Talk:Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Buddha's school and Buddism 2 Moving down Tormananda's new edit for review 3 Asian Studies Review 4 Maria Chang 5 not homophobic? 6 Patsy Rahn 7 Edits on "Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics" 8 Not good enough source 9 Added to Allegations of exclusivity and... 10 Response to Mcconn's new soures: Western Conference (2005) and San Francisco (2006) 11 Blanking of info by Dilip 12 Sub-Sections on the main page 13 Patent 14 Dilip, I have reverted your last two edits because.. 15 Discussion on the 'Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs' subsection 16 above section continued, addressed to Yueyen 17 Obscuring the Master's Teachings on homosexuality 18 The Falun Gong pretending to be a Buddhist group 19 Do homosexuals smell bad? 20 Universal salvation and forgiveness 21 Please go to Mediation Talk Page for Current Discussion

[edit] Buddha's school and Buddism

Regarding the edits In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” In an Asian Studies Review article entitled “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’” (2005). I have assembled the following information from the Falun Gong books:

1. "Buddhist qigong is not Buddhism the religion....The Law in Buddhism is only a small part of the Buddha Law." Buddhist Qigong and Buddhism from Zhuan Falun The Third Talk
2. "Buddhism cannot represent the entire Buddha Fa...". The Buddha Fa and Buddhism
3. "When it’s turning clockwise the Law Wheel can automatically take in energy from the universe, and when it’s turning counterclockwise the Law Wheel can send out energy. Turning inward (clockwise), it saves oneself, turning outward (counterclockwise), it saves others. It is unique to our practice. Some people have asked, "We’re Buddhist, so why are there Tai-ji? Isn’t the Tai-ji a Daoist thing?" It’s because what we cultivate is huge—it’s just like we’re cultivating the whole universe. So think about it, everybody: there are two major systems in the universe, the Buddhist system and the Daoist system, and without either of them it wouldn’t make up a complete universe, you wouldn’t be able to call it a complete universe, so we include Daoist things here. " from Zhuan Falun The Fifth Talk (The Law Wheel Design) subsection
4. "Falun Gong is of the Buddha School, but it far exceeds the scope of the Buddha School: Falun Gong cultivates according to the entire universe. In the past, cultivation in the Buddha School only mentioned principles of the Buddha School, while cultivation in the Dao School only addressed principles of the Dao School. Neither thoroughly explained the universe at its fundamental level. The universe is similar to human beings in that it has its own nature, along with its material composition. This nature can be summarized in three words: Zhen-Shan-Ren. Dao School cultivation focuses its understanding on Zhen: telling the truth, doing honest deeds, returning to the origin and one’s true self, and finally becoming a true person. Buddha School cultivation focuses on Shan: developing great compassion, and offering salvation to all beings. Our cultivation way cultivates Zhen, Shan, and Ren simultaneously, directly cultivating according to the fundamental nature of the universe and eventually assimilating practitioners to the universe. " Chapter II Falun Gong 1. The Falun’s Function

I think Falun Gong states clearly that it is not Buddhism. And it does not represent "the basic tenets of Buddhism." although it does mention about Sakyamuni and history of variants of Buddhism and so on. Fnhddzs 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What section of the article are you talking about, and what suggestions for edits are you making? CovenantD 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, you are missing the point here. Dr. Penny reports the early (eg: 1996) criticism of Falun Gong from the Buddhist leaders in China. Their criticism is that while Li Hongzhi uses Buddhist terms, he has changed their meanings, thereby coming up with a new religion which does not represente "the basic tentets of Buddhism." That is Dr. Penny's statement, not mine, and it is useful information to appear in the controversy and criticism page since, in fact, Dr. Penny states that the critique of Falun Gong from the religious community in China was the earliest and most sustained, in-depth critique at that time. There were also various media outlets that criticized the Falun Gong, but those criticisms were not as sustained and thorough as the Buddhist critique.

