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
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.
