Although some people come overseas and come into contact with some of the cultures, traditions, rules, and such material things as the basic necessities of life in Europe and other Asian countries, and become familiar with some of the laws and common knowledge of other countries, those traditions of their own country are hard to shake off. Though you have left your native land and accepted the everyday aspects of life in another country, and even its laws and systems, you don’t know what you are thinking about every day, or how you face issues when something befalls you, or what your point of view and the perspective you adopt are. Some people think, “I’m in the West, so am I a Westerner?” or “I’m in Japan, so am I Japanese?” Is this the case? (No.) Japanese people say: “We love eating sushi and udon noodles the most. Does that not make us noble?” South Koreans say: “We like eating rice and kimchi. Is our great South Korean nation not noble? You Chinese say that your culture is ancient and thousands of years older than ours, but do you show filial piety to your elders as well as we do? Are you as traditional as we are? Do you have as many rules as we do? You don’t talk about these things nowadays, you’ve fallen behind; we are the truly traditional people, and our culture is true culture!” They think that their traditional culture is elevated, and then compete to declare lots of things as World Heritage. Why all this competition? Every country, every race, and even every small ethnic group believe that the things, rules, traditions, customs, and conventions left behind by their own ancestors are good and positive, and can be disseminated by the human race. Does this idea and view of theirs not imply that these are truths, that they are good and positive things, and that they should be passed down by this human race? So, do these things that are passed on conflict with freedom? I just gave the example of a young man who has broken free from his family’s shackles, is covered in piercings and rings and has tattoos all over his body, and even has a foreign girlfriend. In terms of his outward appearance and flesh, he seemingly does not abide by family rules and has cast off tradition. In terms of formalities and in his behavior, and even in terms of his subjective will, he has cast off such things as family, tradition, and customs. But a birthday gift exposes him, debunking and condemning his belief that he is “very untraditional.” So is this person actually traditional or not? (He is traditional.) Is being traditional good or bad? (Bad.) That is why, no matter whether you consider yourself traditional or untraditional, and no matter your race—be it a so-called noble race or an ordinary race—your inner thoughts are confined. No matter how much you pursue and revere freedom, no matter how great your determination, desire, and ambition to break free from the forces of tradition and from traditional family conventions, or how inspiring and powerful your actual actions are, if you don’t understand the truth, you can only twist and turn amid the teachings and fallacies that Satan instills in you, unable to emerge. Some people are influenced by traditional culture, some are influenced by an ideological education, others are influenced by position and status, and still others are influenced by an ideological system of some kind. Take people engaged in politics, for example, like the gang of people that advocated communism. They started out as a group of proletarians, accepted the communist manifesto and theories, broke with tradition, broke with the feudal monarchy, broke with some old customs, and then accepted Marxism-Leninism and communism. After accepting these things, were they free, or were they restricted all along? (They were restricted all along.) They thought that by switching from an old thing to a new thing, they would gain freedom. Is this idea not mistaken? (Yes, it is.) It is mistaken. People can turn from an old thing to any new thing, but as long as it is not the truth, they will forever be trapped in Satan’s net—this is not true freedom. Some people devote themselves to communism or to a certain cause, some devote themselves to an oath, while others devote themselves to a theory and still others abide by sayings such as “I’d take a bullet for a friend,” or “A loyal subject cannot serve two kings,” or “When the nation is in trouble, everyone has a responsibility to do their part.” Do these belong to traditional culture? (Yes.) On the surface, these things may seem like some very positive, very proper, and particularly lofty and noble things among humankind, but in fact, from another perspective and using different means, they bind people’s souls, restrict people, and prevent them from achieving true freedom. However, before humans understand the truth, they can only feel lost and thus accept these things, which are considered among humankind to be relatively positive, as their way of existing. Therefore, these so-called traditional cultures—these things that humans think are fairly good in the world—are naturally accepted by people. After accepting them, people feel that they are living with capital, with confidence, and with motivation. For example, some people have accepted an orientation of this society and this human race with regard to knowledge and credentials. What is this orientation? (Knowledge can change your fate.) (Other pursuits are small, books excel them all.) Deep down in their hearts, people agree with and also accept and approve of these things. At the same time as accepting and approving of them, the longer people struggle on against adversity in this society, the more they treasure these things. Why is that? People all rely on knowledge in life. Without knowledge and these credentials, you feel unable to establish a foothold in society. Others will bully you and discriminate against you, and so you desperately chase after these things. The higher your credentials, the higher your social status in society or among your race or community, and people’s admiration of you, and treatment of you, and various other things will be greater and better. In a sense, a person’s credentials have come to determine their social status.