As to your quotes above...nothing in the edit says otherwise. In fact, some of what you cite above is also cited in the article. No one is claiming that Li claimed that Falun Gong is the same as Buddhism. He uses the term "Buddha School" to distiguish from "Buddha religion" which is a point that Dr. Penny makes in the article. In fact, Li has always spoken of his Dafa as superior to that of Sakyamuni because it is only Li's Dafa, according to Li, that can save people in during this Fa-rectification period. I know you know all this stuff, and don't understand why you object to it being reported here. --Tomananda 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving down Tormananda's new edit for review

---

Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” In an Asian Studies Review article entitled “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’” (2005), Chinese scholar Dr. Benjamin Penny evaluates the relationship between these practices in an historical and critical context. Penny reports that some of Falun Gong’s earliest criticism came from religious leaders who objected to Li’s misuse of Buddhist terms and “his misrepresentations of the basic tenets of Buddhism.”

As early as 1996, the Chinese Buddhist Association and Buddhist journals were issuing in-depth critiques of the Falun Gong. While acknowledging that the leadership of the Buddhist Association found itself in a delicate position after the ban of the 1999 ban, Penny suggests that their early criticism of the Falun Gong bears an importance that goes beyond any political considerations. Of particular significance were the writings of Chen Xingqiao—a deputy secretary of the Buddhist Association in Harbin. Having first attended one of Li’s lectures in 1994, Chen wrote an essay in 1996 which was meant to expose what he considered to be Li’s misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrine and terminology. As reported by Penny, the Buddhist Association held a seminar in January 1998 “to discuss the problem of the Falun Gong” and later in the year published in the journal Fayin a long essay of Chen’s criticizing Li Hongzhi’s “Rolling Dharma Wheel and his Gongfu.” In the article, Chen reaches the conclusion that Falun Gong cannot be considered a form of Qigong. As summarized by Penny, Chen argues that the Qigong “has to do with the manipulation of qi with the goals of ‘calming the spirit and the heart, curing diseases and strengthening the body,” but when these activities cross over into the acquisition of higher powers, seeking enlightenment, long life, immortality or Buddhahood, they belong to religion.”

Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddha School, Li states in Zhuan Falun that “it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period.” Here Penny points out that Li “is drawing a distinction between fojia and fojiao—that is, between, literally, a school of the Buddha (whatever that might mean) and a religion or teaching of the Buddha.” But in Zhuan Falun Li also states that “The Dharma that Sakyamuni professed two thousand years ago was only for everyday people at a very low level; it was taught to those who had just evolved from a primitive society and still possessed very simple minds.” Thus traditional Buddhism is considered inferior to the Dafa. Li goes on to state: “Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.”

In Falun Gong, many traditional Buddhist terms have been given new meanings. Benjamin Perry (2005) cites a few examples. (The phrases in quotes are Perry’s interpretations of their meanings.)

The Buddhist term falun or dharmacakra “refers to the Buddhist truth itself, set in motion…with the first lecture the Buddha gave after his enlightenment.” In Falun Gong it is a physical object, a “law wheel,” which Li implants in the abdomen of his disciples. The Buddhist term fashen or dharmakaya literally means “the body of Buddhist doctrine, the real nature of Buddha.” In Falun Gong fashen are Li’s “eyes and ears, protecting practitioners from evil influences, warning them if they are deviating from the proper path.” The Chinese term gong, among its other uses, “is the standard term...for the Buddhist idea of merit.” In Falun Gong, cultivators are said to develop De (virtue) through their own efforts, but need the intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into gong (cultivation energy.) The Buddhist term karma or yeli means actions or deeds. In Falun Gong, karma “is an uquivocally bad thing. There is no ‘good karma’ and karma is understood to be acquired through the performance of bad actions.” As with the terms falun and fashen, both karma and de are materialized in Falun Gong. Karma is said to be “a black substance” and de is “a white substance.”

