When a monk who is engaged in conflict is speaking in an Order he should know the subject, he should know the falling away, he should know the offence, he should know the provenance, he should know the kind, he should know the earlier and the later, he should know what has been done and what has not been done, he should know the formal act, he should know the legal question, he should know the deciding; he should not follow a wrong course from partiality, he should not follow a wrong course from hatred … confusion … fear; he should make known on an occasion for making known, he should pacify on an occasion for pacification, he should consider on an occasion for consideration, he should be gracious on an occasion for graciousness; saying, “I have obtained a faction” he should not despise another faction; saying “I have heard much”, he should not despise one who has heard little; saying “I am very senior” he should not despise one more recently ordained; he should not speak about what is not attained, he should not set aside what is attained by rule and by discipline, he should settle that legal question as it is settled according to the rule, according to Discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction.

“He should know the subject” means: he should know the subject of the eight offences involving Defeat, he should know the subject of the twenty-three offences requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order … of the two Undetermined offences … of the forty-two offences of Forfeiture … of the hundred and eighty-eight offences of Expiation … of the twelve offences to be Confessed … of offences of wrong-doing, he should know the subject of offences of wrong speech.

“He should know falling away” means: he should know falling away from moral habit … from good behaviour … from right view … from right mode of livelihood.

“He should know the offence” means: he should know offence involving Defeat, he should know an offence requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order … grave offence … offence of Expiation … offence to be Confessed … offence of wrong doing, he should know an offence of wrong speech.

“He should know the provenance” means: he should know the provenance of the eight offences involving Defeat he should know the provenance of the twenty-three offences requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order … he should know the provenance of offences of wrong speech.

“He should know the kind” means: he should know an Order from its kind, he should know a group from its kind, he should know an individual … the reprover … the one who is being reproved from his kind. He should know an Order from its kind means: “Now is this Order capable or not of settling this legal question according to the rule, according to discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction?” Thus should he know an Order from its kind. He should know a group … an individual from his kind means: “Now, is this individual capable … instruction?” Thus should he know an individual from his kind. He should know a reprover from his kind means: “I am not sure whether or not this venerable one is reproving the other with the support of the five things or not.” Thus should he know a reprover from his kind. He should know the one who is being reproved from his kind means: “I am not sure whether this venerable one is supported or not by two things: truth and being without anger.” Thus should he know the one who is being reproved from his kind.

“He should know the earlier and the later” means: “I wonder whether this venerable one passes on from subject to subject or if he passes on from falling away to falling away or if he passes on from offence to offence or if, having despised, he approves, or if, having approved, he despises or shelves the question by asking another or whether he does not?” Thus should he know the earlier and the later.

“He should know what has been done and what has not been done” means: he should know sexual intercourse, he should know the proper order of sexual intercourse, he should know the earlier part of sexual intercourse. He should know that sexual intercourse means that consummation between a couple is to be known. He should know the proper order of sexual intercourse means: the monk takes hold of another’s male organ with his own mouth. He should know the earlier part of sexual intercourse means: the different colours (of semen), physical contact, lewd speech, ministering to one’s own pleasure, intercourse.

“He should know the formal act” means: he should know the sixteen formal acts: he should know the four formal acts for which leave should be asked, he should know the four formal acts at which a motion is put, he should know the four formal acts at which a motion is put and is followed by one resolution, he should know the four formal acts at which a motion is put and is followed by a resolution made three times. “He should know the legal question” means: he should know the four legal questions: he should know the legal question concerning disputes … concerning obligations.

“He should know the deciding” means: he should know the seven decidings: he should know verdict in the presence of … he should know covering over (as) with grass.

“He should not follow a wrong course from partiality” means: How does one who is following a wrong course from partiality follow the wrong course from partiality? As to this, someone saying, “This is my preceptor or teacher one who shares a cell or pupil or fellow-preceptor or fellow-teacher or friend or intimate or blood-relation,” out of compassion for him, protecting him, he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma, he explains Dhamma as non-dhamma … see Kd.10.5.4, etc. … explains not a very bad offence as very bad offence. Because of these eighteen points, he is following a wrong course from partiality, is faring along for what is not the welfare of the many-folk, not the happiness of the many-folk, for what is not the goal, for the woe, the anguish of the many-folk, and of devas and mankind. If, because of these eighteen points, he is following a wrong course from partiality, (then) done for, destroyed, he looks after self, is blameworthy and is to be blamed by learned men, and he sets up much demerit. Following a wrong course from partiality it is thus that he follows a wrong course from partiality.

“He should not follow a wrong course from hatred” means: How does one who is following a wrong course from hatred follow the wrong course from hatred? As to this, someone saying, “He has done me harm,” bears ill-will; thinking, “he is doing me harm” … “he will do me harm”, he bears ill-will; thinking, “He has done harm, is doing harm, will do harm to someone dear to me and liked by me,” he bears ill-will; thinking, “He has done good, is doing good, will do good to someone not dear to me or liked by me,” he bears ill-will. Because of these nine occasions for ill-will, (feeling) ill-will, resentment, angry, overcome by anger, he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma … explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. If, because of these eighteen points, he is following a wrong course from hatred … it is thus that he follows a wrong course from hatred.

“He should not follow a wrong course from confusion means: How does one who is following a wrong course from confusion follow the wrong course from confusion? Impassioned, he follows it on account of passion; corrupted, he follows it on account of hatred; astray, he follows it on account of confusion; defiled, he follows it on account of view—astray, altogether astray, overcome by confusion, he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma … explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. If, because of these eighteen points, he is following a wrong course from confusion … it is thus that he follows a wrong course from confusion.

“He should not follow a wrong course from fear” means: How does one who is following a wrong course from fear follow the wrong course from fear? As to this, someone saying: “This one, relying on what is uneven or relying on the thicket (of wrong views) or relying on (someone who is) powerful, pitiless and harsh, will make a danger to life or a danger to the Brahma-faring”—terrified by that fear he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma … explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. If, because of these eighteen points, he is following a wrong course from fear … It is thus that he follows a wrong course from fear.

Of him who Dhamma
oversteps from partiality, hatred, fear, confusion,
The repute fades
as in the dark fortnight does the moon.

How does one not follow a wrong course from partiality? Explaining non- dhamma as non-dhamma he does not follow a wrong course from partiality; explaining Dhamma as Dhamma he does not follow a wrong course from partiality … explaining not a very bad offence as not a very bad offence, he does not follow a wrong course from partiality. It is thus that he does not follow a wrong course from partiality.

How does one not follow a wrong course from hatred … a wrong course from confusion … a wrong course from fear? Explaining non- dhamma as non-dhamma … explaining not a very bad offence as not a very bad offence, he does not follow a wrong course from fear. It is thus that he does not follow wrong course from fear.

Of him who Dhamma
oversteps not from partiality, hatred, fear, confusion,
The repute increases
as in the bright fortnight does the moon.

How does one “make known on an occasion for making known”? Explaining non-dhamma as non-dhamma he makes known on an occasion for making known … explaining not a very bad offence as not a very bad offence he makes known on an occasion for making known. Thus does he make known on an occasion for making known.

How does one “pacify on an occasion for pacification”? Explaining non-dhamma as non-dhamma he pacifies on an occasion for pacification … Thus does he pacify on an occasion for pacification.

How does one “consider on an occasion for consideration”? … How is one “gracious on an occasion for graciousness”? Explaining non-dhamma as non-dhamma … he is gracious on an occasion for graciousness … Thus is he gracious on an occasion for graciousness.

How, “saying ‘I have obtained a faction’”, does he despise another faction? As to this, there is someone who has obtained a faction, obtained a following, a faction-man having relations. Thinking, “This one has not obtained a faction, not obtained a following, he is not a faction-man having relations,” despising him he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma … he explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. Thus, thinking, “I have obtained a faction,” he despises another faction.

