English
And in the Pāli (Mahāvagga 369) it is said: "Monks, when a bhikkhu dies, the Saṅgha is the owner of his bowl and robes. But the attendants of the sick are of great help. I allow, monks, for the Saṅgha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants of the sick. What light goods and light requisites are there, let the Saṅgha, being present, divide them. What heavy goods and heavy requisites are there, they are not to be disposed of or divided for the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and not yet present," (Mahāvagga 369) it is said. Therefore, a decision should be made in this manner. However, regarding the Saṅgha's property, the three types of dwelling-takers mentioned in the Pāli (Cūḷavagga 318) as "the first, the last, and the one in between," and the two types of dwelling-takers mentioned in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 318) as "during the season and during the rains retreat," since these are not practiced nowadays, and regarding what is mentioned in the Pāli as not to be removed, which by its nature is not to be removed, and what is not to be removed because it was given by the Saṅgha for permanent residence, the decision is made based on these not-to-be-removed cases. Indeed, the elderly and the sick are by their nature not to be removed. This is said in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 343): "An elder, because of his elder status, should not be removed by a junior; a sick person, because of his sickness." Storekeepers, Dhamma-preachers, and others are not to be removed because they were given [a dwelling] by the Saṅgha for permanent residence. For it is said: "The Saṅgha, having appointed a monastery for the storekeeper, or for the Dhamma-preacher, Vinaya-holder, etc., for permanent residence, gives it; therefore, he to whom it was given by the Saṅgha is also not to be removed" (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 120; Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Anupakhajja Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā). This should be understood thus: Nowadays, in Saṅgha monasteries, among the Saṅgha elders who have reached their seniority, whichever bhikkhu is the most senior in that monastery, he too [may say] "This monastery is to be resided in by me." says. Whoever there is skilled and capable, he also says the same. By whom that monastery was built, he also says, "The person I am pleased with should be installed." The Saṅgha also says, "We are the masters, therefore, the person desired by us should be installed." When thus divided into two, or three, or four, a great dispute arises. Among them, the elder, taking the Pāli text "I do not say, monks, that by any means the seat of an elder should be obstructed; whoever obstructs it, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (Mahāvagga 473; Cūḷavagga 316), and the commentary statement "An elder, by reason of his elder status, should not be made to rise by a younger one" (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 119 onwards; Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, description of the Anupakhajja training rule), becomes convinced, "I am the elder here; there is no other elder than me; therefore, I alone am suitable to reside in this monastery." The skilled one also, taking the commentary statement from the Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā "Even a dwelling place not to be made to rise from for a monk who is learned and bears the burden of the Saṅgha" (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 495-496), and the Pāli statement "I allow, monks, a skilled and capable monk, who has been ordained for ten years or more than ten years, to give ordination, to give reliance" (Mahāvagga 76, 82), becomes convinced, "I am the skilled and capable one here; there is no one more skilled than me; therefore, I alone am suitable for this monastery." The monastery builder also, taking the Vinaya text "He by whom the monastery was built is the owner of the monastery" (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 116), and "I have built this monastery by sacrificing much wealth; therefore, the person I am pleased with should be installed, not another," becomes convinced. The Saṅgha also, taking the Pāli statement "A monastery called Saṅghika is given and dedicated to the Saṅgha" (Pācittiya 116, 121, 126, 131), and even a four-finger-high footstool made by village boys playing in sand-houses, from the time it is given to the Saṅgha, is heavy property. is to be' and so on, taking the commentary's words, he thinks, 'This monastery belongs to the Sangha, it is the property of the Sangha, therefore, only the person we approve of should be appointed, not another.' Regarding the words of the elder, the saying 'I do not, monks,' and so on, was spoken by the Blessed One concerning the giving of a seat: even a monk who has eaten his meal and is seated in those various assembly halls and so on, where the elder has the right to the chief seat, should rise and give his seat when an elder arrives. It was not spoken concerning permanent residence. And the saying 'The elder by his seniority,' and so on, means that when a dwelling is given according to seniority, if an elder arrives, the junior monk should be made to rise, and after making him rise, the dwelling should be given to the elder. But the elder should not be made to rise by a junior monk. Why? 