Supplement: A Brief Discussion of Three Aspects of Normal Humanity

We won’t tell stories in our fellowship this time. We’ll begin with a topic that’s often discussed: what humanity is. We’ve said much about this topic in the past, and we do now, too. It’s a topic frequently mentioned, an issue one encounters every day of their daily life, a topic one can encounter and experience every day. The topic is what humanity is. Humanity encompasses several important things. What are the common manifestations of humanity in one’s daily life? (Integrity and dignity.) What else? Conscience and reason, right? (Yes.) You speak of those often. What others are there that you don’t often speak of? That is, which are topics that you basically don’t touch on in your usual talk about humanity? Conscience and reason, integrity and dignity—these topics are old standbys that one regularly encounters. How big of a connection is there between the conscience, reason, integrity, and dignity that you often discuss and your real lives? How has that material edified and helped your practice and entry in your real lives? How beneficial has it been? So, what other items are there that relate closely to your everyday, normal human life? I’ll say a few, and we’ll see whether they’re topics you regularly come across. With our material that involves humanity, we’ll first set aside whether the material is positive or negative, and whether it relates to normal or abnormal humanity. Beyond the items we just mentioned, there’s the one of people’s attitude in their treatment of various kinds of people, events, and things in their everyday lives. Isn’t that one? Doesn’t that involve humanity? (It does.) There’s another, which is people’s stewardship of their personal surroundings in their everyday lives, and one more, people’s attitude and behavior in their contact with the opposite sex. Are these three items related to humanity? (Yes.) They all are. For the topic we’re going to discuss now, we’re going to put aside the subjects of man’s pursuit of the truth, how to enter the truth reality in one’s belief in God, and how to uphold all the various principles, and speak only of humanity. So, those three items—is their connection to humanity substantial? (Yes.) What are those three items? Restate them. (The first is people’s attitude in their treatment of various kinds of people, events, and things in their everyday lives. The second is people’s stewardship of their personal surroundings in their everyday lives. The third is people’s attitude and behavior in their contact with the opposite sex in their everyday lives.) And what do those three items involve? (Humanity.) Why do we say these three items involve humanity, that they’re related to it? Why would we set these three out? Why aren’t we talking about the conscience and reason part? Why are we putting aside the aspects we commonly discuss to talk about these three items? Are these three items more advanced or more rudimentary than the conscience, reason, integrity, and dignity that relate to humanity, which we’ve discussed before? (They’re more rudimentary.) Is it then belittling you to discuss these things? (No.) So, why would we discuss them? (They’re practical.) They’re more practical. That’s the reason you’ve got? Why are we going to talk about this? Because I’ve found problems; in respect to conditions as they are and various behaviors that show up in people’s daily lives, I’ve found a few problems that are closely bound up with people’s real lives, and it’s necessary to lay them out, one by one, for fellowship. If people put aside real life, and the various behaviors of normal humanity and of everyday life, in their belief in God, and just doggedly pursue the truth—such profound truths as that of being a person whom God loves—tell Me, what problems will that lead to? What’s the basic condition under which someone may be able to enter the truth reality in their pursuit of the truth? (They have to do it in real life.) What else? (They need normal humanity.) That’s right—they must be possessed of normal humanity, which, apart from conscience, reason, integrity, and dignity, consists of the three items we just mentioned. It would be a bit hollow for someone to speak of pursuing and seeking the truth if they couldn’t live up to the standards or achieve normality in these three items that touch on humanity. Pursuing the truth, pursuing entry into the truth reality, pursuing salvation—these aren’t achievable by everyone, but only by the minority of people who love the truth and have normal humanity. If one doesn’t know what someone with normal humanity should be possessed of, or what they should do, or what sort of attitude and viewpoint they should have regarding certain people, events, and things, is that person capable of achieving entry into the truth reality? Can their pursuit of the truth produce results? Sadly, no.