In the past, a group of seven or eight university professors went to Beijing for further studies. In those days, pickup or chauffeur services may not yet have been available, so they had to take a bus after arriving in Beijing. In fact, professors like them were to be found everywhere in Beijing. They were not regarded as anything special, just ordinary people. But they themselves didn’t know that, and therein lay the seriousness of the problem—this matter occurred on the basis of this problem. What was it that happened? This group of professors was waiting for the bus at the bus stop. As they waited, more and more people congregated and as the crowd grew, everyone became anxious. Then when the bus arrived, they all swarmed onto it without waiting for the passengers inside to get off, pushing and elbowing each other and making a big commotion. It was a very chaotic scene. These professors thought about it and said: “Clearly our fellow citizens in Beijing don’t have it easy, taking the bus to and from work every day. As university professors, we should be considerate of the people’s circumstances. Being high-level intellectuals, we cannot vie with ordinary folk. We must show the selfless spirit of Lei Feng by letting them get on this bus first, so let’s not squeeze onto it.” They all agreed on this and decided to wait for the next bus. But as it turned out, when the next bus came along there were just as many people, and once again they crowded onto it in a disorderly mob. The professors were dumbstruck. They watched the bus fill up and drive away, and once again they hadn’t managed to squeeze onto it. They discussed it again and said, “We’re in no hurry. We are high-level intellectuals after all, we cannot fight with ordinary people to get on buses. Let’s take our time, there might not be so many people waiting for the next bus.” While waiting for the third bus, these professors were getting a little anxious. Some of them clenched their fists and said, “If there are just as many people for this bus, shall we squeeze our way on? If we don’t squeeze on, I reckon we might not be able to get on the fifth bus, or even the sixth bus, so we may as well squeeze on!” Others said: “Can high-level intellectuals squeeze onto buses? That would harm our image! How shameful it will be if one day, people find out that we high-level intellectuals have even squeezed onto buses!” Their opinions were divided. While they were discussing, another crowd of waiting people gathered. By this point, the professors had become very nervous and stopped discussing. When the bus arrived, as soon as the doors opened and even before everyone had alighted, the professors copied the last mob of people by pushing their way in with all their strength. Some of them managed to squeeze their way in, whereas a few refined intellectuals—refined scholars—didn’t manage to squeeze their way in, because they lacked that drive and combative spirit. Let’s leave this matter at that. Tell Me, is this not fact? (Yes.) This crowding onto buses is all too commonplace, and these intellectuals were all too capable of putting up a pretense! Tell Me, what was the problem here? Let’s first talk about these intellectuals, who received a higher level of education and became professors who teach and educate people, and who became high-level intellectuals. That is, the education they received and the knowledge they possessed were higher than the level achieved by average people, and their knowledge was sufficient for them to be teachers and tutors of people, educate people, and impart knowledge to them—hence they are called high-level intellectuals. Were there any problems with the ideas and views of these high-level intellectuals? There certainly were problems. So where did their problems lie? Let’s analyze this matter. Having received so much knowledge and such a high level of education, was their thinking rigid or free? (Rigid.) How do you know that it was rigid? Where did their problems lie? First of all, they proclaimed themselves to be high-level intellectuals. Was there anything wrong with this claim? (Yes.) There was a problem with this claim. Next, they said, “When we high-level intellectuals get on the bus, we shouldn’t fight and jostle with other people to get on it.” Was there a problem with this sentence? (Yes.) This was the second problem. The third problem was when they said “We high-level intellectuals can wait for the next bus”—was there any problem with this point? (Yes.) There was a problem with all these points. Go ahead and dissect the matter through these three points, to see what the problems were. If you gain a thorough understanding of the problems, then firstly, you will no longer idolize high-level intellectuals, and secondly, you will no longer want to be some high-level intellectual.

