Wilhelm Geiger and the Study

of the History and Culture

of Sri Lanka

Edited by
Ulrich Everding
Asongo TIlokorotne

Goethe Institute &

Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies
Colombo.
Wilhelm Geiger and the Study
of the History and Culture
of Sri Lanka

Edited by
Ulrich Everding
Asanga Tilakaratne

Goethe Institute &

Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies
Colombo.
42 THERAVAOA AS VffiHAJJAVAOA: A CORRECT IDENTIFICATION FOR REASONS?
this controversy that occasioned the emergence, this time, from among the
ranks of the Sarvcistivcidi7ls themselves of yet another school of Buddhist
thought called Kasyapiyas. What is called saroam-asti-vcida or the 'all exists-
theory' which came into vogue as a result of this controversy played a very
decisive role in determinig the history ()f Buddhist thought in the centuries
that followed. In fact among the post-Asokan Buddhist schools it became
one of the hotly debated issues, resulting in a bewildering mass of argu-
ments and counter-arguments which find mention in a host of literary
works belonging to both the so-called H"mayana and Mahayana traditions.
After the Buddhist Council said to be held in Jalandhara under the patron-
age of King Kani~ka, the Vaibhci~ikas of Kasmir became the chief exponents
of this theory. Its main critics were the Sautrantikas who came to be so
known because they rejected the authenticity of the Abhidharma as a
proper interpretation of the word of the Buddha. What provoked much op-
position to this theory was that it was said to lead to some kind of
substantialism which was radically at variance with the Buddhist teaching
on the non-substantiality of all phenomena. A detailed statement of the
theory, together with its critique on the part of the Sautrantikas, has been
presented by Acarya Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakosabhci~ya . Howev~r,
since his presentation of the subject was made against the background of Its
Sautrantika criticism, it did not get a sympathetic response on the part of the
Vaibhasikas. It was in order to meet Acarya Vasubandhu's criticism of this
and other subjects pertaining to the Vaibha~ika Abhidharma that the Elder
Sanghabhadra composed his well-known treatise, the Nyayanusara, a work
which has come down to us only in its Chinese translation. Among the
Mahayanists it was mainly the Madhyamikas who maintained a sustained
criticism against the 'all exists theory' of the Sarvastivadins. This is not to _
suggest that they were in sympathy with the position fak.en up by the .
Tlleravadins and the Salltrcintikas in relation to this controversial theory. For
in the opinion of the Madlzyamikas the so called element.s of existence
(dhammas/dlzarmas) are not real even in the present phase of hme.
CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES
IN THE BUDDHIST MONASTIC TRADITION IN SRI LANKA
Petra Kieffer-Piilz
One of the fundamental prerequisites for the existence and continuance
of the Buddhist sangha is a boundary (simal which defines the space within
which all members of a single local community have to assemble as a
complete sangha (samagga sangha) at an appointed place for ecclesiastical
acts (kamma) . The completeness of the sangha is a prior condition for the
valid performance of each ecclesiastical act of the Bud~ist community as,
for example, the ordination procedure (upasampadci), the uposatha
ceremony, etc. The invalidity of a boundary, therefore, implies the
defectiveness of the kamma performed within it. On account of this, rules
for the correct determination of the sima and for the application of
undetermined boundaries (abaddIJasima) were laid down, and are
transmitted in the Vinaya. Soon after being formulated, these rules were
supplied with additional regulations and detailed explanations; these
additions were handed down in commentaries as, for instance, the old
Sihalatthakatha. These old commentaries, which have in the meantime been
lost, "';~re still in use when the younger commentarialliterature (affhakatllll)
in Pali starting in the 4th/5th century and some of the early .tikas were
written. Consequently, information contained in this a~~hakath~, which is
still available, and the younger ~ika literature dates back in part to the 1st
century B.C.
These Vinaya texts allow one to outline the development of the sima
regulations and to point to shifts concerning their application. The period
covered stretches from the time of the Vinaya to that of the Vimativinoda-
ni~ika, viz. from roughiy the 3rd century B.C. (?) to the early 13th century
A.D. (cf. fn.1l6). Possibly the line could b~ drawn even further into the
present, if the various Pali books on sima questions, written from the
After the conference I had the luck to meet Yen. Prof. Dr. Kamburupi~iye Ariya-
sena Mahathera, the author of a comprehensive study on sima, accepted as a
thesis by the University of Ceylon in 1967 (see fn. 1). Yen. Prof. K. Ariyasena
Mahathera kindly gave me a copy of his unpublished thesis written in Sinhala.
As a cursory glance layed open Ariyasena had dealt with the sima passages in
the chronicles, which form the topic of the present contribution, already in this
work. Since the book is written in Sinhala I am nvt able to read the relevant
portions and to discuss them in the present contribution within the deadline
given for publication. Nevertheless, I added references. to the relevant pa s~a ges .
I thank Richard Wilson (Gottingen) for correchng and Improving my English.

.; CEREMONIAL OOUNDARlES IN SRI LANK",
middle ages up to the 19th century, were available in modern editions
which is not the case, and, naturally, if the manuscripts written in Burmese,
Sinhalese and Thai were consulted. This remains a future task.
Sources which allow one to compare the technical rules in the Vinaya
literature with the actual manner of their application are the chronicles, viz.
Dipa \' an~sa, Mahava~sa with its .tika and Cli.lava~sa, and, of course, later
chronicles as, for example, the Jinakalamali, with their descriptions of sima
determina tions.
f. Ollt/ilfe of the de velopment of sima regulatiolls 111 the Villaya
literature l
2 In the Vinaya the sima is introduced to delimit clearly the extension of
"one residence" (elaivasa) which previously functioned as the standard for
defining a complete sangha.~ With this innovation the rules for determining
and removing a sima were introduced. First of all marks (/limitta) had to be
announced (kilteti) as indications of the course of the boundary. Eight types
of marks valid for that purpose are enumerated in the Vinaya. After their
announcement came the determination of the sima, viz. sanuinasall.lvtisasillui,
"boundary for the same communion", in a tiattidlltiyakamma carried out by
at least four monks . As a second step the function of the "not-being-
separated from the three robes" (ticivare1w avippavasa) could be conferred
upon this sima in a further naltidlltiyakamma, allowing the monks to be
separated from one of the three robes within the sima, without this being
counted as an offence.
The overlapping and combining of two determined simas ~as
forbidden and an "interspace to (other) simas" (simantarikal prescribed: In
the Vinaya we have only one form of a determir.ed sima, viz. the
samti!lasau.lVtisasinui. The rule of keeping an interspace between simas,
therefore, must refer to other sanufnasan:rutisasimtis. Since no details are given
about the size of this interspace or about how to mark it, one can assume it
was, in the beginning, probably only a distance to be kept to other simas.
1. For a detailed presentation I refer to my thesis published in German: Die
Simci. Vorscllriften zllr Regelllng der bllddhistischen Gemeindegrenze in al/eren
buddhistisclren Texten, Berlin, 1992 (Monographien zur indischen Archaologie,
Kunst und Philologie, 8), 473 pp.; Kamburupitiye Ariyasena, Simtiva ha elri
aitiluisika sal7}vardlranaya ri!ibaiida tlllancitmnka vimarSanayak. Simti: A comparative
~t lldy of its historical development, unpublished thesis, Peradeniya, University of
Ceylon, 1967,461 p., 87 fig ., 18 photograph~ (Sinhalese).
2. The Sima rules are included in the second chapter of the Mahavagga, the
Uposathakkhandhaka (Mv II 6-7, 11-13 = Vin [ 106,1-35; 108,26-111.22); all
information given here is based on these passages.
PETRA KIEFFERP Uu: -1 5
Additionally, three forms of simas are mentioned which could come into
force if no det e rmined sima existed, viz .. the boundary of a village
(gti/llasfma) in settlements, a distance consisting of seven abbhantaras
(sattabblwntara), i.e. ca. 80 m, in the wilderness (araiitla J ), and the boundarv
"4 consisting of the line constituted by throwing water in all directions around
the assembled sangha (lIdabkkhepa) on natural lakes, rivers and on th e
ocean.
The removal of a sima was only necessary if one wanted to enlarge or
diminish the space enclosed by the sima and is not discussed at length in
the Vinaya (see below, 3).
In the Vinaya the determined samanasal1Jvtlsasima represents the primary
focus of the rules. TIle three undetermined boundaries are only provided in
case a monk is not inside a determined sima when the performance of an
ecclesiastical act turns out to be necessary. The description of the carrying
out of the determination, removal. etc., is short and straightforward .
3 The extensive and detailed explanations in the commentary to the
Vinaya (4th/5th century A.D.), viz. the Samantapasadika (Sp 1035,23-
1048,32; 1049,27-1056,30), show that the need for more detailed rules was at
hand. Out of the simple rule in the Vinaya of announcing the marks
(/limilla) developed a detailed description of the method of announcing
.'.
nimit/a, and this is described in the Samantapasadika (Sp 1035,23-1036,31;
l~::
1040,1640,16-23). Accordingly it was necessary to choose exactly defined
marks from the eight objects allowed in the Vinaya (and defined in Sp
1036,31-1040,16), to announce them, proceeding clockwise, and, finally, to
announce the first announced rzimitta a second time to connect it with the
previous one. Probably based on this method a new verb was introduced
for the determination of the boundary. Whereas in the Vinaya the verb sam-
mall had been used, in the Samantapasadika the usage alternates between
bandh and sam-man . ~ This new verb bandh stresses the fact that the marks
are connected by the way in which they are proclaimed. Out of the use of
this verb the term baddllasflllti developed as an expression for each
determined boundary, and in conformity with this the three wldetermined
boundary types were called abaddlwsimii. The detailed explanations for how
to determine a boundary in a village or one enclosing several villages (Sp
',r 1040,23-1041,10), how to detemline a sima in different types of houses (Sp
1043,11-1044,15), on various forms of mountains (Sp 1044,15-1045,13) etc.,
J. Armilia refers to all regions outside of settlements and bodies of water.
4. Cf. Kieffer-Pulz, Sinui , B Einl. 7, fn.98 .
...I
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARlES IN SRl LANKA
,.
show the complexity of the detennination of a boundary and the ease with
which a mistake during the ceremony could render a sima invalid. It is,
then, no wonder that the undetermined boundaries (abaddlwsimci ) gained
ground, as will be indicated below (and 16).
In the course of time the number of monks increased and monasteries
developed. In some of the larger ones resided many more monks than
previously, which entailed the perfonnance of more ecclesiastical acts (viz.
pabbajjci, upasampada. and kammas regulating offences). Owing to the fact
that all monks inside a sima had to assemble for each kamma, the daily life
of the community could be disturbed fre quently. Therefore, it was logical
to introduce by-simas, i.e. smaller si mas, which were determined
additionally within the space of the monastery. These were called
kha1Jcjasimci, (simci)mn1JQaia or (sima)mcifaka With the introduction of this new
sima type the tenn simantarilai, "sima-interspace", received a new aspect as
well. Whereas at the time of the Vinaya it was probably an undefined
distance to be kept to other samanasan,wcisa:;imas (see above, 2), it was now
to be applied to the kha1Jqasima as well. The sima-interspace had to be
marked by stone marks and had to have a minimum standard of one ratana
(ca. 40 cm), one vidatthi (ca. 20 cm) or four angulas (ca. 7,2 cm) (Sp 1056,24-
27). The salllcillasa'1Jvasakasimci enclosing the whole monastery was now
called maluisimii in contrast to the small simas. In detennining a klw1Jcjasima
and a maJuisimti a certain order had to be observed: first the nimitta for the
kha1Jqasimci(s) were announced, then the nimitta for the surrounding sima-
interspace (simalllarilai), and finally the l1imitta for the sima for the whole
monastery, viz. the mahasima. Thereafter one could detennine which sima
one wanted to determine first, but normally one started with the
kha1Jc[asi:mi (Sp 1042,21-24). In this way a monastery could add as many
small simas as it liked. The method for determining a kha1Jqasimci was the
same as for the samcinasa11Jvasakasima (Sp 1041,19-1042,31, cf. Kieffer-Pulz,
Simti, B 6).
Whereas in the Vinaya the removal of the sima is only briefly mentioned
(Vin I 110,12-14), and the kammavacas given (Vin I 110,14-36), it is
discussed in detail in the Samantapasadika . On account of the introduction
of the kha1Jqasima a certain order of the individual steps now has to be
observed not only if one wants to detennine khar;qasimci and mahcisimii (see
above), but also in the case of their removal, when the reverse order has to
be complied with. Moreover, it is, according to the Samantapasadika, not
possible to remove an unknown klta1Jqasimci. The removal of an unknown
samcinasa11Jvasakasima, however, is possible, since there are places within a
sima which are definitely part of it, viz. the uposathagara, the cetiya, the
bodhi tree, the senasana etc. (Sp 1051,8-22). Assembling at these places,
therefore, is a guarantee for being located within the mahcisimci, and this in
PETRA KI EFFER-PULZ 47
turn is one condition for the correct performance of the kamma. Where
neither klrarJqasimci nor mahasimci are known the removal of neither of them
should be performed, since the determination of the new simas might result
in the overlapping of the newly determined samanasa11Jvasakas ima with an
already existing unknown kJw,!qasima . This rule is important since it was
changed at a later date (cf. below, 4, 14):
Another sima fonn described in detail in the Samantapasad ika is the so-
called nadiptirasimci (Sp 1047,15-1048,32). The nadiptirasinul is simply a
samtil1asa'1Jvtisakasimti which extends over a river, a sima form which is
allowed in the Vinaya if the possibility Qf crossing the river exists (Vin I
106,34-35). The detailed statements in the commentary give the impression
that this sima form was widely used at that time (see also below, 11). The
explanations in the pkas are comparatively scarce, which leads to the
assumption that at the time of the !ikas the nadiparas/-ma was not used often
enough for new problems to arise which needed clarification.
Another important feature is the development of the so-called
abaddhasimas. These had been introduced in the Vinaya in the event that no
detennined boundary existed at a certain place. The detailed commentary
to these sima forms in the Samantapasadika (Sp 1051,27-1056,8) shows that
they gained ground. This is especially true for the udakukkJlepasinui . We find
exact definitions of the waters in which such an udakukklrepgsima can be in
force (Sp 1053,4-20; 1054,35-1056,8). These explanations show that the
r
~.
abaddhasimas were used frequently and that with their intensified use new
problems arose. One example of this is the "interspace to a sima"
(simantarikti) which was introduced in the Vinaya for the detennined
."
samtinasa'1Jvasas{mti (Mv II 13.2 = Vin I 111,21-22; see above, 2). In the
Samantapasadika such an interspace is des~ribed also between abaddhasfmas
(viz. between two sattabbhantarasfmtis or, respectively, two IldakukJchepzfmtis)
,
t ":
and is called upacara or simantarilai (Sp 1052,14-16; 1053,16-19). The question
of mingling various abaddhasfmas, and abaddlzasfmtis with baddhasfmtis is
partly dealt with (Sp 1053,31-1054,17; cf. Kieffer-Pillz, Sfmti, B 15.8).
4 Of the four ~as to the Vmaya, the Vajirabuddhitjka of Vajirabuddhi
aims at presenting different iIlterpretations to one topic, and the
Samantapasadika-a~!ha-yojana of Nat:\akitti focuses on grammatical topics.
For comments with regard to the contents the Saratthadipani of Sariputta
and the Vimativinodani~ika of Coliya Kassapa are most relevant, and of
these two the Vimativinodanitika is the more innovative and more detailed.
Besides the comments on selected words and phrases5, the questions dealt
S. A list of the words and phrases dted from the Suruikatha of the Samantlpasadika and
commented upon by three of the four !iJ<as (Vjb. Sp-t and Vmv) is given in Kieffer-Pillz.
Sinui, pp.453-460.

