English
another water-throwing should be placed between the two water-throwings for the sake of demarcation." And in the Vimativinodanī, it says: "The end of that means the end of that water-throwing delimited place, not only the end of that, but also the end of another water-throwing outside of that is not proper to stand," the statement is difficult to "Knowing, there is a disturbance of the act," it was said. But in Sāratthadīpanī, "Standing outside the range of an arm's reach, he disturbs the act," by this limitation, it shows that standing anywhere outside does not disturb the act. Having said this, the commentary on the Mātikā was also rejected. That should be understood as referring to a single assembly of the Saṅgha. Just as boundary markers are placed to avoid the intermingling of separate bounded boundaries that are divided and joined to the great boundary, so too, due to the great extent of rivers, seas, and natural lakes, which are like village boundaries by their own nature, the water boundary by water elevation has been permitted by the Blessed One. Even so, just as with two bounded boundaries, to avoid intermingling, another water elevation should be placed as a boundary marker between two water elevation boundaries. A bounded boundary with a sign, a water boundary with water elevation, one water elevation should be seen as a boundary marker. Therefore, in the Vimativinodanī, it was said, "Here, this procedure of boundary markers should be seen as established in accordance with the suttas allowing boundary markers for two bounded boundaries." But in a single assembly of the Saṅgha, even standing outside one water elevation does not disturb the act, it should be seen. For in the Vimativinodanī it was said, "Knowing that the overlapping and covering of each other of two bounded boundaries dependent on a single village boundary and of a single nature, and the standing without separation without a boundary marker, was indeed approved by the Blessed One due to the cause, the teachers of the commentary also made the procedure of boundary markers here. For even boundaries of different natures, when endowed with two factors, being dependent on a single boundary and being of a single nature, then standing without a boundary marker leads to intermingling, not otherwise, it should be seen." Thus, in rivers, seas, and natural lakes, having shown the limitation by water elevation in accordance with the training rule proclaimed as "water elevation all around," in the case of short-flowing rivers, In a place without water-throwing, to show its complete suitability like a village boundary by its own nature, if it is not too long, he said, "From its source onwards." There, "from its source onwards" means, from the upper part of the place where a river flows for a maximum of four months. "Up to the mouth" means, the riverbank itself is intended here as the mouth. "Everywhere" means, there is no water-throwing boundary action in any part of the river. The boundary caused by water-throwing is the water-throwing boundary. "Action" is the meaning of "karitabbaṃ," the root is "kara" in "karakaraṇa," and "ramma" is the suffix. "Karaṇa" is the bodily expression, a modification of the wind element produced by the seventh wholesome javana-citta in the mind-door path. By that bodily expression, what is thrown, what is lifted, is called action. But in the ultimate sense, it is just a group of eight kalāpas, caused by the impact of the wind element of the mind, known as bodily expression, which brings about the attainment of another place. The action of the water-throwing boundary is the water-throwing boundary action. That does not exist here in a short river. This is the meaning: If the river is not too long, half a yojana, a gāvuta, or half a gāvuta, from the place of its origin up to the riverbank, the Saṅgha sits covering the entire river area, there, in that river area, because there is no fear of group action due to the absence of the remaining river all around, there is no water-throwing boundary action, only the river itself is the boundary. The Sāratthadīpanī and the Mātikāṭṭhakathāyalinatthappakāsanī also state this conclusion. But the Vimativinodanī says, where in a small forest, there is no need for a boundary within seven abbbhantaras because of the absence of fear of group action due to the completeness of the large number of bhikkhus, there, a boundary within seven abbbhantaras does not arise, only the forest boundary itself is where the Saṅgha should perform the action. The same method applies to rivers and so on. For he will say, "If the river is not too long, from its source onwards up to the mouth, everywhere..." The Saṅgha sits, "There is no water-casting boundary," and so on, in both cases. In which direction the space for seven lengths or a water-casting is not sufficient, how could measuring or casting occur there? By entering into village fields and so on, the boundary would enter a non-field, and the excessive boundary would fail. But in the arising of a boundary by dependence, where it is sufficient, there, the seven-length water-casting boundary becomes complete by itself. But where it is not sufficient, there it arises only according to the extent of its own field, not beyond, it is said. And here, because it is said that "the seven-length water-casting boundary becomes complete by itself in dependence on the boundary," they say that a water-casting boundary arises in dependence on the boundary without a water-casting, but that seems unreasonable. Why? Because of contradiction with the Pāli method, and also because of contradiction with the statement made later in the Vimativinodanī. And this statement might have been made by the teacher for the purpose of expressing the opinion of some individuals. Why? Because it is inconsistent with the statement made later, and also because it contradicts the words of the Pāli commentaries and sub-commentaries, which we will describe later. Just as in the world, without surrounding a garden plot, one cannot say, "This is the place of the garden plot," and just as without plowing with the tip of a plow, one cannot say, "This is the place for plowing," and just as when people are making a building, without cutting down trees with an axe, hatchet, or adze, one cannot say, "This is the place where my axe fell," and just as without reaping with a sickle, one cannot say, "This is the place where I reaped," so too, without casting water or sand with the hand, one cannot say, "This is one water-casting, and this is the place where the water fell." And here, in the Vimativinodanī, two monks are arguing thus: "Where, in a small forest, there is no need for a seven-length boundary due to the absence of the possibility of group action being complete by senior monks, there, a seven-length boundary does not arise; only a forest boundary arises." The act should be done by the Sangha together, and this is the method for rivers and such. For it will be said, "If the river is not too long, the Sangha sits everywhere from its source to its mouth, there is no water-throwing boundary act," etc. By this very statement, for the sake of avoiding group acts, when there is a need for a boundary, a water-throwing boundary, a seven-abbhantara boundary arises, when there is no need, it does not arise, it should be seen. Because it was said that without water-throwing, from the edge of the assembly onwards, with the need for a boundary, together with it, a water-throwing boundary arises, therefore there is no need for water-throwing at all. They should be told thus: "Do not speak like this, good sirs, and do not misrepresent the excellent teacher, and this statement is a statement requiring interpretation from the excellent teacher, for even later the excellent teacher will state the conclusion. Your statement does not agree with the statements made in the Vinaya commentaries and the Sāratthadīpanī, and it does not fit with the statement made later in the Vimativinodanī. How can it be a statement requiring interpretation? "When there is a need for a boundary... ...it does not arise," here, without the need for a boundary, for the purposes of walking, bathing, etc., by monks in the forest or in rivers and such, it does not arise at the very moment of entering. When there is a need for a boundary, in the forest, a seven-abbhantara boundary arises all around, in accordance with the established training rule. In rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, a water-throwing boundary arises together with water-throwing all around for a man of medium height, in accordance with the established training rule, not without water-throwing. This is the meaning requiring interpretation. "It does not arise," here, the meaning without water-throwing is not obtained either. And in that case, in the Vimativinodanī itself, again, in these three unestablished boundaries that are established by worldly convention, in rivers and such, the intention is to show the limit of the unestablished boundary that is established by the convention of the Teaching, for the sake of avoiding group acts again. In the Pāli, "What is thrown by a man of medium height..." etc., the place where water is thrown and cast, the water-th Here, the opportunity for water to be thrown is the reason for throwing water. This is the meaning here according to the connection of words... "From the boundary of the assembly, all around, up to where a man of average height can throw water, the place where the water falls, that defined area, this is the water-throwing boundary in rivers etc., where there is no separate cohabitation," this should be similar to the words with the stated meaning. Some teachers say that a boundary is defined only by measuring the interior from all sides and making a demarcation, not by itself.