Please, venerables, I ask the Sangha to listen. The monk so-and-so, while being examined in the midst of the Sangha about a heavy offense, asserts things after denying them, denies things after asserting them, evades the issue, and lies. The Sangha does a legal procedure of further penalty against monk so-and-so. Any monk who approves of doing a legal procedure of further penalty against monk so-and-so should remain silent. Any monk who doesn’t approve should speak up. For the second time, I speak on this matter. … For the third time, I speak on this matter. … The Sangha has done a legal procedure of further penalty against monk so-and-so. The Sangha approves and is therefore silent. I will remember it thus.’ This is called the resolution of a legal issue. It’s been resolved face-to-face and by further penalty. 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 those who are accusing and those who have been accused are present. This is the meaning of by further penalty: the doing of, the performing of, the participation in, the consent to, the agreement to, the non-objection to that legal procedure of further penalty. 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. If anyone who gave their consent criticizes the resolution, they commit an offense entailing confession.”

Acting according to what has been admitted “There are three principles for settling a legal issue arising from an offense: resolution face-to-face, acting according to what’s been admitted, and covering over as if with grass. Is it possible that a legal issue arising from an accusation should be settled not by covering over as if with grass, but by resolution face-to-face and by acting according to what’s been admitted? It is. How? It may be that a monk has committed a light offense. That monk should approach a single monk, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, squat on his heels, raise his joined palms, and say: ‘I’ve committed such-and-such an offense. I confess it.’ —‘Do you recognize it?’ —‘Yes, I recognize it.’ —‘You should restrain yourself in the future.’ This is called the resolution of a legal issue. It’s been resolved face-to-face and by acting according to what’s been admitted. Face-to-face with what? Face-to-face with the Teaching, the Monastic Law, and the persons concerned. 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 the one who confesses and the one he confesses to are present. This is the meaning of acting according to what’s been admitted: the doing of, the performing of, the participation in, the consent to, the agreement to, the non-objection to that legal procedure of acting according to what’s been admitted. When a legal issue has been resolved like this, if the receiver of the confession reopens it, he commits an offense entailing confession for the reopening.

If this is what happens, all’s well. If not, that monk should approach several monks, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect at the feet of the senior monks, squat on his heels, raise his joined palms, and say, ‘Venerables, I’ve committed such-and-such an offense. I confess it.’ A competent and capable monk should then inform those monks: