English
"Intentionally" "It is not allowable to throw it away." Here, even if one knows it is attached to the body and rises from the water, it is allowable due to the absence of the perception "I will remove it." "Plucked out" means "removed." "They are included in the seed-group" is said because they are freed from the plant-group. By the term "anantaka," mustard-seed-sized things are taken. This is a name for that kind of moss. Because the roots and leaves are incomplete, it is called "incomplete plant-group." In "because it has a non-plant-group root," "plant-group root" means the plant-group is its root, its cause, or the root, the cause, of the plant-group. For the seed-group arises from the plant-group, and is a cause of the plant-group. But this is not such, therefore it is said "because it has a non-plant-group root." Because it is situated there, it is said "it is included in the seed-group." And this is said because the meaning first stated in "because it has a non-plant-group root" is possible. Although the stump of a palm, coconut, etc., does not grow upwards and is not a cause of the plant-group, nevertheless, because it arises from leaves, roots, or seeds which are produced and included in the category of plant-group, it is said to have arisen from the plant-group, and thus is included in the seed-group. Having said "when the sprout is green," it explains that very thing as "when it has a blue-leaf color," meaning, when it has a color similar to the color of a blue leaf. Or the reading "when it has a blue color" should be taken. "It is included in the rootless plant-group" is said specifically regarding the coconut. They say: "Moss on the outside of water pots, etc., because it is in the water and is conducive to the seed-group, is a matter for a dukkaṭa (wrongdoing)." Just as "kaṇṇaka" is not to be used, so too "nīlavaṇṇa" is not to be used. "Seleyyaka" is a type of fragrant substance that arises from rock. Because it is said "it damages the bark of the tree," they say: "Any mushroom growing on a tree, if taken by cutting from the top without damaging the bark of the tree, is allowable." In "it stands detached from the tree," even if it is slightly attached to the tree... It stands. But when taken from the tree, it does not damage the tree's bark. "It is allowable," they say. Even in the case of "it is not allowable from a living tree," it should be understood that it is allowable to take it by cutting from the top, without damaging the tree's bark. By "hand-regret" means by the unrestrained nature of the hands, it is said to be by the quickness of the hands. "Water should not be stored" this is said with reference to that which is designated for oneself. But if it is designated solely for an unordained person, there is no rule that it should not be stored after taking it from there. "Since it is said, 'the branches of which trees grow,' for those whose branches do not grow, there is no need for the act of making it allowable," they say. 93. "By the five monastic allowances" means by the five monastic usages. Although seeds, merely by being touched by fire or merely by being scratched by nails etc., do not lose their nature of sprouting, nevertheless, only when done in this way is it allowable for monastics. Thus, "burnt by fire" and so on became known as monastic usages. Therefore, the meaning is: "I permit you to consume the fruit by means of these monastic usages, which are the instruments." Even seedless and extracted-seed fruits are allowable for monastics, and by virtue of being prescribed and declared, they are reckoned as monastic usages. Or alternatively, because of the allowability of the five, such as "burnt by fire," the meaning here should be understood as: "I permit you to consume the fruit by these five reasons, which are called the five monastic allowabilities." In "burnt by fire" and so on, some also read "familiarized." "Seedless" means young mango fruit and the like. "Extracted-seed" means mango, jackfruit, and the like, where the seed can be extracted and consumed separately. "It must be done by saying 'allowable'" means that since only the manner of doing by the one who makes it allowable is stated, it should not be taken to mean that it is allowable to do it even if the bhikkhu does not say so. Again, since the act of causing it to be done, "it should be made allowable," was stated at the very beginning, only when the bhikkhu says, "Make it allowable," should the unordained person say "allowable" and perform the "burnt by fire" etc. to be taken. They say, "It is proper to say the word 'kappiya' in any language whatsoever." Since it is said, "It must be done after saying 'kappiya'," it should be understood that first one says "kappiya," and then one touches with fire, etc. They say, "It is also proper to first put down the fire, or pierce with a nail, etc., and then, without removing it, say 'kappiya'." In "in one seed," etc., they