The World God Loves

We know that our human history is a history that has come forth pursuing a new and higher ideal.

However long the length of that history humanity has hoped for, I see that our short human life stands in the stead of that history. In the end, we know that one has come forth pursuing how to bring the hope in the long, long human history to a conclusion today as the hope of a human being’s one lifetime.

It was human history, and it is our method of living today to leave behind all the good things in the course of history and absorb them into the living of our humanity, into the living of us human beings, and unfold them upon our life course.

However long a history it may be, that history is in the end connected to the sphere of the whole life, or the sphere of the living, of one true and ideal person.

When one looks at human history today, speaking of today, such problems as religion or some doctrine or economics are always woven together. And then people…. Now, seen in this way, what is it that the whole desires? It desires a world of true love. That is the conclusion. It is simple. It desires a world of true love.

What sort of religion is a true religion?

One holding true love is a true religion—it comes out like that. Again, what sort of person is a true person? A person holding true love is a true person. What sort of person is a true master? When one becomes a subject who can have dominion, holding true love, that is a true master.

Finally, when one puts together all the problems of religion, of man, of all things, and draws a conclusion, everything is brought to a conclusion in one true love. However great a nation may be, if in that nation there is no true…. If there is no love of nation, or if there is no love of one’s own people, that nation is bound without fail to perish. Again, if one looks at one family, if it is one centered upon a true family and made one with love as its center, I see that that family is a family of hope and an ideal family.

It is the same at the workplace. It is the same conclusion at the workplace, and it is the same conclusion at school. It goes without saying that in any body whatever, in a place where two or more people gather, what is ideal arises only where they become one centering upon an inner foundation called love.

Seen from such a perspective, when one sets before oneself the question of why on earth man came into being and why all things came into being and why God came to be, and when one examines the question of what they came to exist for, the natural conclusion is that in the end they exist to be loved and to love.

It is the same with you. Why did man come to be? In the end, there is nothing apart from it, which is to give true love and to receive true love. It is the same with women. When one sets before oneself the question of why a woman is born and exists, more than other outward problems such as eating rice and living, the fundamental problem is that she was born for the sake of true love and lives for the sake of true love. She was born to give true love and lives to give true love.

Now, if one looks at a person, it is so, even with a single hair. Why did this hair come into being? Did it come into being to be on my head? This too, likewise, came into being to be loved. Why do the eyes sparkle? What do they sparkle for? It is to manifest there a symbolic beauty, or a substantial beauty of love, by which one can love and be loved. Everything exists because of love.

Some people may think—a person who studies may think, “What have the eyes to do with love? They exist to look at books. Why do the eyes exist? A person who works will say, “Ah, the eyes exist to see and work.

If one had no eyes, one could not see.” Now, seen in this way, is it better the more one studies, and better the more one works? One does it because one cannot help it. Is it not so with you? Let those who like studying raise their hands.

Let those who like working raise their hands. Yet if there is true love by which one just loves and loves and loves and loves to love, would there be anyone who dislikes it? There is not one such person. It is the same when one is young and the same when one is old. It is the same when one dies. If love is such that eternally, the more one pursues what is higher, the more interesting and more thrilling and more ideal it is, then anyone will pursue that love.

Now, if we centered upon the five senses and asked, “Hey! Five senses, why did you come into being? Those five senses would say, “We came into being to breathe air, to hear, to eat, to see, to feel.”

What is the highest purpose of such five senses?

What supreme thing do they exist for? Everything is concluded centering upon the person one loves, upon what one loves. Everything concentrates on its ideal for the sake of the person one loves, the person by whom one can be loved.

However disagreeable a task may be, if that task is for the sake of love, it is not disagreeable. Even studying, if one studies with the purpose of love interposed in it, is not disagreeable. If love enters, it raises all harmony so that it can make even a bad thing good and can make a good thing more glorious. I see that such a play comes about only through love.

Then, is love that goes on for a moment, for a day or two, love? (“No.”) That is not genuine but false. There are any number of false ones, but the genuine one is only one. Then that love must be eternal. And next, it must be one alone. It must hold uniqueness. And at the same time it must be absolute.

If you were to give the definition of what love must be like, that love must at once be an ideal love and, going into its attributes, have absoluteness, eternity, and unchangingness. One cannot but attach such a conclusion. Is that reasonable? (“Yes.”)

Then, what becomes the problem here?

The conclusion comes out that to hold such a unique, absolute, unchanging love, one cannot hold that love unless one is a more unique being, a more absolute being, a more eternal being. Is that so? (“Yes.”) A person who changes can neither manifest nor hold an unchanging love. That is an unmistakable fact.

People today have pursued an unchanging, eternal, unique love, but in pursuing that love, if the subject and object that can pursue it are human beings, has that human being himself become an eternal person, an unchanging person, a unique person? One ought to become such a person and then pursue it, but the problem is that one pursues it without having become so.

