Verdict in the presence of

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord, was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time the group of six monks carried out (formal) acts of censure and guidance and banishment and reconciliation and suspension against monks who were not present. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can this group of six monks carry out (formal) acts of censure … and suspension against monks who are not present?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that these monks carried out (formal) acts of censure … and suspension against monks who were not present?”

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

“It is not fitting, monks, in these foolish men, it is not becoming, it is not suitable, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. How, monks, can these foolish men carry out (formal) acts of censure … and suspension against monks who are not present? It is not monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, a (formal) act of censure or guidance or banishment or reconciliation or suspension should not be carried out against monks who are not present. Whoever should carry one out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“An individual who professes non-dhamma makes known to an individual who professes dhamma, disposes him favourably, makes him consider, makes him reconsider, teaches him, teaches him again, saying: ‘This is dhamma, this is discipline, this is the Teacher’s instruction, choose this, approve of this.’ If this legal question is settled thus, it is settled by what is not rule, by what has the appearance of a verdict in the presence of.

“An individual who professes non-dhamma makes known to several who profess dhamma … An individual who professes non-dhamma makes known to an Order which professes dhamma … Several who profess non-dhamma make known to an individual who professes dhamma … Several who profess non-dhamma make known to several who profess dhamma … Several who profess non-dhamma make known to an Order which professes dhamma … An Order which professes non-dhamma makes known to an individual who professes dhamma … An Order which professes non-dhamma makes known to several who profess dhamma … An Order which professes non-dhamma makes known to an Order which professes dhamma, disposes it favourably, makes it consider, makes it reconsider, teaches it, teaches it again, saying: ‘This is dhamma, this is discipline, this is the Teacher’s instruction, choose this, approve of this.’ If this legal question is settled thus, it is settled by what is not rule, by what has the appearance of a verdict in the presence of.”

Told are the Nine Cases of the Dark Faction.

“An individual who professes dhamma makes known to an individual who professes non-dhamma … An Order which professes dhamma makes known to an Order which professes non-dhamma … If this legal question is settled thus, it is settled by rule, by a verdict in the presence of.”

Told are the Nine Cases of the Bright Faction.

Verdict by memory

At one time the Awakened One, the Lord, was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove at the squirrels’ feeding-place. At that time perfection had been realised by the venerable Dabba the Mallian seven years after his birth. All that should be attained by a disciple had been fully attained by him; for him there was nothing further to be done, no increase to (be added to) that which had been done. Then this reasoning arose in the mind of the venerable Dabba the Mallian as he was meditating in solitude: “Perfection was realised by me seven years after my birth. All that should be attained by a disciple has been fully attained by me; for me there is nothing further to be done, no increase to (be added to) that which has been done. Now, what service could I render the Order?” Then it occurred to the venerable Dabba the Mallian: “Suppose that I were to assign lodgings to the Order and issue meals?”

Then the venerable Dabba the Mallian, emerging from his meditation in the evening, approached the Lord, having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting at a respectful distance, the venerable Dabba the Mallian spoke thus to the Lord: “Now, Lord, as I was meditating in solitude, this reasoning arose in my mind: ‘… What service could I render the Order?’ Then, Lord, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose I were to assign lodgings to the Order and issue the meals?’ I want, Lord, to assign lodgings to the Order and issue meals.”

“It is good, it is good, Dabba. Well then, do you, Dabba, assign lodgings to the Order and issue meals.”

“Very well, Lord,” the venerable Dabba the Mallian answered the Lord in assent.

Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying: “Well then, monks, let the Order agree upon Dabba the Mallian as assigner of lodgings and issuer of meals. And thus, monks, should he be agreed upon: First, Dabba 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 agree upon the venerable Dabba the Mallian as assigner of lodgings and issuer of meals. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is agreeing upon the venerable Dabba the Mallian as assigner of lodgings and issuer of meals. If the agreement upon the venerable Dabba the Mallian as assigner of lodgings and issuer of meals is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The venerable Dabba the Mallian is agreed upon by the Order as assigner of lodgings and issuer of meals. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’”

And the venerable Dabba the Mallian, (thus) agreed upon, assigned lodgings in the same place for those monks who belonged to the same company. For those monks who knew the Suttantas he assigned lodgings in the same place, thinking: “These will be able to chant over the Suttantas to one another.” For those monks who were expert in discipline he assigned lodgings in the same place, thinking: “They will decide upon discipline together.” For those monks who were talkers on dhamma he assigned lodgings in the same place, thinking: “They will discuss dhamma with one another.” For those monks who were musers he assigned lodgings in the same place, thinking: “They will not disturb one another.” For those monks who were talkers on inferior matters and who were athletic he assigned lodgings at the same place, thinking: “These reverend ones will live according to their pleasure.” For those monks who came in late at night, he, having attained the condition of heat, assigned lodgings by this light. So much so, that the monks came in late at night on purpose, thinking: “We will see a wonder of the psychic potency of the venerable Dabba the Mallian.” And these, having approached the venerable Dabba the Mallian, spoke thus: “Reverend Dabba, assign us lodgings.” The venerable Dabba the Mallian spoke thus to them; “Where do your reverences desire them? Where shall I assign them?’ These (monks) would quote a distant place on purpose, saying:

“Reverend Dabba, assign us lodgings on the Vultures’ Peak; your reverence, assign us lodgings on the Robber’s Cliff; your reverence, assign us lodgings on the slopes of Isigili Hill on the Black Rock; your reverence, assign us lodgings on the slopes of Vebhāra at Sattapaṇṇi Cave; your reverence, assign us lodgings in Sītā’s Wood on the slopes of the Snake Pool; your reverence, assign us lodgings at the Gomaṭa Glen; your reverence, assign us lodgings at the Tinduka Glen; your reverence, assign us lodgings at the Tapodā Glen; your reverence, assign us lodgings at the Tapodā Park; your reverence, assign us lodgings at Jīvaka’s Mango Grove; your reverence, assign us lodgings at Maddakucchi in the deer-park.”

The venerable Dabba the Mallian, having attained the condition of heat, went in front of these (monks) with his finger glowing, and they by this light went behind the venerable Dabba the Mallian. The venerable Dabba the Mallian assigned them lodgings thus: “This is the couch, this the chair, this the mattress, this the squatting mat, this a privy, that a privy, this the drinking water, this the water for washing, this the staff, this is (the form of) the Order’s agreement, this is the time it should be entered upon, this the time it should be departed from.” The venerable Dabba the Mallian, having assigned lodgings to these, went back again to the Bamboo Grove.

Now at that time monks who were the followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka were newly ordained and of little merit; they obtained whatever inferior lodgings belonged to the Order and inferior meals. At that time people in Rājagaha wanted to give the monks who were elders almsfood having a specially good seasoning, and ghee and oil and dainties. But to the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka they gave sufficient ordinary food, broken rice accompanied by sour gruel. These, on returning from alms-gathering after their meal, asked the monks who were elders: “What did you, your reverences, get at the refectory? What did you?”

Some elders spoke thus: “There was ghee for us, your reverences, there was oil for us, there were dainties for us.”

But the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka spoke thus: “There was nothing for us, your reverences, except sufficient ordinary food, broken rice accompanied by sour gruel.”

