The Central Figure And The Transitional Period

The people who live in this world indeed wish to see improvement around them.

They cherish a certain hope, even if they are not consciously aware of it. They indeed seek to become beings of a higher level of value in the future than they are now.

Such a human proclivity will continue as history flows. It was the case in the past, it is the case in the present, and it will be the case in the future. When you think of this matter, you come face-to-face with the significant question of when the ideal world we seek will come.

We know that there were thoughtful people in the past. However, the environment or the society, the state, or the world in which they lived could not satisfy their desire.

When we think of this, we can deduce that there were people throughout the periods of history who gave a lot of thought to surmounting their environment and developing it into a higher dimension, a future world of hope.

It is the same now, and it will be the same in the future. Why are we so? Why must we seek to attain the ideal of the future like this?

It is because human beings did not have an ideal start from the very beginning.

Because human beings cannot start from an ideal position, they can only go toward the ideal. That is the natural conclusion.

If we had become more valuable beings than our original state, then we would have started from an ideal position. Why, then, couldn't we begin ideally?

What was the reason?

All the people of the past, present, and future picture the ideal in their minds. If God had created human beings with love, He should have enabled them to go from an ideal starting position to a place of better and higher happiness, yet He didn't.

What was the reason? Considering these matters, we cannot help but think that there is some aspect of failure here.

From this standpoint, if God existed as the center of an absolute ideal, He would have wanted to help human beings become thus. Human beings were not to assume such a position right from birth.

If human beings came to be in such a position after a process, even though they are not that way from the start, we can accept God as good. If, on the contrary, human beings were left in a position where they were forever yearning for this ideal yet never got past the start, then we cannot help but conclude that God cannot be our ideal center.

In this sense, we cannot help but recognize such terminology as the Fall, which religious people use. When we apply such a term as the Fall and acknowledge that it occurred, then we understand these matters. Why is it so? It is because people are in the fallen realm.

Our human ancestors fell right at the place where they could have made an ideal start, having already gone through a certain period. They were facing the time of the ideal. Yet because they fell from that state, none of their descendants could surmount and rise above that standard.

Therefore, the original standard, which we must go over with hope for the future, remains to be achieved. The action of our conscience, that is, our original nature, is moving toward that original standard at all times, even when we are not aware of it.

For instance, let's take the case of a magnet. The strongly positive magnetic force of one magnet orients itself unconsciously toward the negative magnetic force of another magnet.

The same type of action takes place in our minds or the constitution of our original nature.

Without the Cosmic Level Transitional Period, We Cannot receive the Ideal World.

Human beings who fell committed wrong and remained in a state of immaturity.

We still wish to reach the state of maturity and attain a higher level of value within ourselves. This has been human history.

What is needed here is a transitional period. To go beyond an environment, an individual-level transitional period is required, a family-level transitional period is required, and a national and worldwide-level transitional period is required. If there is Heaven and Earth, a transitional period in which the Heavens and the Earth make an about-face will be required.

Otherwise, no matter how we human beings seek to attain the ideal home, we won't be able to achieve it. When we perform a turnabout, we must do it through the guidance of a central figure. We cannot execute the turn haphazardly.

If we discuss a family, there has to be a central figure. Even if the family has been suffering destitution, if the central figure of that family takes the step of making a complete about-face and from there starts accomplishing, then the standard of hope for a renewed family will come about.

The same principle applies to the clan, the tribe, and the nation, as well as to the white-robed race and Korea.

If this Korean nation is fated in the realm of the Fall to perform a turnabout in the course of history, then the national-level transitional period will have to come to pass.

When you look at the whole of Asia, there are people of various nations. The less-developed Asian countries can eventually lift themselves to be newly advanced, ideal countries only when each of the constituent countries receives in common the transitional period for Asia.

For this to happen, there will have to come a whole Asian-level transitional period. Going further, a worldwide-level transitional period will have to come.

As you know, the world you are looking at now is confused. Some say that this is the period of downfall in the sense of value, a period of breakaway from ideology.

When we face such a reality, we cannot fail to see that people are moaning in despair. Thus, we realize that we need a worldwide-level transitional period by either successfully dealing with this world or by rising above it. This applies not only to the Korean people but also to the American people, who are guiding the democratic world.

Even the Soviet Union, guiding communism, suffers internally from such pains.

Without distinctions of the individual, a nation, or a country, you are all excited about the rapid progress of the morrow without knowing it. Since all of us are in such a state, we wish to see the transitional period for the whole world come.

Then what is the problem now?

The point of transition for the individual is facing the north, the point of transition for the nation is facing the south, the point of transition for the world is facing the east, and the point of transition for Heaven and Earth is facing the west.

