(Minghui.org) Recently Minghui.org has started adding an editor’s note at the end of some opinion and experience-sharing articles. The note reads, “Views expressed in this article represent the author’s own opinions, for which the author is solely responsible. Readers should evaluate the article’s merits on their own.”

Some practitioners do not understand why, and said that Minghui is doing so to shirk responsibility for the contents of the articles published on the website. Some practitioners even declared that Minghui articles can no longer be trusted. For example, one recent article about a young practitioner’s prophecies raised serious concerns. Some practitioners recommended that we stop distributing a certain periodical published on Minghui. They said the periodical talked about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) suppresses human rights in Hong Kong and is getting involved in everyday society’s affairs, which has nothing to do with our cultivation practice.

I think these opinions are incorrect. First of all, Master has affirmed the role and position of Minghui, so we should not doubt that. Secondly, whenever something happens, we practitioners should look within and improve ourselves. This is a basic expectation for a practitioner. After that article about that young practitioner’s predictions was published, there were a lot of discussions among practitioners, who came to realize their attachment to prophecy, to time, and to worldly affairs. Through that one article, many of our human notions were exposed. Without that article, our attachments probably would have otherwise been covered up deeply and we would not have been able to recognize their existence. Isn’t it a good thing for us to recognize these attachments and let go of them?

I think one explanation why Minghui added the editor’s note to that particular article and many others could be that many practitioners tend to follow other practitioners instead of the Fa. They focus on how other practitioners do and try to mimick those actions on the surface, rather than use those examples to deepen understandings of Fa principles. I think experience-sharing between practitioners cannot replace the Fa. Were a practitioner to make judgments based primarily on experience from others instead of one’s own enlightenment from the Fa, it could lead to serious consequences. In the harsh environment of China, haven’t we seen many lessons of this kind? Probably such a loophole is so common in practitioners that Minghui added the editor’s note. If that is the case, we should examine ourselves and improve ourselves in this area.

In addition, Minghui weekly and other periodicals are prepared carefully by Minghui volunteers, who work hard to make sure the contents are suitable and effective for truth-clarification. If there are concerns, we can contact Minghui and address them, instead of bluntly telling other practitioners to stop distributing them. Even if some articles are exposing the CCP’s brutality, they are good angles to help people recognize the CCP’s nature. This way people would choose to reject the CCP and be saved.

In summary, we should understand issues based on the Fa and the need for saving sentient beings, instead of our personal preference. Only then can we walk the cultivation path well.

These are my personal understandings. Please let me know if there is anything inappropriate.

Editor’s note: Views expressed in this article represent the author’s own opinions, for which the author is solely responsible. Readers should evaluate the article’s merits on their own.