Now at that time a householder who had nice food gave the Order in continuous food supply meals consisting of four ingredients. He, with his wife and children, attended and served in the refectory. They offered boiled rice to some (monks), they offered curry to others, they offered oil to others, they offered dainties to others. Now at that time a meal given by the householder who had nice food was apportioned for the following day to the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka. Then the householder who had nice food went to the monastery on some business or other and approached the venerable Dabba the Mallian; having approached, having greeted the venerable Dabba the Mallian, he sat down at a respectful distance. As the householder who had nice food was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Dabba the Mallian delighted, rejoiced, roused, gladdened him with talk on dhamma. Then when the householder who had nice food had been delighted … gladdened by the venerable Dabba the Mallian with talk on dhamma, he spoke thus to the venerable Dabba the Mallian: “For whom, honoured sir, is the meal apportioned for tomorrow in my house?”

“Householder, the meal apportioned in your house for tomorrow is for monks who are followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka.”

Then the householder who had nice food was sorry and said: “Why should these depraved monks enjoy themselves in my house?” And having gone to his house he enjoined a slave-woman, saying: “Having prepared a seat in the porch for those who come to eat Tomorrow, serve them with broken rice accompanied by sour gruel.”

“Very well, master,” the woman-slave answered to the householder who had nice food, in assent.

Then the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka said to one another: “Yesterday, your reverences, a meal was apportioned to us by the householder who has nice food. Tomorrow the householder who has nice food attending with his wife and children, will serve us. They will offer boiled rice to some, they will offer curry to others, they will offer oil to others, they will offer dainties to others.” These, because of their happiness, did not sleep that night as much as expected.

Then the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka, dressing in the morning and taking their bowls and robes, approached the dwelling of the householder who had nice food. That woman-slave saw the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka coming from afar; seeing them, having prepared a seat in the porch, she said to the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka: “Sit down, honoured sirs.” Then it occurred to the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka: “But undoubtedly the food will not be ready as we are made to sit in the porch.” Then the woman-slave came up with the broken rice accompanied by sour gruel. “Eat, honoured sirs,” she said.

“But, sister, we are those who enjoy a continuous supply of food.”

“I know that the masters enjoy a continuous supply of food. But only yesterday I was enjoined by the householder: ‘Having prepared a seat in the porch for those who come for a meal Tomorrow, serve them with broken rice accompanied by sour gruel’. Eat, honoured sirs,” she said.

Then the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka thought: “Yesterday, your reverences, the householder who has nice food went to Dabba the Mallian in the monastery. Doubtless, Dabba the Mallian has set the householder at variance with us.” These (monks), on account of their distress, did not eat as much as expected.

Then the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka, returning from alms-gathering after the meal, having arrived at the monastery, having put away their bowls and robes, sat down outside the gateway of the monastery, squatting against their outer cloaks, silent, abashed, their shoulders bent, their heads lowered, brooding, speechless.

Then the nun Mettiyā approached the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka; having approached, she spoke thus to the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka: “I salute you, masters.” When she had spoken thus, the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka did not respond. A second time … A third time the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka did not respond.

“Do I offend against the masters? Why do the masters not respond to me?” she said.

“It is because you, sister, neglected us when we were being got into difficulties by Dabba the Mallian.”

“What can I do, masters?” she said.

“If you would like, sister, this very day you could make the Lord expel Dabba the Mallian.”

“What can I do, masters? How am I able to do that?”

“You come, sister, approach the Lord; having approached, say to the Lord: ‘Now, Lord, it is not proper, it is not becoming that this quarter which should be without fear, secure, without danger, is the very quarter which is full of fear, insecure, full of danger. Where there was a calm, now there is a gale. It seems the very water is blazing. I have been assaulted by master Dabba the Mallian.’”

“Very well, masters,” and the nun Mettiyā having answered the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka in assent, approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, she stood at a respectful distance. As she was standing at a respectful distance, the nun Mettiya spoke thus to the Lord: “Now, Lord, it is not proper … I have been assaulted by master Dabba the Mallian.”

Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the venerable Dabba the Mallian, saying:

“Do you, Dabba, remember doing as this nun says?”

“Lord, the Lord knows in regard to me.” And a second time … And a third time … “Lord, the Lord knows in regard to me.”

“Dabba, the Dabbas do not give evasive answers like that. If what was done was done by you, say so; if it was not done (by you), say it was not.”

“Since I, Lord, was born, I cannot call to mind ever indulging in sexual intercourse even in a dream, much less so when I was awake.”

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Well then, monks, expel the nun Mettiyā, and take these monks to task.” Having spoken thus, the Lord, rising from his seat, entered a dwelling-place. Then these monks expelled the nun Mettiyā. Then the monks who were followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka spoke thus to these monks: “Your reverences, do not expel the nun Mettiyā; in no way has she offended; she was urged on by us because we were angry, displeased and wanted him out of the way.”

“But are not you, your reverences, defaming the venerable Dabba the Mallian with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit?”

“Yes, your reverences.” Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks who are followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka defame the venerable Dabba the Mallian with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that the monks who are followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka defamed Dabba the Mallian with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order give a verdict of innocence to Dabba the Mallian who has remembered fully. And thus, monks, should it be given: Monks, Dabba the Mallian, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms, should speak thus to it: ‘Honoured sirs, these monks, followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka, defamed me with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit. But I, honoured sirs, having remembered fully, ask the Order for a verdict of innocence’. And a second time it should be asked for … And a third time it should be asked for: ‘Honoured sirs, these monks who are followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka defamed me with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit. So I, honoured sirs, having remembered fully, for a third time ask the Order for a verdict of innocence’. 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 Mettiya and Bhummajaka defamed the venerable Dabba the Mallian with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit. The venerable Dabba the Mallian, having remembered fully, is asking the Order for a verdict of innocence. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may give the venerable Dabba the Mallian, who has remembered fully, a verdict of innocence. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. These monks who are followers of Mettiya and Bhummajaka … is asking the Order for a verdict of innocence. The Order is giving the venerable Dabba the Mallian, who has remembered fully, a verdict of innocence. If the giving of a verdict of innocence to the venerable Dabba the Mallian, who has remembered fully, 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 … A verdict of innocence is given by the Order to the venerable Dabba the Mallian, who has remembered fully. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this’.

“Monks, there are these five legally valid properties in giving a verdict of innocence: if the monk is pure and without offences; and if they reproach him; and if he asks; if the Order gives him a verdict of innocence; if it is by rule, the assembly being complete. These, monks, are the five legally valid properties in giving a verdict of innocence.”

Verdict by former madness

Now at that time the monk Gagga was mad, out of his mind, and while he was mad, out of his mind he perpetrated much and spoke in a way that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved the monk Gagga because of offences done (by him) while he was mad, out of his mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” He spoke thus: “I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken by me that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane.” Although being spoken to thus by him, they still reproved him, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks reprove the monk Gagga because of offences done (by him) when he was mad, out of his mind, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ and he spoke thus: ‘I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken by me that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane’. And although being spoken to by him thus, they still reproved him, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true, as is said, monks …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order give a verdict of past insanity to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane.

