Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 8.89

Reconciliation

Paṭisāraṇīyasutta — Sativagga — the ninth chapter of the Eights

Setting
None stated in the source
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
Eight grounds for the Saṅgha's formal act requiring reconciliation, then eight grounds for revoking that act
Length
under 1 minute to read
A formal remedy, not just a sanction
Unlike AN 8.87 and AN 8.88's boycott and no-confidence procedures, this discourse's formal act doesn't simply withdraw support — it actively requires the mendicant to pursue reconciliation with the specific wronged layperson
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — formal and procedural, best read as the third of this chapter's four institutional-procedure discourses

Why this discourse

AN 8.89 names eight grounds on which the Saṅgha may formally require a mendicant to pursue reconciliation with a layperson — obstructing their material support, harming them, insulting them, dividing them, criticizing the three refuges, or breaking a legitimate promise made to them — and the grounds for revoking that requirement once satisfied.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

When a mendicant obstructs a layperson's material support, harms or insults them, divides laypeople against each other, criticizes the three refuges, or breaks a legitimate promise made to a layperson, the Saṅgha may formally require that mendicant to pursue reconciliation, revoking the requirement once they keep their promise and stop the offending conduct.

A remedy aimed at repair, not merely withdrawal

Where AN 8.87 and AN 8.88 both describe forms of formal withdrawal — the Saṅgha boycotting a layperson, laypeople withdrawing confidence in a mendicant — this discourse's formal act moves in the opposite direction: it actively compels the mendicant to go and repair a specific relationship, not simply to stop the offending behavior.

A new item: keeping legitimate promises

This discourse adds a ground not found in either AN 8.87 or AN 8.88: not keeping a legitimate promise made to a layperson. This item shifts the register slightly from pure hostility toward a breach of trust and reliability, a distinct kind of harm to the lay relationship.

The third of four related procedural discourses

Read alongside AN 8.87, 8.88, and AN 8.90 immediately following, this discourse forms part of a deliberate cluster closing this chapter with concrete institutional machinery — different formal responses (boycott, withdrawn confidence, compelled reconciliation, and restricted standing) matched to different situations in the relationship between the Saṅgha and its lay supporters.

Key terms

paṭisāraṇīyaṁ kammaṁ — “an act requiring... reconciliation” — this discourse's own title-phrase, a formal Saṅgha procedure compelling active repair rather than mere withdrawal.
saccaṁ paṭiññaṁ na karoti — “doesn't keep a legitimate promise made to a layperson” — the item unique to this discourse's list, concerning broken trust rather than direct hostility.
kammaṁ paṭippassambheyya — “revoke the act” — the discourse's own term for lifting the reconciliation requirement, once its eight grounds no longer apply.
lābhaṁ pariyesati, anatthaṁ pariyesati — “tries to prevent laypeople from getting material things... tries to harm laypeople” — two shared grounds echoing AN 8.87 and AN 8.88's own lists.
saṅghabhedāya parakkamati — “divides laypeople against each other” — a shared ground with AN 8.88, concerning harm to lay unity.

The text

The discourse in full: eight grounds for requiring reconciliation, and eight grounds for revoking that requirement. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Eight grounds for requiring reconciliation

§1“Mendicants, the Saṅgha may, if it wishes, perform an act requiring that a mendicant who has eight qualities should pursue reconciliation. What eight? They try to prevent laypeople from getting material things. They try to harm laypeople. They insult and abuse lay people. They divide laypeople against each other. They criticize the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. They don’t keep a legitimate promise made to a layperson. The Saṅgha may, if it wishes, perform an act requiring that a mendicant who has eight qualities should pursue reconciliation.

Eight grounds for revoking the requirement

§2The Saṅgha may, if it wishes, revoke the act requiring that a mendicant who has eight qualities should pursue reconciliation. What eight? They don’t try to prevent the laypeople from getting material things. They don’t try to harm laypeople. They don’t insult and abuse laypeople. They don’t divide laypeople against each other. They don’t criticize the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. They keep a legitimate promise made to a layperson. The Saṅgha may, if it wishes, revoke the act requiring that a mendicant who has eight qualities should pursue reconciliation.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

6 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 6
How does this discourse's formal act differ from AN 8.87 and AN 8.88's procedures?
Correct: B. A remedy aimed at repair, not merely a form of withdrawal.
Question 2 of 6
What ground appears in this discourse's list that isn't found in AN 8.87 or AN 8.88?
Correct: B. A shift toward broken trust and reliability, distinct from direct hostility.
Question 3 of 6
According to the guide, what does this discourse's place in the chapter's closing cluster represent?
Correct: B. Part of a deliberate cluster of institutional machinery closing this chapter.
Question 4 of 6
What happens once the mendicant keeps their promise and stops the offending conduct?
Correct: B. A reversible procedure, like AN 8.87 and AN 8.88's own reversible acts.
Question 5 of 6
What kind of harm does the new promise-breaking item represent, distinct from the other grounds?
Correct: B. A distinct kind of relational harm, added to this discourse's own list.
Question 6 of 6
Is a setting given for this discourse?
Correct: C. A bare formula, matching AN 8.87 and AN 8.88's own lack of a stated setting.
Answered 0 of 6 · Correct 0