The understanding differs from the past. The ancients said: "Leaving a long robe overnight is permissible." The explanation follows the *Vinaya Commentary*: It states: "There are monks who possess only one robe, and this robe naturally becomes long from being worn." (As described in the *Buddha Treasury Sutra*.) Second, there are those who possess only the three robes and do not keep extra long ones. Third, the average person keeps the one hundred and one permissible items. Fourth, those of lower capacity keep various long items. Fifth, those who keep the seven treasures and heavy items, etc.

Regarding the establishment of village boundaries in the *Four-Part Vinaya* and other schools, this Vinaya is not explicit. The *Mahāvibhāṣā* states a village has five meanings. Here, we exclude the village itself, referring to the dwelling places of men and women outside the village. There is also the issue of impurity.

This section notes four hindrances, listing not only those of our own school but also those commonly established by various schools. The first three hindrances are present in both types of boundaries. For example, a self-established boundary (*karma-boundary*) does not interconnect. (Commentary.) However, in places without such established boundaries, etc., these first three hindrances each exist in both types of boundaries, but the two boundaries themselves do not interconnect.

"Both have several boundaries": The commentary says: "If the robe and the body are in the same monastery (*vihāra*), this is called one boundary. If the body and robe are in separate monasteries, it is called several boundaries." If men or women enter and stay in the monastery, the village boundary arises, and if the body and robe are separated overnight across these boundaries, the robe is lost, thus forming several boundaries.

"The village has five meanings": 1) The boundary of a settlement is scattered and indefinite, while the robe boundary is fixed. 2) To remove slander. 3) To remove disputes. 4) To protect the holy life. 5) To remove grounds for suspicion.

"Both without restriction, either is acceptable": The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* simply takes a twenty-five-cubit effective area, which seems to be the limit. The *Four-Part Vinaya*, speaking clearly about the interior, later seems narrow, but as width and capacity are mutually interchangeable, it says "either is acceptable."

"Contradictory in nature and characteristic": They are opposed and do not overlap.

"Twelve-rung ladder": If there is no such ladder, one cannot go up or down, thus there is separation from the robe.

The Vinaya says: "Loss by seizure, loss by disappearance": A monk goes outside the boundary. On his way back, he hears on the road that his three robes have been stolen by thieves. Loss by disappearance, etc., means he decisively considers them lost. There is no offense of leaving the robe, but the act of receiving is lost. Later, if he finds the robe where it originally was and it is not lost, he must properly receive and maintain it again.

"Magician, entertainer": A magician or an entertainer's mind is frivolous, calculating; a monk's disposition is separate.

"Fifteen kinds of natural boundaries": A verse says: Monastery, tree, field, cart, boat, village, house, hall, storehouse, granary, garden, island, well, watercourse. Eleven are natural, four are established. Also, "both without restriction, either is acceptable": The *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* has a multi-story building boundary but no storehouse/granary boundary. The *Four-Part Vinaya* has a kitchen boundary but no multi-story building boundary. Taking from each other, both are acceptable, hence "either is acceptable."

The *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* states the boundary of a multi-story building extends twenty-five cubits as the boundary body. Beyond the effective area, there are no thirteen steps. The effective area is one unit. The *Four-Part Vinaya*, speaking clearly about the interior of storehouses/granaries, takes the interior as the boundary body. Outside the body, there are separately thirteen steps as the effective area of the natural robe boundary. It does not have the *Sarvāstivāda*'s twenty-five cubits. (Commentary.) The latter is one unit. This is called "both without restriction, either is acceptable." Although the text mentions both for protecting the robe, whether taking a broad or narrow interpretation is based on circumstance, hence "either is acceptable."

"House boundary": The Vinaya does not explain its characteristic. It should be a house outside a village. If it is inside a village, it is subsumed under the village boundary. Considering the house boundary and village boundary should be separate, hence "house outside a village."

"Village characteristic explained later": The explanation below states: "A place without a market is a village; a place with a market is a town, etc." This is the text.

"Town boundary, not household boundary": A town has walls, etc., enclosing it as the town boundary. If inside there is only one household, then the robe is protected according to the walled courtyard. This is called "not a household boundary."

"Household boundary, not town boundary": This means within the walled town there are many households. Because households are distinct and opposed to each other, one cannot rely on the town walls to protect the robe. This is called "household boundary, not town boundary."

