Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archived discussion:

Contents

Harrassing Critics

Quite a while before the crackdown, there were already news about how some Falun Gong members ganged up outside a professor's home and harrassed him, because he criticized them. I've also seen with my own eyes how they blocked a street's traffic because some newspaper criticized them. In my humble opinion these people needed to be dealt with. The Chinese Government was only dealing with individual members/groups of Falun Gong before tonns of Falun Gong members went to Beijing to block traffic. Imagine what would happen if they work together to paralyze China's entire transportation and electricity generation system. This is frightful, though they don't used bombs or guns, this is no less frightful than terrorism. I totally support the crackdown.

X. Zhang

Money and Government

I have several issue to note , first of all is , i observed that all the reference used here are from falungong , but none from other sources , I think this is far from neutral. Also , i find little reason not to believe the statistics from chinese government , and indeed their argument. or at least , according to the principle , they should be presented , so that everyone can make their own judgement.

Personally , I knew people who , after practising falungong , refused to take medicine and some people killed their own child, and those were indeed trageties.



I realize this is a controversial topic, so before anything I would like to suggest that I don't get dismissed as a staunch CPC propagandist, or anything of that sort. I am somewhat surprised at how much the article covers, but think certain sections definitely need improvement. I lived in China during the time of the crackdown, I've read the article and I've found a few things not being mentioned. For one, it is mentioned in Falun Dafa, the book, that society has a "Falun", just like the body, and increasing instability (and things to the like) contribute to the abnormal function of such a societal Falun, and thus needs "purification". Thus we need to answer the question of whether this is enough to support that Li Hongzhi himself had certain political ambitions, not taking in account what the average Falun Gong practictioner thinks about politics.

Second, I thought it was interesting that Falun Gong's spread in China was described in a few sentences, and somehow Falun Gong ended up with 70 million practitioners by 1999. While not dismissing Falun Gong as any kind of evil cult, my personal experience suggested to me that it was not as pure as it claimed, either. In China, I was approached in 1998, while taking a morning jog, by several people in a park, who led me to a Falun Gong stand nearby with a big banner and a bunch of printed material. The guy asked me to buy the book Falun Dafa, and after politely declining he said he'd "lend" it to me at no cost, as long as I came and returned it to them later. I took the book home, and lost interest after reading about Li's numerous Buddha-related abilities, and a few of his principles. When I decided to return the book, the people in the park dissapeared, and to my knowledge never came back.

Many of my friends had similar experiences, and some were forced into purchasing some kind of a practicing carpet (I'm not an expert on Falun Gong, so I don't know what this thing is, it'd help if someone could explain) that's apparently crucial to the spinning of the Falun. Some of these friends then began advertising other Falun Gong related products to me, to all of which, I declined. I later found out that this was basically a money-making scheme for a larger organization, as these people worked for higher authorities. In the Falun Gong video tape that was circulating at the time, I watched a part where Li claimed he was the re-incarnation of the Buddha, following which was a lengthy 60-minute presentation when he droned on in monotone about various moral principles, and correct methods of practicing movements.

I guess my personal stories aside, what I'm trying to get at is that the spread of Falun Gong on Mainland China was done in a fairly forced and unconventional manner, especially after 1997, and much focus was shifted from the original spiritual content to economic oppurtunity (similar to Chuanxiao). Furthermore, although CPC propaganda vilifies Falun Gong as an evil cult in black and white, it would not be unfair to say that Falun Gong had political intentions. Li Hongzhi, the leader, shifting positions to fit whatever situation suited him best, cannot be fairly seen as a legitimate religious (or even spiritual) leader, but rather unfairly used the combination of China's poor human rights record, and the sympathy of the west at the time to continue spreading his word. I wish to make some changes into the article, but to my ability right now I cannot decide on which ones will be the most appropriate. Please reply,

Colipon+(T) 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

While not having much personal experience with Falun Gong, I know it was one of several "Gong" (i.e. spiritual exercises) which were all the rage in China in the early 90's. Each of them had this "master" who usually claimed to have some kind of special abilities - Li Hongzhi's miracle healing etc. Another one that was quite influential in some parts was Xiang Gong, literrally fragrant exercise, which claimed to make you smell very nice after doing their exercises, and cure cancer etc.
The government started disapproving of these things only after they realised the demonstrated organisational abilities of these groups, most famously (or notoriously) Falun Gong's protest surrounding the Zhongnan Hai compound in Beijing.
The way I see it, it's one man's opportunistic money making scheme hijacked by people with political motives.
--Sumple
I might write a longer comment when I have time, but first of all, I'd like to correct some misunderstandings.
There is nothing about a "societal Falun" anywhere in Falun Dafa's books. Period. You can read through all of the lectures (excluding the politically motivated fabrications that are also passed around), and I'll mail you a banana if you really find anything like that. And there are no special carpets related to spinning of any Falun; I really don't know what kind of people you've encountered, but obviously they've been trying to rip someone off.
Second, I've never seen people who are more reluctant to accept money or donations than Falun Gong practitioners. True, some may sell videos or books for a few bucks. So? All the material is free anyway, and anybody can download it from their webpages.
Third, it doesn't matter what the practitioners believe. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're right. It's not really up to them or any government to decide. What we're talking about here is a brutal persecution that violates international treaties and China's constitution. Be it allegations of political instability, anti-communism, or whatever - nothing can justify what's happening in China's labor camps. The practitioners have a fundamental right to believe in what they want, and the fact is, many of them indeed have good experiences of Falun Gong's effect on themselves[1], so why shouldn't they investigate the practice further, especially when they don't have to pay anybody for doing that?
Fourth, I'm not saying that conspiracies don't exist in the world. But it's also a tendency of the human mind to see them where there aren't any. In addition, the Falun Gong issue is a question of epistemological power. Who has the right to define what is true and what is false or "superstitious"? For instance, I'm not asking you to believe that Buddhas and Daos actually exist, or that man can cultivate into a higher being through xiulian, and so on, but is it up to a government to stop people from exploring whatever they deem worthy, be it "superstitions" or "pseudo-science" or whatever? Is there a transcendent world or not? Who can deny that man is fundamentally a homo religiosus, and everybody assumes a metaphysical relation to the world, regardless of whether they are aware of its axioms or not? ---Olaf Stephanos 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Let's clear up a few obvious misunderstandings first. I had never called Falun Gong a conspiracy, nor have I stated it is "false" or "superstitious". Let me tell you that I am not big into philosophy, but your contention about epistomological power unfairly categorized the issue as deeply philosophical and religious. I.e. you've missed my point. The Falun Gong, mind you, is a complicated issue that reflects more on Chinese sociological situations at the time than the philosophical nature of a person's belief system. Its economic intentions, although still subject to debate, are realistic. My friend, it is a shame that you can only hear and see the stories from a western perspective, allowing your emphathetic mind to assume that the Falun Gong is simply another case of the CCP's horrendous persecution on specific groups.

China doesn't have the best human rights record, this part I will not contend further. However, it is imporant to realize that while a lot of the CCP's media information regarding Falun Gong has been unmistakably biased, some of it has validity. There are a few basic reasons that I reached this conclusion. You have to realize the 80's and early 90's was a time when the Mainland Chinese population began exploring new economic solutions in a new market-oriented economy. Many services and other perviously unconventional money-making methods became commonplace. This period marked an important social change, as China progressed away from old rigid barriers of Maoist thought. Such a period was harsh to handle for some, who lacked direction in a new capitalist world with little guidance. Many people lost their jobs in SOE's, and had difficulty searching for a new method of income. Some people were simply not ready for the dog-eat-dog society of fierce competition. As such, they were forced to seek for something new to rely on. With less political restrictions, groups involving spiritual and religious beliefs saw the oppurtunity to revive some old Chinese traditions resented during Mao's rule.

That's where Falun Gong comes in. It began as a Qi-Gong related organization, and gained some popular support because many people at the time needed something spiritual to fall back on; for many years previous, this had been the Communist Party. Now people realized the Communist Party is not perfect, is not all-knowing, is not god. Li Hongzhi, quite proficient in economics, and being articulate, saw his rise to become the leader of this group. Later, he separated his Falun Gong from Qi Gong because of organizational issues. Leading his group of followers, Falun Gong's growth in the mainland from 1995 was almost phenomenal, and Li Hongzhi saw the chance for further development. I do not think it is fair to say that he ever had deeply-rooted political ambitions, but think the situation at the time forced him into believing that he could be a political force. After all, he saw that he could unite people. But the power to unite did not come naturally. In order to make his words a high authority, he made various claims about his personal special abilities, and I saw videoclips where he was portrayed in an almost god-like fashion. As far as I know, Li Hongzhi only began to inflate his own image after the growth of Falun Gong, after 1996 (i.e. previously he had never claimed he had special abilities, he just said he was an adept Qi Gong practitioner).

Li Hongzhi's ways could be almost seen as oppurtunistic, both economically and politically, and never let go of possible gain. Long before the government crackdown in 1999, many reputed newspapers, and even Qi Gong practitioners had called Falun Gong a total distortion of Qi Gong, mixed in with many religious and even scientific principles. The books Falun Dafa and Zhuan Falun received many critical reviews. It was written with colloquial and sometimes incorrect grammar, and experts, including those professing the Buddhist and Daoist religions, found many principles to be terribly inconsistent and contradictory. One of the more famous ones appeared on Bright Daily in June 1996, publicly denouncing Falun Gong in an editorial, another appeared on the locally popular TV program Beijing Express, a program of talk-show nature. None of these events were political, or related to the CCP. They acted as a form of criticism, serving no intention to bring down the movement as a whole. Many Falun Gong practitioners, after watching the program, went to the BTV station to protest, forcing the resignation of the show's host. Then, in Tianjin, after another critical piece from a professor published on a Reader's Digest-type magazine, thousands of practitioners basically sat there and practiced Gong for over ten hours in protest.

The organizational potentional of the group gave Li Hongzhi the will to organize further mass-sitting protests. No one doubts today that the Zhongnanhai mass-sitting in 1999 was the direct result of Li Hongzhi's directions. Perhaps he believed that by sending a message to the Communist government, they can reach an agreement on the peaceful future development of Falun Gong. Li never went to Beijing, but a few of his subordinates went and negotiated with Premier Zhu Rongji, head of China's government, who only accepted the negotiations very reluctantly. It was too late to quell Li's ambitions for more demands, directly with the Premier. Although it is only of a speculative nature, but the politburo meeting after was deemed to have deeply divided President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu on an ideological basis. Jiang gave the final word on the crackdown.

So while you're seeing the western view that Falun Gong (or perhaps more so Li Hongzhi) is legitimate with good intentions, then you should probably look again. I agree with you the crackdown was in no way consistent with the Agreements China had signed onto, and are easily classified as human rights abuses. But at the same time, I urge you to realize that Falun Gong had a complicated background that neither the communist government nor the west has a just view on. This is exactly why writing this article is very difficult. I look for your feeback if I should insert some of the paragraphs I typed above into the article.