Is it then possible to make a complete about-face while each part of the whole faces a different direction? If that is to happen, even if an individual-level turnabout or a national-level one or a worldwide-level or even a Heaven-and-Earth-level turnabout occurs, they cannot be linked together.

The world is made up of many individuals called “I.” Korea is composed of the expansion of an individual, and humanity is also made up of combined peoples, which is the integration of linked individuals.

Therefore, there absolutely has to be a transitional period in which the individual direction, the familial direction, the societal direction, the national direction, and the worldwide direction are brought conclusively into a common direction.

Has there emerged in the course of human history a distinguishable path after the direction is brought into line? No, there hasn't.

Confused as they were, people have come through the individual-level period, the family-level period, the tribal level, the society level, and the national-level periods and finally have arrived at the worldwide-level period.

While they tried to perform a turnabout after arriving at this worldwide level period, if they had made an about-face centering around this democratic world and the communist world and then been able to leap over to the ideal world, that would have been fine. That was not the case.

As far as the world is concerned, it should be established on the grounds of having individual and familial foundations, as well as the foundations of the nations. Since all those must be connected, even if this is the period at the worldwide level, the transitional period appears after synthesizing all at one point.

Unless there's a cosmic-level transitional period in which individuals, families, nations, and the world can get connected and brought in line with one direction, we won't be able to have the ideal world we all wish for.

We come to that conclusion. In that sense, “The Central Figure and the Transitional Period” is very significant.

Now, let us come back and think about ourselves. Am I my master?

There are Mr. Kims, Mr. Parks, and so on. Under each surname, each one insists upon his ideas. If everyone gets mistreated a little by another party, they wish to return the accusation in full force. Each one holds himself in high esteem. But is one his master? That is the problem.

Do you have mastery?

No matter how much I insist upon my ideas, I do not have mastery over myself.

Throughout the periods of youth, middle age, and old age—their whole lives—people wander about without a sense of direction. The path that leads to happiness does not lie there.

Happiness should be eternal and absolute. Am I ready to be happy? In other words, have I found the self who can be my master forever? That is the question.

Rather than saying Mr. So-and-So is the master of the country or the world, the problem is whether you know the master who can say, “Regardless of whether I represent the country, the world, or Heaven and Earth, I am the master of myself, and that position is secure.”

What human beings need to attain is mastery on the individual level, mastery on the family level, mastery on the tribal level, mastery on the national level, and worldwide-level mastery. The position of mastery is the same.

That means everything is connected. [Father speaks while writing on the board.] That is, the master is the center.

When we talk about being a center, we mean that it concurrently becomes the individual-level center, the family-level center, the country-level center, the worldwide-level center, and the center of Heaven and Earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, you know the toothed wheel that controls the speed of the balance spring in a wristwatch, don't you?

It has a shaft that looks like this, swinging back and forth. This can be extended to any length. It is a straight line. Do you agree? It could go to the end of the sky, but the end is one point. [Father draws a diagram on the board.]

Similarly, this side is thicker, and this side is like an individual. When there is a little mistake made here, then the whole thing will have a problem. As long as this exists and operates, there should be a center that can operate as the support to this extension while remaining plumb to it.

We cannot say that a small center is not a center just because it is small. A small thing can be the center of a big thing. Do you understand what I mean? Although the center is small, it becomes the center of one as well as the center of the whole. The whole relies on one center. The matter of the center is the issue.

Looking at ourselves from such a perspective, do we want to contend with each other? No, we would rather not contend with each other, confronting one another. Though I am standing here, I want to contend with the universe. I have the thought that if I move, the universe moves.

Aren't you the same way?

You fight at the risk of your life, feeling angry when someone makes light of you.

You try to combat them. What is the reason for this? It is the human desire to set our values up against the universe and contend with the Supreme Being, if there is such. Don't you agree? No one is like that.

It is a human desire not to confine my standard of value to that of the individual, to try to set it up in a position where it can be the center as well as the subject of the value of the whole, where it can mutually give and receive relative value when dealing with the whole.

Where is the place of the master, where the center of an individual can get connected to the center of the family, the center of the family can get connected to the center of the nation, and the center of the nation can get connected to the center of the world, and so on to the center of Heaven and Earth?

This is the problem. Is there a master inside of you? Suppose that your mind is the master.

Can you trust your mind? There is a saying that human nature is fickle, isn't there?

Yes, there is a saying that while human nature is changeable, the mountains are the same for all ages. How miserable it is that we live relying on our minds that keep changing many times a day, according to the changes in the environment?

Even if this extension moves back and forth, if the center is kept in balance, harmony can be achieved. But if this part falls away and the rest tries to work without the support, it is an extremely dangerous affair.

Looking at today's individuals, we can picture the toothed wheel of a watch without the support, rolling about here and there as it pleases.

