English
That should be said to remain permanent for all time. If it is asked, 'How is this meaning to be known: "Only the harmonious Sangha gives for permanent residence, not the allocator of lodgings?"' [It is said:] 'The Sangha, considering the great benefit and excellent qualities of a treasurer, or a Dhamma speaker, Vinaya holder, etc., or a group reciter, or a teacher, appoints and gives a monastery for permanent residence.' 'The Sangha gives a suitable dwelling, making it unremovable for a well-learned one, who is of great benefit through teaching and questioning, etc., and who bears the burden (of the Sangha).' 'The Sangha, considering the great benefit and excellent qualities of a treasurer, or a Dhamma speaker, Vinaya holder, group reciter, or teacher, designates and appoints a monastery for permanent residence and gives it.' 'Even an unremovable lodging for a well-learned bhikkhu who bears the burden of the Sangha.' And "the act of announcement is an act to be done having purified the Sangha within the boundary, having brought the consent of those worthy of consent, with the permission of the united Sangha, having announced it three times." Thus, by the statement in the commentaries, it should be known well and without doubt. But how is it known that it can be given by an act of announcement? "To a bhikkhu who is learned and capable of bearing the burden of the Sangha, even a dwelling that cannot be established (otherwise), and the food and wages of those who perform Sangha duties, such as kappiyakārakas, it is permissible to give by an act of announcement." It is known because it is stated in the section on acts in the Parivāra commentary. But how is it known that it should be given only to a bhikkhu endowed with two qualities? "'Being of great help' means being of great help, such as being a storekeeper. Not only this, it says 'and being distinguished by virtues,' etc. Therefore, it shows that it is not permissible to give if there is great helpfulness but no distinction in virtues, or if there is distinction in virtues but no great helpfulness." It is known because it is stated in the Vinayatthamañjūsā. But why does the assignment of dwellings, which should be managed by the dwelling-assigner, not last until the present time? Because a bhikkhu who is a dwelling-assigner endowed with five qualities is rare, and because it is difficult for bhikkhus from various countries and from families of various conduct to share and partake in things together, for these two reasons, it does not last. And this was said by the Blessed One: "I allow, bhikkhus, to appoint a bhikkhu as a dwelling-assigner who is endowed with five qualities: who does not go by way of desire, who does not go by way of hatred, who does not go by way of delusion, who does not go by way of fear, and who knows what is taken and what is not taken." And in the commentary it is said: "Indeed, there is no purpose in such a suitable person dwelling in one monastery or one precinct." Why then dh... Does the consideration of giving for residence remain until the present time? Even if not endowed with five factors, because it should be done by the permission of the united Sangha within the boundary. For it is said: "The act called 'apalokana' is an act to be done by purifying the Sangha within the boundary, having brought the consent of those worthy of consent, and having announced it three times with the permission of the united Sangha." In the proper season, a bhikkhu who has arrived to reside in a Sangha dwelling should not be turned away, except for those who cannot be made to rise. For it was said by the Blessed One: "I allow, bhikkhus, to turn away for the three months of the rains, but in the proper season, one should not turn away." "Except for those who cannot be made to rise" thus it is said. Who are these who cannot be made to rise? There are four who cannot be made to rise: the elder, the storekeeper, the sick, and one who has received a dwelling from the Sangha. Among these, the elder bhikkhu, in that monastery, among the bhikkhus within the boundary, because there is no other elder than himself, according to seniority, cannot be made to rise by anyone. The storekeeper, having been appointed by the Sangha, because he was given the storehouse, resides protecting and guarding the Sangha's property. Therefore, that storekeeper cannot be made to rise by anyone. The sick one, overcome by illness, residing in his received dwelling, cannot be made to rise by anyone. One who has received a dwelling from the Sangha, because a dwelling was given by the united Sangha, cannot be made to rise by anyone. For it is said in the commentary: "Indeed, four should not be made to rise: the elder, the storekeeper, the sick, and one who has received a dwelling from the Sangha. Among these, the elder, due to his seniority, should not be made to rise by a junior. The storekeeper, because he was appointed by the Sangha and given the storehouse. The sick, due to his own sickness. But the Sangha gives a comfortable dwelling, which cannot be made to rise, to one who is learned, very helpful through teaching and questioning, and a remover of burdens. Therefore, he should not be made to rise, both because of his helpfulness and because he received it from the Sangha." Except for these... These four remaining ones are to be expelled. When another bhikkhu arrives, having expelled (the previous one), a dwelling should be given. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318): "Indeed, during the season, some visiting bhikkhus arrive before mealtime, some after mealtime, in the first watch, or the middle watch, or the last watch. Whenever they arrive, at that very time, having expelled (the previous bhikkhus), a dwelling should be given to them. There is no such thing as an improper time." But nowadays, faithful and devoted people, having built a monastery, some, having heard the words of the wise and knowing "what is given to the Sangha is of great fruit," dedicating it to the Sangha of the four directions, say "We give this monastery to the Sangha of the four directions, those who have come and those who have not yet come," and give it. Some, having built a monastery for a bhikkhu they themselves are devoted to, are then instructed by him at the time of donation and give it in the aforementioned manner, dedicating it to the Sangha of the four directions. Some, both at the time of construction and at the time of donation, dedicate it only to their own family-bhikkhu. Even so, at the time of pouring the water of dedication, being instructed by him, they make the verbal declaration according to the aforementioned text, but in their minds, they give it only to their family-bhikkhu, not wishing it to be common to the entire Sangha. Among these three kinds of donations, the first, because it is made with the Sangha in mind both beforehand and at the time of donation, is common to the entire Sangha. The second, although made with an individual in mind beforehand, because it is made with the Sangha in mind at the time of donation, is also Sangha-property. But the third, both beforehand and at the time of donation, is made with only the family-individual in mind, not the Sangha; they merely make the verbal declaration according to what the bhikkhu has said. This being the case, in the thought "Is this monastery personal property by intention, or Sangha-property by verbal declaration?" some might say thus: Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are mind-made. If with a pure mind one speaks or acts, then happiness follows him like a shadow that never leaves. (Dha. Pa. 2) – From the saying, by way of mind... is not personal." Others say, "As the donors say, so it should be done," by the saying (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 325), "it becomes communal by way of verbal distinction." Herein is the deliberation: If this donation was originally intended for a person and later transferred to the Saṅgha, then if it is called "communal," it becomes the eighth of the nine unrighteous donations, which is said (Pārājika 660) to be "what was intended for a person and transferred to the Saṅgha." The acceptances and uses of that donation are unrighteous acceptances and unrighteous uses. If it is called "personal," it becomes the third of the three righteous donations, which is said to be "what was given to a person and given to that very person." The acceptances and uses of that donation are righteous acceptances and righteous uses. Therefore, it leans towards the personal side. Some, being pleased with a group like the Suttantikas, build a monastery and give it to the group, saying, "I give this monastery to the venerable ones." Some, being pleased with an individual, build a monastery and give it to the individual, saying, "I give this monastery to the venerable one." These monasteries, whether belonging to a group or an individual, become the property of the recipients from the time of the donation, not the property of the donors. Among these, the monastery belonging to a group, if some die, belongs to the remaining ones. If, while they are alive, they give it to someone, it belongs to that person. If they do not give it to anyone and all die, it becomes communal. For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 369): "It belongs to two, undivided. If one dies, the other is the owner. The same applies to many. If all die, it becomes communal." A personal monastery also, if that recipient individual gives all his requisites to his co-residents and so forth while he is still alive, or if someone takes that monastery with his permission, it belongs to that person. If he dies without giving it to anyone, it becomes communal. For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā: "If he, while still alive, gives all his requisites to someone, Someone gave, or someone took it on trust. To whom it was given, and by whom it was taken, to him it belongs.