Praise to the Lord, the Perfected One, the Fully Self-Awakened One.

Act of censure

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time monks who were followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka and who were themselves makers of strife, makers of quarrels, makers of disputes, makers of contention, makers of legal questions in an Order, having approached other monks who were also makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, spoke thus (to them): “Do not you, venerable ones, let this one defeat you; argue loud and long, for you are wiser and more experienced and have heard more and are cleverer than he is, do not be afraid of him, and we will be on your side.” Because of this, not only did strifes arise which had not arisen before, but also strifes which had arisen rolled on to increase and magnitude.

Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticized, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka and who are themselves makers of strife, makers of quarrels, makers of disputes, makers of contention, makers of legal questions in an Order, having approached other monks who are also makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, speak thus to them: ‘Do not you … and we will be on your side.’ Because of this … also strifes which had arisen rolled on to increase and magnitude.” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying: “Is it true, as is said, monks, that monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka are themselves makers of strife … having approached other monks who are also makers of strife … speak thus to them: ‘Do not you … and we will be on your side’? And that because of this … strifes which have arisen roll on to increase and magnitude?”

“It is true, Lord.” The Awakened One, the Lord, rebuked them, saying:

“It is not suitable, monks, it is not becoming in these foolish men, it is not fitting, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. How, monks, can these foolish men who are themselves makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, speak thus: ‘Do not you … and we will be on your side’? And because of this … strifes which have arisen roll on to increase and magnitude. It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased nor for increasing the number of those who are pleased, but, monks, it is displeasing to those who are not pleased as well as to those who are pleased, and it causes wavering in some.”

Then the Lord, having rebuked these monks, having in many a figure spoken in dispraise of difficulty in supporting and maintaining oneself, of great desires, of lack of contentment, of clinging (to the obstructions), of indolence; having in many a figure spoken in praise of ease in supporting and maintaining oneself, of desiring little, of contentment, of expunging (evil), of punctiliousness, of graciousness, of decreasing (the obstructions), of putting forth energy, having given reasoned talk on what is becoming, on what is fitting for them, addressed the monks, saying:

“Well now, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka.

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out; First, the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka should be reproved; having reproved them, they should be made to remember; having remembered, they should be accused of an offence; having accused them of an offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka and who are themselves makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, having approached other monks who are also makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, spoke thus (to them): “Do not you … and we will be on your side”. Because of this, not only did strifes arise which had not arisen before, but also strifes which had arisen rolled on to increase and magnitude. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out a (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka and who are themselves makers of strife … rolled on to increase and magnitude. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. If the carrying out of a (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka and who are themselves makers of strife … he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. A (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka is being carried out by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“Monks, if it is possessed of three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be not legally valid and not disciplinarily valid and one that is hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out not in the presence of, if it is carried out when there is no interrogation, if it is carried out without the acknowledgement. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be not legally valid, not disciplinarily valid and one that is hard to settle. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be one … and one that is hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out when there is no offence, if it is carried out for an offence that does not lead on to confession, if it is carried out for an offence that has been confessed. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities a (formal) act of censure … one that is hard to settle. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out without having reproved him, if it is carried out without having made him remember, if it is carried out without having accused him of an offence. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … hard to settle. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … one that is hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out not in the presence of, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … one that is hard to settle. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out when there is no interrogation, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be … hard to settle. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities a (formal) act of censure … hard to settle: (that is to say) if it is carried out without the acknowledgement, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out when there is no offence, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out for an offence that does not lead on to confession, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out for an offence that has been confessed, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out without having reproved him, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out without having made him remember, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly … if it is carried out without having accused him of an offence, if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out by an incomplete assembly. If, monks, a (formal) act of censure is possessed of these three qualities it comes to be not legally valid and not disciplinarily valid and one that is hard to settle.”

Told are the Twelve Cases of (Formal) Acts that are not legally valid.

Twelve on an act by rule

“Monks, if it is possessed of three qualities a (formal) act of censure comes to be a (formal) act that is legally valid and a (formal) act that is disciplinarily valid and one that is easily settled: (that is to say) if it is carried out in the presence of, if it is carried out when there is interrogation, if it is carried out with the acknowledgement. Monks, if it is possessed of these three qualities … easily settled. And, monks, if it is possessed of three further qualities … easily settled: (that is to say) if it is carried out when there is an offence, if it is carried out when there is an offence which leads on to confession, if it is carried out when an offence has not been confessed … if it is carried out, having reproved him, if it is carried out, having made him remember, if it is carried out, having accused him of the offence … if it is carried out in the presence of, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out when there is interrogation, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out with the acknowledgement, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out when there is an offence, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out when there is an offence that leads on to confession, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out when an offence has not been confessed, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out having reproved him, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out having made him remember, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly … if it is carried out having accused him of an offence, if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out by a complete assembly. If, monks, a (formal) act of censure is possessed of these three qualities it comes to be a (formal) act that is legally valid and a (formal) act that is disciplinarily valid and one that is easily settled.

Told are the Twelve Cases of (Formal) Acts that are legally valid.

Six on desires

“Monks, if a monk is possessed-of three qualities, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of censure against him: if he is a maker of strife, a maker of quarrels, a maker of disputes, a maker of contention, a maker of legal questions in an Order; if he is ignorant, inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; if he lives in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of censure against him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities an Order … against him: if, in regard to moral habit, he comes to have fallen away from moral habit; if, in regard to good habits, he comes to have fallen away from good habits; if, in regard to (right) views, he comes to have fallen away from (right) views. Monks, if a monk is possessed … against him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of censure against him: if he speaks dispraise of the Awakened One, if he speaks dispraise of dhamma, if he speaks dispraise of the Order. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of censure against him.

Monks, if an Order desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of censure against three (kinds of) monks: against the one who is a maker of strife … a maker of legal questions in the Order; against the one who is ignorant, inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; against the one who lives in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders. Monks, if the Order desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of censure against these three (kinds of) monks. And, monks, if the Order desires, it may carry out … against three further (kinds of) monks: against the one who, in regard to moral habit, comes to have fallen away from moral habit, against the one who, in regard to good habits, comes to have fallen away from good habits, against the one who, in regard to (right) views, comes to have fallen away from (right) views. Monks, if an Order desires … against these three (kinds of) monks. And, monks, if an Order desires, it may carry out … against three further (kinds of) monks: against the one who speaks dispraise of the Awakened One, against the one who speaks dispraise of dhamma, against the one who speaks dispraise of the Order. Monks, if an Order desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of censure against these three (kinds of) monks.