Colipon+(T) 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Olaf is being irresponsible when he makes generalisations like "there's nobody who's more reluctant to accept donations" etc. While I don't dispute that some Falun Gong practitioners, perhaps the majority, are simply devout followers of the sect and are being persecuted for their beliefs, it is undeniable that a significant proportion are in it for personal gain, be it immigrant visas, money, or simply power.
--Sumple 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To Colipon: I understand the points you are making. I just disagree on certain key questions. I'm reasonably familiar with the sociological analyses on the Falun Gong issue; it's not that Westerners cannot understand the huge political and economical changes that have taken place in China during the last twenty years. My point is, I think that a lot of the analyses are reductionist, and they're simply attempts to explain the unprecedented popularity of Falun Gong by making allegations of the Chinese people's (more or less "irrational") mass behaviour or desperate seek for a replacement ideology. As if the substance in Falun Gong was not the reason why millions of people changed their previous qigong practices into FG, but, instead, the phenomenon was manipulated by a spellbinding charismatic leader who could provide people with answers to their psychological needs. I know, that's the usual explanation, and to a lot of sects and cults it applies quite well. But regarding the Falun Gong issue, I think a lot of people err just because of this prejudice. This is a much, much more complicated matter. Mind you, I acknowledge that you didn't say it's black-and-white.

I'd like to point out that Falun Gong was really considered by many as the best qigong system based on their own empirical experiences. The system was nominated twice as the "star qigong" in Beijing's Asian Health Expo, and the division from Qigong Research Society occurred only after the Society wanted to commercialise Falun Gong in 1995. Think about how much money Mr. Li could've gained if he'd wanted. Now, qigong is not aerobics, it's not like a new Jane Fonda fitness video that gets good ratings just because of a good-looking famous hostess. You cannot invent an exquisite qigong practice just by making up some silly movements, or making people wave their hands this or that way. You probably know that the Chinese state is researching qigong-related matters and these ancient traditions, and we're still on the borders of what is commonly accepted as "reality" in the current Western scientific paradigm. Even the Chinese medicine and Western medicine are still quite far away from each other in their theories of the human body. What if there exist other ways of knowing - of acquiring valid data about the universe - than most of us are familiar with? This is what I mean by epistemological power.

So it could be said that Falun Gong has some validity to it, like maybe it's the most efficient qigong there is - I don't have to take a public stance here - even if you disagree with some of its content, e.g. the claims about divine beings, or man becoming a Buddha through cultivation, or the existence of supernormal powers, or Mr. Li having reached supreme enlightenment himself, or whatnot. But these claims didn't surface in the later stages - many of them were already present in the introductory text when it was published in 1993. At that time there were only a few hundred thousand practitioners in China. The exponential growth really started only after Zhuan Falun was published in 1995. Besides, Falun Gong practitioners come from all social strata. They may be sociology professors like yourself, nuclear physicists (like a friend of mine), or maybe peasants and shoemakers. Why do you think even academic people are doing it? I'd say the phenomenology of Falun Gong cultivation experiences is what has drawn them to practice, and no sociological reductions can penetrate into why they feel like doing it, and why they think it's a "genuine thing", so to say.

About the appeal outside Zhongnanhai - well, we're living in the Internet era, and you know how easily people connect with each other when they share common interests. At the time of the April 20, 1999 appeal there were more than 100,000 practitioners in Beijing alone, and only about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office. You don't need any "leaders" to mobilize such a thing; when people send e-mails to each other, or publish something on a website, multitudes of people are reached in a very short period of time. Besides, the state had already proven its hostility towards practitioners by beating up and arresting some of them, and a lot of people were deeply concerned about this issue. Just think about the anti-war demonstrations all around the world immediately before the U.S. waged the Iraq War - millions of people participated. Likewise, the Falun Gong appeal was a reaction from the civil society, which is undoubtedly something that shocked the leaders of an authoritarian state. And maybe they were fearful of an uprising like the Taiping rebellion or the White Lotus Society. But to me it's obvious that Falun Gong is entirely dissimilar, and these seven years of persecution have shown us that the practitioners' resistance has been entirely nonviolent. The superficial form of people gathering together and sharing similar metaphysical assumptions doesn't mean that they're about to revolt, or that they're following a dangerous "mastermind" (like the Communist Party insists) who can direct them like a twisted puppeteer. What if Falun Dafa cultivation is really the autonomous Will of its practitioners, and they just want to become inherently good beings for the sake of goodness alone?

I've previously stated that denying the rationality of a group of people is the classic propaganda tool. It justifies seizing their sovereignty over their own bodies, so the oppressor assumes the role of a "doctor" or "psychiatrist" who administers a cure "for their own good". This is just what the CPC is doing.

I'd also like to thank you for your accomplished commentary. It's always a pleasure to discuss with people who are genuinely interested and open-minded.

To Sumple: there are so many Falun Gong practitioners that their only common denominator is just the practice itself. The illusion of a "group hegemony" is one of the chief mistakes that you can make. Do you think that "genuine" practitioners approve of people presenting themselves as practitioners to obtain a visa or otherwise exploiting the persecution? Don't you think they are at least as concerned as you are about these cases? ---Olaf Stephanos 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the Self-Immolation

In the latest archived discussion, there were some points mentioned about the 2001 TianAnMen Square Self-Immolation incident. One was a time delayed of sending Liu SiYing, an alleged member of FLG and one of the self-immolators, from the Square to a Hospital. The other was a report from a National Taiwan University Speech Processing Lab mentioning that Wang JinDong, another alleged FLG member and self-immolator, was different between interviews.

I've been looking on these claims since these, if correct, are quite solid.

First. These reports were initially reported from from Uphold Justice, AKA WOIPFG. According to their website, the time delay of Liu was reported from a inside source of the hospital. And they mentioned that they would report and publicize the source to appropriate authorities. Anonymous sources means that this information has weaker validity. I hope to see this issue solved in the near future. (The report was done in 2003, it has been 3 years and no authority seemed to have been asked by UpholdJustice.org)

The NTU report. I don't know if there is an English version, but I've checked the Chinese version and there is something strange of the report. First I don't see any actual documentary of it. All of the websites mentioning it are transcripts. Note that FLG often publishes its awards with the original document (like those "State FLG Week".) This might be trivial but then the actual report is even more curious.

In the report, the researcher used the interviewer's sound in 3 videos as a standard although the reporter wasn't proved to be the same in all of them. This might be considered trivial. However, in the same report the interviewer's recordings were mentioned to be "too short" to be sufficient. The time intervals were between 3 seconds and 30 seconds. When they test on Wang JinDong's sound, the one they mention to be different, has an interval of 6 seconds. How they overcome a "short" time interval and provide such a result raises high doubt on the validity.

I've mailed the director of the lab to ask about this (and some technical questions) and haven't recieved any results yet. He did mention that the experiment was carried out by one of his students. Yet he also mentioned that he didn't know the details.

I suspect that UpholdJustice.org is sort of inflating the actual level of this report. And also due to the language used on the website, I don't believe it is quite objective Yenchin 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have good points. I wish some major international organisations would've continued the investigation further. After all, WOIPFG and other related NGOs are low-budget organisations that rely entirely on voluntary workers. It's not easy to face the dubious accusations of one of the most influental and largest countries in the world. Apparently, not many people realize how important the self-immolation incident has been in CPC's crusade against Falun Gong. According to an Epoch Times article[2], "the recorded number of Falun Gong adherents tortured to death in the first 18 months of the regime's violent crackdown would nearly triple in the next 12", i.e. after the Tiananmen tragedy.
This is one of the reasons why I really feel sad when people insist that Falun Gong practitioners are to blame, and that their deconstruction of the incident is not perfect. People who have absolutely nothing in common with some crazy fanatics or impostors - regardless of who they really were - are still lumped together in a big messy pile of "cult suiciders" and having to bear the consequences of deeply instigated hatred. And when the event in itself has so many question marks upon it, and nobody's putting in money or political pressure to start a legitimate investigation, what can you do but hope for people to think with their hearts? ---Olaf Stephanos 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Olaf, I understand your frustration but... even if these ppl are crazy fanatics, they describe themselves as Falun Gong and are accepted by the community as Falun Gong. Even if you wish they weren't, they are Falun Gong... It's like, no matter how much a German would wish (or insist) that Hitler wasn't German, or that he was born in Austria, it doesn't change the fact that he was a German leader. --Sumple 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody being "German" or "Austrian" is a quality that is indivisible from his ethnicity or place of birth, whereas identifying with a certain practice method or a group is a choice you make yourself. Let's assume that these people identified themselves as "Falun Gong practitioners", in spite of the fact that their conduct directly violated the principles of Falun Gong itself. Couldn't it then be said that they "seized" a façade of a Falun Gong practitioner without essentially following the guidelines of the practice (which is, indeed, the only thing that makes a difference between a practitioner and a non-practitioner)?
Besides, a lot of the German and Austrian people approved of Hitler when he was in power. All Falun Gong practitioners were really terrified and shocked because of what happened on Tiananmen square, and all the time they've tried to tell the world: "Me and the other person have nothing to do with these self-immolators; Falun Gong unequivocally does not teach people to act like that; what they've done is absolutely horrible! Please, we have done nothing wrong!"
Doesn't it touch you at all when you see these peaceful people trying to appeal for their family members and friends who're being brutally tortured in labor camps, year after year, sitting in front of consulates and embassies, gathering signatures for petitions, seeking to awaken people's compassion, and never resorting to violent means? Do they look like they're about to commit a cult suicide? Just how big is the contrast? Do you always view them through some deeply embedded framework of "cultism"; don't you see them as thinking and feeling human beings like yourself? They're just pleading for your help.
This is not an exact analogy, but think about it: if Hitler had just murdered a few Jews all by himself, and all the Germans and Austrians had immediately condemned his actions, would anybody claim that Germans have a tendency to exterminate Jews and must be violently repressed? In addition, in Hitler's case we are talking about something that is indisputable; he was of Germanic descent, whether the others like it or not. But in Falun Gong's case there is a myriad of dubious issues surrounding the self-immolation, so it's just too vague. Nobody can say the question is resolved without reservation. If you want to believe something, so be it, but I'd say it is more a reflection of your attitude towards Falun Gong as such than a neutral evaluation of all the controversial facets of the tragedy on Tiananmen square. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither a debate club nor a discussion forum. Just a friendly reminder. What you guys are talking about is not within the scope of this article. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Society Falun

Hi, just took a look over the net, kind of interesting. Here's part of what I found on a Taiwanese website (so some degree of neutrality), it is quoted as saying "又沒在社會來工作，創造社會法輪的常轉", which is difficult to translate directly, but basically talking about the "normal spinning of the Society's Falun". More to come later. Colipon+(T) 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've heard, but there are lots of fabrications in circulation. This has been a serious problem even for some Falun Gong practitioners in China, as many of them cannot access the Falun Dafa website, but instead rely on printed copies that are passed around. If you cannot find it in the published lectures on falundafa.org, it is presumable that the Taiwanese website has quoted an erroneous source. Of course, they might not be aware of it themselves. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course any neutral analysis will be passed off as "fabrication" by either side. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about analyses here. I cannot read Chinese, so I don't know what it says there, but I assumed that it is an alleged direct quote from Mr. Li's lectures. Because I've never encountered anything that could be translated as a "societal Falun" or "society's Falun", I have a reserved attitude towards the source. Moreover, hoaxes and forgery do exist, it's a standard tactic in denigration campaigns (remember "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?), and a lot of people have encountered manipulated versions of the lectures. This is to be expected. I'm just encouraging everybody to keep up their guard and criticism of sources. Needless to say, if people can back up their claims, I stand corrected. It's not that I want to wage some ideological wars here, and I hope none of you guys feels like doing that either. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Last comment before I leave this discussion: it seems that to Olaf, any evidence, real or otherwise, which doubts the integrity of Falun Gong and its members is immediately a fabrication.
Likewise, any Falun Gong member, actual or professed, who seems in any way to be disreputable or fanatical, is immediately not a Falun Gong member.
--Sumple 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, the quote has nothing to do with FLG. The website is a Buddhist/Taoist talking about some consequences of criminals. ".....and they don't work on the society, spinning the Dharma Wheel of it."

Oh and I see No True Scotsman Fallacy again. --Yenchin 07:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect you to agree with me in all points. But there's no logical fallacy there. If the accusation is that "Falun Gong practitioners have a tendency to cult suicides, because the self-immolators were reputedly practitioners", this is obviously both an association fallacy and a false analogy. Compare it to a classic racist sentiment from the Deep South: "A nigger has approached a white woman, therefore niggers are evil, so any nigger must be hung." And it's not a No True Scotsman fallacy to make an argument: "Falun Gong unequivocally doesn't approve of suicide and murders. If somebody has done something like that, he hasn't followed the guidelines of Falun Gong, at least regarding this issue." Besides, a lot of the talk of "Falun Gong" doing this or that falls into the area of reification. If my point is still unclear, I can elaborate with further examples.---Olaf Stephanos 10:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


For an example, you could check the Times article I listed in the archive. The so-called "guideline" is not unequivocal. A more actual "guideline" I see of FLG followers is "Li says it, we obey". Also note that Li has openly and clearly stated[3] that with ZhengNian any form of persecution would do no harm or even reflected. And then we see reports of people in China "saying the truth" to other Chinese and getting persecuted to death by officials. If one doesn't think he actually dies or will die when doing something that would kill him. His suicidal behavior would be only objective, but not subjective.

I'm not accusing FLG as a suicidal cult because practitioners elsewhere in the world aren't swarming into China. But FLG is doing a bad job showing they're not. Raising more contradictions than consistency. --Yenchin 14:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my frankness, but it's unbelievable what you are saying. Chinese practitioners are "suicidal" because they have a steadfast belief in their right to practice and they're willing to resist state terrorism? Are you assuming that the persecution is some kind of a natural law? Do you think it's ever going to end if people don't stand up for their rights? Good grief, we're talking about crimes against humanity here. Instead of appreciating the dauntless individuals who are risking their everything to expose the torture and hatred, you're calling them "suicidal". (sigh) Your logic here is similar to the argument that "women deserve to get raped if they wear high heels, and it's actually their own fault."
We don't even have to discuss here whether adamant "righteous thoughts" have something to do with avoiding persecution. Li has never professed that you could intentionally hurt yourself and avert injuries because you practice Falun Gong. That's just... crackpot. Entirely off-the-rail. It seems that you're still viewing Falun Gong practitioners as some stupefied oddballs who've lost their sense of individuality and connection with reality. Please, you don't have to agree with what they believe, but if you don't even regard them as independent subjects, your obdurate standpoint renders all reasonable conversation out of the question. I'd say the practitioners in Mainland China are very well aware of the risks they're facing. Probably better than any one of us. ---Olaf Stephanos 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not blame the FLG or the CPC for this whole incident. But beware that things in China are not simple. It is very different from the western world. In all chinese history, not a single religion is strong enough to dominate the whole region. Many historical examples proved that religion can be very dangerous in China. Many military uprisings were in the form of religion. Even the communists' revolution. So, each Chinese government in the history deals with new religion very cautiously. But, that does not mean the government is restricting religious believes.However, when you have 10,000 people sitting in front of government building without any pre-notification. Things are little over-heated. Personally, I do agree China needs reform, but I do not wish to see the Chinese government fall. I do believe that if the government falls, China will seperated, and as a Chinese, I don't like to see that.---Orient


To Olaf:
1. Yes
2. I'm not clear what you mean by "natural law". If you mean "justified", than no. The "suicidal cult" title was not labelled at the begninning of the persecution. So even if we remove this title, the PRC government still has other reasons on persecuting the followers. Which I don't agree either. It's funny that every time people point out how bad FLG is doing on helping themselves, there are people who immediately assume they agree with the PRC.
3. By standing up in a highly police state known to crush peaceful students with tanks? The PRC government is known to ignore and opress these movements violently. The obviously logical help is from the outside. If one is in the inside, secrecy is a more wise move than "speaking the truth" all over the place and get quickly eliminated. Look at the Christians in China for example.
4. Note that what FLG is doing is asking women to wear high heels, miniskirts, and tanktops, in a place known to have a high poplulation of rapists. Guess what? I pity those women, for believing in something they shouldn't.
5. On the other hand these "righteous thoughts" and other promises he makes make the followers believe that they have protection. It's like giving the woman a notion of having some "rape-proof vest". Pointless.
6. Stupefied oddballs isn't sufficient enough to describe the FLG followers' behaviour. I strongly encourage you to read the apologetic articles as well as some so-called academic articles in their websites. They're willing to throw out any sense and reason to support whatever Li says. They're willing to do the same in defending themselves. Which is a good intention, yet intention has nothing to do with validity of claims.
For an index, look at the results of the worldwide movement of suing Jiang Zhemin & Co. No court takes FLG seriously. It's 5 years after the self-immolation incident. I still don't see any non-FLG organization taking the "False Fire" film seriously. The recent "revoke Communist Party membership" movement, despite the inflated numbers, is having modest percussions.
There is a Chinese saying, "Crying kids get candy." FLG is more whining than crying.

--Yenchin 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The practitioners believe that CPC has lost the mandate of heaven and earth by persecuting the Buddha Fa, and it will inevitably perish along with its members. They think they're saving people, right?
I think the conversation is about as far as we can get here. I will not argue about the actual validity of Falun Dafa. History will prove whether "法轮大法是正法", and either side (or both) just have to swallow their medicine. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

My apologies on not recognizing that Society Falun comment above. I guess I trusted Google too much. But I very much agree with Yenchin that anything can said to be a "fabrication", or general bullshit. There have been people who called Falun Gong itself a "fabrication" and general bullshit. The point is, this discussion isn't really going anywhere. So I think we should sum things up recognizing some points made by either side. For example, Olaf's views that people can have the freedom of belief I think is in consensus, as are his views about how the Falun Gong persecution by the CCP fits neither moral standards nor China's international treaties. I also recognize many of Yenchin's statements as well thought out, but put in a fairly blunt manner.

Let's agree on a few points without resorting to deeply philosophical arguments:

  1. Li Hongzhi is a normal human being like the rest of us, and doesn't have any supernatural abilities.
  2. Li Hongzhi has claimed to have supernatural abilities.
  3. Many of Li's defined Falun Dafa principles are contradictory.
  4. Many Buddhist and Daoist believers, Qi Gong practitioners, and University professors have came out to speak against Falun Gong's flaws without any apparent CCP connection (Long before 1999)
  5. Li's "Falun Gong" cannot be defined as a religion. Its roots trace to Buddhism and Daoism, as well as other moral beliefs and such. It is at best, a "spiritual movement"
  6. Falun Gong, at least in some parts of China, became for-profit. Certain people were involved in the organization not as believers, but as people in charge of finances.
  7. To a certain degree, Li Hongzhi manipulated and used the western media and influence to enhance a positive image of Falun Gong.
  8. Li Hongzhi has noticeably changed some of his views since 1999, to make Falun Gong more religion-like and western-friendly, emphasizing not on his original moral and spirtual ideals, but on the fact that China's communist government is inhumane and unjust.
  9. Neither the Chinese government nor the Western media can be considered remotely impartial on Falun Gong.

If some of you disagree, I can understand perfectly. I can only say so much without arguing the principle of religion itself, something I'd rather avoid doing, seeing how one cannot argue religion (it's like talking to fundamentalist Catholics about abortion). In fact, I don't even want to argue with any of you, I'm just saying that there are certain facts that need to be recognized. Put in simpler terms, I get the idea that the persecution of Falun Gong is bad, but you have to understand, too, that the nature of Falun Gong, and especially Li Hongzhi, its founder and leader, is doubtful. We need to provide as much as possible of a NPOV on the nature of Falun Gong.

Colipon+(T) 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very funny isn't it. Just one little question I really wish to ask. "Why is FLG the only QG got banned in China?" Also, it seems that every time there is something about CPC, people got to talk about the western version of Tian'anmen Incident. Like this whole FLG incident, I don't trust neither side's reports on this. They falsely reports on those incidents have highly political background. Last bit comment, if anybody is not a Chinese native, besure to understand things in China are different.

Orient+(T)

Actually according to an essay posted in Epochtimes [4], there are at least 14 QGs groups and 19 religions banned as "cults" in China. Since I myself focus on FLG so I don't know the reasons or excuses the others were banned. But I know at least two QGS listed have followers in Taiwan and they seem to seldom talk about their ban or, if any, further persecution, and they're not quite fanatic as what we see in FLG followers. --Yenchin 13:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To Colipon:
Your argumentation rests upon common sense. I'm not going to dispute this. If we start to discuss whether supernormal powers actually exist, or what kind of evidence there is to prove the existence of a third eye in humans (DMT research might have something to say about this?), or if somebody is capable of changing the compositional structure of elements, or if somebody really emits thermal neutrons over 170 times more than normal matter - in other words, whether the Qigong Research Society in China actually verified certain supernatural powers of Mr. Li as professed - the whole question turns into a big mess of profound epistemological and ontological questions, and I'm quite sure we can get nowhere.
However, one small detail has amazed me personally. I've witnessed that long-term Falun Gong practice tends to make people look significantly younger; their skin has become delicate and rosy. Of course, you cannot deduce from such a thing that Falun Gong is true in its entirety. But it's still a curious feature. Cheers. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment, Yenchin. I did check out the Epochtimes. Sadly, I find it is a pro-FLG website that may contain anti-CPC properganda. Things must be observed both ways, if we cannot trust the CPC, we also cannot trust the one-side view of FLG. The point is in the history of China, the religion is often used as a tool in a massive rebellion. As I said before, the rebellion create political unstability that is not good for both people and country. (ps. If you don't believe me, check Huang-Jin, Bai-Lian, and Tai-Ping rebellions)
To Olaf:
I do agree the CPC may be too harsh of the supernatural things. The CPC believes that if something is not possible by scientific explaination that it must not be true. Not only FLG make people look nicer, but also other practices. Such as Daolism, I practice Daolism sometimes, it make me feel nicer too. To be honest, many of the FLG principles are very "similar" to the Daolism. BTW, may I ask you a question, have you actually read the FLG books?------Orient 27 January 2006 (UTC)
To Orient: Yes, I've read all the lectures several times. In fact, I've practiced for four years, if you really want to know. I think the practice is just unbelievably good, and many people around me think the same after witnessing the changes in my appearance. But because we don't need to talk about emphatically personal opinions (and get too ad hominem in our arguments), it's better to keep a certain distance in reasonable discussion, right? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Orient, I am aware about Epochtime's association with FLG. I used it as a source to compare FLG's attitude with other QG groups. In almost every discussion on the USENET in the past FLG members tend to waive PRC sources as fabrication and waive non PRC sources as misunderstanding. Which then turns into a nasty off-topic debate. So in turn I tend to cite pro-FLG sources when I can to reduce uneccessary noise. Also the QGs mentioned in the EpochTimes article at least I know that "Xiang Gong" is banned. Which is one of the QGs I used in my example.

Being a Taiwanese student I'm very clear about Chinese history. FLGs current political/apocalyptical statements, like the "Kill the red dragon" stuff, no matter what Li's intention is, reminds me of the Huang Jin's(Yellow Turban) "The Blue Sky is dead, the Yellow Sky arises." So militant that it's hard to believe that it comes from a group that has "Ren" in it's tenets.

The main problem people (besides the PRC government) have with FLG is Li blows out too much exaggerated claims. So far the more reasonable direct claims of FLG is improving people's health. Which is often seen in QG groups. And then we have "Zhuan Fa Lun", as well as Li's lectures which have a high amount of topics not related to QG, and showing much of Li's ignorance. Yet the most curious part is numerous articles in FLG websites have people, including those who have doctoral degrees supporting them with unquestionable faith. Which includes twisting results of other people's research [5]. One of the actual reports cited in it could be found here if you subscribed Science: [6] If not, here's a transcript. I suggest anyone to take a look at the actual issue of Science (Lucas,RJ et al. Science 284:505,1999).

The mammalian pineal, unlike that of other vertebrates, is not directly lightsensitive,and photic information reaches it via a multisynaptic pathway originating in the retina and passing through suprachiasmatic regions of the hypothalamus ( 8 ). In mammals,removal of the eyes abolishes this response, demonstrating that ocular photoreceptors are used (5, 9).


--Yenchin 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm fairly puzzled by the nature of these comments. I can see "Orient" as a pro-stability Chinese national, Olaf to be a fully devoted Falun Gong practitioner, and Yenchin's position seems slanted to being both anti-Falun Gong and anti-CCP. Orient has some good points. Olaf's over-obsession, if you will, with creating certain philosophical uncertainties and vague scientific concepts and arguments to prove that Falun Gong is "true" has undoubtedly cast upon him the label of not subscribing to NPOV. I don't think it is worth much discussing with Olaf this issue, because, like I said before, it's like talking to a fundamentalist Catholic about abortion. Religion always defeats reason, so I won't try to convince Olaf of much else.
Yenchin, my purpose to comment on these things was originally to fix the article. I've received a mix response from you as to which one of my conclusions are unreasonable, and I would like this feedback without carrying away on another tangent. I think Wikipedia does a better job at explaining what happens as opposed to why some things happen. And Orient, I think you share some similar viewpoints with me, I'd like your feedback too. Colipon+(T) 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I must state that I am strongly disappointed by your comment. It is especially disconcerting from the mouth of such a skilled conversationalist. I never asked you to believe that Falun Gong is "true". Instead of recognizing that I've actually strived to converse with logically sound arguments, you lamentably regress into ad hominem, just like I described. For example, I've never reverted any changes to this article based on the opinion that they represent a "distorted" viewpoint, provided that they're accurately written and citing their sources. I've stated that I don't want to wage any ideological wars. Maybe the practitioners are wrong, maybe they're right - it's certainly not within the scope of this article. We're making an encyclopedia here; indeed, I have never opposed to you making some of your suggested additions into it! As a matter of fact, I'm probably more educated in the sociology of religion than most of the contributors here, and perhaps I can even help you. But if you want a NPOV, you just cannot rely on your own subjective position.
Your comment about philosophical "uncertainties" and "vague" scientific concepts is no argument at all. Maybe you didn't understand the implications of what I was saying, or maybe you aren't familiar with the related philosophical questions in general. I'm not making up these things. They're an essential part of any paradigmatic scrutiny. Of course, it's a lot easier to reify "reality" as we commonly perceive it, and not get too deep into what we can really know about it. But if you read my replies again, I think it's obvious that I've tried to avoid discussing things that I know I cannot prove. Neither have I drawn on any dogma.
On the other hand, it seems to me that you're approaching certain positivist ideas in your outlook on "subjectivity" and "objectivity". Do you recognize that everybody is confined by their personal subjective position? Shed your illusions of writing scientific arguments wie es eigentlich gewesen ist ("as it really is"). We're not living in the days of Leopold von Ranke anymore. You, me, and the other person are all viewing things from our standpoints and within our discourses. It's the arguments that are wrestling against each other, not the people. You play your cards, I play mine. A gentleman doesn't stifle his opponent by making allegations of his personal characteristics. Playing the "irrationality" card in a rational conversation is just preposterous.
I'd also like to state that I'm not representing anybody else here. Do not reify "Falun Gong" as doing this or that. It's individual actors who are at work. Why, I don't even agree with some of the things that certain practitioners are doing any more than you do, and if people are citing sources erroneously to prove their own point or twisting somebody else's research, that's just being irresponsible. But you must also remember that their intention is to stop a heinous persecution. Not everybody is a professional writer. You cannot expect everything to work smoothly and look neat when a jumbled group of people without organisation or coordinating "leaders" is trying to stop the communist Party from killing and torturing people.
Spreading the Nine Commentaries[7] or the symbolism of "slaying the red dragon" has absolutely nothing to do with militancy. There's never been violence involved, just spreading information about the historical crimes of CCP to contextualize the current situation, i.e. to make people realize the underlying logic of CCP's oppressive rule. The practitioners are exercising their basic constitutional rights. But I do understand that the true implications of "freedom of speech", "freedom of belief", and "freedom of assembly" have been entirely distorted in communist China. I don't know how much any of you have been subconsciously affected, and I'd rather not make such judgments.
---Olaf Stephanos 11:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I've studied many logical fallacies, such as your repetitive mention of ad hominem, and long ago have come to the conclusion that although how true Y is has never been dependent on X, X can also be constantly affected by Y, and although you can prove a lot of things, our modern scientific method is based on the inability to disprove, not the ability to prove. If I were a major in Philosophy, maybe I'd extend my viewpoints, but I'm not. At no point, Olaf, was I intending to argue against you. Hell, if I knew you in person I'd probably respect your dedication and faith, something a lot of us lack in the modern world. The one thing that strikes me is the fact that you categorize matters unnecessarily in a philosophical manner and try to prove a POV thereof, almost as if you're skewing a picture just to make yourself look right, because philosphically it is simply impossible to disprove certain statements. Yes, I do rely on common sense, and I admit my philosophical and spiritual side is probably not as advanced as yours. I've studied sociology and history for over 20 years, and my statements tend to rely more so on common sense (or more solid ideas as opposed to abstract dissertions) than philosphical outlook. I'm sorry, but that's the way I think, and I can't help it sometimes but dismiss horribly biased biographies like Chang and Halliday's Mao: An Unknown Story, and horribly biased viewpoints like some presented here. I'm not making any judgments on your person, nor am I trying to. All I'm saying is, if you ask the CCP government in Beijing about their stance on Falun Gong, they probably won't give you the most credible of answers, and likewise with dedicated Falun Gong practitioners like yourself. Both sides have motives, whether or not conscious, in trying to prove one side of the story. Please be understanding of this. --Colipon+(T) 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of like mind with Colipon on this. A Wikipedia article isn't the place to prove or disprove whether the CCP is evil or good, or if FLG is spiritually advanced teaching brought to earth by the living Buddha Li Hongzhi (as he seems to claim in his lectures) or hogwash made up out of whole cloth by a politically opportunistic mercenary or an intolerant xenophobic crackpot. What we can do is report those notable viewpoints as viewpoints held by people who consider the subject, if they are verifiable, as the CCP and Falundafa organisations demonstrably are. The relative spirituality of the subject is incidental to us. I'm a martial qigong teacher myself, and members of my teachers' family were imprisoned by the Red Guards, so I don't have much sympathy for the CCP, past or present. Also, my teachers taught me to be remarkably sceptical of claims made by groups like FLG, they even encouraged me to be sceptical of what they were teaching me while they were teaching me. Whether a discipline is real or not will be borne out by its results, and that is necessarily subjective at the personal level. And as such it has no place in our articles. Objective results, medical studies, winning martial arts competitions, etc., do belong in the article, as long as we cite sources and don't pass judgment on the results ourselves. --Fire Star 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, what's the fundamental difference in our stances regarding the matter? Haven't I stated exactly the same thing? I've likewise agreed that a Wikipedia article isn't the place to prove or disprove the validity of Falun Gong or the evilness of CCP. I have repeatedly stated that we can let history prove whether something is true or not. I've just tried to have you understand that things are not so straightforward and simple, and that there are numerous approaches to these questions. We can, of course, exhibit all notable viewpoints. Each person can make a judgment based on the available material, but we have to be clear on the sources.
What I am opposing is the notion that I'm incompetent due to the likelihood of bias. I've pointed out that each and every one of us has a subjective standpoint ("bias", so to say), be it secular humanism or whatever; arguments can only be evaluated by assessing the arguments themselves; and by ad hominem I don't mean accusations but simply the all-too-common logical fallacy that the validity of arguments is dependent on the person who is presenting them. It's an easy way out, and it has nothing to do with fair play.
I'd also like to add that I don't condemn the persecution only as a Falun Gong practitioner. I have abhorred violence all my life. The brother of my great-grandmother was killed in a concentration camp during the Finnish Civil War. Of course, we don't need to get into personal matters. But you don't have to belong to an ethnic minority to deplore the Nazis, and you don't have to be a right-wing extremist to realize that there's something seriously wrong with communism (or "the dictatorship of the proletariat"). I know that both of you understand this, and I think we already have a mutual agreement on a lot more things than we immediately realize. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to imply that I consider you unreasonable or intransigent, far from it. I think having many perspectives will only benefit the article in the long run. Regards, --Fire Star 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To: Olaf Once again, I wish to state my point. Don't think you know China, it is different. I am 41 years old, I lived in China for most of my life, and I still cannot say I understand China completely. Ok, suit youself, let's have some food for thought. Let's just say the CCP is corrupted and lost the mandate of heaven, who do you propose to take over the government. FLG? Li, the next emperor-"pope" of China. Do you think he will make China better in this dog-eat-dog world. Let's just say again, if FLG is true, Li is living-Buddha, and he tried to spread his religion without any conflict with the CCP. Why would the CCP banned him. The CCP policies is much cautious to the western religions that the orientals. However, Catholic did not get banned in China. The event must be discovered by yourself before you have any right to comment on it. --Orient

Dynasties have always come and gone in China. I certainly don't think that any practitioners or Mr. Li have interest in political power. In fact, everything I know about Falun Gong seems to prove exactly the opposite. It's just sincere cultivation practice, honestly. What is currently labeled "getting political" (by some people) is simply countering the abominable terror of CCP and encouraging people to abandon the sinking ship. Many scholars and experts inside of China are quite assured that the Party will be over within a few years. Is there anybody who actually believes in CCP anymore? Of course, some people have vested interests, and their career might depend on the Party. But even today there's nothing much left except a façade.
Personally I'm criticizing CCP because of their human rights violations and a totalitarian culture, and I don't have suggestions about who should rule there afterwards. But a communist dictatorship is not in the interests of the international community, either, and it's not only practitioners who think the Party must go. I'm happy to see that a lot of the Western media has recently woken up to disapprove of the CCP, and last Wednesday even the Council of Europe publicly condemned the atrocities and crimes of totalitarian communist regimes.
I hope that history will bring something immensely better for China and the Chinese people. I've lived all my life in a peaceful and relatively wealthy democracy. If we take the traditional Chinese idea of a government losing the "mandate of the heaven", it means that something will perish regardless of what people think about it, right? We'll just have to wait and see. And I know that it's pretty much dog-eat-dog in today's China, and people are very disillusioned with just about everything. But I think China is a wonderful country, and I have a deep appreciation for its rich history and cultural heritage. The current state of affairs is most unfortunate, but I'd still like to believe that things will settle out one way or another.
Why'd they persecute FLG? What a complicated question. That's what we've been trying to discuss for quite a while now. Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Have you tried the exercises? I find them incredibly powerful. Unexplained power in curious places is frightening to some people. This is all I have to say; let's not get too heated with our personal opinions. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Colipon: I'll state my position here: I acknowledge the fact that the PRC is persecuting people, thus you can see me having anti-China comments. However, I don't think that justifies FLG to make their outrageous claims, twist facts, and so on. Also I'm highly suspicous on Li's position. It is like there is something going on in the name of Justice. Which is why you may see me having more comments on FLG han PRC. True, we haven't seen any violent movements caused by FLG. But history has proved that there is more than one way to sieze power and support. Including establishing strong, militant thought. I'm not sure about English speaking discussion groups, but in Chinese using groups like tw.bbs.*, almost every debate, including those about science, which as far as I know has nothing to do with PRC persecution, always ends with FLG members accusing critiques choosing sides on the "evil PRC government", or other shit like "soul selling". And I'm not talking about 1 or 2 users, I'm talking about basically every user that shows up.

Now being a Chigong practicer myself (Hinayana type), I don't know all the benifits. But I definitely know that one doesn't lose simple reasoning once you're in it. The abonormal attitude from these members comes from somewhere else. --Yenchin 19:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually pretty much second your opinions. Colipon+(T) 06:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some have slightly too much enthusiasm in such matters, true. That's just how people are; it is easier to point a finger at those that you consider wrong than at those whose standpoint seems "righteous", even though the emotional intensity and obstinacy may be just the same.
But the way I see it, many people's comments may hide the implication: "We don't agree with you, because we think you're twisting facts and believing in pseudo-science, THUS the persecution is alright; it's too bad they're being so harsh on you." To a lot of such people the persecution and torture are nothing but bits of information: "Aha. OK. So that's how it is, how sad." I mean, it's more like theoretical knowledge, not something that makes you feel sick in your guts. After all, you may view these people as 'Others' instead of as your peers.
Unfortunately, for as long as these crimes are being committed, there's just no way to stop people from screaming for help and branding others as "choosing sides of the evil PRC government", sometimes in a blunt, unpolished and even fanatical way. Too much terror has been spread, too many people have been put through hell, and there are just too many victims, families and friends involved. The thoughts that arise from witnessing such events may seem to you as "militant", but that only goes to show how hard it is to grasp the scope of these atrocities.
If you want such disturbances to end, do something to make the killing stop, or at least show a little bit of compassion for what they've had to go through. You can be polite and respectful even if you strongly disagree. People's reactions depend more on how something is said than what is actually said. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well lying and twisting facts doesn't seem to match "Truth". The way FLG handles He Zuoxiu, Zhao Zhizhen and the Canadian newspaper Chinese Press seems not quite "Compassionate" and I don't even want to go to the "Forbearance"/"Tolerance".
Sorry, as compassionate as I can be, it's hard to respect the followers.
--Yenchin 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As any people on this world, you have the right to condamn the CCP's action. But before do so, you must understand some of the police actions are not only exists in CCP time, but also in other times. I still going to say what I said before, you simply cannot trust both sides' source. Mr. Stephanos, I guess you been a practicer, is influenced by FLG's idea. Why not listen to some other perspectives? I am not disagree to the benefit of QG and other practices. I certainly did not say that Mr. Li tries to overthrown the government. However, the gathering of FLG practicers in the Zhongnanhai was a great threat to the society regardless the intention. ::--Orient

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUNGONG DISCUSSION FORUM!

Is it "anti-China" to criticize CCP?

Spreading the Nine Commentaries or the symbolism of "slaying the red dragon" has absolutely nothing to do with militancy. There's never been violence involved, just spreading information about the historical crimes of CCP to contextualize the current situation, i.e. to make people realize the underlying logic of CCP's oppressive rule.

Dynasties have always come and gone in China...Personally I'm criticizing CCP because of their human rights violations and a totalitarian culture...And I know that it's pretty much dog-eat-dog in today's China, and people are very disillusioned with just about everything

Hello? This is the 21th Century, not feudal China. Do you know how much bullshit FLG fed you? And who are you to call us "Totalitarian culture"? Today almost nobody worship giant portraits of Mao, as opposed to your master Li. Nobody I know is disillisioned with the government, and I'm currently living in China, whereas you're some fool who thinks he knows the whole of China by practising FLG. The vile propaganda "酒瓶共产党" lack any sources or footnotes on the so-called "crimes" which no Western historian even heard of, its idiocy exceeded "Mein Kampf". I can see Li and his brainwashed, uneducated, unemployed acolytes taking over the Chinese parliament and meditate under the giant portrait of Li hanging under Tianamen, by courtesy of the Council of Europe. I'm glad the CCP caught these China-hating rumor spreading bastards, and their "7-million" signatures (which even infants, dead people, non-Chinese can sign. --PatCheng 07:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your government does kill and torture people. Everything else is secondary here. You can think of Falun Gong as just about the airy-fairiest and most quixotic practice you've ever known, but that still doesn't justify the state terrorism of your government. It might be a surprise to you that in Western countries there is a rather large consensus of certain things regarding the CCP's crimes, and the international human rights organisations are deeply concerned as well, not only FLG practitioners with their alleged "propaganda". Sometimes it is easier to recognize the problems from the outside. Therefore, the question is not about whether government brutality and torture exist in your country. They do. It's real. Ideology may make you turn your head, but China's laogai remain the same. If you approve of that, I'm really, really sorry for the degree of your detachment from the suffering of others.
Your Mein Kampf accusations are imprudent. After all, it is someone else who is inciting masses against a group of people. But I agree that I'm also slightly concerned about the lack of footnotes in jiuping; it could have been done more thoroughly. On the other hand, it's more like a newspaper anyway. Personally, I'd never meditate under the giant portrait of Li hanging under Tiananmen, or worship him in any other way, for that matter. Why, that's just silly. Not everybody digs such personality cult stuff (even though I know it's been quite a smash in China during the recent decades, as well as in other totalitarian countries). I just feel that I have plenty of rational reasons and first-hand experiences to think that FLG is great; maybe you would draw the same conclusions if you had gotten to know it as well as I have - or maybe not. It's good that we both have our freedom of thought and opinion. I'm opposing violence and state-approved brutalities, not you having your own ideas and beliefs. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If Li Hongzhi's claims about 100 million practitioners were true, the shouldn't the Epoch Time's resignations from CCP campaign have more than 100 million signatures instead of 7.5 million? Clearly not all practitioners agree with political activism and radical forms of protest. In fact I believe people with anti-China agendas use FLG as a vehicle to promote their views. At this Chinese website there are practitioners claiming the Epoch Times and Clear Wisdom delibrately mistranslated and changed Li's words to form an anti-CCP stance. What I don't understand is why would some practitioners support using such radical forms to attack the Chinese government, when Li's words clearly stated FLG as a non-political organiation. I don't remember Gandhi or MLK calling for the overthrow of their governments or saying that their leaders are the anti-Christ. I fail to find anything democratic about the actions of The Epoch Times and Nine Commentaries, in fact these organizations don't allow criticism, with their online forums censored and as if only FLG's version of events are the real truth.--PatCheng 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true that there probably aren't 100 million Falun Gong practitioners in China anymore. The persecution has undoubtedly taken its toll. I am unable to make any estimates, but maybe their actual figure is a few million, maybe 10 million, probably no more than 20 million. Who knows? It requires enormous courage and assuredness to maintain a position that is widely condemned by the authorities. And you are right, not everybody who practices (or used to practice) Falun Gong agrees with tuidang.
In my opinion, the Chinese people are predisposed to identify CCP as "China". Also, many people think that the centralized one-party system is the only way that China can stay stable and firm. This is part of the socialization process that the present-day Chinese have gone through. Similar things apply to practically everyone: having grown up in an evangelical Lutheran country, I am probably more Lutheran than I'd like to admit, even though I'm not a church member. But maybe my ideas of a decent work ethic are congruent, for instance. Everybody's concepts and frameworks are socially constructed to a certain extent. We all take some culturally conditioned things for granted.
I don't see any of the things that Falun Gong practitioners have done as "political extremism". Because the persecuting side is a political party in a country where other parties are banned, resolving the question unavoidably involves civil criticism of the government. As I have stated in a previous message, I think the Nine Commentaries are contextualizing the current state of affairs, so that people can break free from the logic of the Party and perceive the underlying mechanisms of oppression that penetrate the Chinese society. In my opinion, CCP's logic is that of social engineering and "struggle" (some might call it the "logic of war"). This fundamental nature has never changed. It is the driving force behind Mao's unfathomable abuse of nature, the Cultural revolution, ridding the society of the "Four Olds", as well as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and now the persecution of Falun Gong. "Social stability" is the card that CCP always plays, and many swallow the bait.
There is nothing "anti-China" in these points of view. I'm sure that Falun Gong practitioners have a deep appreciation and love for China, especially those who have born and grown there. And even though I am a Westerner myself, I think China is a wonderful country, and I wish nothing but prosperity, peace, and all the best for its people. I don't want to see China break down into small states waging endless war with each other. But contrary to the views of the Chinese government, I don't believe that the communist party is the "only way to keep China from tearing apart".
Freedom of speech, opinion, belief and assembly imply that information should be free. Falun Gong practitioners were never given a chance to defend themselves against the accusations of CCP. Even today, many people think that it's just normal and even expected that practitioners try to "dig a Falun out of their stomach", abandon their families, kill their parents, engage in "cult suicide", and so forth. Any alternative points of view are blocked by the Great Firewall of China. Hatred is instigated into people's hearts. The difference between the actual state of affairs and CCP's vile allegations is so tremendous that many people are incapable of recognizing just what is true or false. "The Party says you are evil, so you must be evil - because they wouldn't simply make up that much stuff, even if they aren't entirely neutral." Time after time the practitioners tried to neutralize the juxtaposition by appealing to the government and pleading for a peaceful solution. The government doesn't listen. It just keeps on imprisoning, brainwashing, torturing, and killing. The law firm of Gao Zhisheng was recently shut down and the man himself was hijacked by CCP's agents - only because he insisted that the practitioners have a right for an attorney. Good grief! If the Chinese government doesn't respect such basic rights that have been put forth in just about every related international convention (also ratified by China), it is no longer a government of the people. Then again, I don't know if CCP has ever been one.
Hannah Arendt talked about the banality of evil in her study on Adolf Eichmann. The evil of today doesn't wear horns: it sits in bureaus and offices wearing a tidy suit, just performing its tasks as a cogwheel of a grand machinery, and goes back home to its family after a day of work. That's why it is so hard to recognize. Likewise, the persecution of Falun Gong and all the related atrocities are hidden from the public view, and you cannot tell the most noxious criminals from their appearance.
Of course, I wholeheartedly realize that the question is immensely complex. I don't want to just dig me a trench and keep on flaming those who don't share my opinions. I do agree that there is no real conversation between both parties. The Epoch Times is not really answering to CCP's allegations, because they are dedicated to presenting their point of view (and they think CCP is full of muck anyway). On the other hand, the Chinese government keeps on violating human rights and turning down any possibilities of a truce: "We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Social engineering at work!
---Olaf Stephanos 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the CCP and FLG keep hurling attacks at each other, with their blunt, go nowhere approach. Other groups such as the Vatican and Dalai Lama already have representatives talking with the China government, due to their soft pressure approach. The pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong has conflicted with FLG due to practitioners flocking to pro-democracy rallies with their "million CCP members resigned" banner and such other things. FLG practitioners tend to turn up to anything that relates to human rights or politics in China, even anti-globalization protests and turn any discussion into one on FLG crackdown. Many non-FLG activists tend to stay away from such things because of their ludicrous claims like the number of CCP resignations, and that a religous group shouldn't have a mandate on democracy, which it didn't support until after the crackdown. I don't think bring up historical events by previous governments such the Cultural Revolution (an event denounced and victims compensated) and 6/4 (another event which caused international isolation of China) has anything to do with the actions of the current government, especially Jiang Zemin stepped down from power. Reading FLG publications and Epoch Times several issues ago, their agenda was to sue Jiang Zemin, and that he "does not represent the whole party", which now changed to open anti-Communism. Also If FLG and Epoch Times embraces democracy, they should open up and allow criticism, and take note of rival opinions, instead of the propaganda-against-propaganda approach, which means that chances for positive developments in Chinese human rights are curbed. --PatCheng 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people in important positions in the Chinese government who want to crush FLG. I don't think that the chief perpetrator Jiang Zemin, in spite of having retreated from the pinnacle of power, would give up on his grisly fantasies of "destroying their reputations, bankrupting them financially, and destroying them physically". That toady old man still has influence over Chinese politics, and many leading thugs, such as Luo Gan, are said to be faithful to his ghoulish crusade. Sorry, but I just cannot believe that CCP has the loftiness for a tolerant conversation with the practitioners. Do you know what they did to Epoch Times' Chief Technical Officer yesterday in his Atlanta, U.S. home? Armed CCP agents severely beat him up and stole his laptop computer.[8] Fifteen stiches in the face. It's not enough that the Chinese government terrorizes its own citizens - it is trying to expand the persecution overseas.
The only interest of the practitioners has been to stop the inhumane persecution, but unfortunately CCP is beyond remorse. It chills my blood to see how they've been able to shift the blame for all the iniquities throughout history. After the Cultural Revolution, it was the "Gang of Four" who were to blame for all the events. Following the death of Mao, the Party admitted some excesses, but they were to be corrected; justice would prevail, and everything would be alright in the la-la land of communist China. But then came June 4th, 1989. And they're still reiterating that tanks crushing 500 to 3000 unarmed students was the legitimate course of action for the sake of "social stability". During his visit in France in October 2004, Hu Jintao insisted that the government's view on the 6/4 incident would not change.
And the Tibetan issue? CCP's divide-and-rule policies and destruction of Tibet's unique identity and culture are nothing but felonious actions of a big bully, and their so-called "negotiations" with Dalai Lama are going nowhere. The Party will not lose its vested interests in Tibet because of some amicable old monk's snivel. It is only because Dalai Lama has no impetus whatsoever to change the current state of affairs that they're waving some trivial carrots to his face. Meanwhile, their exploitation of Tibet and its people shows practically no sign of simmering down. But let's not get into this; the Falun Gong case is heated enough by itself.
Practitioners have tried for so long to resolve this peacefully. Even today, nobody has committed acts of violence against the government. And personally I'm sure that none of them will. But it is simply impossible to tolerate crimes against humanity. That's not what tolerance means. In my opinion, the Communist Party of China has demonstrated that it is the biggest threat to the social stability of the Chinese society. By starting a paranoiac crackdown against immense masses of Chinese citizens who just wanted to become gentler and cultivate themselves in ordinary society, the seeds of the Party's demise were already sown. As I've said before, it doesn't matter whether you think Falun Gong is just feudal superstition or a quirky practice for uneducated peasants (you know I don't share that opinion anyway). The horror of the last seven years of persecution is just too much for a government to preserve its already questionable mandate. If somebody disagrees, I suggest that he cannot grasp the abysmal scope of the monstrosities that have already taken place. Tuidang[9] is for the sake of a person's own future. I believe the Communist Party of China will disintegrate regardless of how many people abandon the sinking boat, or go down with it.
---Olaf Stephanos 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUNGONG DISCUSSION FORUM!

Doubtful Figures

There are a lot of statistics in the article that I found doubtful. Not only are they unsourced, but they also seem absurd. I learned the hard way that FLG supporters will always be dedicated to maintaining these numbers. I don't want to get in a revert war here, just so you know this article is constantly maintained by FLG supporters, so you decide whether it's trustworthy or not. -X. Zhang

I added the sources regarding a figure of 70-100 million practitioners. The statement about high-level officials, military cadres and communist party members practicing FLG is so widespread information that it's found both on pro- and anti-FLG sites; therefore, I don't think we need to mention any specific sources.
This is a heated topic that raises many controversies. The article is not a place to vent your anger at FLG, nor is it intended for its fervent promotion. Neither do we need manipulation of history for political purposes, but disputants are indeed entitled to demand sources, and it's actually a good thing. I agree that it's sometimes hard to maintain a balance. We should, however, give it a try and cool down our personal sentiments. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for you pretend to be neutral. On your User page, you are openly against the crackdown of FLG. You may or may not be a actual member of FLG, but against one side = not neutral.
Like I said, the Falun Gong page on Wikipedia is literally a propaganda maintained by FLG and anti-crackdowns. -X. Zhang
Olaf doesn't have to be neutral, as long as his writing in the article is neutral. We have the right to our opinions, but we can also be adult enough not to inject them into our prose. Myself, I am mainly concerned that FLG's penchant for advertising themselves not creep into the article, and conversely, that the CCP's claims and actions not be glossed over. In short, I think it is a complicated issue and I certainly don't think there is a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in the dispute between FLG and the CCP. They are both being disingenuous, IMO. Where our opinions can be reflected in a neutral way is to see that the opinions we disagree with not be given more weight in an article. By this method, a pro-FLG editor and an editor who disagrees that Li Hongzhi is a living Buddha will make sure the other's position is reported, not asserted by the prose of the article, balancing each other out in a spirit of consensus. That is why I am going to remove the npov sticker, because the article we have now (while certainly not perfect) is the product of a long consensus. --Fire Star 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "Beliefs"

Although I’m sure that many of the issues I’m about to bring up have already been discussed, I am bringing them up again since they directly relate to changes I have just made to the article. I have taken initiative to make changes in the sections of the article regarding the practice’s beliefs without seeking prior consent. I did this because I feel that in this situation bringing these issues up for discussion prior to making the changes will likely lead to long discussion with little changes. By doing it the way I have you can look at the article together with my explanations and get a pretty clear idea of what I have in mind or my “vision”, rather than just hearing opinions. And if it’s really terrible, then it’s not too much effort to change it back. But I do feel that there is quite a bit of poorly written content in the sections on beliefs, as well as content included with wrong ideas or concepts or misunderstandings in mind. If you would like an MS Word version of the section with track changes to see clearly what I have specifically changed and how, then I can send it to you upon request.

I would first like to address some issues with the article’s reference to people of mixed-race and aliens in the beliefs section. First of all, this is quite an obscure reference. This issue is far from central to the practice and within volumes and volumes of scriptures has only been touch on one or two occasions. I suppose that if one wants to try to support the idea that Falun Gong is a practice with eccentric beliefs or that Mr. Li makes “crazy” statements then including this comment might help your arguments. But this is supposed to be an objective article, not a debate. Why is there so much written about a statement like this, while other matters more important to Falun Gong, such as the third eye, prehistoric civilization, healing, validity of traditional beliefs, the existence of demons and gods, etc., are merely touched upon? I can tell you as a practitioner that beliefs of the earth being protected from natural disaster, aliens, and mixed race people, although I may believe in them, don’t mean a whole lot to me. I believe that the section on beliefs should better reflect the beliefs that are central to Falun Gong. The quote regarding this should also certainly be removed as there is no such quote in the lecture mentioned. I understand that some of you want to include these issues since you believe they are beliefs that people may find interesting or are noteworthy in understanding Falun Gong and Mr. Li, but please try to look at this from my perspective. You are casually including statements that have so much required explanation and context behind them. Without this context they indeed sound quite odd. When my friends or others that I know ask me about statements like these it takes quite a lot of explanation to have them start to understand them from within the context they are given and how they fit into the overall teachings of the practice. And after all that explaining it turns out that it’s not really anything important anyway. So I think that just mentioning this without providing a greater context really only confuses people and creates misunderstandings. Yet mentioning this within a larger context would be saying too much about something that isn’t really an important belief in the practice. So in my opinion it’s best not to include this at all and I have removed it from the belief section.

As for the comment on Mr. Li refusing to name his Masters; how is this at all relevant to the belief section? Is this surprising? If this is just for the sake of mentioning what Mr. Li says about the origin of the practice then why not just write something like, “Mr. Li has said that Falun Dafa is an ancient cultivation practice previously only passed down in secret by a single disciple.” Although this is not a quote, this generally what has been said, and what practitioners believe. I’ve replaced that section with something like this as it is much better than what was there before.

I removed the quote about homosexuality from Zhuan Falun II. This quote served no purpose as the issue was clearly addressed in the following quote from the lecture in Germany. Zhuan Falun II has not been officially translated into English, so the accuracy of the quote is debatable. In addition, the book is no longer published, and many practitioners have never even read it, so it is not a good source for use in this article.

The above are a few of the more major changes I’ve made. There are quite a few other smaller changes related to accuracy in description, relevance to the article, or phrasing. I hope you can see the importance and appropriateness of the changes I have made.

Thanks, Mcconn 15:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I've reverted your edits (which is by no means permanent) before I saw this note, my apologies. I haven't reverted back because of things I mentioned on your talk page.
To most people, when someone makes a claim of representing an ancient lineage, one usually provides some provenance. Instead, Li doesn't name his teachers. So, we don't say that Li made FLG up, we simply say (as has been a germane statement for similar articles) that he doesn't provide a provenance for FLG. Since in his lectures he very often seems to be implying that he exists outside of our reckoning as a divine personage himself, it is interesting that he also claims human teachers (who can teach a god?) but doesn't name them. When I am researching a sect or discipline, that is of interest to me, at least, and not mentioning it would make a less complete article. There are many New Religious leaders out there (as well as many older ones) who have made many more fantastic claims than Li, and someone reading an article would be interested in seeing what context FLG's practises are based in. We have to walk a fine line, necessarily simply saying Li said x or y, not pointing out that it makes him seem loopy or that he really is greater than the gods, or even that his public comments are obscure. He is an influential figure to millions, worthy of intense study, whatever may have motivated that study in the first place. I hope this helps. --Fire Star 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, so I will take the initiative to explain each thing I decided to change. However, I think that you attach too much of your own opinion to this article. Most of what I did to the article was change inaccurate information in the sections regarding the practice’s beliefs and make changes to sections depending on their relevance to the article. The tone of the article is the same and the information is presented in the same way. It’s true that a lot of changes were made, but a lot of them were necessary from any rational and informed perspective. To simply revert all of these back to the article’s previous state makes little sense and seems like merely the easiest solution. The fact is you are not a practitioner and thus you do not have the experience of a practitioner in understanding the beliefs and their relevance. For instance, your comment above regarding Mr. Li. Falun Gong is a practice that has been passed down in secret. There are many practices that exist like this in the world. A teacher will come to a disciple and begin teaching them. The disciple doesn’t go looking for the teacher. This is a basic belief in Falun Dafa. Who is this teacher, or who are these teachers? It doesn’t matter, because you wouldn’t have heard of them anyway. And actually, given the circumstance of the persecution, providing this information places the lives of these individuals in danger. And no matter who a person was in his previous life, or where in the universe his life originates, when a person is born into this world he is a human. No one comes with the knowledge he previously had, so you must be taught, you must cultivate yourself in this harsh environment and maybe eventually, upon enlightenment you will recall some of this knowledge. Some people have greater inborn quality, and others lesser, depending on who they were, so their ability to enlighten may be different. We also believe that Jesus, Shakyamuni, and Lao Zi had teachers, so that they could enlighten and teach their ways. As a non-practitioner with a limited understanding of the teachings you probably don’t know these things, so be careful when attaching too much weight to your opinion.

This article is very important and a lot of people read it in order to understand Falun Gong, yet I believe that it is quite misleading right now. I felt inclined to make these changes after my roommate began reading the article and told me what a “joke” it was. Having a fairly good understanding of Falun Gong, she couldn’t take it seriously. In the upcoming days I will explain the changes to a greater extent. However, for now, what about my other previous comments? If they makes sense then why not keep them? If they don’t, then please say why.

--Mcconn 05:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you make a list of the points you object to we can discuss them and perhaps find language or reasoning we can agree on for as many as possible. But to say I have a limited understanding of FLG's teachings is an assumption that goes against our assume good faith policy. That is not the place to go in discussing the content of the article. My (and your) opinion of FLG doesn't matter here. I'm not interested in debating the validity of Li's teachings, I am interested in having an article that is an encyclopaedia article, and not a one-sided advertisement for Li Hongzhi's books. --Fire Star 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Mcconn, I request that the edited versions be compared with the previous version before changes are reverted. Why should the previous version be prefered. I think this article is stagnating and as of now is very misleading. Buddha Shakyamuni once said there are 3000 planets with living beings in the Milky Way - How much sense would it make to say Buddhism believes in aliens in an article on Buddhism?

Dilip rajeev 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous version is preferred because it is more complete, at least IMO. Remember: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Fire Star 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Kindly Allow me to edit the Beliefs section. Having read through all the published books of Falun Gong I feel the picture put forward by the section is very inaccurate. I assure you that I wont be leaving out anything that is already in the article. Falun Dafa's set of beliefs are not as simple as " belief in gods , demons and aliens" they have a profound theory of the structure of the cosmos, belief in higher dimensional realities ... a very different view on anthropology, A theory on the structure of matter which is very different from the modern picture.. and a lot more... I certainly cant discuss all that in the article but I want put forward a much more accurate and unbiased picture

After Reading through all the published Books of Falun Gong, I cant help but agree with Mccon when he says "You are casually including statements that have so much required explanation and context behind them. Without this context they indeed sound quite odd."

Kindly revert only if you feel the article is any less complete or inaccurate.

.. The beliefs of Falun Gong are much more profound...This paragraph from Zhuan falun brought to my mind something I had read in David Bohm's Book on Wholeness and Implicate Order:

“If there were such an instrument through which we could expand and see the level at which all atomic elements or molecular elements could manifest in their entirety, or if this scene were observed, you would reach beyond this dimension and see the real scenes existing in other dimensions” –Zhuan Falun


“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each electron (elementary particle) acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality”

– David Bohm in the book “Wholeness and Implicate Order”

The beliefs of Falun Gong are certainly not aliens, mixed race people and and remains of old-civilizations which, I think, must be discussed under a different section "Anthropological Beliefs". But I wont leave them out from the Beliefs section in this edit.

The central idea of Falun Gong is the Buddhist concept of cultivation Practice and that is never mentioned...

"it is interesting that he also claims human teachers (who can teach a god?) but doesn't name them"

The concept of cultivation in Buddhism is very different from the Modern Western Concept of God. Gautama or Milarepa were not born "god"s. They completed cultivation ( under the guidance of their masters)and Gautama was then Called Buddha Gautama. And what Buddha Shakyamuni taught is not belief in a god or a philosophy but a way of cultivation - a way of cultivation of Buddhahood.

The same idea can be seen in some western Inner traditions and schools like Universal Gnosticism. The purpose of cultivation practice according to all these schools is to go back to one's true self. They believe Jesus after incarnating his Christ (through cultivation) achieved Christhood( a concept very similar to achieving Buddhahood).

Dilip rajeev 06:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


"The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident" was editied. None of the Existing information has been left out. Attempt has been made to bring in more details to the section. Image changed with an animated gif.

The animation loops with a delay of around 15 seconds between each loop and runs for a few seconds


Ok, here’s the first paragraph. Only simple changes were made. I’ll post the second one tomorrow. Just as a note: I think that the article can still be vastly improved, even after my changes. Also Five star: My comment about you having a limited understanding is not completely personal. Falun Gong’s teachings are really, really profound. They cannot be grasped easily and a lot of time needs to be spent studying them almost everyday to do this. And there is a whole lot of them to read too. Anyone who is a non-practitioner, unless they spend an hour or two of studying them each day, is bound to only have a limited understanding. However, as a person who does study the teachings for an hour or two each day, I know that your comment about “Who can teach a god?” is not a question you would ask if you had a more complete understanding of the teachings. It is thus not an assumption on my part to say that your understanding is limited. I also do not want an argument, but I felt that I should clarify my position here. Also, what about my other comments from my first post? Would you kindly respond to them as well? Thanks.
Paragraph 1
Falun Gong (Traditional: 法輪功; Simplified: 法轮功; Hanyu Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional: 法輪大法; Simplified: 法轮大法; Hanyu Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law"). It was introduced to the general public in 1992 by Li Hongzhi (now residing in New York state), and grew swiftly in popularity, not only in China but worldwide. It was popularized widely under the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) supervision for seven years. An estimate of the CCP presented in 1998 on public television (state-owned) in Shanghai mentioned that in Mainland China alone the number of practitioners of Falun Dafa was approximately 70-100 million. The actual number of Falun Gong followers is a matter of dispute: Falun Gong itself claims to have over 100 million, including 70 million inside China, while current official Chinese estimates put the number at about ten million. Prior to the onset of the persecution, surveys pointed to about 70 million practitioners
1) I removed “Brooklyn” and changed Mr. Li’s place of residence to New York State. Where did this info come from in the first place? As a practitioner, I know that it’s not accurate. From what I know, he originally lived in Brooklyn, then New Jersey, and now an undisclosed place in New York state, but I don't thik it's Brooklyn. I think it's safer just to write New York State.
2) I removed “very”, from “very swifty”. It’s unnecessary and sounds less academic in my opinion. Simply writing “swiftly” carries the same meaning.
3) Shouldn’t both words in “Mainland China” should be capitalized?
4) “were” is not grammatically correct. It should be “was approximately 70-100 million”
5) I think the last sentence flows better broken up into two. So I removed “while”, capitalized “prior”, and made it two sentences. I also took out the semicolin and put "while" there.
Mcconn 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, My question "who would teach a god?" was purely rhetorical, seeming a logical question a new reader would ask after a perusal of Li's lectures and interviews. I am myself well trained in Taoism, Buddhism (Pure Land and Chan), Chinese martial arts (my teachers' family were harassed and imprisoned by the CCP) and neigong, and so flatter myself that I have a good idea of what Li is claiming himself and FLG to be. We don't have to agree on FLG, but we can all agree on the article if we work on it in the spirit of good faith.

  1. is agreeable. It doesn't seem likely that someone of Li's income bracket would live in Brooklyn, anyway.
  2. is a reasonable correction of over-florid prose.
  3. is debatable, "mainland" is a nickame, a term of convenience, not a proper noun used by any Chinese government to describe itself. I'd tend to leave it.
  4. "Were" works for British English which can agree with the number (since they are referring to people) rather than the singular set. Since most of the article is in American English, the change works, IMO.
  5. Fine.

Regards, --Fire Star 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Here’s paragraph 2. Thanks for accepting the changes to the above. Are you going to put them in or shall I? As for Mr. Li’s income, I don’t think he makes too much. I think his entire income is based on book sales, which wouldn’t be that high. It would be similar to that of a school teacher.

Paragraph 2
Before
Falun Gong's founder professes a number of beliefs, some of which are derived from elements of Taoism, and especially using terminology found in Chinese Buddhism as well as tenets unique to Falun Gong, including seemingly New Age and apocalyptic beliefs.
After
Falun Gong professes a number of beliefs, some of which are similar to elements of Taoism and Buddhism, and use terminology found in Chinese Buddhism. Also included are tenets unique to Falun Gong, including seemingly New Age and apocalyptic beliefs.

1) I changed "Falun Gong's founder professes" to "Falun Gong professess". This article is not about Falun Gong’s founder, it’s about Falun Gong. It’s obvious that the beliefs of Falun Gong come from its founder. To continually write in this way makes it seem almost as if there is a division between the practice and the teacher. In my opinion when this article makes a comment like “Falun Gong’s founder says…” it seems intended to shape the reader’s impression of Mr. Li in a certain way. The fact is everything that has to do with the practice’s beliefs has come from Mr. Li’s mouth, so why write in this way?

2) I changed "derived from" to "similar to". It is quite an assumption to say that some of Falun Gong’s beliefs are derived from Taoism. Can you prove that? I don’t think so. Mr. Li says that Falun Gong is a system in itself and does not derive from any of the religions we know today. It’s true that Mr. Li will use quotes, examples, and even terminology from these systems to clarify or explain a principle of his own teachings, which in some instances may be generally the same as a principal in these religions, but that is quite different from having the teachings derive from these sources. One can believe what he wants, but this is an encyclopedia article and thus one can’t write something like this just because he believes it. Neither of us can be proven, so it’s best just to say that the teachings bear similarity to these religions. Not many people will argue with that.

3) I added Buddhism to the part about Taoism.

4) I made a new sentence for the part about tenets unique to Falun Gong. It seemed like a run-on sentence before, which I don’t think is good for an encyclopedia article.

