Setting aside the invitation

^Kd.4.16.1 Now at that time the group of six monks invited (while they were) offenders. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, an offender should not invite. Whoever (such) should invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, having obtained leave from whatever offender is inviting, to reprove him for the offence.”^[1]

---

^Kd.4.16.2 Now at that time the group of six monks, (although) obtaining leave, did not wish to give leave. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to suspend the invitation^[2] of one not giving leave. And thus, monks, should it be suspended: If on an Invitation day, whether the fourteenth or the fifteenth, one should say in the presence of that individual, in the midst of the Order: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The individual so-and-so is an offender; I am suspending his invitation; one should not invite in his presence’, the invitation comes to be suspended.”

---

^Kd.4.16.3 Now at that time the group of six monks, saying: “Before well behaved monks suspend our invitation”^[3], themselves suspended beforehand, without ground, without reason, the invitation of pure monks who were not offenders, and they also suspended the invitation of those who had (already) invited. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one should not suspend without ground, without reason, the invitation of pure monks who are not offenders. Whoever should (so) suspend it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Nor, monks, should one suspend the invitation of those who have invited. Whoever should (so) suspend it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

^{Kd.4.16.4 BD.4.224} “Monks, an invitation comes to be (duly) suspended thus, not (duly) suspended thus. And how, monks, does an invitation come to be not (duly) suspended? If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered and brought to a close by the threefold formula, the invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended. If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered and brought to a close by a twofold formula … by a onefold formula … by those keeping the rains together, ^Vin.1.171 an invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended. It is thus, monks, that an invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended.

^Kd.4.16.5 “And how, monks, does an invitation come to be (duly) suspended? If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered, but not brought to a close^[4] by the threefold formula, the invitation comes to be (duly) suspended. If, monks, one suspends … but not brought to a close by the twofold formula … by the onefold formula … by those keeping the rains together, the invitation comes to be (duly) suspended. It is thus, monks, that an invitation comes to be (duly) suspended.

^Kd.4.16.6 “This is a case, monks, when on an Invitation day a monk suspends (another) monk’s invitation. If other monks know concerning this monk: ‘This venerable one is not pure in the conduct of his body, he is not pure in the conduct of his speech, he is not pure in his mode of livelihood; he is ignorant, inexperienced; he is not competent when being himself questioned to give an explanation^[5],’ and if having snubbed^[6] him, they say: ‘That’s enough, monk, let there be no strife, let there be no quarrel, let there be no dispute, let there be no contention’, the Order may invite.

^Kd.4.16.7 “This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body, but he is not pure in the conduct of his speech, he is not pure in his mode of livelihood … to give an explanation’, … the Order may invite.

^Kd.4.16.8 “This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in ^BD.4.225 the conduct of his body, he is pure in the conduct of his speech, but he is not pure in his mode of livelihood …’. the Order may invite.

^Kd.4.16.9 “This is a case, monks … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body, pure in the conduct of his speech, pure in his mode of livelihood; but he is ignorant, inexperienced; he is not competent when himself being questioned …’ … the Order may invite.

^Kd.4.16.10 “This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body … pure in his mode of livelihood; he is learned, experienced; he is competent when being himself questioned to give an explanation’, one should speak thus to him: ‘If you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation, why do you suspend it? Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from moral habit^[7]? Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from good habits^[8]? ^Vin.1.172 Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from (right) view^[9]?’

^Kd.4.16.11 “If he should speak thus: ‘I suspend it on account of a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But does your reverence know what is a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view?’ If he should speak thus: ‘I know, your reverence, what is a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But which, your reverence, is a falling away from moral habit, which is a falling away from good habits, which is a falling away from (right) view?’

^Kd.4.16.12 “If he should speak thus: ‘This is a falling away from moral habit: the four offences involving defeat, the thirteen offences entailing a formal meeting of the Order. This is a falling away from good habits: a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech. This is a falling away from (right) ^BD.4.226 view: a wrong view, taking up an extreme view^[10]’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But if you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation, do you suspend it on account of what was seen, do you suspend it on account of what was heard, do you suspend it on account of what was suspected?’

^Kd.4.16.13 “If he should speak thus: ‘I am suspending it on account of what was seen, or, I am suspending it on account of what was heard, or, I am suspending it on account of what was suspected’, one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, are suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was seen, how have you seen, when have you seen, where have you seen? Have you seen him committing an offence involving defeat? Was he seen committing an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Was he seen committing a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? And where were you? And where was this monk? And what were you doing? And what was this monk doing?’

