... when one enters the precincts" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Commentary on the rule about entering a village at the wrong time). Whatever, then, In some books, this reading is seen: "For a bhikkhunī, in the matter of going between villages, with one foot, when crossing the boundary or entering the precinct of another village, there is a grave offense. With the second foot, as soon as it crosses, or as soon as it enters, there is a saṅghādisesa." There, the words "okkante" (entering) and "okkantamatte" (as soon as it enters) are superfluous. They were merely written by others who copied. In some books, the word "okkantamatte ca" (and as soon as it enters) is not seen; the other is seen. Those two words contradict the Pāli. For the Pāli is: "When crossing the precinct of an un-enclosed village" (Pāci. 692). Likewise, they contradict the Samantapāsādikā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 692). For it is said: "When crossing with one foot the place worthy of an enclosure, there is a grave offense. When crossing with the second foot, there is a saṅghādisesa. Moreover, here, from one's own village... (etc.)... with one foot, when crossing the boundary or precinct of another village, there is a grave offense. With the second foot, as soon as it crosses, there is a saṅghādisesa" (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 692). And in its Gaṇṭhipada, having said "when crossing the boundary," it is said: "The same method applies to the precinct." And in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: "In some books, 'when entering the precinct of an un-enclosed village' is also seen. That should not be taken." Further, it is said: "By the phrase 'when crossing the precinct of an un-enclosed village,' it should be understood thus: when entering a village at an improper time, the precinct should be delimited by the throwing of two clods. Otherwise, just as here, having made the place worthy of an enclosure like an enclosure, it is said 'when crossing,' so there too, it would say 'when crossing the precinct of an un-enclosed village.' But because there, beyond the place worthy of an enclosure, one clod-throw is intended as the precinct. Therefore, to clarify that meaning, it is said 'when entering the precinct of an un-enclosed village'." But what in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, the boundary... Only for places to be crossed over, they call it 'upacāra', having noted it. "For one entering the 'upacāra', to show the distinction of places to be enclosed or not enclosed," it is said. Not noting the Pāli's distinction, "For one transgressing the 'upacāra' of an unenclosed village, here the 'upacāra' should be like an enclosure. For one crossing that 'upacāra' with the first foot, an offense of dukkaṭa. For one crossing with the second foot, an offense of pācittiya," it is said. That should not be taken, for there is a distinction in the Pāli. In the old commentaries, "For a bhikkhunī transgressing the 'upacāra', an offense of 'gāmantara'," it is said. Therefore, here, to resolve doubt, "With one foot, of the other... (etc.) as soon as it is transgressed, a saṅghādisesa," this very reading should be understood. Thus far, in these aforementioned places, the aforementioned boundary itself should be understood as the village. To explain this meaning, "A village means even a single hut," etc. (Pārā. 92) is said. According to this, even if there is no transgression of an enclosure, or entering the 'upacāra', or from within the monastery, or from the bhikkhunī's residence, or from the residence of heretics, or from returning, for one entering that village, by way of transgressing the enclosure within the monastery, or the 'upacāra', offenses due to the village should be understood. But the village 'upacāra', in "excluding the village and the village 'upacāra'" (Mahāva. 144) here, is the enclosure of an enclosed village, and the space for enclosure of an unenclosed village. This is said in the commentary: "Village 'upacāra' means the enclosure of an enclosed village, the space for enclosure of an unenclosed village. Among these, a bhikkhu who has determined his three robes does not obtain exemption." (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144). What is the reason here, by which this village and village 'upacāra' are different here, and so elsewhere? From the origin story: "Now at that time, bhikkhus, thinking, 'The Buddha has allowed the permission not to be separated from the three robes,' were depositing robes inside houses." (Mahāva. 143) Indeed, in the mixed origin of the case, it is said, "excluding the village and the village precincts" (Mahāva. 