II. A Dissection of the Idea of “Sleeping on Brushwood and Licking Gall”

Let’s talk about another saying, “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall.” Who can explain what this means? (In the saying “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall,” brushwood refers to firewood, and gall refers to a gallbladder. It is talking about how Goujian, king of the Kingdom of Yue, slept on a pile of firewood and licked a gallbladder every day, and how he wanted to get revenge, rise from the ashes of his defeat, and restore his kingdom.) You have explained the background of this saying, which is what story this saying comes from. Usually when explaining a saying, apart from explaining the background, you have to explain the extended meaning of the saying—what it is a metaphor for when people use it in modern times. Explain it again. (It’s a metaphor for a person who puts their nose to the grindstone, and who fights and works hard to accomplish their goals and wishes.) Then, how should “brushwood” and “gallbladder” be explained in this context? You didn’t explain these two aspects of meaning. Looking at the words, “brushwood” refers to a type of firewood with thorns; he lay down on firewood with thorns to sleep, then frequently reminded himself of his circumstances and dishonor, and frequently reminded himself of the mission he shouldered. In addition, he hung a gallbladder from the ceiling and licked it every day. What do people taste when they lick a gallbladder? (Bitterness.) It would be so bitter! He used this feeling to remind himself not to forget his hatred, not to forget his mission, and not to forget his wish. What was his wish? The great task of restoring his kingdom. What is sleeping on brushwood and licking gall usually a metaphor for? It is usually a metaphor for a person who is in unfortunate circumstances, but who does not forget their mission and wishes, and who is capable of paying a price for their wishes, ideals, and mission. This is more or less what it means. In the eyes of secular people, is the saying “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” a positive one or a negative one? (A positive one.) Why is it seen as a positive saying? It can motivate people in the midst of hardship to not forget their hatred, not forget their dishonor, and make them work hard and strive to become stronger. It is a relatively inspiring saying. In the eyes of secular people, this is undoubtedly a positive saying. If people act according to this saying, then there is no doubt that what they do, their motivation for doing things, the way they do things, and the principles they adhere to are right and are positive. By saying this, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with this saying, so what is it we want to dissect by bringing this saying up? What is it we want to say? (We want to dissect the ways in which this saying runs contrary to the truth.) That’s right, we want to discern whether or not it is the truth. Since this saying is so “right,” it is worth us dissecting and verifying in exactly which ways it is “right.” Then, we will have an accurate definition of it, and can look at whether or not it is actually the truth. This is the ultimate result we want to achieve. The saying “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” is a law of survival that people in special circumstances hold on to. Let’s first be certain—is this saying the truth? (No.) Let’s not start by saying whether or not it is the truth. From its literal meaning that people can see, this saying does not have a negative meaning. So, what positive meaning does it have? It can motivate people, give them resolve, make them fight on, not retreat, not be discouraged, and not be cowards. There is an aspect in which it has a positive use. However, in what circumstances is it necessary for people to uphold the principles of comportment and action contained in this saying? Is there a connection between the principles this saying upholds and belief in God? Is there a connection with practicing the truth? Is there a connection with doing one’s duty? Is there a connection with following God’s way? (No.) You’ve come to a conclusion so quickly? How do you know there is no connection? (God’s words do not say that.) That is overly simplistic and an irresponsible thing to say. When you don’t understand and say, “Anyway, it’s not in God’s words and I don’t know what this saying means, so I won’t listen to it. It can say whatever it wants, but I won’t believe it,” this is an irresponsible thing to say. You must approach it seriously. Once you have approached it seriously, thoroughly understand it and have true discernment over it, you will never treat this saying as the truth. Right now, I am not making you deny the correctness of this saying; rather, I am making you understand that this saying is not the truth, and showing you what truths it is that you should understand and how you should uphold the truth in the same circumstances. Do you understand? So, tell Me what your understanding is. (Sleeping on brushwood and licking gall is about how people should practice in times of misfortune, but in God’s house the term “misfortune” does not exist. When God exposes people or puts them through trials, it is all part of God’s process of perfecting them—this is not misfortune. This saying tells people they must remember the hardship they suffered at this time, and win back some ground in the future. This expression does not hold water in the house of God. I will give an example that is a bit improper: After being