Moving back and forth, rolling over and over, if it were rolling over and over in this fashion on the streets of this global village, think of how everything would collide and thus break. That is precisely what is happening.

That being the case, what is the problem now?

A righteous center and righteous master must be set up. This has to become the support for the center of the whole. This should be able to point the direction and operate for the common ideal and guide it all to progress toward a certain goal.

But where is such a central diameter, central direction, central hometown, and central plumb of value? This is the most significant matter of concern.

Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is in your mind."

What kind of mind did he mean? Which mind was set up as the standard? Did he mean the mind of a disciple who had the mind to either sell off or forsake Jesus at any time?

No, he did not mean that kind of mind. He meant the conscientious mind that can go directly toward one direction forever, without fail, the mind that has been transformed before the eternally immutable standard of the original nature.

The Kingdom of Heaven exists in the middle of the ground of such a mind. Whose mind is this? The one that is centered on God's mind is such a mind.

If you say it is in the mind of God and in the mind of the person who has a mind that resembles the mind of God, then that sounds all right. But if you say that the Kingdom of Heaven is in the continent's mind, that does not sound right.

We discuss things or even criticize things based on a certain central point. Only after we set up a certain standard called a "goal" can we distinguish progress and regression, front and rear, and right and left based on that standard.

That is the question. Is there a master of your mind within yourself? This master of your mind should not say, “Let's go this way while I'm young.” You have to go straight from the moment of birth until the time of death, throughout your lifetime, without distinction of youth or age.

If there is a path I must go, I should be able to say, “This is a path not only I must go, but all people must go.”

We must reach the standard where we can discover ourselves, the selves who can determine the central direction for all people of the past, present, and future.

Only when people reach the standard where they can determine such a central direction and their selves can they become their master for the first time? It makes sense when you say, “I advance with this conscience, with which I can be the master of the standard.”

If you mumble about running around as you please without a direction and a goal, then it is very dangerous. It will quickly result in more and more destruction and self-ruin rather than happiness as you approach the final day. You must know this fact.

When you think of such an aspect on the individual level, you naturally conclude that such a miserable final day will come to humanity, for it will be reflected on the national and worldwide levels.

When will such a time come?

Right now is such a time. People with wealth worry because they have it. People without wealth worry because they don't have it. Big countries worry because they are big. Small countries worry because they are small. All kinds of problems exist.

Where there are problems, there cannot be happiness. A nation or a world that looks at resolving problems as a hobby could be a happy nation or world.

But when the problems are brain-wracking, they are miserable. In other words, a healthy man who digests everything and anything eats without hesitation and is happy.

For a weak person, on the other hand, who suffers from stomach trouble and is sick and cannot digest everything, eating can become a bitter thing.

What is necessary for human beings?

Some say what we need is money. Can money solve the fundamental problems of human beings, who have been seeking throughout history to attain all ideals? Far from it. That is impossible.

What about power?

That, too, is impossible. What about knowledge? That, too, is impossible. What should be the center? What should be the central being? Should it be the body or the mind? If the mind changes less than the body, then the mind becomes the center. The thing that changes more becomes external.

What is it that changes less among human beings? Only after setting up these kinds of essential qualities that change less should we seek to attain them.

Things of a changeable nature will not do. Only after setting up the unchanging original nature within ourselves should we seek to attain unchanging value within ourselves. What is more valuable than what does not change?

If you look into the hundreds of surnames of your ancestors, you find much differentiation. We cannot say all our ancestors were good. There might have been some bad ones. Our ancestry might be variegated.

From the paternal line, some might be good, while they may not be good at all from the maternal line. They were the result of being gathered from all over the world and then spread throughout the east and west, where they were freely blended.

If your ancestors' sphere of goodness throughout history is analyzed, it may be seen that there is a great diversity in degrees of good and bad, similar to the mountains and mountain ranges of this global village.

Some ranges of mountains stretch straight and are of worldwide repute, while others do not stretch because they are unimaginably cut into pieces, creating hollow places and leaving various configurations of the ground.

Like a waterhole closeted in the deepest valley, a human being might express his desire, saying, “Oh, I would like to be a mountaintop.” Yet, it is not going to happen. We are leashed to the string of fate that we cannot do anything about and about which we do not know.

This applies to Korea, too. Korea is tied fast to the string of a fate that is not known. Picture the scene where that string of fate goes up and down, dances, and moves left and right.

There is some kind of standard line in the middle of this universe that gives direction as to how the being called “I” should go.

The directions are similar: “Going over to the right is good; going over the top is also good; going over to the left is bad; going down below is also bad.” It cannot be that both ways are good. It cannot be that this side, as well as that side, is good.