You will have come into the Unification Church and said, “Ah… it would be good if the responsible persons of the Unification Church loved me. It would be good if that love were not a temporary love but an eternal love.” What do you desire? (“An eternal love…”) Yet what becomes the problem here is that if one pursues such a love while holding in oneself the original nature of being eternal and unique and unchanging, that is the most reasonable thing, but there cannot be such a thing as seeking to be loved while simply remaining as one is.

Then what becomes the problem here is, must one first greet an eternal love, or must one first become an eternal person? (“One must first become an eternal person.”) An eternal person! The answer is easy.

Then what on earth is love?

Love cannot be done alone. There must without fail be a relationship of subject and object. Yet the conclusion comes out that unless one becomes such a subject or becomes such an object that is absolute and unique and unchanging, one cannot bring in the noun “love.” You understand that, do you not? (“Yes.”)

If one would seek such an eternal, unchanging, unique love, one must arrive at one of two conclusions: to seek an eternal, unique, unchanging subject or to seek such an object. To pursue an eternal love otherwise is a theoretical contradiction.

Then can a human being on earth become such a subject? Can a human being become such an object?

Can you yourselves be so today? One must analyze this. (“Yes.”) Yes? (Laughter.) What do you think? (“No.” “Yes.”) Which is it? Is it “no” or is it “yes”? (“No.” “Yes.”) If one called up the people of the past and asked, “Can you be so?” they too would say “No.” If one called up the people of the world now and asked whether they can be so, they would say “No”; and if one called up the people of the future and asked, they would say “No” too. A person who says “Yes” is a person who is a little lacking. (Laughter.)

Then what is the difference between the genuine and the false?

One must know this. What is the genuine, the genuine? It must hold eternity and hold uniqueness and hold absoluteness. There may be someone who will say, “That is wrong. Reverend Moon says so, but I do not think so.”

Now look. Even in the world, when one speaks of a treasure, a precious object…. Even when one has built a house, do you like that house to stand for a moment and then collapse, or to go on eternally? Everything, when one looks, that is treated as a treasure and treated as precious and true lasts long. The longer it lasts, the more it is true. The longer it lasts.

If it be a diamond, whatever one brings against a diamond, it is absolute and is not invaded. And then what? It holds uniqueness as a diamond. It holds absolute uniqueness. It does not even receive the weathering action of the changes of spring, summer, autumn, and winter and holds its form for a thousand years and ten thousand years, centering upon eternity. In hardness, the diamond holds eternity, uniqueness, and unchangingness. That is why it has the value of a treasure. That is unmistakable, is it not? (“Yes.”)

And when you say “gold,” your eyes grow round. What is good about gold? If one looks, it is soft. Yet in color—in color it holds uniqueness and unchangingness and eternity. Again, if it be a pearl, the pearl is so in its harmony of color, all of it. Is that so or not? (“It is unmistakable.”)

Then what sort of person is a genuine person?

It is the same. Looking at history, a person who can say, “Through thousands of years of past, present, and future, you are people who change, but I will not become a person who changes! And so all the people of the past, present, and future must take me as their model—that is a true person. Can history do as it pleases with that true person? Can a true person do as he pleases with history, or can that history do as it pleases with a true person? (“A true person can move history.”) You answer well.

Then can a true person rule history, or can this world now, the present, rule a true person? (“A true person rules history.”) Who rules past, present, and future? What rules that history is a true person? If one said to this land of America, “Hey America, land of America, by what sort of person do you wish to be ruled?” the answer is simple. It answers, “I wish to be ruled by a true person.” Is that mistaken or not? (“It is unmistakable.”)

Then is the president of America a true person? (“No.”) Is President Washington a true person? Is he not? (“No.”) Is President Lincoln a true person? Is he not? (“No.”) This lies elsewhere, elsewhere. Then is President Ford a true president? (“No.”) And what of Jimmy Carter? (“No.”)

Now, leaving America aside, even to this lump of earth, if one said, “Hey, lump of earth! What did you come into being to do? It would say, “I came into being because I wished to meet a true master, a true person”; and if one asked, “Whom do you wish to have as your partner?” this earth too would answer, “I wish to have a true person as my partner.”

Now, leaving that lump of earth aside, centering upon people, upon the four billion people, if one said, “You people! What sort of sovereign of the world do you now desire?” The answer is simple. They say, “Ah, a true sovereign!” It is the same. Is it so or not? (“It is so.”)

Again, leaving people aside altogether, if there is a God, some deity, and one asked, “What sort of thing on earth is a deity? What sort of person is a deity undergoing such hardship to meet and carrying out the Providence of Restoration and the providence of salvation for? He would say, “To meet a true person.” It is the same answer.

Now, facing our women, if one said, “What sort of bridegroom do you wish to obtain?” they say, “A true man”; and again, facing the men, if one says, “What sort of woman do you wish to obtain?” they say, “A true woman.” Is that so? (“Yes.”)

Why does one desire a true person?

Why, why? (“Because only a true person holds true love.”) Only a true person holds true love—that is a splendid answer. That is the problem. Though the conclusion is that this and that and the whole world desire a true person, what will one do if there is that true person? One desires him because a true person holds true love. Is that good? (“Yes.”) It seems it is good, that.

Now, we have said “true love,” but what on earth is true love?

What sort of thing is true love? This is the problem. What sort of thing is true love? That is necessary. True love is such that in the ages of history no one disliked it or opposed it, and in the present no one opposes it, and among all things, whether a puppy, a clod of earth, a stone, flowing water, or a little fish, there is not one that dislikes it. They all like it. It is the same with God. Then how much would God like true love when He sees it? Would He be like this, or would He go, “Ha ha ha…”? (“Ha ha ha.”) What would He do with His expression? Would not God’s eyes be turned all about and His mouth fall open so that He cries out, “Ah! This is it?” He would be so.

Now, what would a person be like? The eyes turned about like this…. What would it be like if there were such true love? Do you like true love? (“Yes.”) If one could find it once, could you run a marathon and do everything? (“Yes.”) Is it worth staking your life once? (“Yes.”) Is that so? (“Yes.”)

So today, what is it?

The world of God’s love—this is the problem. Then where on earth can one find such love? As I said just now, if there is an eternal, unchanging, unique subject, there is no method and no possibility of finding that subject in myself. Yet if one meets such a subject, there is a possibility, and since that is only one being, the conclusion comes out that humanity cannot but pursue that being.

That is why that One is a One who has been eternal from the origin, a One who has been unique from the origin, a One who has been absolute from the origin. Only if He does not change can such absolute and unique and unchanging love come forth. Such a being we call “God.” One must draw such a conclusion.

Without drawing such a conclusion, one cannot give a definition of true love. And if one does not give that definition, one cannot use it as a means within our historical sphere of living.

Then, true love from where?

If there is a God, it is from God. Can it come from man? Can it come from your excellent ancestors? (“No.”) Because your twenties and thirties have passed, now you must marry, and the woman seeks to love a man and the man a woman; but though one dreams, saying, “There will be true love in becoming a loving husband and wife,” there is none among the human beings of today.

What is true holds four-directionality. Young people today must know this. If one were to assert that I am right, that rightness cannot be held by oneself alone. One must hold four-directionality. One must hold relationships of before and behind, left and right, and above and below.

In the democratic world today, in a place like America, they say liberalism, “Oh! Freedom is as I please…”—by no means! The more it is freedom, the more the relationships of before and behind must all accord, and the relationships of left and right and above and below must accord. You must know that there are two kinds of freedom. Evil freedom and good freedom.

What is true freedom?

Past, present, and future must accord. Is that so? (“Yes.”) Otherwise it is license, license. Where is there such freedom as has no origin and no departure and no process and no purpose? Now, such a judgment too….

Seen from such a perspective, does God really exist? (“Yes.”) How do you know whether God exists? (“Seen by the standard of Father…”) What? What did you say just now? “He says that, taking Father as the model, God unmistakably exists.” How do you know whether Father is a robber or what? How do you know whether he is a swindler or what? (Laughter.) These days, does not the whole world call me a swindler? (“They are blind.”) It is not that they are blind; it is you who are blind.

The problem is where God is. Can you see God? Can you see Him? If one could see, here at Belvedere one sees nothing but trees and nothing but you. How could one see God? This is the problem. The problem is whether God exists or not. If God exists, everything is resolved. The question of whether God exists or not—even at the cost of cutting off my life, whether He exists or not is the problem.

Now, do you have a God? (“Yes.”) Now, do you know more actually that God exists than that if one pinches like this it hurts? (“Yes.”) Is there a God more actual than eating when one is hungry and wishes to eat? (“Yes.”) Is that so? (“Yes.”) Eh? (“Yes.”) The problem lies there. Ah, there really is a God! When one can say that there really is a God, the problem is all resolved.

Now, all of you, consider this world once. Where did this world come from? The scientists and communists today say, “It came about naturally,” but that is a deception, a deception. They are being deceived. Where did that “nature” come from? Where did it come from? How did the whole created world come into being? Rather than how it was made, how did it come to exist? (“By God.”) They say it just came about of itself, of itself.

This too, the piano too, they say, just came about. This too is all scientific, they say. If one says to a microphone, “Why did you come into being?” they say it just came into being. This mystical palace of the world, this human body, which is a mystical palace that cannot be known, however much one researches, which several million doctors of medicine cannot resolve, however much they research—when one says, “How did you come into being?” and it says, “I just came into being,” does that make sense? When one speaks of nature as holding an exceedingly scientific quality and attribute, that nature itself is the same as God. In the end, there is no law of coming into being without a cause.

Today you apply the theory of evolution, but if it be an amoeba, in the amoeba’s multiplying, in order for something bigger than the amoeba to come into being, in order for it to be able to become bigger than what is here at present, another force must be added. Force must be added as a plus. (He spoke while writing on the board.) Then can the amoeba itself develop while adding force to itself? Can it itself put in such force? Does it have such an ability? (“No.”)

If it is to go up a little more and become something bigger, a greater force must be added here. Then, since it itself cannot create force and add it, from where and how does it come? Does such logic hold? (“No.”) If it be Mister Kim, Mister Kim, or if it be Mister Pak, when Mister Pak is there, can he say, “I can knock out someone like Muhammad Ali without any trouble”? For that, a greater force must be added here; otherwise, however much one does, one cannot cross the limit line. Can Mister Pak say, “By a sudden mutation my strength will grow and I will knock down Ali,” and have it be so? Can that be? (“No.”)

There, unless one receives some injection, or eats ginseng extract, and sets up a motive that can add force—unless one sets up dynamite that can explode—one cannot smash it all at once; but by itself it is impossible. (Laughter.) By itself it is impossible, because it cannot add a greater force. That is why the conclusion that it itself cannot make a higher-dimensional advance is a theoretical conclusion. Can one deny that? (“No.”)

And next, in this development, why does it go only to a high place?

Let it go to a low place. Why does it have directionality, directionality? If there is a direction, where on earth does it go? There are three hundred and sixty degrees: east, west, south, and north. How does it come to have a directionality that can go to one higher dimension? It goes about the three hundred and sixty degrees, up and down, up and down, all as it pleases….

If it does as it pleases, can an amoeba come out of matter?

Who presents the direction? Is there among matter a being that can say, “Ah… since I can follow the direction and also determine the direction and add force, I go”? Can matter do so? (“No.”) It is impossible.

Then, to exist, in coming into being, one does not come into being without a purpose. There is nothing that comes into being without a purpose. Why is there direction? The conclusion is that there is direction where there is purpose, and where there is no purpose, there is no direction. You came toward Belvedere this morning, at dawn. Why did you come to Belvedere? Did you say, “I am just going in that direction”? ”Just going”? You sought Belvedere because you had the purpose of hearing the Teacher’s words. The conclusion is that there being direction is because there is a purpose.

Now then, does the amoeba can put in a force beyond itself, and the ability to have direction, and the ability to present a purpose, or not? How is it? (“It does not.”) It is impossible. Away with such things as do not fit logic. And so the communists say dialectical development…. Hey! Leave off! There can be no dialectical logic that presents such a direction without a purpose. Without a view of purpose, this is completely smashed. If one asks them that, they all do not know. Is that so, you wretch? Because it itself cannot do it, this is a being that has been added to, a being that has been put in. Such a problem arises.

Seen from such a perspective, the theory that there is such a motive being is a valid theory, and to set up such a theory is scientific. What is being scientific? It is scientific when what was hypothetical comes to fit fact in reality. Yet that force comes out of itself—that will not do. That is not scientific. If force is to come out, it comes out only if one lights a fire or gives an injection. Then it is done. I did it like this, and this one goes like this. If one turns a magnet to the south, it faces north. Who holds that directionality? Why? Because the object of purpose is there. Can it itself do that? Can matter itself, can nature itself, hold such an active subjectivity? It cannot, it cannot. To be scientific, one must fit theory. In theory, hypothesis and proof and reality must accord. It is the same reasoning.

Seen in that way, God is the causal being of this universe. It is an unavoidable conclusion that there is a causal being of all such action, a causal being who adds such force, a causal being who presents direction, and a causal being who presents purpose. We call that One a personal God, a personal God. The reason is that He, without fail, holds direction centering upon a motive and presents a purpose, and because that is one certain and unmistakable position, we call Him a personal God. That is why one goes out through cause by way of direction into the world of purpose. Now, seen from such a perspective, the causal being of this whole is God.

Why does one live a religious life?

For the putting in of a force of a higher dimension than myself. And so, in what direction? Not toward the fallen world of today but toward the direction of a higher-dimensional ideal purpose. Is it not so? Therefore, to say that there is no God has no theoretical ground. Cause and result always accord. Is that so? (“Yes.”) The more complicated the process, the more that cause and purpose are a complicated cause and a complicated purpose, and therefore the more valuable. The wider the breadth, the more valuable it is.

In that sense, what is the Unification Church?

Centering upon God, who is the cause, it is the same religion, but there are many complicated matters. There is nothing it does not do. What is more valuable…. The more complicated a machine is, the more precise a machine it is and the more valuable a machine. It is the same.

If one looks at the doctrine of the established churches—one obtains salvation by the merit of Jesus’ blood; one obtains salvation if one believes in Jesus—how simple is that?

What of the Unification Church?

Restoration through indemnity and the Principle—how complicated is that? Things like the realm of the dominion of the result, the formation stage, the growth stage, the completion stage…. How complicated is that? Yet all of it is woven together and equipped with direction and becomes a system of theory. All of you, in exercise, are one-sided exercises, good? One must do turning exercises too and all sorts of exercises. One does them all like this. Which do you like? (“Turning exercise.”) Why, why? You all know that.