A. People’s Attitude in Their Treatment of Various Kinds of People, Events, and Things

We’ll begin with fellowship on the first item that involves humanity: people’s attitude in their treatment of various kinds of people, events, and things in their everyday lives. Everyone understands what “everyday lives” means. It needs no elaboration. What, then, are the main people, events, and things that relate to humanity? That is, what’s in there that rises to the level of normal humanity, that’s in relation to its scope, that touches on it? (Engaging with people and things.) That’s a piece of it. There’s also the knowledge and professional skills one should learn, and there’s general knowledge for everyday living. These are all parts of what someone with normal humanity should understand and possess. Some people, for example, learn carpentry or masonry, and others learn to drive or repair cars. These are skills, crafts, and to know such a craft is to be versed in the professional trade of that craft. So, to what degree and what standard must one learn a skill in order to be counted as an adept? They must at least be able to produce a finished product to an acceptable standard. There are some people who do quite shoddy work. The jobs they do are not up to snuff, even to the point of being unbearable to behold. What’s the problem there? That touches on their attitude toward their trade. Some people don’t have a conscientious attitude. They think, “If what I make manages to do its job, that’s good enough. Just make do with it for a few years, then fix it up.” Is this sort of view one that people with normal humanity should possess? (No.) Some people have devil-may-care, indifferent attitudes. “Good enough” is fine for them. This is an irresponsible attitude. It is something within a corrupt disposition to handle things so flippantly and irresponsibly: It is scumminess people often refer to. In all matters they do, they do it to the point of “that’s about right” and “close enough”; it is an attitude of “maybe,” “possibly,” and “four-out-of-five”; they do things perfunctorily, are satisfied to do the minimum, and are satisfied with bluffing their way through; they see no point in taking things seriously or being meticulous, and they see less point in seeking the truth principles. Is this not something within a corrupt disposition? Is it a manifestation of normal humanity? It is not. To call it arrogance is right, and to call it dissolute is also entirely apt—but to capture it perfectly, the only word that will do is “scummy.” Most people have scumminess within them, just to different degrees. In all matters, they wish to do things in a perfunctory and slipshod manner, and there is a whiff of deceit in everything they do. They cheat others when they can, cut corners when they are able, save time when they can. They think to themselves, “So long as I avoid being revealed, and cause no problems, and am not called to account, then I can muddle through this. I don’t have to do a very good job, that’s too much trouble!” Such people learn nothing to mastery, and they do not apply themselves or suffer and pay a price in their studies. They want only to scratch the surface of a subject and then call themselves proficient at it, believing they have learned all there is to know, and then rely on this to muddle their way through. Is this not an attitude people have toward other people, events, and things? Is it a good attitude? It is not. Simply put, it is to “muddle through.” Such scumminess exists in all of corrupt mankind. People with scumminess in their humanity take the view and attitude of “muddling through” on anything they do. Are such people able to do their duty properly? No. Are they able to do things with principle? Even more unlikely.

