Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Topsy-Turvy Wolrd - 11 - Religious(?) world Leaders

I started thinking about the worlds foremost supposedly spiritual world leaders..

And you know what..? I don't think any of them are vegetarian..

Which is odd, when you stop and think about it, because at the core of all religions, isn't there this driving force of "do no harm", love they neighbours, treat others respectfully, and thou shalt not kill..

The pope was recently here, visiting Sydney, for this crazy world youth day event, and I wonder how many hot dogs were served to the hungry religious masses that graced their presence for the occasion..

The Pope clearly has no respect what so ever for Gods creatures, but will most likely join in with the choir singing "all creatures great and small"..

Shoot, out of curiosity, I googled the Dalai Lama in an attempt to find out his eating habits, thinking that following the Buddhist principles to the key, as I had imagined there was a remote chance that he may, that there may perhaps be a slight chance that he had some compassion for animals, but alas, I discovered that even the Dalai Lama regularly eats flesh and doesn't appear to ask questions..

I got momentarily sucked in to trying to start a debate about that fact by responding to this guy Bill's comments here: (you'll need to scroll down the page to read my comments)

When he didn't respond, I thought I'd offer him the chance to do so from his own blog:

But after a few futile attempts to engage him in a debate on Buddhist viewpoint of diet, he pointed out that I was wasting my time.. And consequently he deleted all my comments.. However, I recorded them before they got deleted:

  1. mango, on July 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 Said:

    Hi Bill,
    just like to draw to your attention that I replied to your comment here:


    Dear Mango,
    As regards His Holiness’ practice: that was his explanation, not mine. It is both non-judgmental and non-dualistic, and is the way I try to live my practice. Your choices seem to be different. That is none of my business.

  2. mango, on July 23rd, 2008 at 18:11 Said:

    Dear Bill,
    We live in a world that is full of judgment and dualism.. The Lamas choices are no more outside of this, than are my own, or yours..

    As for whose business publicly aired opinions are.. Well..they are publicly aired and shared..


    His Holiness’ practice, and yours, are none of my business. If you think otherwise, that is your opinion, and none of my business either.

  3. mango, on July 24th, 2008 at 21:05 Said:

    Hi again Bill,

    I am expressing a view point.. that is all. If you post a comment on someone else’s blog, then you are expressing your viewpoint too..

    That is ok.. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

    I agree that my opinions are mine, yours are yours and the lamas are his..

    But what I don’t understand is your response that an aired opinion is “none of your business”, it looks like you are telling me that I should keep my views to myself as they have nothing to do with you..

    It seems that you yourself have been only willing to offer your own point of view to others despite the fact that you seem to believe that it is only “your business” what you believe.


    Dear Mango,
    You are not reading carefully. I said that His Holiness’ opinion is none of my business. I said that your opinion is none of my business. What has that to do with you?

  4. mango, on July 25th, 2008 at 17:46 Said:

    Dear Bill,

    maybe I need a lesson in logic..

    True, I may not be seeing things clearly.. This is what I see you saying:

    1. The lamas opinions are none of your business..
    2. My opinion is none of your business..

    Ergo.. I supposed.. (perhaps wrongly.. perhaps not).. that in your opinion, your opinions are “none of my business” (thus I should cease to discuss them?)..

    But if Dalai’s opinions are none of your business, why have you openly discussed what you believe to be his opinions and thoughts and actions? What has that to do with you?


    Perhaps we need to define “business.” I use it in the sense of a rightful concern or responsibility.

    Perhaps you can explain to me how His Holiness’ or your own opinions are any business of mine in that sense. Perhaps it is I who is missing something.

  5. mango, on July 25th, 2008 at 21:05 Said:

    Dear Bill,

    defining the words semantically, as you have partially done, I will agree with you that we ultimately take no responsibility for the actions of strangers.. In this case I carry no direct responsibility for yours or the Lamas habits.. Equally, neither do you, for his, or mine. And of course, he, for yours or mine..

    However, you did openly begin this debate by stating that:
    [The Lama] like most people who value human relationships over tradition, will eat meat if it is served to him in good faith.

    Now if you believe, as you state, that it is of no rightful concern of yours what he does or does not do, then why mention it in the first place?

    Indeed, why discuss anything at all (outside of yourself) if it is, as you believe, none of our business?

    I perceived you as an open guy, only too willing to share your opinion with others, and by doing so, I had assumed that you would therefore be open to discuss your views,and hear those of others..

    Perhaps I was mistaken.

    Dear Mango,
    This is pointless. I have no time for it. I will continue to post your comments, but I gave up sophomoric discussions like this more than 40 years ago, so you need not expect further from me on this subject. You must have something better to do; I know I have.

  6. mango, on July 27th, 2008 at 4:52 Said:

    i was indeed mistaken

Honestly, sometimes I am just soo good at wasting time, but I'd just love for there to be some way to communicate good ideas effectively..

I guess I really must learn to let go..


Previous Post - Send message to US Phones for Free
Next Post - Test the Load time of your blog or website

Previous Topsy-Turvy Post - The Health Industry
Next Topsy-Turvy Post -
All The Topsy Turvy Posts


Anonymous said...

Dude, you surely do know how to waste time!! That guy bill clearly never had any intention of debating with you. I think he was just trying to mess with your mind! For sure he doesn't understand what being a vegetarian is all about.

might i add, that that black on blue text is veerry hard to read!

Fruitarian Mango said...

hi Malcolm,

thanks for the feedback, yes he clearly wasn't going to debate the issue. That was his choice..

I guess there are many people that choose to eat mostly vegetarian meals for reasons like his, (reasons unknown?!), and will at times, as he says, be happy chewing on a steak.

I guess it is not for me to try and understand..

Thanks for pointing out about the colours.. i've changed the black to yellow, hopefully it is easier on the eyes.


Anonymous said...

mango, i tried to let bill know that you had copied these comments, but it appears he has disabled comments on his blog. i think maybe he messed with his own mind as well as yours! i don't think he can handle the truth.

Fruitarian Mango said...

i think he verifies his messages before publishing, so might take 24 hours or more before you can see your message..

or maybe he has chosen to not publish it, avoiding any possible further discussion.

i have no real issue with him. he was of course free to respond as he did. that's was his choice.


Lori said...

I spent a considerable amount of time with a Tibetan Lama, a year or so ago, he also was not vegan. Though I learned much, I have to admit the reason I have drifted away from the group is that there seemed to be an unwillingness or an inability to satisfactorily address the meat eating issue. His argument was, much as you are hearing, that although it's wrong to kill to eat, it's perfectly ok to eat something someone else has already killed, even if it was killed in anticipation that you will eat it. Since that's totally illogical, it can't help but make you question everything else they are saying.