As reported by Penny, Chen concludes that Falun Gong is neither Qigong nor Buddhism, but rather has the characteristics of a popular religion (minjian zongjiao.) But he uses a different Chinese term...waido, meaning “heresy” in this context...to describe Falun Gong in the title of the article. In the introduction to Chen’s article, the editors of Fayin describe Falun Gong as one of China’s “popular superstitions” [minjian mixin], being part of a long tradition of culturally absorbing traditions dating back to the Qin and Han periods. Penny concludes: “Although, in my analysis, Falun Gong cannot usefully be seen as a Buddhist heresy, it is my contention that in the crowded qigong world of the early 1990s it was strategically important for Falun Gong to emphasise and exploit its Buddhist affiliations for positioning in the gigong marketplace.”

When writing about the historical context of Falun Gong, some commentators in the west have emphasized the similarities between Li’s Dafa and a variety of traditions, both old and new. In Falun Gong: The End of Days, Maria Chang states:

More than being a religion, an examination of Falun Gong’s beliefs and practices, as revealed in Li’s writings and lectures, indicates that it bears striking similarities to such historical Chinese sectarian religious societies as the White Lotus and the Eight Trigrams. Although Li disavows a belief in the main deity of those two societies—the Unbegotten Eternal Mother (Wusheng laomu)—his ideas are similar to theirs in the eclectic blending of Buddhism, Daosim, classical folk religion, and magic. To this amalgam are added some modern touches: just as the ideology of the Taiping rebels was modernized by a banal Christianity, the beliefs of Falun Gong are given a contemporary veneer via references to science and UFOs.

---

24.189.163.169 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Studies Review

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/as-review.html#recent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.163.169 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Maria Chang

Wikipedia says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books...are largely not acceptable as sources.".. Regarding "Maria Chang",Maria Chang is not an expert in the field of theology, religion, history or Qi Gong. A political science professor, infact. As she is not an expert in the field, isnt the book more of a personal opinion? As wiki says isn't she just "claiming" to be an expert in the field? Dilip rajeev 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it a self-published book? That's the first question to be answered. CovenantD 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong: The End of Days was published by Yale University Press...hardly self-published. Her academic area is political science. Meanwhile, Dilip, have you made any progress on all those "citations needed" in the Persecution section? --Tomananda 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Crosstalk and baiting, Tomananda. Be nice. ;-)

Okay, so Yale University Press seems legit. The title of the book gives weight to it's importance. Her academic area indicates that she's qualified to address matters of Political Science. What's next? CovenantD 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not baiting Dilip, but rather pointing out that nothing is being done about the unsourced material that has already been cited in the Persecution page. Dilip or some other editor needs to respond, otherwise this entire exercise is one sided. Concerning using Maria Chang's book as a source, I can find no policy in Wikipedia justifying it's exlusion. She is a published author...not self-published...whose work is cited by other authors and whose opinions, even if critical of the Falun Gong, should definitely be allowed in this ariticle. To say otherwise for makes no sense and would result in an unsatisfactory article. According to Wiki policy, "an opinion is a view that someone holds...and it may be included if it can be verified." I have not heard any reasonable justification for omitting this material other than the obvious...Falun Gong practitioners agressively seek to exclude any and all critical opinions about Falun Gong and will continue to do so. We also need to hear from the other administrators on this and other issues concerning sources. Fire Star has already said that critical material on the Falun Gong should be allowed if it can be verified. --Tomananda 06:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Give Dilip some time. You had several days to work on the Deng and Fang stuff. Let's balance that with some patience.

Ah, so she's been cited by others. That adds weight. I'm not trying to disallow it, if that's your fear. I'm trying to make sure that we all see, every step of the way, that it meets the criteria (or doesn't). That will help others in finding sources for their edits. It's a learning process, and we all get to learn together. CovenantD 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not homophobic?

Homosexuality in the context of Li's teachings on karma This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.

