English
Veyyāvaccakara means a doer of tasks, a maker of what is proper – this is the meaning. This, "A steward should be designated," is permitted because it was said with proper speech: "Is there, venerable sir, any steward for you?" But if the messenger says, "Who takes this? Or to whom shall I give it?" he should not be designated. Or a monastery attendant, or a lay follower – this was said for suitability. But apart from the five co-religionists, anyone who is a maker of what is proper is suitable. Indeed, friends, this is a steward for the bhikkhus – this, because the messenger asked, "Is there, venerable sir, any steward for you?" is by way of a question for the bhikkhus... That was said to show the proper speech. Indeed, a bhikkhu should speak thus, not "Give it to him," and so on. Therefore, the Pāli says, "One should not say, 'Give it to him,'" and so on. But in the Vimativinodanīya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) it is said, "This... 'one should not say, "Give it to him,"' and so on, was said to avoid the acceptance of improper things." "He has been instructed by me" means that just as he will give the robe when you have need of a robe, so it was said. But in the Vimativinodanīya it is said, "'He has been informed,' and so on, was said to show that only when the messenger has said this again is it proper to make a claim, not otherwise." Here, however, in the Pāli, it is said thus because "He has been informed by me" appears; but in the previous sentence, in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 64), it is said thus because "He has been instructed by me" is placed as a synonymous expression. And thereby it shows that only when the messenger has again reported to the bhikkhu that the proper-maker has been informed, should the bhikkhu make a claim against the proper-maker, not if it has not been reported. "Friend, I have need of a robe" – this is an example of the characteristic of a claim. Indeed, this word should be spoken, or its meaning in any language. But "Give me a robe," and so on, were said to show the manner in which one should not speak. Indeed, these words, or their meaning, should not be spoken in any language. "And one who speaks thus, because it is forbidden, incurs a dukkaṭa for the manner of speech, but the claim is still valid" – this is said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada and the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. But in the Vimativinodanīya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) it is said, "One should not say, 'Give me a robe... let a robe be bought for me,' because by accepting money brought by a messenger, and by himself designating a proper-maker, one who says 'Give me a robe... let a robe be bought for me' is, due to the nature of money, exchanging it with that money and engaging in a money transaction by saying 'Give, let it be bought,' and that fault..." It is said to avoid [it] from afar, like money deposited in the midst of the Sangha by one who accepts money. For it is said there, ‘Friend, do not bring this or that.’ Therefore, it should be understood that this is not said to avoid the fault of solicitation, because it would lead to the impropriety of saying ‘Friend, I need a robe.’ For this reason, since there is no suspicion of money transactions in what is indicated by a messenger, it is said that one may have it brought even by appointing another suitable person. Even there, it is said that the intention should be taken as having it brought by simply saying "Have the robe brought," without saying "Have the robe bought with the money deposited by the messenger and brought." Thus, by urging up to three times, saying "This is good," one is able to obtain that robe as one's own acquisition. This is good, excellent, very beautiful. This is an indication of the characteristic of standing, that one should stand silently, pointing to it, for four, five, or at most six times. And "at most six times" is a verbal noun expression. By "at most six times," it means that one should stand silently, pointing to the robe, and nothing else should be done; this is the characteristic of standing. For this reason, it is said in the commentary, "not sitting, etc." But in the meaning of words – The adverb in grammar, Is called a verb qualifier; It is declared in the Dispensation As a verbal noun. From this statement, the adverb itself, in the usage of the Dispensation, has become known as a verbal noun; Where it says "cooks softly," It means "there is cooking"; Where it says "sleeps comfortably," It means "one does sleeping." From this statement, by this method, the verb qualified by an adverbial word, whether intransitive or transitive, should be connected with the roots *bhū* (to be) and *kar* (to do). The meaning is that the standing should be at most six times, the standing should be done at most six times. By this, the standing should be at most six times, not more than that, six A standing place as the utmost is to be made, not beyond that—this