What was the first point? That they proclaimed themselves to be high-level intellectuals. Was there any problem with this claim? (Yes.) There is nothing wrong with the term “self-proclamation,” which in this case means styling oneself as a high-level intellectual. So, is there a problem with the phrase “as a high-level intellectual”? The fact is that university professors are high-level intellectuals in society. Since this is a fact, why was there a problem with this phrase? (They thought that having acquired knowledge, they were higher than others.) Higher than others—there was definitely a disposition behind this. (They thought that because they had acquired more knowledge, they were higher than others. In reality, these things cannot change a person’s disposition.) This is partly correct, but doesn’t explain it clearly. Who can add anything? (God, weren’t they smug and self-righteous?) This is correct, but you haven’t explained the essence clearly, explain in a bit more detail. (Once they had acquired some knowledge, they felt that they were loftier and more noble than others, so they couldn’t regard themselves as ordinary people. For normal people living in this society, having to squeeze onto buses is dictated by their real-life environment and is a normal thing. However, once these intellectuals came to regard themselves as very lofty and noble, they could no longer act like normal people, and thought that the activities of normal people were harmful to their identity, so I feel that they were abnormal.) They were abnormal. The meaning implied in them proclaiming themselves to be high-level intellectuals was abnormal. That is, there was something twisted in their humanity. They felt that they were loftier and more worthy than others. What was their basis for this? It’s that they had received so much education, and had a bellyful of knowledge, and whomever they met, they never ran out of things to say, and could teach things to them. What did they regard knowledge as? They regarded it as a criterion for one’s comportment and actions, as well as for one’s morals. They believed that now they had knowledge, their integrity, character, and identity were noble, precious and valuable, the implication being that high-level intellectuals are saints. Is this not the case? (Yes.) This is what being high-level was to them, so when they had to squeeze onto a bus, they wouldn’t do it. Why wouldn’t they squeeze on? What were they governed by? What constraints and restrictions were they subjected to? They felt that squeezing onto a bus would harm their identity and image. They believed that their identity and image had been bestowed on them by knowledge, so they proclaimed themselves as high-level intellectuals. Based on this analysis, is what they said not revolting? It is quite revolting. Yet they went around boasting by saying “we high-level intellectuals.” In fact, others thought that they were just intellectuals, with their impoverished and pedantic manner which people even look down upon, but they themselves still thought that they were particularly noble. Was this not problematic? They believed that they were very noble and of lofty identity, even to the point of wanting to style themselves as saints. Was this view a constraint on them somehow? What was their standpoint with regard to knowledge? It was that, once people have knowledge, their integrity is higher, they become distinguished and noble, and they should be respected. Therefore, some relatively normal actions that ordinary folks do were despised and condemned by them. For example, when intellectuals sneeze, they look at the people around them and hurriedly say sorry, whereas when ordinary people sneeze they think nothing of it. In fact, burping and sneezing are normal things in life, but in the eyes of those intellectuals, these are vulgar and uncouth behaviors, so they despise them and view them with contempt, saying, “Look at these ill-mannered commoners, the way they sneeze, and sit, and stand is so unseemly, and when buses come along they crowd onto them, and they know nothing about politely making way!” When it comes to knowledge, their standpoint is: Knowledge is a symbol of identity, and knowledge can change people’s destiny, as well as their identity and worth.

