Supplement: Gifts

Before I come to the main topic of this fellowship, let Me tell a story. What kind of story should I tell? If it has no impact on people, or if it does not edify or benefit those who believe in God in terms of life entry and knowing God, then there is no point in telling it. If I’m going to tell a story, that story must in itself be somewhat edifying—it needs to have value and meaning. So have a listen to this story today and see whether it can be edifying and helpful to you. Some stories are true, while others are fabrications borrowing from real events; they are not true, but they are often seen in life, so they are not disconnected from reality. Whether they are fabricated, or they really happened, they are all closely related to people’s lives. So why tell you such stories? (So that we may understand the truth.) That is right: So that you may understand the truth from them—some truths that people have difficulty knowing in real life. Let us use storytelling to bring people’s knowledge of the truth and of God closer to reality and make it easier for them to understand the truth and God.

When I have a lot of contact with people over a long period of time, strange and amusing incidents become inevitable. This one took place in the spring of this year. As winter had faded and spring was approaching, the weather was growing milder and milder, and all kinds of plants had begun to sprout, growing day by day in the sunlight and rain. Some of those plants were wild, and some of them were cultivated; there were those for animal consumption, those for human consumption, and those for both animal and human consumption. It was a springtime scene: a green and vibrant landscape. And this is where the story begins. One day, I was surprised to receive a special gift. What sort of gift? A bag of wild greens. The person who gave it to Me said, “This is shepherd’s purse—it’s edible and good for Your health. You can scramble it with eggs.” Fair enough. I then compared it with the shepherd’s purse I had bought earlier, and no sooner had I done so than there was a problem. Can you guess what it was? I had come across a “mystery.” What mystery? Shepherd’s purse abroad looks different than shepherd’s purse back in China. Is there something wrong here? (Yes, there is.) If it had been the same thing, then it should have looked the same, so what would be the first thing that comes to mind, on discovering it looks different? Is this shepherd’s purse, or isn’t it? I couldn’t be sure. Would I not need to ask that person what was going on? So later, I went and asked him, “Are you sure this is shepherd’s purse?” He pondered this and replied, “Oh, I’m not sure whether it’s shepherd’s purse or not.” If he was not sure, how could he have presented it to Me? Why would he have dared give it to Me? Luckily, I did not just eat it. Two days later, I had become certain it really was not shepherd’s purse. What did that person say? He said, “How did You figure out that it wasn’t shepherd’s purse? I’m not sure, but forget about it: Don’t eat it.” Can such a thing still be eaten? (It cannot.) It cannot be eaten. If I say, “You’re not sure, but I’ll take a chance and eat it, since you’re so kind,” does that work? (It does not.) What is the nature of acting like that? Would it be foolish? (It would.) Yes, this is foolishness. Fortunately, I did not eat it, nor did I look into things any further, so the matter was dropped.

After a time, wild plants of all varieties started growing in the fields: tall and short ones, flowering and non-flowering ones, and plants of every hue and description. They increased in number, growing ever denser and more and more shapely. One day I received another gift bag, but this one was not a bag of shepherd’s purse. Instead, it contained Chinese mugwort, from the same man. He had been kind enough to send another bag, and with it, the instructions, “Try this. It’s Chinese mugwort: It drives away the cold, and You can also eat it with scrambled eggs.” I looked at it: Wasn’t this annual mugwort? Chinese mugwort is found in many parts of China, and its leaves have a special fragrance, but that was not what the man had sent—how could that pass for Chinese mugwort? The leaves are a bit similar, but was it, or wasn’t it? I asked the man who gave it to Me, but he said he didn’t know—by saying this, he passed the buck completely. He even asked, “Why haven’t You eaten any of it yet? Although I’m not sure what it is, You have to eat some. I’ve eaten some, and it’s really tasty.” He was unsure, yet he was urging Me to eat it. What do you all think I should have done? Should I have forced Myself to eat it? (No.) It certainly should not have been eaten, because the person who sent it did not even know what it was. If I had taken a gamble and eaten it to try something new, nothing might have happened, because the person who had eaten it had said it would be fine. But what about a course of action such as thinking it is fine and eating it ignorantly? Is that not to go about things blindly? What kind of person does such things blindly? Only someone who is rough and reckless would do this—someone who thinks, “It doesn’t matter either way; more or less is good enough.” Do you think I should do this? (No.) Why not? There are so many things to eat; why risk eating an unknown plant? In times of famine, when there really is no food left, you can dig up various wild greens to try to eat, and you can take some risks. In situations like these, you could eat an unknown plant. But is this now one of those situations? (It is not.) There are so many things you can eat, so why go digging for wild greens? Is it necessary to take a risk just for some small benefit that is invisible, intangible, and imaginary? (It is not.) So, I decided not to eat it. I did not eat it, fortunately; nor did I look into things any further, and that matter was dropped, as well.

