Supplement: What the Truth Is

Today we will continue fellowshipping on the content from last time. What was the topic that we fellowshipped on last time? (“Sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” is not the truth.) So did you use to think that it was the truth? People used to subconsciously think that it was the truth, or at the very least, that it was fairly positive, inspirational, and could potentially encourage people to be proactive and upward-looking. Looking at it from this level of meaning, people thought that it was fairly close to the truth and fairly close to positive things. Therefore, many people subconsciously believed that this saying “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” was a fairly positive expression, or at the very least, that it had positive rather than negative connotations, and had a role in assisting people’s lives and comportment. But after fellowshipping on it, we saw that it’s nothing of the sort, and that there are major problems with it. Have you looked further for expressions that are similar or related to this expression, or that have a similar role, and that people subconsciously think are fairly positive or fairly good, and dissected them? (No.) Tell Me, is the expression “Drawing many inferences from one instance” appropriate here? (Yes.) It should be said that this expression has practical applications when it comes to seeking the truth and practicing the truth. Last time we fellowshipped about “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall.” What other expressions of a similar type are there? What other expressions have roughly the same meaning, or can play the same role? There is no harm in you dissecting expressions like “sleeping on brushwood and licking gall” according to My way, fellowshipping on them with each other, and gaining some new understandings. When you are able to see through their fallaciousness, you’ll discard such expressions and thereafter take the road of practicing the truth and pursuing the truth based completely on God’s words.

Let us continue the topic that we fellowshipped on the previous two times. What topic was that? (What the truth is.) That’s right, what the truth is. So what exactly is the truth? (The truth is the criterion for man’s comportment, actions, and worship of God.) It seems that you have memorized this sentence in terms of theory and definition. So, following our previous two fellowships, is there any difference in your definition, knowledge, and comprehension of the truth deep in your hearts now, compared with before? (Yes, there is.) What exactly is this difference? Although in the short term you may not have the knowledge of real experience, at the very least you have some perceptual knowledge. Tell Me based on your own experience, knowledge, and understanding. (I previously knew that I must practice according to the truth of God’s words whenever matters befall me, but I could never put it into practice. It’s like, I usually have a tendency to reveal impetuousness, and although I know from God’s words that it’s wrong to reveal impetuousness, and I know God’s requirements for people, I still do it, and I’ve never been able to find the root cause. Only after listening to God’s fellowship last time did I realize that, oftentimes, people reveal corruption because they are controlled by satanic thoughts, and that I reveal impetuousness because within me there is the satanic logic that “I will not attack unless I am attacked; if I am attacked, I will certainly counterattack.” I think this saying is right, and that I act this way as a means of self-defense. Influenced by this satanic thinking and view, I am incapable of practicing the truth. But actually, although these satanic things outwardly appear to be right, in reality the meanings they convey run counter to what God’s words require, and they are wrong. Only God’s words are the truth, and only acting in accordance with God’s words is completely correct.) Really good. Who can add anything to that? (I would like to add something. I previously also knew that I must seek and practice the truth whenever matters befall me, but I was still a little confused about how to practice. Having listened to God’s fellowship, I feel that the truth is very realistic and relates to every aspect of life. Take some of the examples mentioned by God. Chinese people also learn to drink coffee after arriving in Western countries. This is not a problem with the way one acts, but a problem of people’s thoughts and views, and this relates to the truth. Also, following God’s dissection of some common sayings and idioms that people think are right, I have come to think that I should reflect on my own behaviors and practices that seem to be correct, and on the intentions, thoughts, and views behind these behaviors, and on what exactly I am living out by relying on these things. I now feel more specific about how to seek and practice the truth whenever matters befall me, and it is not so abstract anymore.) It seems that through these two fellowships, most people have gained a basic understanding of what the truth is and of some topics that relate to the truth and that, from the bottom of their hearts, they have already begun to reflect on whether their conduct and actions relate to the truth, as well as on exactly which of the things they adhere to and hear in their belief in God are the truth and which are not the truth, and whether the things that they think are right are actually the