Four-Part Vinaya Practice Commentary (四分律行事鈔資持記)

Chapter on Releasing Boundaries

"Boundary" (jiè) refers to the formal demarcation established by a two-fold motion and resolution (羯磨), which is the method that enables the procedure. "Boundary" also means separating one area from another — it marks the specific place where the restriction is applied. The commentary explains: the formal action is tied to a location, setting aside one region and limiting to another, hence it is called a "boundary." The Vinaya states: "A boundary is where the formal announcement and restriction are made." Furthermore, the commentary on the *Abhidharma* explains that the original term is *sīmā*, which means "separate dwelling" — that is, the conduct performed in this dwelling does not connect with other dwellings, and they do not seek each other's consent, hence the name. "Square" (fāng) can also mean "method," and together with "boundary" forms a compound term, referring to the four divisions that follow. These are to be relied upon by later generations, hence all are called "methods." However, the word "boundary" in the title, if viewed from the initial establishment, seems to include natural boundaries; now, referring to the completed formation, it is a formal boundary (kamma boundary). Formal boundaries are of three types: for the monastic community (saṅgha), for possessions, and for clothing/food. Here we focus on the monastic community; the other two are discussed later. The community is further divided into three types: large, small, and the assembly area. The large and small each have three varieties, making seven kinds in total. Thus should it be understood.

**Narrative and First Section.** The origin of the rules traces back to the fundamental cause of the Buddha’s establishment of the precepts. Upholding these rules clarifies the purpose behind designating a boundary for the community. Although the Vinaya arose from specific circumstances—initially prompted by the fortnightly confession ceremony—the deeper intent behind the regulations actually extends to all communal affairs. The commentary explains: The boundary is the foundation of the whole community, so it must be established with unanimous agreement. All other communal matters are secondary, arising only after this foundation is set. Therefore, apart from the boundary-setting ceremony, every other formal act of the community depends on the properly defined ground.

Next, we explain the two lines above and introduce the underlying intention behind the rules. First, we discuss the Karman (formal monastic acts). The Sangha is defined by harmony, but harmony resides in the mind; without speech it cannot be made manifest. Therefore, vocal expression is necessary to convey the collective sentiment of the Sangha. When both the people and the Dharma are in unity, they are as indistinguishable as water and milk—hence the term "essential framework." Through the acts of receiving precepts, giving teachings, and resolving disputes, the monastic code is upheld, and the Buddha's teachings can endure. The merit of supporting and correcting also arises from the Karman. If we speak of the continuation of the teachings, it truly spans all three periods; here, referring to the "age of semblance" indicates the time after the Buddha's passing. "In this context" points specifically to the Karman. The first two lines extol the virtues of the Three Jewels; the next two lines highlight the achievements according to the time. The phrase "reason dictates" then clarifies the necessity of harmony and unity. Since the Dharma is so superior and sublime, practitioners must all uniformly follow it. "The ten directions" here refers specifically to this world (Jambudvīpa); "permitted" means "allowed."

The explanation of the arising conditions is divided into two parts: the first two lines clarify the vastness of the realm. "Yanfu," "Yanfu," and "Shanbu" are all phonetic variations; the *Fangzhi* translates it as "the abode of the Wheel-Turning Kings." (Because the four Wheel-Turning Kings all dwell here—the Golden Wheel rules over the four continents, the Silver Wheel excludes the Northern Continent, the Copper Wheel excludes the Northern and Western Continents, and the Iron Wheel excludes the Northern, Western, and Eastern Continents.) The addition of "ti" (dvipa) is explained in the *Shijiapu* as meaning "continent." A landmass surrounded by water is called a continent; this one lies in the great sea south of Mount Sumeru. "Mi" means vast; "gen" means expansive. The *Abhidharmakosha* states: its three sides are each two thousand yojanas wide, (One yojana equals sixteen li, so each of the three sides is 32,000 li.) the southern side is three and a half yojanas wide, (That is 56 li; the total circumference is 96,056 li.) and the faces of its inhabitants mirror this shape. (The *Zenhui* states that this is based on the five regions of India alone; according to the *Zhu Fa Tu Zan*, the three sides are each 280,000 li, the middle of the southern side is 80,000 li, and it gradually narrows toward the south, with a total circumference of about one million li.) The next part describes the circumstances for establishing the precepts, also in two sections. The first clarifies that a collective undertaking is difficult to accomplish; the second clarifies that carrying it out alone causes harm. The character "yao" (要) is read in the level tone and means "to summarize" or "to bind." "Ke" (剋) means "to fulfill." The *Saying the Precepts Chapter* (Poṣadha Khandhaka) relates: At that time, when the monks heard that the Buddha permitted them to go to Rājagṛha to recite the precepts, those who heard this in various places grew weary from the journey to gather; they reported this to the Buddha, who from then on allowed boundary lines to be drawn and assemblies to be held locally, etc.

In establishing the teaching, the first two phrases clarify what is permitted. "Utmost immediacy" summarizes the two conditions above. The division through formal procedures indicates the method of concluding the precepts. Honoring the same boundary and following it together clarifies the restrictions. When all within the same boundary carry out the formal acts together, a separate assembly cannot succeed. When the task is accomplished, one's own practice is not neglected; when events follow through, it means that communal acts are easily completed—this reveals the benefit. The final phrase provides a general conclusion. Furthermore, interpreting it in reverse: the restriction of the boundary counters the collective condition above; the formal procedures counter the natural condition above; the same boundary counters the ten directions above; and the success of the task and the completion of events counter the two drawbacks above.

The text is organized into four chapters. The first two explain the causes and circumstances of the compilation, while the latter two clarify what is correct and incorrect after the compilation is complete.

Simplifying the Chinese. The reason for listing the rules on clothing and food collection is that they are governed by the same boundary. Referring to the main texts, each follows its own category. The *Commentary on the Karmavācanā* states: The clothing boundary gathers robes to belong to individuals, preventing the offense of sleeping apart from them. The food boundary stores provisions to support the monastic community, preventing the offense of overnight cooking. The monastic boundary unites people in one place, preventing the offense of a divided assembly. These three aspects of boundaries are clear in their principles.

In the natural state, what is initially clear is that all things naturally unify. That is to say, the upper realms and the floating world form one collection. Emptiness is the hermitage; existence is the settlement; water is the realm of water; land is the path of practice. These four kinds of encompassing places leave nothing uncovered in their characteristics. Before differentiation, all is unified into one collection.

After this, it clarifies the naturalness of the six characteristics. This is the initial opening. The first three sentences describe the conditions for opening. The objects correspond to the four places mentioned above; their boundaries are the limits of their realms. The following passage on "people" explains the name. Without any contrived effort, this is called "spontaneous operation." When it speaks of "the arising of realms," it simply means that wherever the body goes, boundaries exist—not that any phenomenon is truly produced. The passage beginning with "according to" points to the measure, which is understandable.

Among the methods of formal proceedings, there are two main divisions: first, explaining the natural boundaries, with the opening two lines giving a general indication. Then, beginning with "suppose," there is a separate explanation with two parts: the opening four lines clarify that expanding or contracting causes obstruction. What the teaching texts establish as fixed are the distinctions of the six aspects. What cannot be used are cases where the boundary lines and locations do not correspond to each other. What is set aside as not governed by precepts means that without relying on the six aspects, there is no teaching-based allowance. The following two lines clarify insufficiency. Since the Karma procedure is noble and special, ordinary ground cannot carry it out—like holding a secret mantra, one must establish an altar platform. The Karma procedure and mantra arts are quite similar in kind.

Then, "below" begins the explanation of the sphere of formal proceedings, starting with describing the opening and binding. This is the second opening. Having opened and opened again, it is described as "skillfully following." What is fixed as a standard model is the restriction within the opening. Then "accordingly" below reveals the benefit. The opening line above counters the first concern, and the following four lines counter the second concern.

Question: Up to this point, how many openings have there been? Answer: The initial explanation of the all-encompassing unity is the original establishment. (The vinaya directs establishing a preaching hall, which still falls within the all-encompassing single boundary, identical to the original establishment.) Next, dividing the six aspects is the first opening. Then directing a localized binding is the second opening. Furthermore, within formal proceedings there are two more openings: convening to establish a platform for numerous gatherings, and establishing a small boundary for difficult circumstances. If we consider the two kinds of great boundaries—where Dharma and food are shared, and where Dharma is shared but food is separate—these also count as openings. However, since they are ultimately great boundaries, they are not separately discussed. Thus, altogether there have been four openings, clearly evident in the text. Many ancients misinterpreted this, so it must be clarified.

Question: Do the six aspects of natural boundaries allow for performing Karma procedures? Answer: There is no explicit statement on this. We determine it by principle. If we take as a basis that eight years after [the Buddha's enlightenment] Karma procedures for ordination had begun, and twelve years later disciples were told to preach extensively, and from this the establishment of boundaries was initiated, then we know that before binding, Karma procedures were already performed. Designating a preaching hall also occurred within natural boundaries. The Dharmaguptaka school's position that ordination can be accomplished within natural boundaries also stems from this. If so, then why say the ground is too weak to bear it? Answer: Because within natural boundaries it cannot bear it, so binding is established—or perhaps this is said from the perspective after the opening. A commentary says: once the first opening has occurred, any formal action cannot be accomplished without a boundary; thus the regulation emphasizes unity, and the benefit lies precisely here—first opening, then regulating. Otherwise, what use would opening the six aspects of natural boundaries serve? Could one always act with mere mental resolution alone? Moreover, the Sarvāstivāda vinaya mentions seven trees, with two assemblies at opposite ends—this clearly goes beyond mere boundary binding!

Question: Why is it that today some still establish a preaching hall binding ceremony? Answer: This is a confusion regarding the teaching. The method of binding a preaching hall arises from the time before separate binding had been opened, when a single natural boundary prevailed; since assemblies were difficult to convene reliably, a designated location was indicated. Once localized binding emerged, the preaching hall method was abolished. Moreover, the preaching hall method was merely a designation; when it came to actually gathering the assembly, it still relied on natural boundaries. It was never a true boundary binding, so how could one practice it arbitrarily? There are also those who mistakenly cite the original great boundary Karma procedure as the preaching hall procedure—this error is even worse.

Nevertheless, in this degenerate age, those who understand the Dharma are rare. Those dwelling together may number in the hundreds or thousands, yet those who come may not reach dozens. If we require complete assembly, the matter will certainly fail. If one truly wishes to bind a separate location for the purpose of carrying out practice, one may follow the example of the surrounding boundary wheel and must add the great boundary Karma procedure. As for preaching and the pravaraṇa ceremony, the original regulation requires complete assembly. However, the vinaya states that if monks are present at the platform on uposatha day, offenses can still be resolved and the ceremony accomplished—though this deviates from the intent of the regulation, it seeks to accomplish the formal act. Moreover, when foolish practitioners fail to assemble, the situation is akin to difficult conditions; in judging offenses with due consideration, such action cannot be deemed faulty.

In the great boundary, it is marked that "Dharma and food are both shared," but according to the *Commentary on the Karmavācanā*, it should properly read "people and Dharma are both shared." That text states there are three types of boundaries: where both people and Dharma are shared(living in the same place and observing the same recitation of precepts.), where Dharma and food are both shared, and where Dharma is shared but food is separate(these latter two are explained below.). The difference is due to a copying error, with no other underlying reason.(It was previously said that the monks' regular practice is placed first, and that "Dharma and food are both shared" encompasses the latter two—this is incorrect; the latter two are separately listed later in the text.)

Among the various calculations cited, the initial reference is to the “Four-Part Vinaya”’s explanation of the chanting of precepts. “Those who chant together with the same precepts” refers to those who share the same Dharma-boundary. “Not accepting the desire” means that a previously expressed intention cannot be fulfilled. “Approximately a hundred miles” indicates a distance measured by days, not precisely fixed, hence the word “approximately.” This serves as the foundation for the later synthesis. Next, in the “Mātṛkā” commentary, it is called the “daytime correspondence method,” thus it speaks of “going and returning within a day.” Based on this, it is even narrower than the “Four-Part Vinaya.” (An old interpretation equated this with the same rule, meaning one day to go and one day to return; this is incorrect.) The phrase “although” below concludes both points. The earlier mention of a hundred miles was merely an analogical standard.

In the clarification of the yojana, the initial citation draws on the measurements from four schools of the Vinaya, which are in agreement. For example, the *Mahīśāsaka Vinaya* states: "At that time, there were monks who established boundaries with no limits; the Buddha then ruled that the farthest should be three yojanas." When corners are joined, the dimensions across are equal.

Next, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra* is cited to show the variation in yojana lengths, first listing three grades. The explanation below clarifies the reasoning: on flat, open terrain, the distance is extended; through rugged, dangerous passes, it is shortened. The commentary says: "Yojana is a unit of measurement from the central region of India, properly called *yojana* (Sanskrit). There is no direct translation, as it originally referred to the royal rest-stops used during a wheel-turning king's tours—much like the ancient pavilions of old. How could it be strictly defined by a fixed number of miles? Roughly speaking, it is forty *li*, passed down by tradition as standard." (This differs from the *Abhidharmakośa*.)

In the *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya*, section on robes, it is said that the warriors of the Śākya clan could shoot arrows over great distances—some hitting a target within one yojana, others within seventy *li*, and still others within thirty *li*. Since a yojana is listed as greater than seventy *li*, it is said to be "approximately" that measure. The commentary that follows uses this treatise to resolve the discrepancies in the Vinaya.

In the assessment of Concentration (Samādhi), the first sentence generally brings together all traditions, while the second examines this specific school in particular, as already cited above. From "should" onward, the number of miles is established; from "below," the unit of yojana is adopted. Thus, this school and other traditions alike converge on a single standard.