The story of the monk Kassapagotta

At one time the awakened one, the Lord was staying at Campā on the bank of the Gaggarā lotus-pool. Now at that time in the Kāsi country there was a village named Vāsabha; a monk called Kassapagotta was a resident there, he was attached to the tradition, he had made an effort so that well behaved monks who had not come should come, and so that well behaved monks who had come should live in comfort, and so that that residence should attain growth, expansion, maturity. Now at that time several monks walking on tour among the Kāsi people arrived at the village of Vāsabha. The monk Kassapagotta saw these monks coming in the distance; seeing them he made ready a seat, he put out water for washing the feet, a foot-stool, a foot-stand, having gone out to meet them he received their bowls and robes, he offered them drinking water, he made an effort in the matter of bathing (for them), he also made an effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice. Then it occurred to these incoming monks: “Good indeed is this resident monk, your reverences, he makes an effort in the matter of bathing (for us), he also makes an effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for us). Come now, let us, your reverences, settle down just here at Vāsabha village.” Then these incoming monks settled down just there at Vāsabha village.

Then it occurred to the monk Kassapagotta: “What was travel-weariness in these incoming monks has abated; further they, who did not know which alms-resorts were appointed, now know these alms-resorts which were appointed. It is indeed arduous to make an effort all one’s life among strangers, and hinting is not liked by the people. Suppose I were to make no effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice?” He made no effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice. Then it occurred to those incoming monks:

“Formerly, your reverences, this resident monk made an effort in the matter of bathing (for us), he also made an effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for us), but now he makes no effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for us). This resident monk, your reverences, is now corrupt. Come now, your reverences, let us suspend the resident monk.”

Then these incoming monks, having assembled together, spoke thus to the monk Kassapagotta: “Now, formerly you, your reverence, used to make an effort in the matter of bathing (for us), you also used to make an effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for us), but now you make no effort in the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for us). You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence; do you see this offence?”

“There is no offence of mine, your reverences, that I can see.”

Then these incoming monks suspended the monk Kassapagotta for not seeing the offence. Then it occurred to the monk Kassapagotta: “Indeed I do not know this: whether this is an offence or is no offence, and whether I have fallen or have not fallen, and whether I am suspended or am not suspended, or whether it is by (an act) that is legitimate or that is not legitimate, or by (one) that is reversible or that is irreversible, or by (one) that is fit to stand or that is not fit to stand. Suppose that I, having gone to Campā, were to ask the Lord about this matter?”

Then the monk Kassapagotta, having packed away his lodging, taking his bowl and robe, set out for Campā; in due course he approached Campā and the Lord. Having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. Now it is the custom for awakened ones, for lords to exchange friendly greetings with incoming monks. So the Lord spoke thus to the monk Kassapagotta: “I hope, monk, that things went well with you, I hope you had enough to support life, I hope you have come on the journey with but little fatigue. But where, monk, have you come from?”

“Things did go well with me, Lord, I had enough to support life, Lord, and I, Lord, came on the journey with but little fatigue.

“There is, Lord, in the Kāsi country a village called Vāsabha. I, Lord, a resident there, attached to the tradition, had made an effort so that well behaved monks who had not come should come, and so that well behaved monks who had come should live in comfort, and so that that residence should attain growth, expansion, maturity. Then, Lord, several monks walking on tour among the people of Kāsi arrived at the village of Vāsabha. I, Lord, saw those monks coming in the distance; seeing them I made ready a seat … Then, Lord, it occurred to these incoming monks: ‘Good indeed is this resident monk …’ … Then, Lord, these incoming monks settled down, just there in Vāsabha village. Then, Lord, it occurred to me: ‘… Suppose I were to make no effort in … the matter of conjey, solid food, rice (for them)?’ So then I made no effort … Then, Lord, these incoming monks, having assembled together, spoke thus to me: ‘Now, formerly, your reverence … Do you see this offence?’ Then, Lord, these incoming monks suspended me for not seeing the offence. Then, Lord, it occurred to me: ‘Indeed I do not know … Suppose that I, having gone to Campā, were to ask the Lord about this matter?’ That is why, Lord, I have come.”

“This is no offence, monk, this is not an offence; you are unfallen, you have not fallen; you are unsuspended, you were not suspended; you were suspended by a (formal) act that was not legitimate, that was reversible, that was not fit to stand. Go you, monk, settle down there at Vāsabha village.”

“Very well, Lord,” and the monk Kassapagotta having answered the Lord in assent, rising from his seat, having greeted the Lord, keeping his right side towards him, set out for Vāsabha village.