truth, and what the relationship of such things to the truth is. After reflecting, people can then determine what exactly is the truth, as well as precisely which things are the truth, and which things aren’t the truth. After listening to sermons for so many years and eating and drinking God’s words for so many years, most people have gained some things and can clearly see one fact: God’s words are indeed the truth, God’s requirements are the truth, and everything that comes from God is the truth. People who truly believe in God have already acknowledged and accepted this fact from the heart, but in real life they may often unconsciously say things that have nothing to do with the truth or that run counter to the truth. Some even treat things that people think are right and good as the truth, and in particular have not discerned the specious fallacies and devilish words that come from Satan, which they have not only long since accepted in their hearts, but even treat as positive things. For example, many satanic philosophies such as “A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye,” “Here’s a taste of your own medicine,” “Sensible people are good at self-protection, seeking only to avoid making mistakes,” and “I will not attack unless I am attacked,” and so on, are regarded by people as the truth and as mottos for life, and people even feel especially pleased with themselves for upholding these satanic philosophies, and not until after reading God’s words do they realize that these things from Satan are not actually the truth, but rather specious heresies and fallacies that mislead people. Where do these things come from? Some come from school education and are from textbooks, some come from family education, and some come from social conditioning. In short, they all come from traditional culture and originate from Satan’s education. Do these things have anything to do with truth? They have nothing at all to do with it. But people cannot discern these things for what they are, and still consider them as the truth. Has this problem become too serious? What are the consequences of considering these things from Satan as the truth? Can people cast off their corrupt dispositions by adhering to these things? Can people manage to live out normal humanity by adhering to them? Can people live according to conscience and reason by adhering to them? Can they rise to the standards of conscience and reason by adhering to them? Can people gain God’s approval by adhering to them? They cannot do any of this. Since they cannot do any of this, are these things that people adhere to the truth? Can they serve as a person’s life? What are the consequences of people considering these negative things—such as what they think are right and good philosophies for worldly dealings, survival strategies, laws of survival, and even traditional culture—as the truth and adhering to them? Humankind has been adhering to these things for thousands of years. Have they changed at all? Has the current situation of humankind changed at all? Isn’t the corrupt human race becoming more and more wicked and more and more resistant to God? God expresses many truths every time He does His work, and people can see that these truths have authority and power, so how is it that humans are still able to deny and resist God? Why can they still not accept and submit to God? This is sufficient to show that humankind has been too deeply corrupted by Satan, that corrupted humankind is full of satanic dispositions, averse to the truth, hates it, and does not accept it at all. The root of this problem is that human beings have accepted too many satanic philosophies and too much satanic knowledge. Deep down in their hearts, people have been saturated by all manner of satanic thoughts and views, and thus they have developed a disposition of being averse to the truth and hating the truth. We can see from very many people who believe in God that, though they acknowledge that God’s words have authority and power, they do not accept the truth. That is to say, when people eat and drink God’s words, although they admit with their mouths that “God’s words are the truth, there is nothing above the truth, the truth is in our hearts, and we take pursuing the truth as the aim of existence,” in real life they still live by well-known satanic sayings and satanic philosophies, and put God’s words and the truth aside, and adhere to and practice things such as human theological knowledge and spiritual doctrine as if they were the truth. Is this the real state of most people who believe in God? (Yes.) If you continue to adhere in this way and do not dissect and understand these deep-rooted things from satanic traditional culture based on God’s words, and if you cannot discern them at the root, or gain a thorough understanding of them, or abandon them, what will be the result? There is one result that is certain, which is that people believe in God for many years and yet do not know what the truth is or what path to take, and ultimately they all have a set of spiritual doctrines and theological theories on their tongues, and everything they say sounds nice and is all doctrine that accords with the truth. But in fact, these people are archetypes of hypocritical Pharisees in terms of what they practice and live out. What are the consequences of this? Unquestionably, they are condemned by God and cursed by Him. Those who believe in God but do not accept the truth are Pharisees and can never gain God’s approval.