144). Therefore, where there is the perception of being within houses, there the non-absence boundary is not reached, this should be understood. And by this, in the training rule concerning the "rained-on" robe, it is said, "having deposited the robe within the village, one should dwell within the village" (Pārā. 478), and "either in the assembly hall or at the foot of the door, or within arm's reach, it should not be abandoned." Indeed, only one dwelling in a permissible area protects a robe deposited in a permissible area. But in the training rule concerning doubt, it is said, "since where a robe is deposited in a village, one who departs from that village is said to depart from the robe, therefore, one should enter the village boundary again, dwell, and then depart." Indeed, in that training rule, the village boundary is intended to be called the village. There, in the analysis of the training rule concerning entering a village at an improper time, by the saying, "for one who crosses the enclosure of an enclosed village, there is an offense of expiation" (Pāci. 513), the enclosure is not the village. But it is shown by implication to be the village precinct. However, in the analysis of this training rule, starting with "what is called the village precinct," by this [definition]: "the throw of a clod by a medium-sized man standing in the house precinct of an unenclosed village," it is established that the area of enclosure for an unenclosed village is the village precinct. Since that meaning is possible, the throw of a clod by one standing in that house precinct is the village precinct, it is said in the Kurunda Commentary and also in the Mahāpaccari. Indeed, "precinct" (upacāra) in phrases like "a village with one precinct, with many precincts" refers to the gate, and in "an open space with one precinct," it refers to the measure of seven cubits all around. Therefore, it should be understood that in the Andhaka Commentary, it is said: "the village precinct is the enclosure of an enclosed village, and the area of enclosure for an unenclosed village." Similarly, in the Kurundi and the Mahāpaccari. Similarly, in the Pāli itself: "The inner monastery is the inside of an enclosed monastery, and for an unenclosed one, it is the precinct. The inner dwelling is for an enclosed dwelling... the interior of the dwelling is the village, the precinct of the un-enclosed (village)’’ and so on. In the Great Commentary, however, it is seen as ‘‘village precinct’’ and so on. Therefore, the second clod-throw is intended as the precinct. And because of the special Pāli passage: ‘‘one who enters the precinct of an un-enclosed village incurs an offense of expiation’’, the first clod-throw is indeed the village, the second is said to be the village precinct. But for an enclosed village, the clod-throw of a medium-sized man standing at the village gate-post is said to be the village precinct; there is no difference here. Thus far, the two kinds of precinct for an enclosed village, and the four kinds of precinct for an un-enclosed village, where they are possible and where they are not possible, all that has been shown. The definition of the village field and the village boundary is stated in the Commentary itself. Both are in essence one. There, the village-ness of the village boundary should be understood in terms of the doubtful training rule. The village boundary precinct is a place of passage for forest dwellers who seek wood, grass, flowers, fruits, and so on, for humans. The nature of this village boundary precinct should be understood in the training rule concerning the removal of a dwelling, and in the Khandhaka, at the place where it says: ‘‘in a village-less forest, seven cubits all around’’ (Pārā. 494). For here, the Blessed One, showing the boundary to monks dwelling near a village, says: ‘‘dwelling dependent on whatever village or town’’ (Mahāva. 147), and then shows it. Immediately thereafter, he shows the seven-cubit boundary with ‘‘in a village-less (forest)’’ and so on. Therefore, a monk who does not dwell dependent on a village or a town, but is merely traveling by boat or by land route, for him, a seven-cubit boundary is obtained here and there; this should be understood. For it is said: ‘‘there is a caravan of one family, having deposited the robe in the caravan, one should not go beyond seven cubits in front or behind’’ and so on (Pārā. 489). It is with reference to this very forest that it is said: ‘‘one village-less forest as the forest boundary’’. With reference to which, ‘‘ "In a village-less forest, at every half-yojana, there is an offense of pācittiya," it is said in the Pāli (Pāci. 414). This is one "village-less forest" of the rules concerning arrangements. By the former, a dwelling is included; by this, it is not included. Regarding this, in the commentary on falling behind the group (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 692), it is said: "Here, concerning 'in a village-less forest,' the forest is defined as 'everything outside the city gate-post.' That is called 'village-less' merely due to the absence of a village, not because it resembles the Vindhya forest." Regarding this, it is said: "A forest dwelling is one that is five hundred bow-lengths distant" (Pārā. 654; Pāci. 573).