Told are the Six Cases on Being Desirous.

Eighteen duties

“Monks, when a (formal) act of censure has been carried out against a monk, he should conduct himself properly. This is the proper conduct in this case: he should not ordain, he should not give guidance, a novice should not attend him, the agreement for him to exhort nuns should not be consented to, and even if he is agreed upon nuns should not be exhorted (by him), he should not fall into that (same) offence for which a (formal) act of censure came to be carried out against him by an Order, nor into another that is similar, nor into one that is worse, he should not find fault with the (formal) act, he should not find fault with those who carry out the (formal) act, he should not suspend a regular monk’s Observance, he should not suspend his Invitation, he should not issue commands, he should not set up authority, he should not ask for leave, he should not reprove, he should not make remember, he should not quarrel with monks”.

Told are the Eighteen Observances connected with a (Formal) Act of Censure.

Eighteen cases that should not be revoked

Then the Order carried out a (formal) act of censure against the monks who were followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. These, when the (formal) act of censure had been carried out against them by the Order, conducted themselves properly, were subdued, mended their ways, and having approached monks, they spoke thus: “We, your reverences, against whom a (formal) act of censure was carried out by the Order, are conducting ourselves properly, we are subdued, we are mending our ways. Now, what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Well then, monks, let the Order revoke the (formal) act of censure against the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka.

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities a (formal) act of censure should not be revoked: if he ordains, if he gives guidance, if a novice attends him, if he consents to the agreement for him to exhort nuns, if he exhorts nuns even although agreed upon. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities a (formal) act of censure should not be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities a (formal) act of censure should not be revoked: if he falls into that (same) offence for which the (formal) act of censure was carried out against him by the Order, or into another that is similar, or into one that is worse, if he finds fault with the (formal) act, if he finds fault with those who carry out the (formal) act. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities a (formal) act of censure should not be revoked.

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of eight qualities a (formal) act of censure should not be revoked: if he suspends a regular monk’s Observance, if he suspends his Invitation, if he issues commands, if he sets up authority, if he asks for leave, if he reproves, if he makes remember, if he quarrels with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities the (formal) act of censure should not be revoked.”

Told are the Eighteen Cases where (a Formal Act of Censure) should not be revoked.

Eighteen cases that should be revoked

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities a (formal) act of censure may be revoked: if he does not ordain, if he does not give guidance, if a novice does not attend him, if he does not consent to the agreement for exhorting nuns, if, although agreed upon, he does not exhort nuns. Monks, if a monk is possessed … may be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities a (formal) act of censure may be revoked: if he does not fall into that (same) offence for which the (formal) act of censure came to be carried out against him, nor into another that is similar, nor into one that is worse, if he does not find fault with the (formal) act, if he does not find fault with those who carry out the (formal) act. Monks, if a monk … may be revoked.

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of eight qualities a (formal) act of censure may be revoked: if he does not suspend a regular monk’s Observance, if he does not suspend his Invitation, if he does not issue commands, if he does not set up authority, if he does not ask for leave, if he does not reprove, if he does not make remember, if he does not quarrel with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities the (formal) act of censure may be revoked.”

Told are the Eighteen Cases (where a Formal Act of Censure) may be revoked.

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked: Those monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka, having approached the Order, having (each) arranged the upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on their haunches, having stretched forth their joined palms, should speak thus to it: ‘A (formal) act of censure, honoured sirs, was carried out against us by the Order; but we are conducting ourselves properly, we are subdued, we are mending our ways; and we ask for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure’. And a second time it should be asked for … And a third time it should be asked for … The Order should be informed by an experienced competent monk, saying:

“‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks, followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka, against whom a (formal) act of censure was carried out by the Order, are conducting themselves properly, they are subdued, they are mending their ways, and they ask for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may revoke the (formal) act of censure for the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks, followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka, against whom a (formal) act of censure was carried out by the Order, are conducting themselves properly, they are subdued, they are mending their ways, and they ask for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. The Order is revoking the (formal) act of censure for the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. If the revocation of the (formal) act of censure for the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … should speak. The (formal) act of censure is revoked by the Order for the monks who are followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the First (Formal) Act: that of Censure.

Act of guidance

Now at that time the venerable Seyyasaka was ignorant, inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; he lived in company with householders, in unbecoming association with householders. So much so that the monks were done up with granting him probation, sending him back to the beginning, imposing mānatta, rehabilitating him. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can the venerable Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced … rehabilitating him?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying: “Is it true, as is said, monks, that the monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced … rehabilitating him?”

“It is true, Lord.” The Awakened One, the Lord, rebuked them, saying:

“It is not suitable, monks, it is not becoming in this foolish man, it is not fitting, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. For how, monks, can this foolish man, ignorant, inexperienced … rehabilitating him? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased, nor for increasing the number of those who are pleased …” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: ‘You should live in dependence’.

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Seyyasaka should be reproved; having reproved him, he should be made to remember; having made him remember, he should be accused of the offence; having accused him of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced … rehabilitating him. If it seems right to the Order, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: “You should live in dependence.” This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced … rehabilitating him. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: “You should live in dependence”. If the carrying out of the (formal) act of guidance, saying: “You should live in dependence”, for the monk Seyyasaka is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. A (formal) act of guidance, saying: “You should live in dependence,” is being carried out by the Order for the monk Seyyasaka. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“If a monk, monks, is possessed of three qualities … = Kd.11.2–Kd.11.5. Instead of (formal) act of censure, by carrying out a (formal) act of censure read (formal) act of guidance, by carrying out a (formal) act of guidance …

Twelve on an act by rule

Note by Sujato: This and following sections, which consist of variations on the preceding, were omitted in Horner’s translation.

Six on desiring

Eighteen duties

… he should not quarrel with monks.”

Told are the Eighteen Observances connected with a (Formal) Act of Guidance.

Then the Order carried out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: “You should live in dependence.” After the (formal) act of guidance had been carried out by the Order, he, choosing, associating with, visiting friends who were lovely (in deed), making them recite, interrogating them, came to be one who had heard much, one to whom the tradition was handed down; an expert in dhamma, an expert in discipline, an expert in the headings; experienced, wise, modest, scrupulous, desirous of the training; he conducted himself properly, was subdued, and mended his ways; and, having approached monks, he spoke thus: “I, your reverences, for whom a (formal) act of guidance was carried out by the Order, am conducting myself properly, I am subdued and am mending my ways. What line of conduct should be followed by me? “They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Well then, monks, let the Order revoke the (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka.

Eighteen cases that should not be revoked

Not in Horner’s translation.

Eighteen cases that should be revoked

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities … = Kd.11.6.2–Kd.11.7.1 Instead of (formal) act of censure read (formal) act of guidance … may be revoked.

Told are the Eighteen Cases (where a Formal Act of Guidance) may be revoked.

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked. Monks, the monk Seyyasaka, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having stretched forth his joined palms, should speak thus to it: ‘I, honoured sirs, for whom a (formal) act of guidance was carried out by the Order, am conducting myself properly, I am subdued, I am mending my ways; I ask for the revocation of the (formal) act of guidance’. And a second time it should be asked for … And a third time it should be asked for.

“The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, for whom a (formal) act of guidance was carried out by the Order, is conducting himself properly, he is subdued, he is mending his ways; he asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of guidance. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may revoke the (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, for whom a (formal) act of guidance was carried out by the Order, is conducting himself properly, he is subdued, he is mending his ways; he asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of guidance. If the revocation of the (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … The (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka is revoked by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the Second (Formal) Act: that of Guidance.

Act of banishment

Now at that time unscrupulous, depraved monks who were followers of Assaji and Punabbasu were in residence at Kiṭāgiri. They indulged in the following kinds of bad habits: they planted and caused to be planted small flowering trees; they watered them and had them watered; they plucked them and had them plucked; they tied them up into (garlands) and had them tied up; they made garlands and had them made with a stalk on one side; they made garlands and had them made with a stalk on both sides; they made and had a branching flower-stalk made; they made a wreath and had one made; they made a garland worn round the forehead and had one made; they made and had an ear-ornament made; they made and had a breast-plate made. These (monks) took or sent garlands having a stalk on one side to wives of reputable families, to daughters of reputable families, to girls of reputable families, to daughters-in-law of reputable families, to female slaves of reputable families. They took or sent garlands having a stalk on both sides; they took or sent a branching flower-stalk; they took or sent a wreath … a garland worn round the forehead … an ear-ornament … a breastplate. These ate from one dish together with wives of reputable families, with daughters of reputable families, with girls of reputable families, with daughters-in-law of reputable families, with women slaves of reputable families; and they drank from the same beaker; they sat down on the same seat; they shared one couch; they shared one mat; they shared one coverlet; they shared one mat and coverlet. And they ate at the wrong time; and they drank intoxicants; and they wore garlands and used perfumes and cosmetics; they danced and sang and played musical instruments, and they sported. They danced when she danced; they sang when she danced; they played musical instruments when she danced; they sported when she danced; they danced when she sang … they danced when she played musical instruments … they danced when she sported … they sported when she sported.

They played on a chequered board for gambling; they played on a draught-board: they played with imagining such boards in the air; they played a game of keeping stepping on to diagrams; they played with spillikans … at dice … tip-cat … brush-hand … with a ball … at blowing through toy pipes made of leaves … with a toy plough … at turning somersaults … with a toy windmill … with a toy measure of leaves … with a toy cart … with a toy bow … they played a game of guessing at letters … a mind-reading game … a game of mimicking deformities … they trained themselves in elephant lore … horse lore … carriage lore … archery … swordsmanship … then they ran in front of an elephant … a horse … a chariot; now they ran backwards, now they ran forwards; and they whistled and they snapped their fingers and they wrestled and they fought with fists; and, having spread out their upper robes as a stage, they said to a dancing-girl: “Dance here, sister”, and they applauded, and they indulged in various bad habits.

Now at that time a certain monk, having spent the rains among the people of Kāsī, while going to Sāvatthī so as to see the Lord, arrived at Kiṭāgiri. Then this monk, dressing early and taking his bowl and robe entered Kiṭāgiri for almsfood. He was pleasing whether he was approaching or departing, whether he was looking forward or looking behind, whether he was drawing in or stretching out (his arm), his eyes were cast down, he was possessed of pleasant deportment. People, having seen this monk, spoke thus:

“Who can this be like an idiot of idiots, like a fool of fools, like a very supercilious person? Who will go up to him and give him alms? Our masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu are polite, genial, pleasant of speech, beaming with smiles, saying: ‘Come, you are welcome’. They are not supercilious, they are easily accessible, they are the first to speak. Therefore alms should be given to them.”

A certain lay follower saw that monk walking for almsfood in Kiṭāgiri; seeing that monk, he went up to him, and having gone up to him and greeted him, he said: “Honoured sir, are alms obtainable?”

“No, sir, alms are not obtainable.”

“Come, honoured sir, we will go to (my) house.”

Then that lay follower, having taken that monk to his house and made him eat, said:

“Where, honoured sir, will the master go?”

“I will go to Sāvatthī, sir, to see the Lord.”

“Then, honoured sir, in my name salute the Lord’s feet with your head and say: ‘Lord, the residence at Kiṭāgiri has been corrupted. At Kiṭāgiri are residing unscrupulous, depraved monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu. They indulge in the following bad habits … they indulge in a variety of bad habits. Lord, those men who formerly had faith and were believing now have no faith and are not believing. Those who formerly were channels for gifts to the Order are now cut off; they neglect the well behaved monks, and the depraved monks stay on. It were good, Lord, if the Lord would send monks to Kiṭāgiri, so that this residence at Kiṭāgiri may be settled.’

