Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c14.s4.35

c14.s4.35

to all. Any infringement of the rules of procedure invalidated the proceedings. According to the Chullavagga, the voting was invalid in ten cases: When the matter in dispute is trivial—when the case has not run its course—when regarding the matter in dispute the Bhikkhus have not formally remembered, or been formally called upon to remember the offence, when the opinion of the majority is likely to be an infringement of the law—when the voting may result in a schism of the Samgha—when the votes are irregularly given—when all do not vote equally—and when they do not vote in accordance with the view which they really hold.”¹ When duly passed by a majority, the resolution became a Kamma which, literally translated, means an Act, an astounding coincidence with modern parliamentary jargon. A question that had once been decided could not be reopened, but the sovereign assembly, a law unto itself, sometimes disregarded the salutary rule.²