“And thus, monks, should it be given: Monks, that monk Gagga, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having raised his joined palms in salutation, should speak thus to it: ‘I, honoured sirs, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, I perpetrated much and spoke in a way that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved me because of offences done (by me) while I was mad, out of my mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” So I spoke thus: ‘I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind. While I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken (by me) that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane’. And even although they were spoken to thus by me, they still reproved me, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?” So I, honoured sirs, no longer insane, am asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity,’ And a second time it should be asked for … And a third time it should be asked for, saying: ‘I, honoured sirs, was mad … even a third time am I asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity’. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Gagga was mad, out of his mind. While he was mad, out of his mind, much was perpetrated and spoken (by him) that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reproved the monk Gagga for offences done (by him) while he was mad, out of his mind, saying: “Does the venerable one remember …?” He spoke thus: “I, honoured sirs, do not remember … This was done by me while I was insane.” Even on being spoken to by him thus, they still reproved him, saying: “Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like thus?” He, no longer insane, is asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may give the monk Gagga, who is no longer insane, a verdict of past insanity. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Gagga … is asking the Order for a verdict of past insanity. If the giving of a verdict of past insanity to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak … And a third time I speak forth this matter. A verdict of past insanity is given by the Order to the monk Gagga who is no longer insane. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“Monks, there are these three not legally valid properties in giving a verdict of past insanity, three that are legally valid. What are the three properties that are not legally valid in giving a verdict of past insanity? This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although remembering, speaks thus: ‘I do not, your reverences, remember having fallen into an offence like that,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although remembering, speaks thus: ‘I, your reverences, remember it as though from a dream,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk has fallen into an offence … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, although not mad, pretends to be mad, saying: ‘I act thus, do you also act thus, this is allowable for me, and it is also allowable for you,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is not legally valid. These three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity are not legally valid.

“What are the three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity that are legally valid? This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad, out of his mind. While he is mad, out of his mind, he perpetrates much and speaks in a way that is not worthy of a recluse. An Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this If he, not remembering, speaks thus: ‘I do not, your reverences, remember having fallen into an offence like that,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad, … ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ If he, not remembering, speaks thus: ‘I, your reverences, remember as though from a dream,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally valid.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is mad … ‘Does the venerable one remembers having fallen into an offence like this? If he is mad and pretends to be mad and says, ‘I act thus, do you also act thus, this is allowable for me, it is also allowable for you,’ and if the Order gives him a verdict of past insanity, the giving of the verdict of past insanity is legally valid. These three properties in giving a verdict of past insanity are legally valid.”

Acknowledgement

Now at that time the group of six monks carried out (formal) acts of censure and guidance and banishment and reconciliation and suspension against monks without their acknowledgement. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can this group of six monks carry out (formal) acts of censure and … suspension against monks without their acknowledgement?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true as is said, monks …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, a (formal) act of censure or of guidance or of banishment or of reconciliation or of suspension should not be carried out against a monk without his acknowledgement. Whoever should (so) carry (one) out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, the carrying out (of a formal act) on the acknowledgement of (a monk) is not legally valid thus, it is legally valid thus. And how, monks, is the carrying out on the acknowledgement not legally valid? A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one has fallen into an offence involving defeat.’ If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence involving defeat, I have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat … If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence involving defeat, I have fallen into a grave offence, into an offence involving expiation, into an offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing, into an offence of wrong speech,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong speech, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into a grave offence, into an offence involving expiation, into an offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing, into an offence of wrong speech. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one has fallen into an offence of wrong speech’. If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence of wrong speech, I have fallen into an offence involving defeat,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving defeat, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence of wrong speech … If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence of wrong speech, I have fallen into a grave offence, into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into an offence involving expiation, into an offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong-doing, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“And how, monks, is the carrying out on the acknowledgement legally valid? A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one has fallen into an offence involving defeat’. If he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverences, I have fallen into an offence involving defeat,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving defeat, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into a grave offence … into an offence of wrong speech … If he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverences, I have fallen into an offence of wrong speech,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong speech, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is legally valid.”

Majority

Now at that time monks were striving, quarrelling, disputing in the midst of an Order, they were wounding one another with the weapons of the tongue; they were unable to settle that legal question. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you monks, to settle this kind of legal question by the decision of the majority.’ A monk possessed of five qualities should be agreed upon as distributor of (voting) tickets; one who would not follow a wrong course through favouritism, who would not follow a wrong course through hatred … through stupidity … through fear, who would know what is taken and what is not. And thus, monks, should he be agreed upon: 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 should agree upon the monk So-and-so as distributor of (voting) tickets. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is agreeing upon the monk So-and-so as distributor of (voting) tickets. If the agreement upon the monk So-and-so as distributor of (voting) tickets is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is hot pleasing should speak. The monk So-and-so is agreed upon by the Order as distributor of (voting) tickets. It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“Monks, there are ten distributions of (voting) tickets that are not legally valid, ten that are legally valid. What are the ten distributions of (voting) tickets that are not legally valid? When the legal question is only trifling, and when it has not gone its course, and when it is not remembered or caused to be remembered, and when he knows that those who profess non-dhamma are more (in number), when he even thinks that those who profess non-dhamma may be more (in number), if he knows that the Order will be divided, if he even thinks that the Order may be divided, if they take (the tickets) not by rule, if they take them in an incomplete assembly, and if they take them not according to their views. These ten distributions of (voting) tickets are not legally valid.

“What are the ten distributions of (voting) tickets that are legally valid? When the legal question is not merely trifling, and when it has gone its course, and when it is remembered arid caused to be remembered, and when he knows that those who profess dhamma are more (in number), when he even thinks that those who profess dhamma may be more (in number), when he knows that the Order will not be divided, when he even thinks that the Order will not be divided, when they take (the tickets) by rule, when they take them in a complete assembly, and when they take them according to their views. These ten distributions of (voting) tickets are legally valid.”

Bad character

Now at that time the monk Uvāḷa, on being examined for offences in the midst of the Order, having denied, acknowledged, having acknowledged, denied, he shelved the question by (asking) another, he told a conscious lie. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can this monk Uvāḷa, on being examined … tell a conscious lie?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true, as is said, monks …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa.

And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Uvāḷa should be reproved, having reproved him, he should be made to remember, having made him remember, he should be made to confess the offence, having made him confess the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Uvāḷa, on being examined for offences in the midst of the Order, having denied, acknowledged … he told a conscious lie. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Uvāḷa … told a conscious lie. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa. If the carrying out of a (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak … And a third time I speak forth this matter … A (formal) act for the decision for specific depravity is carried out by the Order against the monk Uvāḷa. It is pleasing to the Order; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“Monks, these five grounds for a (formal) act for specific depravity are legally valid: if he becomes impure, and if he is unconscientious, and if he is fault-finding, if an Order carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him, if it is by rule and in a complete assembly. These five grounds, monks, for a (formal) act for specific depravity are legally valid.

“Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of three qualities it comes to be a (formal) act not by rule, a (formal) act not by discipline, and one that is hard to settle: if it is carried out not in the presence of, if it is carried out without interrogation, if it is carried out not with the acknowledgement … if it is carried out not by rule, if it is carried out in an incomplete assembly. Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of these three qualities, it comes to be a (formal) act not by rule, a (formal) act not by discipline, and one that is hard to settle.

“Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of three qualities it come to be a (formal) act by rule and a (formal) act by discipline, and one that is easily settled if it is carried out in the presence of, if it is carried out on the interrogation, if it is carried out with the acknowledgement … if it is carried out by rule, if it is carried out in a complete assembly. Monks, if a (formal) act for specific depravity is possessed of these three qualities, it comes to be a (formal) act by rule, a (formal) act by discipline, and one that is easily settled.