Then these incoming monks became doubtful, they became remorseful. They thought: “Indeed it was unprofitable for us, indeed it was not profitable for us, indeed it was ill-gotten by us, indeed it was not well-gotten by us, that we suspended a pure monk, not an offender, without cause, without reason. Come now, your reverences, having gone to Campā, let us confess the transgression as a transgression to the Lord.” Then these incoming monks, having packed away their lodgings, taking their bowls and robes, set out for Campā; in due course they approached Campā and the Lord. Having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. Now it is the custom for awakened ones, for lords to exchange friendly greetings with incoming monks. So the Lord spoke thus to those monks: “I hope, monks, that things went well with you, I hope you had enough to support life, I hope you have come on the journey with but little fatigue. But where, monks, have you come from?”

“Things have gone well with us, Lord, we had enough to support life, Lord, and we came on the journey. Lord, with but little fatigue. There is, Lord, in the Kāsi country a village called Vāsabha. We come from there, Lord.”

“Did you, monks, suspend a resident monk?”

“Yes, Lord.”

“For what cause, monks, for what reason?”

“There was no cause, Lord, no reason.” The awakened one, the Lord rebuked them, saying:

“It is not fitting, monks, 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 can you, foolish men, suspend a pure monk, not an offender, without cause, without reason? It is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” and having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, a pure monk, not an offender, is not to be suspended without cause, without reason. Whoever should suspend one, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Then these monks, rising from their seats, having arranged their upper robes over one shoulder, having inclined their heads towards the Lord’s feet, spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord, a transgression has overcome us, in that we, foolish, misguided, wrong that we were, suspended a pure monk, not an offender, without cause, without reason. Lord, let the Lord acknowledge our transgression as a transgression for the sake of restraint in the future.”

“Truly, monks, a transgression has overcome you, in that you, foolish, misguided, wrong that you were, suspended a pure monk, not an offender, without cause, without reason. But if you, monks, having seen the transgression as a transgression, confess according to the rule, we acknowledge it for you; for, monks, in the discipline for an ariyan this is growth: whoever having seen a transgression as a transgression confesses it according to the rule, he attains restraint in the future.”

On an act not by rule in an incomplete assembly, etc.

Now at that time at Campā monks carried out (formal) acts like these: they carried out a (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly, they carried out a (formal) act not by rule, in a complete assembly, they carried out a (formal) act by a rule, in an incomplete assembly, they carried out a (formal) act, by what had the appearance of a rule, in an incomplete assembly, they carried out a (formal) act by what had the appearance of a rule, in a complete assembly; and one suspended one and one suspended two and one suspended several and one suspended an Order, and two suspended one and two suspended two and two suspended several and two suspended an Order, and several suspended one and several suspended two and several suspended several and several suspended an Order, and an Order suspended an Order.

Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks at Campā carry out (formal) acts like these? How can they carry out a (formal) act by rule, in an incomplete assembly? … How can they carry out a (formal) act by what has the appearance of a rule, in a complete assembly? And how can one suspend one … and how can an Order suspend an Order?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that monks at Campā carry out (formal) acts like these? Do they carry out a (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … and does an Order suspend an Order?”

“It is true, Lord.” The awakened one, the Lord rebuked them, saying:

“Monks, it is not fitting in these foolish men, it is not becoming, it is not suitable, it is unworthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. How, monks, can these foolish men carry out (formal) acts like these? How can they carry out a (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly? … and how can an Order suspend an Order? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“If, monks, a (formal) act is carried out not by rule, in an incomplete assembly, it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. A (formal) act carried out not by rule, in a complete assembly, is not a formal act and ought not to be carried out … A (formal) act carried out by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out; and if one suspends one it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out … and if an Order suspends an Order it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

“Monks, there are these four (formal) acts: a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule, in an incomplete assembly; a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule in a complete assembly; a (formal) act (carried out) by rule in an incomplete assembly; a (formal) act (carried out) by rule in a complete assembly. Herein, monks, that which is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule, in an incomplete assembly, this (formal) act, monks, because it lacks reference to rule, because of the incompleteness (of the assembly), is reversible, is not fit to stand. Monks, a (formal) act like this should not be carried out, and a (formal) act like this is not allowed by me. Herein, monks, that which is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule, in a complete assembly, this (formal) act, monks, because it lacks reference to rule, is reversible, is not fit to stand … and a (formal) act like this is not allowed by me. Herein, monks, that which is a (formal) act (carried out) by rule, in an incomplete assembly, this (formal) act, monks, because of the incompleteness (of the assembly), is reversible … is not allowed by me. Herein, monks, that which is a (formal) act (carried out) by rule, in a complete assembly, this (formal) act, monks, because it has reference to rule, because of the completeness (of the assembly), is irreversible, it is fit to stand. Monks, a (formal) act like this may be carried out and a (formal) act like this is allowed by me. Therefore, monks, thinking: ‘We will carry out a (formal) act like this, that is to say by rule, in a complete assembly’—it is thus that you must train yourselves.”

