English
that is the strength of one chaddanta elephant. The strength of ten chaddanta elephants, that is the strength of one... Such is the body strength of the Tathāgata. It is also called "strength reckoned as Nārāyana." Here, "nārā" means rays, many diverse rays arise from it, hence "Nārāyana," or it means strength reckoned as Vajira, the thunderbolt. That is, by ordinary elephant reckoning, a hundred thousand kotis of elephants, and by human reckoning, the strength of ten kotis of thousands of men, this is the body strength of the Tathāgata. The arrangement of power and dominion, however, should be understood according to the respective suttas. A medium man, namely, a carpenter's man, he, relying on the Tathāgata's strength, is unable to measure Mount Sineru with a mustard seed, even with a hundred, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand. He is unable even to grasp his toe, or even the toe itself. Because of his greatness compared to an ordinary man, and being in the middle, he is called a medium man. Thus, the Sugata's span is three spans of a carpenter, which is one and a half carpenter's cubits. Similarly, a carpenter's span is two spans of an ordinary man, which is a complete cubit of an ordinary man. Thus, the Sugata's span is now three spans of a medium man, which is one and a half carpenter's cubits, as stated in the commentary on the training rule about huts. This is not what is meant here by "medium man." Why? Because in the training rule about huts, it is three cubits, three cubits by a carpenter's cubit. A couch with the correct size means a couch with a size of nine spans by an ordinary span, as it is said. Thus, instead of saying "by a medium man" here, it is said in the commentary "by a medium man of his own." An ordinary man is said to have the body strength of ten men, that man, the elephant Kāḷāvaka, is called an ordinary man. Although some meritorious ones, such as King Ajātasattu, the physician Jīvaka Komārabhacca, and even a woman, Visākhā Migāramātā, possess the strength of five elephants, they do not, however... They are called "middle men," just ordinary men, but special men due to their merit. Here, however, an ordinary man's strength is intended by "middle man." "An udakkhepa" means defined by the throwing of water. Therefore, it is said in the commentary, the Līnatthappakāsanī, in the Mātikā: "Udakkhepa" is a word used in the instrumental sense. This is the meaning here: The area in rivers and natural lakes defined by the throwing of water all around by a middle man from the edge of the assembly, this area in those rivers, etc., which are established by common usage, and in those boundaries not fixed, is also of shared residence and one uposatha. But in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, "the throwing of water all around by a middle man" means the area defined by the throwing of water all around by a man of medium strength. There, just as dice players throw a wooden ball, so water or sand, having been taken in the hand, should be thrown with all one's might by a middle man. The place where the water or sand thus thrown falls, this is called an udakkhepa. "Here, of shared residence and one uposatha" means in those rivers, etc., the boundary defined by the throwing of water is indeed of shared residence and one uposatha. Having made this connection of meaning, "this is obtained only within these rivers, etc., not outside," therefore, in a river or natural lake, the area that water covers during the four months of the normal rainy season, and in the sea, the area where normal waves recede and settle, from there onwards is allowable ground. Even if rivers and natural lakes dry up during a drought or in the summer, that same area is allowable ground. But if, in a dried-up natural lake, they dig a well or make a garden, that place becomes village land. The allowable ground that has been mentioned, the udakkhepa boundary does not go outside it, but goes inside it. Therefore, it was said that "the definition by the throwing of water all around should be made starting from the edge of the assembly within them." Gaṇṭhi. Moreover, the term "all around" in the phrase "the middle man's throw" refers to the demarcation of the boundary during the performance of duties by groups of four or more, such as the *catuvagga* group, in the river called Udakukkhepa. The teachers say that it also indicates the demarcation of the boundary for separation from robes, like the demarcation of the boundary within the seven *abbhantara* limits. Therefore, it is written that even in the absence of the Udakukkhepa demarcation, it is proper to do it within the river. However, this statement, "even in the absence of the Udakukkhepa demarcation," does not align with the statement in the Great Commentary, "demarcated by Udakukkhepa all around," or with the statement in the *Mātikā* Commentary and the *Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī*, "the Udakukkhepa demarcation should be done all around," or with the