“Monks, if a monk is possessed of three qualities, the Order, if it desires, may carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him: if he is a maker of strife, if he is a maker of quarrels, if he is a maker of disputes, if he is a maker of contention, if he is a maker of legal questions in the Order; if he is ignorant, inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; if he lives in association with householders in unbecoming association with householders. Monks, if a monk is possessed of these three qualities, the Order, if it desires, may carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity against him.

“A monk against whom a (formal) act for specific depravity 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, he should not consent to the agreement to exhort nuns, even if he is agreed upon he should not exhort nuns … he should not quarrel with monks.”

Then the Order carried out a (formal) act for specific depravity against the monk Uvāḷa.

Covering over with grass

Now at that time, while monks were striving, quarrelling, disputing, much was perpetrated and spoken that was not worthy of a recluse. Then it occurred to these monks: “While we were striving … not worthy of a recluse. If we should deal with one another for these offences, it might even be that that legal question would conduce to harshness, to trouble, to schism. Now, what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“This is a case, monks, where while monks were striving … much was perpetrated and spoken that was not worthy of a recluse. Then it occurred to these monks: ‘While we were striving … it might even be that that legal question would conduce to harshness, to trouble, to schism.’ I allow, monks, a legal question such as this to be settled by the covering up (as) with grass.

“And thus, monks, should it be settled: One and all should gather together in the same place; having gathered together, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were striving … ‘… it might even be that this legal question would conduce to harshness, to trouble, to schism.’ If it seems right to the Order, the Order may settle this legal question by the covering up (as) with grass, unless it is a heavy sin, unless it is connected with the laity.’ The one side should be informed by an experienced, competent monk from among the monks siding in with the one (side): ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. While we were striving … not worthy of a recluse … to schism. If it is pleasing to the venerable ones, I would confess whatever is the offence of the venerable ones as well as whatever is my own offence both for the sake of the venerable ones and for my own sake, unless it is a heavy sin, unless it is connected with the laity, (so as to obtain) a covering up (as) with grass in the midst of the Order.’ Afterwards, the other side should be informed by an experienced, competent monk from among the monks siding in with the other (side): ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. While we were striving … a covering up (as with) grass in the midst of the Order.’

“The Order should be informed by an experienced competent monk siding in with the one (side): ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were striving … not worthy of a recluse … to schism. If it seems right to the Order, I would confess whatever is the offence of the venerable ones as well as whatever is my own offence, both for the sake of the venerable ones and for my own sake, unless it is a heavy sin, unless it is connected with the laity, (so as to obtain) a covering up (as) with grass in the midst of the Order. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were striving … not worthy of recluse … to schism. I am confessing whatever is the offence of these venerable ones and whatever is my own offence … unless it is a heavy sin, unless it is connected with the laity, (so as to obtain) a covering up (as with) grass in the midst of the Order. If the confession of these offences of ours, unless they are heavy sins, unless they are connected with the laity, (so as to obtain) a covering up (as) with grass in the midst of the Order is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. These offences of ours are confessed (by me), except heavy sins, except those connected with the laity, (so as to obtain) a covering up (as) with grass in the midst of the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“Afterwards the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk from among the monks siding in with the other (side): ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were striving … Thus do I understand this.’

“And thus, monks, do these offences come to be removed from these monks, except for a heavy sin, except for what is connected with the laity, except for (those who make) an open statement of their views, except for those who are not there.”

Issues

Now at that time monks disputed with monks and nuns disputed with monks and the monk Channa, intruding into the nuns’ (quarters), disputed together with the monks and was prejudiced on the side of the nuns. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can this monk Channa, intruding into the nuns’ (quarters), dispute together with monks and be prejudiced on the side of the nuns?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true, as is said, monks, …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, there are these four kinds of legal questions: legal questions arising out of disputes, legal questions arising out of censure, legal questions arising out of offences, legal questions arising out of obligations.

“What is here a legal question arising out of disputes? This is a case, monks, where monks dispute, saying: ‘It is dhamma’ or ‘It is not dhamma’ or ‘It is discipline’ or ‘It is not discipline’ or ‘It is spoken, uttered by the Truth-finder’, or ‘It is not spoken, not uttered by the Truth-finder’ or ‘It is practised by the Truth-finder’ or ‘It is not practised by the Truth-finder’ or ‘It is laid down by the Truth-finder’ or ‘It is not laid down by the Truth-finder’ or ‘It is an offence’ or ‘It is not an offence’ or ‘It is a slight offence’ or ‘It is a serious offence’ or ‘It is an offence that can be done away with’ or ‘It is an offence that cannot be done away with’ or ‘It is a bad offence’ or ‘It is not a bad offence.’ Whatever here is strife, quarrel, contention, dispute, difference of opinion, other opinion, because the common appellation of heatedness is ‘quarrel,’, this is called a legal question arising from disputes.

“What is here a legal question arising from censure? In this case, monks, monks censure a monk for falling away from moral habit or for falling away from good habits or for falling away from right view or for falling away from a right mode of livelihood. Whatever here is censure, fault-finding, talking to, scolding, bickering, inciting, instigating, this is called a legal question arising from censure.

“What is here a legal question arising from offences? Both the five classes of offences (yield) legal questions arising from offences, and the seven classes of offences (yield) legal questions arising from offences. This is called a legal question arising from offences.

“What is here a legal question arising from obligations? Whatever is an Order’s business and ought to be done (by it): a (formal) act for which leave ought to be asked, a (formal) act at which a motion is put, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by one resolution, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by a resolution made three times. This is called a legal question arising from obligations.

“What is the source of a legal question arising from disputes? Six sources of dispute are the source of a legal question arising from disputes: there are three unskilled sources which are the source of a legal question arising from disputes as well as three skilled sources which are the source of legal questions arising from disputes.

“Which are the six sources of dispute which are the source of a legal question arising from disputes? In this case, a monk becomes angry and bears ill-will. Monks, whatever monk becomes angry and bears ill-will, he lives without deference, disrespectful towards the Teacher, and he lives without deference, disrespectful towards dhamma, and he lives without deference, disrespectful towards the Order, and he does not complete the training. Monks, whatever monk lives without deference, disrespectful towards the Teacher, dhamma, and the Order and does not complete the training, he causes dispute in an Order, and that dispute comes to be for the harm of the many-folk, for the lack of ease of the many-folk, for the lack of the goal for the many-folk, for the harm and dissatisfaction of devas and mankind. If you, monks, should perceive a source of dispute like this among yourselves or among others, you, monks, should strive therein for the destruction of precisely that evil source of disputes. If you, monks, should perceive no source of dispute like this among yourselves or among others, you, monks, should therein follow a course (to stop) there being future effects of precisely that evil source of disputes. Thus there comes to be destruction of that evil source of disputes, thus there come to be no future effects of that evil source of disputes.

“And again, monks, a monk becomes harsh and unmerciful, he becomes envious and grudging, he becomes crafty and deceitful, he comes to have evil desires and wrong views, he comes to be infected with worldliness, obstinate, stubborn. Monks, that monk who lives without deference, disrespectful towards the Teacher … thus there come to be no future effects of that evil source of disputes. These six sources of dispute are the source of a legal question arising from disputes.

“Which three unskilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from disputes? In this case, monks dispute covetous in mind, they dispute corrupt in mind, they dispute erring in mind, saying: ‘It is dhamma’ or ‘It is not dhamma’ or … ‘It is not a bad offence.’ These three unskilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from disputes.

