English
"I will give the robe-money into his hand. You should accept the robe." This is the third indirect indication by the monk. Thus, one direct indication and three indirect indications – these are the four kinds of stewards indicated by a monk. In these cases, one should act in the manner stated in this royal training rule. Another monk, in the same manner as before... when asked by a messenger, either because there is none, or because he does not wish to consider, says, "We have no steward." And at that moment, a certain person comes. The messenger places the unsuitable item in his hand, and saying, "You may take the robe from his hand," goes away. This is one designated by the messenger face-to-face. Another messenger, having entered a village, places the unsuitable item in the hand of someone he likes, and having come back, reports in the same way as before. Or he sends another, saying, "I will give the robe-price into the hand of so-and-so; you may take the robe." This is the third, designated by the messenger not face-to-face. Thus, one designated face-to-face, and three not face-to-face— these are the four designated stewards by a messenger. In these cases, one should act according to the method stated in the Meṇḍaka training rule. For it is said: "There are, monks, people who are faithful and devoted. They deposit gold with stewards, saying, 'Give to the venerable one whatever is suitable with this.' I allow, monks, to accept what is suitable from that. But I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be sought by any means whatsoever." Here, there is no limit to the demand. It is permissible to accept suitable goods a thousand times, by demand or by position, by one who does not accept the principal. If he does not give, another steward should be appointed and it should be brought. If he wishes, it may be told to the original owners; if he does not wish, it should not be told. Another monk, when asked by a messenger in the same way as before, says, "We have no steward." Then another person standing nearby, hearing this, says, "Bring it, sir, I will purchase a robe for the venerable one and give it." The messenger, saying, "Here, sir, you may give it," places it in his hand and goes away without informing the monk. This is a steward by word of mouth. Another, a supporter of the monk, or or giving an unallowable thing into another's hand, saying, "You should give a robe to the elder," and then departs, this is a "behind-the-back allowable-maker." These two are called "unspecified allowable-makers." In these cases, one should act as with unknown, uninvited persons. If they themselves bring and give the robe, it should be accepted. If not, nothing should be said. This is merely an instruction, "One should send a robe-price through a messenger." Even when they themselves bring and give for almsfood and so on, the same rule applies. Not only is it not allowable to accept for one's own use, even if someone brings gold and silver and says, "I give this to the Saṅgha, make a monastery or a shrine or a refectory or any other," this too is not allowable to accept. For whoever accepts for another's purpose incurs a dukkaṭa (wrongdoing), as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. But if, after it has been refused, saying, "It is not allowable for bhikkhus to accept this," and the person says, "It will be in the hands of the carpenters or the workers; you just know what is well-done and ill-done," and gives it into their hands and departs, it is allowable. Or if the person says, "It will be in the hands of my people, or it will be in my own hands; you just send it for the purpose for which it should be given," even so, it is allowable. But if, without referring to the Saṅgha, or a group, or an individual, they say, "We give this gold and silver for the shrine, we give it for the monastery, we give it for new construction," it is not allowable to refuse. It should be told to the allowable-makers, "These people are saying this." But if it is said, "You take and keep it for the shrine and so on," then it should be refused, saying, "It is not allowable for us to take." But if someone brings much gold and silver and says, "I give this to the Saṅgha, use the four requisites," if the Saṅgha accepts it, there is an offense in both acceptance and use. And if here one bhikkhu rejects, saying: "This is not allowable." And the lay follower goes, saying: "If it is not allowable, it will be mine." That bhikkhu should not be spoken to by anyone with anything like: "You have caused an obstacle to the Sangha's gain." Indeed, whoever blames him, that very one is guilty of an offense. But by that one (bhikkhu), many have been made not guilty of an offense. But if, when rejected by the bhikkhus as "not proper," he says: "It will be in the hands of the allowable-makers, or in the hands of my men, or in my hands; you merely consume the requisites," it is proper. And what is given for the four requisites, for whichever requisite