English
In the Sāratthadīpanī also, it is said, "Here, it should be understood that it is proper to do it while revolving without passing the water-throwing boundary in 'It is not proper to do it on a moving boat.'" If one were to say, "As the assembly grows, so does the boundary grow from the edge of the assembly to the water," Because it is said in the Vinaya commentary that "the throw is the measure," it grows by the assembly, growing without throwing water, like a boundary of proximity. Therefore, there is no need for throwing water. Is this the meaning here? This boundary of water-throwing grows by the assembly alone, but in a fixed boundary, it grows by consensus. Why, when growing by the assembly, should water be thrown from the boundary of the assembly? Others say thus: formerly, the water-throwing was the measure, there is no further need for water-throwing, like the donation of kathina cloth and sāṭaka with a formal declaration. Indeed, the declaration made at the time of donating the kathina cloth lasts only once, even if the kathina is removed, there is no need to donate another vara-sāṭaka with a formal declaration. Similarly here, formerly, the water-throwing was the measure, there is no further need for water-throwing. Thinking like this, they speak as if it were a boundary of proximity. In a boundary of proximity, the place where a person sits grows as a boundary of proximity. Here, however, it grows by the measure of water-throwing from the boundary of the assembly, it is not accomplished without water-throwing. They break the commentary's statement, "How should the water be thrown? Just as dice players throw a wooden ball, so water or sand should be taken in the hand and thrown with all one's might by a man of moderate strength. Wherever the water or sand thus thrown falls, that is one water-throwing." What is it like? It is like those who say, "The action itself performs the action, there are no guardians of hell," they break the Devadūta Sutta, "There are, monks, guardians of hell." If one should say thus: even those who are successful with water-throwing, "Even if a thousand monks are standing, starting from the outside of that standing space, for the sake of avoiding group actions by the monks, with the arising of the need for a boundary, a boundary of seven abhyantara arises by itself with it, with equal communion." The intention is thus. But where in a small forest, due to the lack of suspicion of a complete group act by large or small bhikkhus, there is no need for a seven-inner boundary, a seven-inner boundary does not arise. Only the forest boundary is where the Sangha should perform the act. The same method applies to rivers and so on. "They break the words spoken in the Vinaya Vinodani." That is not so. What harm is there to us by that? No contradiction exists in our argument. Why? Because these two word constructions are unrelated, of different characteristics, and of different subjects, these boundaries. How are the word constructions unrelated? Just as in the forest, it is said that a seven-inner boundary does not arise there, only the forest boundary, so too, without saying "the Sangha sits everywhere in the river, the water-casting boundary does not arise," it is said, "there is no act for the water-casting boundary," by way of referring to the action. The act to be done. What is that? Casting. Thus, the word constructions are unrelated. "For the avoidance of a group act... up to... the water-casting boundary, the seven-inner boundary arises, it does not not exist," here, the meaning of "it does not not exist" is also fitting as "even without the water-casting." Why? Because by this "only when there is a need for a boundary," the meaning "it does not arise when there is no need for a boundary" is also fitting by way of the positive method. Some, however, say "a boundary arises only by measuring the interior from all sides and making a demarcation, not by itself," that should not be taken. If indeed... as here, so too in the water-casting boundary, in rivers and so on, there too a middle person is not known. Thus, by this statement "casting with all strength," the intention of the excellent teacher is known that the water-casting boundary arises only when there is a need for a boundary together with the water-casting, it does not not exist. How are they of different characteristics? The village boundary, the seven-inner boundary, and the water-casting boundary, although similar in the generality of an unbound boundary, are not of the same characteristic. Thus, "O bhikkhus, without consent to a boundary..." That which is established there, depending on whatever village or market town one dwells, that village's boundary, or the market town's boundary, this is co-residence, a single uposatha. In this training rule, whether small or large, the entire village area is allowed as the village boundary, not like the seven-abbhantara boundary, an inner