English
By the Discipline of Presence and by the Undeluded Discipline. And what is there in the Discipline of Presence? Presence of the Sangha, Presence of the Dhamma, Presence of the Vinaya, Presence of the individual... ... And what is there in the Undeluded Discipline? The performance, the doing, the approaching, the undertaking, the acceptance, the not-rejecting of the act of Undeluded Discipline – this is what is there in the Undeluded Discipline. If, monks, a dispute thus settled is overturned by the doer, there is an offense of overturning. If the giver of consent regrets, there is an offense of regretting. The Discipline of the Further Penalty 238. There might be a dispute concerning accusation without recourse to two methods of settlement – the Discipline of Recollection and the Undeluded Discipline; by two methods of settlement by agreement – and by the procedure of meeting face-to-face, and by the procedure of the worse-doer? It might be said to him. How so? Here, monks, a monk accuses another monk in the midst of the Sangha of a serious offense – ‘Venerable sir remembers having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika.’ He says this: ‘Indeed, friend, I do not remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika.’ Then the other, while he is trying to untangle it, entangles him further – ‘Come now, Venerable sir, know for sure, if you remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika.’ He says this: ‘Indeed, friend, I do not remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika. But I do remember, friend, having committed such a minor offense.’ Then the other, while he is trying to untangle it, entangles him further – ‘Come now, Venerable sir, know for sure, if you remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika.’ He says this: ‘Indeed, friend, I would admit to this minor offense, unasked. Why then, having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika, would I not admit to it when asked?’ He says this: ‘Indeed, friend, you would not admit to this minor offense, unasked. Why then, having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika, would you admit to it unasked? Come now, Venerable sir, know for sure, if you remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika.’ He says this: ‘Indeed, friend, I do remember having committed such a serious offense, a pārājika or something close to a pārājika. This was said by me in jest, this was said by me in sport – I do not remember having committed such a serious offense, or a pārājika, or near a pārājika. For that monk, monks, the act of his greater wickedness should be performed. And thus, monks, it should be performed. A competent and able monk should inform the Saṅgha: “May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. This monk, named so-and-so, being questioned in the midst of the Saṅgha about a grave offense, denies after admitting, admits after denying, changes the subject, and speaks a deliberate lie. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should perform the act of his greater wickedness for this monk, named so-and-so. This is the motion. “May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. This monk, named so-and-so, being questioned in the midst of the Saṅgha about a grave offense, denies after admitting, admits after denying, changes the subject, and speaks a deliberate lie. The Saṅgha performs the act of his greater wickedness for this monk, named so-and-so. Whoever among the venerable ones approves of the performance of the act of his greater wickedness for this monk, named so-and-so, let him be silent; whoever disapproves, let him speak. “A second time I state this matter… …and a third time I state this matter… “The Saṅgha has performed the act of his greater wickedness for this monk, named so-and-so. The Saṅgha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold this.” This, monks, is called a settled dispute. By what is it settled? By settlement in the presence and by his greater wickedness. And what is there in settlement in the presence? Presence of the Saṅgha, presence of the Dhamma, presence of the Vinaya… …and what is there in his greater wickedness? The performance, the doing, the approaching, the undertaking, the acquiescence, the non-rejection of the act of his greater wickedness— this is what is there in his greater wickedness. If, monks, a dispute thus settled is revoked by the one who performed it, there is an offense of expiation for revoking; if the giver of consent complains, there is an offense of expiation for complaining. Confession The Act of Acknowledgment 239. [Pari. 295, 306, 308, etc.] “By how many settlements are cases of offense settled? Cases of offense are settled by three settlements: by settlement in the presence, by the act of acknowledgment, and by covering with grass. Might a case of offense be settled without one settlement— covering with grass— and be settled by two settlements— by settlement in the presence and by the act of acknowledgment?” “It might,” should be said. “How so? Here, monks, a monk has committed a light offense. That monk, monks, having approached a monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having squatted, having raised his hands in salutation, should say this: ‘Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense; I confess it.’ He should be told: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should restrain yourself in the future.’ “This, monks, is called a case settled. By what is it settled? By settlement in the presence and by the act of acknowledgment. And what is there in settlement in the presence? Presence of Dhamma, presence of Vinaya, presence of persons… …And what is there in the presence of persons? He who confesses, and he to whom he confesses, both are present— this is the presence of persons there. And what is there in the act of acknowledgment? The performance, the doing, the undertaking, the acceptance, the assent, the non-rejection of the act of acknowledgment— this is what is there in the act of acknowledgment. If, monks, a case thus settled is overturned by the recipient, there is an offense of overturning. If this can be obtained, that is skillful. If it cannot be obtained, then, monks, that monk, having approached many monks, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having bowed at the feet of the elder monks, having squatted, having raised his hands in salutation, should say this: ‘Venerables, I have committed such-and-such an offense; I confess it.’ By a competent monk…” Those monks should be informed by a capable monk: “Let the venerable ones hear me. This monk, so-and-so, remembers, reveals, makes manifest, and confesses an offense. If it is suitable for the venerable ones, I will receive the confession of this monk, so-and-so.” He should be asked: “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Will you restrain yourself in the future?” “This, monks, is called a settled case. By what is it settled? By settlement in the presence and by settlement by acknowledgment. What is there in settlement in the presence? Presence of Dhamma, presence of Vinaya, presence of persons… (and so on)… And what is there in the presence of persons? The one who confesses and the one to whom he confesses, both are present—this is the presence of persons there. And what is there in settlement by acknowledgment? The doing, the making, the approaching, the undertaking, the assent, the non-rejection of the act of settlement by acknowledgment—this is what is there in settlement by acknowledgment. If, monks, a case thus settled is appealed by the receiver, he commits an offense of appeal, a pācittiya. If he can obtain this, that is good. If he cannot obtain it, then, monks, that monk should approach the Sangha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, bow at the feet of the elder monks, squat, raise his joined hands, and say this: ‘Venerable sirs, I have fallen into such-and-such an offense; I confess it.’ A competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha: “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me. This monk, so-and-so, remembers, reveals, makes manifest, and confesses an offense. If it is suitable for the Sangha, I will receive the confession of this monk, so-and-so.” He should be asked: “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Will you restrain yourself in the future?” “This, monks, is called a settled case. By what is it settled? By settlement in the presence and by settlement by acknowledgment. And what is there in settlement in the presence… in what? Presence of the Sangha, presence of the Dhamma, presence of the Vinaya, presence of the individuals… If, monks, a dispute thus settled, a receiver revokes it, there is an offense of expiation for revoking; a giver of consent is vexed, there is an offense of expiation for vexing. Covering with Grass 240. "Is it possible for a dispute concerning an offense, not relying on one method of settlement – namely, settlement by acknowledgement – to be settled by two methods of settlement – namely, by settlement in the presence and by covering with grass?" "It is possible," should be said. "How so?" Here, monks, when monks are living having arisen in quarrels, having arisen in disputes, having fallen into contention, much un-monk-like conduct has been committed, much has been spoken amiss. If then it occurs to the monks thus: 'Indeed, for us, living having arisen in quarrels, having arisen in disputes, having fallen into contention, much un-monk-like conduct has been committed, much has been spoken amiss. If we were to make each other liable for these offenses, that dispute might lead to harshness, to violence, to schism.' I allow, monks, to settle such a dispute by covering with grass. And thus, monks, it should be settled.