How, “saying ‘I have heard much’” does he despise one who has heard little? As to this, someone who has heard much remembers what he has heard, is a store-house of the heard. Thinking, “This one has heard little, has little of the tradition, remembers little,” despising him he explains non-dhamma as Dhamma … he explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. Thus, thinking, “I have heard much” he despises one who has heard little.

How, “saying ‘I am very senior’” does he despise one more recently ordained? As to this, there is an Elder of longstanding, long gone forth. Thinking, “This one is newly ordained, he is not esteemed, he does not know what is appointed, his bidding will not be done,” despising him he explains non- dhamma as Dhamma … … he explains not a very bad offence as a very bad offence. Thus, thinking, “I am very senior,” he despises one more recently ordained.

“He should not speak about what is not attained” means: he should not cause a burden to be put down that has not been put down.

“He should not set aside what is attained by rule and by discipline” means: he should not set aside by rule and by discipline that matter for the sake of which an Order has been convened.

“According to the rule” means: according to fact, according to the subject. “According to Discipline” means: having reproved (him) he makes (him) remember. “According to the Teacher’s instruction” means: by furnishing a motion, by furnishing a proclamation. “He should settle that legal question as it is settled according to the rule, according to Discipline, according to the Teacher’s instruction” means: the one who is reproving should be asked by the adjudicator: “If you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s Invitation … (Kd.4.16.10–15 ) … Did you suspect, having heard from a monk … from disciples of (other) sects?”

If the seen corresponds with the seen,
the seen being in agreement with the seen,
If, concerning the seen, he does not consent,
he is one suspecting impurity:
That man, on his acknowledgement,
may carry out Invitation with him.

If the heard corresponds with the heard … see Prv.13.1.2

If the sensed corresponds with the sensed …
Invitation with him.

“What was seen by you?”—which are the questions?

“How was it seen by you?”—which are the questions?

“When was it seen by you?”—which are the questions?

“Where was it seen by you?”—which are the questions?

“What was seen by you?” means: questions on the subject, questions on fallings away, questions on offences, questions on conduct. Questions on the subject means: the subject of the eight offences involving Defeat, the subject of the twenty-three offences requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order; the subject of the forty-two offences of Forfeiture, the subject of the hundred and eighty-eight offences of Expiation, the subject of the twelve offences to be Confessed, the subject of the offences of wrong-doing, the subject of the offences of wrong speech. Questions on fallings away means: questions on falling away from moral habit, questions on falling away from good behaviour, questions on falling away from right view, questions on falling away from right mode of livelihood. Questions on offences means: questions on offences involving Defeat, questions on offences requiring a Formal Meeting of the Order, questions on offences that are grave … questions on offences of wrong speech. Questions on conduct means: questions on the consummation of a couple.

“How was it seen by you?” means: questions on characteristics, questions on the postures, questions on kinds, questions on changes. Questions on characteristics means: tall or short or dark or fair. Questions on the postures means: walking or standing or sitting down or lying down. Questions on kinds means: the attributes of a householder or the attributes of members of (other) sects or the attributes of one who has gone forth. Questions on changes means: walking or standing or sitting down or lying down.

“When was it seen by you?” means: questions on the time, questions on the occasion, questions on the day, questions on the season. Questions on the time means: in the morning time or at the time of mid-day or at evening time. Questions on the occasion means: on a morning occasion or at a mid-day occasion or on an evening occasion. Questions on the day means: before the meal or after the meal or during the night or by day or in the dark or in the moonlight. Questions on the seasons means: in the cold weather or in the hot weather or in the rains.

“Where was it seen by you?” means: questions about the place, questions about the ground, questions about the quarters, questions about the locality. Questions about the place means: on (in) the ground or on (in) the earth or on Earth or in the world. Questions about the ground means: on (in) the ground or on a mountain-Slope or on a rock or in a temple. Questions about the quarters means: in an eastern quarter or in a western quarter or in a northern quarter or in a southern quarter. Questions about locality means: in an eastern locality or in a western locality or in a northern locality or in a southern locality.

Concluded is the Greater Collection