CEREMONIAL BOUNDARJES IN SRI LANK.l~
\vith in more detail are: the different methods of purifying a sima
(s illlasodhana, Vmv II.148-152; 163-167); the rule of the not-being-separated
of the three robes (Vjb 457; Vmv 11 158-161); the IIdakllkkhepasillla (Vjb 458-
-!60); and the interspace between abaddlzasil1uis (Sp.t III 274'; Vmv 11 162).
In the Vimativinodanitika, a special rule is formulated which allows the
connecting of a baddlzasima with a certain type of abaddlzasil1l1i. viz. the
SlllIIasillla, without this being counted as a defect (Vmv 11 150,18H.). 111e
general formulation in the Vinaya does not contain any indication as to its
attitude regarding this question. But the explanations in the
Samantapiisadika show, that in this period such a connection was
forbidden . Nevertheless, the rule of the Vimativinodani~ika is applied even
today though there have always been opponents" - as we know from the
explanations of Vajirana~avarorasa in his Vinayamu~ha7 and from
Neyyadhamma's Simavivada-vinicchaya. vvhere this rule is also explicitly
relied on.s
111is rule is the direct consequence of the coinage of two new terms, viz.
1 isabilagasimtland Sab/lagaSlina documented , to my knowledge, for the first
Lime in the Vimativinodani~ika q and still in use in Burma in the last century,
as the j~dgement of the Burmese Sangharaja concerning the Sima of
Balapi~iya the Simavivadavinicchayakatha, shows. \0 The basis for judging
whether the connection of two simas by trees. bridges etc. is a fault or not is
their belonging to the category of visablraga or sablrtlsa. As indicated above,
each of the three abnddllasimcls comes into use in its own environment. The
sima and its specific region, viz. udakllkklrepasillui and water,
6. An exactlv contradictory opinion is transmitted in the Kalyal)i inscription. Taw
Sein Ko. ,;A preliminary study of the Kalyal)i inscriptions of Dhammacheti 1476
A.D.". Indian Antiquary 22 (1893), pp.11-17. 29-53. 85-89. 150-159.206-213.236-
243. esp. p.l58.6-9.23-29 (text]; 37,16-20.39-46 (translation].
I . Vajirananavarorasa, Tire Elltrance to tire Vinaya. VinayaTIJllklra. vol.3. Bangkok.
1983 (origi nal Thai version first published 1921), p.50.
S. Edited by J.P.Minayeff in the Jvurnal vf tire ?cili Text Sv.:iety 1887. pp.17-34. esp.
p.19 lines 19-32; a new edition of this text with translation ilnd introduction is in
preparation.
9. Thev may have been in use eilrli~r. since one citation. marked by keci in the
Vi~ativinodanitika. uses these terms (Vmv 150.I8H.) . In any Cilse. the
Vimatlvinodani\ika seems to be the earliest text transmitted to us which
d iscusses them.
The sima forms falling under sabJrdga and visablraga are listed by Ariyasenil.
Simd. p. 252.
10. See fn. 8 and cf. Kitsiri ~alal goda. BuddJrism ill Silllra[ese Svciety. 1750-1900. A
St udy of Religious Ra1it'al ""d Challge. Berkeley. 1976. pp. 151 ff.
~~
PETRA KIEffERPULZ 49
11
. ~
satlabblrantarasima and "wilderness", are regarded as sabJuiga. Therefore.
items connecting the sima with its surrounding landscape do not result in a
).; fault. Only if a sima . is connected with a different region or another sima is
it considered to be a fault. The only exception is the relation gamasillui _
baddlrasima. The author of the Vimativinodanitika argues that a baddllllsima
is determined in the region where a gclmasil1uI exists and. therefore. relies
on the gamasima. i.e. is sablraga with it, which results in the connection of
both these sima types by various objects not being regarded as a f,wlt. 1I
However. this rule is not touched on in the chronicles.
A very importilnt new rule concerns the removal of unknown
boundaries, which in the Vinaya was not discussed at all and w hich in the
Samantapasadika is explained as being impossible for an unknown
kha/.lqasimtl and very difficult for an unknown samanasal~lilasakasi/)/ti. The
Vimativinodani\ika (Vmv II 156,1-14) introduces a method for removing
such w1known boundaries which is valid till today (see below, 14).12
If. Comparisoll between sill/a rules and tire determination of sillllis 11"1 tire
chronicles
5 Oldenberg and Geiger in their editions and translations of the
Dipavart:lsa. Mahavart:lsa and Culavamsa had to deal with the simli.
Oldenberg edited the Dipavart:lsa with detailed footnotes. Geiger. in the
footnotes to his editions and translations of Mahavart:lsa and CtiJavart:lsa.
passed on observations he had made concerning the sima during his
studies of these chronicles. Later. Geiger summarized his observations
concerning the simci in his C IIlture of Ceyion in Mediaeval Times .13
11. Vmv II 150.1-152.7; I will deal with these questions more explicitly in "Nagas
Ordained and Sumas Connected" (Sanskril-Worlerbuch der buddlrislisclren Tt'xll:
aus den Turfan-Frmden. Beiheft 8) .
12. This passage of the Vimativinodani!ika is cited in the KalyaDi inscription of the
15th century, cp. Taw Sein Ko, op.cit . (fn. 6). pp.237.29-47 [text] and 49.3-19
[translation]. Additionally. it is commented (op.ci/.. pp.237,49-238.8 [text]; 49,19-
32 [translation)). and the method is applied for the determination of the
_f ...
Kalyal)isima (op.cit .. pp.238.8-21 [text]; 49.36-49 (translation]). Compare also
Vajiraiiaryavarorasa. op.cit. (fn. 7). pp.30f; cf. Kieffer-PUlz. Simri. p.327. fn.590.
.. ~:
., 13. Ed. Heinz Bechert. 2nd ed . Stuttgart. 1986 (Veroffentlichungen des Seminars flir
.,. Indologie und Buddhismuskunde. 4). 175. Geiger here declares that "the outer
" boundary". with which he refers to the malJlisimd. "generally was marked by J
stone-wall (pd/aira . ...)". The passages cited by Geiger report the construction of
such walls. but in none of them is the building of these walls referred to in
connection with the malrdsimd. Though it is certain that the walls enclosed the
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKl;; .
i
6 As is well known, Dipavan:tsa and Mahavan:tsa describe the same
period of history. Thus we have two descriptions of the introduction of
Buddhism into Sri Lanka and of the first sima detennination under the
rule of Devanampiyatissa.
In the DipavaII).Sa the arrival of Mahinda with four other monks, one
novice and one lay follower called Bhat:tquka, is described. After their
arrival in Sri Lanka, Mahinda decides to confer the pabbajja and
upasampada on the lay follower BhaDquka. Since at that moment no
simti exists he chooses the boundary of the village (gamasimti) in which they
are staying as ceremonial boundary for the kamma. They examine the
gamasima, even though there could not be any simas or any other monks at
that place, since they were the first to introduce Buddhism, and then
perfonn the ordination ceremony.14 This corresponds exactly to the rules in
the Vinaya, where, in case of the non-existence of a determined sima
(baddlrasimal, the employment of a gamasimti in villages, a sattabbhantarasima
in am/iiia areas and an Ildakukkltepasimti on water is recommended (s. above,
2).
In the Maha van:tsa the same episode is described, but here the
investigation of the sima is not mentioned. IS
monastery in some way or other, it is not correct to identify the stone wall with
the maluisimti.
In Mhv 36.1f. we are told that Bhatikatissa built a wall around the Mahavihara
and that Kaninhatissaka removed the boundary of the Mahavihara
(MahdvihtirasimdTTJ so madditva, and built some cells there (36.10). Furthermore,
we are told that he did away with the boundary of the Mahameghavana and
moved the wall of the Mahavihara to one side for a road leading to the
Dakkhinavihara (36.13-14). Simti in this context cannot be used as a terminus
technia/~ which designates the boundary of the Buddhist sangha, since (1) the
king is not able to remove such a sima, (2) the verb maddati used in this passage
is not the verb one would use for the removal of a ceremonial boundary, but
sam-ull. Also, Mahasena later wanted the hhikkhus to remove the simd of the
Mahavihara, and the Mahavan:tsa!ika explains that this refers to the sima
determined bv Mahinda under Devanamriyatissa (see below, 14). Therefore,
these explanations must refer to boundaries of buildings or the wall erected by
Bhatikatissa.
14. Dip 12.63 gdmasimaTTJ vicinitvti pabbdjetvdna Bhar.u!lIkaTTJ upasampaddn ca tat/h' eva
aralIatlaii ca. To this can be compared the passage in the Majjhimanikaya (Ill 10),
where the monks also assemble in a gama district. Anyway I do not believe this
passage to be early, since the term gdmakkllr.tta is used (see Kieffer-Pulz, Simd, A
Anm.156).
15. Mhv 14.32-33 thero taTTJ gtimasimdyaTTJ lasmirr.! yeva gaT}e akd,
BhaT}411ki1ssa kumtirassa pabbajjaTTJ upasampadaTTJ,
tasmiTTJ yeva khaT}e 50 ca arahattam aptipllni.
PETRA K1EFFERPOU SI
7 After this first ecclesiastical act in Sri Lanka the detennination of the
boundary for the J"issarama is described. When Devanampiyatissa had
'!
dedicated the Mahameghavana to the Buddhist sangha he thought that the
monastery was now well established. Mahinda explains to him that to be
well established a sima has to be determined ~or the arama (Dip 14.22-24):
~.' 22. na kho rtija etttivatti saT1'}gluirtimo pati~~hito,
simtisammannanaT1'} ntima anwliititan.z tatluigato,
23. samtinasaT1'}vtisakasfmaT1'} avippavtisam ticfvaraT1'},
aNhahi simtinimittehi kittayitvti sarnantato,
24. kammavaCliya saventi saT1'}glui sabbe sarnagatti,
evam baddluini simani ektivtiso 'ti vuccati.
vihtira1r} tluivaran.z hoti tirtimo suppati~~hito.
22. '''Not by this much, 0 King, is the monastery of the sangha well
established. 'The detennination of a boundary namely is prescribed
by the Tathagata l6 .'
23. 17After having announced l8 the eight sima marks l9 all around for
16. An.instr. would be expected here. The word order and the missing instrumental
may be due to the grammatical peculiarities of the DipavaTT:lsa, since the
grammatical rules applied in this text are not identical with those in standard PaiL
cf. Ryutaro Tsuchida, "Observations on the language of the Dipavamsa', Stlldien
wr lndologie !/lId lranistik 13/14 (1987) (FestschriJl Wilhelm RDu wr Vollendung des
65. Lebensjahres), pp. 301-310.
17. Oldenberg translated: "23.24. Having defined on all sides by the eight classes of
landmarks the boundaries within which all Bhikkhus are considered as one
section, and (having decreed about) not parting with the three robes, all the
sections (of the Fraternity) assemble and vote on their affairs. A place enclosed by
boundaries which have been determined in that way, is called one community" .
As we know nowadays, the verb killeti is not combined with simd (cf. fn. 18). Since
Oldenberg relates it to sanuinasaTTJvdsakasinran:! he has to add a verb for ticivaran.r
avippavasam.
18. killeti is the verb proper for "to announce' nimitta. It is normally construed with
the acc., but in the present verse lIimittehi is in the instr. Therefore Oldenberg
related the verb killayitvti to the accusative samina5al~""isakasimal1/ avippavasanr
ticivaram (see fn . 17). Since I have never come across the verb killeti having the
word si~rd as an object, except for Dip 14.74 (cf. below, 12, fn . 107). and since
kitteti is not used in the sense of "to determine or define" a sima in the Vinaya
rules, I would prefer to assume that the author of the Dip. combined kitteti not
with the acc., as usual, but with the instr. As in other instances he confused the
cases. That he used the ordinary vocabulary for determining a sima is shown by
the usage of the words sanrmannana and baddluilli in connection with determining
a sima or with already determined simas in the present passage.
19. I.e. one for each direc~ion, chosen from the eight marks enumerated in the Vinaya
(Vin 1106,5-8) and exactly defined in the Samantapasadika (Sp 1036,10-1040.\ 41.
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANK,'\
r PHRA KIEFFERPOLZ
the sima for the same communion:o (and for) the not-being-
separated of the three robes 21 ,
24. all the samghas. having assembled, recited the kammavacas u . The
simas2.1 determined in that way are called 'one residence2~.
25. The vihara is firm and the arama well established."17
The vocabulary used in this passage coincides in part with that applied
to in the Vinaya and in part with that in the Samantapasadika. For
"determining" the sima the word salllmamlnna is utilized. In naming the
s ima sallltillaSal~lVasakns'-lIl1i the Dipavan:tsa deviates from the Vinaya, where
sallldllasamvasasillltl is used, and anticipates the Samantapasadika. The "not-
being-separated of the three robes" is mentioned as avippavasa ticivara,
which is closer to the ticivarella avippm.'tlsa of the Vinaya than to the
clvippavtlsasillld of the Samantapasadika (cf.Kieffer-Pillz, Silmi, B Ein!. 12). O.
v. Hinilber convincingly suggested during the conference that
Ir1ippaudsasillld might not have been used in the chronicles because it does
not fit the metre. The announcement of the marks for the boundary is
formulated with the word lIimit/a and the verb kilteti. The determined simas
are called baddllCini 5 illltil1 i. This indicates that the second verb used for
"determining" a sima. viz. baddlrati, was already in use. Simas determined
in this wav are called cktivtisa, "one residence", which shows that the
identitv of'a residence and the space limited by a sima, which stood at the
beginn'ing of the development (Vin I 106,1-3 = Mv II 6.1), was still valid.
This indicates that the Dipavan:tsa represents a stage still close to the
Vinaya, and that a great number of the developments tangible 10 the
Samantapasadika set in much earlier.
$amt'tisa is the terminllS trc/rniclIs for the living together of
Samtilla~aml.'asa.
20.
munks or 'nuns, inciuding the common recitation of the Patimokkha and the
performance of ecclesiastical acts. sall/Qna, "same", refers to the fact that the
members who have :5all.wosa together plead for the same interpretation of the
Vinaya . I have dealt with this subject more fully in Kieffe.r-Pi.ilz, Simo, A Ein1.12,
and A 2.2.2.
21. [n standard Pali IicivarClla avippavtisa.
22. kamlllm:acam or kamll/avQcayo is to be expected here.
23. Simo is normally a feminine word in Pali. Only in the Dipava~sa are neuter
forms found, cf. Kieffer-Piilz, Simti, A Einl.9 .
., I
_"T .Ektivtisa is a terminlls teclmiws for "one residence for monks". It preceded the
term sima, introduced as its limitation, cf. Kieffer-Piilz, Sima, A 1.
53
8 Next the actual determination of this first sima is described (Dip
14.26-40):
26. yactimi tan.' mahavira, learo"i vacanaT/.l mama,
antosimamhi aktise tivasantll maluijana;
27. mettaknrll~lIiparetaya sadarakkho blravissati.
pariccagail ca jane li raja tllylran.l yadicc/raleall},2~
28. sal~lgllO leatapariccago silllam samnlal111ayissali.
Malrapadllmo KlIIijaro ca IIblro IItiga slllllaligaia
29. sovQl.lI:ranaligaie yllllti pa!hmlral~l Ko!!lramiiiake,
caturmigilli maluisena saha therelri khattiyo
30. suva~znallarzgaiasitam dassayanto arilldalllo,
sall1Qial~lkntall} pll~ll}aglra!al1.1 nal1tirtigml} dlrajan.1 sllblran.1
31. I1til1tipllpplradlrajaki~1I}a/1.1 toral}ali ca mal,aim~lglriytl,
ballllcandijaiallla/a, sllvam.lnllmlgaie knsi.
32. lIIahtijanapascidiiya sa Ira therelri khattiyo
l1agarm~' padakkhinam leatva naditiral~l IIpagallli.
33. lIIalzasimaparicctiga sita SIlVal}l.lnllmigaie,
ym~l yan.' pa!lraviym~l yattlra agama Ko!tlralllaiaknll.l.
34. silllall.l simena glratite mahajallasalllagallle,
akampi pll.fhavi tattlra pathalllam pathavikalllpanal~1.
35. disva aCc/liIriyall.l sabbe rajasena sara!!lrakd
ar1lialllmiiial~l panwdill/sll: sil1uiralllo bhavissati.
36. yavata simaparicc/lede nimittm~l bal,dlril~ISII mtiiake,
pa!ivedesi flrerdl1al~l Devtinampiyaissaro,
37. leatva leattabbakiccani simassa lIIdiaknssa ca,
vilrarQ/~l tllllvarattlraya bhikkllllsm~lglrassa plltlSllleal~1.
38. mamaii ca anllkmnptiya thero simal1i bandlratll.
slltvalla rmilia vacal1am Malril1do dipajotako
39. amanlayi bhikkll!lsall}gi'Ql~': simall} bmldlztillla blrikk/lavo
l1akklratte IIttarfiSIWle ~abbe sQ/~'gllti sml/(lgatti,
40. patiqlrapt?fva- malakmtJ sallltil!aSal~lV{isakall.l Ildllla sillltlnt balldlllttlUl
cakkl,ulIlii...
26. I ask you, great hero, act according to my speech: 'In a pl<lc.e which
lies within the sima the multitude of (towns-)people shall hv',
27. (there) will always be protection on account of the being affected
with love and compassion'; (Mahinda answered:) 'You may make 26
25. I have changed janeti to jane ti, and raja to rfijtl, the latter being <1 v.1. in the
manuscripts used by Oldenberg A(Dip, fn . to verse 27) .
26. Oldenberg changed janeti to janahi (p.75,fn. 27). I think t.his is not necesS:lM.Y. If une reJ1~
1a/1C ti instead of jml!'ti (which would be wrong for lallell) III the prmted el It lOl1. we W(\u
have a 2nd/3rd sg.opt. and li as the marker for the end of .the direct speech. w~l ch.
however, would be in the wrong position, but perhaps tlllS IS possible 111 verse' SlOeI'
luuiram indicates the second person in the address, rajii would be better read as VOc.sg.
ra]a. as exemplifieJ in a number of manuscripts.
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARlE.5 IN SRI LANKA
the limitation v according to your wish, 0 king,
the sangha having the limited extension28 will determine the sirna.'
Mahapaduma and Kuiijara, the two elephants, the very auspicious
ones,
were first harnessed to a golden plo~gh at KOHhamalaka. The great
four-membered army29 (and), together with the theras, the warrior
(= the king),
30. the destroyer of his enemies, pointed out the furrow with the
golden plough. JO.(Ouring this progress there were seen) adorned
full vases, beautiful flags of different colours, , declared to the theras:J6
31. triumphal arches decorated with various flowers and flags,
garJands(?}, and many burning lights (?):lO
32. To the joy of many people the warrior together with the theras
encircled the town turning the right side of his body to it, and
reached the bank of the river.
33. The furrow (resulting from) the golden ploughJ] encircled 32 the
27. Oldenberg changed pllriccagllli to pllricciredam on account of the v.1. to vss. 14.33,36,
where pllriccheda is given as a variant, As paricctfgam here is object to the verb jane
(d.fn 25, 26), my explanation given to verse 33 (cf.fn. 32) does not fit here, and so I
follow Oldenberg.
28. Oldenberg changed this to 51171Jgho Ialte paricchede and translated accordingly "the
limit being given, the Fraternity ... It is possible to relate Ialtapllricctfgo or, better,
If.
klllaparicchedo (for pariCCliga/pariccheda, see fn. 32) as a Bahuvrihi to SII71Jgho.
29. Geiger, Cull lire, 146.
30. Here I follow Oldenberg, since I do not have any idea, how to grasp better the sense
of these verses.
31. Loc. as "Lokativ der materiellen Grundlage" (?) (O.v.Hintiber, Stlldien ZIIr
/(asllssynlax des Ptili, beso/lders des ViMyaPi!alal, Mtinchen, 1968 [Mtinchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 21, 284).
32. Oldenberg changed paricctiga in all three passages where it occurs to pariccheda
(cf. fn . 27), since in the present and one further _passage (Dip 14.36) the
manuscripts have paricctiga and pariccheda alternatively. Whereas at 14.28 and 36
I follow Oldenberg's suggestion, the question arises whether another
interpretation should be preferred herEt o paricca can be explained as an
absolutive "to have circumambulated" . Perhaps the use of pariccaga in this
context in the MSS. is due to the confusion of the words paricca (from pari-I)
meaning "to circumabulate, surround" and pariccaga (from pari~lyaj) "to leave,
abandon". Whereas the first would fit the context, but cannot be explained
grammatically in most of the passages, the second does not make any sense. In
verse 33 it would be possible to explain pariccdga as paricca (absolutive from
s kt. paritya) + aga (3rd sg.Aor. of gllm) . Absolutive and auxiliary verb are not
infrequently combined; I have translated accordingly.
PETRA KIEFFER POLZ 55
maluisinu/ (area); it went wherever there (was) earth JJ to (the place)
where the Ko~~amalaka (was located}.34
34. When sima was connected with sirna35 at the meeting of the many
people, the earth quaked; there was the first earthquake.
35. When all, the king, the army and the people of the kingdom, saw
this miracle, they rejoiced to each other: 'There will be a monastery
within the boundary'.
36. J6. As far as the mark (was positioned) at the sirna extension, they
(= the monks) determined the malakas. Devanampiya, the ruler
33. Ya71J ya71J indicates that the author thought pa,thaviyam to be an acc. or nom .sg.n.
not a loco of paPUJui. Concerning the content, this passage could be interpreted
to the effect that the sima is valid only on firm ground, viz. on earth, not on
water.
34. I am not at all sure that my interpretation of this verse is correct. I have onlv
tried to translate the verse, contrary to Oldenberg, without emendations. H~
translated: "Drawing(?) the furrow which indicated the line of the great
'O r
boundary, on the ground with the golden plough, he then (?) arrived (again) at
KOHhamalaka ." There is no subject here who could draw nor is sittf in the acc.
Though the subject often has to be supplied in the Dipavan:'sa, and the cases are
. ',',t
often different from what is expected, here I prefer to consider sita to be the
subject.
35. I.e. one end of the future boundary with the other one. Oldenberg translated
:,J "The two ends of the furrow having been united ... ", which, actually, is what
happened, since the determination of the sima is still to come, and the furrow
drawn by the king, strictly spoken, is no sima.
36. Oldenberg translated this verse as if the king had not only indicated the course
of the mahtisima, but also that of the md/akas: "The ruler Devanampiya indicated
to the Theras how far they had determined the marks of the boundary line, of
the enclOsure (and spoke thus:)." Oldenberg related the verb bandlri71Jsll to
/limit/am; bandh, the terminlls lechniclIs for "to determine" a sima (see above,
3), is never used as a verb connected with nimilla; it, therefore, must be related
to the following ma/ake, though it seems not to be used in its technical sense,
since the determination is still to come. Perhaps the author of the Dipavan:'sa
did not know the differentiated use of these verbs or he had different sources
with deViating vocabulary at his hands. Besides, why should the king tell the
theras where the theras themselves had determined the mtjlakas? Or does "they"
refer to the king with his entourage? That the place where the malakas should be
positioned must have been delineated by the theras is certain, since it is unlikely
that the king knew how many mtilakas, for what purpose and at which place
had to be d~termined . This is independent of the question whether md/aka is
used here as a term in liS lechniclIs or not. If ma/aka were used as a Itrminus
lec/rnicl/s as the verb bandlli".lsu suggests (but see below) the king would not
have been able to perform this act, since it would have been an ecclesiastical act
performed by the sangha.
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN $RI LANKA
'-
37. 'As the (preparatory) duties for the sima and the nuilakn have been
performed, may the thera in order to establish firmly the vihara,
which will be convenient for the order of monks,
38. (and) out of compassion with me determine the simas.' Having
heard the speech of the king, Mahinda, the enlightener of the
island,
39. addressed the order of monks: 'Let us determine the
sima , 0 monks.' On the nakkhatta Uttarasalha all the orders
assembled.
40. After having established 37 the malakn 38 he, who had the (magic) eye,
determined 39 the sima for the same communion.
First of all we learn that the king wishes the town of
Anuradhapura to be enclosed by the ceremonial boundary of the Buddhist
sangha (14.26). TIlerefore, Mahinda asks the king to indicate himself the
extension he wishes the sima to have, and tells him that the sangha, 'after
having learned where the king wishes the si.m a to run, will determine it
accordingly (14.27-28). Then we hear that the king started to draw a furrow
beginning at Konhamalaka (14.29), that he surrounded the whole town
clockwise and returned to the river (14.32). Since the first mark (nimitta)
always has to be connected with the previous one, and since the king starts
to draw the furrow at Ko~~hamalaka and ends at the river, we can deduce
that Ko~~hamalaka lies at the river Kadamba (now Malvatu oya) which
flows in the east of the town from south to northwest.
The sima area is described as malzasima (14.33), a term which is not
used in the Vinaya, but only as late as in the Samantapasadika. The use of
this word in the DipavafDsa proves that the development leading to the use
of the term mahasima , viz. the introduction of the malaka or klzm.u!asima, is
earlier than the Samantapasadika.
Another wording in this passage, viz. sima"} simena g"a~ite (14.34),
resembles very much an expression in the Samantapasadika where the
same statement is made concerning the lIimitta (Sp 1036,2 Ilimittena nimittml./
gh a ~ital/.I) . As the actual determination of the sima with the preceding
announcement of the marks for its course is only described later (14.39-40),
sima here is used for the furrow drawn by the king, which indicates the
cou rse of the future sima and, at the same time, the place where the marks
of this sima ha ve to be announced. It, therefore, is an inexact use of the
37. Palil.l llapcturi; the ex pec ted verb bandll is not used he re.
38. Here :;g. is used w he rea:; above we had a pI.; later (Dip 14.78) we learn that the re
are th irty-Iv" o malakas.
39 . Balldl/i//ha, 2.pl. does no t fit he re.
PETRA KIEFFERPULZ 57
terminus sima which is to be observed in several other passages of the
DipavafDsa as well.
In vs. 14.36 we are informed that lIuilakas are determined (balldhimslI
malake) up to the point where the marks (sg. in the text) for the course of the
sima were located. The announcement of the marks which is a prerequisit
for using them as indicator of the boundary, is not mentioned. Dipavan:tsa
and MahavafDsa explain that a malaka is a place within which ecclesiastical
acts of the sangha are performed. 40 This makes plain that the nuilakas of
DipavafDsa and MahavafDsa are identical with what is called klzat}qasil1la,
(sima)/rui!aka, (sima)marJqala, in the Samantapasadika (see above, 3),
though these terms are neither used in the DipavafDsa nor in the
Mahavan:tsa but only in the Cu!avafDsa (viz. k1zarJqasima, Cv 78.63, cf, below
14). TIlis fact suggests that the term malaka was in, use earlier than the
word klza~lqasi/1la. Besides this use of the word malaka as termillus teclrniCIIs
for the by-sima within a mahasima, malaka is also used in the general
meaning "(confined) space" . This usage is proofed by different place names
as for example TiJeralJaIt}balldlzamalaka (Mhv 20.42), where the funeral pyre
for Mahinda was piled up and a thupa erected later on; Rajamalakn as
designation for the place where the king was burnt (Mhv 32.80 )1;
Asokamalaka (ivthv 15.153), Nagamaiaka (Mhv 15.118, 153), Sirisamci/aka (Mhv
15.84) as places where thousands of people grasped the word of the
Buddhas, and where afterwards cetiyas had been built; Parilzambamalakn
(Mhv 15.38) for a place where the goods accrued by the order w e re
distributed (Mhv 15.46); and at last the MahaTllllcala-m tflaka, which
designates the place where the uposatha house is situated (Mhv 15.36-37).
Here malaka must have been used in its general meaning as well, though in
the uposatha house also ecclesiastical acts of the sangha are performed, viz.
the uposatha ceremony, and, therefore, the use of the word malaka seems to
coincide with the explanation in DipavafDsa and MahavafDsa (see above,
and fn. 40). But originally the uposatha house was erected within the simii
enclosing the "residence" (avasa) or a whole monastic complex, i.e. within
40. Dip 13.42 san.1shakammaTT} karissanli akuppal1.1 5risa llIiraha TT} , id'" okase maharaja
md/akan /alr} bhavissali; Mhv 15.29 ahosi /inr}a m buddlrtil/alr:r kale pi IdlIQ ma/ako
narinda saTT}ghakammallham bl,auissali idcini pi, Additionally, lnlilaka is used as the
last member of place name comp o u nds as, fo r in s ta nce , Tumba(m )-
md/aka (Dip 14.74 ; Mhv 16.16). In th is ma/aka an u p asa mpada ha d been
perform ed , which shows that it had the sa m e fu nctio n as a klral.l dasimd.
41. But co mpare th e T/llipa va".,SQ by Vcicissara T/,t ra (ed . B. C. La w, London, 1935),
where this space is explicitly called siN/ama/aka (10:::, 1-2:) Ralillo sa rira n,J yalllra
jhdpes"'~l, so simri ma/ako rajamaiako ndma )010.
 CEREMONIAll3OUNDARlES IN ~R1LANKA
the sima later called maluisima, and not within a khar;qasima,42 which in the
beginning did not yet exist. Consequently it seems that in this name ma/aka
is used in a non-technical sense as "(confined) space". According to Geiger
the Bodhi tree too had its special court. 43
As we know, each part of a monastery had its specific place. This is valid
for the cetiya, the bodhi tree, the uposatha house, the refectory, etc. Possibly
the space for each such object originally was described as ma/aka. In this
way also the place for the upasampada ordination could have been called
Ilpasampadama/aka, a term still in use in the Samantapasadika with
variants.44 In my opinion out of this design.ation the use of ma/aka as
terminus teclmiclls for the by-sima developed, and with the establishment of
this word in its technical meaning the replacement of the word in its general
sense by the word angar;a began. In the Samantapasadika we have several
proofs for this usage in the combination cctiyangar;a and bodhiyangar;a. 45 In
the chronicles the usage of angar;a as a ser ond member of place names is
still small, for example Mahiyangar:ta for a thupa (Mhv 1.24,42), a place
name (Mhv 25,7; 36,58), and as part of the name of a vihara (Mhv 32.58),
Tumbariyangar:ta as name of a pond (Mhv 10.53), Nigrodhamangar:ta and
Mahaangar:ta (Appendix B vss.ll, 14).
In the early chronicles, viz. in Dipavallfsa and Mahavarr:tsa, the word
ilia/aka is still used in both senses.46 In the Cu!avarr:tsa, in addition to ma/aka
in the technical sense khar;qasima is used (see below, 9 14).
42. The practice of determining a sima (= khar;qasimal around an uposatha house is
later in date, and very often followed in Thailand. Mention of such
determinations is made for instance in the Jinakalamali (N.A.Jayawickrama
[trans!.), The Sheaf of Garlands of the Epochs of the Conqueror, Being a Translation of
/inalailamalipakilrar;al1] of Ratanapaiiiia Thera of Thailand, London, 1968 [Pali Text
Society, Translation Series, 36)), p.137 for the year 1452 A.D.; cf. Madeleine
Giteau, Le bornage rituel des temples bouddhiqlles au Cambodge, Paris, 1969
(Publications de I'Ecole fran<;aise de l'Extreme-Orient, 68), p.5f.
43. Mhv(trans!.), p. 99, fn . 4, and Geiger, Culture, 175.
44. mcila Sp 1034,6; mcilaka 940,26; 994,2; ma1Jqala 1194,9; simci-mar;qala 51,26.
Besides, the word mtilakil in the sense of simli is used, as indicated already above,
3 (1178,17; 1045,32 with v. . <imamlilakil; 1049,9; 1171,31.32 mlirakasimato; 1178,13
mlilakasimli; 1375,9 mcilakilsJ-mli.
45. For example Sp 1051, 16-17; many more examples are to be found in the Index to
the Samantapasadika by Hermann Kopp, Sp, vo!. 8, London, s.d . (Pali Text
Society, Text Series, No.167). Cf. CPD s.v. langar;a.
46. One example for the synonymity of the non-technical word mlilaka with angar;a
may be the name Panhambamalaka (Mhv 15.38, 20.39) with the form
Pancambangana in the Mahavan:tSa!ika 626,31 , if the identification of these two
places is correct (DPPN s.v. Pan,'wmbamlilaka, and Paiicamba-angana).
PETRA KJEFFERPOU 59
Perhaps the confusion in the above-cited passage regardin g the verses
36 and 40, where first "the ma/akas are determined" (bandhim su mti/ake),
which normally is the final act, and later "the mti/aka(!) is es tablished"
(malakanJ patillhapetval, is due to this differentiated use of the wo rd ma/aka.
The verb patiUhapeti is not used together with ma/aka in the Vinaya
literature, i.e. it is not a known terminus tec/1I1iCIIs . Since it occurs again in
the description of the second determination of a sima in Dipava rr:tsa 14.78
(see below, 12), it may possibly be a usual verb in connection w ith ma/aka
in its non-technical meaning.
Interes tingly, the number of ma/akas which had been d e te rmined
additionally to the maluisinui in the lissamaharama is not gi ven here, but
only after the next passage, which describes the second sima determination
in Sri Lanka, viz. that on the lissa mountain (Dip 14.77, d . below, 12). We
are told that nut only at the second spot, but already at the first one, thirty-
two mtilakas had been determined.47 Probably thereby ma/aka in the general
sense "(Confined) space" and in the specific meaning of klJa~ldlls i/lui have
been mixed up and counted together, since it seems rather improbable that
already at the first monastery thirty-two k/JQr;qasimas had been determined,
seeing as how the number of monks was still small, whereas in the 12th
century under Parakkamabahu I only three k/lQr;qasl-mas were determined
in the A-!ahana-pariver:ta in Polonnaruva (see below, 14), though the
number of monks was certainely higher then. However, the
Mahavarr:tsa\ika explains that these thirty-two ma/akas are considered to be
baddhasimama/akas (v.I. k/lQr;qasimama/aka) (Mhv-! 682,11-12), which, in fact,
means that they are identical with khar;qasl-mtis.
In any case the words bandllinJsu ma/ake (Dip 14.36) cannot refer to the
determination of the malakas, since the king afterwards explains to
Mahinda that no'w, since the preliminary acts for the determination of a
sima have been finished Mahinda shall determine the boundary (14.27-28).
Therefore, what has been done before must be the delineation of the places
for the ma/akas, in which case bandh would not have been properly applied
. .~
here. The announcement of marks for the mahcisl-ma and for the malakas
which functioned as k/lar;I{asimas as well as the announcement of nimitta for
the interspace between those ma/akas and the area of the maJuisima, i.e. for
the sinumtariJai, which is not mentioned at all in this passage, must have
taken place before as well. At last the ma/aka (! sg.) is established
(patiUhapetval and the maluisima, here named samanasanJvasakanJ nama sima,
. , is determined .
,-;t"
47. In the corresponding pas!:<lge of the Mahavan:tsa the number thirty-two is given
.... at the relevant spot (Mhv 15.192, cf. below 9).
........'
",