“Which three skilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from disputes? In this case, monks dispute not covetous in mind, they dispute not corrupt in mind, they dispute not erring in mind, saying: ‘It is dhamma’ or ‘It is not dhamma’ … or ‘It is not a bad offence’. These three skilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from disputes.

“What is the source of a legal question arising from censure? Six sources of censure are the source of a legal question arising from censure: there are three unskilled sources which are the source of a legal question arising from censure as well as three skilled sources which are the source of a legal question arising from censure; body, too, is a source of a legal question arising from censure; speech, too, is a source of a legal question arising from censure.

“Which are the six sources of censure that are the source of a legal question arising from censure? In this case, monks, a monk becomes angry and bears ill-will … as in Kd.14.14.3. Instead of dispute read censure, source of censure, etc. … These six sources of censure are the source of a legal question arising from censure.

“Which three unskilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from censure? In this case, monks, covetous in mind, censure a monk, corrupt in mind they censure (him), erring in mind they censure him with falling away from moral habit or with falling away from good habits or with falling away from right view or with falling away from a right mode of livelihood. These three unskilled source are the sources of a legal question arising from censure.

“Which three skilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from censure? In this case monks, not covetous in mind, censure a monk; not corrupt in mind … not erring in mind, they censure him with falling away from moral habit … with falling away from a right mode of living. These three skilled sources are the source of a legal question arising from censure.

“Which (kind of) a body is a source of a legal question arising from censure? In this case someone comes to be of a bad colour, ugly, deformed, very ill or blind of one eye or paralysed down one side or lame or a cripple, on account of which they censure him. This (kind of) body is a source of a legal question arising from censure.

“Which (kind of) speech is a source of a legal question arising from censure? In this case someone comes to be surly, stuttering, of hoarse enunciation, on account of which they censure him. This (kind of) speech is a source of a legal question arising from censure.

“What is the source of a legal question arising from offences? Six origins of offences are the source of a legal question arising from offences: there is the offence which originates from the body, not from speech, not from mind; there is the offence which originates from speech, not from body, not from mind; there is the offence which originates from body and from speech, not from mind; there is the offence which originates from body and from mind, not from speech; there is the offence which originates from speech and mind, not from body; there is the offence which originates from body and from speech and from mind. These six origins of offences are the source of a legal question arising from offences.

“What is the source of a legal question arising from obligations? The Order is the sole source of a legal question arising from obligations.

“A legal question arising from disputes: is it skilled, unskilled, indeterminate? A legal question arising from disputes may be skilled, it may be unskilled, it may be indeterminate. What here is a legal question arising from disputes that is skilled? In this case monks whose thoughts are skilled dispute, saying, ‘This is dhamma’ or ‘This is not dhamma’ or … ‘This is not a bad offence.’ Whatever therein is strife, quarrel, contention, dispute, difference of opinion, other opinion, because the common appellation of heatedness is ‘quarrel’, this is called a legal question arising from dispute? that is skilled.

“What here is a legal question arising from disputes that is unskilled? In this case, monks whose thoughts are unskilled dispute, saying: ‘This is dhamma’ or ‘This is not dhamma’ or … ‘This is not a bad offence’ … because the common appellation of heatedness is ‘quarrel,’ this is called a legal question arising from disputes that is unskilled.

“What here is a legal question arising from disputes that is indeterminate? In this case, monks whose thoughts are indeterminate dispute, saying: ‘It is dhamma’ or … ‘It is not a bad offence’ … called a legal question arising from disputes that are indeterminate.

“A legal question arising from censure: is it skilled, unskilled, indeterminate? A legal question arising from censure may be skilled, it may be unskilled, it may be indeterminate. What here is a legal question arising from censure that is skilled? In this case monks whose thoughts are skilled censure a monk with falling away from moral habit or with falling away from good habits or with falling away from right views or with falling away from a right mode of livelihood. Whatever herein is censure, blaming, talking to, scolding, bickering, inciting, instigating, this is called a legal question arising from censure that is skilled.

“What here is a legal question arising from censure that is unskilled? In this case, monks whose thoughts are unskilled censure a monk … What is here a legal question arising from censure that is indeterminate? In this case, monks whose thoughts are indeterminate censure a monk with falling away from … a right mode of livelihood. Whatever herein is censure, blaming … instigating, this is called a legal question arising from censure that is indeterminate.

“A legal question arising from offences: is it skilled, unskilled, indeterminate? A legal question arising from offences may be unskilled it may be indeterminate. There is no legal question arising from offences that is skilled. What is here a legal question arising from offences that is unskilled? A transgression committed knowingly, consciously, deliberately is one that is called a legal question arising from offences that is unskilled.

“What is here a legal question arising from offences that is indeterminate? A transgression committed not knowingly, not consciously, not deliberately is one that is called a legal question arising from offences that is indeterminate.

“A legal question arising from obligations: is it skilled, unskilled, indeterminate? A legal question arising from obligations may be skilled, it may be unskilled, it may be indeterminate. What is here a legal question arising from obligations that is skilled? Whatever (formal) act that an Order, good in mind, carries out: a (formal) act for which leave ought to be asked, a (formal) act at which a motion is put, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by one resolution, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by a resolution made three times—this is called a legal question arising from obligations that is skilled.

“What is here a legal question arising from obligations that is unskilled? Whatever (formal) act that an Order bad in mind, carries out … What is here a legal question arising from obligations that is indeterminate? Whatever (formal) act that an Order, indeterminate in mind, carries out … this is called a legal question arising from obligations that is indeterminate.

“(Can there be) a dispute and a legal question arising from disputes, a dispute (but) no legal question, a legal question (but) no dispute, a legal question as well as a dispute? There may be a dispute and a legal question arising from disputes, there may be a dispute (but) no legal question, there may be a legal question (but) no dispute, there may be a legal question as well as a dispute.

“What is here a dispute and a legal question arising from disputes? In this case, monks dispute, saying: ‘This is dhamma’ or … ‘This is not a bad offence’. Whatever herein is strife, quarrel, contention, dispute, difference of opinion, other opinion, because the common appellation of heatedness is ‘quarrel’ this is called a dispute and a legal question arising from disputes.

“What is here a dispute (but) not a legal question? Mother disputes with son and son disputes with, mother, and father disputes with son and son disputes with father, and brother disputes with brother and brother disputes with sister and sister disputes with brother, and friend disputes with friend. This is a dispute (but) not a legal question.

“What is here a legal question (but) not a dispute? A legal question arising from censure, a legal question arising from offences, a legal question arising from obligations. This is a legal question (but) not a dispute.

“What is here a legal question as well as a dispute? A legal question arising from disputes is a legal question as well as a dispute.

“(Can there be) censure and a legal question arising from censure, censure (but) no legal question, a legal question (but) no censure, a legal question as well as censure? There may be censure and a legal question arising from censure, there may be censure (but) no legal question, there may be a legal question (but) no censure, there may be a legal question as well as censure.

“What is here censure and a legal question arising from censure? In this case monks censure a monk with falling away from moral habit or … with falling away from a right mode of living. Whatever herein is censure, blaming … instigating, this is censure and a legal question arising from censure.

“What is here censure (but) not a legal question? Mother censures son and son censures mother … and friend censures friend. This is censure (but) not a legal question.

“What is here a legal question (but) not censure? A legal question arising from offences, a legal question arising from obligations, a legal question arising from disputes. This is a legal question but not censure.

