   
   
   
   
                             CHAPTER ELEVEN
                                           
                           Adhikarana-Samatha
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                           
   
   This term means, "the settlement of issues."   The seven rules in 
   this section are actually principles and procedures for settling the 
   four sorts of issues mentioned under Pacittiya 63:  disputes, 
   accusations, offenses, and duties.  The Canon's explanations of 
   these procedures are given not in the Vibhanga, but in Cullavagga 
   IV, which starts with a sketch of the procedures, followed by a 
   detailed discussion of how to apply them to each of the four types 
   of issues.   We will follow the same mode of presentation here.
   
   
     For the settling, the resolution of issues that arise:
     
     
   
   1. //A verdict "in the presence of" should be given//.  This means 
   that the formal act settling the issue must be carried out in the 
   presence of the Community, in the presence of the individuals, and 
   in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya. 
     
     //In the presence of the Community// means that the group of 
   bhikkhus that has gathered is competent to carry out the formal act 
   under question.  In other words, it contains the minimum number of 
   bhikkhus required, all the bhikkhus in the designated area (sima) 
   either are present or have sent their consent, and none of the 
   bhikkhus in the meeting makes protest against having the matter 
   settled by the group -- although as we noticed under Pacittiya 80, 
   if a formal act is being carried out against a bhikkhu, his protest 
   does not invalidate the act; any protest made by any other member of 
   the group, though, would invalidate it, even if he only informs the 
   bhikkhu sitting next to him (Mv.IX.4.8).
     
     //In the presence of the individuals// means that all the 
   individuals involved in the matter are present.  For instance, in a 
   dispute, both sides of the dispute must be in the meeting; when the 
   Community is carrying out a formal act against one of its members, 
   the accused must be there; in an ordination, the bhikkhu-to-be must 
   be present.   There are a few cases where this factor is not 
   followed -- such as the ordination of a bhikkhuni by messenger and 
   the act of turning the bowl upside down (refusing to accept 
   donations from a lay person who has mistreated the Community) -- but 
   these are rare.
     
     //In the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya// means that all the 
   proper procedures laid down in the Vinaya are followed, and that 
   bhikkhus who advocate what is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya are not 
   holding sway over the group. 
     
     
     
   2. //A verdict of mindfulness may be given//.  This is the verdict 
   of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the 
   accused remembers fully that he did not commit the offense in 
   question.   
     
     A verdict of this sort is valid only if -- 
     
     1) The bhikkhu is pure and without offense.
     2) He is accused of an offense.
     3) He asks for the verdict.
     4) The Community gives him the verdict.
     5) It is in accordance with the Dhamma, the assembly of bhikkhus 
       being complete and competent to give it (Cv.IV.4.11).
   
     According to the Commentary, factor (1) here -- the bhikkhu is 
   pure and without offense -- applies only to arahants, but the Canon 
   makes no mention of this point.  There are other places in the 
   Khandhakas where the phrase "pure and without offense" is used to 
   refer to any bhikkhu who has not committed the offense of which he 
   is accused (e.g., Mv.IX.1.7; Mv.IX.4.9), with nothing to indicate 
   that he would have to be an arahant.  If the Commentary's 
   interpretation were correct here, there would be no way that a 
   bhikkhu in his right mind who is not an arahant could be declared 
   innocent of an offense at all, since the only three verdicts that 
   may settle an accusation are this one, the verdict of past insanity 
   (for a bhikkhu who was insane when he committed the offense in 
   question), and the act of (punishment for) further misconduct, for a 
   bhikkhu who committed the offense in question when he was in his 
   right mind.  The fourth rule below -- acting in accordance with what 
   is admitted -- which is sometimes assumed to cover cases of 
   innocence, actually applies only to cases where the bhikkhu admits 
   to having committed an offense before the matter goes to 
   interrogation, and not to cases where he is innocent and asserts his 
   innocence.
     
     Thus we will follow the general usage in the Khandhakas and say 
   that the factor "pure and without offense" is fulfilled by any 
   bhikkhu -- arahant or not -- who has not committed the offense in 
   question. 
     
     
     
   3. //A verdict of past insanity may be given//.  This is another 
   verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that 
   the accused was out of his mind when he committed the offense in 
   question and so is absolved of any responsibility for it.   
     
     Such a verdict is valid only if given to a bhikkhu who:
     
     1) does not remember what he did while insane;
     2) remembers, but only as if in a dream; or 
     3) is still insane enough to believe that his behavior is proper. 
       ("I act that way and so do you.  It is allowable for me and 
       allowable for you!")  (Cv.IV.6.2).
   