The *Sarvāstivāda Vibhāṣā* and *Mahāvibhāṣā* state: A place where many people live together is a town boundary. "Separate boundary": Where a chicken cannot fly to, where rubbish is discarded beyond, where an arrow shot falls beyond—this is a separate boundary. This means within one town there can be one boundary or different boundaries.

"Town": Within a walled courtyard, even if there are three or four households, the walled courtyard is collectively called the town boundary. Within it, there can be a separate boundary. If each has its own walled courtyard, the area a chicken can fly to is a separate boundary.

"Four towns not losing the robe": This is when four towns are connected, with ladders allowing free passage back and forth. One then relies on the town to protect the robe. This is called one boundary. Because within the town there is only one household without other households opposing it, relying on the town to protect the robe, since one can go back and forth, it is called one boundary. Whether one is in a cart or under a ladder within any of the towns, it is permissible.

"Adjacent, having one boundary, different boundary": According to the absence of separate rooms, one can protect the robe. There being no contradictory principle is called one boundary. But considering the place for fetching water, the place for cooking, the place for relieving oneself—these are separate boundaries. "Adjacent" means adjacent but of different categories, hence "adjacent boundary." It refers to different categories of adjacent things. Brothers, within their rooms, the work they do, each task being different, is called an adjacent boundary, meaning categories are different.

"Sheltered, unsheltered": The former is sheltered but without walls, which is a hall boundary. Including the effective area, it totals seventy-one steps, four feet, eight inches.

"Twelve, watercourse boundary while traveling": This refers to shallow water where one can walk. "Listening to the upper boundary": This refers to large bodies of water.

"Lost, not lost": In the Vinaya, "lost" means the robe object itself is lost. Here, "lost" means the robe is outside the boundary, meaning the act of receiving is lost. Although the teacher suspects the robe is outside the boundary, if the novice who was holding the robe had already entered the boundary beforehand, and the robe is thus also within the boundary, there is no offense of separation, nor is the act of receiving lost.

"Pressed by need to urinate, difficulty of undertaking action, etc., done out of compassion": The *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* lists six compassionate allowances. Additionally, there are two more kinds where it is not lost: 1) Pressed by need to urinate, it is not lost. 2) Due to another's action, such as being forced by water, using this difficulty as the reason for action, the monk is exempt from the offense of leaving the robe. This principle is explained in detail in the turning-the-cart precept. It refers to the precept on protecting the robe.

The *Satyasiddhi Śāstra* commentary says: For example, a monk goes outside the boundary. Returning, before reaching his dwelling, dawn breaks. He is then allowed to take a cart at that place, place it against the great boundary wall or moat, etc. Then take a bamboo pole, measure the height of the wall. If there is no wall but a moat, also measure its depth. Tie the pole to the cart yoke and measure, pushing it. The monk marks the spot. The robe is not lost. If not done, the robe is lost.

"Various schools all lack an effective area": Previously cited, the *Sarvāstivāda Vibhāṣā* and *Mahāvibhāṣā* say: Beyond where a chicken cannot fly, beyond where rubbish is discarded, beyond where an arrow shot falls—this is called a different boundary. The idea is that this is the *Four-Part Vinaya* school's effective area.

The *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* says: If a monk has a reason to go to another place and stay overnight... The eighth section of the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* states: Later, there is a sign of losing the robe. It says: A monk wearing his upper and lower robes enters a town. A woman says to the monk: "I wish to make offerings to an image tonight. Please help prepare." He stays and helps. At sunset, he wishes to return to the monastery. She earnestly asks him to stay overnight. He should borrow a robe from a monk, nun, or layperson, etc., and receive and maintain it. If there is no robe, when the city gate opens late at night, he should return to the monastery. Standing under the gatehouse, he should put his hand into a hole—a gate hole or a water drain. In the water drain, extending his hand, he and the robe are joined. If there is no hole, he should throw the robe over the wall. If he cannot get it in, he should quickly discard the robe. Allowing no robe avoids a *vinaya* transgression, exchanging a minor for a major offense. That Vinaya lacks an effective area: The *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* does not have the thirteen-step effective area.

