user471: The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation).
Is this really the case?
If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do?

Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual.
As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind
becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and
they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that
a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and
supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should
reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness
becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come
by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their
life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.”
MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)


user13709: The phrase "even if sent away" occurs in two suttas. The first sutta is MN17 as posted.

MN17:26.7: That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.”

The second sutta is MN122:

MN122:19.2: For what reason would a disciple value following the Teacher, even if sent away?”

MN122 explains further:

MN122:20.1: “A disciple should not value following the Teacher for the sake of statements, songs, or discussions.
MN122:20.2: Why is that?
MN122:20.3: Because for a long time you have learned the teachings, remembering them, reciting them, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically.
MN122:20.4: But a disciple should value following the Teacher, even if asked to go away, for the sake of talk about self-effacement that helps open the heart and leads solely to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That is, talk about fewness of wishes, contentment, seclusion, aloofness, arousing energy, ethics, immersion, wisdom, freedom, and the knowledge and vision of freedom.

Specifically, there is a danger to the student:

MN122:23.4: While meditating withdrawn, they’re visited by a stream of brahmins and householders of the city and country.
MN122:23.5: When this happens, they enjoy infatuation, fall into greed, and return to indulgence.
MN122:23.6: This student is said to be imperiled by the student’s peril.

How could an arahant benefit from and abandon a student in peril even if that student sends them away?

user254: Is this really the case?
Piya Tan's explanation is as follows:

In the case of his dependence on a person, the Sutta instructions are rather curious. If he does not
progress in his practice, he should leave, whether he is properly supported or not, and he need not even
take leave [§§23-24]. However, if he should be able to progress, he should not leave—whether he is able
to properly obtain his life-supports or not. Then, even if the person tells him to leave or drives him away,
he should not leave!
Upon careful consideration, we should be able to understand why the practising monastic should not
leave when his practice is progressing well. The reason is simple enough: nothing should stand in the way
of his impending awakening! Indeed, if the monastic advances in deep meditation and approaches liberation, no one—not even Māra—will be able to drive him from his bodhi-seat, just like the Buddha under
the Bodhi tree during the great awakening.

If that specific individual caretaker is unable ... what should he do?
Maybe show compassion, make merit.
Footnote 23 of Piya Tan's says,

Tena bhikkhave bhikkhunā yāva,jīvam pi so puggalo anubandhitabbo, na pakkamitabbaṁ api panujjamānena
pîti [Be Ee Ce; Se samujjamānena pîti].
As in Paṭisambhidā S 2 (A 7.37/4:32), SD 85.17. Comy says that even if one
were being physically thrown out, driven out with a rod, and so on, one should still remain, patiently living there all
life long (MA 2:72).


471: <p>The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation).</p>
<p>Is this really the case?</p>
<p>If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual.
As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind
becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and
they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that
a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and
supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should
reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness
becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come
by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their
life. <strong>They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away</strong>.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn17/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 17</a> (translated by Ven. Sujato)</p>
</blockquote>
 13709: <p>The phrase &quot;even if sent away&quot; occurs in two suttas. The first sutta is MN17 as posted.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn17/en/sujato#mn17:26.7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN17:26.7</a>: That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second sutta is MN122:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:19.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:19.2</a>: For what reason would a disciple value following the Teacher, even if sent away?”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>MN122 explains further:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:20.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:20.1</a>: “A disciple should not value following the Teacher for the sake of statements, songs, or discussions.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:20.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:20.2</a>: Why is that?<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:20.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:20.3</a>: Because for a long time you have learned the teachings, remembering them, reciting them, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:20.4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:20.4</a>: But a disciple should value following the Teacher, even if asked to go away, for the sake of talk about self-effacement that helps open the heart and leads solely to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That is, talk about fewness of wishes, contentment, seclusion, aloofness, arousing energy, ethics, immersion, wisdom, freedom, and the knowledge and vision of freedom.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Specifically, there is a danger to the student:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:23.4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:23.4</a>: While meditating withdrawn, they’re visited by a stream of brahmins and householders of the city and country.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:23.5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:23.5</a>: When this happens, they enjoy infatuation, fall into greed, and return to indulgence.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato#mn122:23.6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN122:23.6</a>: This student is said to be imperiled by the student’s peril.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How could an arahant benefit from and abandon a student in peril even if that student sends them away?</p>
 254: <p><strong>Is this really the case?</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/52.5-Vanapattha-S-m17-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Piya Tan's explanation</a> is as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the case of his dependence on a person, the Sutta instructions are rather curious. If he does not
progress in his practice, he should leave, whether he is properly supported or not, and he need not even
take leave [§§23-24]. However, if he should be able to progress, he should not leave—whether he is able
to properly obtain his life-supports or not. Then, even if the person tells him to leave or drives him away,
he should not leave!</p>
<p>Upon careful consideration, we should be able to understand why the practising monastic should not
leave when his practice is progressing well. The reason is simple enough: nothing should stand in the way
of his impending awakening! Indeed, if the monastic advances in deep meditation and approaches liberation, no one—not even Māra—will be able to drive him from his bodhi-seat, just like the Buddha under
the Bodhi tree during the great awakening.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>If that specific individual caretaker is unable ... what should he do?</strong></p>
<p>Maybe show compassion, make merit.</p>
<p>Footnote 23 of Piya Tan's says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Tena bhikkhave bhikkhunā yāva,jīvam pi so puggalo anubandhitabbo, na pakkamitabbaṁ api panujjamānena
pîti</em> [Be Ee Ce; Se samujjamānena pîti].<br />
As in Paṭisambhidā S 2 (A 7.37/4:32), SD 85.17. Comy says that even if one
were being physically thrown out, driven out with a rod, and so on, one should still remain, patiently living there all
life long (MA 2:72).</p>
</blockquote>