I CEREMONIAL BOUNOARlES IN SRI LANK",
9 The corresponding passage in the Mahavan:tsa is very close to the
description in the Dipavan:tsa (above, 8). But in the Mahavamsa Mahinda
explains to the KiDg that the sasal1a is not well established a~ long as no
determined sirna exists, which gives more sense than the explanation given
in the Dipavan:tsa that the arama is not well established (Mhv 15.180-184;
190-194).48
180. tlJeral~1 IIpanisiditva so pl/cclli: "jinasaSalIal~1
pati((/litar1} blranfe?" ti. "Na fava manl/jadhipa;
1111
181. IIposathadiknmmattha/~1 jinti~laya jantidhipa
sil1l1iya id/ra baddhaya pati((hissati sasanan.l".
182. iccabravi ma/uithero, ta/I} raja idam abravi:
"sall}blldd/ui~laya anto '1IOT1.I vasissami jl/tiT1.ldhara,
183. tasma katva pI/ran.' anto siman.' bandlwtlra sajjukam."
lccabravi ma/uiraja , thero tan.'idam abmvi:
184. "roam. sati tlliJar~1 yeva pajlina pat/wvissara
simaya gamana((hanan.', bandhisstima mayan.l hi ta/~1." ... 49
190. mahatti pariuarena saktirtimal~1 IIptigami.
Tatthn there tlpagantva vanditvti vandantirahe
191. pa!ititthaknn.l lairayanto Kadambanadiya va so
sitavaUill} kurllmano nadiT1.l patva- samtipayi.
192. Ra;iliti dinnaya s,-ttiya nimitte parikitfiya,
dvattir1}samtilakattll(lT1.l ca Tllliptirtimatt/wm roa ca
193. nimitte kittayitvana maluithero mahtimati
simantaranimitte ca kittayitva yathavidhi.
194. abandhi sabbasimtiyo tasmiT1.l yeva dine vasi,
mahtimalIt aknmpittha simaband/le samapite.
180. The (king), sat down with the thera and asked: 'Has the doctrine of
th e C onqueror been now established, sir?';;o , lot yet, 0 ruler of
men,
181. 0 lo rd o f nations, w hen the boundary is determined here for the
u posatha-ceremony and the o ther ecclesiastical acts, according to
the co mmand o f the Conqueror, the d octrine sha ll be establish ed'.
182. Thus s poke the great thera, and the king answered thus: 'I will
abide under the Buddha's comma nd, thou Giver of light!
183. Therefo re determine the boundary with all speed, taking in the
city.' Thus spoke the great king and the thera answered thus:
019. The omitted text describes how the king. ado rned and with a ll his en to urage
e c., comes to the arama; it is not important for the present discussion.
50. So A.P Buddhadatta, ~Correc ions of Geige r's Maha al1}sa", COTTections of
Conga-'s. " 11)511 de., Ambalangoda, 1957, .20.
,
;
PETRA KIEFFERPUlZ 61
184. 'If it be so, then do thou thyself, lord of the earth, mark out the
course of th~ boundary; we will determine it.' ...
190. with a great entourage he came to his own arama. When he had
here sought out the theras and paid his respect to those to whom
respect was due,
191. he ploughed a furrow in a circle, maki.r1g it (begin) on the opposite
shore of the Kadamba-river, and ending it when he (again) reached
the river.
192. 'IOn the furrow given by the king he announced the marks (lilt! for
the thirtytwo malakas and for the ThLiparama he announced the
marks,
193. the great thera with great wisdom, and the marks for the sima
interspace he announced according to the law, .
194. and then he determined all the simas on that very dav <; 1 the ruler
(of his senses) . The great earth quaked when the d~ter~ining of the
simas was completed."
In the description of the actual sima determination in the Mahiivamsa,
additionally to what had been told in the DipavaI1).sa, we learn that in 'the
furrow ploughed by the king marks had been announced by the sangha
and that marks (lIill/itta) for the thirty-two malakas, for the ThLipa rama and
for the simii interspace (sill/antam) had been announced. The "n1Liparilma
here has been marked additionally to the thirty-two IIId/aka . The
announcement of marks for the sima interspace is not mentioned in the
DipavaI1).sa though it is necessary to separate the II/alakas from th e lIIaillis illlli
(see above, 3). Here in the MahavaI1).sa for "s ima interspace" (termilllls
tec1miws: simantarikal , the word simantam is used. 111at this word m ust have
51. Geiger tra nsl a ted vss.1 92-194 in the following way: "When he had asslgn>d
bounda ry"marks nn the furrow tha the king had ploughed and had a,slgned
the bounda ries for thirty-two malakas and for the Thuparama, the grea hf!ri1
of lofty wisdom, then fixed the mner boundary"marks likewise according lu
custom; .....
The fo rmulation "had assigned boundarle5 for Ihe lhir y" '0 ma/aka:. ","
presupposes the word sima in the tex , a word which IS, however, not there.
With rega rd to content this translation is senseless, since the ma/aY.Jl ,bel; 's J
kind of bounda ry. The words siman/aranlnlllle ca /(I /l ay,llHl yalJrav,dl" G~lger
tra nslated as " then fixed the inner boundary-marks likeWise according to
custom ". I think siman/ara here IS another form of simanlarrkti, the ler n/wlts
lech n iclIS fo r sima in terspace. a nd , therefore . siman/a r alllnlllle should be
understood not as " inner boundary marks" but as he marks for th sima
interspace (simanlarrlcal which is prescrib d b tw~n on sima and ano h r
Since there were hirty-two malalcas here had 0 b announcE:d mar for
interspaces to U\eSe hirty-two rruilJWzs a well, In order avo,d over ap? n~
of these maWAs With he maluis'-rrui.
,2 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRIlANKA
been used in the sense of simantarikJi is obvious from the context. Since the
mtilakas have been mentioned separately the word simantara in nimitta
cannot refer to them. 52 And since a ceremonial boundary consists of a single
line only, it is not possible to speak of "inner boundary-marks" as Geiger
did. This translation probably was inspired by the simas Geiger had seen,
which mostly consist of two rows of stones, and which are often explained
to be the inner and the outer sima. 53 In reality these are kha1}qasimti and
simalttarikJi and the inner row of stones indicates the course of the sima
whereas the outer row shows the course of the simalttarikff, i.e. the
interspace to the sima. If one wants to speak of an inner and outer boundary
at all this can only be done referring to a double sima-system, i.e. mahtisimti
and JcJuz1}qasima, and the word flouter boundary" then could only refer to
the mahtisima and the word "inner boundary" to the sima interspace, which
defines the inner end of the mahtisimti area; however, this usage is not
confirmed by any of the Pali texts known to me.54 Besides these arguments
based on the content, I refer to the description of the second determination
ofa sima in Sri Lanka described in the Dipavan:tsa (Dip 14.74, see below,
12), where the word simantarilai is used.
In conjunction with nimitta here the verps parikitteti and kitteti are used
(15.192, 193). In the meaning "to determine" a sima the root bandh is used
exclusively, sam-man is not encountered.
10 The Mahavan:u;a passage under discussion is extended in all Sinhalese
manuscripts by twenty verses, which are inserted after l'v1hv 15.191. In his
edition of the Mahavan:tsa Geiger published these verses in Appendix B
(pp.33lf.), having demonstrated them to be a later interpolation (Mhv,
pJO(XVI and Mhv[transl.], p.lU, n.3). His main argument is the fact that
52. Geiger, Cv(trans!.), 11, p.1l0, fn.4 of the preceding page, correlates the
simantaranimittani of our passage wi th the mahtisima and the khar:rc!asimtis
mentioned in the Cu.laval1!sa (see below, 14).
53. Possibly the misconception of inner boundary marks was further strengthened
by the use of the word abbhantaranimitta in the Mahabodhival1!sa (MBv 137,3),
which here denotes the marks of the different mtilakas, as well as by the word
simantaranimitttini, which, consequently, must refer to the marks for the sima
interspace.
54. In the Vinaya of the Mu!asarvastivadin we have the expression san tarbahirm ukhi
simti, "a sima directed to the outside together with a sima directed to the
inside". Since in this Vinaya no sima interspace is prescribed, the by-sima, here
called khuc!c!aliJui simti, forms the sima directed to the inside, whereas the sima
directed to the outside is the maluisimti, in thi5 school called mahati simti (Kieffer-
Piilz, SiTTUi, C 6.0.).
PCfRA KIEFFERPOU 63
the MahavaII).satika only comments on verse 15.191, but not on the
following - excluded - twenty verses. Furthermore, the Cambodian
manuscripts of the Mahavan:tSa only contain verses 1 and 8 of these twenty
stanzas. Geiger divides the verses into eight (of which seven (!) are
contained in the Dipavan:tsa and are explained as stemming from the
aHhakatha by the Maha-bodhivan:tsa) and twelve stanzas, which "appear
to be a later insertion, taken from a special work, called Simakatha, and are
very loosely connected with the original text by the introductory stanza 9" .
Stanzas 10-20, whose source is thought to be a text named Simakatha,
describe the run of the sima of the Mahavihara. Geiger does not give any
., explanation for his assumption of their origin in the Simakatha, but I
suppose that the reason for it lies in a passage of the Mahavan:tsatika (362,3-
..
t
7) commenting on Mhv 15.193 (cited and translated above, 9):
Yatluividlzf Simtikathtiya vuttena yathQ vidltinti eva"} simantaranimitte ca
kittayitvti ti attho. "According to the method: and after having announced
the marks for the sima interspace according to the method described in the
Simakatha."
YathQvidlti, "according to the method", could possibly be explained as
referring to the succession in which the marks for the mahcisima, for the
thirty-two malakas or small simas and for the interspace between these small
simas and the maluisima have to be announced. More probably it simply
refers to the prescribed method for the announcement of the marks.
Irrespective of this question the allusion to the Simakatha can be
understood as a reference to the Simakatha which is part of the
Samantapasadika. Here both methods are explained in detail (Sp 1041,30-
1042,26 and 1035,23-1036,31; Kieffer-Pi.ilz, Sima, B 1). As is well known the
Mahavan:tsa~ika refers to the Samantapasadika in its present form (Mhv-!,
p.lxxii). Therefore there is no reason why the reference to the Simakatha
should not relate to this part of the Samantapasadika as well. If Geiger's
assumption as to the origin of the 12 stanzas in the Simakatha is based on
this passage-and no other passage in canon or a~thakatha is known to me,
where a Simakathii is referred toSS-it cannot be upheld. This is likewise valid
for Malalasekera's remarks, which repeat Geiger's assumption in the
SS. I checked this additionally with the program BudsirIY.
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKA PETRA KIEFFER POLZ 65

