Thank SengKiat,
From the links provided I understand that one (in this case specifically referring to a Bikkhu) should not harm or kill a plant as it is living object. Not sentient but some kind of life form. So it can be a lower life form compared to sentient animals. This may be the reason such a rule is there for a bikkhu and not something told to lay people, because at a kammic level this might rank very low?
I also don’t think it can be simply because people criticized monks of mistreating “one facultied life”. There has to be some solid reasoning behind it, if not such a rule will not be put in place. For example there were people who criticized monks for eating meat. However the Buddha did not ban eating meat because there was no Dhamma reasoning for it.
With this in mind, I have a question regarding making fruit allowable. Making fruit allowable to monks is sometimes symbolic (as also mentioned in that link). If it is only symbolic then in reality a monk will be harming a seed when he accepts a fruit, which was symbolically made allowable.
Do you think making it allowable has evolved into a symbolic gesture, when actually it is something more?