Some people aren’t committed in anything they do, but are sloppy, perfunctory, and irresponsible. There are some, for instance, who learn to drive, yet never ask experienced drivers what to pay attention to when driving, or what speed will damage the engine. They don’t ask, they just drive—and they break their car as a result. They kick the car and say, “This thing’s brittle. Give me a Mercedes or a BMW, this old lemon won’t do—it’s obsolete!” What attitude is that? They don’t treat material things with loving care, and don’t think to keep them in good shape, but wreck and spoil them on purpose. Some people live sloppy, remiss lives. They do everything, all day long, in a slapdash, careless way. What sort of people are these? (Inattentive people.) “Inattentive people” is a nice way to put it—you should call them “negligent people”; “base people” fits, too. Is that excessive? How can one tell the difference between noble and base people? Simply look at their attitude and actions toward duties, and look at how they treat things and behave when issues arise. People with integrity and dignity are meticulous, conscientious, and diligent in their actions, and they are willing to pay a price. People without integrity and dignity are careless and slipshod in their actions, always up to some trick, always wanting to just muddle through. No matter what technique they study, they do not learn it diligently, they are unable to learn it, and no matter how much time they spend studying it, they remain utterly ignorant. These are people of low character. Most people are perfunctory in doing their duties. What disposition is at play there? (Scumminess.) How do scummy people treat their duty? Certainly, they don’t have the correct attitude toward it, and they’re certainly perfunctory with it. This means they don’t have normal humanity. Seriously scummy people are like animals. It’s like keeping a dog as a pet: If you don’t keep an eye on it, it’ll chew things up and destroy all your furniture and appliances. That would be a loss. Dogs are animals; they don’t think to treat things with loving care, and you can’t argue with them—you just have to handle them. If you don’t, but let an animal run riot and disturb your life, that shows that there’s something missing in your humanity. You’re not much different from an animal, then. Your IQ is too low—you’re a good-for-nothing. So, how do you handle them well, then? You need to think of a way to restrain them within certain parameters, or keep them caged, letting them out at two or three set times each day, so that they get enough activity in. That will curb their wanton chewing, and provide them with exercise, too, to keep them healthy. That way, the dog is well handled, and your environment is protected, too. If a person can’t handle the things they encounter and doesn’t have the correct attitude, they’re missing something in their humanity. It can’t meet the standard of normal humanity. Or, in terms of cooking: ordinary people use just a bit of oil when they’re stir-frying, but there are some women who use a whole bunch. Even if you’re rich, you can’t squander oil—you have to use a reasonable amount. But these women don’t care about that; if they lose their grip and pour too much oil into a stir-fry, they just scoop out the extra and toss it on the ground. That’s wasteful, isn’t it? What’s someone with that attitude toward material things popularly called? “Extravagant”—or, as an insult, a “spendthrift.” Where do material things come from? They’re given by God. Some people say they’ve earned their things—but how much could you earn if it weren’t given by God? He gave you your life. If He hadn’t given you your life, you would have nothing and you would be nothing, so could you then still have those material things of yours? God may have given you more than the average household, but is the attitude and viewpoint with which you’d squander it the right one? How is this to be characterized in terms of humanity? Such a person is of poor humanity. Extravagance, squandering things, not knowing to treat things with loving care—such a person doesn’t have normal humanity. Some people don’t even think to handle the things of God’s house with care. Something belongs to God’s house. They see this. Yet if it were about to rain, and it would be bad if that thing got wet, what would they think? “It’s no big deal if it gets wet. It’s not like it’s mine. I’ll leave it be.” Then, they’d walk away. What’s that attitude called? Selfishness. Are they upright in their thinking? If not, what are they? (Crooked.) If a person is not upright, then aren’t they crooked? Do people who aren’t upright in their thinking have normal humanity? Certainly not. For our first item, people’s attitude in their treatment of various kinds of people, events, and things, how many things have we now spoken of? There’s scumminess, scum. What else? (Being base and crooked.) Such colloquial language—do you use words like these when you reflect on, come to know, and dissect yourselves in your daily life? (No.) No one does. So, what words do you use? You speak in grandiose terms—no one uses such everyday language.

