English
Rejecting this view and showing the fault in measuring and throwing, the showing of the interior measurement and the act of throwing sand etc. is done to show the defined location of the self-arisen boundary, like showing the throwing and discerning of clods and baskets to know the village boundary and house boundary. Therefore, in the commentary on the table of contents, it is said, "They define the boundary by marking or by throwing water." Even if it is done this way, because the source of that demarcation cannot be known, those who know roughly should stand in a safe place at the edge, or those who exclude others should be sent to a safe place far away. Therefore, only with reference to the boundary as stated, the arising of those seven interior water-throwing boundaries and their destruction with its removal should be understood, this is our acceptance. It should be considered and understood, or another method more suitable than this should be sought, he said. It should be considered and understood. Another method more suitable than this should be sought, with this statement of the teacher, he shows that this statement is his own opinion and that the teacher is not subject to the offense of lacking analytical knowledge. And this statement is not the direct statement of the Blessed One, nor the statement of the elders who compiled the Dhamma, it is not included in the three councils, nor is it the expression of the commentator's opinion, therefore it should not be carefully considered. Even the Sāratthadīpanī, if the river is not too... Because it is said in the commentary on "if there is excess," that there is no water-casting boundary rite here, since the entire river area is occupied by monks, therefore, there is no need for water-casting due to the absence of a river all around. Thus, from the statement, "there is no need for water-casting due to the absence of a river all around," it is understood either by implication or by inference that when there is a river all around, there is indeed a need for water-casting to avoid group actions. Also, in the Mātikā commentary, which reveals hidden meanings, it is said, "The demarcation by water-casting should be done all around," which is said with reference to a suitable place. But where a small river is insufficient, the demarcation by water-casting should be done in a suitable place. By this statement, "the demarcation by water-casting should be done," it is understood that without water-casting, it does not arise by its own nature, along with the need for a boundary. Indeed, how could the demarcation by water-casting be done when there is no one to cast the water? Therefore, the statement, "to avoid group actions, an inner boundary with water-casting arises only when there is a need for a boundary, not otherwise," seems contradictory to the statements in both the Sāratthadīpanī and the Mātikā commentary. And in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, "Here too, there is no need for a small water-casting rite in a natural lake, small or large, with the proper characteristics, formed by a great flood falling from a high place to a low place; but in the ocean, the boundary rite must be done entirely by water-casting, because it is difficult to purify." Thus, how can this venerable teacher first say, "to avoid group actions, an inner boundary with water-casting arises only when there is a need for a boundary, not otherwise," and then later utter the statement, "here too, there is no need for a small water-casting rite," etc.? Here is the analysis: udakaṃ ukkhipitvā khipīyati etthāti udakukkhepo, There is an opportunity to throw water, but a place must be made, the action is doing, from the root "kara" with the suffix "ricca" and "yaṃ." "Today the task, the effort," as it is said, the act of throwing water, the doing, the act of throwing water. But in the sea, the word "pana" has a special meaning, it also has the meaning of "another side," some say. In the large lakes born of rivers, it should be done only within the water-throwing boundary, but in the small, only in the lake born of a river. But in the sea, especially, it should be done only within the water-throwing boundary, this is the special meaning of the word "pana." In every way, with everything. Only within the water-throwing boundary, here the "eva" emphasizes certainty, the action should be done only within the water-throwing boundary, never within the sea boundary, this meaning is fitting. But in the large lakes born of rivers, it should be done within the water-throwing boundary, but in the small lakes born of rivers, it should not be done, this meaning is obtained from the ability. In the lakes born of rivers, due to the distinction of small and large, two boundaries are obtained: the lake born of a river and the water-throwing. But in the sea, why are two not obtained, based on the sea and the water-throwing? But in the sea, why are two not obtained, based on the sea and the water-throwing? Having considered this question in mind, he says, "Because it is difficult to purify." There, because it is difficult to purify, because the sea is extremely large, it is very difficult for the monks who have crossed the sea to make a hand-span or eye-span, or to put outside the sea, therefore, in every way, with everything, it should be done only within the water-throwing boundary, this is the intention of the excellent teacher. If, for the sake of avoiding group actions, a boundary arises when a boundary is needed, in this case, the group of monks who have crossed the sea would put outside the hand-span, and in this case, the reason "because it is difficult to purify" would also become meaningless. But it is not possible to say this, therefore it is known that "the purpose of water-throwing is to avoid group actions." Moreover, according to the intention of those teachers, "we..." If they wish, "We will not make it with a water-casting boundary, we will only make it in the ocean," how will they do it? Therefore, according to their view, since the water-casting boundary occurs together with the boundary, the water-casting boundary should exist in the place reached. And if so, the statement, "But in the ocean, the act should always be done only with a water-casting boundary, because it is difficult to purify," would be meaningless. And if one should say thus... Even if the venerable teacher said the statement, "But in the ocean," etc., referring to the complete unavailability of an ocean boundary, it should still not be said. Why? If one wishes for such a meaning, it should be said, "But in the ocean, a water-casting boundary is always available." But it was not said thus. Or, even if it is divided according to the meaning of the words, due to context, etc., it still contradicts. How? Just as when it is said in combination, "Bring a cow with a calf," it is understood to be a cow, not a mare. When it is said, "A cow without a calf," it is understood to be a cow, not a mare. Similarly, when the ocean, which should be excluded by the word "only," is not too long, like a river, it should not be said with "only," "But in the ocean, the act should always be done only with a water-casting boundary." For example, when it is said in combination and separation, "A cow with a calf, a cow without a calf," it is understood to be a cow, not a mare. And mares, because the opening of their womb is too narrow, cannot give birth. When the fetus is mature, they tear open their belly and take out the noble foal. Thus, they die with only one pregnancy. Therefore, one cannot say, "A mare with a calf" or "without a calf." In the same way, since even a not-too-long ocean is never found, one cannot designate it with the word "only," which excludes it, "But in the ocean, the act should always be done only with a water-casting boundary." Therefore, the boundary arises with the water-casting. One must come to this conclusion here. Therefore, it was said, "If one wishes for such a meaning..." It should be said that a water-throwing boundary is possible in any sea, but it is not said so. Therefore, it is understood that sand etc. are thrown to avoid group actions. Moreover, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, "It is not proper to do it on a moving boat. Why? Because the boundary is only as far as the water is thrown, and the boat quickly passes it. In this case, the declaration is for one boundary, and the proclamation is for another." In the commentary on this, the boundary is the principle. By saying "quickly passes it," it shows that it is proper to do it while revolving within without passing it. For this purpose, the boundary is defined by sand etc. Otherwise, there would be doubt about the action, "Does it revolve outside or not?" The Venerable Teacher said that the proclamation is for the mere river boundary. If a water-throwing boundary arises with its own nature together with the boundary condition, then a water-throwing boundary would arise by surrounding the place where the boat goes, like a sabhā. Even if it arises, it should be said that the proclamation is for another boundary, that is, the proclamation is for another water-throwing boundary, but it is not said so. Even if one were to say, "The boundary condition is only in the place where one first lands, it is not in the place where one goes," that statement is also unreasonable. Why? Because as long as the action is not completed, it is impossible without the boundary condition. Therefore, it is understood that "a water-throwing boundary does not arise with its own nature together with the boundary condition without throwing water to avoid group actions." One must come to this conclusion here. Therefore, those who perform the action on a boat should make the boat more stable and immovable before doing it.