As in many traditional practices, lust is thought of as something that hinders a person's progress in cultivation. Pointing to this fact, practitioners say Falun Gong practice itself is not homophobic because when Teacher Li speaks, he speaks to practitioners and not to non-practitioners and non-practitioners can do whatever they want and nobody can say whether it is right or wrong.

This passage or stub doesn't make much sense when Li states that homosexuality is evil. And why does it not speak for non-practitioner or practitioner when he states it's evil. And to be a practitioner you can't be homosexual. So I don't understand the logic of this at all. Sounds like double talk to me.

It's also the same as I'm nazi and I believe in white supremecy but since you're not nazi it doesn't apply to you and I'm not saying you should believe in nazism. But if you want to be a nazi you can't be non-white. That does not make me a racist because I don't enforce non-believers on my ideas. It's the same reasoning which doesn't make sense. Anyone want to comment on the twist of logic the author used to write this?24.189.163.169 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Li does not state that homosexuality is evil, where did you get that idea from? Li states, that practitioners have to follow a higher standard because they are cultivating to higher levels, so they can't follow everything that is going on in the ordinary human society, like: having sex for pleasure, homosexuality, using drugs, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes. Do you understand? According to my understanding, ordinary people can't say that homosexuality is right or wrong, why? Even a heroin addict thinks heroin is good, does it mean that it is good? What is Good and what is Bad? When it comes to ordinary human desires, everyone speak from self-interest...so what is good and what is bad? That is why nobody can say what is good and bad for ordinary people, because ordinary people judge good and bad according to their own satisfaction. So you should not use your human mentality if you want to understand Falun Gong, if you want to understand Falun Gong, you have no choice but to leave all the formed notions and desires behind. /213.114.166.136 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of the appropriate section

If you have suggestions to improve a particular portion of the article, please share them here. Otherwise, this is not the place to debate Falun Gong. CovenantD 15:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patsy Rahn

Tomananda, please give me the source for Patsy Rahn, I need to valitate it and see if it fits wikipedia standards.

The Patsy Rahn paper was published and is verifiable. It meets Wiki standards and the details of the citation appear in the resources section of the main page. I might add that the source was discussed some time ago. But here's a question for you: who are you? Are you truly an anyonomous user, or did you just forget to sign your post? --Tomananda 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you say it is verifiable, but I still want to see the source and if it meets the Wiki standards. If it does meet the wiki standards then there is no problems with showing me that it does, right? So I want to see the source. I forgot to sign my name, but I still don't see how it has anything to do with the source. /Omido 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, is this (http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/rahn_patsy_falungongbeyondtheheadlines_abs.htm) the web reference you meant? It's the last link in the "Critical External Sites" portion of the main article: The Falun Gong: Beyond the Headlines (2000) abstract of article by Patsy Rahn available in Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, pages 166-186. If it's used in this article, the link should show up here too. CovenantD 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it in. --Tomananda 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on "Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics"

I think the edits by Mcconn are reasonable. We need to allow to present both sides. Fnhddzs 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've adjust some of the edits to remove POV, and other cleanup of meaning. CovenantD 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not good enough source

"As reported by Christopher Hitchens in The Nation...." You know, Christopher Hitchens article is not a verifiable source according to wikipedia standards. This is a article written by a private person for a newspaper, he is just a columnist, how can it be used in a serious Wikipedia article? I think it should be removed, what do you think convenant? /Omido 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be changed, but not for the reason you mention. The article is not available online, so the actual, printed magazine article needs to be cited. When that is done I can look it up at my local library and figure it out. (You folks are really making me work.) CovenantD 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added to Allegations of exclusivity and...