   
   
   4. //Acting in accordance with what is admitted//.  This refers to 
   the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation 
   is involved.  The confession is valid only if in accord with the 
   facts, e.g., a bhikkhu actually commits a pacittiya offense and then 
   confesses it as such, and not as a stronger or lesser offense.  If 
   he were to confess it as a dukkata or a sanghadisesa, that would be 
   invalid.
   
   
   
   5. //Acting in accordance with the majority//.  This refers to cases 
   in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even 
   after all the proper procedures are followed, and -- in the words of 
   the Canon -- are "wounding one another with weapons of the tongue."  
   In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.
   
     Such a vote is valid only if -- 
   
     1) The issue is major.
     2) The proper procedures have already been followed (in at least 
       two or three Communities, says the Commentary) and have failed to 
       achieve a result.
     3) Those on the side of the Dhamma are in the majority and are 
       perceived to be in the majority.
     4) It is felt that such an act will not divide the Community.
     5) The Community present is competent to settle the issue.
     6) All the bhikkhus present agree to take a vote.
     7) There is no cheating (e.g., one bhikkhu taking two voting 
       tickets). 
     8) Each bhikkhu honestly votes in accordance with his views, and 
       not, for example, under fear of intimidation (Cv.IV.10).
     
   
   
   6. //Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct//.  
   This refers to cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the 
   offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it.  
   He is then to be reproved for his actions, made to remember the 
   offense and to confess it, after which the Community carries out a 
   formal act of "further misconduct" against him as an added 
   punishment for being so uncooperative as to require the formal 
   interrogation in the first place.   
   
     The Cullavagga (IV.11.2-12.2) contains three separate discussions 
   of the conditions that are necessary for the act to be valid.  The 
   discussions overlap, but can be summarized as follows:
     
     The act is essentially the same thing as an act of censure, and as 
   such can be given to a bhikkhu who -- 
     
     1) is a maker of strife, quarrels, and dissension in the 
       Community;
     2) is ignorant, full of offenses, and has not undergone the 
       penalty for them; or
     3) lives in unbecoming association with lay people.
     
     What makes this act special is that it is aimed primarily at a 
   bhikkhu who has committed an offense that requires confession, but 
   he does not confess it until being formally interrogated.  This is 
   shown by the factors required for the act to be valid:
   
     1) The accused is impure (i.e., he actually did commit the 
       offense, and it is an offense that requires confession).
     2) He is unconscientious (i.e., he didn't voluntarily confess the 
       offense on his own in the first place).
     3) A formal meeting has been called in which he is present and has 
       been interrogated:  reproved for his actions, made to remember 
       the offense, and formally accused of having committed it.  (The 
       Commentary translates this word -- //sanuvada// -- as meaning 
       argumentative -- //saupavada// -- which also fits the context.  
       If the bhikkhu has been accused of the offense but at first 
       denies it, that would fulfill this factor.)
     4) He finally acknowledges the offense and confesses it.
     5) The Community carries out the act
     6) in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and with a complete 
       assembly.  
   
     Once such an act has been carried out against a bhikkhu, he must 
   observe the following rules:
   
     1) He may not act as preceptor or teacher for another bhikkhu, nor 
       is he to have a novice attend to him.
     2) He may not accept authorization to exhort bhikkhunis; even if 
       authorized, he is not to exhort them.
     3) He should not commit the offense for which he is being 
       punished, a similar offense, or a worse one.
     4) He should not find fault with the formal act or with those who 
       carried it out.
     5) He should not accuse others of offenses or participate actively 
       in any of the procedures involved in a formal accusation -- e.g., 
       suspending another bhikkhu's right to join in the Patimokkha 
       recitation, asking leave to accuse, reproving, making remember, 
       etc. 
     6) He should not quarrel with bhikkhus (Cv.IV.12.4).
   
     If he abides by all these rules, and the Community is satisfied 
   that he has seen the error of his ways, they are to rescind the act 
   and restore him to his former status as a full-fledged bhikkhu.
   
   
   
   7. //Covering over as with grass//.  This refers to situations in 
   which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their 
   dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contemplative.  
   If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the only 
   result would be greater divisiveness.  Thus if both sides agree, all 
   the bhikkhus gather in one place.  (According to the Commentary, 
   this means that all bhikkhus in the //sima// must attend.  No one 
   should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.)  A motion 
   is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed.  
   One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of 
   his faction that he will make a confession for them.  When both 
   sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the 
   entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a 
   motion and one announcement (//natti-dutiya-kamma//).
   