There is such a saying that the right side indicates good luck, the left side indicates bad luck, up is lucky, and down is unlucky. On either side of the middle on a straight line, if there are more things on the right, that means there are more good things; if there are more things on the left, that means more bad things. Either way is possible. [Father writes on the board.]

Where is the being called “I” standing? Where does “I” stand? Without knowing where they stand, people say, “Human beings are equal.” That is not the case, however. Are all branches of a tree equal?

They look equal, don't they? But the amount of sap that goes to each branch is different. Do you agree? They all receive the sap from the same position, but the amount varies. When a certain branch receives lots of sap through the trunk of the tree, it will thicken.

The same principle applies to human beings. If many good people come out and are in a position where they can absorb the sap of the root well, if the branch gets strong, the stalk will survive, even if the stalk has grown crooked. It is the same way trees grow. Watching things like these, what can we set down as the standard? It has to be an immutable thing. It must be straight.

You say something like, “This man has his mind straight,” don't you?

Where do you attach importance when you say a man's mind is straight? When we say something is straight, we mean that in two ways. One is horizontally straight, where its straightness parallels a standard straight line on a horizontal plane, and the other is vertically straight when its straightness makes a right angle (90 degrees) with the horizontal plane. Without the mention of verticality and horizontality, it is difficult to talk about straightness.

When we discuss straightness, what standard is it based on?

We cannot just obscurely say, “Straight.” That is a self-centered remark. Have you become the vertical line of the universe? Originally, you should stand in a position where your mind forms an ideal right angle before an ideal horizontal standard.

Only after that can you complain about your discontent, insist upon your presence, insist that you shouldn't be infringed upon, etc. Since that isn't the case, all arguments for and against are nonsense.

This thing called the standard, this horizontal line, must transcend time and place.

It must transcend the past, present, and future. If it is horizontal today but changes tomorrow, then it is no good. The horizon remains horizontal wherever you see it. Think of the surface of the sea. Is there a difference between the American horizon and the Korean horizon?

It is common everywhere that water keeps its surface. That is why when people build a Korean house, they use a level as well so that the house won't collapse.

There may be differences in height and differences in standards, but the fact of having to maintain horizontality remains universal.

In this sense, the matter of concern for us is what to do with the fundamental problems. Speaking of human beings, if their mind and body become completely one, forming a right angle to each other, they are not aware of any difficulty.

Think of water that circulates. If I put this object in the water, it will circulate, keeping a uniform form and shape. But if this object is crooked, it will create some irregularities. What does this mean?

While in motion, if the angle is entirely correct, the action of turning will not be interrupted. A problem occurs only when a slight difference in angle comes into being.

Even with something like a high-speed lathe, if the angle is correct, it accelerates faster as it turns. But if the angle is incorrect, it gets into trouble the moment it starts, making a thumping noise.

By the same principle, human beings also should maintain a correct angle in terms of horizontality and verticality. The horizontal line should cut the vertical line at right angles. In that sense, we come to notice yet another transmutation in ourselves.

Even though the term “transmutation” sounds a little awkward, it comes into being as a strange, distinct acting entity because the mind and body are on separate planes. Isn't that right?

If they maintain right angles to each other and stand on the 180-degree standard, they would be able to turn without feeling any percussion or impediment. But if one maintains five degrees and the other maintains ninety degrees about the other, noisy friction is created.

Where can we set up the central point that old people, youth, Orientals, and Westerners, without distinction of ancient and modern times, and even Communists would like, and not only human beings but God also would like?

What can that be? That is the problem.

When I see things, for whom am I seeing? You are looking at things, blinking your eyes. What are you looking at? You are looking at none other than your object partner. Then, do my eyes exist for me or to see the object partner? For whom do they exist? To see the object partner or to see myself? They don't exist to see me.

There is no need to see me. The eyes exist to see not me but the object partner. How sorry we are to hear that! (Laughter) But it is true.

For whom do the ears exist? Do they exist to listen to my words? To listen to whose words do my ears exist? (The object partner's) They all exist for the sake of the opposite. To touch whom and for whom do my hands exist? Why is my strength spent? For what purpose do I do this action? For myself? Self-centered action is a waste.

Get active for your own sake for ten minutes; you will find yourself not liking it.

Then, for whom do you try to go into action? For the sake of the opposite, the object partner.

Viewed from that standpoint, then do we decide the value of human beings based on how they relate to their opposite or based on themselves? This is a problem.

With priority given to life itself, is the life of the male more important or the life of the female more important? Which is first? Females would say females were first, and males would say males were first.

Which is first, the chicken or the egg?

It doesn't matter much. It is all right not to know the answer to that question. What matters is that they both need something so much that they cannot live without it.

Once they have that, they would not care much about which one is first and which one is last.