there is need, it should be applied to that purpose. What is given for robes should be applied only to robes. If there is no such need for robes, and the Sangha is suffering due to almsfood, etc., having announced it for the well-being of the Sangha, it may also be applied to that purpose. This is the same rule for what is given for almsfood or medicine. But what is given for dwellings, because a dwelling is a heavy item, should be applied only to dwellings. But if, when bhikkhus have abandoned their dwelling and gone, the dwelling is destroyed, at such a time, even by disposing of the dwelling, the bhikkhus' use (of the proceeds) is permitted. Therefore, for the maintenance of the dwelling, without cutting off the root (capital), it should be used for mere sustenance. And not only gold and silver, but also other unallowable things like fields and land, should not be accepted. Indeed, if someone says: "I have a great pond that yields three thousand (measures), I give it to the Sangha." If the Sangha accepts it, there is an offense both in accepting and in using it. But whoever rejects it, that one, in the former manner, is not guilty of any offense by anyone. Indeed, whoever blames him, that very one is guilty of an offense. But by that one (bhikkhu), many have been made not guilty of an offense. But whoever, having said: "I give such a pond," and being rejected by the bhikkhus as "not proper," says: "The Sangha has such and such a pond, how is that...?" is permissible.” He should be told: “It will have been given after being made permissible.” How is a gift permissible? It is given saying: “Use the four requisites.” If he says: “Good, venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha use the four requisites,” and gives it, it is permissible. Or if, when he says: “Take the pond,” and is refused with: “It is not permissible,” he asks: “Is there a permittance-maker?” and when told: “There is not,” he says: “So-and-so will manage this, it will be in so-and-so’s hand, or in my hand, may the Saṅgha use the permissible requisites,” it is permissible. Even if, when refused with: “It is not permissible,” he says: “They will use the water, they will wash the cloth, migratory birds will drink,” even so, it is permissible. Or if, when refused with: “It is not permissible,” he says: “Take it in a permissible way.” And after saying: “Good, lay follower, the Saṅgha will drink the water, will wash the cloth, migratory birds will drink,” it is permissible to use it. Or if, when he says: “I give my pond or lotus pond to the Saṅgha,” after saying: “Good, lay follower, the Saṅgha will drink the water,” and so on, it is indeed permissible to use it. If, however, the bhikkhus, having requested manual labor, and having themselves dug permissible ground, have had a pond made for the use of water, and if, relying on that, people produce crops and give permissible requisites to the monastery, it is permissible. If, on the other hand, people themselves, for the benefit of the Saṅgha, dig Saṅgha land, and from the crops produced relying on that, give permissible requisites, even so, it is permissible. And when they say: “Appoint one permittance-maker for us,” it is also allowed to appoint one. But if those people, oppressed by royal taxes, depart, and others take their place, and give nothing to the bhikkhus, it is allowed to stop the water. And that, indeed, is only during the time of cultivation, not during the time of harvest. If they say: “Venerable sirs, did not people before us…” on which they made crops." Then it should be said: "They did this and this service for the Saṅgha, they gave this and this suitable offering." If they say: "We too will give," even so it is permissible. If, however, some unskilled person receives or makes a pond with an unsuitable transaction, that should not be used by bhikkhus. The suitable offering obtained relying on that is also unsuitable. If, knowing it was relinquished by the bhikkhus, the owner, or his sons and daughters, or anyone else born in the family, gives it again with a suitable transaction, it is permissible. When the family line is cut off, whoever is the owner of that district, if he gives it again without confiscating it, like the chief queen of the Aḷa Nāga king who brought water for the bhikkhu on Cittala mountain, even so it is permissible. Even in a suitable transaction, in a pond received for water, it is permissible for those with pure minds to do things like digging out mud and building embankments. But seeing them making crops relying on that, it is not permissible to appoint a suitable worker. If they themselves give suitable offerings, it should be taken. If they do not give, they should not be urged, nor reminded. In a pond received for the sake of requisites, it is permissible to appoint a suitable worker. But it is not permissible to do things like digging out mud and building embankments. If the suitable workers themselves do it, it is permissible. However, in things made