I added some info to the first half of this section. There is a statement regarding the term 'cultivator' that is unsourced. It's rather broad and I don't know of any one particular quote to support all of it, but it is also quite basic. Also, if I added a quote it might take away from the focus. If there is insistance from other editors that I source my statement then I can apply multiple sources, but it may possibly take some to time to track them all down. If others have no problem with the statement then maybe we can leave it as is. Mcconn 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am going to delete that edit not because of it's lack of source, but rather because I do not think it is true in the context of this section. Please note that the Li quote above your insertion uses the word "practitioner". I can provide many Li quotes in which he makes a broad distinction between practitioners and ordinary people and in these quotes he is not referring to "cutlivators" in other schools or religions. In fact, Li is quite emphatic that only the practice of Falun Gong can provide salvation to people during this period of Fa-rectification. The very charge of "exclusivity" has to do with Li's claim that he offers the only truth (the Dafa) and no other teachings or cultivation practices can save mankind now. That's what he says.

--Tomananda 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, that is not what he says, maybe you missunderstood it. According to my understanding, Li says that all beings with positive thoughts against Dafa (The Law of the Cosmos) will be saved, and those who goes against The Law of the Cosmos (are also ruining the lives of all sentient beings) can't be saved..because they are going against the future and destroying sentient beings. Also, he said that the practice of Falun Gong can guide one to Buddhahood/Dao etc. Omido 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right that he uses the word 'practitioner' in that quote. My paragraph was about who isn't an ordinary person and since that quote mentions ordinary people it's entirely relevant to clarify this. I think I could have written it better to make that more clear. Maybe that also wasn't the best place for it. Also, the term "practitioner", depending on it's context, is often used synonymously with cultivator. I can add that fact. Particularly in this quote I believe that the meaning of practitioner is broad, thus including other cultivators. From personal experience I can tell you that after practicing Falun Dafa for a little while I could detect the characteristic, but I wasn't like I could see the characters Zhen Shan Ren everywhere. It was more like being able to sense the different levels and feel what it's like to ascend or descend to different levels (kind of hard to put into words actually). This was something I never felt or sense before as a non-practitioner, but I really doubt that this is something limited to only Falun Dafa practitioners. I'm only writing this to help explain what I mean. I'll rewrite that paragraph to make it clearer and put it back in. Mcconn 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You know that a source is going to be requested, so if you have one you might as well put it in. CovenantD 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: While Li says he is willing to make individual exceptions in the Fa-rectification for people who do "bad things"...it is still Li who makes those exceptions. He asserts the exclusive power of saving people at this point in history and that is one of the points made in this section by critics. He has never said that other forms of cultivation can save people during this period of the Last Havoc...only he can. In fact, there is even a teaching where Li says that the Buddhists in their monestaries can no longer save you.

The point is, only Li (or his Dafa) can save people and that is about as exclusive as you can get in the spiritual realm. In the past, Li says that wasn't the case, but it is now because people have become so corrupt and the gods have abandoned us. I again strongly assert that the argument you are making does not come from Li's teachings. It might be an inference you and other practitioners have drawn, but if so it can't be reported as factually correct for the teachings. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.(smile) --Tomananda 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, according to my understanding: Master Li has said that Sakyamuni (Siddharta Gautama), the founder of Buddhism, has said that during "the Age of the Law’s End", it will be very difficult for his Dharma (the Buddhist Dharma) to save monks, and even more difficult for his Dharma to save ordinary people: "No wonder Shakyamuni said that in the Age of the Law’s End it would be hard for monks to save themselves, let alone save others." (Zhuan Falun)

Master Li, says that today is "the Age of the Law’s End", and that is why it is very hard for Sakyamuni's Dharma to save people: "He talked about, "the Age of the Law’s End." That’s today." (Zhuan Falun)

But, Master Li has also said that there still exist munks that do genuine cultivation, and that they are pretty good: "Of course, there are still monks who are doing true cultivation and who are pretty good." (Zhuan Falun)

"But it’s not absolute—there are still a few good temples and Daoist shrines that are exceptions." (Zhuan Falun)

Also, one more thing...Master Li has said that according to his opinion, all the former cultivation pracices within the Buddha-School and the Dao-School always saved the persons primordial spirit:

"From what I can see, all practices out there today—and this includes all the Buddhist and Daoist ones in history, along with the Qimen practices—they’ve all cultivated people’s subordinate souls (the subordinate consciousness), it’s the subordinate soul that has gotten the gong. " (Zhuan Falun)

According to my understanding, Master Li has said that he is the only one that is guiding people toward higher levels:

"I know the state of qigong all across the country, and I can say that right now, whether we’re talking about inside China or abroad, I’m the only one who’s really transmitting a practice that takes you to higher levels."

You Should understand, that there is a really big difference between "being saved" and "being guided toward higher levels". Many critics are kind of narrow-minded, they twist the facts and only wish to see things through their own eyes and notions, well, it's their sin. /Omido 11:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Omido, that last sentence is uncalled for. It has nothing to do with editing this thing, and if you're referring to editors here then it's a personal attack. I'll defend your right to believe what you want, but when you start using words like "sin" outside the context of editing then you're passsing judgment and pushing your beliefs on others. CovenantD 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that Omido was pushing his beliefs on others, but I do recommend him to take a bit more caution with his words. Tomanda, your argument is straying from what's at hand. I wrote a paragraph describing what it is considered a practitioner or cultivator within Falun Dafa's teachings in order to give the reader a better understanding of what's included or not included in the term "ordinary person". I said that upon request I would find citations for the statement, which I will now do. I believe that there is a wiki policy that states that rather than deleting an unsourced statement, provided it's not too far-fetched, a "source needed" tag should instead be applied. I am going to reinsert the statement with a tag and start digging for relevant quotes. If you actually doubt the validity of my statment I can provide quotes on the talk page validating each point, but I don't think it would be a good idea to fill up the article with so many quotes. Instead, I'll probably provide one quote indicating that he regards practitioners of at least one other religion as cultivators and then simply state that he also regards proctitioners of other ways as cultivators too, listing off a few. How's that sound for now? Mcconn 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that Mcconn & Tomananda work together and avoid a revert war. CovenantD 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there'll be a war. We've managed to work together before. I'm going to post a quote below right now. This is not the best quote to expemplify my point, and I don't intend to put it in the article. It's just something that I can pull out on hand to show you the validity of my point.

“In ancient China, particularly prior to the establishment of religions, many practitioners employed the form of secret practice or solitary cultivation in remote mountains or caves far away from human settlements.” . . . “As far as I know, usually when a master teaches a high-level practice and genuinely guides a disciple, and if one’s school of practice has bigu, this phenomenon may take place. Nevertheless, one cannot promote it in public; one typically takes the disciple away to practice it secretly or alone.” – Zhuan Falun, Lecture 8

Clearly he’s talking about people who are cultivators, but who aren’t Falun Gong practitioners. They're not "ordinary people" either. With this said, I think you can at least see that I'm not groundless. I'll now get looking for some better quotes. Also, I appologize for taking a bit long in responding sometimes. I work quite a lot and my job has nothing to do with computers. Plus, believe it or not, I have a social life and other hobbies and projects. So I can only edit in my spare time, which there isn't much of sometimes. I'll try to be timely on this. Mcconn 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: I don't mind letting your edit stay for a few days so you can find better quotes, but really I don't think you can do it. Yes, it's true that there are "culivators" in other schools and Li occassionally refers to them. However, in the context of the Dafa saving people, it is also clear that only Li's Dafa can offer salvation per Li himself. What's more, he makes all kinds of statements about his exclusive role in this regard. Here are two quotes from Zhuan Falun alone:

• I am the only person in the world who is teaching orthodox Fa in public. I have done something nobody did in the past and opened such a large door in the Dharma-ending time.
• At present, I am the only person genuinely teaching the gong in high dimensions both at home and abroad.