Many people feel quite grand about themselves because they believe in God. Those with some skill and professional know-how, or even advanced degrees, in particular, feel they’re above ordinary people. Pleased with themselves, they think, “I even gave up the solid career I had in the world, and I didn’t come to God’s house for a free meal. Someone as skilled as me can make a contribution in God’s house. I expend myself and suffer for God. I even share room and board with these common people, in communal living. How grand of quality I am!” They think they have especially honorable integrity, that they’re nobler than everyone else. They take constant joy in this. The fact is that there are so many things missing from their humanity, and not only do they not know it, they’re on cloud nine, thinking that they’re great, that their character is grander than that of ordinary people. In fact, there’s not one thing in there that would live up to the definition of the word “normal” that precedes “humanity” in “normal humanity.” Nothing in there is up to that standard; everything falls so far short. Their conscience? They don’t have one. Their character? It’s no good. Their integrity and qualities? None of it is any good. With everyone living together, when some people have something precious, they won’t dare to leave it out in the open. Why is that? One part of it is that they don’t trust others, and the other is that where there are many people, there are unreliable people, and some of them might have sticky fingers—they might even steal. These people have poor character. Some people set out to pick the best morsels when they eat, and they eat those to their fill, no matter how many people there are behind them who haven’t eaten. Is that not too selfish? There are some who consider others when they’re eating. What does this illustrate? It shows that the latter are reasonable people who keep others in mind. They’ll eat a bit less, in order to leave some for others. That’s what it means to be of quality. In God’s house, some people have humanity, while some fall a bit short. They can’t even meet the standards of normal humanity. With an eye toward the behaviors I’ve mentioned, are there a lot of people with normal humanity among you? Or are there not many? When you usually display such behaviors, are you capable of realizing that they’re problems? When you reveal a corrupt disposition, are you aware of it? If you’re aware of it, and can feel it, and are willing to make a change, then you do have a bit of humanity—it just hasn’t achieved normality. If you’re not even aware of it, then can you be accounted as someone with humanity? You can’t. This isn’t a question of good or bad humanity, normal or abnormal—you have no humanity. At meals, for example, there are some people who see a plate of braised pork coming out and start grabbing for it, fatty and lean pieces alike, and don’t stop until it’s all gone. Have you ever seen animals fighting over food? (Yes.) It’s the same scene, but with animals; with humans, is that fighting a part of normal humanity? (It’s not normal humanity.) What would people of normal humanity do? (They’d be content with what they got, and not greedy.) That’s quite a factual way to put it. How can one not be greedy, then? What thoughts and what regard toward this issue comprise the thinking that people with normal humanity should have, through which one may go on to act with accuracy? First, your thinking must be correct. A woman, for instance, would think, “There’s a lot of braised pork today. I’d like to have more, but I’m a bit embarrassed to, seeing as I’m surrounded by my brothers. What should I do? I suppose I’ll wait to eat until they’ve had a go at it. I wouldn’t want others to wonder how a lady like me could be such a glutton. How humiliating that would be!” Thinking like that would be normal for a woman, as they’re generally a bit thin-skinned. Most men would think, “The braised pork is incredible. I’ll just go ahead and help myself.” They’d be the first to reach for it with their chopsticks, heedless of what others think. But some men are more rational than that. After they’ve had a bite, they give it some thought: “There are so many people behind me who haven’t eaten yet. I have to stop and leave some for others.” The fact that they can think and act like that shows that they’re a person with reason, that they inherently have normal humanity. Some people go off on an absurd tangent: “God doesn’t want people to eat braised pork, so I won’t even take one bite. That means I have even more humanity, doesn’t it?” That’s absurd thinking. What am I demonstrating with this example? That people should adopt a correct attitude toward every sort of person, event, and thing. One comes to this correct attitude through thought that is undertaken from the perspective of the rationality, conscience, integrity, and dignity of humanity. If you practice with this sort of mindset, you’ll basically be in line with normal humanity.