What was the second point? (That high-level intellectuals cannot jostle with others to get on buses.) They cannot jostle with others to get on buses. Squeezing onto a bus was just one small thing that they encountered in their lives. What does this thing represent? Namely, they believed that the speech and deportment of people who had a certain amount of knowledge must be refined, and must match their identity. For example, such people must walk softly, and when coming into contact with people, they must make others feel that they were amiable, approachable, and deserving of respect, and their speech and deportment must be refined. They could not be the same as common people, they had to make people notice the difference between themselves and common people—only in this way could they show off that their identity was distinguished and different from the rest. Deep down in their hearts, these professors believed that things like squeezing onto buses were things done by people at the lower tiers of society and by those who had not received a high level of education, and also they were things that were done by those who did not have advanced knowledge or an identity such as that of a high-level intellectual. So what things did these high-level intellectuals do? Standing at the lectern preaching doctrines, imparting knowledge, and resolving people’s doubts—these were their duties, which were representative of their identity, image, and their profession. They could only do these things. The everyday chores and routines of ordinary people should have nothing to do with them, who were a class of people detached from these “vulgar, lowly tastes.” How did they label the everyday chores and routines of ordinary people, and even actions such as crowding onto buses? (Vulgar.) That’s right, vulgar and uncouth. This was a definition from deep within their hearts for common, ordinary people who were of a lower level than them.

Let’s talk about the third point—“We high-level intellectuals can wait for the next bus”—what kind of spirit is this? Is this not the spirit of Kong Rong giving up the larger pears, as recounted in traditional culture? The influence of traditional culture on intellectuals is particularly profound. Not only do they accept traditional culture, but they also accept many ideas and views from traditional culture into their hearts and treat them as positive things, even to the point of regarding some well-known sayings as mottos, and in doing so they embark down the wrong path in life. Traditional culture is represented by Confucianist doctrine. Confucianist doctrine has a whole set of ideological theories, it mainly promotes traditional moral culture, and it was revered by the ruling classes of dynasties throughout history, who venerated Confucius and Mencius as saints. Confucianist doctrine advocates that a person should uphold the values of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, learn to first be calm, collected and forbearing whenever things happen, keep cool and talk things out, not fight over or scramble for things, and learn to be politely accommodating, and earn respect from everyone—this is comporting oneself with decorum. These intellectuals place themselves in a higher position than the hoi polloi, and in their eyes, all people are objects of their forbearance and tolerance. The “effects” of knowledge are pretty great! These people greatly resemble fake gentlemen, do they not? People who acquire too much knowledge become fake gentlemen. If this group of refined scholars is described in one phrase, it is refined scholarly elegance. What are the principles by which these refined scholars interact with each other? What is their approach to worldly dealings? For example, the ordinary populace refer to men whose surname is Li as “Lao Li”^[a] or “Xiao Li.” Would intellectuals refer to them this way? (No.) How would they refer to them? (Mr. Li.) If they saw a woman, they would refer to her as Ms. So-and-so, and would be especially respectful and elegant, just like gentlemen. They specialize in learning and imitating the refined elegance displayed by gentlemen. In what tone and way do they talk and discuss things together? Their facial expressions are especially gentle, and they speak politely and reservedly. They only express their own views and even if they know that others’ views are wrong, they don’t say anything. No one hurts anyone’s feelings, and their words are extremely soft, as if wrapped in cotton wool so they won’t hurt or irritate anyone, which makes one feel nauseous, anxious or angry just listening to them. The fact is that no one’s views are clear-cut, and no one gives in to anyone else. These kinds of people are so good at disguising. When encountering even the most trivial matter, they will disguise and enshroud themselves, and none of them will give a clear explanation. In front of ordinary people, what kind of posture do they want to adopt, and what kind of image do they want to put on? Namely, to let ordinary people see that they are modest gentlemen. Gentlemen are a cut above others and are objects of people’s veneration. People think that they have greater insights than average people, and that they have a better understanding of things compared with average people, so everyone consults them whenever they have an issue. This is exactly the outcome that these intellectuals want, they all hope to be venerated as saints.

