It may be that a monk has committed a number of offenses entailing suspension, both specified and unspecified, both having the same name and having different names, both of the same kind and of different kinds, both of the same sort and of different sorts. He asks the Sangha for simultaneous probation for those offenses, which he gets. While on probation, he commits a number of offenses entailing suspension, concealed and both specified and unspecified. He asks the Sangha to send him back to the beginning for those offenses, which it does. But the legal procedure is illegitimate, reversible, and unfit to stand. The Sangha gives him the simultaneous probation illegitimately. Thinking that he’s on probation, he commits a number of offenses entailing suspension, concealed and both specified and unspecified. At this point he remembers offenses committed while on probation for the former offenses, and he remembers offenses committed while on probation for the further offenses. He considers all this and thinks, ‘Let me ask the Sangha to send me back to the beginning for all those offenses. The procedure must be legitimate, irreversible, and fit to stand. The simultaneous probation, the trial period, and the rehabilitation must all be legitimate.’ He asks the Sangha to be sent back to the beginning in this way, which it does. The legal procedure is legitimate, irreversible, and fit to stand. The Sangha gives him the simultaneous probation, the trial period, and the rehabilitation legitimately. He’s purified of those offenses.