The attitude one has toward people, events, and things is nothing other than how engaging with people and things manifests in their day-to-day life. These manifestations may not have much to do with the work that’s yours to do, or they may be distant from it, but belief in God isn’t hollow: Believers in God don’t live in a vacuum, but in real life. They must not be detached from real life. What sort of attitude and thinking should people have, whether it be toward professional skills or toward common wisdom or knowledge about something? Is it right to always have a mindset of muddling along? Some people are always in a muddle about these things—will that work? Do they not have a problem with their point of view? A problem with their point of view is part of it; beyond that, it has to do with their character. The great red dragon has ruled over China for thousands of years, engaged always in campaigns and struggles. It doesn’t develop the economy, and it doesn’t give a thought to the lives of the common people. Eventually, the people fostered a sort of scumminess of just drifting along. In everything they do, they’re perfunctory, and harbor a short-sighted perspective. They don’t aim for excellence in any of their studies, nor can they achieve it. They’re always operating with a short-sighted perspective: They look at what the market needs, then rush to produce it, without a thought to spare until they’ve made their fortune. They don’t develop further from this foundation, or do further scientific research, or strive for more perfect excellence, with the end result that China’s light industries, heavy industries, and every other sector alike have no cutting-edge products on the world stage. Yet the Chinese are boastful: “We have 5,000 years of first-rate traditional culture here in China. We Chinese are kind and hardworking.” Why, then, does China keep making knock-offs to rip people off? Why do they have next to nothing that could compete in the global market? What’s going on there? Does China have cutting-edge products? Chinese people do have one “cutting-edge” thing, and that’s their skill at imitation and counterfeit—at deceit. Their scumminess is present in that. Some will say, “Why would You depict us like that? It belittles and demeans us.” Is that so? To look at some of the things the Chinese do, the shoe may indeed be said to fit. Are there any Chinese people, in the market or among the common folk, who attend to their proper work? Very few, and those who try to lose their stomach for it when they see how adverse the social environment is, and that no good comes to those who attend to their proper work. They stop trying and give up.

Those things that touch on humanity—the attitudes, thoughts, and opinions that people reveal in their treatment of other people, events, and things—are very telling. Of what do they tell? They tell of how one can see a person’s character, of whether they are a decent and upright person. What is it to be decent and upright? Is being traditional decent and upright? Is being civil and well-mannered decent and upright? (No.) Is following rules to the letter decent and upright? (No.) None of this is. So, what is it to be decent and upright? If someone is a decent and upright person, then, no matter what they do, they do it with a certain mentality: “No matter whether I like doing this thing or not, nor whether it falls within the scope of my interests or is something in which I have little interest—it was given to me to do, and I will do it well. I will begin studying it from scratch, and, with my feet on the ground, I’ll undertake it one step at a time. In the end, no matter how far I’ve gotten in the task, I’ll have done my best.” At the very least, you must possess a sort of the attitude and mentality that is down-to-earth. If, from the moment you take over a task, you do it in a muddle and do not care about it in the least—if you do not treat it earnestly, and do not refer to relevant resources, make detailed preparations, or seek and consult with others; and if, beyond that, you do not increase the time you spend studying this thing so that you may constantly improve at it, attaining mastery of this skill or profession, but maintain a cavalier attitude toward it and an attitude of just getting by in your treatment of it, then this is a problem in your humanity. Is this not just muddling along? Some say, “I don’t like it when you give me this kind of duty.” If you do not like it, do not accept it—and if you do accept it, you should approach it with an earnest, responsible attitude. That is the sort of attitude you should have. Is this not what people with normal humanity ought to possess? This is what it is to be decent and upright. In this aspect of normal humanity, you need, at the very least, attentiveness, conscientiousness, and a willingness to pay a price, along with the attitudes of being down to earth, earnest, and responsible. To have these things is enough.

