Acknowledgement

^Kd.14.7.1 Now at that time the group of six monks carried out (formal) acts of censure and guidance and banishment and reconciliation and suspension against monks without their acknowledgement.^[1] Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can this group of six monks carry out (formal) acts of censure and … suspension against monks without their acknowledgement?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Is it true as is said, monks …?”

“It is true, Lord.” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, a (formal) act of censure or of guidance or of banishment or of reconciliation or of suspension should not be carried out against a monk without his acknowledgement. Whoever should (so) carry (one) out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

^Kd.14.8.1 “Monks, the carrying out (of a formal act) on the acknowledgement of (a monk) is not legally valid thus, it is legally valid thus. And how, monks, is the carrying out on the acknowledgement not legally valid? A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one has fallen into an offence involving defeat.’ If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence involving defeat, I have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat … If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence involving defeat, I have fallen into a grave offence, into an offence involving expiation, into an ^BD.5.110 offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing, into an offence of wrong speech,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong speech, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into a grave offence, into an offence involving expiation, into an offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing, into an offence of wrong speech. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one ^Vin.2.84 has fallen into an offence of wrong speech’. If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence of wrong speech, I have fallen into an offence involving defeat,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving defeat, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence of wrong speech … If he speaks thus: ‘I have not, your reverences, fallen into an offence of wrong speech, I have fallen into a grave offence, into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into an offence involving expiation, into an offence which ought to be confessed, into an offence of wrong-doing,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong-doing, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is not legally valid.

^Kd.14.8.2 “And how, monks, is the carrying out on the acknowledgement legally valid? A monk comes to have fallen into an offence involving defeat. The Order or several (monks) or one individual reproves him for it, saying: ‘The venerable one has fallen into an offence involving defeat’. If he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverences, I have fallen into an offence involving defeat,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence involving defeat, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is legally valid.

“A monk comes to have fallen into an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order … into a grave offence … into an offence of wrong speech … If he speaks thus: ‘Yes, your reverences, I have fallen into an offence of wrong speech,’ and if the Order has him dealt with for an offence of wrong speech, the carrying out on the acknowledgement is legally valid.”

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

I.e. of their offence: apaṭiññāya. Cf. paṭiññāya kāretabbaṃ at Vin.4.207 (BD.3.153, n.5).