^Kd.4.16.14 “If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was seen, but I am suspending the invitation on account of what was heard’, one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation on account of what was heard, what have you heard, how have you heard, when have you heard, where have you heard? Did you hear that he had committed an offence involving defeat? Did you hear that he had committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Did you hear that he had committed a grave ^BD.4.227 offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? Did you hear from a monk? Did you hear from a nun … a probationer … a novice … a woman novice … a lay-follower … a woman lay-follower … kings … king’s ministers … from leaders of (other) sects … from disciples of (other) sects?’

^Kd.4.16.15 “If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was heard, but I am suspending the invitation on account of what was suspected one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, are suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was suspected, what did you suspect, how did you suspect, when did you suspect, where did you suspect? ^Vin.1.173 Did you suspect that he had committed an offence involving defeat? Did you suspect that he had committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Did you suspect that he had committed a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? Did you suspect, having heard from a monk … from disciples of (other) sects?’

^Kd.4.16.16 “If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was suspected, moreover I do not know on account of what I am suspending this monk’s invitation’, and if, monks, the reproving monk does not satisfy his intelligent fellows in the Brahma-faring with his explanation, it is sufficient to say that the reproved monk is blameless. But if the reproving monk satisfies his intelligent fellows in the Brahma-faring with his explanation, it is sufficient to say that the reproved monk is blameworthy.

^Kd.4.16.17 “If that reproving monk, monks, admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge of an offence involving defeat, then the Order, having charged him with an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order,^[11] may invite. If, monks, that reproving monk admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing ^BD.4.228 a formal meeting of the Order, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule,^[12] may invite. If, monks, that reproving monk admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge involving a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong doing, an offence of wrong speech, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule,^[13] may invite.

^Kd.4.16.18 “If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed an offence involving defeat, the Order, having expelled him, may invite. If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the Order, having charged him with an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, may invite. If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed a grave offence … an offence of wrong speech, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule, may invite.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Cf. Kd.2.16.1.

[2]:

pavāranaṃ ṭhapetuṃ, cf. Vin.2.5, Vin.2.22, Vin.2.32.

[3]:

Cf. Kd.2.16.3.

[4]:

Correct in the Pali text pariyositāya to apari-, as noted at Vinaya Texts i.342, n.1.

[5]:

anuyogaṃ dātuṃ.

[6]:

omadditvā, having crushed. Vin-a.1078 says that it is here a verbal crushing.

[7]:

Defined at AN.i.268 as onslaught on creatures, taking what is not given, wrong conduct in sense-pleasures, lying, slandering, using harsh words, babbling. These three “falling aways” or failures are mentioned above BD.4.82f.

[8]:

AN.i.268 has cittavipatti for ācāravipatti of above.

[9]:

Defined at AN.i.268 in the terms of Ajita Kesakambalin’s annihilationist views (cf. DN.i.55).

[10]:

antaggāhikā diṭṭhi. See Morris, Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1884, p.70, “the (heretical) doctrine of maintaining or holding the three antas or goals, which, according to the Sangīti Suttanta (DN.iii.216) are sakkāyo anto, sakkāyasamuddo anto, sakkāyanirodho anto”. With DN.iii.216, cf. AN.iii.401, and see Pali-English Dictionary which questions Morris’ interpretation of anta as goal. Antaggāhikā diṭṭhi also occurs at DN.iii.45, AN.i.154, AN.ii.240, AN.iii.130, Vb.367. Various such “extreme views” are mentioned at SN.ii.17, SN.ii.19, SN.ii.63, Ps.i.151ff. DN-a.iii.839 explains: “this view is called ‘taking up an extreme’ through taking up the extreme (anta) of the annihilationists.” AN-a.ii.254 explains “a view established having taken up the extreme (anta) of what is founded on the ten” (“doctrines of the annihilationist”, GS.i.138, n.1). AN-a.iii.279 explains: “established having taken up (the position of) the eternalist or the annihilationist.” Ten “diverse views” are mentioned at SN.iii.258, while ten “extreme views” are differentiated from ten “wrong views” at Nd-a.i.162. These two sets of ten are mentioned at Mnd.113, with twenty sakkāyadiṭṭhi (Mnd.112).

[11]:

See Bu-Ss.8.

[12]:

See Bu-Pc.76.

[13]:

Cf. Bu-Ss.9 (Vin.3.170). Vin-a.1078 says that offences incurred in all these cases are those of wrong-doing.