“Very well, sir,” and that monk having answered the lay follower in assent, rising from his seat departed for Sāvatthī. Gradually he approached Sāvatthī, the Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery and the Lord; having approached and greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. Now it is the custom for Awakened Ones, for Lords to exchange greetings with in-coming monks. So the Lord said to this monk:

“I hope, monk, that it is going well with you, I hope that you are keeping going, I hope you have accomplished your journey with little fatigue? And where do you come from, monk?”

“Things go well, Lord, I am keeping going, Lord, and I, Lord, accomplished my journey with little fatigue. Now, I, Lord, having spent the rains among the people of Kāsī, and while coming to Sāvatthī to see the Lord, arrived at Kiṭāgiri. Then I, Lord, dressing early, and taking my bowl and robe, entered Kiṭāgiri for almsfood. Then, Lord, a certain lay follower saw me as I was walking in Kiṭāgiri for almsfood, and seeing me, he approached, and having approached, he greeted me and said: ‘Honoured sir, are alms obtainable?’ ‘No, sir, alms are not obtainable I said. ‘Come, honoured sir, we will go to (my) house he said. Then, Lord, that lay follower, taking me to his house and feeding me, said: ‘Where, honoured sir, will the master go?’ I said: ‘I will go to Sāvatthī, sir, to see the Lord.’ Then he said: ‘Then, honoured sir … may be settled’. Therefore, Lord, do I come.”

Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, asked the monks, saying:

“Monks, is it true, as is said, that monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, residing in Kiṭāgiri, are unscrupulous and depraved and indulge in the following bad habits: they plant small flowering trees … indulge in a variety of bad habits … and those men … and the depraved monks stay on?”

“It is true, Lord.”

The Awakened One, the Lord, rebuked them, saying:

“How, monks, can these foolish men indulge in bad habits such as these? How can they plant and cause small flowering trees to be planted, and water them and have them watered, and pluck them and have them plucked, and how can they tie them up into (garlands) and have them tied up? How can they make and have garlands made …? How can they take and send …? How can they eat … drink … sit … stand … eat … drink … run … dance and sing and play musical instruments and sport … play … train themselves … run … run round facing …? How can they whistle and snap their fingers and wrestle and fight with fists, and having spread out their upper robes as a stage, say to a dancing-girl: ‘Dance here, sister,’ and applaud and indulge in a variety of bad habits? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …”, and having rebuked them and given reasoned talk, he addressed Sāriputta and Moggallāna, saying:

“Do you go, Sāriputta and Moggallāna, and having gone to Kiṭāgiri, carry out a (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against those monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu; these are those who share your cells.”

“How, Lord, do we carry out a (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against those monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu? These monks are fierce and rough.”

“Well then, Sāriputta and Moggallāna, go together with many monks.”

“Very well, Lord,” Sāriputta and Moggallāna answered the Lord in assent.

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out. First, the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu should be reproved; having reproved them, they should be made to remember; having made them remember, they should be accused of an offence; having accused them of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu are those who bring families into disrepute and are of evil conduct; their evil conduct is seen and also heard and respectable families corrupted by them are seen and also heard. If it seems right to the Order, the Order should carry out a (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu by which the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu should not remain in Kiṭāgiri. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are … seen and also heard. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu by which the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu should not remain in Kiṭāgiri. If the carrying out of the (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu by which they should not remain in Kiṭāgiri is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter. The (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu by which they should not remain in Kiṭāgiri is carried out by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“Monks, if it is possessed of three qualities a (formal) act of banishment comes to be not legally valid, not disciplinarily valid and one that is hard to settle … …

Twelve on an act by rule

Not in Horner’s translation.

Fourteen on desiring

… against the one who speaks dispraise of the Order. Monks, if an Order desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against these three (kinds of) monks.

“And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him: if he is possessed of bodily frivolity, if he is possessed of verbal frivolity, if he is possessed of bodily and verbal frivolity. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities … against him: if he is possessed of bodily bad habits, if he is possessed of verbal bad habits, if he is possessed of bodily and verbal bad habits. Monks, if a monk … a (formal) act of banishment against him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities … against him: if he is possessed of harming by means of body, if he is possessed of harming by means of speech, if he is possessed of harming by means of body and speech. Monks, if a monk … against him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of three further qualities, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him: if he is possessed of a wrong bodily mode of livelihood, if he is possessed of a wrong verbal mode of livelihood, if he is possessed of a wrong bodily and verbal mode of livelihood. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him.

“Monks, if an Order so desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against three (kinds of) monks: against the one who is a maker of strife … as in Kd.11.4.2 … against the one who speaks dispraise of the Order. Monks, if an Order so desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against these three (kinds of) monks. And, monks, if an Order so desires it may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against three further (kinds of) monks: against the one who is possessed of bodily frivolity, against the one who is possessed of verbal frivolity, against the one who is possessed of bodily and verbal frivolity … against the one who is possessed of wrong bodily and verbal mode of livelihood. Monks, if an Order so desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of banishment against these three (kinds of) monks.

Eighteen duties

“Monks, a monk against whom a (formal) act of banishment has been carried out should conduct himself properly. This is the proper conduct in this case … as in Kd.11.5 … he should not quarrel with monks.”

Told are the Eighteen Observances connected with a (Formal) Act of Banishment.

Then Sāriputta and Moggallāna at the head of an Order of monks, having arrived at Kiṭāgiri, carried out a (formal) act of banishment from Kiṭāgiri against the monks who were followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, by which the monks who were followers of Assaji and Punabbasu should not stay in Kiṭāgiri. When the (formal) act of banishment had been carried out by the Order, these did not conduct themselves properly, they were not subdued, they did not mend their ways, they did not ask the monks for forgiveness, they abused them, they reviled them, they offended by following a wrong course through desire, by following a wrong course through hatred, by following a wrong course through stupidity, by following a wrong course through fear; and they went away and they left the Order. Those who were modest monks looked down on, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can the monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, against whom a (formal) act of banishment has been carried out by the Order, not conduct themselves properly, not be subdued, not mend their ways? Why do they not ask for forgiveness from the monks? Why do they abuse and revile them? Why do they, following a wrong course through desire … hatred … stupidity … fear, go away and leave the Order? “Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that monks who are followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, against whom a (formal) act of banishment has been carried out by the Order, do not conduct themselves properly, are not subdued, … and leave the Order?”

