The First Practice for Pursuing the Truth: Letting Go

Letting Go of the Barriers Between Oneself and God and One’s Hostility Toward God

I. Letting Go of One’s Notions and Imaginings About God: Letting Go of One’s Notions and Imaginings About God’s Work

F. God’s Work Does Not Change People’s Innate Conditions; It Aims to Change Their Corrupt Dispositions

Let us continue to fellowship on the subject of “How to Pursue the Truth.” During this period, we are still discussing content related to “letting go” within “How to Pursue the Truth,” talking about the major topic of “letting go of the barriers between oneself and God and one’s hostility toward God.” The first aspect of this topic is letting go of one’s notions and imaginings about God. In this aspect, we have discussed people’s notions and imaginings about God’s work, which involves a relatively complex issue: the distinctions between innate conditions, humanity, and corrupt dispositions. There are many details in this. When people face issues in daily life, they always confuse concepts and cannot distinguish clearly just which category some issue belongs to or how to differentiate them. For example, regarding certain manifestations, people cannot distinguish whether they relate to humanity or innate conditions. And for some other manifestations, people cannot tell whether they are issues related to corrupt dispositions or humanity. People cannot distinguish these matters. People often regard certain problems and flaws of innate conditions as corrupt dispositions, or regard certain defects and problems of humanity as corrupt dispositions. Sometimes, even when it’s a revelation of a corrupt disposition, they instead regard it as a revelation of an innate condition that cannot change. Therefore, people often feel very unclear about issues of innate conditions, humanity, and corrupt dispositions during the process of believing in God, and cannot distinguish them. Last time, we fellowshipped on a part of this and of course gave some examples, but I feel it was not specific enough. Today, we will take the issues within these three categories and fellowship on them more specifically. I will talk about some specific manifestations and examples, and then you will discern which category they belong to: innate conditions, humanity, or corrupt dispositions. If you cannot discern them, we will explore them together. How does that sound? (Good.) Last time, we fellowshipped a bit more on innate conditions, so your discernment in this regard is of course somewhat clearer. However, there are still some things that are relatively borderline or similar to aspects within humanity, and people still cannot distinguish whether they should be categorized under innate conditions or humanity. I will propose some manifestations or some behaviors and actions, and then you will say which aspect they should be categorized under. What is the benefit of fellowshipping in this way? Once you know which aspect some manifestation belongs to, you will know how to approach it and how to handle it.

6. Various Manifestations of Innate Conditions, Humanity, and Corrupt Dispositions

Diligence in Doing Things and Laziness

Let’s start with the first manifestation: being diligent in doing things, meaning one is very hardworking. Which aspect does this belong to? (This is a manifestation of one’s humanity.) Then, is this a merit or a defect of humanity? (A merit of humanity.) Being very diligent and hardworking is a merit of humanity. Being fond of tidiness and cleanliness, and maintaining hygiene—what kind of manifestation is this? (A merit of humanity.) (This is a good living habit, it falls under one’s innate conditions.) Is it an innate condition? Isn’t this a merit and a strong point of one’s humanity? (Yes.) Just now someone said it was an innate condition; this is incorrect. This involves one’s humanity, as well as living habits; it is, of course, also a merit and a strong point of humanity. The next manifestation: Some people are lazy; they like comfort and hate labor, and do not like to work. When not working, they feel particularly at ease, but when they start working, their mood worsens—they become fretful, irritated, and angry. When there is work to do, they feel sluggish, lacking energy, and do not want to work. However, when it comes to eating, drinking, and having fun, they have boundless energy. Laziness—what kind of problem is this? (Bad humanity.) At the very least, this is a defect of humanity, a flaw and a significant problem in humanity. It does not yet rise to the level of bad humanity. If such people like to boss others around and exploit people, making others do the work while not doing any themselves, what kind of problem is this? (Bad humanity.) When asked to do some work, they find all kinds of reasons and excuses to evade it; they simply do not want to work. They do not openly state their intentions but instead use various methods, tactics, or lies and scams, trying to make others do the work while they avoid it to enjoy leisure. What kind of problem is this? (A corrupt disposition, a wicked disposition.) Is it merely a corrupt disposition? People who like to exploit others and boss others around, first of all, have bad humanity and vile character. Secondly, their cunning methods of bossing others around expose their deceitful, wicked disposition. Their manifestations of liking to exploit and boss others around show both that they have bad humanity and that their corrupt disposition is severe—deceitful and wicked. You see, some manifestations merely reflect bad humanity or a certain shortcoming in one’s humanity, and do not rise to the level of corrupt disposition. However, some manifestations, based on the foundation of vile humanity, directly involve corrupt dispositions. Therefore, no manifestation is that simple. Some manifestations do not involve just one issue, but two.

