Cittasanto wrote:Hi Seaker,
Just so you know I wont be able to respond again until sunday evening at the earliest.
Ditto as I am attending a retreat this weekend.
I would agree with the lack of existence. However it can be inferred.
One can claim it can be inferred but still one has to explain precisely how, if the conclusion is going to have some logical support. You really can't just say it can be inferred and leave it at that, if you are speaking strictly in logical terms.
There was no such thing as "industrial". Focusing only on the slaughter misses the main point I was making. Which is how the animals are treated during their lifetime. The horrible conditions that they have to endure and the abuse they are subjected to, before they are sent to slaughter. "Battery cages" and "gestation crates" did not exist during the Buddhas time. To assume he would have said nothing about "battery cages", because he didn't say anything about animals grazing in a pasture, is not very logical because it compares apples to oranges.
Are you sure I am assuming what the Buddha would say based on what wasn't said? or am I using inference based on what has been said in comparable situations.
I am basing my opinion on what is known the Buddha done and advised. i.e. his advice on proper conversation, his unwillingness to directly attack someone's profession (actors & warriors was after several refusals to comment directly upon) The Buddha is only ever general, not specific, in matters which could be seen as attacking. And when it is other groups, The Buddha only ever deals with specific views, not the group itself.
He attacked "business in meat", the very thing we are talking about, and call it wrong livelihood. He called the entire group of people engaged in the business of meat as being engaged in wrong livelihood. There is plenty of evidence that the Buddha taught that one should not cause harm, nor be a cause for harm, to other living beings. You speak as if animals being beaten and abused doesn't really matter. I don't see how this can match up with what the Buddha taught.
inference based on the texts. I am not presupposing the Buddha would have acted in a way not already shown.
Again, one really can't just say inference and leave it at that.
When there is evidence of how the Buddha acted in other situations it is inductive or deductive reasoning, not assumption. Can you show your evidence for the Buddha being direct in this matter, and not simply keeping with what has already been said?
Technically, It's not on me to show any evidence because I am the one challenging the logic of the claim, not making the claim. According to a "logical analysis", etc. the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. However, I could just say "inference based on the texts" and give a couple vague examples, but that just would not be good enough for logic. I would have to provide a logical explanation of the inference and how the inference is being made, why it's being made, which particular texts it's being made from with specific examples, sutta references, etc, so that the inference itself can be examined also, logically speaking. Saying inference and leaving it at that, does not provide any more support to the conclusion. Technically, doing that is called "circular reasoning" and is, by definition, not logical. There were some vague examples of how the Buddha did not get involved in wars, etc. but it has to be much more detailed and much more in depth than that in order to prove the validity of the inference. However, if one is just expressing one's opinions on the matter, and not the logical structure of the argument, then all that really isn't necessary.