     This clears all offenses except for -- 
   
     1) any heavy offense (parajika and sanghadisesa, says the 
       Commentary) committed by anyone in the group;
     2) any offenses dealing with the laity;
     3) any offenses of any member of either side who does not approve 
       of the procedure; and
     4) any offenses of any bhikkhu who does not attend the meeting.  
       (This is the reason for the Commentary's statement that even sick 
       bhikkhus must attend.)
   
     Point (3) here is interesting.  If any member of either side were 
   to dissent, that would invalidate the whole procedure.  This point 
   is thus probably added as a reminder to any bhikkhu who might be 
   vindictive enough to want to deal with his enemies case-by-case, 
   that //his// offenses will also have to be dealt with case-by-case.  
   This might be enough to discourage him from dissenting.
     
     The Commentary explains the name of this procedure by comparing 
   the offenses cleared in this way to excrement that has been so 
   thoroughly covered with grass that it can no longer send an 
   oppressive smell.
   
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   
   According to the Cullavagga, the principle of "in the presence of" 
   applies to all four types of issues:  disputes, accusations, 
   offenses, and duties.  In addition, disputes may be settled "in 
   accordance with the majority";  accusations must be settled either 
   by a verdict of mindfulness, a verdict of past insanity, or an act 
   "in accordance with further misconduct"; and offenses may be settled 
   by acting in accordance with what is admitted or by covering them 
   over as with grass.
   
     What follows it a more detailed discussion of how these principles 
   and procedures apply in each of the four cases:
     
     Disputes are heated disagreements over what the Buddha did and did 
   not teach, or -- in the words of the Cullavagga --  "when bhikkhus 
   dispute, saying:  
   
       'It is Dhamma,' or 'It is not Dhamma;' 
       
       'It is Vinaya,' or 'It is not Vinaya;'  
       
       'It was spoken by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not spoken by 
       the Tathagata;' 
       
       'It was regularly practiced by the Tathagata,' or  'It was 
       not regularly practiced by the Tathagata;'
       
        'It was formulated by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not 
       formulated by the Tathagata;' 
       
       'It is an offense,' or 'It is not an offense;'  
       
       'It is a light offense,' or 'It is a heavy offense;' 
       
       'It is a curable offense,' or 'It is an incurable offense;' 
       
       'It is a serious offense,' or 'It is not a serious offense.'
       
       Whatever strife, quarreling, contention, dispute, differing 
       opinions, opposing opinions, heated words, abusiveness based 
       on this, is an issue arising from disputes." (Cv.IV.14.2)
   
     Thus not all disagreements on these matters are classed as issues.  
   Friendly disagreements or differences of interpretation aren't; 
   heated and abusive disagreements are. 
     
     The Buddha advises that a bhikkhu who wants to bring up such 
   questions for discussion should first consider five points:  1) 
   whether it is the right time for such a discussion; 2) whether it 
   concerns something true; 3) whether it is connected with the goal; 
   4) whether he will be able to get on his side bhikkhus who value the 
   Dhamma and Vinaya; and 5) whether the question will give rise to 
   strife, quarreling, disputes, cracks and splits in the Community.    
   If the answer to the first four questions is yes, and to the fifth 
   question no (i.e., the discussion is not likely to lead to strife), 
   he may then go ahead and start the discussion.  Otherwise, he should 
   let the matter rest for the time being (Cv.IX.4).
     
     The Cullavagga quotes the Buddha as saying that two sorts of 
   mental states -- skillful and unskillful -- can turn disputes into 
   issues.  The unskillful states are covetous, corrupt, or confused 
   states of mind; the skillful ones are states of mind that are not 
   covetous, not corrupt, and not confused.  The Buddha adds, however, 
   that six character traits can lead to issues arising from disputes 
   that will act towards the detriment of many people.  They are when a 
   bhikkhu:
   
     is easily angered and bears ill will,
     is mean and spiteful,
     is jealous and possessive,
     is scheming and deceitful,
     has evil desires and wrong views,
     is attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.
   
     Such a bhikkhu, he says, lives without deference or respect for 
   the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, and does not complete the 
   training.  If one should see any of these traits within oneself or 
   others, one should strive for their abandonment.  If there are no 
   such traits present, one should make sure that they don't arise in 
   the future (Cv.IV.14.3). 
     
