[683] Could an accusation-issue (anuvādādhikaraṇa), without recourse to two settlements (samatha)—the verdict of past insanity (amūḷhavinaya) and the imposition of a further penalty (tassapāpiyasikā)—be settled by two settlements: the verdict in the presence (sammukhāvinaya) and the verdict of mindfulness (sativinaya)? It should be said to him: "It could." In what way? Here, bhikkhus, bhikkhus accuse a bhikkhu with a groundless failure in virtue (sīlavipatti). To that bhikkhu, bhikkhus, who has attained fullness of mindfulness, the verdict of mindfulness should be given. And thus, bhikkhus, should it be given: that bhikkhu, bhikkhus, having approached the Saṅgha, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder … should say thus: "Venerable sirs, bhikkhus accuse me with a groundless failure in virtue. Venerable sirs, I, having attained fullness of mindfulness, ask the Saṅgha for the verdict of mindfulness." It should be requested a second time; it should be requested a third time.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.