"If mutually overlapping, each has a separate boundary": The precept commentary says: Monastery and village are strong. The eight tree boundaries, etc., are weak. The eight among themselves are not said to be strong or weak relative to each other. The wilderness empty boundary, the robe guarding its own nature, is entirely weak. The monastic and village boundaries, mutually opposed, attract the secular as strong and the monastic as weak. How do we know? Laypeople entering the monastery give rise to a separate village boundary. A monk entering does not give rise to a monastery boundary, hence it is weak.

"Thirty and beyond": The *Mahāvibhāṣā* text should refer to those with thirty rains-retreats or more.

"The method as explained in the commentary": Using the *jñapti-dvitīya* (formal motion and one announcement) procedure. 1) Requesting for one month, all as explained in the precept commentary. 2) Collectively making the *kaṭhina* robe: On the fifteenth day after the summer retreat ends, from the sixteenth day onward, it is the *kaṭhina* month. If the assembly collectively completes the *kaṭhina* robe, one then receives the robe of merit. One naturally may be separated from the robe for five months.

"And for urgent necessary matters": Urgent invitations or summons, or dangers to life or the holy life, etc. In such urgent cases, separation for six nights is allowed. 3) Separation by establishing a boundary through procedure: The place is the monastery boundary. The procedure is establishing a robe-encompassing boundary within the monastery. Leaving the boundary separates from the robe.

"Fifth, separation due to obstruction, forgetting, cutting off, etc.": A monk originally outside suddenly encounters a difficulty arising. Blocked on the way, he cannot reunite with the robe. If he does not generate the thought of separation, the act of receiving is not lost. If he suddenly thinks, "That robe might be lost, seized by thieves, taken away," and decisively considers it lost, or forgets and cuts off the thought, then the act of receiving is lost.

"Not lost as explained later": This refers to the following explanatory passage.

"If there is a reason, it is present and not lost": The robe is heavy, the body is old. "If there is a reason, it is present and not lost": This refers to the *kaṭhina* five-month period. "When the limit is full, then it is lost": When the *kaṭhina* one month or five months is complete, it is lost.

"For each of the others, one must only think, know, and comprehend": As with the first condition mentioned earlier: "Exchanging a minor for a major offense." There is a need to relinquish before the assembly.

"Fourth, in the wilderness, due to hardship and fear, separation is allowed. Fifth, due to royal danger, bandits, road obstruction, separation is allowed. Sixth, due to the *kaṭhina* reward, separation is allowed. Seventh, for monastic affairs, stupa affairs, and urgent necessary reasons, separation for six nights is opened." All the above are allowances for separation from the robe without offense, based on conditions of difficulty and limits.

"Lost or not lost as explained later": Regarding the fifth, obstruction, forgetting, cutting off—whether lost or not: When leaving the boundary, one does not know. Later, a difficulty arises while one is outside, not yet returned. Suddenly a difficulty abruptly occurs—water or land routes cut off, evil people, evil beasts, etc.—making it impossible to cross. The mind single-mindedly hopes and waits for the difficulty to cease so one can return. Even after many days, there is no offense of leaving the robe. If one gives rise to the thought, "This difficulty will probably not cease abruptly," and after a night decides one does not plan to reunite with the robe, then the act of receiving is immediately lost.

"Five roots, etc., not lost": Refers to being stolen by thieves. This is considered loss of the object, hence loss of the act. The root is actually without intention; the past action is not an offense requiring relinquishment.

"If women come and go, causing impurity hindrance": Above explains hindrance of sentiment. The two hindrances are: 1) Water or land routes cut off, physical hindrance. 2) Evil bandits, beasts, etc., are hindrances of sentiment. If these two hindrances arise suddenly, loss of the act of receiving occurs without offense. If there was no prior protection and these two hindrances arise, then relinquishment is required. Hardship and difficulty arise suddenly, and one wishes to reunite but cannot due to sentiment; if one recalls the act of receiving, one certainly does not lose the act. Since the above two hindrances are like this, women are similar. If originally there was no protection, and impurity hindrance arises, it is an offense requiring relinquishment. But if one always protects and suddenly, without awareness, impurity hindrance arises, loss of the act occurs without offense. This is not permissible.

"Saying 'not lost' does not apply to other schools": This means the four Vinayas differ from other schools on this point. The eighth section of the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* says: Brothers, the demarcation of dwelling places, etc., adjacent boundaries, household boundaries—these differ from the four Vinayas regarding conditions for removing robes, bodily exposure, etc.