     As noted under Sanghadisesa 10, there are two sorts of disputes:  
   those in which one of the parties is aiming at schism and those in 
   which neither is.  Disputes of the first sort are to be dealt with 
   in line with the procedures listed under Sanghadisesas 10 & 11; 
   those of the second sort, as follows:
     
   //In the presence of// -- Step 1:  a) The Community meets, with at 
   least four bhikkhus -- the minimum to form a quorum -- present.  All 
   of the bhikkhus in the //sima// are either present or have sent 
   their consent, and none of the bhikkhus present protests having the 
   matter settled by the group.
     
     b) Both sides of the dispute are present. 
     
     c) The meeting is carried out in accordance with the procedures 
   laid down by the Buddha, and the unanimous decision of the Community 
   is in line with what the Buddha actually laid down.  This point is 
   important:  It means that no Community -- even if it follows the 
   proper form for the meeting -- can legitimately replace the Buddha's 
   teachings with its own preferences on any point.
     
     If the Community can settle the manner in this way, it is properly 
   settled and should not be reopened.  
     
     
   //Step 2//:  If the Community cannot settle the matter, they should 
   go to a monastery where there are more bhikkhus, and ask them to 
   help settle the matter.  If it so happens that the group is able to 
   settle the matter among themselves on the way to the other 
   monastery, then it is properly settled, and they may return home to 
   their own monastery.
     
     
   //Step 3//:  If the matter is still unsettled by the time they reach 
   the second monastery, they should ask the resident bhikkhus there to 
   help settle the matter.  The resident bhikkhus should then meet and 
   consider among themselves whether or not they are competent to 
   settle the matter.  If they feel they aren't, they shouldn't take it 
   on.  If they feel they are, they should then ask the incoming 
   bhikkhus how the dispute arose.  (The Commentary here adds that the 
   residents should first stall for two or three days -- saying that 
   they have to wash their robes or fire their bowls first -- as a way 
   of subduing the pride of the incoming bhikkhus.)  
     
     Once the resident bhikkhus have asked the history of the dispute, 
   the incoming bhikkhus are to say that if the resident bhikkhus can 
   settle the dispute, they (the incoming bhikkhus) will hand it over 
   to them; if they can't settle it, the incoming bhikkhus will still 
   be in charge of the matter.
     
     If the resident bhikkhus can then settle the dispute, it is 
   properly settled.
   
   
   //Step 4//:  If they can't settle it in this way -- and, in the 
   words of the Canon, "endless disputes arise, and there is no 
   discerning the meaning of a single statement" -- the disputants 
   should, with a motion and announcement, hand the matter over to a 
   panel of experts.  The Commentary recommends a panel of ten.  Each 
   member of the panel must meet the following qualifications:
   
     1) He is moral, abiding scrupulously by the rules of the Vinaya.
     2) He is learned in all things dealing with the celibate life.
     3) He has memorized both Patimokkhas in detail.
     4) He is firm in his knowledge of the Vinaya and is not easily led 
       off-track.
     5) He is skilled at reconciling both sides of a dispute.
     6) He is skilled at settling an issue.
     7) He knows what constitutes an issue.
     8) He knows how an issue arises (i.e., through skillful, 
       unskillful, or neutral states of mind).
     9) He knows when an issue is stopped.
     10) He knows the way leading to the stopping of an issue.  (Notice 
       that these last four qualifications are similar in form to 
       knowledge of the four Noble Truths.)
   
     The Commentary notes that while the panel is discussing the issue, 
   none of the other bhikkhus is to speak.  If the panel can settle the 
   issue, it is properly settled and should not be reopened.
   
   
   //Step 5//:  If the panel has trouble in settling the issue, and 
   there are members of the panel who "hide the Dhamma under the shadow 
   of the letter" -- i.e., use the letter of the rules to go against 
   the spirit -- they may be removed from the panel through a formal 
   motion.  If the panel can then settle the issue, it is properly 
   settled.
   
     If not -- and by this time, the Commentary says, at least two or 
   three monasteries have become involved -- the procedures of "in the 
   presence of" have been exhausted, and the dispute must go on to a 
   settlement "in accordance with the majority."
   
   
   
   //In accordance with the majority//:  A decision by majority vote is 
   valid only in the following situation:
   
     1) The issue is important.
     2) The procedures of "in the presence of" have all been followed 
       but have not succeeded in settling the issue.
     3) Both sides have been made to reflect on their position.
     4) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority sides 
       with the Dhamma, or
     5) that the majority probably sides with the Dhamma.
     6) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will 
       not lead to a split in the Sangha, or
     7) that the procedure will probably not lead to a split in the 
       Sangha.
     8) The tickets are taken in accordance with the rule (e.g., only 
       one ticket per bhikkhu, and the Dhamma side wins).
     9) The assembly is complete.
     10) The bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views 
       (and not, for example, under fear of coercion).
   