introduction to the Mahava~saFka56. The Mahabodhivan:tsa where these 6. ntinaturiyasalT}ghuH/1O baloghaparivtirito

verses are quoted on pp.I34-136 (with the exception of vss.l, 9, 17 and IS), tJrutimarigalagitehi plirayanto catuddisalT}
gives as the source for the first seven verses vuttalT} h'etam AHhakathaya17.! 7. stidlruktirallintidehi celukkltepasatehi ca
(p.134) and for vss.1O-16, 19-20 vllttalT} 11' etalT} latll!' eva (p.136). This might mahatti chaIJapujaya kasanto bhumipo agti
I
be understood as referring to the same source indicated for the first eight I 8. viharalIJ ca puralT} ceva kUnlmtino padalckh0alT}
verses (p.134), and that would imply the a~thakatha as the source for these .i. simaya gamana.t./lrdnalT} nadin.r patvd sanrdpayi.
verses as well. If anything can be said for sure it is this, that vss.2-S originate 9. kena kena nimittella simd ettlra gala ti ce,
from the atthakatha and vss.1O-16, 19-20 may originate from the same text. evan.! simaga/aUhtinan.! icchamtinti nibodhatlra:
This a~~hakatha is certainly not the Dipavan:tsa, as only some of the verses 10. Nadiyti PtistiIJatittlranrhi ptistiIJa/~r KII44ava~akal~!62
are contained in it and the wording differs. lato KumbalavatalT}63 ta/IJ, Malrdnipall.z!" tato agti.
11 . Tato Kaklzlldhapali".rgo65, Malraariga1.1ago66 tato,
The passage enumerating the marks of the sima of the Mahavmara
tato K/lIIjjamadlllilmT}67 ca, Marllttapokklrara1.1i".1 tatu.
reads as follows (Mhv Appendix B, pp.331-333):
12. Vijaytirall/allyyd/le uttaradvtirako././lrago611
1. Saha therehi galltvtina nadiyoparitittlzakall.1 Ca jakll nrbhakapdstil./Q IIJ Tlr 11 sa va./.tl, ikamajjlra to6'l
tato kasanto aganuisi lremallmigalam adiya. 13. Ablraye batakapastil.ra/~r, malrdsllstillamajjhago:O
2. Maluipadrmro Kllirjaro ca IIblro nagti slIInarigata DighaptisdIJaka".! gan/vd Kammdradevavamato.
sllVal.r~ranmigale yllttti pa~lrame KIII1tamtilake 57 14. Nigrodlra-lII-aligalJall.1 gantvti Hiyagal/asamipake
3. catllrmiginimaluiseno salra therelri kJzattiyo Diyavdsabralrma1.1assa,1 devokal1.1 pubbadakklzil.1QI~r.
galretvti nangalanlssital/.' dassayitvac,s arilT}damo 15. Tato Tellll11apdlil1.1gon, tato Talacatukkago7J,
. ~ I
samalal/.1katan.! pll~!IJaglratalT} Ilallaragm~! dlrajan.! sub/rail.! Assall1aIJdlllavamena Sa savdnQ/1.1;~ tato agd.
4.
pti/in.r candanaCl/IJ'.rm~l ca 59sOl.1IJarajatada~1(!akm~I'9
..
.. I
16. Talo Marr/llrbatittlra/~rgo7Y<, tato IIddlrQ/~r nadil1.1 aga .
5. tidtisalT} 61lpllpplrablrari/mlJ sanrllggalT}{jJ kuslllnagglriyall.1 76- Pa!lramace/iyapacine dve kadambti ajciyisun.!. 76