There are all sorts of people in the church. Those who love the truth are of better humanity, and when they reveal a corrupt disposition, they’re readily corrected. Those who don’t are of much worse humanity. If a person doesn’t apply themselves and is irresponsible with God’s commission, are they not unworthy of credit? Humanity like that is worthless and of no value. It’s lowly. You believe in God. If you approach your commission with a perfunctory and irresponsible attitude, whether it’s God’s commission of you or the church’s, is yours the attitude that someone of normal humanity should have? Some may say, “I don’t take things brothers and sisters give me to do seriously, but I guarantee that I’ll succeed at things God gives me to do. I’ll treat those well.” Is that the right sentiment? (No.) In what way isn’t it? Someone who’s uncreditworthy and deficient in virtue, whose humanity lacks these things—to whom could they be true? No one. Even with their own affairs, they cheat and go through the motions. Is a person like that not base and worthless? If someone can apply themselves and take responsibility and be creditable with things other people commission them to do, then would they do much worse with a commission they’ve accepted from God? If they, someone with conscience and reason, understand the truth, then they shouldn’t do worse with a commission they’ve accepted from God and with the performance of their duty. They’ll do much better, for sure, than those without a conscience who lack in virtue. That’s the difference in their character. Some say, “I wouldn’t take it seriously if you ask me to take care of a dog or a cat, but if I were tasked with an important matter for God’s house, I’d dispatch it well, for sure.” Is this valid? (No.) Why not? If someone has the correct point of view, in big matters and small ones alike, whatever their commission may be, and if they’re right at heart and noble in quality, and have integrity, and is creditworthy, and moral in conduct, then that’s precious, and it is different. Such people address any matter at all with their morality and their creditworthiness. If someone amoral and unworthy of credit were to say, “If God directly commissions me with something, I’m sure to handle it well,” would that be truthful? It would be a bit overblown and deceptive. How can you be trustworthy to others without a conscience or reason? Your words ring hollow—they’re a trick. God’s house once had two little dogs, to guard a place. Someone was arranged to look after them, and they looked after them and handled them as if they were their own. That person wasn’t too fond of dogs, but they looked after them well. When a dog got sick, they’d treat them, and they bathed them, and they fed them right on time. They may not have liked dogs, but they took looking after those dogs as their commission and responsibility. Isn’t there something there that should be in humanity? They had humanity, so they did the thing well. The two dogs passed later into another’s care, and within the month, they were pitifully thin. What had happened? No one cared or noticed when the dogs got sick, and their poor mood affected their appetites. That’s how they wound up so thin; that’s how that person looked after them. Is there a difference between people? (Yes.) Where? (In their humanity.) Did the one who looked after the dogs well understand some great number of truths? Not necessarily. And the one who looked after them poorly hadn’t necessarily believed in God for a shorter time. Why, then, is there such a big difference between the two of them? Because it’s their character that’s different. Some people are creditworthy. When they give someone their word, they’ll be able to give an account of themselves in the end, whether they like doing the thing or not. When they take over a task, they’re sure to get it done, one foot after the other. They live up to the credit others extend them, and they live up to their own heart. They have a conscience, and with it, they measure all things. Some people have no conscience. They’ll give their word and do nothing to back it up afterward. They don’t say, “They believed in me. I have to do the thing well, to keep their trust.” That’s not the heart they have, and that’s not how they’d think. Is that not a difference in humanity? Tell Me, did the person who did well find it laborious to do so? They didn’t find it too tiring or laborious. They didn’t rack their brains trying to figure out how to do the thing well, and they didn’t pray often over the thing. They knew at heart what would be the proper thing to do, so they took up that burden. The one who was unwilling to bear the burden accepted the duty, too, and found it a nuisance once they did. They’d get irritated when the dogs barked and reprimand them: “Bark, will you? Bark once more and I’ll kick you to death!” Is there not a difference of humanity here? There is, and it’s a big one. With some people, when you task them with something, they find it irritating, a bother, that you’re leaving them with little liberty. “Another job? I’ve got plenty to do already—I’m not just loafing around over here!” And so, they make all manner of excuses to pass the thing off, to pardon themselves for not fulfilling their responsibility. They have no conscience or reason, nor do they examine themselves, instead giving justifications and excuses to pardon themselves of their poor humanity. This is how people of poor humanity behave. Can such a person enter the truth reality, then? (No.) Why not? They don’t love the truth, and they don’t love positive things. Isn’t that the case? They are possessed neither of normal humanity nor of the reality of positive things. They don’t have that essence inside them. So, what is the relationship between the truth and normal humanity? What must be inside of someone’s humanity for them to enter the truth reality and to practice the truth? They must first have a conscience and reason. Whatever they’re doing, they must have the correct attitude, the correct thinking, and the correct point of view. Only with these can one have normal humanity—and only by possessing normal humanity can one accept and practice the truth.