They would not care which one is the subject and which one is the object. Neither would mind being either. If there were something eternal and immutable that all people liked, that would be an ideal thing.

If you look into it, you will find that the ideal thing is not life. Even life is not the ideal thing. What is it? [Love.] Yes, love is that ideal thing! I am not sure whether you mean permitted love or illicit love, but love is the ideal thing. Do you love?

Do you like Sarang?

Love in Korean is “Sarang.” One of the Chinese characters, which reads as “has,“ has a meaning of death, and one of the Chinese characters, which reads "ran," has a meaning of one's husband. (Laughter) I don't mean that kind of love.

Considering these kinds of matters, we can conclude that without love, we cannot attain the ideal home all human beings pine for. You cannot accomplish the ideal home without love.

If there is a path that can lead straight toward the ideal state, what kind of path will that be? It will not be a path of struggle as in communism. It is the path of love. You must realize that.

Philosophy today seeks to answer the question, “What is the meaning of existence?”

Why do we need to know that? Rather than seeking to know the cause, what is the reason? Why do we exist? It is necessary to know the cause, but knowing the reason is more necessary. Don't you think so?

Why do I exist? Why do I have eyes such as I have—why do I have a mouth? Why have I ended up being like this?

When you investigate these kinds of questions, you will come to know that you don't exist for yourselves. You conclude that you exist for the sake of the universe, for the sake of something bigger.

What is the nucleus that exists in itself, having a point of safe settlement, that can forever long for the common ideal, of its accord? For that, we have to bring out love. Philosophy does not know love.

Centering on the question of what existence means, theories of existence have become a big issue and pose problems in thinking, while logic attaches importance to the question of how human beings attach value. Love is on a far different plane.

In contrast, religion deals with love. What kind of love? God's love. God's love is immutable. If you took love out of novels today, what would be left? Lies of lies that crazy people engage in.

What are poems? What are poets?

All of them are intoxicated by futile argument or vagrant fancy and argue pointlessly about love. The same criticism applies to the religious life as well. Once you take out the heartistic tie of the religious life, nothing remains in it.

The central being must give priority to something that people in general can value. This leads us to the conclusion that an individual has to attach importance not to life but to love, certainly.

Where would God, if He exists, put the origin of the creation of the universe? Would He put it in life or love? For God, His own life is the most precious thing. However, one's life cannot exist only as a self.

One's own life can't be aware of itself. By mutually giving and receiving with a being called an “object partner,” one will be able to obtain a guide as to the presence of difference, balance, or significant differences. That is why something central in a reciprocal relationship, rather than life itself, must certainly be set up. In that sense, God Himself also has to set up love.

What kind of love are we to stress? What kind of life are we thinking of?

We are thinking of a life centered on love. Satanic love? No. Then are we talking about the humanistic, secular, personal level, Mr. So-and-So's level of love? No, not that either. That cannot be the standard.

Can you be the standard?

Say you are someone who can say, “I have sons and daughters in my family who have graduated from various colleges; some have a Bachelor's degree, and some have even their Master's degree.

Because of my sons and daughters, wherever I go in Korea, people receive me with respect and call me 'the father of Dr. So and So' with their heads bowed down.

Then I show my dignity.” Are we talking about that kind of love? That kind of thing might be a priority at a certain time, in a family, or for a generation. However, it cannot be of foremost importance forever.

Love is eternal and unchanging, unique and ideal. Ideal love! Even if it is not there, only when we set it up, even as false logic, can we find a way to save humanity today.

That is why, even if it is not there, we must make it. Even if there is no God, if it is possible to set up an imaginary being, that imaginary being can still play the role until it is proven whether God exists or not. Now is that kind of time. How nice would it be if God existed? How nice!

Which would be nicer, the communists disappearing from the Earth or the love of God, which we had assumed did not exist, actually turning out to exist? Which one would please us more? (The latter) Yes, the latter.

From the position of dealing with the issue of God's existence, from the position of accepting the existence of God, all can be resolved by bringing out God's love.

Problems are solved by people who center on love. When we say “people,” do we mean men or women? We mean men and women.

If a man and a woman unite, centering on God's love, would there be happiness or unhappiness?

This applies even to fallen people. Don't you think so? Think of the universe. Why were a man and a woman created? Imagine if only a man had been created.

Why has the universe ended up being the way it is?

Some say it all happened according to the law of natural selection, but there are males and females in birds, fish, horses, cats, dragonflies, ants, and even microbes.

Why did it happen this way?

Anyone who says it all happened by chance is crazy. It couldn't happen without a cause.

What is the cause of the occurrence of males and females?