statements in the *Vimativinodanī*, "even there, the middle man is not known, thus, throw with all your strength," or "for this very purpose, the boundary is demarcated with sand and so on." The author, avoiding criticism of others, did not say, "This is our opinion," but indicated another author by saying "the teachers." Later, in the conclusion, he said, "All this should be well considered, learned by attending upon a respected teacher, what is right should be accepted, what is not should be discarded." Therefore, it should be understood that it is written according to the opinion of other teachers. Otherwise, the commentaries that have reached even the Third Council, and the statements in the *Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī* and *Vimativinodanī* would have to be smeared, and the texts would become contradictory. Even the precepts established by the Buddha would have to be revised according to the opinions of the disciples. However, the precepts established by the Buddha should not be smeared, but should be followed as established. For it will be said that a monk who knowingly drinks alcohol commits a *pācittiya* offense, but for a novice who knowingly drinks it, there is a breach of morality, not if he does not know. The reason for this should be sought there. Since the establishment of precepts is the domain of the Buddhas alone, it should not be sought, but should be followed as established. Therefore, "it should be thrown around," thus, the rule was established in accordance with the throwing of water all around, or "defined by throwing water all around," or "water should be thrown," or even "the boundary is defined by throwing water," or "the throwing of water all around should be done," the words of the elders who compiled the Dhamma are the authority, for they know the Buddha's teachings. And this statement is not the direct word of the Blessed One, nor is it the word of the compiling elders, or perhaps, "where a man of medium height can throw water all around," like showing the boundary of this river... showing the boundary within seven lengths, the teachers say it was said to show the boundary of the sīmā. Therefore, it is established that it is proper to do it inside the river even without the throwing of water, neither the compiling elders nor the author of the book are involved in this interpretation. Why? Because in all three councils, in the Vinaya commentaries that have been ascended, and in the sub-commentaries that are their explanations, and in the Sīloka Ṭīkās, they write about the throwing of water in many ways, such as "defined by throwing water," "water should be thrown," "the throwing of water should be done." Therefore, it is understood that the compiling elders are not involved. And to avoid criticizing others, the author indicates another agent as "the teachers," therefore, it is understood that the author of the book is not involved. And this statement is the opinion of some elders, and that opinion is the weakest of all. Like measuring Mount Sineru with a mustard seed, what person could dare to smear the words of the all-knowing Buddha who established the rule of throwing water, and the words of Mahākassapa, Yasa, Moggaliputtatissa, and others, and their disciples and grand-disciples, who dwell in the Mahāvihāra? And because the act of ordination and other acts are weighty, and because they are the root of the Dispensation, they should be maintained with respect. "Where a man of medium height can throw water all around," was established by the Blessed One. How should a man of medium strength throw water, to avoid the criticism, whether the throwing distance itself is the boundary, or the boundary is defined by the act of throwing? Here, "how" means a question of intention: How, by what means, should water be thrown? Should it be thrown in the manner of sprinkling, or in the manner of throwing clods or wooden balls? Though "dice player" is used generally, like "the lion roars, the tail wags," here, due to the presence of "wooden ball," it is understood to mean a dice player who plays with wooden balls. For the word "dice" is established even in gambling. "Wooden ball" means a wooden toy made with spokes after being spun... Just as dice players, who are players of wooden balls, take a wooden ball in their hand, and showing their strength, bend down with all their might and throw it, so too, a man of medium strength, taking water or sand in his hand, as if showing his strength, should bend down and, with all his might, walk around the boundary of the assembly, whether sitting or standing, and throw it. Thus, the water or sand, wherever it falls, that place is called one water-throwing. By the phrase "this is one water-throwing," it shows the possibility of another water-throwing, due to the boundary being different, in the authority to perform actions separately for two communities. Therefore, in the commentary on the matrix, it is said: "If two communities perform the Uposatha and other actions separately,