1. 'There are ten cases, O Bhikkhus, in which the taking of votes is invalid; and ten in which the taking of votes is valid.
'Which are the ten in which the taking of votes is invalid? When the matter in dispute is trivial 2--when the case has not run its course (that is, when. the necessary preliminaries of submission to arbitration have not been carried out 3)--when regarding the matter in dispute the Bhikkhus have not formally remembered, or been formally called upon to remember, the offence 4--when the taker of votes 5 knows that those whose opinions are not in accordance with the law will be in the majority,
2. 'And which are the ten cases in which the voting is valid?'
[The ten cases are precisely the reverse of the other ten.]
26:1 On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 24-26.
26:2 Oramattakam. Compare the English law maxim, De minimis non curat lex.
26:3 Buddhaghosa says, Na ka gatigatan ti dve tayo âvâse na gatam, tattha tatth’ eva vâ dvitikkhattum avinikkhitam. See on these proceedings above.
26:4 Buddhaghosa says, Na ka sarita-sâritan ti dvitikkhattum tehi bhikkhûhi sayam saritam va aññehi sâritam vâ na hoti.
26:5 Gânâtî ti salâkam gâhento gânâti. (S.P.)
27:1 App eva nâma. That this phrase does not merely mean 'perhaps' is clear from its use in § 2.
27:2 Adhammena ganhantî ti adhammavâdino evam mayam bahû bhavissâmâ ti dve dve salâkâyo ganhanti. (S.P.)
27:3 On vaggâ, here = vi + agga, compare our note on the 21st Pâkittiya, and Kullavagga I, 2, 1. Buddhaghosa here says, Vaggâ ganhantî ti dve dhammavâdino ekam dhammavâdisalâkam ganhanti evam dhammavâdino na bahû bhavissanti ti maññamânâ.
27:4 With this chapter the 26th section of chapter 14 should be compared, where very curious means are inculcated for avoiding some of the votes here stated to be invalid.