It is not logical to say that, although the cause is not known, the result is what happened. Why were those males and females created? To do what? To fight? Look at human history. It is full of fights. Human beings are said to continue to exist through their intrinsic qualities of conflict. Listen to the theory of evolution.

Well! Do a male and a female exist to fight? Do they exist to fight or to be united?

By what? (By love) What would happen if there were no love? Needless to say, they would have fought with each other most of all. Without love, the fight between man and woman would have been fierce. Why? Because the grain of the seed is different between the two.

Since the woman has a different grain of seed, why would the man have left her alone? He would have cleaned them out. Once the woman had gone, would the man still survive? He would also disappear. Why is that? Why is it necessarily so?

They exist for love. Because of love, human beings are higher than animals. They are on a different plane. I told Sang Hun Lee (Dr. Sang Hun Lee) about this yesterday. We hear some people say that they would die for the sake of humanity, that they would die for the sake of their country.

Why do they do that? Do animals do that? Have you ever heard a horse saying, “Ah! Am I going to die for the sake of the horse's world?” Did you ever see that kind of thing? Or a cat saying, “I am going to die for the sake of the world of cats”? Can you imagine a pig saying, “I am going to die for the sake of the pig's world”?

Human beings have different coefficients. When they say things like “Sacrifice for the sake of your fellow countrymen” and “Let's sacrifice our lives for the sake of humanity,” they say it and put it into practice. Did you know that?

Why does this Mr. Moon go to America and bother to spend even a cent? Why?

Since every single penny I spend was earned by shedding blood and sweat, why do I do that? Until now, I have exerted much influence on many organizations in Korea and spent much money on them. For what reason? I had saved the money by not eating food and not wearing nice clothes.

Why would I spend that money that has the value of my blood and sweat? I often starved myself, hesitating to go to the coffee shops and spend money on a cup of tea, refraining from going to noodle shops to buy and eat a bowl of noodles. Yet, for a good cause, I have never hesitated to write checks for tens or hundreds of millions of won.

Why would I do that? Why?

Please don't get the wrong idea, saying, “Ah, since the teacher said that he was giving away as much as hundreds of millions of won, he may give some money to me also.”

That can happen only when you and I are bound by a predestined relation, when you and I have justifiable reasons for it, and when the value of the purpose of doing that is glorious. It is not going to happen solely for your own sake.

Human beings are different. They move from this position to that. Even after having a nice meal, they think of better food.

Animals, after a good meal, say, “Ah, I am so content,” and then they sleep soundly and roll about. When you look at baby pheasants under a small pine tree with thick branches, they are so content, tumbling about and falling asleep. That's all they want.

What about you? Once you are full, is there anything more that you want?

You say, “Well, earning my graduation certificate from Seoul National University is my hope…” and you go ahead and earn it. Yet after you earn it, are you content, and do you stop wanting anything more, saying, “Well, I am happy”?

Once you earn your Bachelor's degree and Master's degree, do you stop wanting more? Human beings have great greed. That is the difference. Human beings have that special quality that other animals don't have.

Some professors insist upon the theory of evolution, asserting that human beings are the result of evolution and developed from lower animals. Do professors like the idea of having a common ancestor with monkeys, relatives of monkeys?

Even professors don't like that.

What kind of being is God? God is a being who has a relationship with human beings. If God were different from human beings, would He be able to form a relationship with them? If human beings try to go up, God tries to come down.

That's the way it should be. It should be that way for unification. If God also tries to go up when human beings try to go up, they cannot meet. That is why human beings try to go up and God tries to come down.

That is the reason people say that God will descend to this Earth or that the Messiah will descend to this Earth. Instead of saying they will ascend, they say they will descend. God wishes to come down.

When He does that, since He is an honorable being, He cannot make a fruitless call on the Earth. Therefore, there has to be a proper time for His descent. There will be a right time for His coming. It involves His dignity, so it cannot be done imprudently.

When we schedule an appointment to meet at a certain time, at 5 o'clock, for instance, we must be at the appointed place at the appointed time in good faith. Only then will the opposite party say, “Yes, you are a punctual gentleman.”

If you arrive five minutes early, those five minutes will be wasted time. It is not economical. Don't you agree? If you are late even one minute, it is no good. If you show up on the fifth chime of the clock, it is not right.

Only when you show up on the third chime is it ideal. The advent of God will occur, likewise, at a proper time, in such a fashion.

God will wait for the right time for His descent.

They are not beings who center on money, knowledge, or power. Only those who have unchanging eternal love, only the ones who center on unchanging eternal love, can transcend all steps of the social ladder.

When the individual likes this love, the family dislikes it. Correct? When the family likes it, the clan dislikes it. Correct?