Now, since there is no need to give a Principle lecture about God…. One must know that even seen in this way, God cannot but exist. So everything such a One holds must hold eternity and must hold uniqueness and absoluteness. Even looking at nature, even looking at all the material world of this earth, has it all become so or not? (“It has become so.”)

That is why no other one can invade it. One cannot invade it. Can one graft an alder and a poplar? For the poplar kind, there is its family. What corresponds to it can become one. Is that possible? By dialectic, grafting too is done by dialectic—have you learned such a method? It cannot be.

Now, therefore, what must God be like? He must be an absolute, unique, unchanging God. Then, centering upon such a God…. What does the ideal God desire? God too takes love as His ideal. What would God do with God alone? If He were alone with nothing and no ideal, it would not matter whether He existed or not.

Then what does God need?

God too needs ability and needs authority. (“No.”) God too needs knowledge, does He not? (“No.”) God too needs money. Money? (“No.”) Then what does He need? God too needs love, love. Then what sort of love is the love God needs? Is it genuine love or false love? (“True love.”) Without even needing to ask, it is “true love.” Well, where does one find true love? (“A true man.”) A true man—what, President Truman of America? (“No.”) (Laughter.) Do you like a real man?

Now the problem is a true person. If among the women there is anyone who dislikes that, raise your hand. Such a person, beaten to death. If there is one, beat it to death. Now, let those who dislike a true person raise their hands among the men. There is none, none.

Now, if it is so with people, the animal world and the plant world too…. If one said, “Hey, you tree! Do you desire an evil person or a true person? How would it answer? (“It would say it desires a true person.”) It is the same. God too, a true person. Man too, a true person; all things too, a true person; a puppy too or a kitten too desires a true person. That is unmistakable truth. Why do they desire a true person? Because they desire true love. That is why, when one says, “Let us seek a true religion,” one looks to see whether there is a true person.

What sort of person is that true person?

He must not change. In the midst of tribulation, or in the midst of distress, in summer or in winter, whether the wind blows or a storm blows, the direction he goes does not change! When a lump of gold goes into gutter water, the water soaks in and the color all changes—that is gold! (“No.”) What does not change is the truth.

Then is there a true person in the Unification Church or not? (“There is.”) What sort of person is a true person? Is it a true person who, when he thinks of the Teacher alone at his side, goes “Ha ha ha” and is pleased and then, when he falls down into hell, kicks it away saying, “Oh dear, I dislike the Unification Church”? (“No.”) A true person is true even if one puts him into hell. Are you true people? (“No.”)

If one says, “Oh dear, I am so hungry I cannot go to the Unification Church,” is that a true person? (“No.”) If a person who is said to be a true person of the Unification Church says, “Oh dear, it is so hard; I cannot go. Unification Church, let us rest a while and then go. Can the Unification Church call him a true person? “Oh dear, I have taken both a master’s degree and a doctorate, so I dislike doing fundraising. Oh dear, I cannot do it. I shall teach the Unification Church the method. The Unification Church’s method is wrong. Do as I do. Only then is one a true person of the Unification Church!”—Can one do that? (“No.”) (He laughed.)

Then what sort of person is it? Is a true person one who, wearing the official hat of the Unification Church, says, “Mm, let us go,” even when dragged off to prison, and says, “Mm, let us go!” even when he receives opposition? Is a true person one who, wearing this hat, lets it be knocked off if it is to be knocked off and, with eyes wide open, simply does not change direction and goes to one place? What sort of person is a true person? Even if his neck is cut off?

Then when will one become a true person? When am I publicly acknowledged as a true person? One must be able to do everything the Unification Church presents, everything it tells one to do. This wretched eye must become so, and this wretched nose must become so, and this wretched mouth must become so—everything must be so. (He expressed it with gestures.) And the mind? Must the mind go back and forth? How is it? Should the mind move or not move?

Now, if some person says, “Oh dear, the theory of the Unification Church is good. The theory is good, but the play they carry on is so hard I cannot do it. That does not suit me.” He is false to that degree. You must know that he is false to that degree. If one says, “Oh dear, I cannot do fundraising. That has nothing to do with me. To that degree, one fails to become a true person. “When there is something good to eat, I stand at the head. Oh dear, when there is something good, I am not left out…” Again, if one complains, “Oh dear, I cannot do the joint wedding,” to that degree one is lacking (결, 缺)…. Is that a true person of the Unification Church? (“No.”) Again, “Oh dear, I am white, so I cannot marry a Black person. Oh dear, if it is done the Unification Church way, I cannot do it. That alone I cannot do”—is that an entirely true person? When one says, “That alone I cannot do,” one is incomplete to that degree.

