English
Here, in the corroborating text, by the word "etc." in "or of Dhamma speaker, Vinaya holder, etc.," it includes those with the mentioned qualities: learned, one who has mastered the scriptures, a Dhamma holder, a Vinaya holder, a Mātikā holder, wise, skilled, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training. Furthermore, if it is said: "This person is learned, very helpful to bhikkhus through instruction and inquiry, and a remover of the Saṅgha's burden," it should be approved, saying: "Good, he too is worthy of a comfortable dwelling; having made it unremovable, a monastery for permanent residence should be given to him." If it is asked, "How is this understood?" "The Saṅgha, having made a comfortable dwelling unremovable for a learned person who is very helpful through instruction and inquiry, and a remover of the burden..." is understood from the saying. And also, if one says, "This person is a Dhamma speaker, a Vinaya holder, a teacher who recites for the Sangha, very helpful to the Sangha, endowed with distinguished qualities," one should say, "Good, a dwelling should be designated and assigned to this person too for permanent residence," and then approve. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" it is understood from the saying, "The Sangha, having considered the great helpfulness of a treasurer, or of Dhamma speakers, Vinaya holders, etc., or of a teacher who recites for the Sangha, and their distinguished qualities, designates and gives a dwelling for permanent residence" (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 120; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). And also, if one says, "This person is learned, one who removes the burden of the Sangha," one should say, "Good, it should be given to this one as something not to be removed," and then approve. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" it is understood from what is stated in the Parivāra Commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 495-496), "Even a dwelling not to be removed for a learned bhikkhu who removes the burden of the Sangha." Then, having asked, "Is such a person endowed with two qualities within the boundary or outside the boundary?" and if it is said, "Within the boundary," it should be accepted, "Good, it should certainly be given to him." If it is said, "Outside the boundary," it should be rejected, "It should not be given." If it is asked, "Why?" it is because of the saying, "Monks, a dwelling should not be taken from one who is outside the boundary; whoever takes it incurs an offense of wrong-doing" (Cūḷava. 318). Then, if there is no one endowed with two qualities within the boundary, having asked, "Is there one endowed with one quality within the boundary?" and if it is said, "There is," it should be accepted, "Good, it should certainly be given to him." If it is asked, "How is this understood?" it is understood from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.119-121) where it says, "Considering the great helpfulness and distinguished qualities," meaning, "considering the great helpfulness of a treasurer and the distinguished qualities of Dhamma speakers, etc., each one." It is understood by the way it comes. When it is said: "There is not even one inside the boundary endowed with a single factor, there is only one outside the boundary," it should be said: "It should be given to one who has come and is standing inside the boundary." If asked, "Why?" It is understood by the statement in the commentary: "Even to those who have not yet arrived, but have entered the vicinity boundary, when taking them among disciples and so forth, it should indeed be given." But if two or three bhikkhus, being equally endowed with one factor or with two factors, were present inside the boundary, to whom should it be given? To the senior. If asked, "How is this understood?" By the statement: "And, O bhikkhus, that which belongs to the Sangha should not be denied to the senior. Whoever denies it, commits an offense of wrong-doing." But if inside the boundary there is no bhikkhu endowed with one factor or with two factors, and all the resident bhikkhus are foolish and ignorant, in such a case, to whom should it be given? The visiting bhikkhu who comes to that monastery, if he is conscientious, amiable, learned, and desirous of training, that monastery should be given to him by those resident bhikkhus, having made an arrangement so that he does not go elsewhere. If asked, "How is this matter to be known?" Because it was laid down by the Perfectly Enlightened One: "Here, O bhikkhus, in a certain monastery, many bhikkhus dwell, foolish and ignorant. They do not know the Uposatha, nor the Uposatha ceremony, nor the Pātimokkha, nor the recitation of the Pātimokkha. There, another bhikkhu comes, learned, who has received the tradition, a master of Dhamma, a master of Vinaya, a master of the Mātikā, wise, experienced, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, desirous of training. That bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, should