Mcconn 17:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. Since you know right where to go, it would be quicker for you to make the changes, I'd say. I wasn't complaining about Li's income, but he must sell a lot of books, and even if there is only a tiny markup, he should be doing alright. How about "uses some of the same terminology as Taoism and Buddhism"? The very first word of FLG "Fa" is used in all three (especially in Buddhism, where it is used to translate dharma), but I agree that the usages are different, and that it would be original research to say they were "derived" from another source unless Li explicitly said they were. Cheers, --Fire Star 21:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how's this:

Falun Gong professes a number of beliefs, some of which are similar to Taoism and Buddhism, and use terminology from these religions, while other tenets are unique to Falun Gong, including seemingly New Age and apocalyptic beliefs.

Sorry, it seems like it's back to being a run-on sentence. Mcconn 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Here's paragraph 3. Tell me what you think of this:

Before:
The three basic moral principles of Falun Gong are: Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness, Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Tolerance)'. It is through focusing on these qualities that Falun Gong practitioners say they develop what they call their xinxing (moral character) which then purportedly gives the potential to develop high levels of 功, gōng, which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.) Falun Gong adherents make the claim that gōng possesses healing properties, and that 氣 qi (which denotes "breath" or "vital energy") has no ability heal illnesses whatsoever; it can only serve to "purify one's own body". See also: qigong, kung fu, traditional Chinese medicine.
After
The three fundamental moral principles of Falun Gong are: Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness, Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Tolerance)'. It is through adhering to these principless that Falun Gong practitioners improve or upgrade what they call their xinxing (moral character). Practitioners believe that through the gradual improvement of their xinxing they develop 功, gōng, which they use to mean "high level energy" (this is an idiosyncratic use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement"). Falun Gong adherents believe that 氣 qi (which means "breath") is a low level and natural form of energy possessed by all, while gōng, unlike qi, possesses healing properties, can purify one's body, and is considered necessary in practicing towards enlightenment. See also: qigong, kung fu, traditional Chinese medicine.

1) I changed “basic” to “fundamental” because I believe the word “basic” doesn’t carry the significance to which these principles are given in the practice. “Fundamental” implies that this is the most important and core aspect of the teachings. “basic” can be taken as meaning that this is the simplest aspect of the practice, but not necessarily the core.

2) I changed “focusing on these qualities” to “adhering to these principles.” I think that this choice of words better reflects the practitioner’s relationship with the principles. It is much more one of adherence, than simply one of focusing.

3) I changed “say they develop” to “improve or upgrade.” Xinxing isn’t something that we “develop”. Everyone has it. It’s just that we try to improve our xinxing. These words are much more accurate. And there’s no need to say “they say”; this is a given.

4) I started a new sentence for the connection to gong. I think it flows better this way.

5) In the direct translation of Gong, I removed the part that said “and by extension is part of compound terms…” I don’t think there’s any need to mention compounds here.

6) I changed “Falun Gong adherents make the claim” to “Falun Gong adherents believe”. These are our beliefs and I don’t think that believing in something is quite the same as making a claim. This doesn’t seem to be the appropriate context to use those words.

7) You’ll notice that I changed much of the explanation of the relationship between Qi and Gong. What was written before wasn’t that accurate. I gave an explanation of qi from the practice's perspective, which wasn't previously included but is important in understanding the relationship.

8) Actually, qi can't really purify a person's body, he can only reach the "milky white body" state. The state of a truly pure body or the "pure white body" or "crystal white body" state can only be acheived through cultivating gong. So I took that away from the explanation of qi and put it with gong.

9) I think it is also necessary to mention Gong's significance in acheiving enlightenment, which is really fundamental to this particular belief. So I included that too.

Mcconn 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Everything looks good, I only have 2 quibbles, namely:
3) I changed “say they develop” to “improve or upgrade.” Xinxing isn’t something that we “develop”. Everyone has it. It’s just that we try to improve our xinxing. These words are much more accurate. And there’s no need to say “they say”; this is a given.
How about "A stated goal of FLG practise is to improve..." As with other subjective subjects, while it may be true for FLG and others, there are also many who don't believe in anything of the sort. The FLG article is more FLG specific this way.
And in that vein:
5) In the direct translation of Gong, I removed the part that said “and by extension is part of compound terms…” I don’t think there’s any need to mention compounds here.
The words "qi" and "gong" are relatively well known in English parlance, just ask any kid who is a fan of kung fu movies. Since kung fu is the most well known usage of the term for westerners, and most other uses are part of compounds, the info contextualises FLG's use of gong and should stay as a reference point for those with less familiarity with Chinese terminology.
Regards, --Fire Star 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the timely response. For comment 3: The act of improving or upgrading xinxing actually isn't that subjective. It's really just letting go of desires and attachments, suffering hardship, and generally letting go of selfishness. It's about assimilating your moral character to Zhen-Shan-Ren, the teachings of Mr. Li. It's a fact that peoples' characters have changed and have become more assimilated to the teachings after making the effort. So, I think it's ok to simply say that they "improve or upgrade" their xinxing without needing to add anything else. Besides, I think by including the phrase "what they call their xinxing" it is already Falun Gong specific. For comment 5: ok. :-)

Mcconn 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes Required

Falun gong is defined as a "controversial Chinese spiritual movement" which ,in my opinion, is an inaccurate description. The New American Heritage Dictionary defines "movement" as: "An organized effort by supporters of a common goal" which is far from what Falun Gong is. And there is nothing inherently controversial about Falun Gong. Attempt has been made to provide a much more accurate Introduction. Content has been re-organized to make the article more streamlined. No existing information has been left out. And Additional section on the Qi Gong aspects of Falun Gong has been introduced - in it is a comparison of Falun Gong with other forms of Chi Gong spread in contemporary society. Study shows a lot of significant differences with conventional forms of Chi Gong

The article is terribly incomplete with nothing discussed other than some controversies and controverisal beliefs. Wikipedia articles should not be a place for debating controversies. Anybody editing an article shuold have good, first hand knowledge on the subject. It would be outright absurd for someone who has not studied all the books and practice aspects of Falun Gong to edit an encyclopaedia article on Falun Gong. But sadly, that is what has happenned.. It is no coincidence that the article is nothing but a compilation of things plucked out from various newspapers. As of now, the whole article revolves around controversies.

Everyone see things with different eyes. FLG routinely organises large scale protests, book publishing, websites and lecture tours and seminars by Li Hongzhi; so by that it meets the definition of a movement given above. FLG is harshly suppressed by the CCP, and called "weirdos" by the immensely popular Law and Order television show, those are two instances of controversy right there. So, rewriting the intro to say "FLG is an undirected group of people which everyone in the world agrees is the salvation of mankind" isn't going to work, I'm afraid. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I want to accentuate that it seems that is what you are "requiring" the article to say. --Fire Star 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Re-Structured

Kindly allow me to restructure the first two sections (Intrduction and (Origins and Beliefs)) of the article to improve readability and accuracy. None of the existing information has been left out. Material has been added to the Origins and beliefs section. Redundancy has been eliminated ( for instance the number of practioners and the controversies surrounding it had been discussed, in detail, in no less than three sections.) Attempt has been made to ensure that the material discussed in the beliefs and origins secion is accurate and in-line with Falun Gong's Teachings. Though I had read all Falun Gong books before making the changes, I feel my understanding of the principles of Falun Dafa is far from adequate and I am looking forward to recieving input from others who have studied the books- especially practitioners.


After Reading through all the published Books of Falun Gong, I agree with Mccon when he says that we are "casually including statements that have so much required explanation and context behind them. Without this context they indeed sound quite odd." But I have left the controverial quotes as such for the sake of completeness. It is hoped that the issue is further discussed and appropriate changes made.

Kindly revert only if you feel the article is any less complete or inaccurate.


Dilip rajeev 11:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I just skimmed through what you submitted and I think that, for the most part, what you submitted is quite good. However, there are quite a few instances where the terminolgy is too practice-specific, unexplained or inadequately explained, confusing for the reader, and one-sided. There are also some things included that have been discussed previously and intentionally unincluded, namely the nobel peace prize nomination. I think there are also a few structural problems. Many changes will certainly need to be made if it is kept. But this said, I think it's a pretty good base. It is certainly more complete and gives a much clearer picture of the practice. My intention originally was to restructure the article as well, but I thought it might be too difficult to have it approved. So I instead decided to work within the framework that was already there. Now that this initiative has been made, however, I hope that others will be willing to work with this because I do think it provides a better base for the most part. It will certainly take some more work from everyone because there will be quite a lot to discuss, but I think it's worth it. At the least, I hope that it's not completely reverted in it's entirety.

Mcconn 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of work needs to be put in. I think we must pay attention to the other sections too- the ones discussing the goverment crackdown- a lot of redundant info exists there. I believe it is alight, if not necessary, to include a section on the recognition falun gong has recieved - provided the section is limited to one or two paragraphs. It is necessary to help one understand Falun Gong's position in the society better. Infact, I did some research on the net to find out that a lot has been said in praise of falun gong by governments world-over. This is more so in the united states..

   "Falun Dafa's contribution to humanity has been widely recognized and honored in the United States."
                - Phil D. Duncan, Sr., Mayor of Belton, Missouri, USA 
   "Master Li's teachings are directly working toward the improvement of our society"
                - Richard M. Daley, Mayor of Chicago 
   "... we should use Falun Gong as a model of people who are expressing the best of Chinese civilization."
                - Professor Irwin Cotler, Canadian Member of Parliament

... with so much recoginition and acclaim being recieved, I think it is necessary that the article points it out...

New section on Awards and Recognition Introduced.

A section on Awards and Recognition has been introduced


The municipal awards that the Falun Gong gets do not represent endorsements for their views, since these views are seldom understood by the politicians who typically accept what the Falun Gong practitioners say about their beliefs. Recent edits have changed the FG piece into an exercise in self-promotion which disturbs me greatly. I say, delete that "awards" section right now!

Thomas Brown

NEED TO REVISE INTRODUCTORY SECTION

The recent round of edits on this piece have totally distorted the over-all presentation of what the basics of Falun Gong are. After mentioning the "five sets of meditation exercises" in the first paragraph, the piece now launches directly into a lengthy discussion of the history of the Falun Gong in China. The first sentence does, at least, mention the word "Falun Dafa"...but then fails to go on to explain the difference between Falun Gong (which are the meditation exercises) and the Falun Dafa (which is Master Li's great law). It is fundamentially inaccurate to represent the Falun Gong as merely a set of mediation exercises. Master Li has told his practitioners that if all they do is the exercises, then they can't be considered Falun Gong practitioners. Thus the Falun Dafa...and Master Li's absolute insistence that all his disciples protect and defend the Dafa...is the core of Falun Gong.

Here's my suggested addition:

Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). But more important than the meditation exercises themselves are Master Li's Dafa, or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is the belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior of people in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would no longer be considered a practitioner by the Master. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created the world and all it's creatures, so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.

Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they should fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law at some point in the future.

Critics of the Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Master Li establishes between himself and his followers, using a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than just a new religious movement. A number of prominent American cult experts, including Dr. Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have stated that Master Li meets the classic definition of a manipulative cult leader.

If the Wikipedia piece on the Falun Gong is going to have any claim of objectivity, it must also represent the views of its critics. I am proposing that something like the above be added to frame the discussion at the beginning of the piece. I can easily add citations for quotes from the above mentioned authorities. Dr. Margaret Singer was a pioneer in the study of cults and Steven Hassan is a leading cult counselor.

Thomas Brown San Francisco

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/Talk%7EFalun_Gong_Archive_4_b334.html"