1. 'And in case, O Bhikkhus, a Bhikkhu is guilty of a number of Samghâdisesa offences--definite, and not definite--of one designation, and of various designations--similar to each other, and dissimilar--connected with each other, and disconnected 1. He asks the Samgha for an inclusive probation on account of those offences 2. The Samgha imposes upon him an inclusive probation on account of those offences. He undergoing that probation is guilty meanwhile of a number of Samghâdisesa offences, definite ones, which he does not conceal. He asks the Samgha to throw him back on account of those intervening offences to the commencement (of his term of probation). The Samgha [does so] by a lawful proceeding that cannot be quashed 3, and fit
for the occasion; and it also imposes a Mânatta upon him, but by an unlawful proceeding, and then by an unlawful proceeding rehabilitates him. That Bhikkhu, O Bhikkhus, is not purified from those offences.
And in case, O Bhikkhus, a Bhikkhu is guilty of a number of Samghâdisesa offences--definite, and not definite--of one designation, and of various designations--similar to each other, and dissimilar--connected with each other, and disconnected. And he asks the Samgha for an inclusive probation on account of those offences. The Samgha imposes upon him an inclusive probation on account of those offences. He undergoing that probation is guilty meanwhile of a number of Samghâdisesa offences, definite ones, which he does conceal. He asks the Samgha to throw him back on account of those intervening offences to the commencement (of his term of probation). The Samgha [does so] by a lawful proceeding that cannot be quashed, and fit for the occasion; and it also imposes upon him an inclusive probation by a lawful proceeding, and imposes upon him a Mânatta, but by an unlawful proceeding, and by an unlawful proceeding it rehabilitates him. That Bhikkhu, O Bhikkhus, is not purified from those offences.'
[The same decision is given if, of the intervening offences, all of which are definite, some have been concealed, and some not concealed.]
2. [The same if the intervening offences have been not definite and not concealed, or not definite and concealed, or all not definite but some concealed and some not concealed, or, all not concealed but some definite and some not definite, or all concealed
but some definite and some not definite, or some definite and some not definite and some concealed and some not concealed.]
__________________
Here end the nine principal cases (which serve as
a basis for the variations in the following
chapter) in which a Bhikkhu is not
purified (by undergoing a
term of probation).
435:1 See chap. 33 for this list.
435:2 In accordance with the rule laid down in chap. 28, which shows that by 'a Bhikkhu' must be understood 'a Bhikkhu who is under probation;' and the offences he has committed must have been concealed by him.
435:3 Akuppa. The technical term kammam kopeti is not to revoke the valid decision of a kamma regularly held, but to show that the kamma by reason of some irregularity was no real kamma, and its whole proceedings therefore void. One may compare akuppâ me keto-vimutti spoken by the Buddha immediately after he had attained Nirvâna under the Bo Tree (Ariyapariyosâna Sutta in H. O.'s 'Buddha,' p. 429) and the opposite idea in Sutta Nipâta IV, 3, 5.