be welcomed, supported, persuaded, and attended to by those bhikkhus with powder, with clay, with tooth-sticks, and with water for the mouth. If they do not welcome, do not support, do not persuade, do not attend to him with powder, with clay, with tooth-sticks, and with water for the mouth, there is an offense of wrong-doing." And in the commentary: "He should be welcomed" means "that..." Indeed, venerable sir, you have come. Here alms food is easy to obtain, with good curries. Dwell without weariness. Thus he should be welcomed with kind words. He should be assisted by doing so again and again. He should be encouraged to reply, 'Yes, I will dwell.' Or, he should be welcomed and assisted with the four requisites. He should be encouraged with kind words. Meaning, he should be spoken to pleasantly. He should be attended to with powders and so forth. It is an offense of wrong-doing if the entire Sangha does not do so. For all, it is a wrong-doing. Here, neither elders nor young ones are exempt. All should attend in turn. For one who does not attend in their turn, there is an offense. However, sweeping the monastery grounds, offering tooth-sticks, and such, should not be accepted from great elders. Even so, great elders should come for attendance morning and evening. Therefore, knowing of their coming, one should go to attend the great elders first. If he has companion monks as attendants, 'I have attendants, you all dwell without much concern,' should be said. But if he has no companions, and in that very monastery, one or two monks endowed with proper conduct say, 'We will do what needs to be done for my elder, let the rest dwell at ease,' then there is no offense for anyone, as it is stated. Thus, such a monk, who has come from outside the boundary to inside the boundary, who is conscientious, amiable, learned, and desirous of training, it is understood that a suitable dwelling should be provided for him to reside permanently within the boundary. But has it not been said by the Blessed One, "Monks, a lodging should not be taken for one standing outside the boundary; whoever takes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (Cūḷavagga 318)? Then why should a monastery be given for permanent dwelling to one who has come from outside the boundary? It is said: "For one standing outside the boundary" – this is a genitive case of disregard. Therefore, the meaning should be understood as: a lodging should not be taken for one who is *still* standing outside the boundary, not for that monk who, having been outside the boundary, has entered inside the boundary. The meaning is that even for him, a lodging should not be taken. Therefore, even if he was previously outside the boundary, from the time he now enters within the boundary, the share of the four requisites is received. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379): "Hearing that much robes have arisen in a certain monastery, monks come even from monasteries a yojana away. It should be given to those who have arrived, from the place where they are staying." When those within the boundary are unable to recite the Pātimokkha, the dwelling where there is a reciter of the Pātimokkha should be gone to. Even during the Rains Retreat, one cannot reside without a reciter of the Pātimokkha. Where there is a reciter of the Pātimokkha, one should go there and reside for the Rains Retreat. Therefore, even a monk who has come from outside the boundary, who is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, should be accepted. This was said by the Blessed One: "Here, monks, on the Uposatha day, in a certain dwelling, many monks dwell, foolish and inexperienced. They do not know the Uposatha, nor the Uposatha ceremony, nor the Pātimokkha, nor the recitation of the Pātimokkha. By those monks, monks, one monk from the vicinity of the dwelling should be sent quickly, saying: 'Go, friend, and learn the Pātimokkha, either in brief or in detail, and come back.' If this can be obtained, that is good. If it cannot be obtained, then, monks, all those monks should go to the dwelling where they know the Uposatha, or the Uposatha ceremony, or the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. If they do not go, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Here, monks, in a certain dwelling, many monks reside for the Rains Retreat, foolish and inexperienced. They do not know the Uposatha, nor the Uposatha ceremony, nor the Pātimokkha, nor the recitation of the Pātimokkha. By those monks, monks, one monk from the vicinity of the dwelling should be sent quickly, saying: 'Go, friend, and learn the Pātimokkha, either in brief or in detail, and come back.' If this can be obtained, that is good. If it cannot be obtained..." If there is, one bhikkhu should be sent for seven days, saying, 'Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha, either briefly or extensively, and return.' If they can obtain this, that is good. If they cannot obtain it, then, monks, those bhikkhus should not reside for the Rains in that dwelling. If they do reside,