'By his seniority' was spoken concerning the giving of a dwelling according to seniority in due season, not concerning the giving for permanent residence. Therefore, this saying too should be examined, not quickly assented to. Regarding the words of the learned, the saying 'of the greatly learned, the one who bears the burden of the Sangha,' and so on, was not spoken concerning the lordship of a Sangha-monastery merely by being greatly learned. Rather, having observed the great helpfulness and distinguished qualities of that monk, when the Sangha has made a suitable dwelling and given it to him, that monk cannot be removed from that monastery by anyone. It was spoken concerning this meaning. And the saying 'I allow, monks,' and so on, was spoken by the Blessed One to declare the characteristics of preceptors, not the lordship of a Sangha-monastery. Therefore, this saying too should be examined, not quickly assented to. But the words of the donor should not be assented to, they should be rejected. Why? Because the phrase 'by whom the monastery was built' is not the primary usage. For just as in the time of ordinary people, Because of having been born in forms and so on, because of having been a being in the past, even an Arahant is called "a being". Similarly, because the donor was formerly the owner of that monastery before the time of donation, the donor is called "monastery owner", not because of being the lord. Indeed, in the entire Vinaya Pitaka, nor in the commentaries and sub-commentaries, is there a passage saying: "the donor of a monastery given away is the lord", or "it should be managed by the donor", or "the monastery belongs to the donor". Rather, there are only: "belonging to the Sangha", "belonging to a group", "belonging to an individual". Therefore, his word should not be approved. Even regarding the Sangha's word, the statement "a monastery called Sanghika" and so on (Pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131) indicates its belonging to the Sangha and its being manageable by the Sangha. However, the Sangha, when managing, may appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the allocator of lodgings. Then it should be managed by him according to seniority. Or, by the unanimous Sangha, it may be given for permanent residence to a monk endowed with two qualities, by means of an 'apalokana' (announcement) act. Among these, since a monk endowed with five qualities is rare, in the absence of an appointment as allocator of lodgings, a monk endowed with two qualities should be sought. However, without seeking thus, a monastery should not be given by the Sangha to a monk who is engaged in many services like being a storekeeper, but lacks the distinction of qualities like great learning, due to attachment to material things and so on. Therefore, even the Sangha's word should be examined; it should not be approved immediately. Now, all three statements should be compared. Therein, since the Sangha is the lord, the Sangha should be asked: "Which person is agreeable to you?" Having asked, and when "this one" is said, having asked "Why is he agreeable?", and when it is said: "This person has supported us with robes and other requisites, he is our relative by blood, preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, co-preceptor, co-teacher, dear friend, one who gains, one who is famous, therefore he is agreeable to us," then it should be countered: "Not for these reasons should a monastery be given for permanent residence." should be rejected. Then, saying: "This person is older than all of us, deserves the chief seat, chief water, chief almsfood, but a monastery for permanent residence should be given to him" "is not stated by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers," it should be rejected. Then, if it is said: "He is a Dhamma speaker, a Vinaya holder, a teacher who recites for the assembly," it should be approved, saying: "He is suitable for a monastery given for permanent residence; it should be given to him." If it is asked, "How is this understood?" It is understood by this statement: "The Saṅgha, considering the great benefit and special qualities of a storekeeper, or a Dhamma speaker, Vinaya holder, and so on, or a teacher who recites for the assembly, grants a monastery for permanent residence." (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 129; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajja Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā). But here, while "or of a storekeeper" is present in the corroborating text, why is the storekeeper not mentioned in the text to be proven? Because there is no storehouse at present. If in some monasteries a storehouse were appointed, he, residing in the storehouse monastery, would render service to the Saṅgha such as protecting bowls and robes. The Saṅgha, considering his great helpfulness, would even now give a comfortable dwelling to the storekeeper for permanent residence. That would be his separate permanent residence monastery.