replaced, some leaders use the phrase “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” to motivate themselves, saying, “I will learn from Goujian, king of the Kingdom of Yue, and sleep on brushwood and lick gall. There will come a time when I resume my old position and become a leader again. You’ll see! Now you criticize me, saying that I’m bad in this regard and bad in that regard. One day I will regain what I have lost and make you see what I’m really made of. There will for sure come a day when the humiliation I have suffered now will be washed away clean!”) This is a very good example. Has it enlightened you? Do you ever have times when you want to sleep on brushwood and lick gall? Do you ever think about regaining lost ground? (Yes. I have these thoughts when people negate my views. For example, when I am discussing some things with brothers and sisters and they question the views I put forward, in my heart I feel defiant, and I think, “One day I must do a good job and show you.” Then, I go and work hard to learn that area of work, but this is the wrong mentality.) This is not an attitude of accepting the truth, seeking the truth, or practicing the truth, but one of recalcitrance and of wanting to prove something to others—it is an attitude of not conceding defeat. This sort of attitude is considered positive among humankind. Never conceding defeat is a good temperament of sorts, and it means a person has tenacity, so why is it said that this is not practicing the truth? It is because their attitude when doing things, and the principles and motivations behind what they do, are not based on the truth; rather, they are based on the saying in traditional culture, “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall.” Although one can say that this person has a strong presence, and their mindset and attitude of wanting to win and not conceding defeat garners respect from people in the secular world, in the face of the truth what is a mindset and temperament like this? They are minuscule and extremely awful; they are loathed by God. Who else has something to share? (When I do a duty, because I am not familiar with that area of work, I think people don’t take me seriously. So, in my heart I secretly rally myself, “I need to study this area of work well and make you guys see that I am actually capable.” Sometimes, when people point out shortcomings in my duty, I put effort into changing; I withstand hardship and pay a price to learn the work, and no matter how much hardship I suffer I swallow it, but I am not seeking how to do my duty well; rather, I want there to be a day when I can make others look up to me and can gain others’ respect. I also have a sort of state of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall.) From what you all have shared, I noticed a problem. You have believed in God for no small number of years, forsaken your families and careers, and suffered no small amount of hardship, yet have reaped so little. You are also capable of withstanding hardship and expending yourselves in your duties, and are capable of paying a price, but why do you never progress in the truth? How is it that the truths you understand are so few and so shallow? The reason is that you do not put emphasis on the truth. You always want to sleep on brushwood and lick gall, and your hearts are filled to the brim with the drive to prove yourselves. Sleeping on brushwood and licking gall is a “big boil”—do you think this is a good thing? What is the ultimate result of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall? When a person wants to prove that they are capable and competent, that they are not inferior to others, and cannot lose to anyone, they will sleep on brushwood and lick gall. In other words, they will “endure the greatest hardships in order to become the greatest of men.” So in what ways does sleeping on brushwood and licking gall manifest itself? The first way it manifests is in not conceding defeat. The second is in enduring humiliation and bearing a heavy burden. You may not use any words to debate things with others, rebut them, or defend yourselves, but you secretly put in effort. What sort of effort? It could be the price you pay: burning the midnight oil, getting up early in the morning, or reading God’s words and learning about your area of work while others are off having fun, putting in extra effort. Is this suffering hardship? This is called sleeping on brushwood and licking gall. What is the third way it manifests? It manifests in people having a sort of great ambition inside them, and not complaining about their troubles because of this great ambition. They want to uphold the goals which they have set and want to achieve, and want to maintain this will to fight. What is this will to fight? For example, if you want to become a leader or accomplish some task, you must always maintain this state of mind inside; you must never forget your resolve, your mission, your aspirations and ideals. How would you describe this in one sentence? (Don’t lose sight of your initial motivation for doing something.) Not losing sight of your initial motivation for doing something is right, but not quite strong enough. (Hold a great ambition in your heart.) That’s better. There’s a bit of that feeling to it. How can you say these words in a more accurate and concise way? (A will to fight and aspirations.) How would you say this in complete terms? Many battles and many losses, but growing more courageous the longer you fight. It is a “never-say-die” will to fight. It is like how some people say, “You