Some time later, the man gave Me yet another gift; this was the third time. The gift this time was quite special: It had not grown from the soil, nor had it fruited on a tree. What was it? Two bird eggs, neatly wrapped up in a paper bag upon which the words “Bird Eggs for God” were written. Funny, right? When I opened the paper bag, I saw that the shells of the two eggs were beautifully colored. I had never seen the likes of them before, so I could not tell what kind of bird had laid them; I thought to look up the information on the internet, but I could not find any leads, because there were many eggs of the same pattern and color, so there was no way to identify them based on size and color. Do any of you think there would have been any use in Me asking that man what kind of bird eggs they were? (No.) Why not? (He would not know, either.) You guessed it; he would not know either. So I did not ask him. If I had, I would have hurt his feelings, and he would have thought, “I’m so well-intentioned and caring, but still You doubt me. Why do You have to look them up on the internet? Since I’m giving them to You to eat, just eat them!” Do you think I should have eaten the eggs, or not? (You shouldn’t.) If he had given them to you, would you have eaten them? (No.) Neither would I. These eggs are for the hatching and reproduction of birds. Would it not be cruel to eat them? (It would.) I could not do that, so the matter of the bird eggs was dropped, but such things continued to happen.

One day, I came across some annual mugwort—which looked like Chinese mugwort—drying on a railing somewhere, so I asked a sister what it was for. “Isn’t this the same kind of Chinese mugwort that that man gave You last time?” she replied. “Chinese mugwort can get rid of dampness and drive away the cold. Aren’t You sensitive to the cold? The man said that, once it was dry, he would save it for You to use in a hot-water foot soak, to expel the cold.” What do you all think My reaction was, upon hearing that? One word. (Speechless.) That is right, I was speechless. In circumstances such as these, should I not have reflected on how caring this person was, and how he had really gone out of his way? How could I have been speechless? It was just that this person had been unperceptive a few times before on these matters and had then changed approach, as if to say, “I gave You greens and eggs to eat, but You didn’t eat them, so I dried out some Chinese mugwort for You for a hot foot soak, so that my efforts wouldn’t be in vain.” Given this spectacle, I really was speechless. Later on, I was telling someone else that many drugstores now stock Chinese mugwort. You can buy as much as you want: It comes in a variety of packaging, is produced by various countries, and is processed hygienically. It is much better than what the man had sent Me, so is it not a wasted effort to pick it at the side of the road and then put it on railings to dry in the sun? If he dries it out and gives it to Me, do you think I want it? (You do not.) I don’t want it. Over time, there was no longer any mugwort on the railings, because what I had said had gotten back to him, and he stopped sending it. Later, when there were more wild greens in the field, they must not have been considered rare anymore, so nobody sent Me wild greens anymore. And I guess the bird eggs probably hatched out in the meantime and could no longer be collected, so right up until now, I have not received any more bird eggs or wild greens. And that was My story.

In total, there were four incidents in the story, all of which were about things being sent to Me: Two were about sending unknown wild greens, one was about sending unknown bird eggs, and another one was about the sun-dried “traditional Chinese medicine.” It may sound a bit ridiculous to talk about these things, but in terms of the incidents themselves, what impressions, if any, do you get, having heard them? Is there anything that you should understand in or take from them, any lessons you should learn? What were you all thinking of when you were listening? Were the things I related directed at any particular person? Certainly not. But then, if they were not directed at any particular person, why am I talking about them? Is it meaningful? Or is it just idle talk? (It is not.) Since you do not consider it idle talk, do you know why I am talking about it? Why did this man do such things? What was the nature of his behavior? What was his motive? What are the problems here? Do they need to be put into context? You will be able to understand the truth if you see through people and the nature of the incidents themselves in context. Do you think the man who did these things had good intentions or bad intentions? (Good intentions.) First of all, one thing is certain: He was well-intentioned. What was wrong with his good intentions? Does doing things with good intentions mean that you are caring? (Not necessarily.) If good intentions are someone’s motive for doing something, then is the impurity of a corrupt disposition necessarily absent? It is not. Then I ask you all, if you are respectful and obedient toward your parents, why would you not send them these things to eat? Or if you like and care about your bosses and leaders, why would you not give them things like these to eat? Why would you not dare to do so? It is because you are afraid that something will go wrong. You are afraid of harming your parents, your leaders, and your bosses, so are you not afraid of harming God? What are your intentions? What does your kindness entail? Are you trying to deceive God? Are you trying to play with Him? Would you dare do such things with God as a spiritual being? Would you have a God-fearing heart if you saw that God’s flesh was that of normal humanity, and instead of dreading Him, you dared do such things? If you did not have a God-fearing heart, then would it truly be caring of you to do such things? That is not caring: It is deceiving and playing with God, and it is extremely daring of you! If you really are a responsible individual, why not eat and taste something yourself first, to make sure nothing is wrong before bringing it to God? If you bring it directly to God without eating and tasting it yourself, is this not to play with God? Do you not feel that you are offending God’s disposition by doing this? Is this something God can forget? Even if you forget it, God will not. When doing something like this, what is going through your mind? You did not taste it, and you have no scientific evidence, yet you dare to give it to God. Is this responsible behavior? If you were to harm God, what responsibility would you bear? Even if the law would not deal with you, God would punish you for eternity. You would not even think this junk good enough to give to the nonbelieving leaders and officials, and you would consider it undignified, so what kind of intentions would you have in giving it to God? Is My worth so little? If you were to give your boss a bag of wild greens, what would he think? “Is that all I’m worth? People give me money and brand-name things, and you give me a handful of weeds?” Would you be capable of going through with it? Certainly not. But if you did go through with it, what would you worry about? The first thing you have to think about is, “What does the boss like? Does he need this thing? If he doesn’t need it, and I still give it to him, will he give me a hard time? Will he bully and torment me at work? If things get serious, will he dismiss me by looking for a pretext and catching me out?” Do you think about any of this? (I do.) If you want to please your boss, what is the first thing you should give him? (Something he likes.) Just giving him something he likes is not enough. If he right now needs a cup, for example, can you spend 10 or 20 RMB to buy one to give him? (No.) You have to give him something gold, something silver, something presentable. Why give him something you would be reluctant to buy for yourself? (To please him.) What is the purpose of pleasing him? First of all, as a minimum, he can take you under his wing, and with the power he wields, he can defend you and make your job and salary stable and secure. At the very least, he will not give you a hard time. So, you will never present him with a bunch of unknown wild greens. Is that not so? (It is.) You cannot even do that to your boss, so why would the man who gave Me the weeds do that to Me? Did he think of the consequences? He certainly did not. And why not? Some would say, “Because You are not going to torment us.” Is it that simple? Because I am not going to give him a hard time, is that it? How is it that he dared give things like this? (He thought his intentions were good.) That is correct—he covered up all his ugliness and wickedness under good intentions, meaning, “I have good intentions toward You, but others don’t! Look at all these wild greens. Who dug them up for You? Wasn’t it me?” What kind of attitude is this? What kind of mentality is this? Are these good intentions in line with humanity? If they are not even in line with humanity, can they be in line with the truth? (They cannot.) They could not be further from the truth! What are these good intentions? Are they truly good intentions? (They are not.) Then what sort of attitude do they involve? What sort of impurities and essences do they contain? Even you young people who have seen little of the world understand that you cannot just give gifts to your boss any which way; you have to think about the consequences. So if a particularly seasoned man in his forties or fifties gives Me such things, in your view, what is the nature of this? Is it worth us discussing here? (It is.) So when all is said and done, what is the nature of this? The man carelessly gave Me some wild greens, asking Me to eat them without himself even knowing what they were. When I said they did not look like that kind of wild greens, he wasted no time in telling Me not to eat them—and that is not all. He sent Me wild greens of another kind to eat. I didn’t eat them, and he said, “Have some, they’re delicious. I’ve tried it.” What kind of attitude is that? (It is disrespectful and irresponsible.) That is right. Do you all feel this attitude? (We do.) Is it well-intentioned? There is nothing well-intentioned here! He got something at random without it even costing anything, and then he put it in a plastic bag and gave it to Me, asking Me to eat it. Even if you were to pick some wild greens to feed the sheep and rabbits, you would still have to ponder, “Can the animals get poisoned if they eat this?” Is that not something you should consider? If you would not be willing to take the risk when feeding the livestock, then how can you just grab any old bunch of wild greens and give them to Me to eat? What kind of disposition is that? What is the nature of the problem? Do you understand? If such a person treats Me like this, how do you think he would treat his subordinates or someone he regards as the average person in the street? It is just casually playing around. What disposition is that? It is wicked and vicious. Can he be considered a good person? (No, he cannot.) He is not considered a good person. To not take people’s bodies and lives seriously, to gamble with them and feel nothing afterward, and to actually have absolutely no pangs of conscience, but be able to do the same thing again and again: this is strange indeed.

At the beginning of the story, I said a few words you may not have paid much attention to. I said that some of those wild greens were for human consumption, some were for animal consumption, and some were for both human and animal consumption. This is a “well-known saying,” and there is a source for it. Do you know where it comes from? It is an allusion to a story. It comes from the man who gave these few gifts in that story. This man was in charge of planting, and he had three types of corn planted. What three types? The type that people eat, the type that animals eat, and the type that both people and animals eat: those three. These three types of corn are quite interesting. Have you heard of them before? You have not, and it was the first time I had heard of them too—as they are a rarity. In the end, because the people who planted them were so irresponsible, the three types of corn got mixed up: The ones for animal consumption were fed to people, while the ones for human consumption were fed to animals. After eating them, everyone complained that the corn was unpalatable, that it did not taste like grain, and that it had a little grassy flavor. What is it that the people who planted the corn did? Because of their irresponsibility in doing their duty, they mixed up what was for human consumption and what was for animal consumption, until no one could tell the two apart, and they had to purchase more seeds and plant them all over again. How do you all think this work was carried out? Do these sorts of people have no principles in their actions? (They do not.) In their actions, do they seek the truth? (They do not.) With this kind of attitude in how they act, being so disrespectful and irresponsible toward everyone, what do people such as these think about believing in God? What is their approach to the truth? In their hearts, how much weight does the truth hold? How significant is God’s identity? Do they know? (They do not.) Should they not know about such major matters? Then why do they not? It has to do with their disposition. What disposition is that? (It is wickedness.) It is wickedness, and it is being averse to the truth. They are not conscious of the nature of what they do, and they never try to ponder or seek, nor do they examine themselves after doing things. Instead, they do whatever they want, thinking that, as long as they have good and correct intentions, they do not need anyone to supervise or criticize them; they think their responsibilities and obligations have been fulfilled. Is that so? Some people say, “We understand the story You’ve told us, but we still don’t understand the bit we’re most concerned about, and that is: What is Your attitude toward this kind of thing happening? What is Your attitude toward the person who does such things? Is it anger, spurning, and repulsion? Or do You like this kind of person?” (It is detestation.) Should this kind of thing not be detested? (It should.) What would you think if this sort of thing happened to you? Suppose a kind person gives you some unknown items over and over again, taking great pains to persuade you, “Eat them, they’re good for your health; eat them, they’ll keep you well-preserved; eat them, they’ll improve your looks and vitality. You could do worse than to listen to me!” What would you think if, upon verification, it turned out that those items were of no value? (If it were me, I would probably not want to bother with this type of person anymore; I would be annoyed with him and speechless—feelings of that sort.) One should detest and be revolted by such people. What else? Should one feel angry, sad, or pained? (There is no point.) There is no point, is there? Are there not people who say, “This person probably did this because he doesn’t understand the truth”? Most people do not understand the truth, yet how many of them are capable of doing such things? Do people not differ from person to person? (They do.) People differ. It is just like when people have dealings with one another: When there is an exchange of material goods, some people seek fairness and reasonableness. Even if these people let the other party take advantage of them a little, it does not matter to them—in this way, their relationship endures; they possess humanity and feel that it is no great hardship to be at a minor disadvantage. Other people lack humanity and always like to take advantage of others: Their dealings with others are purely to take advantage and profit at the expense of others. If they can extract some benefits from you, they will please you and maintain a relationship with you, but if they cannot, then they will kick you away. They show no sincerity toward you; such people have no humanity.

What do you think of the type of people who give gifts like in the story told today? Why do people such as these make gifts of things? Is it a coincidence? If it happened once over the course of many years, it might be a coincidence, but can it still be considered a coincidence if the same thing happens four times within a season? (It cannot.) This behavior of his was not accidental, nor can a disposition of that sort be called a momentary revelation and expression of corruption. Then what was the nature of his behavior? As we said earlier, his behavior was disrespectful, irresponsible, reckless, rash and impulsive, and of an uncivilized disposition. So why did he do it? Why did he give those things to no one else, but only to Me? My different identity and status qualified Me to receive these gifts. Does that make the intention of the man who gave the gifts and the nature of what he did apparent? What was his objective? (To ingratiate himself.) That is right. What is the most accurate word to describe this ingratiation of his? It is a cheap trick: ingratiation and opportunism. It is a clever way of ingratiating himself with you, luring you into the hole he has dug without you realizing it, and giving you a good feeling about him, when in fact he is not genuine in the least—he wants to achieve his own objectives without paying any price. He did this without any detailed consideration of the consequences and just gave you something that he picked up for free, making you feel he is caring, and lulling you into a state of happiness. What does this really mean? It means that, without even spending a penny, he has made you feel like you have greatly benefited at his expense, which is obviously taking you for a fool. Is that not what it means? He is thinking to himself, “I’m not spending a penny, and I’m not going out of my way; I have no sincerity for You. I’ll just give You something to remember me by, so that You’ll think me kind, caring, and loyal, and that I have love for You in my heart.” Getting you to mistakenly believe that this is what he is like is a cheap trick, and it is also opportunism. Using the cheapest so-called kindness for the greatest benefit and greatest advantage without paying any price or having any sincerity is a cheap trick. Would any of you do this? Everyone does—it is just that you have not done the same thing that he did, but you would do it if you had the opportunity. That is the first thing I have concluded when dealing with these types of people, namely that they are very good at cheap tricks. It is not God they believe in; what they follow is someone who they think will benefit them, bless them, and who is worth following. This one incident completely exposed this type of person’s faith and the truth of what they are really like. Such people’s understanding of love, loyalty, and submission to God is too simplistic, and they want to use the method of a cheap trick to gain God’s approval and receive blessings. Are they sincere toward God? Are they God-fearing in any way? (They are not.) Then other things are even more out of the question. That is the first thing I have concluded. In your view, am I right? (You are.) Am I unfairly labeling him? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Absolutely not. Going by his essence, it is much more serious than that. At the very least, he is deceiving and playing with God.

The second thing I have concluded is what can be seen from such people. The human heart is dreadful! Tell Me, what is this horror? Why do I say that the human heart is dreadful? (This person ingratiates himself with God in order to satisfy his intention and desire to gain blessings, and then he is irresponsible and does not consider what will happen to God’s body after He eats these things or what the consequences will be. He will always consider the consequences of whatever he gives his own family to eat, but when he gives something to God, he does not consider the consequences at all. He does so entirely to achieve his own ends by ingratiating himself with God by fair means or foul; one can see that he is particularly selfish and despicable, that he does not have any place for God in his heart, and that he does not treat God as God.) By implication, does that not mean not treating Me like a human being? Can it be put that way? (It can.) What dreadful intentions! (Yes, he would not deceive God, even if he were to treat God as his own relative.) That really is dreadful. If someone was your friend, would they treat you like that? They would not. They would tell you what is good to eat, and if there were side effects to eating something, they would strenuously discourage you from eating it; that is something even friends can do. But can this person do that? No. Since he did such a thing to Me, he would certainly do it to you. What other horrors are there about him? (He is deeply calculating. He covers it up with a surface warmheartedness, but on the inside, he is plotting away, trying to extract the greatest benefit from the cheapest thing he can, and it feels dreadful.) It is good to see it that way. What you referred to earlier is his selfish side, while this refers to his scheming. Just going by what you all have said, where do these things come from that are deep within a person, these things that are revealed from their humanity, the things that they are able or unable to touch, and that others may