Vinaya Pitaka (3): Khandhaka

by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 386,194 words | ISBN-13: 9781921842160

The English translation of the Khandhaka: the second book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of various narratives. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (third part, khandhaka) contains many Pali original words, but transliterated using a system similar to the I...

A village boundary, etc.

Kd.2.12.7 “Monks, when a boundary is not agreed upon, not established, whatever village or little town[1] (a monk) lives depending on, whatever is the village boundary of that village or the little town boundary of that little town, this in that case Vin.1.111 is (the boundary) for the same communion, for one Observance. If, monks, he is in what is not a village, in a jungle,[2] in this case the same communion, one Observance, is seven abbhantaras[3] all round. No river, monks, is a boundary, no sea is a boundary, no natural lake is a boundary. Where there is a river, monks, or a sea or a natural lake, that which in this case is (the boundary) for the same communion, one Observance, is the distance that a man of average (height) can throw water all round.”

Kd.2.13.1 Now at that time the group of six monks combined boundary with boundary.[4] They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon first, that (formal) act of theirs is legitimate, it is irreversible, fit to stand.[5] Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon afterwards, that (formal) act of theirs is not legitimate, it is reversible, not fit to stand. Monks, boundary should not be combined with boundary. Whoever should (so) combine, there is an offence of wrong-doing.


Kd.2.13.2 Now at that time the group of six monks placed boundary within boundary.[6] They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon BD.4.146 first, that (formal) act of theirs is legitimate, it is irreversible fit to stand. Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon afterwards, that (formal) act of theirs is not legitimate it is reversible, not fit to stand. Monks, a boundary should not be placed within a boundary. Whoever should (so) place within, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, when a boundary is being agreed upon, having left an interspace between boundaries,[7] to agree upon a boundary.

Footnotes and references:

1.

nigama, see BD.2.63, n.2.

2.

“Jungle” defined at BD.1.74, BD.1.85.

4.

sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti.

5.

Cf. BD.3.161 (Vin.4.214,) and Vin.1.313, Vin.1.316f. The last two, akuppa and ṭhānāraha, are defined at Vb-a.330.

6.

sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharanti.

7.

sīmantarika. This may be quite small: a hattha (on which see BD.2, Introduction, p.li.) according to Vin-a.1056; a span or four finger-breadths according to the two Sinhalese commentaries cited at Vin-a.1056.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: