[And so also if on being warned of any one of the seven offences 1 he confesses himself to be guilty of any one of the offences different from the one charged, then the official act is invalid.]
2. And when, O Bhikkhus, is such an official act valid ? In case a Bhikkhu have committed a P&r&- £ika offence, and in respect thereof the Sawgha, or a number of Bhikkhus, or a single Bhikkhu warns him, saying, "The venerable one has been guilty of a Pirdf ika." And he replies, "Yea, Sirs, I have been guilty of a P&r&£*ika." And in respect thereof the Sawgha deals with him for a Pdri^ika. Then that official act is valid.'
[And so for each of the other offences mentioned in § 1, the whole of § 2 is repeated.]
Now at that time the Bhikkhus in chapter (Sawgha) assembled, since they became violent, quarrelsome, and disputatious, and kept on wounding one another with sharp words 4 , were unable
The same, namely, as those in the list given at Mahdvagga IV, 16, 12, &c.
In other words, if a Bhikkhu confesses an offence different from that with which he has been charged, the confession cannot be used against him even as regards a decision with respect to the offence confessed.
On this chapter, see further below, IV, 14, 16.
Amlamawnaw mukhaisattihi vitudanta* viharanti. Literally, 'with mouth-javelins.' Vitudati, and not vitudati as Childers gives, is the right spelling. So Fausboll reads at G&taka II, 185, 186.