A diet without killing, without stealing

There are many quite specific rules in Buddhist traditions for which foods monastics should and shouldn't eat, and these rules vary by tradition, by climate, by the strictness of the monastic order, etc. In general, monastics are karmically protected from the complexities of eating by the efforts of the laity. Monastics may eat almost whatever they are "offered", and laity must make things "allowable" (i.e., agree to take on the karma of having harmed the food). No one but the lay person guards their own karmic exposure to food. Therefore, it is very important for lay people to carefully consider what they wish their exposure to be. This essay considers what just the basic Five Precepts that all Buddhists take -- which are relatively common across all of the major traditions -- may imply, with regard to dietary guidelines.

Besides the obvious injunction to avoid alcohol in the fifth precept, the first two precepts (abstaining from taking life, and abstaining from taking what is not given) are arguably the most relevant. Of these, the second precept's implications are perhaps more subtle than the first. Whereas the first precept is a binary distinction -- does eating something involve killing it or not -- the second introduces the concept of giving/offering. (Though, of course, one can debate what constitutes life, taking life, etc.) For example, though amputating the leg from a cow in order to eat it, if done with medical skill, might not kill the cow, the cow would almost certainly not voluntarily place its leg on a chopping block. Similarly for plants, though pruning a few leaves or roots from a plant might not kill the plant, plants don't typically discard their own healthy leaves and roots.

However, certain healthy things in nature are voluntarily discarded by plants and animals, usually for the purposes of reproduction or of caring for the young. For example, fruits are often discarded by plants in order to attract animals. The plant encases its seeds first in hard shells that can endure the chewing and digestive processes of its target animal, followed by sweet outer and skin layers, so that the animal will probably have to take some time, and perhaps travel some distance, to both consume/digest the fruit and discard the seeds. The animal gets a meal and the plant gets its seeds spread into far away fertile soil/dung. By this logic, wind-born seeds might not be considered "offered" to animals. (If a biologist is reading this, yes I realize that the process is more one of co-evolution/-adaptation than of the plant having such conscious intentions. The relationship between scientific concepts of evolution and Buddhist concepts of craving/becoming is interesting and not yet well-explored, as far as I know.)

Of course, the process is not always so simple. Not all plant products that humans eat have evolved for humans to eat them, or to being processed through humans' agricultural machinery. Much collateral damage occurs (e.g., the tannins in wine often come from stems and seeds being crushed with the grapes). Also, humans have bred unnatural fruits and have constructed elaborate garbage-disposal systems, which can result in seeds never being viable or only ending up in a landfill. Though one can make the argument that, despite our sometimes violent destruction of individual plants, the large-scale agricultural exploitation of certain species by humans is an ultimately successful biological outcome for those species as a whole (e.g., there is much more corn/maize growing on Earth than there probably would be were humans not here), Buddhism's psychological focus on suffering inevitably draws the discussion back to the damage, and probable pain, done to individual beings. Addressing these issues is difficult in modern society, because one has limited control over the supply chain that brought food to one's (super)market. Eating less processed, and more local, food might involve less harm, but, especially as Buddhism is a minority in America, it is difficult to ensure that the farmer working on one's behalf knows/cares to follow the Buddhist precepts (i.e., there is no Buddhist equivalent to Kosher). Though the question of which foods are most likely to withstand modern human machinery/callousness is worthwhile, the rest of this essay will only focus on defining what foods might qualify as "offered", if handled/processed skillfully. Suffice it to say that even being vegan can be ethically difficult, from a Buddhist perspective.

One might call offered things "fruit", but in a much broader sense than culinary fruits (apples, oranges, etc.). Below are several lists of "botanical fruits", namely things that plants discard, usually for reproductive purposes (in parentheses are their botanical types).

simple fruits

• beany: alfalfa (legume), beans (legume), carob (legume), chickpea (legume), clover (legume), lentils (legume), lupins (legume), mesquite (legume), pea (legume), peanut (legume), radish (legume), soy (legume), vanilla (legume)
• grainy: bamboo (caryopsis), barley (caryopsis), buckwheat (achene), corn (caryopsis), oat (caryopsis), pearl millet (caryopsis), quinoa (utricle), rice (caryopsis), rye (caryopsis), sorghum (caryopsis), wheat (caryopsis)
• nutty/oily/spicy: almond (drupe), avocado (berry-like), bell pepper berry), black cumin, brazil nut (capsule), butternut (drupe), chestnut (nut), chili pepper (berry), capsicum, cocoa, coffee (drupe), coriander (schizocarp), hazelnut (nut), hickory (drupe), kukui nut (drupe), macadamia (drupe), mace, nutmeg, pecan (drupe), peppercorns (drupe), pistachio (drupe), star anise (pericarp), sunflower seed (achene), tung oil (drupe), walnut (drupe)
• sweet/citrus: apple (pome), apricot (drupe), banana (berry-like), blackcurrant (berry), blueberry (berry), cantelope (pepo), cherry (drupe), coconut (drupe), cranberry (berry), damson (drupe), dates (drupe), gooseberry (berry), grape (berry), grapefruit (hesperidium), guava (berry), jujube, red/Chinese date (drupe), kiwi (berry), kumquat (hesperidium), lemon (hesperidium), lime (hesperidium), loquat (pome), lucuma (berry), mango (drupe), melons (pepo), nectarine (drupe), olive (drupe), orange (hesperidium), papaya (berry), peach (drupe), pear (pome), persimmon (berry), plum (drupe), pomagranete (berry), quince (pome), redcurrant (berry), rose hips (achene), sapote (berry), strawberry (achene), sugar cane (caryopsis, molasses made from it), tangelo (hesperidium), watermelon (pepo)
• vegetably: cucumber (pepo), gourd (pepo), pumpkin (pepo), squash (pepo), tomato (berry), zucchini (pepo)

aggregate fruits

• sweet: blackberry (drupe), boysenberry (drupe), raspberry (drupe)

multiple fruits

• sweet: fig, hedge apple, mulberry (drupe), pineapple

fruit-related

• flowers: broccoli and cauliflower (the flowering middle of the plant), cloves, rose petals
• seeds: cardamom, coffee, cumin, fennel, hemp seeds (milk), kola nut, mustard, sesame

common things that DON'T qualify as offered

• bulbs: garlic, ginger, onion
• leaves: malabar leaves, tea
• roots: beet, carrot, parsnip, potato, turnip
• stems/rhizomes: rhubarb, turmeric
• fungi: mushrooms

One can also imagine circumstances under which animals might voluntarily offer products from their bodies to human caretakers. A cow or goat that feels protected and well cared-for by a farmer might willingly allow the farmer to milk it. Laying hens kept without roosters might offer unfertilized eggs (eating an egg that you can tell is fertilized, even if stored at a temperature so low that embryonic cell growth is minimal, is probably unethical from a Buddhist perspective; there is much debate in the various traditions around when a reincarnating consciousness can join-with a forming physical body). I have seen sheep and other furry animals on small farms that seem to enjoy being sheared (though, of course, they were usually specially bred to have so much fur, and breeding can cause genetic disorders). I once also encountered a sutta describing how one can ethically cook and eat the body of an animal that died of natural causes, though obviously proper sanitation and sterilization are at issue. Some Buddhists (notably Tibetans) also think that it takes several days-to-weeks for a being's consciousness to fully leave a body, and that there are physical signs that this has occured, for which one must look. Not doing so might mean that the being is still aware, on some level, of being dismembered, cooked, etc. Eating leaves dropped from plants is also usually considered ethical by forest-dwelling monks, though is not particularly nutritious, can be poisonous, etc.

Of course, modern mass-production agriculture also introduces many ways in which animals are stolen-from and not shown basic courtesies. Even free-range laying chickens and dairy cows are usually slaughtered, when their ability to produce declines (e.g., chickens naturally live 6 or more years, though they are often slaughtered after about 1 year). Regarding broader environmental effects, the amount of vegetable protein (e.g., from soy-based feeds) fed to chickens is less than the protein in the eggs they produce, and something similar is true for cows. Also, large cow pastures can contribute to deforestation, and cows release lots of greenhouse gasses (from belching methane). It can be difficult indeed for a Buddhist in this day and age to consume animal products ethically.

Finally, having said all this, I acknowledge that most Buddhist lay populations around the world consume large amounts of animal products, including slaughtered meat and caught fish. Majority Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka, occasionally ban animal slaughter and sacrifice, especially on Buddhist holidays. The precepts are not commandments, but goals to strive for, and, in striving to keep them, one often encounters the limitations of things like available natural resources, basic health needs, and interactions with people who have different ethical boundaries. Surely the point must be to do one's best to be what one thinks is ethical, not to do more harm than necessary. Of course, the degree to which each person can manage to be humble and heedful, or even selfless, is up to them.