Looking at it from the three points we just dissected, once these professors received the title of “high-level intellectual,” was their thinking freer or more confined? (Confined.) It must have been confined. Confined by what? (Knowledge.) Knowledge is something within their profession. In fact, knowledge didn’t truly confine them. What did confine them? It was their attitude toward knowledge, and the influences that knowledge had on their thinking, as well as the views that it instilled—this is the problem. Therefore, the higher the level of knowledge they acquired, the more they felt that their identity and status were different from the rest, and the more they felt that they were noble and great, and the more their thinking became confined at the same time. Looking at it from this point of view, have people who have acquired more knowledge gained freedom, or lost freedom? (Lost freedom.) They have actually lost freedom. Knowledge has an influence on people’s thinking and on their status in society, and the influence that it exerts on people is not positive. It is never the case that the more knowledge you acquire, the better you will understand the principles, direction, and goals that you should have as regards your comportment. On the contrary, the more you chase after knowledge, and the more thorough the knowledge you acquire, the further you will stray from the thoughts and views that people with normal humanity should have. It is just like that group of intellectuals who had received a lot of knowledge and education, and who didn’t even understand a basic matter of common sense. What common sense is that? When there are lots of people, you have to squeeze in to get on the bus. If you don’t squeeze in, you will never get on the bus—they didn’t even know this simplest of rules. Tell Me, had they become smart or foolish? (They had become foolish.) In fact, they were a bunch of fools. Ordinary people have not received such advanced knowledge or high-level education, and do not have this status, but they understand this point and say, “When getting on a bus and there are lots of people, you have to squeeze in, and you have to put your back into it, because if you ease off in the slightest, and your brain reacts a step slower, you may end up at the back of the crowd and have to take the next bus.” This is a basic matter of common sense in life, one which ordinary people are familiar with, but which these intellectuals didn’t understand, so they waited for bus after bus. What were they restricted by? They were firmly bound by the claim that “we are high-level intellectuals.” That’s how it was. They didn’t even know how to face or deal with such a simple real-life problem. They were a bunch of fools! What did knowledge bring to them? What it brought them was that it made them out of touch with the rest of the population, they didn’t know how to live, and they didn’t know how to deal with the things that happen in real life. They used some lofty theory to deal with one of the most common problems that ordinary people encounter in real life, and they didn’t know what the consequences would be after dealing with it in this way—perhaps they still don’t understand to this day. Perhaps they can only think this matter through when they reach old age. At which time, they will no longer have any laurels, and will have pretty much had enough of enjoying the honorable reputation of a high-level intellectual throughout their lifetime. One day, they may remember what a sorry figure they cut that time on the bus, and they will suddenly realize that they are not so noble or so elevated, and they will suddenly realize, “Can my scholarly refinement put food on the table? Don’t I still need three meals a day like ordinary people? I’m no different from other people. In my old age, don’t I also walk with a stoop? And don’t I also tremble with fear and feel afraid whenever I encounter danger? And when faced with the death of a loved one or a joyful event, am I not also sad or happy as one ought to be? Am I not just living like ordinary people? I am no different from the rest!” By then this knowledge will come too late for them. These are the various kinds of ugliness displayed by people who accept a few so-called positive sayings and views when they do not understand the truth. When people don’t know whether these views are correct or not, they often regard these views and sayings as truths to be adhered to and applied, and when they do apply them, they tend to suffer all manner of consequences, and all manner of awkwardness occurs. What are the consequences of this for people? While people are constantly pursuing freedom, they are also constantly lurching from one vortex into another, and from one kind of bondage to another kind of bondage. Is this not the case? Therefore, when you don’t understand the truth—no matter whether what you hold fast to is a view, a traditional culture, or some kind of rule, system, or theory, and whether these things are relatively outdated in society, or quite avant-garde and fashionable—these things can never replace the truth, because they are not the truth. No matter how well you adhere to them, or how well you apply them, in the end they will only cause you to stray from the truth, rather than gain the truth. The more you adhere to these things, the further you will stray from the truth and the further you will deviate from God’s way and from the way of truth. On the other hand, if you can actively take the initiative to let go of these so-called positive things, theories, and false truths, then you can enter into the truth relatively quickly. This way, people will not use these so-called traditional cultures and these false truths as principles of practice in their everyday lives, in place of the truth and God’s words, and this awkwardness will gradually be alleviated and gradually be resolved.

