The dispute regarding the legal validity of the Buddhist monastic boundary (sima) of Balapitiya in 19th century Sri Lanka

斯里兰卡Amarapuranikāya的Balapiṭiya的佛教寺院边界（s ā mā）是通过从河（udakukkhepasu ā mā）中的平台向周围泼水来确定的寺院边界。实际的边界是由水滴在河面上形成的线。为了确保这样一个surgmā是完美的，封闭的区域不能与任何其他区域相连，甚至不能与河岸相连，因为河岸本身就是一个村庄地区，因此被包括在村庄边界内（gāmasīmā）。在19世纪中期，Välitara和Daḍalla的修道院社区与Balapiṭiya的寺院社区联合起来，作为它们的共同边界。1845年，站台进行了扩建，为了方便人们步行到站台，架设了一座桥，从河岸一直延伸到站台前不久，以防止连接。剩下的缺口被一块移动木板覆盖，在法律行动期间被移走。当从平台的边缘向四周泼水时，桥的末端位于由这种泼水所指示的s<e:1>内。因此，根据Laṅkāgoḍa Dhīrānanda（1808-1871）的观点，这座桥导致了udakukkhepasu ām ā与gāmasīmā的混淆。这样的条件意味着在这样的宗教中进行的一切祝圣都是无效的。Laṅkāgoḍa和他的追随者被称为“混淆主义者”（saṅkaravādin），而那些声称没有混淆的人被称为“非混淆主义者”（asaṅkaravādin）。迷惑派了一个代表团去见缅甸佛教团体的最高权威saṅgharāja（1858年）。他的判断（Sīmāvivādavinicchayakathā）与“混淆派”的意见一致，但遭到“非混淆派”的反对。非混淆派获得缅甸支持的尝试失败了。1878年，Sudhamma僧侣Jāgara Thera带着和解各方的使命前往斯里兰卡，但没有成功。所有的尝试都无济于事。asaṅkaravādin Vimalasāra发表了一篇“关于sā mā特征的论文”（Sīmālakkhaṇadīpanī， 1880），他在其中投票支持Balapiṭiya sā mā的有效性。混乱主义者对此的回答是Randombe Dhammālaṅkāra的“神圣边界系统的镜子”（Sīmānayadappana, 1884），其中Sīmālakkhaṇādīpanī被逐点驳斥。这场争论一直没有得到解决，反而导致社区分裂为Saddhammavaṃsa （saṅkaravādin）和Mūlavaṃsa (asaṅkaravādin)，两者都存在到今天。目前项目关注的版,圣经的翻译和分析Pā李肇星相连,例:Neyyadhamma年代ī米ā韦夫ādavinicchayakathā(1858),Dhīrā南达的信Neyyadhamma (1860), Jā加拉的Sīmāsaṅkharavivādacchedanī(1878 ?),Vimalasāra的Sīmālakkhaṇ广告ī锅ī(1880)和Dhammālaṅkāra的Sīmānayadappana(1885)。这些调查的结果将纳入对这一争端的有关方面的研究。

The Buddhist monastic boundary (sīmā) of Balapiṭiya of the Amarapuranikāya in Sri Lanka is a monastic boundary determined by throwing water all around from a platform within a river (udakukkhepasīmā). The actual boundary consists in the line formed by the water dropping on the surface of the river. To ensure such a sīmā to be flawless the enclosed area must not be connected with any other area, even not with the bank of the river which per se counts as a village district, and thus is included within a village boundary (gāmasīmā). In the middle of the 19th century the monastic communities of Välitara and Daḍalla were united with the sīmā of Balapiṭiya as their common boundary. The platform was enlarged in 1845, and, to facilitate the walking to the platform, a bridge was erected, stretching from the bank of the river to just shortly before the platform, to prevent connection. The remaining gap was covered by a mobile plank, removed during the legal acts. When throwing water all around from the edge of the platform the end of the bridge lay within the sīmā indicated by this water throw. The bridge thus led to a confusion of the udakukkhepasīmā with the gāmasīmā according to the opinion of Laṅkāgoḍa Dhīrānanda (1808-1871). Such a condition implies the invalidity of all ordinations carried out within such a sīmā. Laṅkāgoḍa and his followers were called "confusionists" (saṅkaravādin), while those stating that there was no confusion were called „non-confusionists“ (asaṅkaravādin). The confusionists sent a delegation to the highest authority of the Burmese Buddhist community, the saṅgharāja (1858). His judgement (Sīmāvivādavinicchayakathā) was in conformity with the opinion of the "confusionists", but was rejected by the "non-confusionists". The attempts of the non-confusionists to receive support from Burma failed. In 1878 the Sudhamma monk Jāgara Thera travelled to Sri Lanka with the mission to conciliate the parties, but without success. All attempts have been to no avail. The asaṅkaravādin Vimalasāra published a "treatise regarding the characteristics of the sīmā" (Sīmālakkhaṇadīpanī, 1880), in which he voted for the validity of the Balapiṭiya sīmā. The confusionists replied to that with Randombe Dhammālaṅkāra‘s "A mirror of the system of consecrated boundaries" (Sīmānayadappana, 1884), in which the Sīmālakkhaṇādīpanī is refuted point by point. The dispute was never solved, but led to a split of the community into the Saddhammavaṃsa (saṅkaravādin) and the Mūlavaṃsa (asaṅkaravādin), both existing till today. The present project focuses on the edition, translation and analysis of the scriptures in Pāli connected to that case: Ñeyyadhamma‘s Sīmāvivādavinicchayakathā (1858), Dhīrānanda’s letter to Ñeyyadhamma (1860), Jāgara’s Sīmāsaṅkharavivādacchedanī (1878?), Vimalasāra‘s Sīmālakkhaṇadīpanī (1880) and Dhammālaṅkāra‘s Sīmānayadappana (1885). The results of these investigations shall flow in a study of the sīmā aspects of this sīmā dispute.