Remember when we were in primary school, our teachers almost every year give us the task of writing an essay entitled "If I have a million dollars/ringgit/yen/etc". The standard answer would be 1. to buy a big house, 2. to buy a new car, 3. to go around the world, sometimes 4. to give some to parents, and finally 5. to donate some to the needy. If anyone ever wrote something different back then, I'd love to know. Unless he/she has some personal problems of their own, I think almost every single kid wrote the same thing.
Nowadays a million bucks still mean a lot, but that doesn't guarantee a big house plus a new car is affordable anymore. So let's change it to a zillion bucks. That's more appealing, don't you agree? *grin* Now why don't we try writing an essay on "If I have a zillion bucks" after turning 20. Do you think it would be the same? I know I'd go tsk-tsk over the old essays, seeing how childish they are. How unrealistic, and even more, how greedy we were. Why didn't the teachers say anything about it? Or were we just too dumb to even notice that the teachers said something really useful?
The first thing we should spend the money on isn't the things that we want for ourselves. Instead it should have been spent on our mother who spent countless sleepless nights to tend to our needs. It should have been spent on our father who for years ventured into the wilderness of the concrete jungle for a loaf of bread to feed us. But why were their priorities placed on number 4? Why were they only considered after we have satisfied ourselves with our own not-so-important necessities?
Helping the needy may be optional for others, but for people of the same faith as mine, feeding the poor is an obligation. And yet 15 years ago without shame I chose to satisfy all my greed first, then give the remaining tit-bits to the poor. How low can I fall? I chose to prioritize my own luxury and donated only the remains of my spending, just like the hierarchy-system that I have always despised.
And then I looked back at the present time and looked around. At one point I realized that unconsciously I have quite a large sum of money saved up since I came to Japan. It wasn't intentional because somehow I tend to save even to the last penny. It's a habit I picked up since I was small. Because of that I was somewhat stingy before, but thankfully not anymore. There is no longer the need to save money for myself, because should I die tomorrow, to whom will the money go? I can't use it. In the end they will most likely go to my family first, but I won't get any point from that because I'm dead. On the other hand, if I give them up now all points will return to me. What points? God knows.
Some people tell me that it's very foolish of me to give away all of my savings carelessly to others just because they need some. They say I should save some for myself, they say I might need them in the future. Even when I tell them that God will take care of that, well some people just refuse to understand and I don't blame them. Everyone has different opinion. We just need to get along with those differences, as the blog's subtitle states. Anyway, for one thing, God takes care of the future just like how se takes care of the past and present, so I don't worry about what to eat in the future. Whatever will be will be. Que sera... sera... (lol)
Nowadays a million bucks still mean a lot, but that doesn't guarantee a big house plus a new car is affordable anymore. So let's change it to a zillion bucks. That's more appealing, don't you agree? *grin* Now why don't we try writing an essay on "If I have a zillion bucks" after turning 20. Do you think it would be the same? I know I'd go tsk-tsk over the old essays, seeing how childish they are. How unrealistic, and even more, how greedy we were. Why didn't the teachers say anything about it? Or were we just too dumb to even notice that the teachers said something really useful?
The first thing we should spend the money on isn't the things that we want for ourselves. Instead it should have been spent on our mother who spent countless sleepless nights to tend to our needs. It should have been spent on our father who for years ventured into the wilderness of the concrete jungle for a loaf of bread to feed us. But why were their priorities placed on number 4? Why were they only considered after we have satisfied ourselves with our own not-so-important necessities?
Helping the needy may be optional for others, but for people of the same faith as mine, feeding the poor is an obligation. And yet 15 years ago without shame I chose to satisfy all my greed first, then give the remaining tit-bits to the poor. How low can I fall? I chose to prioritize my own luxury and donated only the remains of my spending, just like the hierarchy-system that I have always despised.
And then I looked back at the present time and looked around. At one point I realized that unconsciously I have quite a large sum of money saved up since I came to Japan. It wasn't intentional because somehow I tend to save even to the last penny. It's a habit I picked up since I was small. Because of that I was somewhat stingy before, but thankfully not anymore. There is no longer the need to save money for myself, because should I die tomorrow, to whom will the money go? I can't use it. In the end they will most likely go to my family first, but I won't get any point from that because I'm dead. On the other hand, if I give them up now all points will return to me. What points? God knows.