“It is true, Lord.”

“How, monks, can these foolish men, against whom a (formal) act of banishment has been carried out by the Order, not conduct themselves properly … and leave the Order? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, do not let the Order revoke the (formal) act of banishment.

Eighteen cases that should not be revoked

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities the (formal) act of banishment against him should not be revoked: if he ordains … as in Kd.11.6.2 …

Eighteen cases that should be revoked

… if he does not quarrel with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities the (formal) act of banishment may be revoked.

Told are the Eighteen Cases where a (Formal) Act of Banishment may be revoked.

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked. Monks, that monk against whom the (formal) act of banishment has been carried out, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having stretched forth his joined palms, should speak thus to it: ‘A (formal) act of banishment, honoured sirs, was carried out against me by the Order, but I am conducting myself properly, I am subdued, I am mending my ways. I ask for the revocation of the (formal) act of banishment’. And a second time it should be asked for, and a third time it should be asked for. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying:

“‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk So-and-so, against whom a (formal) act of banishment was carried out by an Order, is conducting himself properly, he is subdued, he is mending his ways, and he asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of banishment. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may revoke the (formal) act of banishment against the monk So-and-so. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk So-and-so … and he asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of banishment. The Order is revoking the (formal) act of banishment for the monk So-and-so. If the revocation of the (formal) act of banishment for the monk So-and-so is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the Third (Formal) Act: that of Banishment.

Act of reconciliation

Now at that time the venerable Sudhamma was a resident in the householder Citta’s Macchikāsaṇḍa, an overseer of new buildings, a constant adviser. Whenever the householder Citta wished to invite an Order or a group or an individual he did not invite the Order or the group or the individual without having asked the venerable Sudhamma for permission. Now at that time several monks who were elders—the venerable Sāriputta and the venerable Moggallāna the Great and the venerable Kaccāna the Great and the venerable Koṭṭhita the Great and the venerable Kappina the Great and the venerable Cunda the Great, and the venerable Anuruddha and the venerable Revata and the venerable Upāli and the venerable Ānanda and the venerable Rāhula—walking on tour in Kāsī arrived in Macchikāsaṇḍa. The householder Citta heard that these monks who were elders had reached Macchikāsaṇḍa. Then the householder Citta approached these monks who were elders; having approached, having greeted these monks who were elders, he sat down at a respectful distance. As the householder Citta was sitting down at a respectful distance, the Venerable Sāriputta delighted, rejoiced, roused, gladdened him with talk on dhamma. Then the householder Citta, delighted … gladdened with the venerable Sāriputta’s talk on dhamma, spoke thus to the monks who were elders: “Honoured sirs, let the elders consent to come to a meal with me on the morrow.” The monks who were elders consented by becoming silent.

Then the householder Citta, having understood the consent of the monks who were elders, rising from his seat, having I greeted the monks who were elders, keeping his right side towards them, approached the venerable Sudhamma; having approached, having greeted the venerable Sudhamma, he stood at a respectful distance. As he was standing at a respectful distance, the householder Citta spoke thus to the venerable Sudhamma:

“Honoured sir, may master Sudhamma consent to a meal with me on the morrow together with the elders.”

Then the venerable Sudhamma thought: “Formerly, when I the householder Citta wished to invite an Order or a group or an individual, he did not invite the Order or the group or the individual without having asked me for permission; but now he invites monks who are elders without having asked me for permission. This householder Citta is now corrupted, he is indifferent to me, detached from me”, and he spoke thus to the householder Citta: “No, householder, I do not consent.” And a second time … And a third time did the householder Citta speak thus to the venerable Sudhamma: “Honoured sir, may master Sudhamma consent to a meal with me on the morrow together with the elders.”

“No, householder, I do not consent.”

Then the householder Citta thinking: “What can master Sudhamma, either consenting or not consenting, do to me?” having greeted the venerable Sudhamma, departed keeping his right side towards him.

Then, towards the end of that night, the householder Citta had sumptuous foods, solid and soft, prepared for the monks who were elders. Then the venerable Sudhamma, thinking: “Suppose I were to see what has been prepared on behalf of the householder Citta for the elders?” having dressed in the morning, taking his bowl and robe, approached the dwelling of the householder Citta; having approached, he sat down on an appointed seat. Then the householder Citta approached the venerable Sudhamma; having approached, having greeted the venerable Sudhamma, he sat down at a respectful distance. The venerable Sudhamma spoke thus to the householder Citta as he was sitting down at a respectful distance:

“Truly abundant, householder, is this solid and soft food prepared by you, but one thing is not here, that is to say sesamum cake.”

“Although, honoured sir, much treasure is to be found in the Awakened One’s words, just this is mentioned by master Sudhamma, that is to say sesamum cake. Formerly, honoured sir, some merchants of the Deccan went to an eastern district for trading and from there they brought back a hen. Then, honoured sir, that hen mated with a crow and produced a chick. And whenever, honoured sir, that chick wanted to utter the cry of a crow it uttered a “cockadoodle-doo” whenever it wanted to utter the cry of a cock it uttered a “caw”. In the same way, honoured sir, although much treasure is to be found in the Awakened One’s words, just this is mentioned by master Sudhamma, that is to say sesamum cake.”

“You, householder, are reviling me, you, householder, are abusing me; this is your residence, householder, I will go away.”

“Honoured sir, I am not reviling and abusing master Sudhamma; honoured sir, let master Sudhamma remain in Macchikāsaṇḍa delightful is the Wild Mango Grove; I will make an effort for master Sudhamma in respect of the requisites of robes, almsfood, lodgings and medicines for the sick.” And a second time … And a third time did the venerable Sudhamma speak thus to the householder Citta: “You, householder, are reviling me … I will go away.”

“Where, honoured sir, will master Sudhamma go?”

“I, householder, will go to Sāvatthī to see the Lord.”

“Well then, honoured sir, tell the Lord everything that was said by you and that was said by me. But this, honoured sir, will not be surprising: that master Sudhamma should come back again to Macchikāsaṇḍa.”

