Eng11. If there are one, two, three, or many monk-comrades of a monk who is a speaker of disunion, and should these monks say to those [other] monks, “Do not, O Venerable Ones, say anything good or bad about this monk. Why? This monk, O Venerable Ones, speaks according to the Dharma and according to the Vinaya, and taking up our wish and objective, obtains [them]. This monk speaks knowingly and not unknowingly, and that which pleases this monk also pleases and seems good to us.” These monks [siding with the schism-maker] should be spoken to thus by the monks: “Do not let the Venerable Ones speak this way. That monk does not speak according to the Dharma and according to the Vinaya. [Do not say that that monk], taking up our wish and objective, obtains [them]. [Do not say] that monk speaks knowingly and not unknowingly, and that which pleases and seems good to that monk also seems good to you. Also, O Venerable Ones, do not take delight in a schism in the saṃgha, Again, do not [allow] a schism in the saṃgha to [provide] delight for the Venerable Ones. Let the Venerable Ones come together with the saṃgha, for the saṃgha is harmonious, on friendly terms, without dispute, and dwells in a happy condition under a one-pointed Dharma exposition, being one like milk and water, demonstrating the Teaching of the Teacher. Do not, O Venerable One, persist toward a division of the saṃgha. Abandon this form of speech which causes a division in the saṃgha.” These [schismatic] monks should be examined and instructed a second and a third time by the [other] monks for the abandonment of that course, and should they, being examined and instructed a second and a third time, abandon that course, this is good. If they should not abandon it, that is a saṃghāvaśeṣa,