Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen. While we were discussing this legal issue, there was endless talk, but not a single statement that could be understood. The Sangha appoints monks so-and-so and so-and-so to a committee to resolve this legal issue. Any monk who approves of appointing monks so-and-so and so-and-so to a committee to resolve this legal issue should remain silent. Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up. The Sangha has appointed monks so-and-so and so-and-so to a committee to resolve this legal issue. The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’

If those monks are able to resolve that legal issue by means of a committee, this is called the resolution of a legal issue. It’s been resolved face-to-face. Face-to-face with what? Face-to-face with the Sangha, the Teaching, the Monastic Law, and the persons concerned. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the Sangha: the monks who should be present have arrived, consent has been brought for those who are eligible to give their consent, and no one present objects to the decision. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the Teaching and the Monastic Law: the Teaching, the Monastic Law, the Teacher’s instruction—that by which that legal issue is resolved. This is the meaning of face-to-face with the persons concerned: both sides—those who are disputing and those they’re disputing with—are present. When a legal issue has been resolved like this, if any of the participants reopen it, they commit an offense entailing confession for the reopening.

Dealing with obstructive monksWhile those monks are discussing that legal issue, there may be a monk there who’s an expounder of the Teaching, but who doesn’t know the Monastic Code or its analysis. Not understanding the meaning, he obstructs it by obscuring it with the wording. A competent and capable monk should then inform the Sangha: