(Minghui.org) When we make phone calls to raise awareness about the persecution to people in China, we often encounter some who hang up when we ask them to withdraw from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or when we talk about the true nature of the CCP. After reading the Fa a lot and learning from the experiences of other practitioners on the RTC [phone calling] platform, I have gained some insights.
Changing My Mindset from “About Me” to “About Them”
Master Li Hongzhi said,
“When you lack wisdom it’s usually caused by your being anxious, being anxious in your mind to do something, giving it too much importance, and thereby developing a different type of attachment. Actually, with a lot of things, if you calmly and gently talk to people and handle those things rationally, you’ll find that your wisdom will flow forth like a spring, and every sentence of yours will get right to the point, and every sentence will speak the truth. As soon as you become attached or anxious, though, or have some strong intention, your wisdom is gone, and that’s because at that time you’ve come over to the human side again, right? You should try your best to use righteous thoughts and try your best to be in the state of a cultivator, and the results will be excellent.” (“Fa Teaching Given at the Metropolitan New York Fa Conference,” Collected Teachings Given Around the World, Volume III)
When I compared myself with what Master Li (Dafa’s founder) said, I found that I was often too anxious. I became focused on the number of people I helped withdraw, and my attachment to doing things was strong. I was eager for success and had a show-off and competitive mentality. I wanted to validate myself and was not able to calmly think about others. I often felt I lacked wisdom.
When I was arrested for appealing for Falun Dafa in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, I was taken to the police station. The officers asked me, “Why did you come to Tiananmen Square?” I responded with answers like, “After practicing Dafa, my health improved; I knew how to be a better person; I was able to correct many of my bad habits; my temper became better,” and so on. But they often responded, “Why do you practitioners all say this? Don’t you know that the CCP doesn’t allow people to practice Falun Gong?” When I was transferred to a detention center, I was asked similar questions and was still not able to convince them.
Years later, I talked to a practitioner from Canada on the RTC platform. She also went to Tiananmen Square to stand up for Falun Dafa. When she was asked the same questions, she said, “I’m here for the police. I’m looking for you!” The police officers were very surprised and asked her why. She said, “Aren’t you called the ‘people’s police’? When people have something to say, you have the responsibility to pass it on to the authorities. If people knew that Jesus was a divine being, they would not have nailed him to the cross.
“If the CCP knew that Falun Dafa is a true Buddhist practice that teaches people to be good and has nothing to do with politics, the persecution would not exist. You have the responsibility to report the situation to the higher authorities. Therefore, I have come to see you.” The police seemed to enlighten to this reasoning and let her go home.
I realized that when I kept telling the police how I benefited physically and mentally after practicing Dafa, it was from the perspective of “about me.” But that practitioner’s response was from the police’s perspective. She let the police know that it’s their responsibility to report to their supervisors that Falun Dafa should not be persecuted. Every sentence she spoke hit the point. Wasn’t that telling the truth about Dafa with wisdom?
This realization shocked me and made me think. I thought that I had righteous thoughts, so I put aside any fears and went to Tiananmen Square to validate Dafa. I was upright when I talked to the police. Certainly, I did nothing wrong. But at the same time, I wasn’t able to jump out of the “about me” way of thinking, and I regarded the police as “the evil side.” So the more I resisted, the more I was persecuted.
This really made me reflect on myself. I realized that the situation is similar when I talk to people on the phone. If we can think from the perspective of “about them,” it would meet the Fa’s standards and allow the other party to better understand the truth.
So how do we change from “about me” to “about them” in clarifying the truth? My current understanding is that it’s similar to teaching a class: a teacher changes her approach from “teacher-oriented” to “student-oriented,” and from “what I want to teach” to “what they need to hear in order to learn.” When we reach out to people, the transformation from being “subjective” to “objective” is a cultivation process.