boundary allowed by throwing a clod of earth all around. Even in the wilderness, if it is not a village, depending on whatever forest one dwells, that forest's boundary is not allowed as the forest boundary. Likewise, in rivers, seas, and natural lakes, just as the entire village area is the village boundary, so too, the entire area of rivers, seas, and natural lakes is not allowed as the boundary of rivers, seas, and natural lakes. Similarly, like the inner boundary, it is not allowed as seven-abbhantara all around. Thus, these village boundary, seven-abbhantara, and water-throwing boundaries have different characteristics. Therefore, according to the training rule established by the Blessed One, even in the village boundary, whether small or large, the entire village area is the village boundary. Even in the seven-abbhantara boundary, according to the established training rule, "seven-abbhantara all around," the seven-abbhantara boundary arises by itself in conjunction with the boundary marker. Therefore, measuring and considering are pointless. Likewise, in the water-throwing boundary, in accordance with the established training rule, "water-throwing all around by a man of average height," it arises together with the water-throwing. Therefore, there is no need to consider throwing or not throwing. How are the seven-abbhantara boundary and the water-throwing boundary different in their scope? The seven-abbhantara boundary concerns the wilderness, the water-throwing boundary concerns rivers, seas, and natural lakes. Thus, these village boundary, seven-abbhantara, and water-throwing boundaries are different in their scope. Therefore, even if it is said, "the same method applies to rivers, etc.," the seven-abbhantara boundary arises by itself, with its own nature, in conjunction with the boundary marker, just as it is. Just so, in the water-throwing boundary, having thrown water together with the boundary marker, the water-throwing boundary arises for the purpose of avoiding group actions and exclusions, and not without it. This conclusion should be made. But surely, in the commentary on the matrix text... Even if one stands inside the boundary, having abandoned the hand-span, or outside the boundary, without transgressing another such boundary, he corrupts the act; if it is said that this agrees with the established opinion in all the commentaries, it is not so. Because in the commentary on the Mātikā, it is said that, "If two Saṅghas perform the Uposatha and other acts separately, another water-pouring should be placed between the two water-pourings for the sake of the boundary," in the context of two Saṅghas performing acts separately. And in the Sāratthadīpanī, "Therein, even if one stands without transgressing another such boundary, he corrupts the act; this is not found in the Pāli, nor in the commentary. And if this is said in the context of two Saṅghas performing the Uposatha and other acts separately, that for the purpose of performing the Uposatha and other acts, the Saṅgha standing outside the water-pouring, without transgressing another water-pouring, corrupts the act due to the possibility of boundary confusion, it would be fitting with this intention. Thus, in the Līnatthappakāsanī on the Mātikā commentary, 'another such boundary' means that even without transgressing the second water-pouring, he corrupts it. Why? Because by being within the boundary of his own water-pouring and the boundary of another's water-pouring, there is boundary confusion, therefore he corrupts it," and "this should be taken as said with this intention, that this is the established opinion in all the commentaries." Because in all the commentaries, boundary confusion is not desired, therefore it is said that another water-pouring should be placed between the boundary of one's own and another's water-pouring, for the sake of the boundary interval. Others here explain it differently, but that should not be accepted," having said this, it is rejected. By this, "one standing outside the hand-span corrupts the act," it is shown that one standing anywhere outside the boundary does not corrupt the act, according to the Sāratthadīpanī statement, that in one Saṅgha gathering, another outside the boundary. It should be understood that even if it remains within that limit, it does not invalidate the action. In the Sāratthadīpanī itself, to strengthen this point, it is said that the boundary marker with the water-toss measurement is easier to discern, and there will be no doubt of boundary infringement. Another water-toss should be placed to indicate the boundary. But as much as there is no boundary infringement, it is indeed proper to place that much. Therefore, the ancients said, "As much as there is no boundary confusion, it is indeed proper to place that much. But a small amount is not proper." Here, due to increasing the perimeter of the water-toss boundary, there may be doubt of boundary infringement.