meaning is shown. One should not sit on a seat. Even when it is said, "Venerable sir, sit here," one should not sit. One should not accept food. Even when requested, "Venerable sir, please take some food, such as gruel or snacks," one should not take it. The Dhamma should not be spoken. Even when requested, "Please speak a blessing or an appreciation," nothing should be spoken. Only when asked, "For what reason have you come?" should one say, "Know, friend." "Breaks the standing" means it breaks, it disturbs the reason for coming. "Ṭhāna" is the name for both a standing place and a reason. Therefore, by sitting on a seat, the standing place is disturbed, and also the reason for coming. But in accepting food and so on, only the reason for coming is broken, not the standing place. Therefore it is said, "It breaks the reason for coming." Some, however, say, "By accepting food and so on, the standing place is also broken." That does not agree with the commentary. Even in the sub-commentary, after showing various views, the breaking of the standing place is mentioned. But since that does not correspond with the commentary's statement, out of fear of burdening the text, we do not say it. Now, regarding the three urgings and the six standing places that were mentioned, showing the increase and decrease therein, it says, "If one urges four times," and so on. And because with an increase of one urging, a decrease of two standing places is stated, therefore, the characteristic "urgings are double the standing places" is shown. Thus, by this characteristic, having urged three times, one should stand six times. Having urged two times, one should stand eight times. Having urged once, one should stand ten times. "Stands in various places"— this is said with reference to the standing place itself, moving away from the urger's standing place and indicating various places. "What then of various days?" means: What is there to say about one who does this on various days? There is nothing to say at all—this is the intention. "One should go oneself, or a messenger should be sent"— they say that this must be done even by one who is naturally unwilling to urge. That is not... He experiences some benefit for the bhikkhu, but that robe-money does not accomplish even a small amount of work for that bhikkhu. "Venerables, apply yourselves to your own!" "May the Venerables obtain their own property!" However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) it is said: "Where there is robe-money," and so on, refers to the showing of what should be done when a steward has been designated by oneself and the robe has not been made. Thus, when the bhikkhu tells the owners of the goods, they urge and give. It is permissible, as it is stated in the Anāpatti (Pārā. 541) "The owners urge and give." Therefore, without urging himself, he has the lay followers and others urge them indirectly by speaking, and even if they urge a hundred times and cause the robe to be given, his non-offence is established, because the training rule is not an injunction. So it is said. 65. One who is not designated by anyone, but has attained the state of a steward by his own mouth, is a "mouth-steward." By "unwillingness to consider," it shows that even the Noble Ones, unwilling to give what is available, say that "it does not exist" in common parlance, without any intention to deceive. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539) it is said: "In this context of 'unwillingness to consider,' 'we have no suitable steward' is said with the intention that 'there is no suitable steward who would do such a thing.'" So it is said. In the chapter on medicines, in the story of the merchant Meṇḍaka (Mahāva. 299), it is said that the words "There are, bhikkhus," and so on, are indeed called the Meṇḍaka training rule. There, indeed, when the merchant named Meṇḍaka requested, "Venerable sir, there are indeed paths and wildernesses with little water and little food, not easy to travel without provisions. It would be good, Venerable sir, if the Blessed One would allow provisions for the bhikkhus," the Blessed One said, "I allow, bhikkhus, to seek provisions. Rice for one who desires rice, mung beans for one who desires mung beans, black gram for one who desires black gram, salt for one who desires salt, jaggery for one who desires jaggery, oil for one who desires oil, ghee for one who desires ghee." Having said this, this was said: "There are, bhik..." Monks, people who are faithful and devoted deposit gold with those who make things allowable, saying: ‘With this, give to the venerable one what is allowable.’ I permit, monks, to partake of what is allowable from that, but I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be sought to be partaken of by any means whatsoever. In "they deposit gold with those who make things allowable," there is indeed a declaration to the monk; otherwise, if it were to refer to an unspecified allowable-maker, he should not be reproached. But this was said with reference to an allowable-maker