How is it with you? Have you such confidence? (“Yes.”) All of you, do you have such confidence? (“Yes.”) The answer is easy. (Laughter.) Is becoming a true person as easy as the answer or difficult? Which is it? (“It is difficult.”) How hard is it? You must know that it is harder than dying. Will you choose the easy thing, or will you choose what is harder than dying? (“What is harder than dying…”) Why, why? For what? What is a young fellow doing it for? (“For the sake of true victory.”) Not true victory but true love. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”)

Do you really need that true love?

Do you really need it? (“Yes.”) What do you need true love for? Why do you need it? When one is struck with the club of true love, even if blood comes out, one likes it. Even while dying, one says one is happy. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) If one takes hold of this and pulls, not only God but humanity is dragged along, and all things are dragged along. If one lets this go, it is all loosened. If one pulls, it becomes one bundle, and if one spreads it out, it becomes countless things.

If one wraps them in that wrapping cloth of true love, even though they go into one wrapping cloth, whether a black one or a white one, it is good even though all are mixed in together, swarming. It is good this way and good that way. There, whether black or white, they keep putting their heads together and trying to burrow in and are not so arranged as to try to come apart. That is why, if one only has the wrapping cloth of true love, there is nothing that is not wrapped, and there is not one thing that does not go into it. It wraps the whole universe and has room to spare. There is not one thing left out. And if one spreads it out, wherever it goes, there is nothing that says it will not go. Wherever it is, it spreads out to fill the universe. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) In a place where there is such love, there is nothing that is not unified. It is automatic unification, automatic unification. Do you desire that? (“Yes.”) Some people are like this…. (He made an expression.)

That is why God until now has been…. Now look. If one looks at religion, Christianity says love, and Buddhism says compassion—there is no religion that does not hold the notion of love. Now you understand, do you not? (“Yes.”) You will understand.

Then the world of the deity…. If one had not originally fallen, what sort of world would it be? Such a world…. What sort of place is the Kingdom of Heaven? It is a place where God’s love is. For me to go to the Kingdom of Heaven, what sort of person must I become? One must become a true person. Having become that true person, what does one do? Thereby, one can take possession of true love. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”)

What sort of doctrine is this doctrine? There is universalism. What sort of doctrine is that? It will be Godism.

What is the purpose of Godism?

It will be the doctrine of true love. There will be no one who opposes that conclusion. Then what on earth is this doctrine of true love, this doctrine centering upon God? It is a doctrine that has become one together with a true person.

Then, to become a true person, how must one become?

There is a true God; to become a true person, how must one become?

One must become a person who resembles God. In seeing with the eyes, one likes what God likes to see, and in hearing, one likes what God likes to hear, and in smelling, one likes what God likes to smell, and in speaking, one likes what God likes to speak, and in making, one likes to do God’s work. And in going, too, one likes to go to God’s world.

Now, let me ask one thing of our pretty members, our beauties. When I look in the mirror, do I look because I like myself, or do I look to make God like me? Which is it? Again, since I am a woman, do I look to make some man like me? (“God.”) Mm! Which is it? Is it for one’s own sake that women put on make-up and apply lipstick and apply nail polish and do eye shadow and do this and that, or for the sake of some man, or for God’s sake? (“God.”) (Laughter.) It is not “God.” Does God like makeup being put on?

If He liked that, if one pressed here once, lipstick would come out and apply itself, and if one pressed once, there would be eyeshadow—would He not make everything like that? (Laughter.) Which do you like? Which does God like?

All of you, look. When a well-renowned artist has finished painting a picture, if you said that the eye there was not done well and tried to paint it, saying, “It would be good if it were done like this,” would that do? (“It would not.”) One ruins it, ruins it. Your eyes are flat, so they see only flatly, but think that God sees three-dimensionally, three-dimensionally. He sees more minutely than a microscope.

Now, take make-up and look at it under a magnifying glass ten million times, several million times. Would that feel good? How would it be? When God looks, there would be no pockmarked face like that among pockmarked faces. (Laughter.) God likes only the supreme masterpiece He Himself made.

Now, for whose sake does one put on make-up? At some times when one looks at women…. (He made an expression. Laughter.) For whose sake is that? Is it for God’s sake? That is a matter to think about. Do you wish to become genuine, or do you wish to become false? (“I wish to become genuine.”) Now, is this false or genuine? (“It is false.”) Eh? If everyone became a Unification Church member, the cosmetics dealers would demonstrate. “Expel Reverend Moon!”—there would be such an uproar.

Now, we must hold such a way of thinking. Even in wearing clothes, so that it is good in God’s sight; even in walking along the road, so that God finds it good; and in speaking too, and in eating too, so; and in sleeping too…. Are you so? Now, have you become true people of the Unification Church? That is not a simple thing.

I spoke of this to the state representatives yesterday, but for women it is the reverse.

First, become a father. One has lost the father’s love. So, however beautiful she may be, one must love her as a daughter. And next, what has been lost? That the parents’ love was lost is the Fall, and next, that one could not completely receive an elder brother’s love is the Fall. This is Eve’s fall. From the position of being like an elder brother without a second in the world, loving her like a younger sister, and setting her in a place where she holds life and can die for the father and the elder brother—and then, even if that woman asks, “Would you become the partner of my love?” it will not do.

