English
and whatever other things there are, creepers, vines, trees, etc., that are born and arise from roots of the type of potato, water-chestnut, lotus, blue water-lily, white water-lily, kuvalaya, jasmine, trumpet flower, etc., and that root from which they are born and arise, and also turmeric, etc., mentioned in the Pāḷi (Pācittiya 91) - all of this is called 'root-seed'. By this, the cause is shown through the effect by way of metaphor. This method applies to stem-seeds, etc. Among the stem-seeds that grow from cuttings, here are examples of stem-seeds: hog plum, Indasāla, Nuhi, Pālibhaddaka, Kaṇikāra, etc. Sour creeper, square creeper, Kaṇavera, etc., are joint-seeds. Makaci, jasmine, Sumanā, Jayasumanā, etc., are tip-seeds. Mango, rose-apple, jackfruit seeds, etc., should be understood as seed-seeds. If one, perceiving it as plant-life, cuts or causes to be cut, taking knives, one cuts oneself or causes another to cut. Or breaks or causes to be broken, taking stones, etc., one breaks oneself or causes another to break. Or cooks or causes to be cooked, bringing fire near, one cooks oneself or causes another to cook, a pācittiya offense occurs – this is the connection. There, showing the distinction of offenses, "plant-life indeed..." He said this. Therein, "freed from the plant kingdom" means separated from the plant kingdom. 76. "It is not allowable to intentionally uproot." Here, because "intentionally" was said, even knowing it is attached to the body, he rises, and because there is no intention "I will uproot it," it is allowable. By taking 'anantaka', a mustard-seed amount is taken. This is the name of that moss species. Due to the absence of roots and leaves, it is called "incomplete plant kingdom." "Because it has no plant-kingdom root." Here, "plant kingdom is the root cause of this," thus "plant-kingdom rooted." Or "plant kingdom is the root cause," thus "plant-kingdom rooted." Indeed, the seed kingdom arises from the plant kingdom, and is the cause of the plant kingdom. But this is not like that, therefore it is called "having no plant-kingdom root." Even though indeed, the stump of palms, coconuts, and so on, because it does not grow upwards, is not the cause of the plant kingdom, nevertheless, because it arises from leaves, roots, and seeds produced and included in the plant kingdom category, it is indeed born from the plant kingdom. Thus it is included in the seed kingdom. Because it is included in the seed kingdom, even though it does not grow, it is called "having a plant-kingdom root." Having said "in a green sprout," he clarifies that very meaning: "when it has become blue-colored." The meaning is: "when leaves similar in color to blue leaves have arisen." Or the reading "when it has become blue-colored" should be taken. "It is included in the rootless plant kingdom." He says this specifically about the coconut. "Moss outside water pots, and so on, because it is in water and is conducive to the seed kingdom, is an offense of wrong-doing," they say. Just as 'kaṇṇaka' is not to be used, so also 'nīlavaṇṇa' is not to be used. 77. 'Seleyyaka' is the name of a type of fragrant plant born from rock. "From the time of flowering onwards" means "from the time of blooming onwards." "Taking a mushroom" means "taking a bloomed one." But a bud, even without disturbing the tree bark, it is not allowable to take. Because it is said "he disturbs the tree bark," any mushroom born on a tree, without disturbing the tree bark, cutting from the top, it is allowable to take. they say, that is not proper, because it was said: "As long as the cobra-hood plant is in bud, it is an object of wrong-doing." As for "released from the tree," they say: "Even if it clings to the tree a little, but when taken from the tree, it does not damage the tree's bark, it is permissible." As for "it is not permissible from a fresh tree," it should be understood that it is permissible to cut it from the top and take it without damaging the tree's bark. By "hand-fickleness" means by the quickness of the hand. "Water should not be stored" refers to that which is intended for one's own use. But if it is intended solely for an unordained person, then there is no rule that it should not be stored after receiving it from them. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92) it is said: " 'Water should not be stored' refers to one's own drinking water; for others, it is permissible, as it is not supported. Therefore, it says 'by one who wishes to eat it himself'." As it is said: "For trees whose branches grow," they say: "For those whose branches do not grow, there is no need for the 'making permissible' action." In the Vimativinodanī it is also said: "For trees whose branches grow, meaning those that grow even with just a leaf emerging without the root being exposed, it is permissible to damage cut coconut, bamboo sticks, etc., even without making them permissible." As it is said: "I will show the walking place," there is no fault for one who walks merely with the intention of walking or with the intention of traveling on a path, or for one who sits with the intention of sitting on grass. 