Some people think that they have obtained the truth by casting off the traditional culture of a family and a country, and by accepting a foreign traditional culture from abroad; some people think that they have obtained the truth by casting off an old, traditional culture and old ideas and views, and by accepting slightly more advanced and slightly more modern ideas. Looking at it now, are these people right or wrong? (Wrong.) They are all wrong. People think that just by casting off old things, they will gain freedom. What is the implication of gaining freedom? It means that one has obtained the truth and the real way of living that one should have. People think that the true way is obtained like this. Is this actually true? Is this right? No. Irrespective of what modern and advanced culture humankind accepts, in the end it is still traditional culture, and its essence does not change. Traditional culture will still be traditional culture until whenever. No matter whether it can withstand the test of time or withstand the test of facts, or whether it is revered by humankind, in the end it is still traditional culture. Why aren’t these traditional cultures the truth? What it all boils down to is that these things are ideas that came about after humankind was corrupted by Satan. They do not come from God. They are adulterated with some of people’s imaginings and notions, and moreover, they are the consequences achieved by Satan’s corruption of humankind. Satan exploits the ideas, views, and all manner of sayings and arguments of corrupt humankind in order to bind people’s thinking and corrupt people’s thinking. If Satan used some things that were obviously absurd, preposterous, and wrong to mislead people, then people would have discernment; they would be able to distinguish between right and wrong, and would use this discernment to deny and condemn those things. Thus, these teachings would not stand up to scrutiny. However, when Satan, in order to condition, influence, and inculcate people, uses some ideas and theories that conform to people’s notions and imaginings, and which it thinks will stand up to scrutiny when spoken aloud, humankind is easily misled, and these sayings are also easily accepted and spread by people, and so these sayings endure from generation to generation, right up until the present. Take some stories about Chinese heroes, for example, such as the patriotic stories about Yue Fei, the generals of the Yang family, and Wen Tianxiang. How come these ideas have been passed down to the present day? If we look at it from the aspect of people, in every age there is a type of person or a type of ruler who constantly uses these examples and uses the ideas and the spirit of these personages to teach generation after generation of people, so that generation after generation of people compliantly and meekly accept their rule, and so that they can easily govern generation after generation of people, and make their reign more stable. By talking about the apish devotion of Yue Fei and the generals of the Yang family, as well as the patriotic spirit of Wen Tianxiang and Qu Yuan, they educate their subjects and let them know one rule, which is that one must comport oneself with loyalty—this is what a person of noble moral character should possess. Loyalty to what extent? To the extent that “When the emperor commands his officials to die, they have no choice but to die,” and “A loyal subject cannot serve two kings”—this is another saying that they revere. They also revere those who love their country. Loving one’s country means loving what, or whom? Loving the land? Loving the people in it? And what is a country? (The rulers.) The rulers are the country’s representatives. If you say, “My love for my country is actually love for my hometown and my parents. I don’t love you, the rulers!” then they will get angry. If you say, “My love for my country is love for the rulers, from the innermost depths of my heart,” they will accept it and approve of such love; if you make them understand and make it clear that it is not they whom you love, then they will not approve. Who do rulers through the ages represent? (Satan.) They represent Satan, they are members of Satan’s gang, and they are devils. They cannot possibly educate the people to worship God, to worship the Creator. They cannot possibly do this. Instead, they tell the people that the ruler is the son of heaven. What does “son of heaven” mean? It means that Heaven grants power to someone, and this person is then called the “son of heaven” and has the power to reign over all people under heaven. Is this an idea instilled into the people by rulers? (Yes.) When a person becomes the son of heaven, it is determined by Heaven, and the will of Heaven is with them, so the people should accept that person’s rule unconditionally, whatever kind of rule it be. What they instill into