Superficiality

Superficiality—what aspect does this fall under? (This is a defect of humanity.) Correct, this is a defect of humanity. If it is merely about loving to doll oneself up, to make oneself look pretty, and liking to receive compliments about being good-looking, beautiful, handsome, or youthful—wanting others to have a high opinion or positive view of one’s appearance—then this is limited to being an issue of humanity. What sort of issue of humanity? Clearly, it is not a merit but a defect. Some people may say, “Everyone has a love for beauty—how can this be a defect?” So why do I say superficiality is a defect of humanity? Since superficiality is a defect, its manifestations are not legitimate. Superficiality is not about looking proper, dignified, devout, or serious, giving others an impression of dignity and decency; it is not on the level of looking proper, rather it is more excessive and severe than a legitimate focus on looking proper. When people are superficial, they pay particular attention to dolling themselves up and showcasing themselves, getting others to focus on their image, to the point of even being somewhat shameless—in other words, these people are influenced and constrained by appearance in many matters. This is a defect of humanity. For example, some people feel embarrassed to go out without wearing makeup. They feel embarrassed to meet others unless they spray some perfume on themselves. They are always preoccupied with these matters, always wanting to doll themselves up excessively to make other people think highly of them and like them. This is being overly superficial—at this point, it becomes a defect. This defect has already gone beyond the scope and required standards of normal humanity. Being too superficial is a defect of humanity. That concludes our discussion on this manifestation.

