Settlement of issues

^Kd.14.14.16 “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 ^BD.5.126 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, ^Vin.2.94 the presence of discipline? If that legal question is settled by whatever is rule,^[1] 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,^[2] 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.^[3] If one who has given his consent^[4] criticises it, in criticising there is an offence of expiation.^[5]

^Kd.14.14.17 “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.

^Kd.14.14.18 “If, monks, these monks as they are going to that residence are not able to settle that legal question on the way, then, ^BD.5.127 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, ^Vin.2.95 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.^[6] 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 ^BD.5.128 without this much^[7] 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^[8] 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.

^Kd.14.14.19 “If, monks, while those monks are investigating that legal question both endless disputations arise,^[9] 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.^[10] A monk possessed of ten qualities should be agreed upon for the referendum: one who is moral in habit,^[11] 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 ^Vin.2.96 as to the linguistic form; he comes to be ^BD.5.129 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.

^Kd.14.14.20 “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.’

^Kd.14.14.21 “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.^[12]

^{Kd.14.14.22 BD.5.130} “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^[13] comes to have been handed down nor the analysis of the rule,^[14] 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, ^Vin.2.97 let the remainder, having had this monk removed,^[15] 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.

^Kd.14.14.23 “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.

^Kd.14.14.24 “If, monks, these monks are not able to settle that legal ^BD.5.131 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.^[16] 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.14.16 … 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.”^{[17] Vin.2.98}

^Kd.14.14.25 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 ^BD.5.132 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,^[18] it is settled, it is properly settled.

^{Kd.14.14.26 BD.5.133} “I allow, monks, in order to convince these monks, three methods of taking votes:^[19] 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, ^Vin.2.99 having made the tickets different^[20] (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.^[21] 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.

^Kd.14.14.27 “By how many (kinds of) decisions is a legal question arising from censure agreed upon? A legal question arising ^BD.5.134 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.^[22] 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. ^Vin.2.100 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,^[23] this is here the presence of the individuals.

^BD.5.135 “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.

^Kd.14.14.28 “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,^[24] 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 ^BD.5.136 Kd.14.14.16 … And what is here (needed for) a verdict of past insanity? ^Vin.2.101 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.

^Kd.14.14.29 “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 ^BD.5.137 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,^[25] this was said by me in haste.’^[26]

“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 ^Vin.2.102 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.

^Kd.14.14.30 “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^[27] and by the covering up (as) with grass.^[28] 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 ^BD.5.138 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^[29] 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.

^Kd.14.14.31 “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 ^Vin.2.103 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: ^BD.5.139 ‘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.

^Kd.14.14.32 “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.

^Kd.14.14.33 “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 ^BD.5.140 (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, ^Vin.2.104 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.

^Kd.14.14.34 “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.^{[30] Vin.2.105}

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

dhammena.

[2]:

Oldenberg’s text reads attapaccatthikā. It should probably be attha-. Perhaps the reference is to “the two who are litigating about the matter.” The phrase is not usually repeated in the subsequent parallel passages; but see BD.5.129 below.

[3]:

Bu-Pc.63.

[4]:

chandadāyaka, probably meaning has given his consent for the formal act to be carried out without him as, through illness, he cannot be present for it.

[5]:

Bu-Pc.79.

[6]:

Meaning that the incoming monks must abide by the decision.

[7]:

ettakena vā antarena.

[8]:

sāmino, rendered as “we shall retain the custody” at Vinaya Texts iii.49.

[9]:

anaggāni c’eva bhassāni. Vin-a.1197 reads anantāni for amaggāni, and glosses by aparimāṇāni, limitless. See Vin.2.305.

[10]:

ubbāhikāya, a committee. See Kd.22.2.7. The following passage = AN.v.71.

[11]:

As at Vin.4.51 to “linguistic form” below; and as at AN.ii.22 to “vision” below. For further references see BD.2.265–BD.2.266. See also Kd.9.5.1.

[12]:

Bu-Pc.63.

[13]:

sutta, in the singular. It cannot well mean here the “tradition”, āgama, or the sayings in which dhamma was set forth. For this monk evidently knew dhamma, which, above, must be different from sutta. There is also a difference between knowing a rule or clause, sutta (in the sense in which it is sometimes used in Vinaya) and its analysis, which implies a wider knowledge as of the material surrounding a rule of training. On sutta, as used in Vinaya see BD.1, Introduction, p.x. Vin-a.1197 says sutta is mātikā, heading or summary.

[14]:

suttavibhaṅga; Vin-a.1197 says “not versed in discipline” (vinaya).

[15]:

vuṭṭhāpetvā.

[16]:

yebhuyyasikāya. See Vin.5.49

[17]:

As at Kd.14.14.16, Kd.14.14.27.

[18]:

santa is both worn out, exhausted and (more commonly) appeased, tranquillised.

[19]:

salākagāha, more literally “distributing (or, making pass) the (voting) tickets”.

[20]:

vaṇṇāvaṇṇa. Vin-a.1198 says that the tickets for those who profess dhamma and for those who profess non-dhamma should be marked by different signs, nimitta (not different colours, as at Vinaya Texts iii.56).

[21]:

paccukkaḍḍihitabbaṃ. Vin-a.1198 says (the distributor) “having said the tickets were wrongly taken, having distributed them again, may distribute them up to a third time.”

[22]:

Cf. above, Kd.14.4.10.

[23]:

As at Kd.14.14.16, but omitting “hostile about the matter.”

[24]:

As at Kd.14.5.1–Kd.14.5.2, for the monk Gagga.

[25]:

Cf. Vin.4.4 for davā, ravā.

[26]:

Cf. Vin.4.4 for davā, ravā.

[27]:

Cf. Vin.4.4 for davā, ravā.

[28]:

See BD.3.153, BD.3.154.

[29]:

Presence of the Order not required here, as the monk has confessed to one monk only.

[30]:

There is no uddāna, summary or key to this Section.