1These seven rules, venerable ones, for the deciding of legal questionsadhikaraṇa. This passage = Vin.4.351, and cf. DN.iii.254, AN.iv.144. The four kinds of adhikaraṇa are explained at Vin.2.88ff., and the ways of settling them at Vin.2.99ff. The four are stated merely, in definition of adhikaraṇa, at Vin.3.164 (= ), Vin.4.126 (= above, ), Vin.4.238 (= below, ). See also Vin.3.168, Vin.3.173. At AN.i.99 (= GS.1.85) a list of monastic duties is given, ending with these seven ways of settling legal questions. For a full exposition of their working and significance, see S. Dutt, Early Buddhist Monachism, 156ff. come up for recitation. For the deciding, for the settlement of legal questions arising from time to time:

2A verdict in the presence ofsammukhāvinaya. Vin.2.93 says there must be the presence of the Order, of dhamma, of discipline, and of the persons (disputing). Each of these is then defined. See also Vin.2.96, Vin.2.97; MN.ii.247. may be given;

3A verdict of innocencesativinaya. See Vin.1.325, Vin.2.99; MN.ii.247. Vinaya Texts i.68, Vinaya Texts iii.58 translate by “consciously innocent." Such persons have been “mindful" (sati) in their behaviour, they do not remember (sarati) having fallen into any offence, therefore they are innocent of the charges brought against them. See also GS.1.85, n.7. may be given;

4A verdict of past insanityamūḷhavinaya. See Vin.2.82, where this decision was made specially for the mad monk Gagga, and cf. Vin.1.123. Afterwards (Vin.2.100) it was formed into a “general rule for every similar case" (Vinaya Texts iii.18, n.2). See also MN.ii.248. may be given;

5It may be carried out on (his) acknowledgementpaṭiññāya kāretabbaṁ. See Vin.1.325, where it is said that to carry out this form of settling legal questions without the accused monk’s acknowledgement of his offence is not a legally valid act; and Vin.2.83, where various official acts, if carried out against a monk without his acknowledgement, are said to give rise to a dukkaṭa offence. See MN.ii.248, for the way in which a monk should confess (paṭideseti) the offence into which he had fallen (āpattiṁ āpanno).;

6(There is) the decision of the majorityyebhuyyasikā, or “of a greater number." It is explained at considerable length at Vin.2.93ff., and in less detail at MN.ii.247, that if monks dwelling in one āvāsa are unable to settle legal questions themselves, they may take them to the monks dwelling in another āvāsa. At Vin.2.84, however, this method is apparently not contemplated, for here it is said that if monks are unable to settle a legal question, they are allowed to agree upon an assigner of (voting) tickets, salākagāhāpaka (cf. pattagāhāpaka at Vin.3.246 = BD.2.122, n.5. n.1), and then to vote; but nothing is here said about consulting monks living in another āvāsa. At Vin.2.85 ten ways are given for an invalid, and ten for a valid taking of votes, while at Vin.2.98f., three methods of taking votes are described. ;

7The decision for specific depravitytassapāpiyyasikā, or the “obstinately wrong" (Vinaya Texts iii.28 q.5, n.3). This method of settling a legal question is to be employed when a monk “having denied (an offence) acknowledged it, having acknowledged it denied it, shelved the question by asking others, told a conscious lie," Vin.2.85, and cf. Vin.4.1, where Hatthaka is said to have behaved in this way. The right way of carrying out this method of settling a legal question is given at Vin.2.85, Vin.2.86, and, rather differently, at MN.ii.249. AN.iv.347 states the proper practice in regard to a monk against whom these proceedings have been taken.

8The covering up (as) with grass.tiṇavatthāraka. The kinds of disputes to be settled by this method and the right procedure for carrying it out, are given at Vin.2.86f., and cf. MN.ii.250.

9Recited, venerable ones, are the seven rules for the deciding of legal questions. Concerning them, I ask the venerable ones: I hope that you are quite pure in this matter? And a second time I ask: I hope that you are quite pure in this matter? And a third time I ask: I hope that you are quite pure in this matter? The venerable ones are quite pure in this matter, therefore they are silent. Thus do I understand this.

1p_2V_2093Ime kho panāyasmanto satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā dhammā uddesaṁ āgacchanti.

2p_2V_2094, msdiv655Uppan­nup­pan­nā­naṁ adhikaraṇānaṁ samathāya vūpasamāya sammukhāvinayo dātabbo,

3p_2V_2093Ime kho panāyasmanto satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā sativinayo dātabbo,

4p_2V_2093Ime kho panāyasmanto satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā amūḷhavinayo dātabbo,

5p_2V_2093Ime kho panāyasmanto satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā paṭiññāya kāretabbaṁ,

6p_2V_2093Ime kho panāyasmanto satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā ebhuyyasikā,

7tassa­pāpiya­sikā,

8tiṇa­vatthā­ra­koti.

9p_2V_2095Uddiṭṭhā kho, āyasmanto, satta adhika­ra­ṇa­sama­thā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi—“Kaccittha parisuddhā"? Dutiyampi pucchāmi—“Kaccittha parisuddhā"? Tatiyampi pucchāmi—“Kaccittha parisuddhā"? Pari­sud­dhet­thā­yasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṁ dhārayāmīti.