Loving to Take the Limelight

The next manifestation is loving to take the limelight. What type of manifestation is this? (It is a shortcoming of one’s humanity; it is liking to push oneself forward, liking to show oneself off.) Then, is there a corrupt disposition within this? (Yes, because if someone loves taking the limelight, they then want to show themselves off, wanting to stand out.) Loving to take the limelight and always wanting to showcase oneself—what kind of problem is this? Is it because they have leadership ability, or because they understand the truth and have a sense of burden? If they have a sense of burden, have work capabilities, and can shoulder an item of work, this is not loving to take the limelight. Then what kind of problem is loving to take the limelight? In one aspect, it is a defect of one’s humanity. People of this type love to take the limelight. Wherever they go they love to show themselves off, afraid that they will not be seen by others. They also speak in quite a showy, exaggerated, and loud way. The more people there are, the more eager they are to speak, always wanting to have a place in the crowd. Loving to take the limelight cannot be considered a manifestation of bad humanity. It does not involve a person’s character, and it is merely a defect of humanity, a kind of flaw or problem. Why do I say it is a flaw or problem of humanity? Because it is a manifestation of lacking reason. These people constantly seek to take the limelight, but are they really capable of shouldering the work? Why do they always want to take the limelight? Is it because they are driven by ambition and desire? Is it because they love status, being exalted, and making themselves the center of attention? Is it because they love having prestige among people, being superior to others, and love leading others? (Yes.) Isn’t the humanity of this kind of person exposed? What kind of humanity is it? It lacks reason. Isn’t this a defect of humanity? (Yes.) In one regard, it is a defect of humanity. In another regard, this kind of person does not just occasionally push themselves forward or show themselves off; rather, because they are driven by ambition and desire, love status, power, and having the final say, they love to take the limelight. So, doesn’t this involve a corrupt disposition as well? (Yes.) What kind of corrupt disposition is this? (An arrogant one.) This is arrogance. What gives them the right to take the limelight? What gives them the right to have the final say and lead others? Some people say, “I understand the truth and I have a sense of burden.” Even if you have a sense of burden, it is still necessary to look at whether you can do real work. It is not the case that just because you have a sense of burden and want to do it, you can actually do it well. There is no logical connection between these two things. Wanting to do it and loving to do it does not mean you can do it or that you are competent in leadership work. You love taking the limelight, you love status—does that mean everyone must elect you? What are the principles for electing church leaders? (It must be based on whether the person has work capability, whether they are someone who pursues the truth, and whether they are a right person.) At the very least, you must be a right person. You must have spiritual understanding, have the ability to comprehend the truth, and also have work capability. Only then do you meet the conditions for being cultivated and become a candidate for cultivation. You must meet all these conditions. If you do not meet any of these conditions, would everyone elect you to be a leader just because you love taking the limelight? That would never happen. So if you always love taking the limelight, always love to show yourself off, isn’t this arrogance? (Yes.) It is arrogance and overestimating oneself. Arrogance, from the perspective of humanity, is a lack of reason. If measured by the truth, this is a corrupt disposition, and it is a satanic disposition. The manifestation of loving to take the limelight is both a defect of humanity and a corrupt disposition, which also involves two issues. Although loving to take the limelight does not reach the level of having poor or bad humanity, it is nevertheless a specific manifestation of lacking reason and also a manifestation of an arrogant disposition. If a person merely loves taking the limelight, and they don’t suppress or torment people, and they don’t use the means of evil people to sow discord or form cliques, then this is only a defect of their humanity. However, if they exhibit the manifestations of evil people or antichrists, and also engage in some evil deeds, then this defect of humanity escalates—what does it become? Poor, terrible, and evil humanity—these aspects are used to characterize such humanity. Additionally, the manifestations of the corrupt dispositions such people reveal include both arrogance and viciousness; of course, there are more specific manifestations as well. So, such people’s humanity should be characterized based on the degree to which they reveal these corrupt dispositions. If they merely love taking the limelight, and they don’t show manifestations of evil humanity—without suppressing or tormenting people, without forming cliques and establishing an independent kingdom in secret, or using unorthodox methods to mislead people and make them obey—then this love of taking the limelight is merely a defect of humanity. But once such evil deeds are committed, this is no longer merely a defect of humanity. What kind of problem is it then? (It is poor, terrible, and evil humanity.) Exactly. It is no longer merely a defect of humanity, but rather, it is evil humanity. A love of taking the limelight is merely a defect of humanity. If such a person has spiritual understanding, a certain caliber, and work capability, would you choose them as a leader? (Yes.) Why would you choose them? (Because they are not an evil person.) Their love of taking the limelight is merely a revelation of a corrupt disposition. There is no element of evil in their love of taking the limelight, and they are not an evil person. As long as they meet the conditions for being a leader, they can be elected and cultivated further. Although loving to take the limelight is a manifestation of having poor reason in humanity, given that they can do work, have work capability, have spiritual understanding, have the ability to comprehend the truth, and in addition they are willing to do some work and be a supervisor, they can be elected. Why can they be elected? Because their humanity is up to standard, as is their caliber. As long as they are not an evil person or an antichrist, they would not torment or suppress people, and they would not try to establish an independent kingdom, they can be elected as a leader. But if their love of taking the limelight contains elements of evil humanity, should such a person be elected? (No.) Before they are even elected as a leader, they already start using devious means, secretly forming cliques, and tampering with votes. In order to achieve their goals, they pull shady maneuvers, and they are even capable of fabricating rumors and speaking ill of some good people who are relatively earnest in their pursuit of the truth and do their duties. They do many things that go against the truth and human morals, committing some evil deeds. Can you elect such a person as a leader? (No.) Why not? (Because their humanity is evil.) To be specific, it is because they are an evil person; they do