got discouraged after being replaced? I’ve been replaced lots of times but have never gotten discouraged. Whenever I fail at something, I just get back on the horse. We need to have the will to fight!” From their perspective, this will to fight is a positive thing. They do not think it is a bad thing when people have aspirations, ideals, and a will to fight. How do they treat the ambitions and desires produced by the corrupt disposition of arrogance? They treat it as something positive. So they think being able to suffer the hardship of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall to accomplish the goal they are fighting toward and the goal they think is right is the correct thing to do, that people look upon it favorably, and that it should be the truth. These are three manifestations of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall. Can these three manifestations explain the meaning contained in sleeping on brushwood and licking gall? (Yes, they can.) Then I’ll fellowship in detail on these three manifestations.

A. Not Conceding Defeat

Let’s start by talking about the first manifestation of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall: not conceding defeat. What is not conceding defeat? What manifestations do people usually have which prove they have the mentality of not conceding defeat? What kind of disposition is not conceding defeat? (Arrogance and intransigence.) It contains the two obvious dispositions of arrogance and intransigence. What else? (Wanting to win.) Is this a disposition? This is a manifestation. We are talking about dispositions now. (Being averse to the truth.) Being averse to the truth certainly means they do not accept the truth. For example, if a leader or worker says that what you are doing is in violation of the principles and is delaying the work of God’s house, and they want to replace you, you think, “Humph! I don’t think what I’m doing is wrong. If you want to replace me then go ahead. If you won’t let me do it then I won’t. I’ll submit!” Within this submission there is an attitude of refusing to concede defeat. This is a disposition. Besides arrogance, intransigence, and being averse to the truth, what else is contained within this disposition? Is there a disposition of wanting to rival God? (Yes.) Then what disposition is this? This is viciousness. You can’t even recognize a disposition that is this vicious. Why do I say it is vicious? (Because they want to rival God.) Trying to rival the truth is called vicious—it is too vicious! If they weren’t vicious, they wouldn’t try to rival the truth, and wouldn’t try to rival God or compete with Him. This is a vicious disposition. Within not conceding defeat there is arrogance, intransigence, being averse to the truth, and viciousness. These are the obvious dispositions it is connected to. How does not conceding defeat manifest? What mentalities does it encompass? How do people who do not concede defeat think? What is their attitude? What do they say, what do they think, and what do they reveal when they encounter things like replacement? The most common manifestation is when they do a duty and the Above sees they are not suited to doing this duty and replaces them, they ruminate in their heart, “I am no match for you. I will not argue with you. I have talent. True gold is destined to glitter eventually, and I am a talented individual no matter where I go! Regardless of what arrangements the Above makes for me I will bear it and listen to them for now.” They also come before God and pray, “God, I ask You to keep me from complaining. I ask You to stay my tongue and make me not judge You or blaspheme against You, and make me able to submit.” But then they ruminate again, “I cannot submit. This is the hardest part. I cannot accept this fact. What should I do? These are the Above’s arrangements; there’s nothing I can do. I am so talented, but why can I never use my talents in God’s house? It looks as though I haven’t read enough of God’s words yet. I must read more of God’s words from now on!” They do not yield and they don’t think they are inferior to others, just that they have believed in God for a bit less time and that this can be made up for. So, they put effort into reading God’s words and listening to sermons. They learn a new hymn and read a chapter of God’s words every day, and practice preaching. Gradually, they become more and more familiar with God’s words, they can preach a lot of spiritual doctrine, and can speak up to fellowship in gatherings. Is there any drive here to not concede defeat? (Yes.) What kind of drive is it? (A wicked drive.) This is troublesome! Why is it that as soon as we dissect it, you immediately label it as a wicked drive? Aren’t these good things? Their spiritual life is normal; they do not participate in secular things; they do not gossip; they are able to recite many chapters of God’s words and sing many hymns from memory. They are “elites”! So why do you say this is a wicked drive? (Their intent is to prove they are capable and not inferior to others.) This is called not conceding defeat. By not conceding defeat, are they truly understanding themselves and acknowledging their problems? (No.) Are they recognizing their corruption and their arrogant disposition? (No.) Then what are they proving by not conceding defeat? They want to prove they are capable and superior; they want to prove they are better than others, and ultimately prove that replacing them was a mistake. Their drive is aimed in this direction. Is this not conceding defeat? (Yes.) This attitude of not conceding defeat produced these actions of theirs of withstanding hardship, paying a price, enduring humiliation and bearing a heavy burden. On the surface, it looks like they exert a lot of effort, can withstand hardship and pay a price, and finally achieve their goals, but how come God isn’t pleased? Why does He condemn them? Because God scrutinizes the innermost hearts of people and evaluates every person according to the truth. How does God evaluate every person’s behavior, intents, manifestations, and dispositions? All these things are evaluated according to the truth. Then, how does God evaluate this matter and define it? No matter how much hardship you have suffered and how steep a price you have paid, when it comes down to it you do not strive toward the truth; your intent is not to submit to or accept the truth; rather, you use your method of withstanding suffering and paying a price to prove that the way God and God’s house classified and handled you was wrong. What does this imply? You want to prove that you are a person who has never been wrong and who doesn’t have a corrupt disposition. You want to prove that the way God’s house handled you was not in line with the truth, and that the truth and God’s words are sometimes wrong. For example, there was an oversight and a problem when it came to you, and your case proves that God’s words are not the truth and you don’t need to submit. Isn’t this the result? (Yes.) Does God approve of this sort of result or condemn it? (He condemns it.) God condemns it.

Is this attitude that people have of not conceding defeat in line with the truth? (No.) If we say that this attitude is not in accordance with the truth, and that it is miles apart from the truth, would that statement be correct? No, because that attitude is not connected to the truth at all. In the world and among all humankind, is this attitude of not conceding defeat praised or condemned? (It is praised.) In what environments is it praised? (In the workplace and in schools.) For example, if a student gets sixty percent on an exam, they say, “I will not concede defeat. Next time I will get ninety percent!” And when they get ninety percent, they want to get one hundred percent next time. Eventually they achieve this, and their parents think this child is ambitious and has a bright future. Another environment—and the most common one—is in competitions. Some teams lose a competition and have a mark of shame painted on their faces, but they do not concede defeat. Because of this mentality and attitude of not conceding defeat, they put in a lot of hard work and train harder, and in the next competition they beat the other team and make them look bad. In this society and among humankind, not conceding defeat is a sort of mentality. What is a mentality? (It is a way of thinking that supports people psychologically.) That’s correct. It is a driving force that supports people always moving forward bravely, not being defeated, not getting discouraged, not retreating, and achieving their ideals and goals. This is called not conceding defeat. It is a sort of mentality of not conceding defeat. People think that if they do not have this mentality, this “spirit,” then life has no meaning. What is it they rely on in life? Their life relies on a kind of mentality. Where does this mentality come from? It comes from people’s notions and imaginings, as well as from their corrupt dispositions. It is impractical, and people cannot achieve it. From when God created humankind until now, no matter how many years have passed, there are so many positive things, such as the order according to which living things live, the order according to which humankind lives, and the order according to which the heavens and earth and all things and the universe operate, and so on. According to their thoughts and degree of education, people should be able to find an order to adhere to within all this, to take as a principle and a driving force for how they act and comport themselves, or as a foundation for this. However, people do not apply effort in the right direction—in what direction do they apply their strength? They apply their strength in the wrong direction, that is, they violate the order according to which things develop, and they violate the order according to which all things cycle—they always want to destroy these natural orders that God has ordained, and use human methods and means to create happiness. They don’t know how happiness is gained, what mystery there is within it, or what the source is; they do not look for this source. Instead, they try to use a human approach to create happiness, and always want to create miracles, too. They try to use a human approach to change the normal order of all of these things, and then achieve the happiness and goals they want. All of this is abnormal. What is the ultimate result of people relying on themselves to fight for such things, no matter how they fight? This world that God gave to humankind to manage has now been damaged. Who is the biggest victim, now that it has been damaged? (Man.) Humankind is the biggest victim. People have abused the world to this extent, yet they still claim they will never say die. Isn’t there something wrong with their heads? What is the ultimate consequence that never saying die brings? A catastrophic disaster. It is not just losing a competition or two or having a mark of shame painted on their faces. They have destroyed their prospects and cut off their escape routes—they have destroyed themselves! This is what comes from not conceding defeat.

What we are dissecting now is a typical manifestation of Satan’s vicious disposition and arrogant disposition, which is to never say die. Never saying die is a mentality. We critique it, expose it, and condemn it, but if you condemn it in humankind’s midst, will people accept this? (No.) Why not? (Because people all praise this phrase.) They promote this mentality. If a person does not have a smidgen of the mentality of not conceding defeat and never saying die, others will say they are a weakling. If we do not promote these things, are we weaklings? (No, we are not.) People say, “How are you not a weakling? You don’t live life with any fortitude. What use is it for you to live?” Is this statement true? Let’s dissect it first: What kind of attitude is not conceding defeat? Should people with normal reason have this attitude? Actually, if people have normal reason, they should not have this mindset. It is wrong to have this mindset. A person must face reality in order to be someone who possesses reason. As such, not conceding defeat is evidently lacking in reason; it means there is something not quite right with their head, and this attitude is obviously wrong. For believers in God, accurately speaking, they should not have this mindset because an arrogant disposition is inherent within not conceding defeat. Is it easy for people to accept the truth when they have an arrogant disposition? (No.) This is a problem. If you use an arrogant disposition as a foundation from which to pursue the truth, then what are you pursuing? What you are pursuing is certainly not the truth, because this pursuit is inherently not positive, and what you gain will certainly not be the truth; it will certainly be some sort of “mentality” people have imagined up. If people treat a mentality like this as the truth, then they have strayed from the path. So, if we were to correct a mindset of not conceding defeat, what would we say? We would say that people must face real problems and do things according to the truth principles, that they should not have an attitude of not conceding defeat. If they do not concede defeat, who is it they are not conceding to? (God.) They are not conceding to the truth. More specifically, they are not conceding to the true facts of the matter, they are not conceding that they did something wrong and were revealed, and they are not conceding that they have an arrogant disposition. These things are true. So how can you refute these people? The best way to counter them is by using the thing they find the most embarrassing. What thing in the world today does humankind find the most embarrassing? Science. What has science given humankind? (Disaster.) Science, the thing which humankind praises the most and is the proudest of, has brought unprecedented disaster upon them. Now that you have this clue, how should you refute these people so you can shame them? What do you say, should those who are of Satan’s ilk be shamed? (Yes.) If you don’t shame them, they will always look down on the truth, discriminate against those who believe in God, and think that those who believe in God only believe because they are weaklings. How should you refute them? (By saying: “You are just an ordinary person. What do you have that makes you not need to concede defeat? What makes it okay for you not to concede? Even if some people are scientists, so what? No matter how advanced the scientific technology that they develop is, so what? Can scientists solve all the disasters science has brought upon humankind now?”) This is the right way to refute them. Think about it, is this a good way to refute them? You say, “Humankind has lived until the present day, but people don’t even know who their own ancestors are, so how can they not concede? You don’t even know where you came from, so what have you got to be cocky about? You don’t even acknowledge the God who created you, so how can you not concede defeat? God created people, and this is such a glorious thing, but you do not acknowledge or accept it; instead, you insist on believing and acknowledging that people evolved from beasts. How lowly are you? God is so mighty and noble; He says He is your Creator, but you don’t acknowledge that you are His created being. How base are you?” What will they retort? “People evolved from monkeys, but we are still higher-level animals.” “Are you not still animals and beasts, then? We do not acknowledge that we are animals. We are people, we are humans created by God. God created people and He acknowledges that you are a person, but you do not want to be a person. You insist on denying the fact that God created people. You insist on being a beast. What use is it for you to live? Are you worthy of living?” Is there strength to these