Love looks unrefined, like an unattractive-looking fish called a “ho chi.” One feels scared of seeing it in one's dreams, but the taste of its love is wonderful. When this becomes reality, so that everyone, including the grandparents, the clan, the society, the nation, the world, and God, comes to say, “I like it,” all of us will come to join it. When that happens, the world will revolve around that one center.

The act of revolving is done with purpose. Centering on one direction, it is done in all directions. Just as there is a line of magnetic force on the Earth, that one direction carries out the eternally unchanging activity of giving and receiving. The Earth is not dead. It is active and alive. Because its line of magnetic force is in action, it is alive. Being in a living state is nothing unusual. Things in motion are alive.

When we think of a human being, we think of a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman who become completely united into one can become cosmic central beings, human beings with value based on unchanging love.

If that man and woman were in a country, that man would become the president of that country and that woman his wife. In the world, they would be the president and the wife of that world.

The dimension of the central being will differentiate according to how much impact on the realm of love the comparative standard of value the man and woman centering on love have and how much power they have to be able to assume the responsibility in a subject partner's position.

The conclusion is that the true man and the true woman, who center on love, are the standard of hope humanity wishes for.

Human civilization has come through many complicated wars and a series of conflicts. Nevertheless, this history of conflicts can be overcome all at once in the future and can be changed into the ideal world. When that happens, what would be required? It won't be money, power, or knowledge.

This universe would like to revolve around a true man and woman who center around perfectly true human love. Do you understand? Would you like to revolve around yourselves as well? (Yes) Would the college professors like to revolve around it too? Why do college professors need love? They should just become study bugs.

Professor Choi, do you love? (Yes) (Laughter) What would our grandfathers have been like? Would they have liked love? (Yes) I know you like it, but what about your descendants?

(They will like it, too.) Can you revolutionize it? When there are beings called men and women, and they are seeking true love, can you revolutionize this? Can you make them forget about this through education?

Can you educate them by saying, “Hey, you two, man and woman! Since I am teaching you after having made a strenuous effort for the past thousand years, you should not love each other.” Is that an education? They will say, “We don't need that kind of education. Even if you cut our throats, you cannot stop us. Nothing will.” When you speak like this, you feel good, don't you?

This is the conclusion about the world of the future, after all this fleeting history. Otherwise, God is no more than an ideal. He is a nonsensical and vain God.

Seen from this viewpoint, where can we form the ideal conclusion?

Are we going to bring this matter to a close in the relationship between professors and their pupils in a college? No. Then where? At the highest position in politics?

Are we going to settle this in the living room of the world's richest couple? No.

None of these are the right answer. God must bring the cosmic final days, as well as the history of human civilization, to a conclusion through the central individuals of unchanging love, centering on one man and one woman who keep one love, who can embrace the universe and more, and whom the whole world needs and can care for.

The man and woman must now love. Why let them know, love? What are they going to do after knowing it? Are they going to fight and have their relationship break off? No, not at all. They will stick fast to one another. Even if they are told not to be united, they will become united.

I remember seeing some things on your wedding day. Although in Korean thought, there is the notion of the predominance of men over women, in the case of Bo Hi Pak, when his petite bride said, “Please come,” he followed her very well, saying, “Yes, yes.”

When she handed over a basket to her groom, saying, “This is heavy,” he took it without complaining and followed her well. Seeing that, I was thinking to myself, “It is a magical, unique harmony.

What caused me to think so?

Isn't something strange? That proves that when it comes to love, everyone likes it, with his or her mouth watering. In that sense, love is the absolute primary factor.

Now, think of an oily-faced, fleshy man with a fat belly eating a nice dinner. Would he be happy when he eats mouthwatering food all alone? Of course, he would be. But how much happier would a male general and a female general feel when they eat dinner together, with their mouths watering?

It would be a sight to see. There is an attraction. If one person were eating there alone, people would look at the person once and move on, thinking that one person reciprocating with him or herself is an unlucky thing. But if two people are reciprocating, the more people see them, the more they will enjoy seeing them.

They would enjoy watching them laugh; they would enjoy watching them reciprocate, and they would enjoy everything about them.

On Cheju Island these days, when maidens get married and receive an estate from their parents, it is said that they register the estate under their names. The reason is said to be that they must assert themselves in case they are ever separated from their husband. Are they real, ideal couples?

When handling money, the woman might grab some smooth and crisp bills and say, “This is my money! The wrinkled bills are my husband's money!” (Laughter) Is that the right thing to do? That is not love. Think of this case.

The woman breaks open the secret money packet and, finding all the money gone, asks, “What happened?” The man answers, “Oh, I spent it.” The woman says, “Well, you spent it well. I don't mind your spending the money at all.” This is the way it should be. But what if, on the contrary, with lips trembling with anger, the woman says, “Oh, my goodness! You spent the money again! What, again? (Laughter)

We should always be able to open the secret packet and offer help, always. These days, some men try to lend their wives' money at interest. One who is like that is like a flunked student.