not meet the principles of God’s house for using people. God’s house does not use evil people. What are the consequences if God’s chosen people fall into the hands of evil people? For one thing, they will be tormented and suppressed. For another, the church will scatter like loose sand and become disorderly. In this case, you would not be doing your duties but serving evil people, being controlled by evil people, and following evil people. What would the consequences of this be? Your hope of gaining salvation would be ruined. Do you understand now? (Yes.) So, if two people both love taking the limelight and both have arrogant corrupt dispositions, on what basis would you choose one to be a leader? (On the basis of their humanity.) That’s right, on the basis of their humanity. The revelations of various corrupt dispositions, like arrogance, deceitfulness, and intransigence, are universal; everyone is the same in this regard. So, where does the distinction lie? In people’s humanity. On the surface, some people are more unrestrained, while some are more conservative; some are relatively muddleheaded and slapdash, while others are relatively shrewd and meticulous. Some are more extroverted and cheerful, while others are more introverted. The external manifestations of people’s personalities differ, and their humanity essence is certainly not the same either. Some people have boundaries of conscience and morality, while others do not. Some are even evil, ruthless, and vicious—they kill without batting an eye and devour people, bones and all. They are capable of doing anything. Therefore, for evil people, tormenting others is nothing to them. If you fall into the hands of evil people, your good days will be over and you will thereafter live in darkness. If someone falls into the hands of evil people, it is the same as falling into the hands of the great red dragon. Have you experienced this? (Yes.) The most prominent and obvious manifestations of evil people in terms of their humanity are evil, viciousness, ruthlessness, an absence of moral boundaries, and no standards of conscience. Judging from their attitude toward God and toward the truth, they do not have a God-fearing heart at all. They are audacious and reckless, daring to do anything, with no boundaries of conscience. Regarding the truth, they do not accept it in the least. On the surface, they can exert effort and endure hardship in their duties, and they can also give alms. However, they do not have the slightest fear in how they treat God and the truth. Whenever it comes to bearing witness to God, bearing witness to God incarnate, bearing witness to God’s identity and essence, bearing witness to God’s deeds, or bearing witness to how God pays a price for humankind and how God uses His heart’s blood and His life to save humankind, they have nothing to say and do not want to speak. In their hearts, they despise God. But when they bear witness to themselves, they have plenty to say and speak endlessly. Loving to take the limelight is merely a defect of humanity. If such people do not commit evil, and have boundaries of conscience and morality, then provided they can understand some truths, they can generally measure matters according to the boundaries of their conscience; their conscience functions. For example, if they find someone of the opposite sex to be to their liking and want to approach them, because they have boundaries of conscience in their humanity and a sense of integrity and shame, they will naturally restrain themselves. Evil people, however, do not care about such things. If they like someone, they will forcibly approach them; if the other party does not consent, they will devise all sorts of ways to torment, subdue, or make trouble for them. People with boundaries of conscience are restrained by their conscience; there are certain transgressions they will not commit and certain lines they will not cross because they have a sense of integrity and shame. If they understand the truth, and their acceptance of it is relatively deep and strong, they will have a God-fearing heart. Because they dread and fear God, they generally will not cross certain lines. Therefore, having someone with boundaries of conscience as a leader is so beneficial for you. At the very least, they will not hurt you, much less hinder you or harm you, and they can also offer you some provision and help. Evil people, however, are different. They do not merely use words to mislead you; they also employ various methods to torment you, oppress you, and trample on you. If you do not obey them, do not listen to them, or have an argument with them over something, they will not only attack you but also condemn you, embarrass you, and even seek to subdue you. In this way, you will fall completely into their hands. The greatest difference between ordinary corrupt humans and evil people lies in whether their humanity is good or evil, and whether their conscience functions. Evil people have no conscience, so they also have no sense of integrity or shame and are capable of committing any kind of bad deed. Ordinary corrupt humans, while their humanity also has defects and flaws, are restrained by conscience and reason, so there are many kinds of lines they are incapable of crossing. Even if they do not believe in God, they will not commit certain obvious evils; they are incapable of committing such acts as sexual immorality or theft, for instance. Think about it: Before you believed in God, while you were in the world, could you engage in promiscuity if someone let you? What does promiscuity refer to? It refers to having multiple sexual partners, even being involved with several people of the opposite sex at the same time, without feeling any sense of wrongdoing or inner accusation. Could you do such a thing? (No.) Look at those promiscuous women, prostitutes, and lechers—they can do such things. Aren’t you different from these people? (Yes.) Where does the difference lie? It lies in whether one has the conscience and reason of humanity. Conscience and reason give you a sense of integrity and shame, so you will not commit acts of promiscuity and you have a standard: “Conducting oneself that way is not good; I will not be that kind of person. I will draw a clear line between myself and those people. Even if I were beaten to death, I would not engage in promiscuity.” If sold into that kind of situation, some people would say, “I would rather die than become that kind of person!” Some people endure humiliation and injustice, reluctantly going along with it, but they are unwilling in their hearts and will seize any opportunity to get out of the situation. Others, however, will seek out that kind of setting themselves, even if others try to stop them. They do it even if they earn no money from it—they simply enjoy engaging in promiscuity, and couldn’t care less whether it’s profitable. Aren’t these two types of people different? (Yes.) This is precisely the difference between people’s humanity. The difference in humanity is crucial. If you can see through the differences in the manifestations of humanity among different types of people, then you will be able to discern people. Therefore, evaluating a person cannot be entirely based on their corrupt disposition or on their manifestations and revelations for a short time or in one incident. Rather, the kind of person they truly are must be evaluated based on their humanity and their nature essence. That concludes our discussion of the manifestation of loving to take the limelight.