And the next one asks. “Did you love me like a father?” “Yes.” “Did you love me like a true elder brother?” “Yes.” And only after that, if God permits, can one marry. The two of us cannot do it! Can there be with the two of us? Only after God is interposed…. That is the Principle. All of you, do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) If these young things go about like Satan saying, “I must make that one my bride. I must make that one my bridegroom.” They are all Satan, Satan. That is why, when a woman sees a man, it is the road of the Principle to love him like a father and love him like an elder brother and then greet him as a husband. This is the original principle of creation. All of you, can you marry as you please? (“No.”) That is a great matter! (“No.”) Why? Because in true love there is no such thought as I have just spoken of. True love comes forth after one has passed through the Principle, after one has passed through the world of the Principle. It is called the realm of the dominion of the result of the Principle, is it not? It comes forth after one has passed through the Principle. One must do it after passing through that.

What that Principle is is that before restoring the father’s love and restoring the elder brother’s love, there is no way for a woman to find her ideal partner. The conclusion of the Principle is that before a man restores the mother’s love and restores the elder sister’s love, there is no way for him to marry. Is it not so in your homes too? One receives the parents’ love and next love among the brothers and sisters, and only then grows up and marries, does one not? It is the same.

It is the same with the Teacher. Even though the women of the Unification Church all follow, saying, “Teacher, Teacher,” or “Father, Father,” all that…. If it were a man of the world…. One must love them like daughters and love them like younger sisters. And the next one must obtain for them a husband, a partner more excellent than me. That is the love of God, who is the Parent. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) That is why the members of the Unification Church are bound to come seeking, saying, “Teacher, Teacher.” If one holds such love, they are bound to come seeking. They are bound to become one.

Now, because the Principle is so, if you men hold firmly such a mind of love when you witness it, the women come flocking. They are so arranged as to come flocking. They like it merely to look. They like it merely to look, saying, “Ah! He is fine.”

Why is that?

If the Principle is so, it means that they seek to entice just as fallen Eve sought to entice unfallen Adam. What this is is that because it is unprincipled, one controls the unprincipled with the Principle. One must re-create through the Principle, re-create.

Now therefore, I have a responsibility to love you like a father and a responsibility to love you like an elder brother, and you have a responsibility to love me like a father and a responsibility to love me like an elder brother. After fulfilling all this, if we forget one another, how excellent a man and how excellent a teacher would one think him? Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) Only after passing through the Principle does true love come. Why must one carry on such a play? To find true love.

Then where on earth is true love in our human world?

It is in one’s own household, among mother, father, and brothers and sisters—such true love is there. Is that so or not? (“It is so.”) And next, where is the true love of the church?

What on earth is God’s true love?

The conclusion comes out that, centering upon this Principle, with the original unfallen love, the unchanging love, appearing as a true father and appearing as true sons and daughters, and appearing as a true husband and a true wife, the love that is woven together there is precisely true love. Do you understand what that means? One must complete the love of the Four Position Foundation.

Today, we human beings have fallen. The love of the world in which we are living has fallen. That is why fallen man must pass through the principle of re-creation. One creates again. For that, how must one become? One must become a completed person, a true person. A true person means that one must become the unfallen Adam and Eve.

Then what sort of person is a true Adam and Eve?

It is a person who can receive God’s love from all four directions. Seen centering upon God, since God is the Father, one must completely receive the love of a true father. And one must receive the love of true children, the love of brothers. And one must receive the love of a true husband and a true wife.

Why is that necessary?

Why is God’s love necessary? Why is the parents’ love necessary?

Because God is the subject and man is the object, it is necessary to form a vertical relationship. And next, why is the love of Adam and Eve, of husband and wife, necessary? It is necessary to form horizontal love. And why is the love of brothers necessary? By this, the environment is woven. The environment is formed. This connects with the world. Brothers connect with the world. From this principle, the saying comes that all people are brothers. Then how must one love brothers? The saying comes that it is enough if one loves them like a husband and wife and loves them like God. Then that becomes the Principled love God has set up. That is the love that can be done as a complete, true person! One must know this.

Now, if one says, “Woman! Become a true woman—how must one do that? Let us now conclude. One must love God more than oneself and must love one’s husband like God and must love one’s brothers more than God and one’s husband. Again, seen from God’s side, God loves the object more and loves the son more. He loves him more than Himself. That is true love. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”)

That is originally the principle of divine love (신애, 神愛). Because divine love—that which centers upon true love, that which centers upon love of the world—is God’s ideal, it is true love to love a man by that same method as an extension of one’s own husband and to love a woman as an extension of one’s wife and to think of and love this as a representative extension of a brother, an extension of an elder brother, an extension of a younger sibling, and next, to think of and love it as an object-like extension taking God as subject.