78. By "monastic customs" means by the customary practices permissible for monastics. Although seeds, etc., do not lose their ability to sprout merely by being touched by fire or by being scratched with nails, nevertheless, only when done in this way are they permissible for monastics. Thus, practices like being singed by fire have become known as monastic customs. Therefore, the meaning is: "I allow you to consume the fruit by means of these monastic customs." Even seeds that are produced without seeds are permissible for monastics, by virtue of being a prescribed regulation. They have attained the designation as practices of ascetics. Or else, because of the permissibility of the five, such as being scorched by fire, by five reasons designated as monk-permissible states, "I permit to consume the fruit," this meaning should be understood here. In phrases like "scorched by fire," they also read "prepared." "Seedless" means young mango fruit, etc. "With separable seed" means mango, jackfruit, etc., where the seed, having been separated and made distinct, can be consumed. That in which the seed is to be separated, to be detached, that jackfruit, etc., is called "with separable seed." "It must be done only by saying 'permissible'" – if one makes it permissible, because only the manner of doing by him is stated, it should not be taken that it is permissible to do even if not said by the monk. Again, because "it should be made permissible" is stated right at the beginning of causing it to be done, only when the monk says, "make it permissible," it should be understood that the unordained person should do the scorching by fire, etc., saying "permissible." But they say that the word "permissible" may be said in any language. By the statement, "It must be done only by saying 'permissible'," it should be understood that first "permissible" should be said, and afterwards the touching with fire, etc., should be done. They also say, "First having placed it in fire, or having pierced it with a nail, etc., and without removing it, it is permissible to say 'permissible'." However, in the Vimativinodaniya (Vinaya-Vinicchaya-Ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.92), it is said: "Even though 'only by saying "permissible"' is said in the sense of a prior action, but by the statement that a wound should be made in the seed-plant with fire, a knife, etc., at the very moment of speaking, it is not permissible to do it beforehand. And that, without making it into two parts, only cutting or piercing should be shown. And by the one doing it, it should be done only when the monk says 'make it permissible' in any language. Because 'it should be made permissible' for the release of the seed-plant is mentioned right at the beginning of causing it to be done." In phrases like "in one seed," etc., even if there is the intention, "I will make only one," because of being bound together as one, all is done... they say, “it is just that.” Regarding “pierces wood,” they say, “even knowing, one may pierce or cause to pierce, it is permissible.” Regarding “pierces rice grains,” the same method applies. They say, “it pierces that, it is not permissible, because ropes and the like are considered containers.” And regarding “mixed with pepper pods and the like,” the connection should be understood as being with the rice grains, not as a mutual connection between the fruits themselves. Since it is said, “it is permissible to do it even in a pot,” it is permissible to pierce the pulp or seed taken out of the pot, wherever it may be. “Having broken it, one should cause it to be made permissible” is said because the pot, freed from the seed, is considered a container. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The chapter on the determination of living plants, named the Ornament of Stories, Is the fifteenth chapter. 16. The Story of the Determination of Co-sleeping 79. Having thus explained the determination of living plants, now, to explain the determination of co-sleeping, it begins with “co-sleeping is of two kinds.” There, “duvidhaṃ” means that co-sleeping has two kinds or types. “Sahaseyyā” means sleeping together, or that in which one sleeps together. “Sahaseyyakaṃ” is “sahaseyyā” itself, by means of the “ka” suffix in the sense of “itself.” That, however, is of two kinds: co-sleeping with an unordained person, and co-sleeping with a mother-like woman. Therefore, it says, “co-sleeping is of two kinds.” Regarding “dirattatirattaṃ” (two or three nights), it should be understood that the mention of “diratta” (two nights) is made merely for the sake of the grammatical connection of the words. For, if three nights of cohabitation are permissible, there is no need to speak of two nights, so the mention of two nights separately serves no purpose.