be able to see or unable to see or interpret? Are they taught by one’s parents? Are they taught at school? Or are they nurtured by society? How do they come about? One thing is certain: They are something innate. Why do I say that? What are innate things related to? They are related to one’s nature essence. So, for him to think this way, was it a lengthy premeditation, or a sudden whim? Was he inspired by something he saw someone else do, or did he need to do it under certain circumstances? Or did I instruct him to do so? None of these. Although these small things may outwardly appear to be ordinary, the nature underlying each of these things is extraordinary. Was the person who did these things able to realize the consequences of doing them? He was not. Why not? Suppose you buy a cheap item at a street stall to give to your boss. Before giving it, do you not have to evaluate matters and ask yourself, “Can the boss find this item at the street stall? Can he go online and find out how much it costs? Can anyone reveal to him how much it costs? What will he think of me once he’s seen it?” Are these not things that you would have to evaluate? You would evaluate it first and buy it afterward. If, after evaluating it, you felt that making a gift of this item would have unfavorable consequences, would you still give it away? You certainly would not. If you thought that it would be inexpensive to give this item to your boss, and it would make your boss happy, then you would certainly give it away. But this man in the story did not evaluate any of these things, so what was he thinking? All he was thinking was that this was the only way to achieve his intentions. Now by analyzing it, the nature of this matter emerges. What can be seen through the nature of this matter? The second result seen in people through contact with them is that their hearts are dreadful. Can a conclusion be drawn about the corrupt disposition that such people reveal, whether it is intentional or involuntary? What causes the human heart to be so dreadful? Is it that it is too insensitive? An insensitive person is one who lacks perception. Would it be accurate to describe them as insensitive? (It would not.) So, is it because of ignorance? (It is not.) Then what should the cause ultimately be attributed to? It should be attributed to people’s wicked dispositions. I have to tell you wherein lies the horror of people: It is in the fact that demons dwell in their hearts. How do you all feel about that? Why do I say that demons dwell in the hearts of people? What is your understanding? Do you not think this is a dreadful statement? Are you not frightened when you hear it? You did not think that demons dwelled in your hearts before; you just thought you had a corrupt disposition but did not know that demons dwelled in you. Now you know. Is this not a serious problem? Do you think I have got it right? (You do.) Does this not get to the root of the problem? (It does.) Ponder over why I said that demons dwell in the hearts of people. Think about it: Would a person of conscience and reason deceive God in this way? Is this submission to God? This is to resist God with eyes wide open and not treat Him like God at all. Now that God has come to earth to save mankind, what is the relationship between man and God? Is it one of superior and subordinate? Friendship? Kin? What kind of relationship really is it? How do you handle and approach this relationship? What kind of mindset should you possess when engaging with and getting along with God? What should you keep in your heart to get along with God? (Fear.) Fear seems to be unrealistic for everyone. (Dread.) Dread cannot be achieved. If you treat Me as an ordinary person—just as an acquaintance, not understanding each other too well and not enough to be friends yet—then how can the relationship between us be harmonious and friendly? A person with a sense of conscience should know how to do such things appropriately. (There needs to be respect.) This is the bare minimum you should have. Suppose two people meet: They are not yet familiar with each other and do not know each other’s names. If one of them sees that the other one is guileless and wants to play around with him, is this not playing the bully? If there is not even a minimum of respect, is there any humanity left? For people to get along with each other, no matter what disputes or conflicts may arise, they must at least respect one another. Respect is the elementary common sense of what it means to be human, and there is a minimum of respect between all human beings. So, does this respect exist when people interact with God? If you cannot even get to this point, then in your mind, what really is the relationship between God and you? There is no relationship at all, then—not even that of an outsider. Therefore, the person who gave the gifts was able to treat God in this way: Not only did he not respect God, but he also wanted to deceive Him. In his heart, he did not feel that God should be respected, or that careful and meticulous consideration should be given to His health and to the consequences of His eating the gifts—these were not within the scope of his considerations. It was good enough for him merely to employ tricks to dupe God into favoring him; the best thing for him was to be able to deceive God. That was his heart. Is it not terrible for man to have such a heart? It is dreadful!