That love gets through even to hell and gets through even to the satanic world and gets through even to the heavenly kingdom. There is no place it does not get through. Within that sphere of love, even a frail woman like this, if she takes hold of a big man like that German, God too is dragged along and the world too is dragged along. God too is dragged along, and the world too follows gladly. Those are not mere words.

And within this man there is a wife’s love and a mother’s love and an elder sister’s love and a brother’s love. You understand that, do you not? That is true love. That is why the conclusion comes out that in the Principle one must do the love of the three object purposes.

The one who is the wife must love her husband like a father and love him like an elder brother and love him as a husband. Even though her father dies, she lives trusting her husband in her father’s stead. Even though she has no elder brother, she lives trusting him as an elder brother; and even though she has no younger sibling, she lives trusting him as a younger sibling. And next, even though I disappear, she lives, setting him up as more than me. If one can be so, that woman is a true wife and a true woman. Do you understand? Is that right? (“Yes.”)

And next, what is it—how must a man think?

That woman is in the stead of his mother, and in the stead of his elder sister, and in the stead of his younger sibling and is a central being for whom he can live even by investing his life. She is a being who stands in their stead. If it becomes so, he is a true man. That a man such as this and a woman such as this have become one is what is called a true married couple. Here, whatever man of the world enters, he can get through; and God and whoever of the spirit world enters, whoever enters eternally, is welcomed.

Now then, what sort of place is the Unification Church?

Since one cannot find all such methods of love, and there is no place where one can do such love, I see that the place presented today as a training ground for such love, transcending national borders and transcending the peoples and tribes of the world, is the Unification Church!

You say “True Parents” and this and that—what do those words mean? What do those words, “true brothers and sisters,” mean? This place is a place of making one preparation in order, in the end, to find again the original love of the deity, which has been lost, and it is one training ground, one place of training. That is why it is a place that teaches the method of loving one person like humanity, loving a man in the stead of the men of the world, in the father’s stead, in God’s stead, in an elder brother’s stead, and in a younger sibling’s stead.

Even in the families of the world today, if it be the parents’ affair, if it be for the sake of the parents’ will, there is a road those sons and daughters go even by sacrificing their lives; so, seen centering upon the Will, centered upon Heaven, the conclusion comes out that it is a matter of course for you to go resolved upon your lives if it be the Teacher’s work within God’s Will. Just as even in the world there are women who go for the sake of their brothers, ruining their whole lives, for the advancement of a younger or elder brother, we too can go sacrificing for the sake of our brothers and giving thanks. We can go to a place beyond the people of the world.

Loving a person like God, and if that person is a man, loving him like the Teacher and loving him like an elder brother, and if that person is a woman, loving her like a mother or like an elder sister—is this possible by a trans-ethnic worldwide foundation? When that is possible, the ideal world, a new world, is created.

When you look at the American people, do you love your brothers as citizens of America, or do you love your brothers from the brotherly position of sons and daughters of God? (“As sons and daughters of God…”) Which is precious? Which do you desire? Do you desire the love of brothers as Americans or the love of brothers as sons and daughters of God? Which do you desire? (“As sons and daughters of God…”) Because one desires brothers of love as sons and daughters of God, it is a natural theoretical conclusion that one cannot but go this road even at the cost of forsaking the brothers of America today.

So one must see them like God and treat them as objects of God’s love, as people who receive God’s love, and must be able to love them as sons and daughters of God. Do you understand what that means? (“Yes.”) To hold such a thought is God’s…. That is the absolute, unique, unchanging view of the personal character of God.

When, holding such a view of personal character, I come to take an unchanging, unique, absolute position before God, God’s eternal love, God’s unchanging love, and God’s unique love are automatically set in motion. Just as women and men, when they grow up, seek an object of love, in the same way one comes to know it automatically. In the same way, when a person is also complete, he comes automatically to know God’s love.

So if I become one who loves humanity like God and sacrifices for humanity like God and is anxious for humanity’s future like God, then because I become a person who can stand in God’s stead, eternal love begins from there.

Now, have you understood a true person? (“Yes.”) What was it? (“True love….”) It is becoming an unfallen Adam. It is becoming an Adam who stands upon the Principled standard and becoming an Eve. The road I go is a road of going, seeking one Father, one brother, and one husband. There is nothing besides that. That is why it is transethnic. It transcends democracy and communism.

Today, because there is no time, I shall stop here, so know it thus…. For you to find true love, you must become true people. As I have just said, one must hold the Principle and go seeking that place of Adam and Eve. When one goes forth to that place, there is no yellow race, black race, or white race. It is one. Rather than the notion “That is a Black person. That is a yellow person,” the notion “He is my brother. He is a son or daughter of God” must come first. Such a person is a true person.

In a place where there is such a true person, true love is bound automatically to be. That place is the world where people who have completed the deity’s ideal of creation live. Now, will you all go to that world? (“Yes.”) Without fail? (“Yes.”) I pray that God’s blessing may be with you. (Applause.)