English
Mango stones and the like are to be distinguished like rice and the like. A parasitic plant or any other that grows on a tree and covers the tree, the tree is its place, that ...or uprooting it from there, it is an offense of expiation. There is a rootless creeper, which entwines around a tree trunk like a finger-ring, the same rule applies to it. On house-fronts, balconies, railings, stupas, etc., there is blue-green moss. As long as two or three leaves have not grown, it is considered as a primary seed. When leaves have grown, it is an offense of expiation. Therefore, it is not permissible to apply even plaster in such places. It is permissible to apply a layer of oil over what has been plastered by an unordained person. If dry moss remains in the hot season, it is permissible to scrape it off with a broom, etc. Moss on the outside of water pots, etc., is an offense of wrong-doing; on the inside, it is not subject to the rule. Even mold on tooth-sticks, cakes, etc., is not subject to the rule. It is said: "If a wall plastered with red ochre is moldy, it should be wiped by wetting and squeezing a cloth" (Mahāvagga 66). Stone-like stones, lichen, moss, rock-lichen, etc., which are not green and have no leaves, are offenses of wrong-doing. A mushroom, as long as it is a bud, is an offense of wrong-doing. From the time it flowers, it is not subject to the rule. However, if one takes a mushroom from a living tree, one damages the tree bark, therefore, it is an offense of expiation there. The same rule applies to tree fungus. But if fungus of the Indasāla, Kudha, etc., has detached from the tree and is lying there, there is no offense for taking it. It is permissible to take resin that has detached from a tree or is attached to a dry tree. It is not permissible from a living tree. The same rule applies to lac. Shaking a tree and causing withered leaves or ripe flowers of Kanikāra, etc., to fall, is an offense of expiation. The same rule applies to one who, out of scrupulousness, carves letters on soft Indasāla or Nuhī trunks, etc., or on palm leaves, etc., grown there. It is permissible to bend a branch and give flowers to novices who are picking them. However, water should not be scented with those flowers. One who wishes to scent water should lift a novice... to be made to gather. Fruit-bearing branches should not be bent down by one who wishes to eat the fruit himself. A novice should be lifted up and made to take the fruit. Whatever creeper or vine is being uprooted, it is not proper for novices to pull it while holding it together. But to encourage them, it is proper to hold the top, as if pulling, without actually pulling. For trees whose branches grow, if a branch is taken for the purpose of bee-breeding or the like, without making it permissible, one who scratches the bark or leaves, even with a fingernail, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. The same rule applies to fresh ginger and the like. However, if the root grows after being made permissible and placed in a cool spot, it is permissible to cut the upper part. If a shoot grows, it is permissible to cut the lower part. If both a root and a green shoot grow, it is not permissible. "He cuts or causes to cut" means even with a broomstick, sweeping the ground, thinking, "I will cut the grass," he himself cuts or causes another to cut. "He breaks or causes to break" means even while walking, thinking, "Let what is to be cut be cut, let what is to be broken be broken, I will show where I have walked," intentionally treading with his feet, he himself breaks grass, vines, and the like, or causes another to break them. Even if grass or a vine breaks while one is tying a knot, the knot should not be tied. However, in the case of palm trees and the like, wooden ladders are hammered in and thorns are tied to prevent thieves from climbing. It is not proper for a bhikkhu to do this. If the wooden ladder is merely attached to the tree and does not harm the tree, it is permissible. It is permissible to say, "Cut the tree, cut the creeper, uproot the tuber or the root," because it is not specified. But it is not permissible to specify, "Cut this tree," and so on. Even naming them, saying, "Cut, break, uproot the mango tree, the square vine, the potato tuber, the muñja grass, the bark of such-and-such a tree," is also unspecified. 