For example, on the issue of educating children, some fathers see their children being disobedient and not attending to their proper duties, and say: “The ancients got it right when they said, ‘To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.’” Such fathers don’t treat this matter based on God’s words. They only have the words of people in their hearts, rather than the words of God. So do they have the truth reality? No, they don’t. Although they believe in God and understand some truths, and should know that they must use the truth to educate their children in order to fulfill their paternal responsibilities, they do not practice in this way. When they see their children going down the wrong path, they sigh and say, “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.” What sort of expression is this? Whose well-known saying is it? (Satan’s well-known saying.) Has God ever said this expression? (No.) So where does this expression come from? (Satan.) It comes from Satan, from this world. People “pursue” the truth so much, and “love” the truth so much, and “exalt” the truth so much, then why do they say satanic expressions like this when such matters befall them? They even feel that it is a just and dignified thing to say. They say, “Look at how much reverence and esteem I have for the truth and for God. It comes naturally for me to say ‘To feed without teaching is the father’s fault’—what a great truth this is! Could I say this expression if I didn’t believe in God?” Is that not passing it off as the truth? (Yes.) So is this expression the truth? (No.) What sort of expression is “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault”? In what way is it wrong? What this expression means is that if children are disobedient or immature, it is the father’s responsibility, which is to say that the parents didn’t educate them well. But is this actually the case? (No.) Some parents comport themselves in a proper manner, and yet their sons are hoodlums and their daughters are prostitutes. The man playing the father’s role gets so angry and says: “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault. I have spoiled them!” Is this the right thing to say or not? (No, it’s wrong.) In what way is it wrong? If you can understand what is wrong with this expression, it proves that you understand the truth and that you understand what is wrong about the problem that lies within this expression. If you do not understand the truth in this matter, then you cannot explain this matter clearly. Now that you have listened to the explanation and definition of the truth, you can feel and say that: “This expression is wrong, this is a worldly expression. We who believe in God don’t say things like that.” You have merely changed the way that you talk about this matter. It doesn’t mean that you understand the truth—in fact, you don’t know what is wrong with the expression “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.” When faced with matters like this, what should you say that is consistent with the truth? How should you act according to the truth principles? Let’s first talk about how to understand and explain such matters correctly. What does God say about this? Do God’s words have anything specific to say about such matters? God has expressed so many truths, all so that people accept them and make them their life. So when educating their children, shouldn’t people use God’s words to teach them? God’s words are spoken to all humankind. Whether you are an adult or child, man or woman, old or young, everyone should accept God’s words. Only God’s words are the truth and can become people’s life. Only God’s words can lead people onto the right path in life. People who believe in God should be able to gain a thorough understanding of this matter. How do you explain the expression “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault”? (The path a person takes is determined by their nature essence. In addition, the punishment they will be subjected to or the blessings they will receive in this life are connected to their previous life. Therefore, the statement “If children don’t follow the right path, it is because their parents didn’t educate them well” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and completely denies the fact that God holds sovereignty over the destiny of humankind.) According to what you say, does children not following the right path have anything to do with God’s sovereignty? God allows people to make their own choices and to choose to take the right path. However, people have satanic natures, and all make their own choices, and all choose their own preferred path, and are unwilling to submit to God’s sovereignty. If what you say accords with the truth, then you should explain it clearly so that people can be convinced of it.

Next we will fellowship on the expression “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.” The first thing to make clear is that it’s wrong to say, “Children’s failure to follow the right path is to do with their parents.” Whoever it is, if they are a certain kind of person, they will walk a certain path. Is this not certain? (Yes.) The path a person takes determines what they are. The path they take and the kind of person they become are up to them. These are things that are predestined, innate, and are to do with the person’s nature. So what’s the use of parental education? Can it govern a person’s nature? (No.) Parental education cannot govern human nature and cannot solve the problem of which path a person takes. What is the only education that parents can provide? Some simple behaviors in their children’s daily life, some fairly superficial thoughts and rules of comportment—these are things that have something to do with parents. Before their children reach adulthood, parents should fulfill their due responsibility, which is to educate their children to follow the right path, study hard, and strive to be able to rise above the rest after they grow up, not to do bad things or to become bad people. Parents should also regulate their children’s behavior, teach them to be polite and to greet their elders whenever they see them, and teach them other things relating to behavior—this is the responsibility that parents ought to fulfill. Taking care of their child’s life and educating them with some basic rules of comportment—that is what parental influence amounts to. As for their child’s personality, parents cannot teach this. Some parents are laid-back and do everything at a leisurely pace, whereas their children are very impatient and can’t stay still even for a short while. They go off on their own to make a living when they are 14 or 15 years old, they make their own decisions in everything, they don’t need their parents, and they are very independent. Is this taught by their parents? No. Therefore, a person’s personality, disposition, and even their essence, as well as the path they choose in the future, have nothing whatsoever to do with their parents. There are some who refute this by saying, “So how can it have nothing whatsoever to do with them? Some people come from a scholarly family or a family with generations of expertise in a particular vocation. For example, one generation studies painting, the next generation also studies painting, and so does the following generation. This confirms the correctness of the expression ‘To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.’” Is it right or wrong to say this? (It’s wrong.) It’s wrong and inaccurate to use this example to illustrate this problem, because they are two different things. The influence of a family with generations of expertise only extends to one aspect of expertise, and it may be that this family environment results in everyone learning the same thing. On the surface of it, the child also chooses this same thing, but at the root of it, this is all God’s preordination. How did the person get reincarnated into this family? Isn’t that also something that God has sovereignty over? Parents are only responsible for raising their children to adulthood. Children are only influenced by their parents in terms of their outward behavior and lifestyle habits. But once they are grown up, the goals they pursue in life and their destiny in life have nothing whatsoever to do with their parents. Some parents are just ordinary farmers who live life according to their station, but their children are able to become officials and do great things. Then there are children whose parents are a lawyer and a doctor, each of them capable, and yet the children are good-for-nothings who can’t get a job no matter where they go. Is this what their parents taught them to be? When the father is a lawyer, is he likely to stint on educating and influencing his children? Absolutely not. No father says, “I’ve been so prosperous in my life, I hope my children won’t be as prosperous as me in future, that would be too tiring. It’s enough for them to just be cowherds in future.” He must surely educate his children to learn from him and be like him in future. What will happen to his children after he finishes educating them? The children will become whatever they are meant to become, and their destinies will be whatever they’re meant to be, and no one can change that. What fact do you perceive here? The path a child takes has nothing whatsoever to do with their parents. Some parents believe in God and educate their children to believe in God, but whatever they say, their children do not believe, and there is nothing the parents can do about it. Some parents don’t believe in God, whereas their children believe in God. Once their children start believing in God, they follow Him, expend themselves for Him, are able to accept the truth, and gain God’s approval, and their destiny thus changes. Is this the result of parental education? Not at all, it has to do with God’s predestination and selection. There is a problem with the expression “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault.” Although parents have a responsibility to educate their children, a child’s destiny is not determined by their parents, but by the child’s nature. Can education resolve the problem of a child’s nature? It cannot resolve it at all. The path a person takes in life is not determined by their parents, but is preordained by God. It is said that “Man’s fate is determined by Heaven,” and this saying is summed up by human experience. Before a person reaches adulthood, you cannot tell what path they will take. Once they become an adult, and have thoughts and can reflect on problems, they will choose what to do out in the wider community. Some people say they want to be senior officials, others say they want to be lawyers, and still others say they want to be writers. Everyone has their own choices and their own ideas. No one says, “I’ll just wait for my parents to educate me. I’ll become whatever my parents educate me to become.” No one is as foolish as this. After reaching adulthood, people’s ideas begin to stir and gradually mature, and thus the path and goals ahead of them become increasingly clear. At this time, little by little it becomes obvious and apparent what type of person they are, and which group they are part of. From this point onward, each person’s personality gradually becomes clearly defined, as does their disposition, as well as the path they are pursuing, their direction in life, and the group they belong to. What is all this based upon? Ultimately, this is what God has preordained—it has nothing to do with one’s parents. Do you see this clearly now? So, what things have anything to do with parents? One’s appearance, height, genes, and some family diseases have a small amount to do with one’s parents. Why do I say a small amount? Because it’s not so in 100% of cases. In some families, each generation is afflicted by a disease, but then one child is born without it. How can this be? There are some who say: “That’s because this child is of good personality.” This is people’s opinion, but where does the matter originate from? (God’s preordination.) That’s exactly the case. So is the expression “To feed without teaching is the father’s fault” actually right or wrong? (It’s wrong.) You are clear about that now, right? It won’t do if you don’t know how to discern. Without the truth, you cannot see any matter clearly.

In daily life, each person has quite a few of these specious views from Satan in their mind. They remain deposited and stored up inside, and are revealed whenever something happens. Some people say: “A good man doesn’t fight women. Look how noble I am. I’m a manly, virile man, whereas you’re a shrinking violet, so I won’t fight with you.” What do they treat this expression as? (The truth.) They treat it as the truth and as a principle for practicing the truth. There are also people who see someone with really handsome features and who looks like an upstanding gentleman, but who is sneaky and always disguising himself, and who is especially deceitful and insidious when interacting with others, and many people cannot figure him out, so they say: “I believe in God just in order to comport myself as an upright and kind-hearted person, and be friendly to others, rather than hostile. It’s like the saying goes, ‘Better to be a true villain than a fake gentleman.’ Some of God’s words also have this meaning.” What do you think about what these people say? “Better to be a true villain than a fake gentleman.” You see, as soon as something happens to people, all these common sayings, proverbs, and idioms that are inside them come out and pour forth all at once, and there isn’t a word of truth. In the end, those people even say, “Thank God for enlightening me.” Is the saying “Better to be a true villain than a fake gentleman” right or wrong? (It’s wrong.) You all know it’s wrong, but what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with fake gentlemen is that they are fake. No one wishes to be a fake gentleman, they wish to be a true villain. What is it about true villains that people approve of? It’s just because they are genuine that they win everyone’s approval, even though they are villains. So what do you wish to be, a true villain or a fake gentleman? (Neither.) Why not be these two types of people? (Neither of them accords with the truth, there is nothing said about this in God’s words.) Can you find the relevant basis for claiming that God has not told people to be fake gentlemen or true villains? (God wants people to be honest people.) God wants people to be honest people. What, then, is the difference between honest people and true villains? The word “villains” is not good, but they are pretty genuine. Why are true villains not good? Can you explain clearly? What is the basis for claiming that neither true villains nor fake gentlemen are good people? What are villains? What word is usually associated with villains? (Despicable.) That’s right. How is this term “despicable” described and defined in God’s words? In God’s words, is “despicable” defined as a good word or a bad word? (A bad word.) A bad word, one that is condemned by God. People with despicable conduct and despicable views are villains. How else is a villain’s disposition and essence defined? Selfish, is it not? (Yes.) This kind of person is selfish and despicable. Even if what they reveal is genuine and is their true temperament, they are still very much a villain. A fake gentleman is deceitful and wicked, and always disguising himself and giving others a false impression, letting others see his bright, shiny, and friendly side. He keeps his true disposition, opinions, and views under wraps so that no one can see or comprehend them. What disposition do such people have? (Deceitful and wicked.) They are simply wicked people. Thus, neither villains nor gentlemen are good people. One is bad on the inside and the other is bad on the outside. Their dispositions are actually the same—they are both extremely wicked, selfish, and deceitful. Do these two types of extremely wicked and deceitful people seek to be honest people? (No.) That is why, no matter which of these two types of people you become, you are not the good or honest person that God requires. You are a person that God loathes, and you are not the person that God requires you to be. So tell Me, is the expression “Better to be a true villain than a fake gentleman” the truth? (No.) Looking at it from this point of view, this expression is not the truth. Many people, with the aim of attacking and condemning fake gentlemen so that they can pass themselves off as good people, say “Better to be a true villain than a fake gentleman,” as if the “villainy” of these villains makes them especially just and genuine, like some force of justice. How can you, as a villain, claim to be just? You are the one who deserves to be condemned.