From “Difficult” to “Easy”
I found it very difficult when I first began to raise awareness of the persecution to strangers. When I said things like, “Withdrawing from the CCP erases the poisonous vow you made and ensures your safety,” or “The CCP has killed 80 million people throughout it’s movements,” as well as “The CCP is doing live organ harvesting, and this cannot be tolerated by Heaven,” the person listening sometimes did not understand or believe it. They would mistakenly think that I was participating in politics. So I often encountered people who cursed me or hung up.
What’s most difficult for beginners making phone calls is getting to the topic of withdrawing from the CCP. When talking to a stranger, you suddenly ask, “Are you a CCP member?” It often causes the other party to feel uncomfortable. But if we instead ask, “You aren’t a CCP member, right?” It makes people feel less sensitive. So I usually ask, “Did you join the Youth League in middle school?” “When you began to work, you didn’t join the CCP, right?” This way, we can naturally get to the topic of withdrawing from it.
Another example is that when I started the conversation with, “It’s the Year of the Tiger, and people are panicking,” some people immediately hung up. I then realized that my tone was too negative, and I changed it to “The Year of the Tiger is finally almost over, and I hope the Year of the Rabbit will be better,” and fewer people hung up.
How do we change clarifying the truth from “difficult” to “easy”? In addition to making more phone calls and becoming familiar with our talking points, an effective method is to break down the difficult points and focus on one point for a period of time before going on to the next. Once we become good at it, we can then move on effortlessly.
For example, when I started talking about the “Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation Incident,” I couldn’t explain it well when people had doubts about it. I then made phone calls and focused on addressing the different things people had doubts about. Afterward, I summarized the issues and settled on a few things to talk about: First, within one minute, police brought over more than 20 fire extinguishers. Why would they carry fire extinguishers while they’re on duty? Secondly, wrapping a burn patient in gauze does not conform to standard medical practices. No doctor would believe it. Lastly, this was supposed to be a spontaneous incident, so why does the video look so professional? No photographer would believe it. Police officers, doctors, and photographers are three types of professions that people are familiar with.
Changing from Being “Subjective” to “Objective”
Some people have given us feedback and said that we are often too subjective. For example, we directly tell people, “The CCP is evil. Its crimes are monstrous. Heaven is going to eliminate the CCP. Withdraw the CCP immediately.” I gained some insights when I trained in editorial work. The editor-in-chief always emphasized that in the articles that raise awareness about the persecution, we must be objective to be convincing. For instance, before making the conclusion that “the CCP is evil,” we must present facts. We should first talk about the bad things the CCP has done, analyze the facts, give examples, and quote others. As editors ourselves, we cannot express our opinions subjectively. The responsibility of the editor is to choose facts and remarks to support our conclusions. In this way, the report will be convincing.
We should also aim to be objective when we talk to people about the evil nature of the CCP. We can start the conversation with what they are familiar with. For example, if they lived through the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square, we can say, “Do you remember the June 4th student movement in 1989? Were the students wrong in standing up to corruption? Yet Deng Xiaoping ordered that they be shot. He was quoted as saying ‘killing 200,000 will earn 20 years of stability.’ Students are China’s future. But the CCP often refers to itself as China’s mother; how can a mother shoot her own children? You tell me, do you think the CCP is horrible?”
We can then talk about the CCP’s other movements in which 80 million Chinese people were killed, the Self-Immolation Incident, and live organ harvesting from Dafa practitioners. In conclusion, I ask, “Can you still say that the CCP is good?” Faced with the facts, people usually say, “The CCP is so bad. I will withdraw from it.”
I used to say, “Heaven will eliminate the CCP.” This was subjective. If, instead, I said, “In many parades overseas, I’ve often seen banners with messages like: ‘Heaven Will Eliminate the CCP’ and ‘Only Without the CCP, Will There be a New China.’ Do you think that these represent the opinion of the world’s people?” If we are objective, it is easier for the other party to accept what we say.
In addition, instead of being subjective and making conclusions ourselves, we can usually ask questions that help the other party think and draw their own conclusions. For example, we can ask, “Why did so many people celebrate when Jiang Zemin [former Party head] died?” This can then lead to the topic of Jiang Zemin’s corruption. We can give examples of how corrupt the CCP is and ask, “Do you think the CCP is good if it’s so corrupt?” We can also ask, “The CCP has carried out so many horrible political movements, just like the Soviet Communist Party. Do you think the CCP will one day disintegrate as the Soviet Union did?” This avoids us from making a subjective conclusion.
