Selfishness

Today I had a British visitor in my "British and American Cultures" class and students were asking him questions to learn more about the British culture. One student asked about how older people were treated in England these days and our guest said not very well as they were usually put in the home and most often were not visited much by their children. The student asked why that was the case and our visitor said he thought people in the modern urban environment were quite selfish; they had no time to spend with their elders or they didn't want to. They may be more occupied with work, hectic lifestyle, technology, etc.



This got me thinking about being selfish. As a matter of fact I have been thinking about being selfish for some time now. Is it true that people in this age and time are more selfish than in the past? Are there legitimate reasons why we become more selfish? Are we to blame for being selfish? These days we want more time to ourselves, to Facebook (ironically alone but with others), to play computer games, to chat (again by ourselves yet with others), to do our errands, to finish work (after work hours), etc. We dread it when relatives from other provinces visit unannounced; this is very inconvenient, we say to ourselves, it's a lot of work to have relatives over at your house. Is it true that modern lifestyle excludes us from real people?



What surprises me is not that we may be more selfish but that it is quite easy for us to be selfish. We are comfortable being selfish. Some religious beliefs might contribute to us being ok with being selfish. Does not Buddhism teach us to get rid of all burdens--even our children are seen in a sense as burdens; they trap us with the secular joy. Buddhism teaches us to free ourselves--each individual person--from all the burdens and worldly traps, individual, not you and your family, or you and your spouse. When you leave this world you go alone, it is only when you live you are with people in your life.



In essence, we are more "individual" than we can imagine. We are all "islands," separate entities from others around us. The human ties we cultivate through our life are thus rather fictional; we create them because that's what our parents, our teachers, our society teach us to do. It is what human beings have been doing since the days of the cave men. Anthropologists, scientists, and many other --ists say human beings are social animals, we must live in flocks. They tell us that social ties are essential to our well beings. Isn't all this too confusing? Spiritually we should be alone (selfish) while socially we should be part of groups.



I might be crazy but I think these opposite ideas of how we live life is the origin of our headaches. We get unhappy or worried when we miss out on group activities or ones which involve people. We feel bad when we spend time by ourselves because we use the social rules as our criteria. If we use spiritual rules as our guides, we would feel natural to be alone, to care for only ourselves--to be selfish. I know this is scandalous, this is plain selfish. But hey, I am only a very confused human being.


February 1, 2011

Thongsiri Vihara Makes News

Less than a week ago we saw a Facebook post about an 100+ years old vihara (main hall) of a remote village temple called
Thongsiri under a threat of being demolished. Most people were concerned because it was ancient and beautiful in a simple way. The post said the villagers wanted to have it torn down on February 4, 2011. Being advocates of cultural heritage, I and 3 friends drove to the temple this afternoon (Jan. 30, 2011). We found the pleasant little temple nestled in a small valley. The whole compound is a little over one rai of land. In a hall by the south gate we saw villagers, middle-aged to elderly, working on the preparation of a northern ritual of life blessing (suebchata) to be held on February 4, 2011. The abbot greeted us and
started talking about the Facebook post with us. Apparently the post has stirred interest from the authority and now the demolishing plan is being halted until after the discussion between Department of Fine Arts and the local people scheduled
for February 3, 2011.

The vihara is actually very small and its construction was completed only about 50 or so years ago. The claim that it was 130 years old is based on perhaps the first days bricks were laid on the premise, probably for PR purpose. The architecture is not that outstanding but it is simple and thus charming. Of course I would want something this beautiful to stay but the story we heard from the abbot was also heart-rending. After I heard the story, I don’t know what to think or which side to take up.

The village consists of devout Buddhists and the temple is alive with people making merits on a regular basis and holding on tightly to Buddhist rituals. At the gate, we saw slippers being left by it, outside of the temple grounds--a tradition we don’t see anymore in town temples. As a matter of fact, I learned today that Buddhists in the former times usually did this. Nowadays we leave our shoes before we enter temple buildings but not outside the temple. The villagers love their temple and their vihara. It is only because it’s in a bad shape that they decided it’s time to build a new one. This is because they need one with a better condition so that they can continue to perform religious ceremonies.

The abbot said they planned to rebuild it in the same old style and to enlarge it so they had more space (it is really a tiny vihara). What they fear is that if and when the vihara in under the protection of Department of Fine Arts, the construction might get halted from budget cut or other unexpected reasons and the villagers will end up having no hall for their ritual performances. If the vihara is being put under the protection of Department of Fine Arts, it will no longer belong to them; it will become a showcase for tourists, no longer a living vihara the way it is. We sensed and sympathized with the frustration the abbot and local people feel about this sensitive issue.

I for one can’t decide what is best for Thongsiri vihara. Yes, it is worth being preserved. But if this means the villagers will have to find a new temple, who will help them find one? Is an old building, regardless of its architectural and cultural values, as important or more important than preserving a living cultural heritage? Do we want a museum or a living temple? This is a hard question and I think both sides have to consider factors that affect the demolishing of Thongsiri vihara. Often times going by the book and overlooking people’s feelings results in sad circumstances. We promise the abbot that we will publicize his and the villagers’ view on the subject so that the public is aware of the other side of the story. The villagers working in the hall thanked us for our promise and gave us blessing. I hope that whatever the result of the meeting on Feb. 3, 2011 maybe, it is one which yields benefits for those who deserve them the most, one that both sides can “win.”