In everyone’s mind, there are quite a few expressions and things of this type, and so numerous people hold this type of view. Whether it be traditional culture, folk proverbs, family mottos, family rules, or a country’s legal system, people often use these things that have been circulated for a long time and widely in society, and that have even been proclaimed and promoted as positive things in society and among humankind for a long time, to educate generation after generation of people. Some expressions are regarded deep down in people’s hearts as principles of practice and principles of human existence. Some are expressions which convey a point of view that people only agree with, but don’t necessarily wish to implement. Whether you wish to implement them or not, deep down in your heart, you actually take these expressions as principles of practice for your comportment. In short, these things are a great hindrance to people’s belief in God and pursuit of the truth. They only do harm, rather than benefit people. For example, a topic often talked about by modern people is “Life is precious; love even more so. For the sake of freedom, however, I would give both away.” This expression is a well-known saying advocated and revered by people in the East and West who have lofty ideals and who pursue freedom and want to get rid of the traditional feudal system. What is the focus of people’s pursuit here? Is it life? Or love? (No, it’s freedom.) That’s right, it’s freedom. So is this expression the truth? The meaning of this expression is that in order to pursue freedom, life can be thrown away, and love can also be given up—that is, the person you love can also be abandoned—so as to run toward that beautiful freedom. What does this freedom look like to worldly people? How to explain this thing that they think of as freedom? Breaking through tradition is a kind of freedom, breaking through old customs is a kind of freedom, and breaking through the feudal monarchy is also a kind of freedom. What else? (Not being controlled by some political regime.) Another is not being controlled by power or politics. What they pursue is this kind of freedom. So is the freedom they speak of true freedom? (No.) Does it have similarities to the freedom that people who believe in God talk about? (No.) Some people who believe in God may also have this view in their hearts: “Believing in God is wonderful, it frees and liberates you. You don’t have to follow any customs or traditional formalities, you don’t have to worry about organizing or attending weddings and funerals, you let go of all worldly things. You truly are so free!” Is that the case? (No.) So what exactly is freedom? Are you free now? (A little bit.) So how did you get this little bit of freedom? What does this freedom mean? (Understanding the truth and breaking through Satan’s dark influence.) After breaking through Satan’s dark influence, you feel a little bit of a release and some degree of freedom. However, if I didn’t dissect it, you would think that you are truly free, whereas in fact you are not. True freedom is not the kind of freedom and release of the body in spatial and material terms that people think it is. Rather, it is that, once people understand the truth, they will have correct views about various people, events, things, and about the world, and can pursue the correct goals and direction in life, and when people are not subject to the constraints of Satan’s influence and satanic ideas and views, their heart is released—this is true freedom.