01tora/JakadalicllaltadillJ gahi t' ittlriparivari to61 17. Senindagllttarajja mhi Dam~/d dakasllddlrikci 77
/1adill! drirml.r ti bandlri/vd lIagarasanllQ/IJ akQ/~rsll tam.
IS. fivanrallakadanrban.l ca anlosiman.l gato alzll,
56. Mhv-~, Ixviii: "The Simakotllli is referred to o'nly once, to say that the boundaries ' I lIIatakadanriJatirena sima udd/rakadambaga"78.
of the Mahavihara were settled in the manner set forth in the Si{!)makotha. It
~:
"'I
I
I
.f."
to'1
was, probably, a treatise dealing with such topics as the consecration of
boundaries, in monastic establishments, resembling later works like the :ji~ ! 62. v.1. Kwtc!ilao.
Si(! )mabandhani and the SimtilariJaira, found even today in Burma. The material
found in it was perhaps later incorporated in the Samal1lapdslidika. It is probable
that the twenty verses which are interpolated in some MSS. of the Mhv. and
have been given by Geiger in the Appendix (A) (!) to his edition - describing
'li
,<
. :~:
....
63.
64 .
65.
66 .
v.1. KII1Jc!alao
v.1. maluidipa'~1
MBv Kaklldlzapdlili ca
v.1. Mailtiarigolligo. MBv ariganakam
how the king himself marked the boundarie s of the Mahavihara with a plough, 67. v.1. Kllllddao. MBv om lalo and reads KIIII/iamtillllarrrkklral; ca
and giving the names of the different areas traversed - were also extracted from 68. v.1. ko.t./ago, MBv koylllllo
the Sinrtiknlha." Thou gh I know neither the Simabandhani nor the Simalankara, 69. v.1. ui.t.tllikao, MBv ua.t.lika
both w orks are, to the best of my knowledge, books which deal with sima rules 70. M Bv majjhalo
in a techn ical sense. The refore it seems highly improbable that a Simakatlui, 71. v.1. Diyauan.lsa o, Diyauasa O, Disudsa o, Diyautisam , DiyavdsaO, Dlyat1as(l
"
sup posed to resem ble these texts, would contain the description of a certain ( 72. v.1. Te!lImpdI O, N('!lImptilo, MBv ptiliii ca
histo rical si ma . 73. v.1. Nala o, Cd/a o
57. v.1. Klllla o, MBv KlI nlao, Di p KiJllluro. 74. v.1. udla".r, Vtillal~l, uanar~/ , MBv pallal~1
38. MBv simam dassayanlo 75. MBv tillllaii ca
59. MBv c.ipo".l dlllipakolaccll llkn".l. 76. MBv K,ilanl e,, .:tla so yaua lilll,olll marigalasallllllolam: the te" In the I IBv
continues with SilraSlnana o in vs. 19.
60. ~B v kodalim pllppllasamllgga".1 J
77. v.1. Damiladdakao, Damlndaka, Damlddaka '
61. MBv: Simanl lm1,i cllO IMdi,,) gallttvti parittirilo.
., 78. v.1. silamalldakadambasa
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKA
S,7rasiminatittllena uggantva tirata vlljat7J.
pascirJatitthat7J. gantvana nimittat7J. gila.t.tayi isi.
J9'Nimitte hI pan' etasmit7J. gIUl,t.tite;"9 devamcinusci
scidlruktiran.1 pavattesU7~I: sasana7r:z slA/Jati.t.thitan,l.
1. Together with the theras he went to the upper ford of the riverM.
From there he proceeded ploughing with a golden plough.
2. Mahapaduma and Kunjara, the two auspicious elephants, were
harnessed to the golden plough first at Kuntamalaka.
3. The warrior with his four-membered anny, together with the theras
having taken the plough, pointed out the furrow, (he) the destroyer
of his enemies.
4. Surrounded by women who had seized a decorated full pitcher, a
beautiful flag with different colours and a vessel full of soap-
powder made out of sandalwood and a stick of gold and silver,
5. (and) a mirror bearing flowers, and a basket with precious flowers
(and) platanes as arch-bows and sunshades etc.,
6. surrounded by a mighty wave resounding with various
instruments, with auspicious songs of praise filling the four
directions
7. And accompanied by sounds of approval and the waving of
hundreds of cloths in honour of the great festival, the ruler of the
earth went ploughing.
8. Circling the vihara as well as the town with his right side towards
it, he completed the course of the sima (again) reaching the river.
9. If (someone) wishes (to know) the place where the sima runs in
the following way: 'Along this and that mark the sima runs here',
they should attend to (the following:)
10. At the stone-ford (pasar:za-tittlla) of the river there is a stone, the
Kuqqavataka, from there he went to the Kurnbalava.t aS\ (and) from
there to the MahanipaS2.
79. MBv nimillena nimitlan (v.1. nimitte) tu glr.a.t.tite
80. UparitittIJakam; Geiger (Mhv, p.XXXVII and fn .l), discussed the question of
whether uparititthakan:r (so the Mhv-t) or pa,tititlhakam should be preferred and
decided for the latter.
81. Only our passage and its parallel in the Mahabodhiva~sa name this place.
-.?
Ariyasena, Simti, p. 182, suggests Kumbhakarava.ta or Kuqqava.t aka?
82. A place which probably received its name from a Nipa tree growing there
(OPPN s.v.).
_ _ _ -::!!e PETRA KlEFFERPU U 67
11.From th e re he went to the d a m of th e Ka kudh a
(-pond)SJ, and from there he went to the (place where the) great
Angana tree S4 (stood), from there to the Khujjamadhula (or
Khujjamatula tree), and from there to the Marutta-pond 85 .
12. He went to the store room above the northern gate into the Garden
of the Vijayarama, (then ?) to the Gajakumbhaka-stone, through the
middle of the village Thusava~~ika86,
13. to. the Balaka-stoneS7 at the Abhaya(vapi), he went through the
mIddle of the great cemetery;M having gone to the Long Stone and
(then) on the left of the god of the smiths,
14. to the circle with the Nigrodhatree89, (then) to the house of the god
of the Brahman Diyavasa in the vicinity of HiyagalJa, to the
southeast (or: being in the southeast?).
15. From there he went to the dam of the Teluma(-pond), from there he
went to the Talacatukka 90 , from there he went, on the left of the
circle for horses, to the Sasavana (or Sasa[ka]pasaDa),
83. According to DPI'N s.v., a little pond in Mahameghavana between the site of the
Mahiithtipa and the Thtipanlma. The Mahcithtipa was at the upper end of the pond.
and the spot had been consecrated by the visit of the four Buddhas of the present
kappa (Mhv 15.52-56). Lai'ljatissa appears to have filled in the pond at great expense.
~he I~~d around it having become waterlogged (Mhv 33.23f.; Mhv- 61). Geiger
ldenhfies the place as the spot where the Ruvanwali Dagaba stands (Mhv[transl),
p.101 , fn.3) .
84. So-called because a large angana-tree stood there (DPPN s.v.).
85. Pond in Anuriidhapura north of the royal palace at the time of Devanampiyatissa_
.A:-cco:ding to a prop~ecy it was to be cha~ged into a pond for a bathing house
(jnnlaghara-pokkharalJl ) east of the gate leadmg to the Kiilapilsana-pariv~a. It was
faded at the time of the Mahavan:tsa!ika (DPPN s.v.).
86. A village near Anuriidhapura (DPPN s.v.).
87. The Abhaya-vapi is probably identical with the modem Basavak-kulam; ba/aka
means "crane '~; perhaps the stone at the Abhaya-vapi had some similarity with a
crane?
88. According to H.Parker, Ancient Ceylon, London, 1909, p.301. the exact place of this
cemetery is not yet known, but it must have been in the west of the town according
to the Mahiiva~sc"1 (Mhv 10.89).
89. In the prose part describing the course of the Mahaviharasima in the
Mahabodhiva~sa additional information is given: MBv 135,15- 18: 1010
!le! u!larign TJan:r, Inlo 10tiyaGiri Kumbhnl.14 tiblridltn-na-"an:r I il.' TJan:r NigaTJ! Ira-nam
assamapndani anlo /enlvti, anektsam PariblxijalCJinan:r tirtimam !llimena pariharilvti.
Jotiya was a niga~!ha, for whom Pru:tqukabhaya had built a house to the east of the
.
nicasustina al Anuradhapura (Mhv 10.97). Later the Abhayagirivihara was erected
on that spot (Mhv-! 620; cf. DPPN, s.v.). The second nigru:tlha, Gin. occupied the
Nigru:tlharama, later destroyed by Va!!agamani to make room for the construction
of Abhayagiri Vihara. His name was included in that of the new vihara (Mhv 33.43f.;
Dip 19.14; cf. DPPN, s.v.). The third nigru:tlha. Kumbhru:tqa. owned a hermitage near
the Gama.t:li tank, built for him by Panqukabhaya (Mhv 10.99; DPPN s.v.).
90. A crossinl? with raJa trees?
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKA
16. From there he went to the Marumba ford, from there he went the
river upstream. To the east of the Pathamacetiya91 two Kadamba
rivers 92 arose.
17. In the reign of Gutta and the ruler Sena9J (these two) Tamils, intent
91. Besides the above-dted passage, there is one other passage in the Mahavilmsa where
the Pathama-<:etiya is named (Mhv 14.45). From this it is certain that the Pa~hama
cetiya was located in the east of the town. According to Geiger, Mhv(transl.), p.9s.
fn .2. Ihis building was not yet identified. However. in the Memoirs of till' Arcllllc%giCII/
Suney oJj CI'Y/OII. voU. ed . by A.M.Hocart. Colombo. 1924. the PiI~hamacetiya is
drawn in on the map of Anurildhapura (following p.63). I do not know whether this
was only guesswork or whether the building had been located in the meantime.
92. H.Parker. Allcien! Cry/all. London. 1909, p.275, obviously understood Kadalllba here
to refer to the Kadamba tree: "In the descriptlOn of the consecrated boundaries fixed
by Devclnam-piya Ttssa. which included the city, this dagilba is mentioned as lying
north-west from two special trees that were on the bank of the Malwatta-oya". The
same fault was made by the CPD s.v. IlcidJrakadambagn (see fn. 96).
In verse 16 we are told that to the east of the Pa\hamacetiya two Kadambas
originated. We know further that the king started the ploughing of the furrow at the
ri\'er, i.e. ill the east and that he proceeded in padakkhil~a . Consequently he went
iro,!, the east to the south, west, north, and again to the east, succeSSively. When
returning to the river he. therefore, approached from the north. Looking at the course
of the Kadambil Oil the map of Anur5dhapura one sees immediately that an arm forks
off the Kadamba at one place. If the details concerning the location of the
Pa~hamacetiya are trustworthy it must have been situated to the west of this fork
(which is a little furthermore north than on the map of Anuradhapura published by
Hocart; see fn. 91).
In verse 17 we hear that the Tamil kings Sena and Gutta diverted the Kadamba river
in order to bring it closer to the town (see also fn . 94). Looking at the fork in the river,
the arm leading close to the town branches off the main stream at an angle of nearly
90, which is quite unnatural. Possibly it, therefore, results from the measure of the
Tami! kings.
The information contained in verse 18, viz. that there now exists a "living Kadamba"
(jrt'all/nIlIl O) (which as such could refer to a tree as well) which flows (~ato alzu) inside
the sima. whereas the sima itself "runs UP the Kadamba" (1lddlzakndlllllbasal "along
the bank of the dead Kadamba" (1IIIltllklldallllmtirrrlo), considered in the light of the
preceding observations refers to the river as well. This is confirmed by the verbal
expression used, viz . gala alzu. Gala with an auxiliary verb is used in the
Samantapasadikii in connection with the 1/;/I/;lIa for a sima only when items which
pass over a certain distance, i.e. rivers or streets, are referred to. By contrast, if items
are dealt with which are positioned at one specific spot, as mountains, trees etc.,lilila
and an auxiliary verb are used . On account of this, it is quite certain that Kadamba
here must refer to a river, not to a tree. cf. fn. 94.
93. These were Tamil usurpers, horse dealers, who defeated Suratissa and occupied the
throne at Anuradhapura for twenty-two or (following the Burmese manuscripts to
Mhv 21.10f., and the Dipavamsa 18.47f.) twelve years (177-155 B.C.). According to
~hv 21.11 their regentship was a just one.
PETRA KIEFFER PUU 69
on pui:ification by water,94 canalized (the river thinking:) 'The river
is far away ' (and) made it be close to the town.
18. And the living Kadamba (stream)95 passed within the s im,i, and the
sima ran up the Kadamba 96 on the bank of the dead Kad a mba.
19. Having gone up by means of the ford 5ihasinana, the wise o ne
went from the bank to a cattIe-fold(?). Having gone to the 5 to ne-
ford he co nnected the mark (with the first one).
20. When (thus) the mark(s) there were connected, gods a nd human
beings sent forth their approval: 'The sasana is well established.
11, Geiger hinted at the fact that the style of these verses with thp banal
enumeration of place names is not in accordance with the style of
Mahanama. In the Cli!avan:tsa passage which describes the s ima deter-
mination of the A!fiha1)a Parive1)a in Po!onnaruva under ,Parakkamabahu I
(see below, 14), we have a very detailed description of the course of the
si ma, though in this case it is not a simple enumeration of place names but
of measures for the marks in relation to existing objects. Nevertheless, this
passage shows that the description of the exact course of the sima was
relevant for later authors. As the Mahavan:tsa~ika makes plain, the course of
the malulsil1ul of the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura seems to have still been
known at the time of King Mahasena, whereas most of the thirty-two
lIIalakas had fallen in disuse and were therefore already unknown at that
time (see below, 14).
It would be interesting to try to locate exactly the spots the sima of the
Mahavihara went through,97 in order to check the real size of this sima and
to compare it with the measurement allowed for in the Vinaya. Some of the
., places are named only in the above-cited passage, and not much is known
about most of them. Therefore only a rough description is possible,
',,,-
following those locations which can be assigned to at least one of the
directions . It may well be that in the meantime some points have been
cleared up by archaeological research unknown to me.
94. S.Paranavitana explains in the University of Cry/on, Hislory of Cry/on. vc; 1.1 , part
1. Colombo, 1959, p.144, that these rulers "believed in the doctrine that sins are
washed away by water, and in order to carry out their sacred ablutions without
having to go far, they diverted the course of the Kadamba-nadi (Malvatu Oya)
to run by the side of the city of Anuradhapura."
95. M.sg. is expected.
96. CPD s.v. I/ddJ/akadambagti "(boundary) running beyond the Kadamba tree". This
translation does not fit our context. Kadamba here does not refer to the tree
named Kadamba, but to the river (see fn. 92), and, therefore I/ddJlllkadambagli has
to be translated similarly to IIddl/a-Galigam (CPD s.v.).
97. This passage has been dealt with by Ariyasena, 5;11Ia, pp. 177187 (V.24-36), who
also has drawn information from the Sinhalese Mahabodhivamsa.
70 CEREMONlAl BOUNDARIES IN SRllANKA
What we know for sure is that the king started at the river Kadamba and
circled the town, which was enclosed by the ceremonial boundary,
clockwise, i.e. that he started in the east and proceeded subsequently to the
south, west, north, and again to the east. As starting point the Ko~~amalaka
(Dip 14.29) or Kuntamalaka (Mhv Appendix B vs.2; MBv 134,13-14.20) or
pasaTJa Kuqqava~aka (lvlliv Appendix B vs.l0) at the stone ford (pasaTJatittha,
Mhv Appendix B vs.lO; MBv 134,13.16) are named. When at the end the
king returned to this place he approached from the north and went
upstream (Mhv 15.191, and Appendix B vs.16). On this route he first arrived
at the ford Marumba and then came to the fork of the Kadamba river east of
the Pa~amacetiya. Since the living river is included within the mahasima
this must be the ann lying to the west. Accordingly, the ann in the east, the
original course of the river, is dead, anti along the bank of this ami the
mahasima runs. Since we are not told that this river ann is included as well,
the sima must run on the west bank of this river ann. Going along this dead
river one passes through the ford Sihasinana, which, since we are on the
west bank, consequently must be a ford crossing the western ann of the
river, i.e. the living Kadamba. From this ford one passes to the Pasfu:\a ford,
which may have been situated to the south of the Sihasinana ford at that
time.
The next known localities are the Kakudha and the Marutta ponds. The
Kakudha pond lay in the Mahameghavana between the site of the
Mahathupa and the Thuparama. Geiger identifies the place as the spot
where the Ruwanwali Dagaba stands (Mhv[transl.], p.101, fn.3). The
Maruttapokkharal)i lay north of the royal palace at the time of
Devanampiyatissa. From there the king went to the northern gate of the
Vijayanima, a place which cannot be identical with the Vijayarama located
north of Anuradhapura, because it would not then be possible to draw the
sima in a circle, th~ next object being the Balaka stone at the Abhaya tank,
the modern Basawak Kulam, from whence the sima led through the middle
of the great cemetery (maha-sustina). This cemetery lay west of
Anuradhapura (Mhv 10.89). From there the king went to the unidentified
"Iong stone" (dighnpasaTJa) and then on the left of the "god of the smiths" to
the Nigrodha tree. From Mahabodhivan:lsa 135,13-14 we know that from
the "long stone" he circled around the village of the Car:tqalas which lay
northeast of the "great cemetery" keeping it on his right side (Mhv 10.93);
from there he proceeded to the "cemetery of the low" (nicasusana), i.e. of the
Car:tqalas, which itself lay northeast of thl:! village of the C3I)qalas.
The Nigrodha . tree he went to from there is called
Simanigrodha in the Mahabodhivaft:\sa (135,15). In the prose part of the
Mahabodhivarr:tsa it is further reported that from there he went to the
Veluilgama and then to the house of the gl.ld of the Brahmin Diyavasa close
I'IITRA KIEFFERPOU 71
to Hiyagalla. On this route the aramas of the Jaina ascetics Jotiya, Giri, and
Kumbhar:tqa were included within the furrow (MBv 135,15-18), whereas a
number of aramas belonging to paribbajakas were excluded on the left. Of
the animas of these three Jaina ascetics the one of Jotiya lay east of the
l1icaslisal1a where later the Abhayagirivihara was built (Mhv-~ 620,17-20).
The same holds true for Giri, whereas the hermitage of Kumbhar:tqa lay at
the Gamar:ti tank (Mhv 10.99), which was identified by Geiger with the
Karambawa tank and by Parker with the Peramiyan-kulam (Geiger.
Mhv[transl.], p.7S, fn.I). Since the aramas of the two first ascetics lay east
of the nicasusana at the place where the later Abhayagirivihara was
erected, and since it is stated in the Mahavaft:\sa that the devakula of
Kumbhar:tqa was "exactly there" (tatllz' eva), referring to the aramas of
Jotiya and Giri, I am inclined to prefer Parkers identification. From the
Nigrodha tree the furrow turned southeast to the house of the god of the
Brahmin Diyavasa. From this point on the locations have to be searched
for to the northeast of Anuradhapura; there, the Teluma pond, the
Talacatukka, the circle for horses, and the Sasavana or Sasa[kaJpasar:ta have
to be passed before the king returns to the river again, where he first
approaches the ford Marumba and then proceeds to the starting point as
described above.
Summarizing, one can 's ay that best known are the courses on the east
and west sides of the town. Most difficult to determine is the course of the
ceremonial boundary in the south, because there trees are used as
indicators, and in the northeast.
The description in Appendix B, notwithstanding the details, shows that
the sima of the Mahavihara was a complex one, viz. a maluisima enclosing
the whole monastery and different smaller simas (ma/aka). Whether truly
all the thirty-tw09ft ma/akas determined inside the maluisima, according to
Dipavaft:\sa and Mahavaft:\sa, were klza1JQasinuis, as the Mahavaft:\sa~ika
wants us to believe (MhV-~ 682,11-12 with v.l.), or whether some of them
were only spaces defined for certain objects, as in the case of the
uposathagara (cf. above, 8), we cannot decide. Nevertheless, it is certain
that the Mahavihiirasima, which enclosed ponds, buildings and the whole
town, was a l1adiparasima (see above, 3) including a certain section of the
Kadamba river. Possibly the detailed comments to the nadipara ima in the
Samantapasadika, are due to this fact, since the Mahaviharasima was the
first sima determined in Sri Lanka and, therefore, the most important.
98. In view of the fa ct that both Dipavamsa and ahcivamsa decla re that il t the second
sima determination likewise thirty-two md/alms had been determined one might ask
whether thirty-two is here m~rely a "sacred number"?
72 CEREMONlAL BOUNOARlES IN ~Rl LANKA tit PErRA KlEFFERPOU 73