     When these factors are all present, the group should first ask one 
   of its members to act as a distributor of voting tickets.  He should 
   be free of the four kinds of prejudice, and know what does and does 
   not constitute the taking of a voting ticket.  Before accepting the 
   role, he should reflect on whether the situation meets the ten 
   qualifying factors, and accept only when it does.  Once he accepts 
   the role, he is to be authorized by means of a formal motion and 
   announcement. 
     
     He is then to have voting tickets made -- a different color for 
   each side -- and conduct the ballot in one of three ways:  secretly, 
   by whispering in the ear, or openly.
   
     In //secret// balloting, he is to tell each bhikkhu, "This color 
   is for this side, and that color for that.  Take one, but don't show 
   it to anyone."  According to the Commentary, this method is to be 
   used when there are many unconscientious bhikkhus in the assembly.
     
     In "//whispering in the ear//" balloting, he is to whisper to each 
   bhikkhu, "This color is for this side, and that color for that.  
   Take one, but don't tell anyone."  This method, the Commentary says, 
   is for assemblies in which there are many foolish or trouble-making 
   bhikkhus.
     
     In //open// balloting, the bhikkhus are to take the voting tickets 
   openly.  This method is for assemblies where the distributor is 
   certain that the conscientious bhikkhus are in the majority.
     
     Once the vote is taken, the distributor is to assess the result 
   before announcing it.  If he sees that the anti-Dhamma side has won, 
   he is to annul the balloting and take the vote all over again.  
   According to the Commentary, he may take the vote up to three times.  
   If the anti-Dhamma side is still in the majority, he should announce 
   that the time is not right for a vote, adjourn the meeting, and try 
   to find more bhikkhus on the side of the Dhamma to join the next 
   meeting.
     
     These procedures make two interesting assumptions:  One side of 
   the dispute is clearly in the right, and the distributor must belong 
   to the right side.  If he belongs to the wrong side, the whole 
   balloting is invalid, and the issue may later be reopened without 
   penalty.  If neither side is clearly in the right, the composers of 
   the Cullavagga would probably consider the issue unimportant and not 
   worthy of a vote in the first place.  If this is true, then even if 
   a vote is taken, it would not be a valid use of the procedure, and 
   the results would not be binding. 
     
     In all of these steps for settling disputes, the important point 
   to remember is that in no way is a group of bhikkhus to rewrite the 
   Dhamma or Vinaya in line with their views.  Even if they attempt it, 
   following the procedures to the letter, the fact that their decision 
   goes against the Buddha's teachings invalidates their efforts, and 
   the issue may be reopened at any time without penalty.
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   Accusations.  When a bhikkhu has committed an offense, it is his 
   responsibility to undergo the penalty voluntarily so as to make 
   amends for it.  If his fellow bhikkhus see, hear, or suspect that he 
   has committed an offense without undergoing the penalty, it is their 
   duty to question and admonish him in private, in accordance with the 
   procedures discussed under Sanghadisesa 8.  The issue may be settled 
   informally in one of two ways:  (1) The accused admits to the act, 
   sees it as an offense, and undergoes the penalty; or (2) he is truly 
   innocent, professes his innocence, and can convince his admonishers 
   that their suspicions were ungrounded.  If both sides act in good 
   faith and without prejudice, issues of this sort are relatively easy 
   to settle informally in this way.
   
     If the  issue can't be settled, it should be taken to a meeting of 
   the Community for a formal interrogation and verdict.
     
     When the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be 
   present, and both must agree to the case's being heard by that 
   particular group.  (If the original accuser is a lay person, one of 
   the bhikkhus is to take up the charge.)  The accused is then asked 
   if he remembers having committed the offense in question, and is to 
   be dealt with in accordance with what he admits to having done 
   (Mv.IX.6.1-4).  The Cullavagga (IV.14.29) shows that the other 
   bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value.  They 
   should press and cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that 
   he is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of three 
   verdicts:
   
     1) If he is innocent of the offense and can convince the group of 
       his innocence, he is to request a verdict of //mindfulness// -- 
       expressing the request three times -- and the Community is to 
       give it to him by means of a formal motion with three 
       announcements.  
     
