Page 719

Chapter 27

offence.‛

Bhikkhus

.... supposing a certain

bhikkhu

might be guilty of an offence (

Èpatti

though he did not think it was an offence, on one hand; and on the other hand,

there might be

bhikkhus

who held it to be an offence (

Èpatti

Bhikkhus

, if that

bhikkhu

, who thinks he has not committed an offence, knows

concerning those

bhikkhus

: ‚These Venerable Ones are well informed and well

versed in

Dhamma-Vinaya

and

PÈÔimokkha

, intelligent and wise, conscientious,

scrupulous and desirous of three training practices. Either because of me or

because of anyone else, these

bhikkhus

should not take a wrong action through

selfish desire, ill-will, through ignorance, through fear.
If these

bhikkhus

suspend me for not seeing an offence and (1) if they do not carry

out the Observance together with me, if they carry out the Observance without me;

(2) if these

bhikkhus

do not perform

Pavarana

ceremony together with me, if they

perform Pavarana ceremony without me; (3) if they do not carry out a formal act

of the order (

Sangha-kamma

) together with me, if they will carry out a formal act

of the order without me; (4) if they do not sit on a seat together with me, if they sit

on a seat without me; (5) if they do not sit to drink gruel together with me, if they

sit to drink gruel without me; (6) if they do not sit in a refectory together with me,

if they sit in a refectory without me; (7) if they do not dwell under the same roof

with me, if they dwell under one roof without me; (8) if they do not pay respect

according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms, together with me, if

they will pay respect according to seniority, greet or worship with joined palms

without me; by doing so, there will be dispute, strife, brawls, there will be schism

in the order, there will be altercation in the order, dissension in the order,

differences in the order.

Bhikkhus

, knowing this, the

bhikkhu

, should confess the

guilt even out of faith in the Sangha to ward off schism and promote unity.‛

After delivering this discourse for unity of Sangha, the Buddha rose from the seat and

departed.

(N.B. The

bhikkhu

versed in

Suttas

had honestly expressed his desire ‚to confess

and to ask for pardon‛ if he had committed an offence when the

bhikkhu

versed in

Vinaya

made a complaint at first. When he was told subsequently that ‚any offence

committed through thoughtlessness and without volition does not amount to

offence or sinful act‛ he sincerely thought he was free from guilt.)
Had the Buddha decided to blame those (versed in

Vinaya

) for suspending the

bhikkhus

versed in

Suttas

on such grounds, they would have accused Him of taking

sides with their opponents, thus exposing themselves to the risk of committing an

offence against Him, a demerit that could direct them to realms of woes.
Again, the

bhikkhu

versed in

Suttas

had knowingly left certain amount of water in

the cup and as such, he was guilty of infringement of a light offence (

dukkata-

Èppatti

). His disciples had expressed their opinion that such a judgment was legally

invalid, through attachment to their teacher.
Had the Buddha decided to approve the judgment of those versed in

Vinaya

such grounds, the disciples of the

bhikkhu

, who was versed in

Suttas

, would

naturally accuse Him of taking sides with their opponents thus exposing themselves

to the risk of committing an offence against Him, a demerit that could direct them

to realms of woes.
(It should be borne in mind therefore, that the Buddha had thus refrained from

putting blame on any of the rival groups in the interest of peace and tranquillity

and after delivering discourses for unity of the Sangha, He made His departure

from that place.)