<p>Let me add some qualification to that:</p>
<p>It's ok from the perspective of the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Five Precepts</a> and <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Right Livelihood</a> for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient.</p>
<p>The word for sentient being is <em>satta</em>.</p>
<p>From <a href="http://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 5.10</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the parts are assembled<br />
we use the word ‘chariot’.<br />
So too, when the aggregates are present<br />
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From my understanding, all five aggregates must be present, in order to consider it a sentient being. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do not have consciousness and mental formations, to the best of my understanding.</p>
<p>From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(19)30126-8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Plants neither possess nor require consciousness</a>. <em>Trends in Plant Science</em>, 24(8), 677-687.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 23.2</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also here, from my understanding, a plant does not mentally cling to the five aggregates, so it's not a sentient being by this definition.</p>
<p>The first precept of not taking a life (of a sentient being), therefore does not apply to plants.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If pesticides are not used, then it doesn't harm sentient beings.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving (<em>tanha</em>), not agriculture and farming. The problem is in the mind.</p>
<p>If we have an aversion (<em>dosa</em>) to agriculture and farming, then that's a negative state of mind.</p>
<p>For lay people, agriculture and farming without pesticides, is ok from the point of view of Right Livelihood and the Five Precepts.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T10:48:23.023Z
Many ideas... starting with two truth, that for householder and that of monks... it's not to be expected that the Buddha but some notions of voluntary consumer protection or not being a full judgeable person... "all five aggregates must be present... is the next nice try.
Samana Johann
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T10:51:06.227Z
Maybe laypeople should then all become something like communist stoneage farmers and farming would be the best way to avoid bad kamma... not to speak that my person thinks that Nyom never actually raised his food by himself, far away from reality.
Samana Johann
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T10:53:40.223Z
Why lying in quoting "So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. And "the" does also not mean no while "the" wouldn't be there in Pali further.
Samana Johann
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T10:55:49.687Z
"agriculture and farming without pesticides" obiviously Nyom had not even ever cleared a field and planted anything, never looked whats under his feeds...and in this case poor third world farmers are reall saints... fantasy-world
Samana Johann
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T06:28:20.457Z
2020-09-26T06:34:11.113Z
2020-09-26T06:34:11.113Z
ruben2020
<p>A teaching householder here adviced:</p>
<p>&quot;It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient.&quot; (&quot;ok&quot; here was to be assumed of having no negative kammic consequences by killing certain beings, nor increasing wrong view on such thoughts.)</p>
<p>Is that right, aside of growing wouldn't work with out killing &quot;sentient&quot; perceived being?</p>
<p>Is there a mention of sentient satta (living being) different from satta?</p>
<p>Doesn't growing involve harming and killing?
Doesn't harvest cut of life?
Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?</p>
<p>In the case it would be ok, why seeking to escape from the wheel of food and feeding?</p>
<p>Sure good if providing serious counted advices from the Sublime Buddha.</p>
<p><em>[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, feeds, other worldbinding trades, but for a way out of this wheel.]</em></p>

<karma><suffering><abhidhamma><sila>
It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient?
# It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-26)

A teaching householder here adviced:

"It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient." ("ok" here was to be assumed of having no negative kammic consequences by killing certain beings, nor increasing wrong view on such thoughts.)

Is that right, aside of growing wouldn't work with out killing "sentient" perceived being?

Is there a mention of sentient satta (living being) different from satta?

Doesn't growing involve harming and killing?
Doesn't harvest cut of life?
Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?

In the case it would be ok, why seeking to escape from the wheel of food and feeding?

Sure good if providing serious counted advices from the Sublime Buddha.

*[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, feeds, other worldbinding trades, but for a way out of this wheel.]*

**Tags:** karma, suffering, abhidhamma, sila


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-09-26. Score: 2

Let me add some qualification to that:

It's ok from the perspective of the [Five Precepts](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html) and [Right Livelihood](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html) for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient.

The word for sentient being is *satta*.

From [SN 5.10](http://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato):

> When the parts are assembled  
> we use the word ‘chariot’.  
> So too, when the aggregates are present  
> ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

From my understanding, all five aggregates must be present, in order to consider it a sentient being. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do not have consciousness and mental formations, to the best of my understanding.

From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). [Plants neither possess nor require consciousness](https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(19)30126-8). *Trends in Plant Science*, 24(8), 677-687.

From [SN 23.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html):

> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
> caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
> fabrications...
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
> when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
> being.'

Also here, from my understanding, a plant does not mentally cling to the five aggregates, so it's not a sentient being by this definition.

The first precept of not taking a life (of a sentient being), therefore does not apply to plants.

> **OP:** Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life?

If pesticides are not used, then it doesn't harm sentient beings.

> **OP:** Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving (*tanha*), not agriculture and farming. The problem is in the mind.

If we have an aversion (*dosa*) to agriculture and farming, then that's a negative state of mind.

For lay people, agriculture and farming without pesticides, is ok from the point of view of Right Livelihood and the Five Precepts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Many ideas... starting with two truth, that for householder and that of monks... it's not to be expected that the Buddha but some notions of voluntary consumer protection or not being a full judgeable person... "all five aggregates must be present... is the next nice try.  
> **username_0**: Maybe laypeople should then all become something like communist stoneage farmers and farming would be the best way to avoid bad kamma... not to speak that my person thinks that Nyom never actually raised his food by himself, far away from reality.  
> **username_0**: Why lying in quoting "So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. And "the" does also not mean no while "the" wouldn't be there in Pali further.  
> **username_0**: "agriculture and farming without pesticides" obiviously Nyom had not even ever cleared a field and planted anything, never looked whats under his feeds...and in this case poor third world farmers are reall saints... fantasy-world  

---