.'- communion" (samanasan.lVasaka), which is a prerequisite for forming a

Another fact of interest is the information that the place where the
complete sangha. (samagga sa~gha) . Now, we know from the
Abhayagirivihara was later located was included within the sima of the
Kosambakkhandhaka of the Mahavagga of the Vinaya that sanghas, whose
Mahavihara. We know that at the time of Va~~agama.t:li Abhaya (103, 89-77
members are ntinasan;vasaka in relation to each other, are not allowed to
B.C.) a party split off from the Mahavihara and settled in the
perform ecclesiastical acts (kamma) together, b.ut that they may perform
Abhayagirivihara. According to the descriptions in the Mahavamsa no
removal d the Mahaviharasima and no determination of two new ;imas - kammas separately within the. same sima. 1OO The case of the formation of
the Abhayagirivasin,. as described in the NikayasafDgraha, exactly
one for the Mahavihara and one for the ~bhayagirivihara - took place. On
corresponds to what IS regulated in this Vinaya rule. As a result, the
the contrary, we learn that at the time of Mahasena (274-301 A.D.) the sima
Abhayagirivasins would have been able to perform kammas separated
fixed by Mahinda under Devanampiyatissa still existed (Mhv-~ 682,10-12,
from the Mahaviharavasin within the mahasima of the Mahavihara.
see below, 14). l11Us, we have to assume that the Abhayagirivihara was
located within the sima of the Mahavihara. How they handled their Nevertheless, this development cannot be traced in the Mahavamsa. On
kammas must be concluded from the context. the c~ntrar~ the MahavafDsa contains evidence that this de~elopm~nt is a
later lI1~entIon. Accor~ing to it the disciple of Mahatissa was annoyed of
According to the description of the origin and development of the
the pumshement of hiS teacher, and therefore left the Mahavihara for the
Abhayagirivihara in Mhv 33.79-83 VaHagamal)i Abhaya built a vihara at
Abhayagirivihara. Nothing is told of his suspension. That indicates that he
the spot where formerly the arama of the nigan~a Ciri was situated. Only
did not become a nanasan;vasaka. This is confirmed by the account of the
thereafter did he dedicate it to the thera Mahatissa (Mhv 33.82). In Mhv
removal of the Mahaviharasima in the time of King Mahasena (Mhv
33.95ff. we are told that a thera named Mahatissa was expelled (m7wri ) by
37.35ff.). This king asked the monks of the Mahavihara to remove their
the brotherhood of the Mahavihara on account of the frequenting of lay
sima, which they refused to do. Thereafter the inhabitants of the
families (kllinsnl~lsaggndosn, Mhv 33.95). According to Walpola Rahula, who
Mahavihara left the monastery, leaving some monks behind who hided
bases himself on the Nikayasa~gr<lha, a pnbbajalliynkalllllla'l'l was performed.
themselves at different places within the sima to prevent other monks from
A disciple of this Mahatissa, Bahalamassutissa, annoyed on account of the
removing it. When the monks of the Abhayagirivihara finally tried to
punishment of his teacher, left the Mahavihara and settled with some others
remove the Mahaviharasima their kamma was not legally valid. Now, if the
in the building called Abhayagirivihara (Mhv 33.96-97). According to W.
inhabitants of the Abhayagirivihara and the Mahavihara would have been
Rahula, who again draws this information from the NikayasafDgraha, the
separate nikayas mutually conSidering themselves to be a fraternity of
disciple for that reason was charged with an IIkkllepnniyakamma by the
nanasan;vasakas, the inhabitants of the Abhayagirivihara would have been
sangha, which is a temporal suspension for not seeing, not repenting an
able to remove the sima,ll since the inhabitants of the Mahavihara did not
offence, or not giving up wrong views (Vin IV 218,28-29). If this were correct
participate in the kamma and were at a separate place within the sima (see
the monks, who followed Bahalamassutissa would have made themselves
above). The fact that the removal was not valid, shows that at this time the
to "followers of an expelled" (lIkklrittanllvattaka) and together with him
members of the Abhay~girivihara and of the Mahavihara still were
would have formed a sangha of their own, which, in relation to the sangha
snmanasQ7~lvasakas and could perform ecclesiastical acts together as well as
which expelled Bahalamassutissa, i.e. the Mahavihara, would have prevent each other from doing so. 102
"belonged to a different communion" (nanasan;vasaka) . The Mahavihara in
turn would have "belonged to a different communion" (nallasan:,vasaka) in
100. Vin I 340,9-38; cf. Kieffer-Piilz, Simti. A 8.7.1
relation to the sangha formed by the followers of the expelled monk. Each
101. H. Bechert raised the interesting question what would happen, if two sanghas
of these sanghas would have been capable of performing ecclesiastical acts, whose members are milltisa":,vtisaka in relation to each other, were within the
since the members of each sangha would have "belonged to the same same sima and one of them would perform a legally valid kamma for
r~moving the sima. So far I did not find anything concerning this case in the
literature, but to my opinion the sima is removed for the sangha. who
performed the legally valid kamma for removing the sima, whereas it still
99. Walpola Rahula, History of Bltddhism ill C/.'YlolI. Tire Anrmidhnpltra Period. 3rd Celltlt'!! exists for the other sangha, since this does not acknowledge the kamma of a
BC lOtlr Celltllry AC, Colombo, 11966 (1st ed. 1956), p.83. A monk against whom the
sangha, whose members are lltintisamvtisaka.
act of banishmeClt (pnbbtijjrmiyaknmmn) has been performed. is deprived of some of a 102. The same opinion is represented by Gunaratne Panabokke, History of tire
bhikkhu's rights. and has to conduct according to certain guidelines (Vin 11 9.29- Buddhist Sangha in India and Sri Lanka, Kelaniya, 1993 (thesis, 1969), pp. 86-87.
H ,6).
 CEREMONIA L BOUNDARI ES IN !;RI LA NIG';:
Of fu rther inte rest in the tex t pub lis he in Appendix B is that the verses
17-18 contained in the above-cited pass age, and reporting the diverting of
the Kadamba river by two Ta mil rulers are not part of the text transmitted
In the Mahabodhivan:t.sa . As fa r as I can ascerta in, this measure has not been
reported anywhe re else in th e Pali chronicles.
12 Wh en the de te rmination of the sima in the Mahameghavana was
finished , the m on ks went to the mountain Missaka to spend the rains there.
The king se t as ide caves (/enas) for them to live in and asked them to
de te rmine a s ima there as well. Whereas in the MahavaDsa this episode is
ho rtened cons iderably, in the DipavaDsa this sima determination is related
at length, similar to the first one. In addition to the ceremony described
above, the establishment of an "interspace to other simas" simantarika is
mentioned (Dip 14.72-79):
72. alllalllayi b/'ikkllllsQ/~lg/ran.': silllalll band/uima bhikkl/Qvo,
73. sallla"asa/~,viisakan.'IOJ c' el.'a avippatasa ticivara/~I,
viharan.l Ihavaraltluiya siman.' bandluisinlli pana,
74. siman.l ca simalllarikan., ca Uwpelvii TlIlIIbanllilake,
lIIa/lllsinullli kittesi Mahindo dipajotako,
75. balldhitvii mti/akan.l sabban} simam balldlrilviilla cakkllll11ui,
vi/uiran.' Ihtivaran.1 katvii dllliyam Tissapabbale,
76. PIl~l1.'tiya pll~tr}al1Uisiyti iisti!hamtise IIposallle,
Ilakklwlte IIltartisii!he siman.l bandhitvtina pabbale,
77. pabbtijesi Maluiritthal~l pathamal1) dllliyamti/ake,
IIpasamptidesi lalth' eva Tambapa1)1)ikll/issaro,
78. pallcapmlr1tisa tatth' eva pabbajjti llpasampadii,
battin.,sa mtilaka IlOnti patilamtirtime patiUhilti,
79. dlltiytirame battil~,sa vihtire Tissapabbate
avasesakllllddakartime paccek' ekekamtilake.
72. He ad-dressed the order of monks: 'Let us determine the sima,
bhikkhus.'
73. In order to establish firmly the vihara, .... ()4
103. Oldenberg has ckti in his text.
104. Oldenberg emended to sima11J barrdlli11JsII nui/akan.' ? and transla ted "(The
Theras), in order to establish firmly the Vihara, consecrated the boundary
within which all bhikkhus were to be considered as one section, and the
enclosure(?), and proclaimed the decree about not parting with the three
robes."
This does not seem appropriate, because only in the following verse are the
extension of the sima. the sima interspace etc. delineated and thereafter follows
the announcement of the marks for the boundaries. Only in vss. 75-76 is the
d etermination of the sima with the exact date reported.
PETRA KJEF FERPUU 75
74. Having delinea ted 105 the sima as well as the interspace to the sirnas
at the Tumbamalaka 106, Mahinda, the enlightener o f th e isla nd ,
announced (the marks for) the maluisilluis1C17
75. Having determined each m(ilaka 103 (and) having de termined the
sirna, the one with the (magic) eye made firm the second viha ra,
the one on the lissa mountain.
76. After having determined the boundary on the mountain precisely
on the full-moon day of the month Asa~a, on the uposa tha day,
under the constellation of Uttarasa~a,
77. he conferred the pabbajja ordination on MahariHha, who was the
;(.
first person (who received it) in this second malaka; at the same
.,'
c'
"
.
-'
place he conferred the upasampada o rdination on that prince who
belonged to the royal family of Tambapa~i.
78. At the same place fifty-five (other noblemen received) the pabbajja
and upasampada ordinations. In the first arama thirty-two malakas
were established 109;
79. thirty-two in the second arama, in the monastery of the Tissa
mountain. The other small aramas contained one ma/aka each.
105. !h11petuti is not used as a verb for the fonnal determination of a sima. but for the
delineation of its extent prior to the annOWlcement of the marks (nimitta).
106. I would prefer to translate this line as "Having delineated the sima, the sima
interspace and the mti/akas (beginning with the) Tumba(malaka etc.)" As we learn,
here a mahtisimti enclosing the whole monastery and thirty-two mtilakas has been
determined. And for each of these thirty-two mti/akas a sima interspace has to be
defined . It is impossible that all this could be located around the Tumba-malaka.
Besides, we know that the Tumba-malaka was one of the thirty-two mti/akas itself.
and that within this mti/aka the first upasampada took place. Thus. it was necessary
to determine this space exactly like the others. The verb !Irapeti used in this passage
is not a technical term in the context of sima detennination (see m. 105), and. on
0
account of this, I believe that what the author wanted to tell us is that the space for
each ma/aka. the space for each sima interspace and that for the mahtisimti were
defined .
107. This is the only place where kitteti has as its object simti. viz. mahtisimtini kittes i. I
think that here the author of the Dipava1l)sa used maluisimtini in the sense of
maluisimtil1imitttil1i. Otherwise the pI. for maluisimti is not understandable since onl y
one maluisimli is determined . Besides, only in the following verse (14.75) is there talk
of the detennination of the simas; here the preliminaries still have to be carried out.
Oldenberg translated: "Having fixed the inner and the outer boundary at the
Tumba enclosure, Mahinda, the enlightener of the island. proclaimed (the extent of)
the great boundary". Simal1tarilai is not the inner bOWldary. but the interspace to a
sima (though in a double sima system [i.e. maluisimti and kh11TJctasimtiJ it could be
considered as the inner boundary of the malllisirT1li). His translation "outer
boundary" is a free rendering of simti in the text.
108. mti/aka7T1 sabba7T1 probably refers to all thirty-two mti/akas.
109. Pati!!hita ; here the same verb is used as in the description of the first sima
determination in the Dipavamsa: see above. 8.
';
 6 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN ~RI lANKJi
Here in connection with malaka the same verb is used as in the
description of the first sima detenninatic n, viz. pati~~hita. This strengthens
the suspicion th~t the use of this verb is not merely a coincidence, and, if
this is so, it suggests that this "untechnical" word in the sense of the sima
rules is used on purpose, and, consequently, the suggestions mentioned
above regarding the meaning of malaka gain support (see above, 8).
As in the case of the first sima detennination we are told that the sima to
be determined is for the same communion and the not-being-separated of
the three robes (Dip 14.72-73). As first steps for this the delineation of the
sima and the sima interspace at the Tumba enclosure are reported. This, I
think, is comparable to the action performed by the king in the case of the
first sima determination, viz. the outlining of the course of the sima. Here,
it seems, this is done by the monks or Mahinda, for the sima, the sima
interspace and surely not only at the Tumbamalaka, sin<;e thirty-two malakas
had to be delineated here as well (Dip 14.79). Interesting is the infonnation
that, besides the two great aramas, there were smaller aramas which
received one malaka each.
Contrary to the description of the first determination of a
sima in the Dipava~sa, where as a verb for "to determine" both bandh and
sartL-man have been used, here only bandlz is met with.
13 This second sima determination is described in the Mahavamsa with
the following words: . sabbasall'.'pattiyutttiya kammavactiya sadhukan,l.
(Mhv 16.15-16):
dvattimsamalakiinam ca viluirassa ca tassa kJzo,
simaTTJ 'simatigo theTa bandllitva tadahe va so.
tesaTTJ pabbajjapekkJuinaTTJ alaisi upasampadam,
sabbesam sabbapa~hamaTTJ baddhe Tumbarumalake.
"When the thera, who had passed beyond the boundary (of evil) had
determined the sima for the thirty-two malakas and the vihara, he
conferred on the very same day in the determined (not "marked", so
Geiger) Tumbaru-malaka, the first. upasampada of all on those who
expected the pabbajja 110. "
110. Here Geiger translated "weary of the pabbajja"; the above translation follows
A.P.Buddhadatta, "Corrections of Geiger's Mahavan:tSa", Cor.rections of Geiger's
Maluivamsa etc., Ambalangoda, 1957, p.20f. It sounds curious that the people in
question wish to receive the pabbajja ordination and receive instead the
upasampada ordination. The ~ika explains that some already had the pabbajja
and others did not.
PETRA KIEFFER-PULZ
TI1e description of this ceremony is very short compared to tha t in the
Dipavan:tsa. In verse fifteen we are told that a sima for the vihara and for
77
the thirty-two malakas had been determined. As indicated above the malaka
itself is a sima, if the weird is used as a terminus technicus ( 9), and so it does
not make any sense to detennine a boundary for a ma/aka. Perhaps here
sima (sg.) refers to the mahasima only, including the ma/akas. As in the case
of the first sima determination, I believe that the' thirty-two mtilakas here
comprise klzarJqasimas and spaces for the bodhi tree, cetiyas etc.
14 Another sima determination is described in the Culavamsa, viz. the sima
determination of the A!ahana-pariveI!a at the time ' of P~rakkamabahu I
(1153-1186 A.D.). It is roughly a copy of the above-mentioned description of
the sima determination under Devanampiyatissa but includes details based
on a rule only developed after the Samantapasadika had been, written (see
below). Therefore, though the ceremony foUows a given and standardized
pattern, as Geiger already observed (cf. 78.56, fn.5), it gives insight into the
method then applied. The passage preceding the cited text describes how
the king went to the vihara etc. and is similar to the corresponding
description of Devanampiyatissa in the Dipavan:tsa (Cv 78,61-69):
61. sal1Jgho p'ettha purabaddhasfmasanlainivattiya,
l1eka~!ll(lne ~hito ado katva simtisamliizatiT7}.
ranlio sittinllsarena nimitte parikittayi,
Tisso ca kharJqasfmayo mahasiman,1 ca bandhi so.
fhitanimittapasarJa pacinadidisa! !hake,
Lankiitilakagehasma palicahatthaya yaUhiya.
catutalisa ektinapannasa aUhatilrJsati,
chattiT7}sa pancatiT7}sapi sattapanntisam eva ca,
pancacattaifsa c'eva chasaUhi ya!!hiyo kama;
~hito nimittapasa~1O disabluigamhi dakkhirJe,
Gopalapabbatamhti pi a!~hapannasayaHhiko,
IIttarassan,' disayaTTJ pi ya nimittasila !hita
sa vijjadlUlralenasma pan Jiasaya Hh ilai alTU:
pasarJa te mahcisfmtil1imittatta~n upagamllT7}
8addhasimakaptisade pancaterasaya!~hisll
dighato puthlllatta pi baddhasima ajayatha.
Ma!ake kJwrJqasimavhe parJ~larasasu ya!!hislI
dfghato plltllulenapi sfma baddhti cha ya!!lrisll
tatiui therassa ptisade baddhasfma pi dig/wto
a!!harasasu hnttl,esll visahatthe visalato.
To remove the uncertainty regarding (possibly existing) formerly
determined boundaries at that spot, the sangha took up position at
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKA _ PETRA KIEFFERPOU
different places, and, at first, performed the removal of the
boundaries.1\I
62. In accordance with the furrow (made) by the king (the sangha)
announced the marks (and) with <In ecclesiastical act appropriate
regarding all qualities ll2,
63. he thoroughly detennined three kha1Jqasfnuis and the mahtisfma. 1I3
The mark-stones (for the maluisil1Ui ) stood in the eight directions,
east etc. (at a distance) from the Lankatilaka house (measured) by a