On an act without a motion, etc.

Now at that time the group of six monks carried out (formal) acts like these: they carried out a (formal) act not by rule in an incomplete assembly; they carried out a (formal) act not by rule in a complete assembly; they carried out a (formal) act by rule in an incomplete assembly; they carried out a (formal) act by what had the appearance of a rule in an incomplete assembly; they carried out a (formal) act by what had the appearance of a rule in a complete assembly; they also carried out a (formal) act for which a motion had not been furnished although a proclamation had been furnished; they also carried out a (formal) act for which a proclamation had not been furnished although a motion had been furnished; they also carried out a (formal) act for which a motion had not been furnished and for which a proclamation had not been furnished; they also carried out a (formal) act that was against the rule; they also carried out a (formal) act that was against discipline; they also carried out a (formal) act that was against the Teacher’s instruction; they also carried out a (formal) act that had been protested against, that was not legitimate, reversible, not fit to stand. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:

“How can this group of six monks carry out (formal) acts like these? How can they carry out a (formal) act not by rule in an incomplete assembly? … How can they carry out a (formal) act that has been protested against, that is not legitimate, reversible, not fit to stand?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that the group of six monks carried out (formal) acts like these; that they carried out a (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … a (formal) act that has been protested against, that is not legitimate, reversible, not fit to stand?”

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

“Monks, a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule, in an incomplete assembly, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out … A (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of a rule in a complete assembly is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. Monks, a (formal) act for which a motion is not furnished, although a proclamation is furnished, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. Monks, a (formal) act for which a proclamation is furnished, although a motion is not furnished, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. Monks, a (formal) act for which a motion is not furnished and for which a proclamation is not furnished, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. Monks, a (formal) act carried out against the rule … against the discipline … against the Teacher’s instruction is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. Monks, a (formal) act that has been protested against, that is not legitimate, reversible, not fit to stand, is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

“Monks, there are these six (formal) acts: a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule, a (formal) act (carried out) in an incomplete assembly, a (formal) act (carried out) in a complete assembly, a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule in an incomplete assembly, a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule in a complete assembly, a (formal) act (carried out) by rule in a complete assembly.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule? If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, one carries out the (formal) act by means of the one motion but does not proclaim the resolution, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule. If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, one carries out the (formal) act by means of two motions but does not proclaim the resolution, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule. If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, one carries out the (formal) act by means of the one resolution but does not propose the motion, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule. If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, one carries out the (formal) act by means of two resolutions but does not propose the motion, it is a (formal) act carried out not by rule.

“If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times, one carries out the (formal) act by means of one motion but does not proclaim the resolution , then it is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule. If monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times, one carries out the (formal) act by means of two motions … three motions … four motions but does not proclaim the resolution, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule. If, monks, when it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution io be put three times, one carries out the (formal) act by means of one proclamation … two proclamations … three proclamations … four proclamations, but does not propose the motion, then it is a (formal) act carried out not by rule. This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) not by rule.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) in an incomplete assembly? If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act are not come, if the leave for absence of those fit (to declare their) leave of absence is not sent, if those who are present protest, it is a (formal) act in an incomplete assembly. If, monks, … as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act are come, if the leave for absence … is not sent, if those who are present protest, it is a (formal) act in an incomplete assembly. If, monks, … as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act are come, if the leave for absence of those fit (to declare their) leave for absence is sent, if those who are present protest, it is a (formal) act (carried out) in an incomplete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution put three times … the same three cases as above are repeated here … it is a (formal) act in an incomplete assembly. This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) in an incomplete assembly.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) in a complete assembly? If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and as many monks as are (entitled to take part in the formal) act are come, if the leave for absence of those fit (to declare their) leave for absence is sent, if those who are present do not protest, it is a (formal) act (carried out) in a complete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times … the same three cases as above are repeated here … it is a (formal) act (carried out) in a complete assembly. This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) in a complete assembly.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly? If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and one first proclaims the resolution and afterwards proposes the motion, if as many monks as are entitled (to take part in a formal) act have not come, if the leave for absence of those fit (to declare their) leave for absence is not sent, if those who are present protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and one first proclaims the resolution and afterwards proposes the motion, if as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act have come, if the leave of absence … is not sent, if those who are present protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and one first proclaims the resolution and afterwards proposes the motion, if as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act have come, if the leave for absence of those (fit to declare) leave for absence is sent , if those who are present protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times … the same three cases as above are repeated here … This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly? If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and one first proclaims the resolution and afterwards proposes the motion, if as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act have come, if the leave of absence of those fit (to declare their) leave of absence is sent, if those who are present do not protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times … the same as above is repeated here … it is a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of the rule in a complete assembly. This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) by what has the appearance of rule in a complete assembly.