'To say "this mango tree"' and so on, such a statement is indeed a designation; that is not permissible. He cooks or causes to cook, even desiring to cook a leaf, intentionally making fire on grass and so on. He himself cooks, or causes another to cook. All this should be understood in the manner stated in the training rule concerning digging the earth. But without designating, to say "Cook beans, cook lentils" and so on, is permissible. To say "Cook these beans, cook these lentils" in this way, is not permissible. There is no offense in "know this" and so on. "Know this root medicine. Give this root or leaf. Bring this tree or creeper. There is a need for this flower or fruit or leaf. Make this tree or creeper or fruit allowable." Such is the meaning to be understood. By this much, the release of living plants is done. But by one who consumes, for the release of seed-plants, it must be made allowable again. And here, the making allowable should be understood according to this discourse: "Monks, I allow fruit to be consumed by five kinds of monastic allowances: that which is scorched by fire, cut by a knife, torn by a nail, seedless, and the fifth, that from which the seed has been removed." There, "scorched by fire" means overpowered by fire, burnt, touched. "Cut by a knife" means overpowered by a knife, cut, pierced. The same method applies to that torn by a nail. Seedless and seed-removed are themselves allowable. When making allowable by fire, it should be done with any kind of fire, such as wood fire, cow-dung fire, etc., even with a heated piece of iron. And indeed, it should be done by touching it in one place, saying "allowable." When making allowable by a knife, it should be done by showing a cut or a pierce with the point or edge of any iron knife, even a needle or nail-clipper, saying "allowable." When making allowable by a nail, it should not be done with a dirty nail. But of humans, lions, tigers, leopards, monkeys, etc. And birds' claws are sharp, with them it may be done. Hooves of horses, buffaloes, pigs, deer, cattle, etc., are too sharp, with them it may not be done; even if done, it is as if not done. But elephants' nails are not hooves, with them it is permissible. But with those with which it is permissible to do, whether they are naturally grown or taken up, by showing a cut or a pierce, saying "permissible," it must be done. There, even if a mountain-like pile of seeds, or a thousand trees cut and bound together, or a great load of sugarcanes is tied and placed, when one seed, or one tree branch, or one sugarcane is made permissible, all is done. If sugarcanes and wood are tied together, and one pierces the wood intending to make the sugarcane permissible, it is permissible. But if one pierces the rope or creeper by which they are tied, it is not permissible. They bring a basket full of sugarcane pieces; when one piece is made permissible, all is done. They bring rice mixed with pepper pods, etc.; when told "make it permissible," even if one pierces a grain of rice, it is permissible. The same method applies to sesame, rice grains, etc. But things put into gruel do not remain bound together; there, each one must be pierced and made permissible. The pulp inside wood-apple fruits, etc., moves freely from the shell; it must be broken open and made permissible. If it is bound together, it is permissible to do it even in the shell. "Unintentionally" means: when one rolls stones or trees, or pulls a branch, or walks striking the ground with a stick, and grasses are cut, because they were not cut with the intention "I will cut them," they are called "unintentionally cut." Thus, for one who cuts unintentionally, there is no offense. "Without mindfulness" means: one whose mind is elsewhere, talking with someone, stands cutting grass or a creeper with a big toe or hand, thus, for one who cuts without mindfulness, there is no offense. "Without knowing" He does not know whether there are seeds or plants within this area. He does not know, "I will cut." He merely places a hoe, or a spade, or a mattock, or a pickaxe, in a heap of straw or a pile of chaff, for safekeeping. Or, with a burning hand, he sets fire. If in that case the grasses are cut or burned, there is no offense. However, in the commentary on the offense of killing a human being, in all commentaries, it is said: "If a bhikkhu is covered by a tree, or has fallen into a pit, and it is possible to cut the tree or dig the ground and get out, he should not do it himself, even for the sake of life. But it is permissible for another bhikkhu to dig the ground or cut the tree, or cut a branch from a fresh tree, and roll that tree away to get him out; there is no offense." The reason for this is not seen there. Only this one Sutta is seen: "I allow, bhikkhus, when a forest fire is burning, to set a counter-fire, to make a firebreak" (Cūḷava. 283). If this is followed, the distinction "it is not permissible for oneself, it is permissible for another" cannot be obtained. If it is said: "One who acts for oneself does so with a mind of unwholesomeness, out of self-love, but another acts out of compassion, therefore there is no offense." This too is not a reason. For one incurs this offense even with a wholesome mind. However, since it is stated in all commentaries, it cannot be rejected. A justification should be sought here. Or one should proceed with faith in the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. The rest is clear. It arises from three sources: from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. It is an action, a release by perception, with intention,