English
Venerable sir, there is one offense for the elevated terms. 4. Chapter on Settlement Question – Friend, where did the Blessed One lay down the dukkata offense for one who performs an act of rebuke, or of dependence, or of expulsion, or of reconciliation, or of suspension for monks who are not present? Concerning whom, and on what occasion was it laid down? Answer – Venerable sir, it was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks. Venerable sir, the group of six monks performed an act for monks who were not present: an act of rebuke, and of dependence, and of expulsion, and of reconciliation, and of suspension. That was established, Venerable Sir, in this matter. Question: Where, friend, has the Lord permitted the granting of the 'recollection-discipline' to a monk who has attained full recollection? Concerning whom, and in what matter, was it permitted? Answer: In Rājagaha, Venerable Sir, concerning the Mettiyabhūmajaka monks, it was permitted. The Mettiyabhūmajaka monks, Venerable Sir, falsely slandered the Venerable Dabba the Mallian with an offense of moral lapse. In that matter, Venerable Sir, it was permitted. Question: How many, friend, are the righteous grants of 'recollection-discipline' here? Answer: There are five, Venerable Sir, righteous grants of 'recollection-discipline'. A monk is pure, without offense, yet they accuse him and demand it. To him, the Saṅgha grants 'recollection-discipline' righteously and harmoniously. These, Venerable Sir, are the five righteous grants of 'recollection-discipline'. Question: Where, friend, has the Lord permitted the granting of 'non-delusion-discipline' to a monk who is not deluded? Concerning whom, and in what matter, was it permitted? Answer: In Rājagaha, Venerable Sir, concerning many monks, it was permitted. Many monks, Venerable Sir, accused the monk Gagga of an offense committed while insane, with a deranged mind, saying: "You, friend, knowingly committed such an offense." He said this: "Friends, I was insane, with a deranged mind. Because of that insanity, that deranged mind, much unmonkly conduct was done by me, much was spoken and acted upon. I do not remember it. It was done by me in delusion." Even when he spoke thus, they continued to accuse him, saying: "You, friend, knowingly committed such an offense." In that matter, Venerable Sir, it was permitted. Question: How many, friend, are the unrighteous grants of 'non-delusion-discipline'? Explain them in detail. Answer: There are three, Venerable Sir, unrighteous grants of 'non-delusion-discipline'. Here, Venerable Sir, a monk has committed an offense. Then the Saṅgha, or many individuals, or a single person, accuses him: "You, friend, knowingly committed such an offense." He, remembering, says thus: "Indeed, friend, I do not remember having committed such an offense." Another, remembering, says thus: "Indeed, friend, I remember as if in a dream." Another, though not mad, acts like a madman: "I too do this, you too do this, this is allowable for me, this is allowable for you." To such a one the Sangha gives the Discipline for the Undeluded. This, venerable sir, is an unrighteous giving of the Discipline for the Undeluded. These, venerable sir, are the three unrighteous givings of the Discipline for the Undeluded. Question: How many, friend, are the righteous givings of the Discipline for the Undeluded? Explain them by dividing. Answer: Three, venerable sir, are the righteous givings of the Discipline for the Undeluded. Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu is mad, his mind deranged. By that madness, by that derangement of mind, much unmonk-like conduct has been committed, much spoken. Then the Sangha, or many, or a single person, charges him: "Does the venerable one remember having committed such an offense?" He, not remembering, says thus: "Indeed, friend, I do not remember having committed such an offense." Another, not remembering, says thus: "Indeed, friend, I remember as if in a dream." Another, though mad, acts like a madman: "I too do this, you too do this, this is allowable for me, this is allowable for you." To these three bhikkhus, venerable sir, the Sangha gives the Discipline for the Undeluded. This, venerable sir, is a righteous giving of the Discipline for the Undeluded. These, venerable sir, are the three righteous givings of the Discipline for the Undeluded. Question: Where, friend, did the Blessed One lay down the dukkata offense for one who performs acts such as the Tajjanīya (rebuke) against bhikkhus without their consent? Concerning whom, and on what occasion, was it laid down? Answer: In Rājagaha, venerable sir, it was laid down concerning the group of six bhikkhus. The group of six bhikkhus, venerable sir, performed acts such as the Tajjanīya against bhikkhus without their consent. On that occasion, venerable sir, it was laid down. Known. Question – How, friends, is a confession-making unlawful? Answer – When, venerable