At that time the monk Seyassaka was ignorant,inexperienced, full of offences, not rid of them; he lived in company with householders in unbecoming association with householders.1 So much so that the monks were done up2 with granting him probation, sending him back to the beginning, imposing mānatta, rehabilitating him.3 Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can the venerable Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced . . . rehabilitating him?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having had the Order of monks convened, questioned the monks, saying: “Is it true, as is said, monks, that the monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced . . . rehabilitating him?” “It is true, Lord.” The Awakened One, the Lord, rebuked them, saying: “It is not suitable, monks, it is not becoming in this foolish man, it is not fitting, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not allowable, it is not to be done. For how, monks, can this foolish man, ignorant, inexperienced . . . rehabilitating him? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased, nor for increasing the number of those who are pleased . . .” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying: [ 7 ] “Well then, monks, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of guidance4 for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: ‘You should live in dependence’.5 || 1 || “And thus, monks, should it be carried out: First, the monk Seyyasaka should be reproved; having reproved him, he should be made to remember; having made him remember, he should be accused of the offence; having accused him of the offence, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced . If it seems right to the Order, let the Order carry out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: ‘You should live in dependence’. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This monk Seyyasaka, ignorant, inexperienced . . . rehabilitating him. The Order is carrying out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: ‘You should live in dependence’. If the carrying out of the (formal) act of guidance, saying: ‘You should live in dependence,’ for the monk Seyyasaka is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. And a second time I speak forth this matter . . . And a third time I speak forth this matter . . . he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. A (formal) act of guidance, saying: ‘You should live in dependence,’ is being carried out by the Order for the monk Seyyasaka. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’ || 2 | 10 || Then the Order carried out a (formal) act of guidance for the monk Seyyasaka, saying: “You should live in dependence.” After the (formal) act of guidance had been carried out by the Order, he, choosing, associating with, visiting friends who were lovely (in deed), making them recite, interrogating them, came to be one who had heard much,2 one to whom the tradition was handed down; an expert in dhamma, an expert in discipline, an expert in the headings; experienced, wise, modest, scrupulous, desirous of the training; he conducted himself properly, was subdued, and mended his ways; and, having approached monks, he spoke thus: “I, your reverences,inexperienced,