“And what, monks, is a (formal) act (carried out) by rule in a complete assembly? If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution, and if one first proposes the motion and after one resolution carries out the (formal) act, if as many monks are entitled (to take part in the formal) act have come, if the leave of absence of those fit (to declare their) leave of absence is sent, if those who are present do not protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by rule in a complete assembly.

“If, monks, it is a (formal) act with a motion and a resolution to be put three times, and if one first proposes the motion and after (having put) the resolution three times, carries out the (formal) act, if as many monks as are entitled (to take part in the formal) act have come, if the leave of absence of those who are fit (to declare their) leave of absence is sent, if those who are present do not protest, then it is a (formal) act (carried out) by rule, in a complete assembly. This, monks, is called a (formal) act (carried out) by rule, in a complete assembly.

Carrying out by a fourfold Order, etc.

“Five (kinds of) Orders: a fourfold Order of monks, a fivefold Order of monks, a tenfold Order of monks, a twentyfold Order of monks, an Order of monks that is more than twenty-fold. In the case, monks, of an Order of monks being fourfold, it is entitled (to take part) in all (formal) acts, if by rule, if it is complete, excepting three (formal) acts: ordination, invitation, rehabilitation. In the case, monks, of an Order of monks being fivefold, it is entitled (to take part) in all (formal) acts, if by rule, if it is complete, excepting two (formal) acts: ordination in the middle districts, rehabilitation. In the case, monks, of an Order of monks being tenfold, it is entitled (to take part) in all (formal) acts, if by rule, if it is complete, excepting one (formal) act: rehabilitation. In the case, monks of an Order of monks being twentyfold, it is entitled (to take part) in all (formal) acts, if by rule, if it is complete. In the case, monks, of an Order of monks being more than twentyfold, it is entitled (to take part) in all (formal) acts, if by rule, if it is complete.

Carrying out by a Fourfold (Order)

“If, monks, a fourfold Order, carrying out a (formal) act, should carry out the (formal) act with a nun as the fourth (member), then it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. If, monks, a fourfold Order, carrying out a (formal) act, should carry out the (formal) act with a probationer as the fourth (member) … with a novice … with a woman novice … with a disavower of the training … with one who has committed an extreme offence … with one who is suspended for not seeing an offence … with one who is suspended for not making amends for an offence … with one who is suspended for not giving up a wrong view … with a eunuch … with one living in communion as it were by theft… with one who has gone over to a sect … with an animal … with a matricide … with a parricide … with a slayer of ones perfected … with a seducer of a nun … with a schismatic … with a shedder of (a tathāgata’s) blood … with a hermaphrodite … with one belonging to a different communion … with one staying in a different boundary … with one standing above the ground by psychic potency … with one against whom an Order is carrying out a (formal) act as the fourth (member), it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

Carrying out by a Fivefold (Order)

“If, monks, a fivefold (Order), carrying out a (formal) act, should carry out the (formal) act with a nun as the fifth (member) … with one against whom the Order is carrying out a (formal) act as the fifth (member), it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

Carrying out by a Tenfold (Order)

“If, monks, a tenfold (Order), carrying out a (formal) act, should carry out the (formal) act with a nun as the tenth (member) … with one against whom the Order is carrying out a (formal) act as the tenth (member), it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

Carrying out by a Twentyfold (Order)

“If, monks, a twentyfold Order, carrying out a (formal) act, should carry out the (formal) act with a nun as the twentieth (member) … with one against whom the Order is carrying out a (formal) act as the twentieth (member), it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

On one on probation, etc.

“If, monks, one on probation as the fourth (member) should grant probation, should send back to the beginning, should inflict mānatta, if he, as the twentieth (member), should rehabilitate, it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

“If, monks, one deserving to be sent back to the beginning as the fourth (member) should grant probation, should send back to the beginning, should inflict mānatta, if he, as the twentieth (member), should rehabilitate, it is not a (formal) and ought not to be carried out.

“If, monks, one deserving mānatta as the fourth (member) should grant probation, should send back to the beginning, should inflict mānatta, if he, as the twentieth (member) should rehabilitate, it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out. “If, monks, one undergoing mānatta as the fourth (member) should grant probation, should send back to the beginning, should inflict mānatta, if he, as the twentieth (member), should rehabilitate, it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

“If, monks, one deserving rehabilitation as the fourth (member) should grant probation, should send back to the beginning, should inflict mānatta, if he, as the twentieth (member), should rehabilitate, it is not a (formal) act and ought not to be carried out.

“Monks, the protest of some (people) in the midst of an Order is valid, of others is not valid. And, monks, of whom is a protest in the midst of an Order not valid? Monks, the protest of a nun in the midst of an Order is not valid … of a probationer … of a novice … of a woman novice … of a disavower of the training … of one who has committed an extreme offence … of one who is mad … of one who is unhinged … of one who is in pain … of one who is suspended for not seeing an offence … of one against whom an Order is carrying out a (formal) act. Monks, a protest of these in the midst of an Order is not valid.

“And, monks, of whom is a protest in the midst of an Order valid? Monks, a protest of a regular monk in the midst of an Order is valid if he belongs to the same communion, if he is staying within the same boundary, even if he only informs the monk next (to him). Monks, his protest in the midst of an Order is valid.

On two sent away, etc.

“There are, monks, these two (kinds of) being sent away. There is, monks, the individual who has not arrived at the point of being sent away, but if an Order sends him away he may be rightly sent away, or he may be wrongly sent away. And which, monks, is an individual who has not arrived at the point of being sent away, but who, if an Order sends him away, is wrongly sent away? Now this is a case, monks, where there is a pure monk, not an offender; if the Order sends him away, he is wrongly sent away. This, monks, is called an individual who has not arrived at the point of being sent away, and who, if the Order sends him away, is wrongly sent away. And which, monks, is an individual who has not arrived at the point of being sent away, but who, if an Order sends him away, is rightly sent away? Now this is a case, monks, where there is an ignorant, inexperienced monk, full of offences, not rid of them, one who lives in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders; if an Order sends him away, he is rightly sent away. This, monks, is called an individual who has not arrived at the point of being sent away, but who, if the Order sends him away, is rightly sent away.

“There are, monks, these two (kinds of) restoration. There is, monks, the individual who has not arrived at the point of restoration, but if an Order restores him, he may be rightly restored, or he may be wrongly restored. And which, monks, is the individual who has not arrived at the point of restoration, but who, if an Order restores him, is wrongly restored? A eunuch, monks, does not arrive at the point of restoration; if the Order restores him, he is wrongly restored. Monks, one living in communion, as it were by theft, … one gone over to a sect … an animal … a matricide … a parricide … a slayer of one perfected … a seducer of a nun … a schismatic … a shedder of (a Truthfinder’s) blood … a hermaphrodite does not arrive at the point of restoration; if an Order restores him, he is wrongly restored. These, monks, are called individuals who do not arrive at the point of restoration, and who, if the Order restores them, are wrongly restored.

“And which, monks, is an individual who has not arrived at the point of restoration, and who if an Order restores him, is rightly restored? One with his hands cut off, monks, who has not arrived at the point of restoration, if an Order restores him, is rightly restored. Monks, one with his feet cut off … one with his hands and feet cut off … his ears cut off … his nose cut off … his ears and nose cut off … his fingers cut off … his nails cut off … one with his tendons cut … one who has webbed hands … a hunchback … a dwarf … one who had goitre … one who has been branded … one who has been scourged … one who has been written about … one who has elephantiasis … one who is badly ill … one who has disgraced an assembly (by some deformity) … one who is blind … one with a crooked limb … one who is lame … one paralysed down one side … a cripple … one weak through old age … one who is blind from birth … one who is dumb … one who is deaf … one who is blind and dumb … one who is blind and deaf … one who is deaf and dumb … one who is blind and deaf and dumb who has not arrived at the point of restoration, if an Order restores him, is rightly restored. These, monks, are called individuals who have not arrived at the point of restoration, and who, if an Order restores them, are rightly restored.

The First Portion for Repeating: that on Vāsabha village.

On an act not by rule, etc.

“This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s that should be seen. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence?’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine that I can see,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing the offence, it is not a legally valid (formal) act. This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s for which amends should be made. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Make amends for this offence,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverences, an offence of mine for which I should make amends,’ and if the Order suspends him for not making amends for the offence, it is not a legally valid (formal) act. This is a case, monks, where there is not a wrong view of a monk’s that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘This is a wrong view of yours, your reverence. Give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence, a wrong view of mine that I should give up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not giving up the wrong view, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, not an offence for which amends should be made. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence? Make amends for this offence,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine that I can see; there is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine for which I should make amends,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing or for not making amends, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, not a wrong view that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence? This is a wrong view of yours; give up this wrong view’; and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine that I can see; there is not a wrong view of mine that I should give up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing or for not giving up, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s for which amends should be made, there is not a wrong view that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence; make amends for this offence. This is a wrong view of yours, give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s) an offence of mine for which I should make amends; there is not a wrong view of mine that I should give up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not making amends or for not giving up, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is not an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, there is not an offence for which amends should be made, there is not a wrong view that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence? Make amends for this offence. This is a wrong view of yours; give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine that I can see; there is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine for which I should make amends; there is not a wrong view of mine that I should give up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing or for not making amends or for not giving up, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s that should be seen. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence?’ and if he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverence(s), I see it,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing the offence, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s for which amends should be made. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Make amends for this offence,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverence(s), I will make amends,’ and if the Order suspends him for not making amends for the offence, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is a wrong view of a monk’s that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘This, your reverence, is a wrong view of yours. Give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverence(s), I will give it up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not giving up the wrong view, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, where there is an offence for which amends should be made … where there is an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, where there is a wrong view that should be given up … where there is an offence of a monk’s for which amends should be made, where there is a wrong view that should be given up … where there is an offence of a monk’s which should be seen, where there is an offence for which amends should be made, where there is a wrong view that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence? Make amends for this offence. This is a wrong view of yours; give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverence(s), I see, yes, I will make amends, yes, I will give it up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing or for not making amends or for not giving up, it is not a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s that should be seen. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence?’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine that I can see,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing, it is a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s for which amends should be made … If he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine for which I should make amends,’ and if the Order suspends him for not making amends, it is a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is a wrong view of a monk’s that should be given up … If he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), a wrong view of mine, that should be given up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not giving up the wrong view, it is a legally valid (formal) act.

