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

佛教寺院边界(Sīmā)是由一条河流(udakukkepasṭmā)内的平台向四周泼水而确定的寺院边界。实际的边界是由落在河面上的水形成的线。为了确保这种Sīmā无懈可击，封闭的区域不得与任何其他地区相连，甚至不得与本身算作村庄地区的河岸相连，因此被包括在村庄边界(gāmsīmā)内。19世纪中叶，Välitara和DaḍAla的僧侣社区以Balapiīiya的Sāmṭ为共同边界统一起来。1845年，平台被扩建，为了方便步行到平台，建造了一座桥，从河岸延伸到平台前不久，以防止连接。剩余的缺口被一块移动的木板覆盖，在法律行动中被移除。当从平台边缘向周围泼水时，桥的末端位于这一抛水指示的Sīmā范围内。因此，根据LaākāGoḍa dhīrāNanda(1808年至1871年)的观点，这座桥导致了udakukkepasāmā和gāmaīmā的混淆。这样的条件意味着在这样的Sīmā内进行的所有授予无效。Laṅkāgoḍa和他的追随者被称为“混乱派”(SaṅKaravāDin)，而那些声称没有混乱的人被称为“非混乱派”(AsAṅKaravāDin)。混乱派派了一个代表团前往缅甸佛教社区的最高权威SaṅGharāja(1858年)。他的判断(SīmāVivādavinicchayakathā)与“迷惑派”的意见一致，但遭到“非迷惑派”的反对。非混乱派人士试图从缅甸获得支持，但以失败告终。1878年，苏丹玛僧侣JāGara Thera带着和解各方的使命前往斯里兰卡，但没有成功。所有的尝试都是徒劳的。ṅKaravāDin Vimalasāra发表了一篇《关于Sīmā的特征的论文》(SīmālakkhaṇadīPANī，1880年)，在其中他投票支持Balapiṭiya Sīmā的有效性。混淆论者用Randombe Dhammālaṅkāra的“神圣边界制度的镜子”(SīmāNayAdappana，1884年)回答了这一问题，其中SīmālakkhaṇādīPanī被逐点驳斥。争端从未得到解决，而是导致社区分裂为萨达姆玛瓦ṃSa(SaṅKaravāDin)和MūLavaṃSa(ASAṅKaravāDin)，这两个组织一直存在到今天。本项目侧重于对Pāli中与此案有关的经文的编辑、翻译和分析：伊亚达玛的SīmāāVivā(1858年)，dhīrāNanda给？yyadhamma的信(1860年)，JāGara的Sīmāsaṅkharavivādacchedanī(1878年？)，维马拉āra的Sīmālakkhaṇadīī(1880年)和Dhammālaṅkāra的SīmāNayAdappana(1885年)。这些调查的结果将在对Sīmā方面的Sīmā争端的研究中得出。

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.