Some people tell me that it's very foolish of me to give away all of my savings carelessly to others just because they need some. They say I should save some for myself, they say I might need them in the future. Even when I tell them that God will take care of that, well some people just refuse to understand and I don't blame them. Everyone has different opinion. We just need to get along with those differences, as the blog's subtitle states. Anyway, for one thing, God takes care of the future just like how se takes care of the past and present, so I don't worry about what to eat in the future. Whatever will be will be. Que sera... sera... (lol)
Some time ago I debated with myself, if everyone is to save things for themselves, who will help those who have nothing to continue life with? Let's do this mathematically. If you hate maths, don't blame me. I love maths. *smirk* Consider there is 'X' amount of food on earth, and 'N' amount of people still living. If one person eats 'm' amount of food in one period, 'N' people eating the same amount would make it 'mN' amount of food consumed in one period. Usually X is abundant, so 'mN' is always less than 'X'. But one period comes when 'mN' is more than 'X'. To be fair the amount of food eaten by one person 'm' should all be reduced so that everyone gets to eat the same amount fairly, but realistically a group of people always want that usual 'm' amount, so some people have to reduce their food drastically. Regardless of the situation, people have a message left in their minds that say "Save food now or you won't get to eat when 'X' declines." Of course when this happens people don't just save enough for themselves, they always save more than enough. So even when the total amount of food available on earth 'X' is abundant, because a group of people monopolize a lot for themselves (for example they save '100m' amount of food each), there are always people who don't get their share. Isn't that unfair?
Conclusion, food is always there to share fairly. When someone monopolizes, someone else suffers, even though food is abundant. In other words, when you save too much for yourselves, someone else will lose their share. When food is scarce and you still save only for yourselves, someone else will die. My one cent of thought.
And so I convinced myself, be fair. There is always enough for everyone. Don't worry about the future. Worry about the present, worry about those who don't have enough to live. A lot of people claim they want the world to be fair, but is that really true when they always want to be a lot better off materialistically than others? I really respect humanity volunteers who sacrifice the luxuries they have for the sake of others. They go to the places where people need them and live with them the way they do. They don't care even if they have to drink slightly yellowish water or sleep on the floor. Those are true humanitarians.
But I'm not saying that everyone else is all bullsh*t and deserves to die. Look at me, I write all this and I'm still living in my own luxury. We all need time to change. I have only taken the first step, to give out lots and lots as much as I have instead of a penny. There is still much that I have to change. I'm far inferior compared to a lot of people. But I am happy that I realize that I need to change even more, that the present me is just not enough. Even more, I am thankful that I no longer have that attitude of taking everyone else lightly just because they have differing opinions or just because they won't do the same thing. Some people just like to spout hateful words to others because they think they are better, don't they? Some people like to call meat-eating people barbarians, some people like to label vegetarians as hypocrites. Isn't it about time to embrace reality? People are different.
Among the various classifications available, I pick up this one today for us to ponder and reflect:
There are three types of people in the world. The first one is the one whose self today is better than yesterday; this is the winner type. The second one is the one whose self today doesn't change compared to yesterday; this is the loser type. And the third type is the one whose self is worse than yesterday; this type is the worst of the worst. How do you define better than yesterday? You decide.
Conclusion, food is always there to share fairly. When someone monopolizes, someone else suffers, even though food is abundant. In other words, when you save too much for yourselves, someone else will lose their share. When food is scarce and you still save only for yourselves, someone else will die. My one cent of thought.
And so I convinced myself, be fair. There is always enough for everyone. Don't worry about the future. Worry about the present, worry about those who don't have enough to live. A lot of people claim they want the world to be fair, but is that really true when they always want to be a lot better off materialistically than others? I really respect humanity volunteers who sacrifice the luxuries they have for the sake of others. They go to the places where people need them and live with them the way they do. They don't care even if they have to drink slightly yellowish water or sleep on the floor. Those are true humanitarians.
But I'm not saying that everyone else is all bullsh*t and deserves to die. Look at me, I write all this and I'm still living in my own luxury. We all need time to change. I have only taken the first step, to give out lots and lots as much as I have instead of a penny. There is still much that I have to change. I'm far inferior compared to a lot of people. But I am happy that I realize that I need to change even more, that the present me is just not enough. Even more, I am thankful that I no longer have that attitude of taking everyone else lightly just because they have differing opinions or just because they won't do the same thing. Some people just like to spout hateful words to others because they think they are better, don't they? Some people like to call meat-eating people barbarians, some people like to label vegetarians as hypocrites. Isn't it about time to embrace reality? People are different.
Among the various classifications available, I pick up this one today for us to ponder and reflect:
There are three types of people in the world. The first one is the one whose self today is better than yesterday; this is the winner type. The second one is the one whose self today doesn't change compared to yesterday; this is the loser type. And the third type is the one whose self is worse than yesterday; this type is the worst of the worst. How do you define better than yesterday? You decide.