people is this idea, which makes you accept that person as the son of heaven based on your acknowledgment of Heaven’s existence. What is the purpose of making you accept that person as the son of heaven? It is not to make you acknowledge that there is Heaven, or that there is a God, or that there is a Creator, but to make you accept the very fact that this person is the son of heaven, and that because they are the son of heaven, brought about by the existence of the will of Heaven, the people should accept their rule—these are the kind of ideas they instill. Behind all of these ideas that have developed from the beginning of humankind to the present day—whether what we dissect are phrases and idioms that contain allusions or folk proverbs and common sayings that are completely devoid of allusions—lie Satan’s bonds and misleading of humankind, as well as corrupted humankind’s fallacious definition of these ideas themselves. What influence does this fallacious definition have on humankind in later periods? Is it good, positive or negative? (Negative.) It is fundamentally negative. Take, for example, the sayings “Sleeping on brushwood and licking gall,” and “Conceal one’s light and gather strength in the dark,” and “Enduring humiliation and bearing a heavy burden,” and “Never say die,” as well as “Feign one thing while doing another”—what influence do these sayings have on humankind in later periods? Namely, that once people accept these ideas from traditional culture, each successive generation of people strays further and further from God, and further and further from God’s creation and salvation of people, and from His work of management plan. Once people accept these mistaken views from traditional culture, they increasingly feel that human destiny should be in their own hands, and that happiness has to be created with their own hands, and that opportunities are reserved for those who are prepared, which leads humankind to increasingly deny God, deny God’s sovereignty, and live under Satan’s power. If you compare what people in the modern age like to talk about and what people two thousand years ago liked to talk about, the meaning of the thinking behind these things is actually the same. It’s just that people nowadays talk about those things more specifically and are more outspoken about them. Not only do they deny the existence and sovereignty of God, but they also resist and condemn God to an increasingly serious degree.

For example, people in ancient times said that “When the nation is in trouble, everyone has a responsibility to do their part,” a saying which has been passed down to this day. People treasure this saying, especially patriots, who regard it as their motto. Now that you have come overseas, if another person says that some incident occurred in China, does it have anything to do with you? (No.) Why do you say it has nothing to do with you? There are some who say, “I hate that country. Right now the Communists are in power, that evil political party. The Communist Party is the devil Satan, it’s a totalitarian regime, and has nothing to do with me. It persecutes us and prevents us from believing in God. I hate it.” Supposing that one day, that country is about to perish—you may not feel anything in your heart, but when you hear that the province you originally came from has been invaded and occupied by foreign groups, you will feel as if you have become a refugee, a vagrant with no home to go to, and you will be upset and feel that you cannot return to your roots like the falling leaves. Returning to one’s roots like the falling leaves—this is another traditional idea. And supposing that, one day thereafter, you suddenly hear that your hometown—the land where you were born and raised—has been invaded and occupied by foreign groups, the path you took to school every day has been occupied by foreign groups, and your house and your family’s land have been appropriated by foreign groups. What was once yours is gone—that small plot of land which is deeply etched in your mind, the plot of land that you have the closest bond with is gone, and all your relatives there are gone. At that time, you will think, “How can I have a home if I have no country? Now I really have become a refugee, I really am homeless, I’ve become a vagrant. It appears that the saying ‘When the nation is in trouble, everyone has a responsibility to do their part’ is correct!” When that time comes, you will change. So why don’t you think now that this saying is correct? There is a background and a premise to this, because that country persecutes you and causes you too much anguish, and it doesn’t accept you, and you hate it. The fact is that what you really hate is not that land. What you hate is the satanic regime that persecutes you. You don’t recognize it as your country, so at this time, whenever others say, “When the nation is in