There is a young person, a nonbeliever, who thinks that he likes freedom, flying all over the place like a bird, and living an uninhibited life, so he despises those lousy rules and sayings in his family. He often tells his friends: “Although I was born into a most traditional family, and a very large one, with a whole lot of rules and traditions, and which even now still has an ancestral shrine with memorial tablets arranged inside it for each successive generation, I myself have broken through these traditions and am not influenced by these family rules, family conventions, and common customs. Don’t you see that I am a highly untraditional person?” His friends say: “We’ve noticed that you are highly untraditional.” How did they notice that? He has a tongue piercing, a nose ring, four or five piercings in both ears, a navel piercing, and a snake tattoo on his arm. Chinese people consider snakes to be inauspicious, but he insisted on having one tattooed on his body, and people are afraid when they see it. This is untraditional, is it not? (Yes.) It is very untraditional, and what’s more, he also speaks with the air of an avant-garde person. Everyone who sees him says, “This guy is awesome! He’s untraditional, truly untraditional!” He believes that he cannot just express being untraditional in these ways, but must make it a bit more tangible and make people more able to notice the signs of how untraditional he is. He sees that others generally have yellow-skinned, Chinese girlfriends and deliberately gets himself a foreign, white girlfriend so that everyone is more convinced that he really is untraditional. Afterward, he mimics his girlfriend in every situation, doing whatever his girlfriend says, however she asks him to do it. When his birthday comes around, his girlfriend buys him a mystery gift packaged in a big box, and he delightedly starts unwrapping the gift. After peeling back all the layers of wrapping, he sees a green hat inside. All Chinese people know the allusion of “green hats,” don’t they? This is certainly a very traditional thing. As soon as he sees it, he becomes angry and says, “What kind of gift is this? Who did you buy this gift for?” His girlfriend thought he would be happy—how come he’s so angry about it? She can’t think of why and can’t work it out, so she says: “This green hat wasn’t easy to find. I guarantee it’ll look good on you.” He says, “Do you know what this hat represents?” The girlfriend says: “Isn’t it just a hat? Green hats just look nice.” And she insists on making him wear it. He won’t wear it no matter what. Do Westerners know the allusion of “green hats”? (No, they don’t.) So shouldn’t this matter be explained clearly and laid bare? None of you can answer that—why don’t you dare to explain it clearly? This is not a big deal, surely? You are just like this guy—waving the banner of being untraditional, and of letting go of tradition and casting off the notions of satanic traditional culture to pursue truth and freedom, and yet you are deeply caught up on this green hat. That young guy’s girlfriend asks him to wear it, and he won’t wear it no matter what, in the end saying: “You insist on making me wear it. If I wear it, I have to suffer humiliation from others!” This is the crux of the issue and where the problem lies—this is tradition. This tradition is not about what color something is or what kind of thing it is, but rather, it is about the symbol and view that this thing evokes in people. What exactly does this thing—a green hat—symbolize? What does it represent? People label hats of this color as bad, so they reject hats that are this color. Why do people reject them? Why can’t they accept such a thing? Because there is a kind of traditional thinking inside them. This traditional thinking itself is not the truth; it is like a material thing, but this society and this race of people have imperceptibly turned it into something negative. For example, people turn white into a symbol of holiness, black into a symbol of darkness and wickedness, and red into a symbol of festivity, bloodiness, and passion. In the past, Chinese people wore red clothes when they got married, believing it was festive. When Westerners get married, they wear white clothes that are beautiful and clean, symbolizing holiness. The two cultures’ understandings of marriage are different. In one, it is represented by red and in the other, it is represented by white. Both of these colors represent an attitude of blessing toward marriage. Various ethnic groups and races use the same things for different purposes, and this is how their cultural backgrounds come into being. After these cultural backgrounds arise, cultural traditions are generated along with them. In this way, different societies and different races develop different customs, and such customs influence the people of these respective races. Thus, Chinese people are influenced by this allusion of green hats. What kind of result is produced from this being instilled into them? Men cannot wear green hats, and women don’t wear them either. Do you see any women wearing them? In fact, this cultural tradition is only aimed at men, meaning that men wearing green hats is a bad sign, and it is not related to women. However, once this cultural tradition comes into being, in whatever context it arises, it engenders a kind of discrimination toward this thing by every person of this race. After such discrimination occurs, this thing unconsciously changes from a very innocent, material thing to a negative thing. In actuality, it is innocent and has no positive or negative attributes at all. It is just a material thing, a color, and an object with a shape. However, after being interpreted and influenced by traditional culture in this way, what does the final result become? (Negative.) It becomes negative. After it becomes negative, people cannot treat or use this thing properly. Think about it—there are hats of various colors on the Chinese market, such as red, pink, yellow, and so on, but there are no green ones. People are constrained and influenced by this traditional thinking. This is the effect that one particular matter of traditional culture has on people.