words? (Yes.) This is how we refute these people. No matter whether they acknowledge it or not, or accept it or not, these are facts. I will talk about another point. People never concede defeat, they think they are so capable, that they have advanced technology and all kinds of wisdom, but how do they treat nature? They constantly fight with it and always want to subjugate it. They do not understand at all how to follow nature’s order. What did humankind’s management ultimately do to nature? Is all of this not managed by people who are knowledgeable and understand science? Don’t you refuse to concede defeat? Aren’t you a capable person? Don’t you have no need for God’s sovereignty? Humankind and nature have co-existed for thousands of years, yet incredibly, humankind still doesn’t know how to manage nature. Mankind overdevelops, overconsumes, and severely pollutes nature to the point where now natural resources are in increasingly insufficient supply. In addition, neither the water people drink, nor the food they eat, nor the air they breathe are free of poison. When God first created nature, all living things, food, air, and water were clean and free of poison, but after He gave nature to humankind to manage, all of these things were poisoned. It is people themselves who have to “enjoy” these things. So how can people not concede defeat? God created such a beautiful world for humankind and let them manage it, but how did they manage it? Do they know how to manage it? Humankind abused it to the point where it was completely messed up—neither oceans, mountains, land, air, nor even the ozone layer in the sky were spared; they have all been wrecked. Who will ultimately bear the terrible consequences of all this? (People.) It is humankind themselves. People are as stupid as can be, yet they think they are great and do not concede defeat! Why don’t they concede? If humankind is permitted to go on managing things this way, will nature be restored to how it was originally? It never will. If humankind relies on this mentality of not conceding defeat, the world and nature will only become increasingly bad, dire, and dirty under their management. What will the ultimate consequences be? Humankind will die in this environment that they ruined. Then, who can ultimately change all this? God can. If people are capable of doing this, then one of them can step forward and try to change the current state of the world, but is there anyone who dares take on this responsibility? (No.) Then why do people not concede defeat? People can’t even protect the water they drink. Nature wasn’t wrecked by lions or tigers, let alone birds, fish, or insects; rather, it was humans themselves who wrecked and destroyed it. People must ultimately reap what they sow. Is there any way to change things now? It can’t be changed. It can be said with certainty that if God did not come to do all these things, the environment in which all humankind lives would only get worse and worse, and more and more dire; it would not get better. Only God can change all this. Is it okay if humankind does not concede defeat? Can you change this environment? You were given a good environment, but all you can do is wreck it; you do not protect it. What is the food chain of the entire world? Does humankind understand it? No, they don’t. For example, wolves are a vicious animal. If humankind killed all the wolves, they would think they had conquered nature. With this sort of resolve, this sort of morale, and this mentality of rising to a challenge, humankind begins to hunt wolves on a large scale. When they kill off most of the wolves in an area of grasslands, humankind thinks they have conquered nature and conquered the species that is wolves. At the same time, they hang wolf skins in their homes, wear robes made from wolf skin, wear hats made of wolf skin, and put the skins of wolf cubs on the points of their daggers. They take pictures, and tell the whole world, “We conquered this species that was a threat to humankind—wolves!” Isn’t their self-satisfaction a bit premature? With fewer wolves, from the outside it looks like the lives of humans and certain other living things are not threatened, but what consequences will follow? Humankind must pay dearly for this. What price must they pay? When large numbers of wolves are killed, the number of wolves dwindles. Immediately following this, all sorts of rabbits, mice, every other animal in the grasslands that wolves eat begin to proliferate on a huge scale. When there are excessive numbers of these animals, what is the first consequence? (The grass disappears.) There is less and less grass. When there is less grass, there is less and less vegetal ground cover. When there is an excessive number of