The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
The translator’s English as printed (T. W. Rhys Davids & Hermann Oldenberg). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
The words above are repeated.
[20] 16 &B
p. 2
delivered a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: ‘The formal Acts, O Bhikkhus, the Tagganiya-, the Nissaya-, the Pabbaganiya-, the Pa/isdraziya-, and the Ukkhepaniya-kammas, ought not to be carried out against Bhikkhus who are not present. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukka/a offence.’
2.
1. The single Bhikkhu who speaks not in accordance with the right, the many who speak not in accordance with the right, the Samgha which speaks not in accordance with the right. The single Bhikkhu who speaks in accordance with the right, the many who speak in accordance with the right, the Samgha which speaks in accordance with the right}.
Now (it may happen that) the one Bhikkhu who speaks not in accordance with the right may point out (the right course) to a single Bhikkhu who speaks in accordance with the right, or gives him to understand what it is?, or urges him to see or consider the matter in that light®, or teaches him, or
1 This short enumeration of the different categories occurring in the subsequent paragraphs is quite in the style of the Abhidhamma texts, in which such lists are accustomed to be called m4atik4; compare the expression matik4-dharo as applied to a learned Bhikkhu in the stock phrase at Mahavagga X, 2, 1; Xullavagga I, 11; IV, 14, 25, &c.
? The Samanta Pasidiké here says: nigghApetiti yatha so tam attham niggh4yati oloketi evam karoti.
® Pekkheti anupekkhetfti yatha so tam attham pekkhati # eva punappunaf 4a pekkhati evam karoti. (Samanta PAsadik4.)
p. 3
instructs him, saying, ‘This is the Dhamma, this the Vinaya, this the teaching of the Master. Accept this, and approve this.’ If the dispute should be thus settled, it is settled contrary to the Dhamma, and with a mere counterfeit of the Vinaya rule of procedure (that cases of dispute must be settled before a duly constituted meeting of the Samgha, and in the presence of the accused person)?.
[And in like manner, if he instruct the many, or the Samgha, who speak according to the right ;—or if the many or the Samgha who speak not according to the right instruct the one, or the many, or the Samgha who speak according to the right ;—then the dispute is settled contrary to the Dhamma (&c., as before). ]
End of the nine cases in which the wrong side decides.
3.
[This chapter is the contrary of the last; the cases put being those in which the three last members of
1 Sammukh4-vinaya-pa/iripakena. The rule of procedure, called Sammukh4-vinaya, hereafter rendered ‘ Proceeding in Presence,’ is one of the seven modes of settling disputes already referred to in the closing chapter of the Patimokkha (‘ Vinaya Texts,’ vol. i, p. 68), and is more fully described below in Kullavagga IV, 14, 16, and following sections.
Vinaya Texts, Part III — the Kullavagga IV–XII, completing the monastic code begun in Part I and continued in Part II. The editors' case for treating the Pâtimokkha as the oldest stratum, and for dating everything else in the Vinaya against it, is made once, in Part I.
same translation project as Vinaya Texts, Part I: The Pâtimokkha and the Mahâvagga I–IV — SBE Vol. 13 (trans. Rhys Davids & Oldenberg, 1881)