Then the venerable Sudhamma, having packed away his lodgings, taking his bowl and robe, set out for Sāvatthī. In due course he approached Sāvatthī, the Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery, the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Sudhamma told the Lord everything that had been said by himself and that had been said by the householder Citta. The Awakened One, the Lord rebuked him, saying:

“It is not suiting, foolish man, it is not becoming, it is not fitting, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. How can you, foolish man, jeer at the householder Citta, who has faith and is believing, who is a benefactor, a worker, a supporter of the Order, with a low thing, and scoff at him with a low thing? It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” and having rebuked him, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying: “Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: ‘The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you.’

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Sudhamma should be reproved, having reproved him, he should be made to remember, having made him remember, he should be accused of the offence, having accused him of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Sudhamma jeered at the householder Citta who has faith and is believing, a benefactor, a worker, a supporter of the Order, with a low thing, he scoffed at him with a low thing. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: “The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you”. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Sudhamma jeered at the householder Citta … scoffed at him with a low thing. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: “The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you”. If the carrying out of the (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: “The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you” is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … you should speak. A (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: “The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you” is carried out by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“Monks, if it is possessed of three qualities, a (formal) act of reconciliation … = Kd.11.2, Kd.11.3 …

Twelve on an act by rule

… and is easily settled.

Four on desiring

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities, the Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for him: if he tries for non-receiving (of gains) by householders; if he tries for non-profiting by householders; if he tries for non-residence for householders; if he reviles and abuses householders; if he causes householder to break with householder. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities … act of reconciliation for him. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities, the Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for him: if he speaks dispraise of the Awakened One to householders, if he speaks dispraise of dhamma to householders, if he speaks dispraise of the Order to householders, if he jeers at a householder with a low thing, if he scoffs at him with a low thing, if he does not fulfil, according to rule, his assent (given) to householders. Monks, if a monk … act of reconciliation for him. And, monks, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for five (kinds of) monks: for the one who tries for non-receiving (of gains) by householders; for the one who tries for non-profiting by householders; for the one who tries for non-residence for householders; for the one who reviles and abuses householders; for the one who causes householder to break with householder. Monks, an Order … for these five (kinds of) monks. And monks, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for five further (kinds of) monks: for the one who speaks dispraise of the Awakened One to householders … of dhamma to householders … of an Order to householders, for the one who jeers at a householder with a low thing, scoffs at him with a low thing, for the one who does not fulfil, according to rule, his assent (given) to householders. Monks, an Order, if it so desires, may carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for these five (kinds of) monks.

Told are the Four times Five Cases on Being Desirous.

Eighteen duties

“Monks, a monk for whom a (formal) act of reconciliation has been carried out should conduct himself properly … = Kd.11.5, reading act of reconciliation for act of censure … he should not quarrel with monks.”

Told are the Eighteen Observances connected with a (Formal) Act of Reconciliation

Then the Order earned out a (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma, saying: “The householder Citta should be asked to forgive you.” He, having gone to Macchikāsaṇḍa when the (formal) act of reconciliation had been carried out by the Order, becoming ashamed, was unable to ask the householder Citta to forgive him, and he went back again to Sāvatthī. Monks spoke thus: “Did you ask the householder Citta to forgive you?”

“Now, I, your reverences, having gone to Macchikāsaṇḍa, becoming ashamed, was unable to ask the householder Citta to forgive (me).” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “Well then, monks, let the Order give a companion messenger to the monk Sudhamma to ask the householder Citta to forgive him. And thus, monks should he be given: First, a monk should be asked; having asked him, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may give the monk So-and-so as a companion messenger to the monk Sudhamma to ask the householder Citta to forgive him. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is giving the monk So-and-so as a companion messenger to the monk Sudhamma to ask the householder Citta to forgive him. If the giving of the monk So-and-so as a companion messenger to the monk Sudhamma to ask the householder Citta to forgive him is pleasing to the venerable ones, let them be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The monk So-and-so is given by the Order to the monk Sudhamma as a companion messenger to ask the householder Citta to forgive him. It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“Monks, when the monk Sudhamma, together with the companion messenger monk, has reached Macchikasanda, the householder Citta should be asked to forgive him (Sudhamma using the words), ‘Forgive me, householder, I am at peace towards you’. If, while he is being spoken to thus, he forgives him, that is good; if he does not forgive, he should be spoken to by the companion messenger monk, saying: ‘Forgive this monk, householder, he is at peace towards you.’ If, while he is being spoken to thus, he forgives him, that is good; if he does not forgive, he should be spoken to by the companion messenger monk, saying, ‘Forgive this monk, householder, for I am at peace towards you.’ If … that is good; if he does not forgive, he should be spoken to by the companion messenger monk, saying: ‘Forgive this monk, householder, (I ask it) in the name of the Order’. If … that is good; if he does not forgive, the companion messenger monk, not having caused the monk Sudhamma to be dismissed from reach of the sight of the householder Citta, not having caused him to be dismissed from reach of the hearing, having made him arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, having made him sit down on his haunches, having made him salute with joined palms, should cause that offence to be confessed.”

Then the monk Sudhamma, together with the companion messenger monk, having reached Macchikāsaṇḍa, asked the householder Citta to forgive him. He conducted himself properly, he was subdued, he mended his ways, and having approached monks, he spoke thus: “I, your reverences, for whom a (formal) act of reconciliation was carried out by an Order, am conducting myself properly, I am subdued, I am mending my ways. Now what line of conduct should be followed by me?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Well then, monks, let the Order revoke the (formal) act of reconciliation for the monk Sudhamma.

Eighteen cases that should not be revoked

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities, the (formal) act of reconciliation should not be revoked … = Kd.11.6.2–Kd.11.7 …

Eighteen cases that should be revoked

… does not quarrel with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities the (formal) act of reconciliation may be revoked.

Told are the Eighteen Cases where a (Formal) Act of Reconciliation may be revoked.

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked. Monks, that monk Sudhamma, having approached the Order … see Kd.11.12 … ‘… Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the Fourth (Formal) Act: that of Reconciliation.

An act of suspension for not seeing an offence

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord was staying at Kosambī in Ghosita’s monastery. Now at that time the venerable Channa, having fallen into an offence, did not want to see the offence. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can the venerable Channa, having fallen into an offence, not want to see the offence?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying: “Is it true, as is said, monks, that the monk Channa … did not want to see the offence?”

“It is true, Lord.” The Awakened One, the Lord rebuked them, saying:

“How, monks, can this foolish man, having fallen into an offence, not want to see the offence? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of suspension against the monk Channa for not seeing his offence, (and there should be) no eating with an Order.

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out. First, the monk Channa should be reproved, having reproved him, he should be made to remember, having made him remember, he should be accused of the offence; having accused him of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Channa, having fallen into an offence, does not want to see the offence. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out a (formal) act of suspension against the monk Channa for not seeing the offence (and there should be) no eating with an Order. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Channa, having fallen into an offence, does not want to see the offence. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of suspension against the monk Channa for not seeing the offence (and there should be) no eating with an Order. If the carrying out by the Order of a (formal) act of suspension against the monk Channa for not seeing his offence (and with) no eating with an Order, is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter: Honoured sirs, … should speak. A (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence (and with) no eating with an Order, is carried out by the Order against the monk Channa. It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’ And, monks, proclaim in residence after residence: ‘A (formal) act of suspension for not seeing an offence (and with) no eating with an Order has been carried out against the monk Channa.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“Monks, if a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing an offence is possessed of three qualities it comes to be a (formal) act not by rule … see Kd.11.2–Kd.11.4 …

Twelve on an act by rule

Not in Horner’s translation.

Six on desiring

… Monks, if an Order so desires, it may carry out a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing an offence against these three (kinds of) monks.”

Told are the Six Cases on Being Desirous in connection with a (Formal) Act of Suspension for Not Seeing an Offence.

Forty three duties

“Monks, a monk against whom a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence has been carried out should conduct himself properly. This is proper conduct in this case: he should not ordain, he should not give guidance, a novice should not attend him, the agreement to exhort nuns should not be consented to (by him), even if he is agreed upon nuns should not be exhorted by him, he should not fall into that same offence for which the (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence was carried out against him by an Order, nor into another that is similar, nor into one that is worse, he should not find fault with the (formal) act, he should not find fault with those who are carrying out the (formal) act, he should not consent to a regular monk’s greeting him, standing up before him, saluting him with joined palms, performing the proper duties, bringing forward a seat, bringing forward a sleeping-place, water for (washing) the feet, a footstool, a foot-stand, the receiving of bowl and robe, treating his back by massaging, he should not defame a regular monk with falling away from moral habit, he should not defame him with falling away from good habits, he should not defame him with falling away from (right) views, he should not defame him with falling away from a right mode of livelihood, he should not cause monk to break with monk, he should not wear a householder’s emblem, he should not wear an emblem of members of other sects, he should not follow members of other sects, he should follow monks, he should train in the training for monks, he should not stay in a residence under one roofing with a regular monk, he should not stay in what is not a residence under one roofing (with him), he should not stay in a residence or in what is not a residence under one roofing (with him), having seen a regular monk he should get up from his seat, he should not upbraid a regular monk either inside or outside, he should not suspend a regular monk’s Observance, he should not suspend his Invitation, he should not issue commands, he should not set up authority, he should not ask for leave, he should not reprove, he should not make remember, he should not quarrel with monks.

Told are the Forty-Three Observances connected with a (Formal) act of Suspension for Not Seeing an Offence.

Then the Order carried out a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence against the monk Channa (and with) no eating with an Order. He, when the (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence had been carried out against him by the Order, went from that residence to another residence; there the monks neither greeted him, nor stood up before him, nor saluted with joined palms, nor performed the proper duties, nor revered, respected, esteemed or honoured him. He, not being revered, respected, esteemed or honoured by these monks, then went unrevered from that residence to another residence; there too the monks neither greeted him … he then went from that residence to another residence; there too the monks neither greeted him … he, unrevered, went back again to Kosambī. He conducted himself properly, he was subdued, he mended his ways; having approached monks, he spoke thus: “I, your reverences, against whom a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing an offence was carried out by an Order, am conducting myself properly, I am subdued, I am mending my ways. What line of conduct should be followed by me?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Well then, monks let the Order revoke the (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence against the monk Channa.

Forty-three cases that should not be revoked

“If, monks, a monk is possessed of five qualities, a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence should not be revoked: if he ordains, if he gives guidance, if a novice attends him, if he consents to the agreement to exhort nuns, if, although agreed upon, he exhorts nuns. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities … should not be revoked. And monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if he falls into that same offence for which a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence was carried out against him by the Order, or into another that is similar, or into one that is worse, if he finds fault with a (formal) act, if he finds fault with those who carry out a (formal) act. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities … should not be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if he consents to a regular monk’s greeting him, standing up before him, saluting with joined palms, doing the proper duties, bringing forward a seat. Monks, if a monk … should not be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if he consents to a regular monk’s bringing forward a sleeping-place, water for (washing) the feet, a footstool, a foot-stand, to receiving his bowl and robe, to treating his back by massaging. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these five qualities the (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence should not be revoked.

“And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if he defames a regular monk with falling away from moral habit, if he defames him with falling away from good habits, if he defames him with falling away from (right) views, if he defames him with falling away from a (right) way of living, if he causes monk to break with monk. Monks, if a monk … should not be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if he wears a householder’s emblem, if he wears an emblem of other sects, if he follows members of other sects, if he does not follow monks, if he does not train in the training for monks. Monks, if a monk … should not be revoked. And, monks, if a monk is possessed of five further qualities … should not be revoked: if, in a residence, he stays under one roofing with a regular monk, if in what is not a residence he stays under one roofing with him, if in either a residence or in what is not a residence he stays under one roofing with him, if, having seen a regular monk, he does not get up from his seat, if he upbraids a regular monk either inside or outside. Monks, if a monk … should not be revoked. Monks, if a monk is possessed of eight qualities … should not be revoked: if he suspends a regular monk’s Observance, if he suspends his Invitation, if he issues commands, if he sets up authority, if he asks for leave, if he reproves, if he makes remember, if he quarrels with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence should not be revoked.

Told are the Forty-three Cases (where a Formal Act of Suspension for Not Seeing an Offence should not be revoked).

Forty-three cases that should be revoked

“Monks, it a monk is possessed of five qualities, a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence may be revoked: if he does not ordain … This Chapter is the exact opposite of Kd.11.28.2 … if he does not quarrel with monks. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these eight qualities a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing his offence may be revoked.

Told are the Forty-three Cases (where a Formal Act of Suspension for Not Seeing an Offence may be revoked).

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked: That monk Channa, having approached the Order … see Kd.12. Instead of act of censure read act of suspension for not seeing his offence … ‘… Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the Fifth (Formal) Act: that of Suspension for Not Seeing an Offence.

An act of suspension for not making amends for an offence

At that time the Awakened One, the Lord was staying at Kosambī in Ghosita’s monastery. Now at that time the venerable Channa, having fallen into an offence, did not want to make amends for the offence. … = Kd.11.25–Kd.11.30. Instead of see read make amends for; instead of act of suspension for not seeing his offence read act of suspension for not making amends for his offence …

Twelve on an act not by rule

Not in Horner’s translation.

Twelve on an act by rule

Not in Horner’s translation.

Six on desiring

Not in Horner’s translation.

Forty-three duties

Not in Horner’s translation.

Forty-three cases that should not be revoked

Not in Horner’s translation.

Forty-three cases that should be revoked

… ‘… Thus do I understand this.’”

Told is the Sixth (Formal) Act: that of Suspension for Not making Amends for an Offence.

An act of suspension for not relinquishing a wrong view

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time a wrong view had arisen to a monk named Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, like this:

“In so far as I understand dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

Several monks heard: “A wrong view has arisen to the monk named Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer, like this: ‘In so far as I understand … there is no stumbling-block at all.’”

Then these monks approached the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, and having approached, they spoke thus to the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer:

“Is it true, as is said, reverend Ariṭṭha, that a wrong view has arisen to you, like this: ‘In so far as I understand … there is no stumbling-block at all’?”

“Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

“Do not speak thus, reverend Ariṭṭha, do not misrepresent the Lord; misrepresentation of the Lord is not at all seemly, and the Lord certainly would not speak thus. Reverend Ariṭṭha, in many a figure are things that are stumbling-blocks called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, and in following these there is a veritable stumbling-block. Sense-pleasures are declared by the Lord to be (things) affording little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, where in is more danger. Sense-pleasures are declared by the Lord to be like a skeleton, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more danger. Sense-pleasures are declared by the Lord to be like a lump of meat … to be like a fire-brand of dry grass … to be like a pit of glowing embers … to be like a dream … to be like something borrowed … to be like the fruits of a tree … to be like a slaughter-house … to be like an impaling stake … Sense-pleasures are declared by the Lord to be like a snake’s head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more danger.”

Yet the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, on being spoken to thus by these monks, expressed that wrong view as before, obstinately holding to it, adhering to it: “Undoubtedly, your reverences, as I understand dhamma taught by the Lord, it is that in following those things called stumbling-blocks by the Lord, there is no stumbling-block at all.”

And since those monks were unable to dissuade the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer from that wrong view, then those monks approached the Lord; and having approached, they told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monk Ariṭṭha who had formerly been a vulture-trainer, saying:

“Is it true, as is said, that to you, Ariṭṭha, a wrong view like this arose: ‘In so far as I understand dhamma … there is no stumbling-block at all’?”

“Undoubtedly, Lord, as I understand dhamma … no stumbling-block at all.”

“To whom then do you, foolish man, understand that dhamma was taught thus by me? Are not, foolish man, things that are stumbling-blocks called in many a figure stumbling-blocks by me, and in following these is there not a veritable stumbling-block? Sense-pleasures are declared by me to be things affording little satisfaction, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more danger … Sense-pleasures are declared by me to be like a snake’s head, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more danger. And yet you, foolish man, not only misrepresent me because of your own wrong grasp, but you also injure yourself, and give rise to much demerit which for a long time will be for you, foolish man, of woe and pain. It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked him, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer, (and with) no eating with an Order.

“And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Ariṭṭha should be reproved, having reproved him he should be made to remember, having made him remember he should be accused of the offence, having accused him of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. A wrong view has arisen to the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer, like this: In so far as I understand dhamma taught by the Lord … there is no stumbling-block at all. He does not give up this view. If it seems right to the Order, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer (and with) no eating with an Order. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. A wrong view has arisen … He does not give up this view. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer (and with) no eating with an Order. If the carrying out of the (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer (and with) no eating with an Order is pleasing to the venerable ones, let them be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter … And a third time I speak forth this matter … It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this’. And, monks, proclaim in residence after residence: ‘A (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view has been carried out against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer (and with) no eating with an Order.’

Twelve on an act not by rule

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of three qualities … = Kd.11.2–Kd.11.5. Instead of did of censure read act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view …

Twelve on an act by rule

Not in Horner’s translation.

Six on desiring

Not in Horner’s translation.

Forty-three duties

… if he does not quarrel with monks.”

Told are the Eighteen Observances (connected with) a (Formal) Act of Suspension for Not Giving Up a Wrong View.

Then the Order carried out a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up his wrong view against the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer, (and with) no eating with an Order. He, when the (formal) act of suspension for not giving up his wrong view had been carried out against him by the Order, left the Order. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can this monk named Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer leave the Order when a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view is earned out against him by the Order?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that the monk Ariṭṭha who was formerly a vulture-trainer left the Order when a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view was carried out against him by the Order?”

“It is true, Lord.” The Awakened One, the Lord rebuked them, saying:

“How, monks, can this foolish man leave the Order when a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view was carried out against him by the Order? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order revoke the (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view.

Forty-three cases that should not be revoked

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of five qualities … = Kd.11.6.2–Kd.11.6.2 …

Forty-three cases that should be revoked

… the (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view may be revoked.

Told are the Eighteen Cases where a (Formal) Act of Suspension for Not Giving Up a Wrong View may be Revoked.

“And thus, monks, should it be revoked. Monks, that monk against whom a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view has been carried out, having approached the Order … see Kd.11.12 Instead of act of censure read act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view. Instead of Seyyasaka read the monk So-and-so … ‘… Thus do I understand this..”

Told is the Seventh (Formal) Act: that of Suspension for Not Giving Up a Wrong View.

Told is the First Section: that on (Formal) Acts.