     2) If he committed the offense while insane or possessed, he 
       should request a verdict of //past insanity// -- again, 
       expressing the request three times -- and the Community is to 
       give it to him by means of a formal motion with three 
       announcements.  
     
     3) If he committed the offense while in his right mind, but admits 
       to it only after the interrogation has begun, the other bhikkhus 
       are to make him confess the offense and then give him a verdict 
       of //further misconduct// by means of a formal motion with three 
       announcements.  
   
     As we noted above, each of these three verdicts is valid only if 
   in line with the truth.  If it so happens that a guilty bhikkhu is 
   given a verdict of mindfulness, a bhikkhu who committed the offense 
   in question while he was in his right mind is given a verdict of 
   past insanity, or an innocent bhikkhu is given a verdict of further 
   misconduct, the case may be reopened when new evidence surfaces, and 
   the verdict rescinded or reversed.
     
     There are, however, two situations in which none of these three 
   verdicts applies, and the accusation -- at least for the time being 
   -- remains unsettled: 
   
     (1) If a bhikkhu, in the course of an interrogation, admits to an 
       action that is an offense, but either refuses to see it as an 
       offense or refuses to confess it, he is subject to an act of 
       banishment.  Though this too may later be rescinded on the basis 
       of good behavior -- when he admits that his action was an offense 
       and confesses it -- it is a much stronger penalty than the act 
       for further misconduct.
     
     (2) If a bhikkhu denies having committed the act in question, and 
       the bhikkhus are not convinced of his innocence, there are 
       various ways to pressure him to tell the truth:  The Cullavagga 
       suggests intensive interrogation; the Commentary, long bouts of 
       group chanting.  If neither works, and the Community still has 
       doubts about his innocence, the issue is to be abandoned for the 
       time being as unsettled:  The accused is neither to be punished 
       nor declared innocent.  As long as the issue remains unsettled, 
       though, there will be no peace of mind either for the accused or 
       for the Community as a whole. 
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   Offenses.  All offenses are settled by means of the principle of 
   //in the presence of//.  Most are also settled by means of the  
   procedure of //in accordance with what is admitted//.  Rare cases 
   may be settled by //covering over as with grass//.  
   
   
   //In accordance with what is admitted//:  When a bhikkhu has 
   committed an offense requiring confession and then confesses it 
   truthfully in the presence of another bhikkhu, group of bhikkhus, or 
   complete Community, that is called settlement in accordance with 
   what is admitted.  It also counts as having been settled in the 
   presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya and the individuals -- i.e., the 
   bhikkhu making the confession and the bhikkhu(s) witnessing it are 
   face to face.
     
     If a bhikkhu has committed a sanghadisesa offense, it is settled 
   only after he has confessed it and undergone penance and probation, 
   both of which require further confessions.  Only then, when a 
   Community of at least 20 bhikkhus has met to lift the penalty from 
   him, is the offense considered settled.  Here, //in the presence 
   of// would include not only the Dhamma, Vinaya, and individuals, but 
   also the Community, when it imposes the penance and/or probation, 
   and again when it lifts the penalty.
     
     If a bhikkhu has committed a parajika offense, it is settled only 
   when he admits that he is no longer a bhikkhu and returns to lay 
   life.  Here, //in the presence of// would have the same factors as 
   under confessable offenses, above. 
     
     
   //Covering over as with grass//:  This procedure has already been 
   discussed in detail above, and there is no need to add any further 
   details here.  //In the presence of//, here, means in the presence 
   of the Dhamma, Vinaya, individuals, and the Community:  In the 
   presence of the individuals means that those who make the blanket 
   confession and those who witness it are face to face.  In the 
   presence of the Community means that enough bhikkhus for a quorum 
   (four) have arrived, the assembly is complete (all the bhikkhus in 
   the //sima// have joined the meeting) and none of the bhikkhus, 
   having met, makes any protest. 
   
   
                                 * * *
   
   
   Duties are settled //in the presence of// --  
   
     (1) when they are properly carried out in line with the procedures 
       set out in the Dhamma and Vinaya, 
     
     (2) if the relevant individuals are present (e.g., the ordinand in 
       an ordination, the bhikkhu-to-be-banished in a formal act of 
       banishment, etc.), and 
     
     (3) the Community that has met to carry them out forms a quorum 
       and a complete assembly, with none of those present -- except the 
       bhikkhu against whom a formal act is to be carried out, if such 
       is the case -- makes any protest. 
   
   
                            * * * * * * * *
