[679] Bhikkhus, if, while that legal issue (adhikaraṇa) is being decided by those bhikkhus, there should be present there a bhikkhu who is a speaker of the Dhamma (dhammakathika); he has learned the sutta, but not the analysis of the sutta (suttavibhaṅga); and, not discerning the meaning, he rejects the meaning under the shadow of the letter — then those bhikkhus should be informed by a competent, capable bhikkhu thus:
"Let the venerable ones hear me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so is a speaker of the Dhamma; he has learned the sutta, but not the analysis of the sutta; and, not discerning the meaning, he rejects the meaning under the shadow of the letter. If it is the proper time for the venerable ones, let us, having caused the bhikkhu named so-and-so to withdraw, the remainder of us settle this legal issue."
Bhikkhus, if those bhikkhus, having caused that bhikkhu to withdraw, are able to settle that legal issue, this, bhikkhus, is called a legal issue that has been settled. Settled by what? By resolution face-to-face (sammukhāvinaya). And what is there in that resolution face-to-face? The presence of the Dhamma, the presence of the Vinaya, the presence of the persons … If, bhikkhus, a legal issue thus settled is reopened by the one who carried it out, in the reopening there is an offense of pācittiya.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.