“What is here a legal question as well as censure? A legal question arising from censure is a legal question as well as censure.

“(Can there be) an offence and a legal question arising from offences, an offence (but) no legal question, a legal question (but) no offence, a legal question as well as an offence? There may be an offence and a legal question arising from offences, there may be an offence (but) no legal question, there may be a legal question (but) no offence, there may be a legal question as well as an offence.

“What is here an offence and a legal question arising from offences? The five classes of offences (yield) a legal question arising from offences and the seven classes of offences (yield) a legal question arising from offences. This is an offence and a legal question arising from offences.

“What is here an offence (but) not a legal question? Stream-attainment and Attainment. This is “falling” but not a legal question.

“What is here a legal question (but) not an offence? A legal question arising from obligations, a legal question arising from disputes, a legal question arising from censure. This is a legal question (but) not an offence.

“What is here a legal question as well as an offence? A legal question arising from offences is a legal question as well as an offence.

“(Can there be) an obligation and a legal question arising from obligations, an obligation (but) no legal question, a legal question (but) no obligation, a legal question as well as an obligation? There may be an obligation and a legal question arising from obligations, there may be an obligation (but) no legal question, there may be a legal question (but) no obligation, there may be a legal question as well as an obligation.

“What is here an obligation and a legal question arising from obligations? Whatever is an Order’s business and ought to be done by it: a (formal) act for which leave ought to be asked, a (formal) act at which a motion is put, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by one resolution, a (formal) act at which a motion is put and followed by a resolution made three times—this is an obligation and a legal question arising from obligations.

“What is here an obligation (but) no legal question? An obligation to a teacher, an obligation to a preceptor, an obligation to one who has the same preceptor, an obligation to one who has the same teacher. This is an obligation (but) not a legal question.

“What is here a legal question (but) not an obligation? A legal question arising from disputes … arising from censure … arising from offences. This is a legal question (but) not an obligation.

“What is here a legal question as well as an obligation? A legal question arising from obligations is a legal question as well as an obligation.

Settlement of issues

“By how many kinds of decision is a legal question arising from disputes agreed upon? A legal question arising from disputes is (agreed upon) by two (kinds of) decisions: by a verdict in the presence of and by the decision of the majority. If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from disputes, without having recourse to one (kind of) decision—the decision of the majority—one may agree upon it by the other (kind of) decision—the verdict in the presence of?’ he should be told: ‘It can be’. It is like this: In this case monks dispute, saying: ‘It is dhamma’ … or ‘It is a bad offence’. If, monks, these monks are able to settle that legal question this, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of. And what here (is needed) for a verdict in the presence of? The presence of an Order, the presence of rule, the presence of discipline, the presence of individuals.

“And what here is the presence of an Order? When as many monks as are competent for (formal) acts have arrived, when the consent of those deserving (to send their) consent has been brought, when being face to face they do not protest. This is here the presence of an Order.

“And what is here the presence of rule, the presence of discipline? If that legal question is settled by whatever is rule, by whatever is discipline, by whatever is the Teacher’s instruction, that is here the presence of rule, the presence of discipline.

“And what is here the presence of individuals? Whoever quarrels and whoever he quarrels with, both, hostile about the matter, come face to face. This is here the presence of individuals.

“Monks, if a legal question is settled thus, and if one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monk, these monks are not able to settle that legal question in that residence, then, monks, these monks should go to some residence where there are more monks. If, monks, these monks as they are going to that residence are able to settle that legal question on the way, this, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of … as in Kd.14.14.16 … in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, these monks as they are going to that residence are not able to settle that legal question on the way, then, monks, these monks, having arrived at that residence, should speak thus to the resident monks: ‘This legal question, your reverences, has arisen thus, has sprung up thus. It were good if the venerable ones could settle this legal question by rule, by discipline, by the Teacher’s instruction, so that this legal question may be properly settled.’ If, monks, the resident monks are the senior and the in-coming monks the more newly ordained, then, monks, the in-coming monks should be spoken to thus by the resident monks: ‘Please do you, venerable ones, remain at a respectful distance for a moment until we have considered.’ But if, monks, the resident monks are the more newly ordained and the in-coming monks are the senior, then, monks, the in-coming monks should be spoken to thus by these resident monks: ‘Well then, do you, venerable ones, remain just here for a moment until we have considered’. If, monks, it occurs to these resident monks while they are thus considering: ‘We are not able to settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction,’ that legal question should not be taken up. But if, monks, it occurs to the resident monks while they are thus considering: ‘We are able to settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction,’ monks, the incoming monks should be spoken to thus by these resident monks: ‘If you, venerable ones, will tell us how this legal question has arisen, how it has sprung up, then in so far as we settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction, so will it be settled. In this way we will take up this legal question. But if you, venerable ones, will not tell us how this legal question has arisen, how it has sprung up, then in so far as we settle this legal question according to … the Teacher’s instruction, so will it be settled. But we will not take up this legal question.” Having thus arranged it properly, monks, that legal question should be taken up by the resident monks. Monks, the resident monks should be spoken to thus by the incoming monks: ‘We will tell the venerable ones how this legal question has arisen, how it has sprung up. If the venerable ones are able with or without this much to settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction, then will it be properly settled, and we will therefore give this legal question into the charge of the venerable ones. But if the venerable ones are not able with or without this much to settle this legal question according to … the Teacher’s instruction, then will it be not properly settled and we will not give this legal question into the charge of the venerable ones—we ourselves will become the masters in regard to this legal question’. Having thus arranged it properly, monks, the incoming monks should give that legal question into the charge of the resident monks. Monks, if these monks are able to settle that legal question, this, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? … as in Kd.14.14.16 … in criticising, there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, while those monks are investigating that legal question both endless disputations arise, and of not one speech is the meaning clear, I allow you, monks, to settle a legal question like this by means of a referendum. A monk possessed of ten qualities should be agreed upon for the referendum: one who is moral in habit, who lives restrained by the restraint of the Pātimokkha, who, possessed of good conduct, sees danger in the slightest faults, who takes up and trains himself in the rules of training, who has heard much, an expert in the heard, a storehouse of the heard; those things which, lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle and lovely at the ending, declare with the spirit, with the letter the Brahma-faring utterly fulfilled, wholly purified—things like this are much heard by him, learnt by heart, repeated out loud, pondered upon, considered carefully, well penetrated by vision; both the Pātimokkhas are properly handed down to him in detail, properly sectioned, properly regulated, properly investigated clause by clause as to the linguistic form; he comes to be clever in discipline, imperturbable; he comes to be competent in convincing both of those who are hostile about the matter, in winning them over, in making them consider, in understanding, in reconciling them; he comes to be skilled in settling a legal question that has arisen; he knqws what is a legal question; he knows the uprising of a legal question; he knows the stopping of a legal question; he knows the course leading to the stopping of a legal question. I allow, monks, a monk possessed of these ten qualities to be agreed upon for a referendum.

“And thus, monks, should he be agreed upon: 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. While we were investigating this legal question both endless disputations arose and of not one speech was the meaning clear. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may agree upon the monk So-and-so and So-and-so to settle this legal question by means of a referendum. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were investigating this legal question … was the meaning clear. The Order is agreeing upon the monk So-and-so and So-and-so to settle this legal question by means of a referendum. If the agreement upon the monk So-and-so and So-and-so to settle this legal question by means of a referendum is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The monk So-and-so and So-and-so is agreed upon by the Order to settle this legal question by means of a referendum. It is pleasing … Thus do I understand this.’