these animals, they need to eat large amounts of grass, and the rate at which the grass grows is not proportionate to the number of herbivores. When these things are not proportionate, what happens? (Desertification.) Yes, desertification. When land does not have vegetal ground cover, it begins to turn into sand and gradually becomes a sandy area. Most plants do not put down roots or reproduce in sand, so sandy lands quickly grow and expand more and more, and ultimately all the grasslands become a desert. After this, the desert will begin to encroach on areas where people live, and what will be the first feeling people have? Maybe when people see the desert’s area has increased they do not feel scared, but when the day comes when a sandstorm hits, what harm will come to humankind? At first, dust will blow around. Then, when the windy season comes, people will not even be able to open their eyes because the sand is being blown about so much. Their bodies will be covered in sand, and their mouths will be full of it. In extreme cases, houses, livestock, or people near the desert may be engulfed by sand. Can people stop the sand? (No.) They can’t stop it, so they must move, retreating farther and farther inland. In the end, the grasslands will get smaller and smaller, the desert will get bigger and bigger, and there will be fewer and fewer places where humankind can live. So, will the environment in which people live have gotten better or worse? (Worse.) How did this result they have to bear come about? What triggered it? (Killing the wolves.) It began when they killed the wolves. It was a small unremarkable thing like this. If people do not understand how to follow this order, and do not understand how to protect this order, what consequences will ultimately result? People will be wiped out by the sands. Is this not a catastrophic disaster? Killing wolves is a type of behavior, but what disposition is at the heart of it? What is the essence of this disposition? What is their motivation for doing this? What ways of thinking do people have that give rise to this kind of behavior? (Wanting to subjugate nature.) That’s right, they want to subjugate it. People think that wolves are humankind’s natural enemy. Wolves present a threat to humankind and always eat people. Wolves are not a good thing. Humankind vilifies wolves this way, then tries to subjugate them and wipe them out so that there isn’t even one left. Then, humankind can live comfortably and at ease and will not be threatened at all. It is based on this motivation that people start to kill wolves. What is dictating this? It is dictated by a mentality of not conceding defeat. Humankind does not know how to properly manage or standardize the wolves, and instead they always want to kill them and wipe them out. They want to reverse this order and turn it into another one. What is the result? People are engulfed by sand. Isn’t this what results? (Yes.) This is what results. Out of the entire human race and the entire world that God created, in a small corner of the planet—which in God’s eyes might be no bigger than a peanut—this small incident happened, but people can’t even see it clearly. They still compete with nature, compete with God, and do not concede defeat! What consequence does not conceding defeat bring about? (Destruction.) They are bringing about their own destruction! This fact is sitting there right now. After this consequence comes about, how should humankind fix it? (They can’t.) They can’t fix it. Some social organizations and people with good hearts who conduct public interest activities stand up and call for people to maintain a balanced ecosystem. Their motivation and reason for doing it is right, and what they are calling for is right, too. Does anyone respond? (No.) The government does not take action, either—no one heeds this issue. People know the cause of the issue, but after they look into it a bit as spectators, that’s it. They still kill wolves as before. Someone says, “If you keep killing them like this, one day you will be buried in sand,” but they respond, “So I’ll be buried. It’s not like I’ll be the only one. What’s there to be afraid of?” What disposition is this? One of numbness and a lack of thinking; they do not have humanity. Who isn’t afraid of dying? So how could they say such a flippant thing? They don’t believe something like this will happen. They think, “The earth is huge. Besides deserts there are mountains and forests. Could they all be destroyed so quickly? There’s still plenty of time! We just killed a few wolves and some places turned into a desert, and you’re this scared? If they should be killed, then we must kill them.” Isn’t this dumb? They killed some wolves, and after just twenty or