Doing Things Methodically, With a Mental Outline, and in an Orderly Manner

Let’s move on to another manifestation. Some people do things methodically, with a mental outline, and in an orderly manner; they can determine what to do first and what to do later through thought and consideration. They follow steps and have plans rather than doing things rashly. No matter what they do, they follow steps, even for the simplest task like washing clothes. They separate the clothes by color, washing dark and light items separately; they know how much water and detergent to use based on the amount of laundry, avoiding waste—all of this is planned, so organized, meticulous, and economical. What kind of manifestation is this? (This is a merit and a strong point of humanity.) Then can this merit represent that this kind of person has good humanity? (No.) This is merely a merit and a strong point of their humanity. It does not rise to the level of involving one’s character or the principles of self-conduct, nor does it involve a corrupt disposition. It is simply a lifestyle habit or an attitude toward life. Some people do things with a mental outline, with a plan; they can grasp patterns, and when the task is done, others find it satisfactory. These are people with good caliber. But for those with poor caliber, it’s different—they do everything disorderedly and chaotically, without a mental outline or planning, in a totally haphazard way that ends in a complete mess. What kind of problem is this? (A defect of humanity.) What does this defect of humanity involve? (Extremely poor caliber.) Such people with extremely poor caliber are simply referred to as brainless. Some people, when I say to them, “Are you pig-brained? How can you not understand such a simple thing?” respond with, “I’m brainless.” What does it mean to be “brainless”? It means having no caliber or poor caliber—this is a problem of caliber. What does this issue come under? Isn’t this an innate condition? (Yes.) If someone is innately brainless, is there any point in training them? Such people approach everything without planning or a mental outline. A simple task takes them all day, delaying important matters. This is having no caliber or having poor caliber. Nonbelievers often describe people with bad humanity as having no caliber. For example, when someone sees another person littering, being unhygienic, or shouting loudly in public, disturbing others who are studying or resting, they might say that person has no caliber. To Me, this is not understanding behavioral norms and lacking humanity—how can this be called having no caliber? Does “no caliber” refer to this? What does “caliber” refer to? It refers to the efficiency and effectiveness in doing things—this is called caliber. So, are people who do things without a mental outline of poor caliber? (Yes.) This is also a defect of humanity. Is this defect innate? Is it easy to change? Can it be changed through training? Can a pig be made to climb a tree? A pig is not cut out for that—it doesn’t have the caliber. Lacking a mental outline in doing things is a problem of caliber.