“If, monks, these monks are able to settle this legal question by means of a referendum, this, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of. And what is here needed for a verdict in the presence of? The presence of rule, the presence of discipline, the presence of the individuals … as in Kd.14.14.16 … If, monks, the legal question is settled thus, and if one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, while these monks are investigating that legal question there should be there a monk who is a speaker of dhamma but to whom neither the rule comes to have been handed down nor the analysis of the rule, if he, not considering the meaning, holds back the meaning under the shadow of the letter, these monks should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. This monk So-and-so is a speaker of dhamma, but he is one to whom neither the rule nor the analysis of the rule has been handed down; not considering the meaning, he holds back the meaning under the shadow of the letter. If it seems right to the venerable ones, let the remainder, having had this monk removed, settle that legal question’. If, monks, these monks, having had that monk removed, are able to settle that legal question, this, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of. And what is here needed for a verdict in the presence of? The presence of rule, the presence of discipline, the presence of individuals … as in Kd.14.14.16 … Monks, if a legal question is settled thus, and if one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, whilst those monks are investigating the legal question there should be there a monk who is a speaker of dhamma and one to whom the rule has been handed down but not the analysis of the rule, if he, not considering the meaning, holds back the meaning under the shadow of the letter, these monks should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. This monk So-and-so is a speaker of dhamma and he is one to whom the rule has been handed down but not the analysis of the rule; not considering the meaning … … in opening up there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, these monks are not able to settle that legal question by a referendum, monks, that legal question should be given into the charge of an Order by these monks, saying: ‘We, honoured sirs, are not able to settle this legal question by a referendum. Let the Order itself settle this legal question.’ I allow you, monks, to settle a legal question like this by the decision of the majority. A monk possessed of five qualities should be agreed upon as distributor of (voting) tickets … as in Kd.14.9 … ‘… Thus do I understand this.’ The monk who is the distributor of (voting) tickets should make the (voting) tickets pass round. According to the way in which the greater number of monks who profess dhamma speak, so should this legal question be settled. This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by the decision of the majority. And what is here (needed for) a verdict in the presence of? The presence of an Order, the presence of rule, the presence of discipline, the presence of the individuals. And what is here the presence of an Order? … as in Kd.14.14.16 … This is here the presence of the individuals.

“And what is here the decision of the majority? Whatever is the carrying out of, the performance of, the undertaking of, the assenting to, the acceptance of, the non-protesting against a (formal) act (settled) by the decision of the majority, this is here the decision of the majority. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus, and if one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation; if one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.”

Now at that time at Sāvatthī a legal question had arisen thus, had sprung up thus. Then these monks were displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the Order at Sāvatthī. They heard it said: “In a certain residence several elders are staying who have heard much, to whom the tradition has been handed down, experts in dhamma, experts in discipline, experts in the headings, learned, experienced, clever, conscientious, scrupulous, desirous of training; if these elders would settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction, thus would this legal question be properly settled.” Then these monks, having gone to that residence, spoke thus to those elders: “This legal question, honoured sirs, arose thus, sprang up thus. It were good, honoured sirs, if the elders were to settle this legal question according to rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction, so that this legal question might be properly settled.” Then these elders thought: “Because this legal question was settled by the Order at Sāvatthī, it was therefore properly settled,’ and they settled that legal question in the same way. Then these monks were displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the Order at Sāvatthī, they were displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the several elders.

They heard it said: “In a certain residence three elders are staying … two elders are staying … one elder is staying who has heard much, to whom the tradition has been handed down … desirous of training; if this elder would settle this legal question according to … the Teacher’s instruction, thus would this legal question be properly settled.” Then these monks, having gone to that residence, spoke thus to that elder: “This legal question, honoured sir, arose thus, sprang up thus. It were good, honoured sir, if the elder were to settle this legal question according to … the Teacher’s instruction, so that this legal question might be properly settled.” Then that elder thought: ‘Because this legal question was settled by the Order at Sāvatthī, because this legal question was settled by several elders, because this legal question was settled by three elders, because this legal question was settled by two elders it was therefore properly settled,’ and he settled that legal question in the same way. Then these monks, displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the Order at Sāvatthī, displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the several elders … by the three elders … by the two elders, displeased with the settlement of the legal question by the one elder, approached the Lord; having approached, they told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, this legal question is done with, it is exhausted, it is settled, it is properly settled.

“I allow, monks, in order to convince these monks, three methods of taking votes: the secret, the whispering in the ear, the open. And what, monks, is the secret method of taking votes? The monk who is the distributor of voting tickets, having made the tickets different (from one another), having approached each monk, should speak to him thus: ‘This ticket is for one of such a view, this ticket is for one of such a view. Take whichever you like.’ When he has taken it, he should be told: ‘And do not show it to anybody’. If he finds that the majority profess what is not-dhamma and thinks (the voting is) wrongly taken (the result) should be rejected. If he finds that the majority profess dhamma and thinks (the voting is) rightly taken (the result) should be announced. This, monks, is the secret (method of) taking votes.

“And what, monks, is the method of taking votes by whispering in the ear? The monk who is the distributor of voting tickets should speak into the ear of each monk, saying: ‘This ticket is for one of such a view, this ticket is for one of such a view. Take whichever you like.’ When he has taken it, he should be told: ‘And do not tell anyone about it.’ If he finds that the majority profess what is not-dhamma and thinks (the voting is) wrongly taken (the result) should be rejected. If he finds that the majority profess dhamma and thinks (the voting is) rightly taken (the result) should be announced. This, monks, is the method of taking votes by whispering in the ear.

“And what, monks, is the open method of taking votes? If he finds that those who profess dhamma are in the majority, because of his very confidence he should make them take openly. This, monks, is the open method of taking votes. These, monks, are the three methods of taking votes.

“By how many (kinds of) decisions is a legal question arising from censure agreed upon? A legal question arising from censure is agreed upon by four (kinds of) decisions: by a verdict in the presence of, by a verdict of innocence, by a verdict of past insanity, by a decision for specific depravity. If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from censure, without having recourse to two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict of past insanity and the decision for specific depravity—one may agree upon it by two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict in the presence of and the verdict of innocence?’ he should be told: ‘It can be.’ It is like this: This is a case where monks defame a monk with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit. Monks, a verdict of innocence should be given to that monk who has remembered fully. And thus, monks, should it be given: That monk, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms, should speak thus to it: ‘Honoured sirs, monks defamed me with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit. But I, honoured sirs, having remembered fully, ask the Order for a verdict of innocence’. 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. Monks defamed the monk So-and-so with an unfounded charge of falling away from moral habit; he, having remembered fully, is asking the Order for a verdict of innocence. If it seems right to the Order … as in Kd.14.4.10 … Thus do I understand this.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by a verdict of innocence. And what is here needed for a verdict in the presence of? The presence of the Order, the presence of rule, the presence of discipline and the presence of the individuals … as at Kd.14.14.16 … And what is here the presence of the individuals? Whoever quarrels and whoever he quarrels with, if both come face to face, this is here the presence of the individuals.

