English
Its meaning is 'to be enjoyed as one wishes by cutting, breaking, and so on'. In that 'bhūtagāmapātabyatā', this locative case is for the cause. The meaning is: due to 'bhūtagāmapātabyatā', because of cutting and so on, of 'bhūtagāma', there is a pācittiya offense. Therefore, any monk who, wherever it grows, on earth, in water, on walls, and so on, a non-dry plant, even extremely tiny grass, or mustard seed-like algae, damages it by uprooting, cutting, piercing, and so on, or causes it to be damaged in the manner stated for digging the earth, incurs a pācittiya offense. This was laid down in Āḷavī, concerning the monks of Āḷavī, regarding the incident of cutting trees. It is a general rule, with conditions. Any one of the root-seeds, stem-seeds, fruit-seeds, top-seeds, or seed-seeds, separated from the 'bhūtagāma', whether placed in a container, or piled up, or even planted in the ground, if it has only put forth roots, or only put forth a sprout, even if a leaf-shoot of a span's length emerges from it, whether the root has emerged or not, as long as the sprout is not green, damaging it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Likewise, for one who is in doubt about 'bhūtagāma' or 'bījagāma'. And for one who perceives 'bhūtagāma' or 'bījagāma' in what is not 'bhūtagāma' or 'bījagāma', and for one who is in doubt. But in both cases, for one who has a different perception, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. For one who damages unintentionally, unmindfully, or unknowingly, for one who, without specifying "this tree," says "cut a tree," "cut a creeper," and so on, and for one who says, "know this flower or fruit," "give this," "bring this," "I have a need for this," "make this allowable," there is no offense. However, seed-kind separated from 'bhūtagāma' by such an allowable statement, must again be made allowable by saying "make it allowable" before consuming. should be made allowable. Thus, the seed-village is also freed. However, when making it allowable, it should be done with fire, or with a nail, or with a knife. When doing it with fire, it should be done by touching a part of it with any fire and saying, "This is allowable." When doing it with a knife, it should be done by showing a piercing or a cutting with the point or the blade of any sharp knife, even a needle or a nail-clipper, in the same way. When doing it with a nail, it should be done in the manner stated in the Sutta, with any clean human or animal nail, even one cut and brought, except for the hooves of cattle and buffaloes. In this case, even if there is a mountain-like pile of seeds, or a thousand trees cut and bound together, or a large bundle of sugarcane placed, if one seed, or one tree branch, or one sugarcane is made allowable, everything is made allowable. If one pierces a piece of wood tied with sugarcane, intending to make the sugarcane allowable, it is permissible. But if one pierces the creeper with which the bundle is tied, it is not permissible. If they bring rice mixed with peppercorns and other things, and when asked to make it allowable, if one pierces even a grain of rice, it is permissible. The same applies to sesame and rice grains. However, things put into gruel do not remain bound together; in that case, each one must be pierced. The pulp inside wood-apple fruits moves freely, separate from the shell; they should be broken open and made allowable. If they are bound together, it is permissible to do it even in the shell. But for a fruit that is young and seedless, and for one that has developed seeds, the seeds should be removed and consumed; there is no need for making it allowable there. Living plants, the perception of living plants, and causing damage or having it caused—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to digging the earth. The commentary on the training rule concerning living plants is finished. 2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Speaking Otherwise In the second, the meaning of "in the midst of the Sangha" When the Vinaya-holder asks, then one who says something else is an "aññavādaka" (one who speaks otherwise); this is the name for responding with something different. One who obstructs is a "vihesaka" (one who obstructs); this is the name for remaining silent, in that case of speaking otherwise or obstructing. "Pācittiya" means two pācittiyas are stated for two cases. Therefore, if a bhikkhu, having committed an offense that remains, being questioned in the midst of the Saṅgha, not wishing to confess it, conceals one thing with another statement, and thus evades, and one who obstructs by remaining silent, for them, what the Blessed One allowed as the act of speaking otherwise and the act of obstructing, if the Saṅgha performs that, and they act thus again, it is a pācittiya. It was laid down in Kosambī concerning Elder Channa, regarding the matter of responding with something different. It is a general rule, not requiring a command. In a proper procedure, it is a pācittiya of three kinds. In an improper procedure, it is a dukkaṭa of three kinds. But if it is not formally charged, and one acts thus as an "aññavādaka" or "vihesaka", it is only a dukkaṭa. For one who does not know that an offense has been committed, asking "What are you saying?", or due to illness, or not speaking with the intention that "there will be quarrels in the Saṅgha," or "they will perform an act improperly, or by a faction, or for one not deserving of the act," and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Being charged by a proper procedure, being questioned about an offense or a matter, and the desire to conceal by responding with something different or by remaining silent— these are the three factors here. Its origins and so forth are similar to taking what is not given. But this may be an action, or it may be an inaction, and it results in painful feeling. The explanation of the training rule concerning speaking otherwise is concluded. 3. The explanation of the training rule concerning disparaging. In the third, by which words they disparage, saying things like "So-and-so does such-and-such out of partiality," a fully ordained bhikkhu, approved by the Saṅgha, such as an allocator of lodgings, wishing for his disrepute, they cause him to be despised by the bhikkhus, they cause him to be looked upon with contempt, or they cause him to be thought of as worthless. That speech is disparaging speech. And by which they speak in the same way... they complain, everywhere they proclaim his dispraise, that is complaining, in that complaining, in that grumbling. Pācittiya means two pācittiyas are stated in two cases. Therefore, whoever, desiring the disrepute of a bhikkhu who has been appointed, speaks and grumbles or complains about an ordained bhikkhu, for him there is a pācittiya. This rule was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the Mettiyabhūmajaka bhikkhus, regarding the matter of grumbling and complaining. It is a general rule, not dependent on an order. If the appointment of that ordained bhikkhu was done by a valid act, there is a tikapācittiya; if by an invalid act, there is a tikadukkaṭa. But for one who speaks thus in the presence of an unordained person, or who speaks dispraise of an unappointed person in the presence of anyone, or who speaks dispraise of an unordained person, whether appointed or unappointed, in the presence of anyone, there is only a dukkaṭa. For one who grumbles or complains doing so naturally out of desire, etc., and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The six factors here are: appointment by a valid act, being ordained, absence of going by wrong paths, desire for his dispraise, the person in whose presence one speaks being ordained, and grumbling or complaining. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this one is only a painful feeling. The explanation of the rule on grumbling is finished. 4. Explanation of the First Rule on Beds and Seats In the fourth, "belonging to the Sangha" means belonging to the Sangha. Among beds, etc., any kind of bed made in the general sense of a bed is a bed; the same applies to chairs. A cushion (bhisī) is a seat made by covering it with any kind of cloth or suitable leather, excluding human hair and palm leaves, and stuffing it with any kind of hair, leaves, grass, bark, or cloth. It is permissible to sit or lie on it, and there is no limit to its size. A mat (koccha) is made of one of the following: bark, usīra grass, muñja grass, or pabbaja grass, rolled up inside and tied, spread out below and above, shaped like a drum. in the middle, it is surrounded by lion skins and the like; there is no improper hide here. For a dwelling, even one made of gold is permissible. "In the open air" here means that the eight months that are not designated as rainy season months, even if it does not rain during the remaining four months, it is not permissible to spread a mat in the natural open air or in a rain-shelter. But where it rains in winter, it is not permissible for the other four months either. In summer, however, the sky is clear and cloudless everywhere, therefore, if one goes for some reason then, it is permissible. But it is never permissible under trees that are regular roosting places for crows and the like. Thus, wherever and whenever it is not permissible to spread a mat, all that is to be understood as falling under the category of "in the open air." "Having spread" means having spread it in such a place for oneself or for another. Indeed, even a mat spread for another, as long as that person does not sit on it or say "Go away!", it is the responsibility of the one who spread it. "Having caused to be spread" means having caused it to be spread by an unordained person. This indeed is an impediment for him. A mat spread by an ordained person is the responsibility of the one who spread it, and that too, as long as the one who ordered it does not sit on it