A Better Answer Now: Revealing the Truth and Cultivation of Speech

Wen Hua

PureInsight | July 22, 2002

In the past, I had a shallow understanding of "Truthfulness," and I thought that to reveal the truth is to speak one's mind. The first time that I realized that there are different levels of telling the truth occurred on the evening on July 20, 1999 when I came home from Shijingshan Stadium in Beijing. My husband bluntly asked me, "Which is more important, the Fa or our child?" I answered, "The Fa is more important." Consequently, my husband did not understand my words and what followed was a conflict that lasted for several years. Until now, the conflict has not totally been resolved.

After studying the Fa, I've enlightened to the principle that the manifestations of "words of truth" are also different on different levels (From: "Different Levels have Different Fa" in Zhuan Falun). For example, Master once gave an example of a person who was in a qigong state and could not keep from talking about things that he was not supposed to tell non-cultivators about things at high levels. If you reveal the truth to everyday people at will without considering the situation, it would be hard for them to understand, and they might even misconstrue the truth at a higher level. In China, if a policeman asks me whether I practice Falun Gong, I will dodge his question, because if I were arrested, then I couldn't achieve my purpose of validating the Fa. We realize that it is very difficult to advise practitioners at different levels to improve their xinxing because, from their perspectives, your view is wrong, and what they know is right. Another example was sending forth righteous thoughts (SFRT) to eliminate evils in other dimensions in Iceland. SFRT is the most righteous thing to do in the whole cosmos, but we cannot discuss these things casually among non-practitioners. The heavenly secret cannot be disclosed to a person who does not understand because, with the evil's interference, he might be ruined.

In the past, I did not pay much attention to the cultivation of speech. I revealed things at high levels to everyday people during Fa promotion. Unaware of my speech, I pushed a lot of people away because they did not understand or believe what I said to them. Through several years of arguments with fellow practitioners and studying the Fa, I finally woke up. Master said, "The cultivation of speech that we teach refers to: that which involves one's reputation and personal gain that cannot be given up among everyday people, that which has nothing to do with the actual work of practitioners in society, the senseless gossiping among practitioners in the same school of practice, attachments that cause one to show off, hearsay or circulating rumors, or those discussions on some social issues that one is excited about. I hold that these are all attachments of everyday people. I think that in these areas we should watch what we say—that is the cultivation of speech we refer to" (Zhuan Falun).

Master pointed out explicitly, "So in other words, when we clarify the truth to save them, we need to tailor it to the mindsets modern people (From: Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A.)." He further states, "You probably remember something I've said to you often: a Dafa disciple should consider others first in everything he does. Whenever something happens or whenever a situation comes about, even if it's a minor thing, my first thought is of others, for it's already become natural for me--I just think of others first. If all of you can do this, there won't be any of that stubborn arguing in your validating the Fa; if you really have a solid foundation like this and are able to calm yourselves, consider others, and examine yourselves when anything happens, I think you'll be able to handle a lot of things well (From: Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Boston)." Looking back at the question my husband asked me several years ago, I believe I have a better answer for him now.

Translated from:
http://www.zhengjian.org/zj/articles/2002/7/4/16675.html

Add new comment