You feel happiness when you can give limitlessly, wives, and when you can give and receive freely, night and day, deep and low. You are unhappy when you are unable to give and receive when you want to. When the husband gives his wife the eye, then the wife is to receive it furtively. When the husband slips a word to his wife, the wife is to take it quietly.

When given something, without delay, you should be able to receive one hundred percent of it. If the husband moans in his dream, the wife is to wake him up, saying, “Honey, what is the matter? You were dreaming, weren't you? What happened, honey? What if instead, she says, “Oh, that useless headache! There he goes again, going senile!”

What is happiness? It is being able to give whenever there is a wish to give and to receive whenever there is a wish to receive, limitlessly. It is not happiness if you only give or if you only receive.

If human beings today could give when they want to give and receive when they want to receive, they would be happy.

Can you give for the sake of the world?

When Mr. Moon says to the youth of the world and the people who follow the Unification Church with absolute faith, “Here! I will give this to you.” They all then extend their hands, saying, “Yes! Please give it to us.” When I say, “Go and fetch,” they all then bring all they have, saying, “Yes.”

When that happens, Teacher Moon is not unhappy. Do you understand that? When you get into the action of giving and receiving, you are not causing any waste. You become the plus. Can you imagine how nice it is? Why did you become the plus?

When two people get into the action of giving and receiving, even the third person at their side feels good. There is a saying that you don't go and live in a room next to newlyweds who have been married less than three months.

The newlyweds talk in whispers all night long. If the groom ever says, “Oh, please, honey! Let me sleep…” That man is a flunk. Instead, the man should say, “Oh? Tell me all about it.”

How joyful would that be?

God feels the same way. He likes talking in whispers about Joy. The master, the Lord, enjoys it more than the people concerned.

I once met an old woman matchmaker. One particular match she had made worked out well. After the wedding, she would come and visit this couple once a week and observe the pleasure of the man and the woman. She was able to tell how much she was appreciated.

If the man had kept a sullen silence, that would have meant there was trouble. There was a very famous matchmaker in Pyeongan Bukdo province, who was my aunt on my mother's side. She arranged about 500 couples' matches, which is less than the number I have. (Laughter)

If you listened to her about the secret of her success, she said she would find out whether the newlyweds were getting along well or not by testing the couple. She would approach the wife and ask in a whisper, “Are you alright?” If the wife smiled a welcome to her, she would then know that everything was fine. Next, when she met her husband working in a rice paddy, she would ask him, “Is everything right”?

Then he would come running with a long step out of the rice paddy and express joy, looking happier to see her than to see his mother. He would say with his wife standing next to him, “Oh, you've come. Please stay.” (Laughter) At this time, this matchmaker lady turned to me and said, “Matchmaking is such a nice experience.”

While going around the land of Korea, if she ran out of money, she would simply go and visit one of the families that she had helped through her matchmaking.

According to her list of couples, they are graded 1, 2, and 3. She would visit them and stay overnight at their place. The next day, she would simply say, “I wish to leave.” Then the car fare would be ready. Even if her son were very pious, he would not have been able to accompany her through her rounds, paying her fare.

That is why there is happiness when one can give when one wishes to give, and one can receive when one wishes to receive. What do you think? (That is right)

When feeling happy, which object partner and which subject partner would be happier? The higher the subjectivity you have, the happier you feel. While living in Korea, some people who live in a small village find happiness in maintaining a friendly relationship with the chief of that village. Next, if they get to be friendly with the county headman, they find happiness.

If they have a friendly relationship with the governor of the province, they find happiness there. If they have a friendly relationship with the Korean president, they feel national-level happiness. With the American president, they would feel happiness on the level of the democratic world.

Which is better, the higher or the lower? Surely the higher is better.

How about reciprocating with God if the Supreme God exists? (That's great.) Yes, that will be great.

Ladies and gentlemen, when you feel happy, do you enjoy the moment with your eyes closed or open? (Closed) If you enjoy it with your eyes open, that's false happiness.

Why do you think you close your eyes when you are happy?

It means I am putting everything out of the way and putting myself in complete unification. It means the unification of the whole. This may sound amusing, but it is true. Well, it feels good when we have an interesting talk in the morning; it is true.

Is love first or life first? (Love is) Why is it first? We have a problem here.

According to modern scientists' view of the universe, power exists in the universe, and power is like the power of life to human beings; this universe came into being by this power. This is a different view from what you say. Which is first? Love or life? (Love) Why?

Are you telling me that the Earth came to life from God's original entity of life and began because of life? Therefore, life comes first. Is that it? (No).