English
"If one lifts up a bowl that has been put down, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata)," (Pāci. 355) then one should... having brought that discourse, he will settle that dispute. Even when looking at what is not an offense, he sees the non-offense specified in each training rule, such as: "There is no offense for a bhikkhu who does not consent, whose intention is not theft, whose intention is not to kill, whose intention is not to flatter, whose intention is not to release, who did not intend, was not mindful, did not know." Having brought that discourse, he will settle that dispute. Indeed, a bhikkhu who is skilled in the four kinds of discipline, endowed with the three characteristics, having examined these six points, will settle a dispute. His decision is irreversible, like one decided by the Buddha himself. If some bhikkhu who has transgressed a training rule approaches such a bhikkhu, skilled in decision-making, and asks about his remorse, then, having carefully considered it, if it is not an offense, it should be said, "It is not an offense." If, however, it is an offense, and it leads to confession, it should be said, "It leads to confession." If it leads to rehabilitation, it should be said, "It leads to rehabilitation." But if there appears to be a shadow of a pārājika offense, it should not be said, "It is a pārājika offense." Why? For the transgression of sexual intercourse and the transgression of superhuman states are gross, but the transgressions of taking what is not given and of inciting strife are subtle, light in mind. One incurs them subtly, one guards against them subtly. Therefore, when asked about remorse concerning such a matter, without saying "It is an offense," if his teacher is alive, then that bhikkhu should be sent by him saying, "Let us ask our teacher." If he comes back again and says, "Your teacher, having examined it according to the discourse and the method, told me 'It is curable'," then he should be told, "Good, excellent, do what the teacher says." But if he has no teacher, but there is an elder with whom he studied, he should be sent to him saying, "The elder with whom we studied is the leader of the group, him "go and ask." And when he has determined, "He has a remedy," it should be said, "Good, do exactly as he says." Now, if there is no elder who learned with him, but there is a wise pupil, he should be sent to him: "Go and ask that young monk." And when he has determined, "He has a remedy," it should be said, "Good, do exactly as he says." Now, if even for the young monk, the shadow of a pārājika appears, he should not be told, "You are defeated." Rare indeed is the arising of a Buddha, rarer still are renunciation and full ordination. But it should be said thus: "Cleanse a secluded place, sit for a day's abiding, purify your virtues, and for a while, reflect on the thirty-two parts of the body." If his virtue is sound, the meditation subject will succeed, formations will become clear and present themselves, his mind will become unified as if it has reached access and absorption, he will not even know that the day has passed. When he comes for attendance after the day has passed, it should be said thus: "What was the state of your mind?" And when the state of his mind has been reported, it should be said: "Renunciation is for the purification of the mind. Diligently practice the duties of a recluse." But if his virtue is broken, his meditation subject will not succeed, his mind will tremble as if pierced by a goad, it will be burned by the fire of remorse, he will rise immediately as if sitting on a hot stone. When he comes, he should be asked: "What was the state of your mind?" When the state of his mind has been reported, it should be said: "There is no secret in the world for one who commits evil deeds. First of all, when doing evil, one knows it oneself. Then his guardian deities, recluses and brahmins who know others' minds, and other deities know it. Now you yourself seek your own welfare." When a monk has thus committed an offense, and has come and reported it himself, it should be dealt with. 235. Now, concerning that admonition of various kinds mentioned before, in order to know its success and failure, of its beginning, middle, and end, etc. by means of the procedure should be known. That is, what is the beginning of a charge, what is the middle, what is the end? The beginning of a charge is the request for permission, saying, "I wish to speak to you, Venerable sir, please grant me the opportunity." The middle is the decision, made after charging and admonishing with a matter that has arisen. The end is the settlement, by establishing whether there is an offense or no offense. How many roots does a charge have, how many bases, how many grounds? A charge has two roots: with a root or without a root. Three bases: seen, heard, suspected. Five grounds: I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I will speak what is factual, not