________________
IV, 8, 1.
THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.
23
Is it true, O Bhikkhus, that the Khabbaggiya Bhikkhus do so ?' 'It is true, Lord.
Then he rebuked them, and when he had delivered a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:
No official act, О Bhikkhus,—whether the Tagganiya-kamma, or the Nissaya-kamma, or the Pabbâganiya-kamma, or the Patisâraniyakamma, or the Ukkhepaniya-kamma,-is to be carried out against Bhikkhus who have not confessed themselves guilty? Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata offence.'
1. “Now, O Bhikkhus, an official act carried out against a Bhikkhu who has confessed himself guilty is invalid as follows, and is valid as follows. And how does such an official act become invalid ? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a Pårågika offence, and in respect thereof either the Samgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, “The venerable one has been guilty of a Paragika.” And he replies thus, “I have not, Sirs, been guilty of a Pârâgika. I have been guilty of a Samghâdisesa." And in respect thereof the Samgha deals with him for a Samghâdisesa. Then that official act is invalid.'
1 The mode in which such a confession ought to be made is set out in full in IV, 14, 30-34.
Digized by Google