Seeking Common Ground
We often meet people with different backgrounds and different viewpoints. So it is very important for us to seek common ground while listening to their opinions. Even if the other party has a negative opinion of Falun Dafa, we must avoid refuting them. In this way, we can avoid getting into disputes and raising arguments on a single issue. We can let the dialogue move forward and have a benign and interactive conversation. This approach can close the gap between the two sides and create better opportunities to save people. This is also a manifestation of letting go of one’s ego and thinking of others first. Here are some examples.
1) When encountering someone who is stubborn and likes to argue, we can first affirm him by saying, “You are a thoughtful person and have your own point of view. I really respect people who think independently.” We can then use a discussion tone and lower our position while trying not to impose our ideas on the other party, “Let’s talk about it and you can see if what I say makes sense.”
2) When encountering a person who claims to be a bad guy, such as a gang member, we can affirm him, “You fight against injustice. In comparison, the CCP killed 80 million Chinese people and is the true gang.” The other party would be shocked to get this affirmation and often agrees to withdraw from the CCP.
3) When encountering someone who seems irrational and curses us, we should keep in mind that these people are usually straightforward and often realize they are wrong after they finish venting. I tell them, “I understand your concerns. Let’s talk about them. I believe you are a rational person, and you have your own opinions. I respect people who think independently.” I can then go to the talking points that I want to get to.
4) When encountering a person who can’t distinguish between the CCP and China, and says he is patriotic, I usually express early in the conversation that I’m also patriotic, which helps to reduce a lot of doubts: “We are all Chinese people. I love China, and I love Chinese culture, but I don’t love Communism. Communism is not Chinese; its ancestor is Marx who believed in Satan.”
Continuing to Improve and Make Breakthroughs
I am very touched every time I watch Shen Yun. The superb skills of the performers, along with their pure cultivation state deeply move the audience, which makes the performances a very powerful avenue for saving sentient beings. Behind the success lies the arduous training of the performers. Ordinary people have a saying, “One minute on stage equals 10 years off stage.” This is the same principle for clarifying the truth. We also need to diligently hone our skills.
We face different people with different “knots” in their minds that they need us to untie. The manuscripts prepared for us cannot address all the “knots.” We need to reflect on and revise our talking points every day. It is necessary to constantly test which words and tones are suitable for each of our own styles. We also need to learn from the experiences of fellow practitioners. But we should try to avoid just copying others mechanically, which tends to make our talking less fluent.
After making phone calls for a long time, we can fall into a stagnate state wherein we just do the same thing habitually, and we stop improving. Instead, we should do it with our hearts and try to think about the reason whenever we encounter someone who hangs up or doesn’t want to listen.
Master Li said,
“Cultivation depends on one’s own efforts, while the transformation of gong is done by one’s master.” (Lecture One, Zhuan Falun).
If we have the wish to improve, Master will help and enlighten us. Many fellow practitioners on the phone team have had this miraculous experience.
I have encountered situations when a person agrees to withdraw from the CCP, but I then continued to talk, and they ended up hanging up while I was still speaking. Another practitioner reminded me, “You should make sure your phone calls end well. It would be best if you get feedback.” I then replayed the recording to try to figure out what the problem was. I found that after I helped this person withdraw from the CCP, I was too eager to cover all the prepared talking points in a pushy manner while ignoring their feelings and reactions.
When we run into a bottleneck in truth clarification, we should take a moment to look for whether we are too egotistical, too subjective, or too strong. We should let go of our notions and change from “what I want to say” to “how much can they understand.” This is also a cultivation process of letting go of self.
Views expressed in this article represent the author's own opinions or understandings. All content published on this website are copyrighted by Minghui.org. Minghui will produce compilations of its online content regularly and on special occasions.