what is not factual; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is beneficial, not what is not beneficial; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with ill-will. And in this charge, the accuser, the person, should be established in the fifteen qualities mentioned in the Upāli-pañcaka (Pari. 436) in the manner of "Am I pure in bodily conduct?" and so on. The accused should be established in two qualities: truthfulness and unagitatedness. And the investigator (Pari. 360) should ask the accuser: "Friend, this bhikkhu whom you charge, what do you charge him with? Do you charge him with a lapse in morality? Do you charge him with a lapse in conduct? Do you charge him with a lapse in view?" If he should say this: "I charge him with a lapse in morality, or I charge him with a lapse in conduct, or I charge him with a lapse in view." He should be told this: "Does the Venerable sir know what a lapse in morality is? Does he know what a lapse in conduct is? Does he know what a lapse in view is?" If he should say this: "Indeed, friend, I know what a lapse in morality is, I know what a lapse in conduct is, I know what a lapse in view is." He should be told this: "What, then, friend, is a lapse in morality? What is a lapse in conduct? What is a lapse in view?" If he should say this: "The four Pārājikas, the thirteen Saṅghādisesas, this is a lapse in morality. Thullaccaya, Pācittiya, Pāṭidesanīya, Dukkaṭa, Dubbhāsita, this is a lapse in conduct. M A desired view, a view grasping at extremes, this is a wrong view. He should be spoken to thus: "Friend, as to your accusing this monk, do you accuse him based on what you saw, or based on what you heard, or based on suspicion?" If he should say thus: "I accuse him based on what I saw, or based on what I heard, or based on suspicion." He should be spoken to thus: "Friend, as to your accusing this monk based on what you saw, what did you see? How did you see it? When did you see it? Where did you see it? Did you see him committing a pārājika offense? Did you see him committing a saṅghādisesa offense? Did you see him committing a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense? Where was this monk? Where were you? What were you doing? What was this monk doing?" If he should say thus: "Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what I saw, but rather based on what I heard." He should be spoken to thus: "Friend, as to your accusing this monk based on what you heard, what did you hear? How did you hear it? When did you hear it? Where did you hear it? Did you hear that he committed a pārājika offense? Did you hear that he committed a saṅghādisesa offense? Did you hear that he committed a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, or dubbhāsita offense? Did you hear it from a monk? From a nun? From a female trainee? From a novice monk? From a novice nun? From a male lay follower? From a female lay follower? From kings? From royal ministers? From sectarians? From disciples of sectarians?" If he should say thus: "Friend, I do not accuse this monk based on what I heard, but rather based on suspicion." He should be spoken to thus: "Friend, as to your accusing this monk based on suspicion, what do you suspect? How do you suspect it? When do you suspect it? Where do you suspect it? Do you suspect he committed a pārājika offense? A saṅghādisesa, thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭid..." You suspect that a search-worthy wrong deed, ill-spoken word has been committed, hearing a monk, you suspect, hearing a nun... hearing disciples of other sects, you suspect. What is seen matches what is seen, what is seen corresponds with what is seen; Relying on what is seen, it does not come to be, if one is suspected of impurity; That person, by declaration, should perform the Uposatha. What is heard matches what is heard, what is heard corresponds with what is heard; Relying on what is heard, it does not come to be, if one is suspected of impurity; That person, by declaration, should perform the Uposatha. What is sensed matches what is sensed, what is sensed corresponds with what is sensed; Relying on what is sensed, it does not come to be, if one is suspected of impurity; That person, by declaration, should perform the Uposatha. A declaration is made by the scrupulous, among the shameless, it is not found thus; Even if the shameless one speaks much, he performs it by the connection of the practice. (pari. 359) Moreover, a monk who frequents the assembly, when approaching the Saṅgha, should approach the Saṅgha with a humble mind, with a mind like a dust-rag. He should be skilled in seating, skilled in sitting; not pushing aside elder monks, not obstructing new monks from a seat, he should sit in a suitable seat. He should not be one who speaks various things, nor one who speaks too much worldly talk. Either he himself should speak the Dhamma, or he should invite another, or he should not despise noble silence. By a person authorized by the Saṅgha,