“This is a case, monks, where there is an offence of a monk’s that should be seen, where there is an offence for which amends should be made … where there is an offence that should be seen, where there is a wrong view that should be given up … where there is an offence for which amends should be made, where there is a wrong view that should be given up … where there is an offence that should be seen, where there is an offence for which amends should be made, where there is a wrong view that should be given up. If an Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘You, your reverence, have fallen into an offence. Do you see this offence? Make amends for this offence. This is a wrong view of yours; give up this wrong view,’ and if he speaks thus: ‘There is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine which I should see, there is not, your reverence(s), an offence of mine for which I should make amends, there is not a wrong view of mine that I should give up,’ and if the Order suspends him for not seeing or for not making amends or for not giving up, it is a legally valid (formal) act.”

On the questions of Upāli

Then the venerable Upāli approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the venerable Upāli spoke thus to the Lord: “Does an Order, Lord, that is complete carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) if he is absent? Lord, is that a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“Does an Order, Lord, that is complete carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out by the interrogation (of an accused monk) if there is no interrogation? Does it carry out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the acknowledgement (of an accused monk) if there is no acknowledgement? Does it give a verdict of past insanity to one who merits a verdict of innocence? Does it carry out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one who merits a verdict of past insanity? Does it carry out a (formal) act of censure against one who merits a (formal) act for specific depravity? Does it carry out a (formal) act of placing under guidance for one who merits a (formal) act of censure? Does it carry out a (formal) act of banishment against one who merits a (formal) act of placing under guidance? Does it carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for one who merits a (formal) act of banishment? Does it carry out a (formal) act of suspension against one who merits a (formal) act of reconciliation? Does it grant probation to one who merits a (formal) act of suspension? Does it send back to the beginning one who merits probation? Does it inflict mānatta on one who merits being sent back to the beginning? Does it rehabilitate one who merits mānatta? Does it ordain one who merits rehabilitation? Is this a legally valid (formal) act, Lord, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) if he is absent—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act which should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) if there is no interrogation … carries out a (formed) act which should be carried out with the acknowledgement (of an accused monk) if there is no acknowledgement … ordains one meriting rehabilitation —it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act”, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) when he is present, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) when there is interrogation, if it carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the acknowledgement of (an accused monk) when there is his acknowledgement, if it gives a verdict of innocence to one who merits a verdict of innocence … if it rehabilitates one who merits rehabilitation, if it ordains one who merits ordination, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out in the presence of (an accused monk) when he is present—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act that should be carried out on the interrogation (of an accused monk) when there is interrogation … ordains one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity, if it gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity; if it carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity, if it carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a (formal) act of censure; if it carries out a (formal) act of placing under guidance against one meriting a (formal) act of censure, if it carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act of placing under guidance; if it carries out a (formal) act of banishment against one meriting a (formal) act of placing under guidance, if it carries out a (formal) act of placing under guidance against one meriting a (formal) act of banishment; if it carries out a (formal) act of reconciliation against one meriting a (formal) act of banishment, if it carries out a (formal) act of banishment against one meriting a (formal) act of reconciliation; if it carries out a (formal) act of suspension against one meriting a (formal) act of reconciliation, if it carries out a (formal) act of reconciliation against one meriting a (formal) act of suspension; if it grants probation to one meriting a (formal) act of suspension, if it carries out a (formal) act of suspension against one meriting probation; if it sends back to the beginning one meriting probation, if it grants probation to one meriting being sent back to the beginning; if it inflicts mānatta on one meriting being sent back to the beginning, if it sends back to the beginning one meriting mānatta; if it rehabilitates one meriting mānatta, if it inflicts mānatta on one meriting rehabilitation; if it ordains one meriting rehabilitation, if it rehabilitates one meriting ordination, is that, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?

“This, Upāli, is not a legally valid (formal) act, it is not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity … that rehabilitates one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of innocence, if it gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act;”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act.”

“If, Lord, an Order that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, if it carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity … if it rehabilitates one meriting rehabilitation, if it ordains one meriting ordination—is this, Lord, a legally valid (formal) act, is it a disciplinarily valid (formal) act?”

“This, Upāli, is a legally valid (formal) act, it is a disciplinarily valid (formal) act. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of innocence, gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far. Whatever Order, Upāli, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of past insanity, … ordains one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, Upāli, a legally valid (formal) act, a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that does not go too far.”

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Whatever Order, monks, that is complete gives a verdict of past insanity to one meriting a verdict of innocence—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete, carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of innocence, carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a verdict of innocence … ordains one meriting a verdict of innocence—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete carries out a (formal) act for specific depravity against one meriting a verdict of past insanity … carries out a (formal) act of censure … ordains one meriting a verdict of past insanity, gives a verdict of innocence to one meriting a verdict of past insanity—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far. Whatever Order, monks, that is complete, carries out a (formal) act of censure against one meriting a (formal) act for specific depravity … rehabilitates one meriting ordination—it thus comes to be, monks, not a legally valid (formal) act, not a disciplinarily valid (formal) act, and thus the Order comes to be one that goes too far.”

The Second Portion for Repeating: that on Upāli’s Questions.

On an act of censure

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is a maker of strife, a maker of dispute, a maker of contention, a maker of brawls, a maker of legal questions in an Order. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, is a maker of strife … a maker of legal questions in the Order. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, was carried out against this monk, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him not by rule, in a complete assembly. He then goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, was carried out against this monk, not by rule, in a complete assembly. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by rule, in an incomplete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, was carried out against this monk, by rule, in an incomplete assembly. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, was carried out against this monk, by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him by what has the appearance of rule in a complete assembly.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is a maker of strife … a maker of legal questions in an Order. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, is a maker of strife … a maker of legal questions in the Order. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in a complete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, was carried out against this monk, not by rule, in a complete assembly. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by ride, in an incomplete assembly. He then goes from that residence … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly. He then goes from that residence … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by what has the appearance of a rule, in a complete assembly. He then goes from that residence … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“This is a case, monks, … as above … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule in a complete assembly … not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … not by rule, in a complete assembly.

“This is a case, monks, … as above … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly … not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … not by rule, in a complete assembly, by rule, in an incomplete assembly.

“This is a case, monks, … as above … they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly … not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … not by rule, in a complete assembly … by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of a rule, in an incomplete assembly.

On an act of guidance

“This is a case, monks, where an ignorant, inexperienced monk, full of offences, not rid of them, lives in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, ignorant, inexperienced, … in unbecoming association with householders. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of guidance for him’; and these carry out a (formal) act of guidance for him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence … as above in Kd.9.7.1 … not by rule, in a complete assembly … by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out as it is below.

On an act of banishment

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is one who brings families into disrepute and is of depraved conduct. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, … is of depraved conduct. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … as in Kd.9.7.6 … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out.

On an act of reconciliation

“This is a case, monks, where a monk reviles, abuses householders. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, reviles, abuses householders. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … as in Kd.9.7.6 … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out.

On an act of suspension for not seeing an offence

“This is a case, monks, where a monk, having fallen into an offence, does not want to see the offence. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, having fallen into an offence, does not want to see the offence. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not seeing the offence’; and they carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not seeing the offence, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out.

On an act of suspension for not making amends for an offence

“This is a case, monks, where a monk, having fallen into an offence, does not want to make amends for the offence. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, having fallen into an offence, does not want to make amends for the offence. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not making amends for the offence’; and they carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not making amends for the offence, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out.

On an act of suspension for not relinquishing

“This is a case, monks, where a monk does not want to give up a wrong view. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, does not want to give up a wrong view. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not giving up a wrong view’; and they carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not giving up a wrong view, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. The cycle should be worked out.

On revoking an act of censure

“This is a case, monks, where a monk against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by the Order, conducts himself properly, is subdued, mends his ways, and asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, against whom a (formal) act of censure was carried out by the Order is conducting himself properly, is subdued, is mending his ways. Come, let us revoke the (formal) act of censure against him’; and they revoke the (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. He goes from that residence to another residence. It occurs to the monks there: ‘A (formal) act of censure, your reverences, against this monk was revoked by an Order, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. Come, let us revoke the (formal) act of censure against him’; and they revoke the (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in a complete assembly … by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by an Order conducts himself properly, is subdued, mends his ways, and asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by the Order, conducts himself properly … asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. Come, let us revoke the (formal) act of censure against him and they revoke the (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in a complete assembly … as in Kd.9.7.2–Kd.9.7.5 … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly.