ya~~i consisting of five hattha:
64. forty-four, forty-nine, thirty-eight, thirty-six, thirty-five, fifty-seven,
111. Geiger translated: "To re~ove all scrupl~s regarding lan~~arks fo.rmerly
drawn at this spot, the bhlkkhu commumty took ,;!p a posItion at dlffer~nt
pOints, after previously by a solemn ,~ct, bound t? bring full succe~s, removing
In due order the ancient landmarks. In translating thiS verse Geiger changed
both lines, because he felt the text in its original state to be incomprehensible
(Cv[transl.] p.109, fn.3). He translated simd with "landmarks", ~,word ~e later
used as translation for mmllla, and he rendered baddha with drawn; both
these translations are incorrect. A fairly correct translation of this passage is
contained in the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon. Supplement 10 Annual Reporl
1911.1912, p.84f.. only the verses 67-69 are not as e~ac~ly rende~ed. . . ,
112. SaT1Jpalli is differentiated in the cor:text of the slma regulatIOns In nJmllla~
sampalli, parisa-sampalli. and kammavacti-samp~tll. (Kkh 5,24-6,27) ..SabbasaT1.lpattl
summarizes all of these. Its antonym IS vlpattl; a defect In pllnsa etc.
(parisavipalli) would render the ecclesiastical act invalid. Compare. also the
Kalval)i inscrirtion, Taw Seln Ko, op.ClI., F-37,7-9 etc. [trans!.] for pansa-Vlpaltl
and simtivipatll.
The interpretation of Geiger, who connectl.!J this word with kammavtictiya ill vs.
62 and rendered it as "by a solemn act, bound to bring full success", therefore,
misses the point.
113. Geiger's translation: "and made known to the King the landmarks along the
furrow (which he ploughed). The King dn~w three partial boundaries and a
main boundary." According to the ceremony described in the Vinaya literature
there is no need to make Known the markS (of a sima) to the king. The king
only defines the space to be included in the sima of the monastery, but the
sangha announces the marks - possibly with the participation of some lay
people - and fixes the sima. Besides, it is unlikely that the king defined the
space for the khaTJqasimtis as well, since attention had to be paia to different
rules concerning the places where khandasimtis were not allowed to be
determined (Sp 1041,25-28; Kieffer-Piilz, Simti, B 6.1 and 6.2).
79
"65. forty-five, (and) sixty-six ya~thi in due succession. The mark stone
in the south stood at a distance of fifty-eight yaqhi from the
Gopalapabbata,
66. the mark stone in the northern direction stood at a distance of fifty
yaHhi from the Vijjiidharalena.
67. These stones served as marks for the mafuisima-; at the
'; 1 Baddhasimakapasada a baddhasima arose thirty-five ya~~hi (ca. 66.5
"
'1 m) in length and in breadth.
, I 68. At the ma!aka called Khal}qasima the boundary was determined
"1
fifteen ya~~i (ca. 28.50 m) in length and six ya~~hi (ca. 11.40 m) in
I
I breadth .
. I
, I 69. There at the Pasada of the thera was a badd"asfma eighteen hattha
(ca. 6.84 m) in length and twenty hattha (ca. 7.6 m) in breadth.
Analogue to the description of the sima determination by
De~' anampiyatissa, the ceremony of determining the sima of the Alahan~
Pari vena under Parakkamabahu I starts with the marking of the space for
the sima by Parakkamabahu with a plough. What follows is . in contrast to
the former cere mony, the removal of any simas which might exis t in the
chosen space. This removal was not necessary when the m o nks under
Devanampiyatissa determined the boundary, because at tha t tim e no s imas
could have existed, since Buddhism was jus t being intro duced. The
description of the removal of the simas is described in vs.61. O n account of
the words san.1g"n ... aneka~1'ltinc thito we can assume that the monks did not
know for sure whether any baddhasillui lay within the defined space,
otherwise they w ould have performed the kamma for the removal of the
sima assembled at one place within the sima. If one does no t know the
course of a determined sima it is, according to Buddhaghosa, not poss ible
to abolish it (Sp 1051,15-22; see above, 3).u~ Nevertheless, monks
abolished such unknown simas, as we know from the Kalyaf.1i Inscription
(15th century), 'from Vajiranat:\avarorasa's statements in his Vinayamukha
(20th century) and from modern practice.ll5 The method employed is a
more or less developed form of what we find described in the
Vimativinodani!ika. According to this, five or six theras are to be positioned
without a space between them in a place the size of a bedstead within a
stone's throw inside and outside the enclosure of the vihara and are there
114. Cf. Kieffer-Piilz, $imti, B 14.3.
115. For Burma, Juliane Sybille Schober, Paths 10 EllligiJtenment: Theravcida BuddiJism
in Upper Burma, Thesis University of Illinois. 1989 (Umj printed 1991), p.200;
for Thailand, see Kenneth E. Wells, Thai Buddhism: Its Rites alld AclivilitS,
Bangkok, 1975, pp.l80f.
JJ
CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN ~Rl LANKA
to perform the kamma for the removal of a sima ..Therefo~, ~ this exa~ple
the sangha is located in different places in removmg the Slffia, and precIsely
that is also the case in the CU!avan:tSa passa.ge.
It is interesting to observe that the Mah.avaIl)sa~ika, ~hich,
unfortunately, is not dated,1I6 still keeps to the View expounde~ m ~he
Samantapasadika. In the commentary to MIw 37.34ff., the passage ~ w~~
King Mahasena asks the monks of the Mahavih~ra to remove th~rr_ s~a
determined by Mahinda because he wants to bUlld ~e Jet~vanav~ara m
the garden Joti within the Mahaviharasimii, this story is told m detail (~v-
681,11-684,2). The monks of the Mahavihiira reject the request of the king
and explain to him (Mhv- ~ 682,lO-23):
imasmin.t porti7Jake vihtire Mahtfmahil1datthere.na tibaddhti~i ~v~ttin:zsa
baddhasfmtimtilaktini (v.I. khaTJd.asfmama-laktinl) alresun:z; tdanl tesa"!
valanjzipagtini mandtilli, avalaiijzip~gtin.i :a. ball~~~ Ttini nimitt~p~sti7Japarl~
kkhepasannivesavihtirtivtisatoktisavlTalllt~m avrn~ey.ya~atthuka~1 ca hutva
chaqqittini; tesan:z aviiiiieyya-vatthukattti Idha par~JII sl~asamuggltatana~ ~~. l.
0samugghtitan:z} ktitun:z na s:zkkti. Da~~anav~saya ~~gat:.na, m~lta raJa:
viiiiieyyavatthunti simtisamuggluitakaralJan:z ~akka, _n~ ~n~tlui,_ evan:z .Idha ~Ima
parihi na samlihanitabba (v.I. -tabbti) tl taya Janlfabb~. !,PI ca !dlla
samtinasamvtisakasfmtid ayo 118 bahavo (v.I. bahuyo). Slmanan:z tasalTJ
simtisamsati,Ul (v.L _san.lgha~~ha}-sl-'ntisankaradosavirallitan:z parisllddhakar~,:,al~~
dukkardn:z, 'dukkarattti eva idlUl simtisamuggh.itam pi dukkaram eva; evam pi taya
'tinitabba n ti.
6. The earliest ible date for the . faha ... a ~tika is the regentship of. King
Bh.agi~e~ :a-Da~opatissa 11 (6M-6i'3 A.D.) as this king is referred to m the
:h'CiIT\5atika fal sek fa. lntrodu .. to i}w-. p.c..-), to be dared a the
ates: to' ~ firs ha f of the "' th centJI}' since e later additions to the
ana -amsa were not known 0 e aLlhor of the iaha \' a ~tika (op.cil..
p.C'o'i) . G~iger was indined to date the tex between 1000 an 1250 A.D.
(Cv[transl.), p.34) .. ialalasekera wants to date it in. the t.h .o 9th century.
'either of the arguments proposed by thl.'5e scholars IS co vmcmg.
\Vhat we can say 0 account of the passage cited below is ~at it must. have
been written before the Vimati\'inodani~ika. and before the first extension of
the C ul a va ~ s a by Dhammak itti. which ends with the regency ~f
Parakkamabahu I (1186 A.D.). The Vimativinodanitika is not dated and Its
author no t named in the text. Kassapa. who is tradi tionally named as the
a u thor, prob abl y wa s a slightl y you nge~ con te mporary of .Sariputta of
Pol on naruva (Ki effe r- Piilz, Simti. B Em1.4. p .184f.). ThiS would be
approximately 1160-1 230 A.D.
117. ~Bv in the text simti-.
118. MBv in the text samtinasaTTJvtisl/casimtiyo.
PETRA KIEFFERi'Otz
"In this old vihara (= Mahavihiira) there are thirty-two mtilakas of the
baddhasfmti(-type) (v.I. khaTJd.asfmtimtilaka) determined ll9 by thera
81
Mahamahinda. Now from these few(?)I20 are used and many are unused.
These places rid of a space (marked like ??) the avasa with its vihiiras and
settlements with a surrounding by stone marks are places which cannot be
recognized, and are (therefore) left. It is not possible that a sima removal by
others is performed here since their placement cannot be recognized. The
performance of the removal of a simii, great king, is possible with the place
(of the sima) to be recognized, accompanied by seeing the object (visaya),
not otherwise. In that way the sima here cannot be removed by others, this
you should know. Likewise we have many samtinasan:zvasakasimas etc. here.
It is difficult to purify these simas without the fault of mixing simiis
(san:zsaUlta) and intermingling simas (satiktiradosa). On account of this
difficulty here the removal of (these samtinasan:zvasaka) sinrris is also difficult
to perform,121 this you should know."
The explanations of the monks before the king represent the position
described in the Samantapiisadika (Sp 1051.18-22; cf. Kieffer-Piilz. Sima, B
14.3.) and not that represented in the Vimativinodani~ika (Vmv II 156,1-14;
cf. Kieffer-Piilz. Simti. B fn.590) or in the Cu~avaII:tsa . The shift concerning
this rule, therefore, must have taken place between the composition of the
San:antapiisadika, the Miihavan:tsa, and the Mahavan:tsa~ikj on the one
hand and the Vimativinodani~ika and the Cti!avaII:tsa on the o ther.
The passage in the Cu!avan:tsa shows that this method wa s accepted not
only b y the younger Burmese and Thai tradi tio ns, but also bv the Sri
Lankan M ahav iha ra tradition a g ainst Buddhaghosa 's state~en t. The
question is where this new regulation came from. As is well knm... n the
sangha in Sri Lanka had been p urified several limes on orders of different
kings. In INhereas in earlier times this purification consisted of the removaJ
9. Aha lcini; tu ord is unusual because of the long . .t he egmnmg.
Furthermore word is no necessary..... hm the 'ord - :iJrD 01 5 In
compound (bu this is not the case if .. 'mtim~L:ka is chosen).
120. MiJnda according to PW S.v. "b. schwach. ge 109"; it seems 0 be used here to
cont rast bahu, as I have translated it. Another possibility 'oul be to
understand m nddni as a misprint for martr!a[anr. TTumdaldnr or ma!aktinr. but
none of the manuscripts reads that way.
121. The author here does not declare the removal of the saman1lSOTTJvdsak.asirrui to be
impossible. This is d ue to the fa ct that samtinasaTTJutisak.asirruis are recognizable
by the buildings erected within them and tha t, therefore, when staying at a
certain place, as for example the senasana. one can be su re to be inside tne sima
and not in the khandasimti.
122. Heinz Bechert, "Sasana-Refo rm im Th era vada- Buddhismu ", 50 lallTt
Bllddllislisclles HaIlS, ed. by A.Sri Gnanawimala et. aI., Berlin. 1974, pp.19-34.
82 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANKA re
of those monks who had acted improperly or of issuing new rules, under
the rule of King Vijayabahu I (1055-1110 A.D.) the necessity arose for the
first time of fetching monks with a valid upasampada ordination from a
foreign country; Vijayabahu reintroduced a valid upasampada from Bunna
(Cv 60.4).12J King Parakkamabahu H. (1232-1271 A.D.), who made the two
sections of the sangha which then existed, viz. Gama- and Ara.ftflavasins,
mutually accept each other's upasampada invited learned and pious monks
from South India to Sri Lanka in order to strengthen the sangha and the
knowledge of the lipi.taka (Cv 84.9).124 Since the introduction of the new
rule must have taken place before the first extension of the CuJavan:tsa it
cannot have been the measure of Parakkamabahu Il, but only that of
Vijayabahu 1.
After the removal of any possibly existing simas the nimitta are
announced - here not mentioned in detail - , and the sangha starts to
determine the simas for the AJahtu:\a-pariveDa, viz. three kha1'}qasimas and
one mallasl-ma. Concerning the mallasima the text gives the exact distance of
each of the eight nimittas from the Lankatilaka in yaHhis, which are defined
as consisting of five hatthas. 12S As the measure of one hattha Geiger gives a
range of 17.75 inches (= 45.08 cm) to 18.25 inches (= 46.35 cm) (Cv[transl.l,
p.16, fn.3). Based on this Geiger reckons for a yanhi consisting of five hattha
a length of ca. 7.5 feet (= .2.28 m [misprinted as 2.55 m on p.l09f., fn.5) .126 In
contrast LB.Horner gives a figure for the hattha of the Vinaya of 15 inches,
which corresponds to ca. 38 m and which would result in a ya~thi consisting
of 75 inches = 1.9 m.l27 Accordingly the measures of distance from the
123. Bechert, op.cit., p.24.
124. Bechert, op.cit., p. 25. . within the inner row of stone marks is given as 148 Et (average), i.e. 45.11 m.
125. Ariyasena, Sima. pp. 187-227 (V.37-38), discusses the maluisima. He reckons the
area included within the mahasima as to extend to 7 Acres 2 Roods. 19 Perches
(pp .446-449), basing himself on the measures given by Geiger (Cv(transl.), p. 110
fn. 4 of the preceding page) and draws a plan of the course of the sima (p.445).
126. Assuming the hattha to be 17.75 inches resl\lts in a yaHhi of 2.25 m, assuming it
to equal 18.25 the ya!!hi would correspond to 2.32 m.; A.M.Hocart, Memoi:-s cf the
Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, vol.2. Colombo, 1926, p.7, calculates this yaHlli to
be 7 feet 2 inches [ca . 2.18 m) on account of the measurements taken in
Polonnaruva itself. The distance from the outer wall of the Lankatilaka to the
northern boundary pillar, which he places to the north of the east entrance of the
Lailkatilaka (pp.5-6), measures 322 feet 8 inches (ca. 118.47 m). But, though he is
sure of having identified the pillar correctly, he states that the distance from this
pillar to the Gal vihara does not fit the measure given in the Cu.1avamsa at all.
The same holds true for the distances in the other directions (p .7). Ct.
Archaeological Sun~ ofCeylon, Supplement to Annual Report 1911-12, p. 85 and fn.t
127. I.B.Homer, TIle Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-PitakJJ), vol.", London, 1957 (Sacred
Books of the Buddhists, 11), p. L1; here she also discusses measures given in
earlier literature.
PETRA KIEFFERPOLZ 83
Lankatilaka which refer to the nimitta in the east, south-east, south etc.l28
are the following: eastern nimitta = 44 ya~!hi = 100.32 m (or 83.6 m);
southeastern nimitta = 49 = 111.72 m (or 93.1 m); southern nimitta = 38 =
86.64 m (or 72.2 m); southwestern nimitta = 36 = 82.06 m (or 68.4 m); western
nimitta = 35 = 79.8 m (or 66.5 m); northwestern nimitta = 57 = 129.96 (or
108.3 m); northern nimitta = 45 = 102.6 m (85.5 m); northeastern nimitta = 66
= 150.48 m (or 125.4 m). For the northern and southern nimitta we
additionally get the distance to an object in the opposite direction, namely
to the Gopalapabbata for the southern (58 ya!!hi = 132.24 m [or 110.2 m])
and to the Gal vihara for the northern nimi~ta (50 ya~thi = 114 m [or 95 mD.
Since the whole area is excavated we have the opportunity of checking
these measures at the existing buildings. Unfortunately they do not
coincide at all, as Hocart observed already in 1926. 129 What we know for
sure is that three klzanqasimas were within the mahasimti. One of these has
been excavated and identified, viz. the 8addhasimakapasada southeast of
the Lankatilaka, which was built as a twelve-storied uposatha-house (Cv
78.55).130 The size of the sima belonging to this building is given as 35 x 35
ya!~hi (Cv 78.67), which would be 78.75x78.75 m according to the measure
given by Geiger, or 66.5 x 66.5 m if one hattha is reckoned as being
38m.
The excavated Baddhasimakapasada consists of a nearly square
building with a large number of columns in the center, surrounded by an
open space bounded by a row of cells enclosing the building on all four
sides. Immediately in front of the cells at the end of the open space there is
a double row of stone marks typical of a khJ11'}qasima, 131 four on each side,
twelve in all since the ones in the corners are counted twice. The length
If this measure shall fit the 35 ya~thi given in the Cu.!avaIDsa, one hattha
would measure 25 in, which is very unlikely. m
128. This' results from the fact that the king circles the town in padak khIna and that
he starts in the east.
129. See fn .26.
130. Ariyasena, Simti, pp.274f. (VII.28).
131. The inner row indicating the kllanqasimti, the outer ro w th e sinranlarrk -.
Arc/laeological Survey of Ceylon, Supplement to Annual Report 1911 / 2, pp.84f..
with an excellent map.
132. Taking this as the measure for a hattha, the malltisimti could no t Include the
whole Baddhasimakapasada, but only half of it.
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN ~RlLANKA
The ma/aka called klza1}c{asima l33 has a size of 15 x 6 ya~~hi, which
corresponds to 34.2 x l3.7 m (Geiger) or 28.5 x 11.4 m (Homer). This oblong
simii site has not yet Deen identified.
The smallest of these three khar:rqasimas is the one at the "Pasaqa of the
thera", which measures only 18 x 20 hattha (ca. 823 x 9.14 m [Geiger]; 6.8
7.6 m [Homer]), and, therefore, is nearly square. A house within a sima, the
