Allowance for a “not separated” boundary

^Kd.2.12.1 Now at one time the venerable Kassapa the Great, going from Andhakavinda^[1] to Rājagaha for Observance and crossing a river^[2] on the way, was nearly^[3] carried away, and his robes got wet. Monks spoke thus to the venerable Kassapa the Great: “Why are your robes wet, your reverence?”

“Now I, your reverences, coming from Andhakavinda to Rājagaha for the Observance and crossing a river on the way, was nearly carried away. Because of this my robes are wet.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Whatever boundary, monks, is agreed upon by an Order for the same communion, for one Observance, let the Order agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes.^[4]

^Kd.2.12.2 “And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary was agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance, if it seems right to the Order ^BD.4.143 the Order may agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary was agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance the Order is agreeing (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. If the agreement (to regard) this boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. This boundary is agreed upon the by Order (to be regarded as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

---

^Kd.2.12.3 Now at that time monks, thinking: “An agreement (for a monk to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is allowed by the Lord,” laid aside robes in a house.^[5] These robes were lost and burnt and eaten by rats. The monks became badly dressed, their robes worn thin. Monks spoke thus: “Why are you, your reverences, badly dressed, your robes worn thin?”

“Now we, your reverences, thinking: ‘An agreement (for a monk to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is allowed by the Lord,’ laid aside robes in a house. These robes have been lost and burnt and eaten by rats. That is why we are badly dressed, our robes worn thin.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Whatever boundary, monks, is agreed upon by an Order for the same communion, for one Observance, let the Order agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes, except it be a village and the precincts of a village.^[6]

^Kd.2.12.4 “And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon^[7]: … ^{Vin.1.110 BD.4.144} ‘… thus do I understand this’.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

According to Vin-a.1049 Andhakavinda was at least a gāvuta from Rājagaha. Around Rājagaha were eighteen large vihāras having the same boundary, but the “being all together” of an Order took place in the Bamboo Grove.

[2]:

Vin-a.1049 says the Sappinī (Sippinī), which they say rises in Mt. Vulture Peak, and because it flows quickly so near its source that is why the elder was nearly carried away.

[3]:

manaṃ, also at Ja.i.149, Dhp-a.iii.147.

[4]:

ticīvarena avippavāsa. Cf. Bu-NP.2 where a monk incurs an offence if he is away from the three robes even for one night unless he has obtained the agreement of the monks. But one who is ill may obtain an agreement to be regarded as not separated from his robes, although in fact he is. The above ruling is to the same effect. See BD.2.14, n.

[5]:

In Bu-NP.29 monks, if staying in jungle lodgings are allowed to lay aside one of their three robes in a house. But, except with the agreement of the monks, they must not be away from their robes for more than six nights.

[6]:

Defined at Vin.3.46; see BD.1.74, n.2. “Village having one precinct” defined at Vin.3.200, see BD.2.17 and note Vin-a.1051 says that the above ruling is not for nuns because they live in a village; see also Vinaya Texts i.256, n.1.

[7]:

The same as Kd.2.12.2 above, but after the words “away, separated from the three robes” add “except it be a village and the precincts of a village.”