________________
24
KULLAVAGGA.
IV, 8, 2.
[And so also if on being warned of any one of the seven offences' he confesses himself to be guilty of any one of the offences different from the one charged, then the official act is invalid.]
2. And when, O Bhikkhus, is such an official act valid? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a Pârâgika offence, and in respect thereof the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, "The venerable one has been guilty of a Pârâgika." And he replies, "Yea, Sirs, I have been guilty of a Pârâgika." And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Pârâgika. Then that official act is valid 2.'
[And so for each of the other offences mentioned in § 1, the whole of § 2 is repeated.]
9 3.
Now at that time the Bhikkhus in chapter (Samgha) assembled, since they became violent, quarrelsome, and disputatious, and kept on wounding one another with sharp words, were unable
The same, namely, as those in the list given at Mahâvagga IV, 16, 12, &c.
In other words, if a Bhikkhu confesses an offence different from that with which he has been charged, the confession cannot be used against him even as regards a decision with respect to the offence confessed.
On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 16.
4 Aññamaññam mukhaisattîhi vitudantâ viharanti. Literally, with mouth-javelins.' Vitudati, and not vitâdati as Childers gives, is the right spelling. So Fausböll reads at Gâtaka II, 185, 186.
Digitized by Google