thirty years’ time, a stretch of green grassland was completely changed. If people were to scatter some grass seeds on this land or plant plants which are suited to growing in the desert—if they were able to change this environment, then humankind would be making up for their mistakes and it would not be too late, but is it that simple in reality? The order God has put in place is the best and the most fitting. People must follow this order in order to preserve the existence of the land, and so that these animals, plants, and the human race can continue to live on it, with every being getting along particularly well, and coexisting in a way which is both mutually restricting and symbiotic. If one part of it is destroyed, you may not see any consequences within the space of ten years, but after twenty years when you truly get a sense of the consequences, no one will be able to undo it. What does this imply? That if God does not make massive changes, from that point on the environment in which humankind lives will only get worse and worse; it will not develop in a good direction. This is what the consequence will be. What is the source of this consequence? The source is the mentality of not conceding defeat that humankind praises, which is the first manifestation of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall. The way people see it, sleeping on brushwood and licking gall is a “great” and “sacred” saying, but the first effect the idea it produces has on humankind is to bring such major negative consequences upon them. People think, “Isn’t there an order to the natural world? It doesn’t look like much to me. Don’t people say it is holy and should not be destroyed? Well I’m going to destroy it, and we’ll just see what happens!” The negative consequence humankind is “enjoying” today is the last thing they want to see. This is how the consequence of “seeing what happens” comes about; it is laid out in front of humankind for them to see. Everyone has seen the scenes of the “end times.” Didn’t they get what they deserved? They brought this upon themselves.

The first manifestation of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall is not conceding defeat. What consequences must people bear? A catastrophic disaster; they are reaping the negative consequences of their actions—in common parlance they are getting what they asked for, and getting what they deserve! Now you know whether this phrase is actually right, and whether it is the truth, right? Is this phrase the truth? (No.) It’s not the truth. Suppose that nonbelievers say again, “We are people, so we should have some spirit. We should have fortitude!” You mull it over and say, “That’s so true. As believers we always talk about submission. Isn’t that too lacking in autonomy? Isn’t it too weak? We have no fortitude.” Do you think like this? If you accept the things I’ve said today, you would never think this way. On the contrary you would say, “Humankind is a lost cause. No wonder God detests them. Humankind has already passed the point of being reasoned with.” You would not accept that sort of idea. Even if you don’t have a fitting counter-response, or it is not fitting to debate with these people, in your heart you know that their views are absolutely not the truth. No matter how positive people see this sort of idea as being, and no matter how much humans in this world advocate it and talk it up, you will not be influenced by it. On the contrary, you will renounce and scorn it. I have finished fellowshipping on the first manifestation of sleeping on brushwood and licking gall. I started out fellowshipping on the truth, how did I get off topic? What I think is this: If what you take from My fellowship is limited to a definition or concept, you will never understand what the correct and incorrect parts of this idea are. You will just be mixed up—sometimes you will think this sort of idea is right; sometimes you will think this sort of idea is wrong, but you won’t be clear on what is wrong with it or what is right with it. Plus, you will often practice according to this “principle,” and you will always be muddleheaded. If you can’t see clearly, you will not be able to let this sort of idea go. If you cannot let go of it, can you practice the truth absolutely? Can you worship and follow God’s words as the truth absolutely? No, not absolutely. You will only be able to relatively or occasionally think that God’s words are right or that God’s words are always right, and you uphold this in terms of doctrine. But if you are still affected and disturbed by this so-called knowledge, and by these words that seem true but are actually false, then God’s words will always be relatively correct to you, rather than being the absolute truth.