say, "Even if there is the intention 'I will make only one,' because they are bound together, all are considered made." In "pierces wood," they say, "Even if one knows and pierces, or causes to pierce, it is still permissible." The same method applies to "pierces cooked rice." They say, "One pierces that, it is not permissible, because ropes, etc., are considered containers." In "mixed with pepper, etc.," the connection of being bound together should be understood in relation to the cooked rice, not in relation to the fruits themselves being connected to each other. "Having broken it, one should cause it to be made permissible" is said because the pot, separated from the seed, is considered a container. "To expel" means to expel that bhikkhu. "If this is in accordance with it" —it might be that the intention is that even what is permitted for the protection of the dwelling, such as giving fire in return, is permissible for oneself to do, and by this much, this too is in accordance with it. Giving fire in return and making a protective charm are indeed permissible for the protection of one's own or another's dwelling. Therefore, if this were in accordance with that sutta, "it is not permissible for oneself, but permissible for another" —from where is this distinction obtained? So it says, "it is not permissible for oneself... ...cannot be obtained." The rest here is clear. "Living beings," "perception of living beings," "destroying or causing to destroy" —these are the three factors here. The commentary on the training rule concerning living beings is finished. 2. Commentary on the training rule concerning one who speaks otherwise 94-98. In the second, "another statement" means that the statement of the accuser, which reveals the fault of the accused, is countered by a statement that is different from it. "He acts with one thing for another," means, "He acts with one reason for another reason." Thus is the meaning to be understood here. What was stated by the accuser as the reason for revealing the fault of the accused, it is said that he acts with another reason, one that points to the groundlessness of the accusation. "He acts with one thing for another" means he acts, he proceeds, by way of concealing. Or, the word "carati" (acts) itself means concealing, since verbs have many meanings. Therefore, it says, "he conceals." By "Who has fallen into it?" and so on, the Pāli shows acting with one thing for another by falling into distraction without resolving the accusation. But another instance of acting with one thing for another, outside the Pāli, should be understood as occurring by resolving the accusation and then diverting the conversation outwards. When asked, "You have fallen into such-and-such an offense," if he says, "I went to Pāṭaliputta," and then when told, "We are not asking about your going to Pāṭaliputta, we are asking about the offense," if he says, "From there I went to Rājagaha," and when told, "Go to Rājagaha or to a brahmin's house, you have fallen into an offense," if he says, "There I got pork," and so on, even one who thus diverts the conversation outwards is still counted as "acting with one thing for another." That statement which proceeds by way of acting with one thing for another, that is called "speaking otherwise" (aññavādaka) because it speaks of something else, setting aside the matter that was asked. Thus it says, "This is the name for acting with one thing for another." "This is the name for being silent" means this is the name for silence, or this is the correct reading. "To impute speaking otherwise" means to impute the act of speaking otherwise, or to impute the state of speaking otherwise by the action now being done. "To impute harassment" means here too, the meaning should be seen as imputing the act of harassment or the state of harassment. The dukkata mentioned for "speaking otherwise" when not imputed is applicable according to the "acting with one thing for another" found in the Pāli. However, according to the "acting with one thing for another" outside the Pāli, as found in the commentary, there is a pācittiya for false speech when "speaking otherwise" is not imputed. that when it is imposed, there is a pācittiya. Some, however, say, "When it is imposed, for speaking otherwise, there are two pācittiyas, one for false speech and one for this." That should be investigated and taken. The non-offence stated for the first offender should also be understood as stated in the Pāḷi in the sense of responding to one thing with another, or to show non-offence in this training rule. The rest is clear. Being imposed by an act of Dhamma, being questioned about an offence or a matter, responding to one thing with another out of a desire to conceal, or remaining silent— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule on speaking otherwise is finished. 3. Explanation of the training rule on causing annoyance 103. In the third Dhātupāṭha,