so-called Simaghara, was excavated by the Unesco-Sri Lanka project in
1981/82Y4 1t lies to the northwest of the Lailkatilaka and to the west of the
Kiri Vehera (E 6 to F 6). Though its measurements, 16.4 x 13.6 m, do not fit
any of the three given in the Cti.1avan:tsa, with respect to the proportions it
comes closer to the simii at the "Pasiida of the thera" than to the ma/aka
called khar:rqasima . However, since the measurements of this sima are much
larger, it also could be assumed that this was a sima which was determined
only later. If, as the excavators believe (p.9), this is one of the kJUlr:rqasz-mas
determined during the reign of Parakkamabahu I, it must have been
included within the mahiisz-ma, and~ as can be 'checked on the map in this
publication (facing p .l), this would be the case whether one yaHhi is
reckoned as being 228 m or only 1.9 m.
The course of the maluisima can be partially identified, as Hocart wrote: 13S
"The group Priory [i.e. Baddasimakapasada], Lankatilaka, Kiri Vehera
stands on the highest part of this plateau. Round it on the low ground runs
a triple line of rough pillars; the two inner rows are 5 feet apart; from the
middle row to the outer row is 11 1/2 feet. This is evidently the "Great
Boundary" mentioned by the Maluivamsa. In the outer row, almost due
north of the east entrance of the Lankatilaka, stands a dressed pillar with
balltop; on the south face of this pillar can be discerned a sun and a moon,
emblems commonly found on pillars fixing boundaries. This must be that
boundary stone which the Mahtivamsa places forty-five rods north of the
Lankatilaka and fifty rods from the Gal Vihare. There are gaps in the line
due east, south, and west. of the Lankatilaka, so that the stones mentioned
in those quarters are not to be found."
15 Further passages referring to simas belong to chapter 100 of the
Cti!avan:tsa. Here we are informed that King Kittisirirajasiha (l8th century
A.D.) ordered the making of several baddhasimas (Cv 100.129: karetva
baddlzasimayo blzikklllinan.z ca Izitattlziko; 100.287: baddlzasima11J pi karetva
IIposatlzaghanidikam; 100.291: tatlui viluirasima11J pi niyametvana piijiya).
133. Khar;rqasimd here is used as if it is a proper name of a md/aka.
134. P.L.Prematilleke, A/a/rana Parivena, P%nnarllva, Arcf/ae%gica/ Excavation Report
(Oct ober 1981-Marcll 1982), Sri Lanka, 1982 (Unesco-Sri Lanka Project of the
Cul tural Triangle), pp.7ff.
135. op.cit. (see fn.), pp.5-6.
PETRA KIEFFERPtiLZ 85
I am not sure whether or not baddhasinui in this passage refers to the
ceremonial boundary of the Buddhist sangha. The verb connected with it is
/airetva which in this connection reminds one of the erection of a building.
This is confirmed in 100.287 by the mentioning of uposathaglzanidikam,
which refers to a building. Viluirasima, which is in the Vinaya literature
terminus technicus for the determined simii (baddltasinUl) of a vihiira, can also
be used with a general meaning and be applied to the normal bOWldary of
a vihiira. Since niyameti, "to tie down, to fix" (PTSD s.v.), is not a verb
connected with the terminus teclznicus sima in Vinaya literature, I prefer to
assume that the king fixed the ordinary boundary of the land he was
willing to dedicate for the specific vihara to the sangha (see also fn .13 ).
16 In the first part of my paper I referred to the fact that one gets the
impression from the explanations in aHhakathii and ~ii that the frequency
of use of abaddhasfnuIs, especially the udakukJchepasima, increased (above,
3-4). Looking at the Sinhalese chronicles ~ne finds this assumption
confirmed. The earliest evidence is the passage reporting that
Parakkamabiihu I had the sangha come to the Mahavaliganga each year
and perform the upasampadakamma on ships firmly anchored in the
middle of the river and crowned by a mar:rqapa (Mhv 78.28-30). Here the
word udakukJchepasima is not used, but the description is unequivocal.
Similar is the description of an upasampada at Sahassatittha in the
Mahavaliganga south of Polonnaruva '36 under Parakkamabiihu II (Mhv
87.71-72) and Vijayabahu IV (Mhv 89.70); additionally, there are the
upasampadas in an udakukkhepasima Wlder VlIDaladhammasuriya I (Mhv
94.15-19) and 11 (NIhv 97.12-14). That this usage is not limited to Sri Lanka
is evident from the Jinakiilamali, where the udakukJchepasimti seems to have
been the ordinary sima form, only replaced in some places by formally
determined khar:rqasinuis.137
136. Geiger, Culture, 192, refers to the fact that in the later mediaeval period the
Sahassatittha was a place in favour for the performance of ordinations.
137. N.A.Jayawickrama (transl.), op.cit. (see rn. 42), p.130 (1424 A.D.) ordination of
Siamese monks in Sri Lanka on boats bound together; p.131 ordination on the
ocean; p.131 ordination on the Vailkanadi; p.132 ordination on the Biilganadi,
later (1432 A.D.) the determination of a kha1J~asimti is performed: p.134 (1441/2
A.D.) upasampada on the Biilganadi; p.154 (1515 A.D.) upasampada in an
udakukkhepasimti; compare also the introduction, pp.XXV. XXYlI, XXXII.
Generally these simas are small and only encircle the uposatha house (Yoneo
Ishii. Sangha, Slate and Society: Thai Buddhism in History, transl. by Peter Hawkes,
Honolulu. 1986 [Monographs of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies l. p.74 ).
POSSibly this results from the fact that the government specially consecrates a
small area of land within the temple precincts for that purpose (Kenneth E. Wells,
op. cit. [see fn. 1151, p.179). As documented also in the Jinakjlamali, they are
called Jclran4asi"ui whether a maluisimti exists or not.
 CEREMONlAl BOUNDARIES IN SRI lANKJi e r ETRA KJEFFER P0 12.
The udakukklzepasinlli in these passages is sometimes used as a transitory
sima before a baddllasimti is determined, in which case ships are frequently
bound together, and sometimes as Cl permanent sima, in which case
platforms are erected in the river.
17 Finally, I wish to refer to a passage in the Mahava~sa~ika where another
sima rule 'of the Vmaya literature is confirmed. In the Samantapasadika we
are told that a sima, once determined, lasts as long as the Buddha sasana
exists, if it is not removed with a legally valid kammavadi (Sp 1051,22-23),
and that all that comes into being within a determined sima is part of it (Sp
1045,15-16; 1046,9-11).
In the Mahavamsatika (411,9-15) we are told of a nunnery in
Anuradhapura, the H~tthathakabhikkhw:tupassaya, which was enclosed by
a sima determined bv the nuns. This nunnery was situated close to the
Kadamba river, which was, in fact, one of its nimittas, and was originally
part of the city, a prerequisit for nuns, who were constrained in the Vinaya
to reside only within settlements.
On account of building activities instigated by the kings Ku~at:U:\a and
Vasabha, who had a city wall built around Anuradhapura, a part of the
sima of this nunnerv came to be situated outside the city wall. Since the
sima was determined first and the wall erected later, no fault for this sima
arose, and so Mahanama explains that the sima is valid (simtisal1fpatti) and
not a defective sima as one might think at first sight.
18 An extension of the comparison limited here to the Si..nhalese chronicles
and the most important of the edited Vmaya texts would lead to a broader
knowledge of developments in the history of the Buddhist sangha from the
middle ages up to modem times and the influences of the groups of monks
travelling from Sri Lanka to Siam and Burma, or from Siam and Burma to
the other countries respectively. Sometimes, after a group of monks went to
another country to receive a valid upasampada ordir.. a tion, monks from the
host country accompanied the guest monks on their way back home and
helped them determine a sima. Therefore, changes in the practice of the
determination of a sima, however small, can be instructive regarding their
origin.
87
Summary
A comparison of the si..rna regulations in the Vinaya litera ture with the
descriptions in the Sinhalese chronicles shows that modifica ti ons o f the
sima regulations met with in the Samantapasadika had take n place ea rlier
and are partly documented already in the Dipavamsa . As examp les one
could refer to the introduction of the mlilaka or kha~l(ias imli -as it is usually
called in the Vinaya literature - and the employment o f the verb balld" for
"to determine (a sima)" instead of sam-man (used in the Vinaya without
exception). On the other hand, it is evident that as early as the Dipavan:tsa
the usage of sOli/-man waned, since it is only met with in the d escription of
the first sima determination. In the account of the s eco nd sima
determination in the Dipava~sa, band" is used exclusively, and the same
holds true for Maha- and Cu)avan:tsa.
Further, the investigation of the sima passages in the chronicles leads to
the supposition that mdlaka was the original deSignation for the by-sima,
which in the Vinaya texts is more often called khm:u{asima, since only as late
as the Cu!ava~sa is the word kha~l(!asima quoted.
The high number of malakas determined within each mahtisimti on the
occasion of the first and second sima determination, viz. thirty-two, and
the accompanying verb pali~~hahati or pati~~hapeti, which is not a terminus
teclzniClls, leads to the assumption that not all of these malakas were by-simas
(in the 12th century only three kha1'}qasimas were determined in a certain
monastery, though the number of monks was certainly higher then). I
suggest that malaka was originally used in the general meaning o f
"(confined) space", and that it described the space for the cetiya and other
elements of a monastery, as for example the space where the upasampad a
ordination was ' conferred upon the novices. This place is called
upasampadamaiaka, as we know from the Samantapasadika, where this word
is used synonymously with (sillui)mtilaka, (s,-ma)ma1'}qaia and klla~zqasima.
Thus, it is probable that the institution of the kiza1'}qasz-mti is based on it, and
tha t on account of this malaka became the terminZls teclrniClls for the by-si ma.
Otherwise, IIl1ilaka was still used in its general meaning, as is d oc u mented
by its use in place name compounds. Possibly in the express ion " thirty-two
nui/akas" which is transmitted in Dipavamsa and Mahava~sa, mtilakas of the
general type and mtilakas in the sense of by-simas were enume rated together
without discrimination. The term malzasimti as a designation for the sim a of
a monastery, closely connected with the introduction of the malaka as a by-
sima, is used already in the Dipa va~sa .
 CEREMONIAL BOUNDARIES IN SRI LANK1\ .
The description in Appendix B to the Mahaval"0sa of the sima of the
M ahavihara determined by Mahinda shows a "determined sima"
(baddhasima) which includes several klzaryqasimas and thus is called
maluisinui, and which encloses a part of the river Kadamba and is therefore
a nadiparasil1ui as well. The detailed' comments on the /Jadiparasimti in the
Samantapasadika can be better understood in this light.
In the description of the determination of the sima of the Ajahana
parivena, first the removal of any possibly existing boundaries determined
at that place is performed. This desniption. indicates that the method
transmitted in the Vimativinodanitika was employed. Since this contradicts
the regulations in the Samantapasadika and in the MahavaIl).sapka it
shows that a shift must have taken p lace after the MahavaIl).satika was
written and before the enlargement of the MahavaIl).sa by Dhammakitti.
POSSibly this change took place simultaneously with the re-introduction of
the upasampada tradition under Vijayabahu I.
The increasing use of abaddhasimas, mainly the udakukkhepasimci,
ilpparent in the growing number of regulations in the Samantapasadika and
the tikas, is attested in the chronicles.
PETRA KIEFFER PU12 89
List of Abbreviations
Ariyasena, Silllri = Rev. Kamburupiti ye Ariyasena, Sil1Uivll iui elri aitiluisikn
samvardlwl1aya pi!ibaiida tlllamitmaka vimarsal1ayak. Sill/a: A comparative
stlldy of its Ilistorical development, unpublished thesi ~ . Perad eniya,
University of Ceylon, 1967,461 p., 87 fig ., 18 photographs (Sinhalese).
CPD = A Critical Pali Dictionary, begun by V. Tren c kner, ed . D.
Andersen. H. Smith, H. Hendriksen. vols. 1-2, Copenha gen, 1924-
1989, vo!. 3, fase. 1-2. Copenhagen, 1992-1993.
Cv = Clnavam sa. Being tire More Recent Part of tile l'vfll/uivam sa. e d.
Wilhelm Geiger, 2 vols., London, 1980 (Ist ed. 1925, 1927).
Cv(transL} = Cli!av/ll~lsa. Being the More Recent Part of the Maluivall/sa.
pts . I-2, translated by Wilhelm Geiger, Oxford. 1992
(1st ed. 1929).
Dip = Tile OI-pavan.lsa: An Ancient Bllddhist Historical Reco rd. ed . and
translated by Hermann Oldenberg, London, 1879.
DPPN = G.P.Malalasekera, Dictionary of Prili Proper Names , 2
vols., London, 1937-1938.
Geiger, Culture = Wilhelm Geiger, Cultllre ofCeylon in Mediaeval Times, ed.
by Heinz Bechert, Stuttgart, 1986 (Veroffentlichungen des Seminars fur
Indologie und Buddhismuskunde, 4).
Kieffer-Pulz, Simci = Petra Kieffer-Pulz. Die Sil1lci. Vorschriften ZlIr Regelllng
der bllddllistisc/len Gemeindegrenze ill alteren bllddilistiscllel1 Textell, Berlin,
1992 (Monographien zur indischen Archaologie, Kunst und
Philologie, 8).
MBv = TIle Maila--bodlli-val7!sa. ed. by S.Arthur Strong, London.
1891 (Pali Text Society).
Mhv = The Maluivan}sa. ed. by Wilhelm Geiger, London, 1908.
Mhv(transl.} = The MahcivaTTJsa or The Great CllrOlzicie of Ceylon,
translated into English by Wilhelm Geiger, London, 1912
(Pali Text Society).
Mhv-~ = Van.lsattlzappakcisini, Commentary all the Mahcivamsa, ed. by
G.P.Malalasekera, 2 vols., London, 1935 (Pali Text Society).
Mv ::: Mahavagga.
PW = atto Bohtlingk and R. Roth, Sanskrit- Worterbllc1l, 7 vols .,
SI. Petersburg, 1855-1875.
Sp = Samantapcisa-dika-, Vinaya~Ulakatl!a- , ed . J. Takakusu, M . N a gai
(and K. Mizuno in vols. 5 and 7), 7 vo ls., London, 192 4-
1947 (Pali Text Society); vo!. 8: Indexes by Hermann Kopp, L 0 n d o n,
s.d. (Pali 1e xt Society, Text Series, no.167).
 e
Sariputta [aus Po!onnaruva], Sa-ratthadipanr-, 3 vols.,
Rangoon, 1960. (Chaqhasangayana edition, publ. Buddha
Sasana Council, Rangoon).
= Vi.n aya Pi~ak~, ed. Hermann Oldenberg, 5 vols., London,
1879-1883.
Vjb =Vajirabuddhi, Vajirabllddhi~i1al, Rangoon 1960
(Cha~~asailgayana edition, pub!, Buddha Sasana Council, Rangoon).
Vm v = Co!iya Kassapa, Vimativinodani~ika-, 2 vols., Rangoon, 1960
(ChaHhasangayana edition, pub!. B~lddha Sasana Council, Rangoon).
THE V~RABLE
NYANAPONIKA MAHATHERA:
A GERMAN EMISSARY OF THE DHAMMA IN SRI LANKA
Yen. Bhikkhu Bodhi
In trod uction
Among people vaguely acquainted with present-day Buddhist litera-
ture, Sri Lanka is reputed to be the seat of a long-standing tradition of Ger-
man scholarship flourishing in the ranks of the Theravada monastic order.
If, however, an inquisitive reader refuses to be intimidated by those long,
undecipherable Pali names, and instead examines their spelling carefully,
he will find that those names can ultimately be reduced to two. Those two
names, which appear again and again in the annals of modem Theravada
Buddhist scholarship, are Nyanatiloka and Nyanaponika. The two names
are the monastic styles of two Buddhist monks of German origin, separated
in age by 23 years, who made Sri Lanka their adopted homeland, living and
working here for the greater part of their lives.
The two monks were linked to each other in the relationship of teacher
and pupil. The teacher, Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera, was born in
Wiesbaden in 1878, with the name Anton WaIter Florus Gueth. The pupil,
Venerable Nyanaponika Mahathera, was born in Hanau, near Frankfurt, in
1901, with the name Siegmund Feniger. The one came from a Catholic fam-
ily, the son of a school principal, and had been trained as a concert violinist
in conservatories in Frankfurt and Paris; the other came from a Jewish fam-
ily, the son of a small shopkeeper, and was working in the book trude. Nei-
ther had any prior cultural or family connections with Buddhism, neither
had a romantic fascination with the "mysterious East"; yet, in an age before
the jet airliner had made inter-continental travel easy, both left their native
Germany for the uncertain challenges of the homeless life in Buddhist Asia.
Both were drawn to the East by a call, an inner caU which they had heard
in the depths of their being, and which spoke to them with Cl compelling
force that could be neither resisted nor denied. This was the call to a path to
deliverance from suffering. First sounded in the Ganges Valley 2500 years
ago, that call had reverberated through the centuries and across conlin~nts,
beckoning them to leave behind friends and family, worldly enjoyments
and careers, for a life of renunciation, deep reflection, and contemplation
on a distant tear-shaped island at the foot of the Indian sub-continent. Hav-
ing entered the Bhikkhu Sangha, the Order of Buddhist monks, both men
spent more than fifty years in the saffron robe, and at the time of their
deaths 37 years apart, each was the most senior Theravada monk of West-
ern origins in the world. Between Ulem, their monastic careers almost