On revoking an act of guidance

“This is a case, monks, where a monk for whom a (formal) act of guidance has been carried out by an Order, conducts himself properly, is subdued, mends his ways, and asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of guidance … as in Kd.9.7.12, Kd.9.7.13 …

On revoking an act of banishment

“This is a case, monks, where a monk against whom a (formal) act of banishment …

On revoking an act of reconciliation

… a (formal) act of reconciliation …

On revoking an act of suspension for not seeing an offence

… a (formal) act of suspension for not seeing an offence …

On revoking an act of suspension for not making amends for an offence

… a (formal) act of suspension for not making amends for an offence …

On revoking an act of suspension for not relinquishing

a (formal) act of suspension for not giving up a wrong view has been carried out by an Order … The cycle should be worked out.

On disputing an act of censure

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is a maker of strife, a maker of disputes, a maker of contention, a maker of brawls, a maker of legal questions in the Order. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, is a maker of … legal questions in the Order. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of censure against him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. In this case the Order disputes, saying: ‘A (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly; a (formal) act not by rule, in a complete assembly; a (formal) act by rule, in an incomplete assembly; a (formal) act by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly; a (formal) act by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly; the (formal) act is not carried out, the (formal) act is badly carried out, the (formal) act should be carried out again’ Herein, monks, those monks who speak thus: ‘A (formal) act not by rule, in an incomplete assembly’, and those monks who speak thus: ‘The (formal) act is not carried out, the (formal) act is badly carried out, the (formal) act should be carried out again’, these monks are here speakers of what is right.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk is a maker of strife … and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in a complete assembly. In this case the Order disputes saying: … Herein, monks, those monks who speak thus: ‘A (formal) act not by rule, in a complete assembly’ and those monks who speak thus: ‘The (formal) act is not carried out, the (formal) act is badly carried out, the (formal) act should be carried out again these monks are here speakers of what is right. This is a case, monks, where a monk is a maker of strife … and they carry out a (formal) act of censure against him by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly … these monks are here speakers of what is right.

On disputing an act of guidance

“This is a case, monks, where an ignorant, inexperienced monk, full of offences, not rid of them, lives in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, ignorant, inexperienced, lives … with householders. Come, let us carry out a (formal) act of guidance for him’; and they carry out a (formal) act of guidance for him, not by rule, in an incomplete assembly … not by rule, in a complete assembly … by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly. In this case the Order disputes … these monks are here speakers of what is right. These five occasions in brief.

On disputing an act of banishment

“This is a case, monks, where a monk brings families into disrepute and is of depraved conduct. It then occurs to monks: ‘… let us carry out a (formal) act of banishment against him … These five, occasions in brief.

On disputing an act of reconciliation

“This is a case, monks, where a monk reviles, abuses householders. It then occurs to monks: ‘… let us carry out a (formal) act of reconciliation for him’ … These five occasions in brief.

On disputing an act of suspension for not seeing an offence

“This is a case, monks, where a monk having fallen into an offence does not want to see the offence …

On disputing an act of suspension for not making amends for an offence

“… having fallen into an offence does not want to make amends for the offence …

On disputing an act of suspension for not relinquishing

“… does not want to give up a wrong view. It then occurs to monks: ‘… let us carry out a (formal) act of suspension against him for not giving up the wrong view’ … These five occasions in brief.

On revoking an act of censure

“This is a case, monks, where a monk against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by an Order conducts himself properly, is subdued, mends his ways, and asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. It then occurs to monks: ‘This monk, your reverences, against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by the Order, conducts himself properly … and asks for the revocation of the (formal) act of censure. Come, let us revoke the (formal) act of censure against him’, and these revoke the (formal) act of censure against him not by rule, in an incomplete assembly. In this case the Order disputes … these monks here are speakers of what is right. This is a case, monks, where a monk against whom a (formal) act of censure has been carried out by an Order, conducts himself properly … they revoke the (formal) act of censure against him, not by rule, in a complete assembly … by rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in an incomplete assembly … by what has the appearance of rule, in a complete assembly … these monks are here speakers of what is right.

On revoking an act of guidance

“This is a case, monks, where a monk for whom a (formal) act of guidance has been carried out by an Order …

On revoking an act of banishment

… of banishment …

On revoking an act of reconciliation

… of reconciliation …

On revoking an act of suspension for not seeing an offence

… of suspension for not seeing for an offence …

On revoking an act of suspension for not making amends for an offence

… of suspension for not making amends for an offence …

On revoking an act of suspension for not relinquishing

… of suspension for not giving up a wrong view, has been carried out by an Order, conducts himself properly … these monks are here speakers of what is right.”

The Ninth Section: that on (the monks) at Campā.