trouble, everyone has a responsibility to do their part,” you say, “It has nothing to do with me.” But when one day the land where you were born and raised no longer belongs to you, and you no longer have a hometown, you will feel that you are a vagrant and a person with no nationality, and that you have truly lost your country. At that time you will feel a pang in your heart. What will you have a pang in your heart for? It may be that you don’t yet feel it deeply right now, but one day it will touch you deeply. Under what circumstances will it touch you deeply? It’s not scary if your country dies and you become a member of a conquered nation. What is scary? When you become a member of a conquered nation and are bullied, reviled, discriminated against, trampled on, and have no place to live in peace, at that time you will think, “To have a country is so precious. Without a country people have no real home. People have a home on the basis of having a country, so the saying puts it well—‘When the nation is in trouble, everyone has a responsibility to do their part.’” In the phrase “everyone has a responsibility to do their part,” what is this “responsibility” for? For the peacefulness of your own home, to be able to protect your own home. When you think about this, when you are discriminated against by foreign groups or in a foreign land, when you need a place to belong, and when you need a country behind you propping up your dignity, face, identity, and status, how will you feel? You will think, “If a person in a foreign country has powerful support behind them, it must be that of a great motherland!” Will your state of mind be different then, compared with now? (Yes.) Now you are just in a fit of indignation, so you say that whatever happens in your country is none of your business. If you can still say such things when that time comes, what kind of stature must you have? There is a fact in this world that everyone may know, which is that, without the backing of a powerful motherland, you will definitely be discriminated against and bullied in foreign countries. When the time comes for you to actually experience that, what will you ask for first of all? Some will say: “It would be great if I were Jewish or Japanese. No one would dare to bully me. I would be highly regarded by people in any country I go to. How come I was born in China? The country is incompetent and Chinese people get bullied wherever they go.” What will you think of first when something like this happens? (We have faith in God and submit to God’s orchestration and arrangements.) This is right. But how many truths must a person understand, what experience must they have had, and how much experiential understanding should they possess in order to be able to say such a thing and turn it into their own stature? When something like this happens, what kind of ideas, understanding and real experience must you have in order to not be weak? And in order not to feel upset even if someone spits on you and calls you a member of a conquered nation? What kind of stature must you have to not feel upset and to not suffer these constraints? Do you have this kind of stature now? (No.) You don’t have it now, but might you have it one day? What truths must you be equipped with? What truths must you understand? Nowadays, as soon as some people hear that their family members in mainland China have been arrested for believing in God, what they understand in their hearts—which is that everything is in God’s hands—becomes doctrine to them, and they are constrained by the fact that their family members have been arrested, and they don’t have the inclination to do their duties. If they hear that a relative is dead, they might faint on the spot. How would you feel if that land was destroyed and all the people in it died? How much weight do traditional things—such as country, home, hometown, and motherland—as well as certain traditional ideas and culture associated with these words, hold deep in your hearts? In your life, do they still dominate all your actions, and all your thoughts and behaviors? If your heart is still occupied by all of these traditional things that you have a connection with, such as country, race, nation, family, hometown, land, and so on—that is to say, these things still have a certain overtone of traditional culture in your heart—then the sermons you listen to and the truths you understand are all doctrines to you. If you have listened to so many sermons, but cannot let go of even the most basic things that people should let go of and separate themselves from, and you cannot treat them correctly, exactly what problems do those truths that you understand resolve?

Footnotes:

a. “Lao” and “xiao” are prefixes added before surnames in the Chinese language as a term of address expressing a sense of familiarity or casualness that is shared between the speaker and listener.