“And what is here needed for a verdict of innocence? Whatever is the carrying out of, the performance of, the undertaking of, the assenting to, the acceptance of, the non-protesting against a formal act for a verdict of innocence, that is what is needed here for a verdict of innocence. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus, and one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from censure, without having recourse to two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict of innocence and the decision for specific depravity—one may agree upon it by two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict in the presence of and the verdict of past insanity?’ he should be told: ‘It can be.’ It is like this: This is a case where a monk becomes mad, out of his mind, and while he was mad, out of his mind, he perpetrated much and spoke in a way that was not worthy of a recluse. Monks reprove him because of offences done by him while he was mad, out of his mind, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like this?’ He speaks thus: ‘I, your reverences, was mad, out of my mind; while I was mad, out of my mind, much was perpetrated and spoken by me that was not worthy of a recluse. I do not remember that. That was done by me while I was insane.’ Although being spoken to thus, they still reprove him, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into an offence like that?’ Monks, a verdict of past insanity should be given to that monk who is no longer insane.

“And thus, monks, should it be given: Monks, that monk, having approached the Order, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder … should speak thus to it: ‘ I, honoured sirs, was mad … as in Kd.14.5.2. Instead of Gagga read the monk So-and-so … Thus do I understand this.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by a verdict of past insanity. And what here (is needed) for a verdict in the presence of? The presence of the Order … as in Kd.14.14.16 … And what is here (needed for) a verdict of past insanity? Whatever is the carrying out of, the performance of … the non-protesting against a verdict of past insanity, that here is what (is needed for) a verdict of past insanity. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus and one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from censure, without having recourse to two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict of innocence and the verdict of past insanity—one may agree upon it by two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict in the presence of and the decision for specific depravity?’ he should be told: ‘It can be.’ It is like this: This is a case where a monk reproves a monk in the midst of the Order for a serious offence, saying: ‘Does the venerable one remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat?’ He speaks thus: ‘I do not remember, your reverence, having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat.’ Although denying this, he presses him, saying: ‘Please, venerable one, find out properly whether you remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat.’ He speaks thus: ‘I, your reverence, do not remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat. But I, your reverence, remember having fallen into a trifling offence like this.’ Although denying this, he presses him, saying: ‘Please, venerable one, find out properly whether you remember … bordering on one involving defeat’. He speaks thus: ‘Your reverence, unasked I acknowledge having fallen into a trifling offence like this; how could I, when asked, not acknowledge having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat?’ He speaks thus: ‘But, your reverence, unasked you did not acknowledge having fallen into a trifling offence, so how will you, unasked, acknowledge having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat? Please, venerable one, find out properly whether you remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat.’ He speaks thus: ‘Your reverence, I do remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat. When I said: I do not remember having fallen into a serious offence like this—one involving defeat or bordering on one involving defeat—this was said by me in jest, this was said by me in haste.’

“Monks, a (formal) act for the decision of specific depravity should be carried out against this monk. And thus, monks, should it be carried out. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying … as in Kd.14.11.2. Instead of the monk Uvāḷa read the monk So-and-so; instead of offences read serious offences … Thus do I understand this.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by a decision for specific gravity. And what is here (needed for) a verdict in the presence of? The presence of the Order … as in Kd.14.14.16 … And what here is (needed for) a decision for specific depravity? Whatever is the carrying out of, the performance of, the undertaking of, the assenting to, the acceptance of, the non-protesting against a decision for specific depravity, that is here what is needed for a decision for specific depravity. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus and one who carries it out opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“By how many (kinds of) decisions is a legal question arising from offences agreed upon? A legal question arising from offences is agreed upon by three (kinds of) decisions: by a verdict in the presence of and by the carrying out of it on his acknowledgement and by the covering up (as) with grass. If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from offences, without having recourse to one (kind of) decision—the covering up (as) with grass—one may agree upon it by two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict in the presence of and the carrying out of it on his acknowledgement?’ he should be told: ‘It can be.’ It is like this: This is a case where a monk comes to have fallen into a slight offence. Monks, that monk, having approached one monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having sat down on his haunches, having stretched forth his joined palms, should speak thus to him: ‘I, your reverence, fallen into such and such an offence, confess it.’ It should be said by him: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should be restrained in the future.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by the carrying out of it of his acknowledgement. And what here is (needed for) a verdict in the presence of? The presence of rule and the presence of discipline and the presence of individuals. And what here is the presence of individuals? If both whoever confesses and he to whom he confesses are face to face, this here is the presence of individuals. And what here is (needed for) the carrying out on his acknowledgement? Whatever is the carrying out … the non-protesting against his making an acknowledgement, that is here what is needed for his making an acknowledgement. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus, and the one who accepts (the confession) opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation.

“If he manages this thus, it is good. But if he does not manage it, monks, that monk, having approached several monks, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having honoured the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having stretched forth his joined palms, should speak thus to them: ‘I, honoured sirs, fallen into such and such an offence, confess it.’ These monks should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. This monk So-and-so remembers an offence, he discloses it, he declares it, he confesses it. If it seems right to the venerable ones, I will accept (the confession) of the monk So-and-so’s offence.’ He should say: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should be restrained in the future.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of … as in Kd.14.14.31 … in opening up there is an offence of expiation.

“If he manages this thus, it is good. But if he does not manage it, monks, that monk, having approached an Order … should speak thus to it: ‘I, honoured sirs, fallen into such and such an offence, confess it.’ The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk So-and-so remembers an offence, he discloses it, he declares it, he confesses it. If it seems right to the Order I could accept (the confession) of the monk So-and-so’s offence.’ He should say: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should be restrained in the future.’ This, monks, is called a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by the carrying out on his acknowledgement. And what here is (needed for) a verdict in the presence of? The presence of the Order, the presence of rule, the presence of discipline and the presence of the individuals … If, monks, a legal question is settled thus, and the one who accepts (the confession) opens it up again, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“If one says: ‘Can it be that, in respect of a legal question arising from offences, without having recourse to one decision—the carrying out on his acknowledgement—one may agree upon it by two (kinds of) decisions—the verdict in the presence of and the covering up (as) with grass?’ he should be told, ‘It can be.’ It is like this: ‘This is a case, monks, where while monks were striving … as in Kd.14.13.1–Kd.14.13.3 … Thus do I understand this.’ This is called, monks, a legal question that is settled. By what is it settled? By a verdict in the presence of and by a covering up (as) with grass. And what here is (needed for) a verdict in the presence of? The presence of the Order, the presence of rule, the presence of discipline, the presence of the individuals. And what here is the presence of the Order? When as many monks as are competent for (formal) acts have arrived, when the consent of those deserving (to send their) consent has been brought, when being face to face they do not protest. This is here the presence of the Order.

“And what is here the presence of rule, the presence of discipline? If that legal question is settled by whatever is rule, by whatever is discipline, by whatever is the Teacher’s instruction, that is here the presence of rule, the presence of discipline.

“And what is here the presence of individuals? If both whoever confesses and he to whom he confesses are face to face, this is here the presence of the individuals.

“And what here is (needed for) the covering up (as) with grass? Whatever is the carrying out of, the performance of, the undertaking of, the assenting to, the acceptance of, the non-protesting against the covering up (as) with grass, that is here what is (needed for) the covering up (as) with grass. If, monks, a legal question is settled thus, and if the one who accepts (the confession) opens it up, in opening up there is an offence of expiation. If one who has given his consent criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.

“By how many (kinds of) decisions is a legal question arising from obligations agreed upon? A legal question arising from obligations is agreed upon by one (kind of) decision: the verdict in the presence of.”

Told is the Fourth Section: that on Settlements.