PureInsight | July 30, 2001
One day at a group study a practitioner explained his understanding of “neutrality” to us. What he said really struck me, and I thought about it for a while afterwards. Later, while talking with my mother, suddenly the understanding just burst out of me, and I began more and more to see clearly how the human notion of “neutrality” is in fact warped and incorrect. I will try and provide a few examples to show this.
In the US, the media mainly focuses on one thing: having an unbiased, impartial approach to a story, in other words being “neutral”. But in fact this is impossible. The staff members choose the story to report, and the reporter chooses whom to interview and what to mention in the story. Thus, the story is changed based on the reporter’s opinions, and is no longer “neutral”. It is like when you read books of mythology or ancient stories: each time the story is told differently based on the storyteller’s preferences… What is a “neutral” story?
But this is just on the ordinary plane. There is another level to this concept that is much more serious. I will try and explain it using the example that my fellow practitioner told me. In World War II, Switzerland proclaimed itself a “neutral” country. But were they really? They allowed Hitler and his men to march right through their country into France, and did not put up any resistance. If a country accepts whatever Hitler does and doesn’t oppose it in the least, isn’t that country siding with Hitler? If the whole world were “neutral” except Germany, what would things be like now? Wouldn’t mass killings of Jews and other minorities be taking place all over the world? Of course, this isn’t to say that Switzerland is evil or anything like that. I’m just trying to show this principle.
Today, with regards to the persecution of innocent Dafa disciples in China, some everyday people and people in different levels of government have tried to stay “neutral”, claiming that the persecution has nothing to do with them and is none of their business. However, Master has said, “How could any being be outside this calamity?” Those who think this way are in fact siding with the evil because they are accepting its arrangement. It’s like the example I just gave: if everyone outside of China remained “neutral”, wouldn’t the evil be persecuting practitioners on a massive scale without any restraint? After the Fa is rectified, would those “neutral” people end up somewhere between salvation and destruction? This concept of “neutrality” is not right.
My understanding is that Master said in one of his lectures: that you’re either with the Fa or against it. There’s no “neutral” path and everyone has to make a decision and position him or herself for the future. “Good will be rewarded with good and evil will be rewarded with evil.” This is the most fair and just, far more fair than Western media is. When we spread the Fa and clarify the Truth, we are actually giving people a way to leave that position of “neutrality” and to make a genuine choice for the future. This is great mercy.