sirs, one who commits an offense confesses it differently, and the Sangha acts according to how he confesses, thus, venerable sirs, is a confession-making unlawful. Question – How, friends, is a confession-making lawful? Answer – When, venerable sirs, one who commits an offense confesses that very offense, and the Sangha acts according to that, thus, venerable sirs, is a confession-making lawful. Question – Where, friends, has the Blessed One permitted the settlement of a dispute by majority vote, concerning whom, and in what matter was it permitted? Answer – In Rājagaha, venerable sirs, it was permitted concerning many bhikkhus. Many bhikkhus, venerable sirs, were quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious, assailing each other with sharp words. They were unable to settle that dispute. In that matter, venerable sirs, it was permitted. Question – How, friends, should a dispute be settled by majority vote? Answer – A bhikkhu endowed with five qualities, venerable sirs, should be appointed as the vote-taker. By that vote-taker, venerable sirs, the votes should be taken. As the majority of bhikkhus who speak according to the Dhamma say, so should that dispute be settled. Thus, venerable sirs, should a dispute be settled by majority vote. Question – How many, friends, are unlawful vote-takings? Answer – There are ten unlawful vote-takings, venerable sirs: when the dispute is minor, and it is not a matter of going and coming, and it is not a matter of remembering and recalling; one knows, 'the unrighteous speakers are more numerous'; thinking, 'perhaps the unrighteous speakers might be more numerous'; one knows, 'the Sangha will split'; thinking, 'perhaps the Sangha might split'; they take votes unlawfully; they take votes factiously; and they do not take votes according to one's view. These, venerable sirs, are the ten unlawful vote-takings. Question – How many, friends, are lawful vote-takings? Ans Answer – Ten, venerable sir, are the lawful vote-takers, as stated in reverse order. Question – For a monk, friend, overwhelmed by evil, where was the act of further punishment laid down by the Blessed One? Concerning whom, on what occasion was it laid down? Answer – In Rājagaha, venerable sir, it was laid down concerning the monk Upavāḷa. The monk Upavāḷa, venerable sir, when questioned about an offense in the midst of the Saṅgha, denies and then admits, admits and then denies, he acts evasively, he knowingly speaks falsehood. On that occasion, venerable sir, it was laid down. Question – How many, friend, are the lawful reasons for the act of further punishment? Answer – These five, venerable sir, are the lawful reasons for the act of further punishment. He is impure, and shameless, and blameworthy. For him, the Saṅgha performs the act of further punishment lawfully and in concord. These, venerable sir, are the five lawful reasons for the act of further punishment. Question – By a monk, friend, upon whom the act of further punishment has been performed, in how many duties should he conduct himself properly? Answer – By a monk, venerable sir, upon whom the act of further punishment has been performed, in eighteen duties should he conduct himself properly. He should not give ordination, he should not give reliance, he should not attend to a novice. In these and other eighteen duties, venerable sir, he should conduct himself properly. Question – How many, friend, are the cases that should be settled by means of settlement? Answer – These four, venerable sir, are the cases that should be settled by means of settlement: a dispute case, an accusation case, an offense case, a duty case. These four cases, venerable sir, should be settled by means of settlement. Question – What, friend, is the root of a dispute case? Answer – Six, venerable sir, are the roots of dispute, the root of a dispute case. And the three unwholesome roots are the root of a dispute case. And the three wholesome roots are the root of a dispute case. This, venerable sir, is the root of a dispute case. Question – What, friend, is the root of a dispute concerning accusation? Response – There are, venerable sir, six roots of accusation that are the root of a dispute concerning accusation. The three unwholesome roots are also the root of a dispute concerning accusation. The three wholesome roots are also the root of a dispute concerning accusation. The body is also the root of a dispute concerning accusation. Speech is also the root of a dispute concerning accusation. This, venerable sir, is the root of a dispute concerning accusation. Question – What, friend, is the root of a dispute concerning an offense? Response – There are, venerable sir, six origins of offenses that are the root of a dispute concerning an offense. There is, venerable sir, an offense that originates from the body, not from speech, not from mind. There is, venerable sir, an offense that originates from speech, not from the body, not from mind.