Keep in mind the argument critics make is that Li claims exlusivity in his ability to save people. Only Li (and his Dafa) can do it. To suggest that other schools can also offer salvation at this time in our history just because they practice some other form of cultivation is just not supported by anything Li has said (that I am aware of). So please feel free to challenge me with something from Li, but I'm afraid you won't be able to. However, I admire your tenacity and it seems this partiticular issue about Li's exclusivity may even bother you just a bit. From my perspective, that's a good start! --Tomananda 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not this or any other issue "bothers" me makes no difference. Why do you find it necessary to always make comments like these? Comments which usually accuse me or others of having certain insecures? Are they out of your own insecurities? I'll make no comment. I make a point not to engage in this kind of childish behavior and I hope you will learn to do the same.

I'm not addressing the issue of exclusivity in who can be saved at this time. The following excerpt from the page makes statements and presumptions creating an idea that Falun Gong's concept of ordinary people is everyone but practitioners themselves. That simply isn't true, and having read the teachings you should know that. My intention with the paragraph I've started is to clarify what is or isn't included in the term "ordinary people". I also want to shed some light on why this distinction may be made. Mr. Li actually makes lots of references to famous cultivators in history and has said that there are still others who cultivate today (perhaps it's more difficult in this time to achieve enlightenment and it will only be the subordinate soul who does so, not the person himself). I acknoweldge that this aspect of the teachings does reflect an "us" and "them" mentality, I just want to point out why and that it may not be as strong as what's suggested here:

"Critics who find problems in Falun Gong’s system of ethics point to what they see as Li’s “negation of ordinary people” and a strong “us-versus-them” ethos in the teachings. According to Rahn (2000), “Li says all non-practitioners are ‘ordinary people’. These ordinary people are degenerate, likely to be bad, likely to disturb you and likely to contaminate you.” In Zhuan Falun, Li clearly distinguishes between the ethical capacity of ordinary people and practioners:

As a practitioner you cannot act according to the ordinary people’s standards. It is not all right if you do something because an ordinary person says it is right to do so. What an ordinary person says is good may not be necessarily be good. What an ordinary person says is bad may also not be necessarily bad."

Mcconn 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see what you can come with in terms of Li quotes to support your claim. As I said before, I am not aware of anything. --Tomananda 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days and I haven't yet managed to come up with a decent paragraph with ample citations. This being the case, I am voluntarily removing the paragraph, since it is so heavily opposed, until I can provide a sourced version. Hopefully, this won't take much longer. Mcconn 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reposed it again yesterday with sources and a quote. Mcconn 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Mcconn's new soures: Western Conference (2005) and San Francisco (2006)

Mcconn: I carefully read the Li speeches and they still do not support the edit you added to the section on Allegations of exclusivity and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics. In fact, the speeches support the oposite. Here's the point: while it is true that Li cites many other cultivation methods from the past, he at the same time discounts their power to save people now during the Fa-rectification. Li has consistenly said only he and the Dafa can save people at this time and he repeats that theme in the speeches you cite. Let me start with some quotes from the Western Conference speech:

As you've noticed, the cultivation way that Dafa disciples practice today is likewise different from the religions and the cultivation ways of every period throughout history. It's not just different: in fact, when you look at it the differences are enormous. (In other words, the Dafa cultivation way is different from all other cultivation ways. Hence, it is exclusive in its ability to offer salvation.)

The Dafa disciples' way of cultivation, then, has no predecessor and no model. (Again, it is the one-of-a-kind cultivation way to offer salvation now during Fa-reciftication.)

That's how beings are at this level, but the situation during the Fa-rectification is presided over by Dafa and it changes according to what is required so that Dafa can save sentient beings. (Here he says it: the situation is presided over by Dafa and it changes according to what is required so that Dafa can save sentient beings. Note he makes no mention of other cultivation practices saving sentient beings, only Dafa!)

The god who holds that Buddha title is the only savior of the cosmos's sentient beings, is the supreme King of Kings in the heavens, and saves the cosmos's sentient beings under the title of Buddha Maitreya. So, given that he uses the title of Buddha Maitreya, who was he before he descended to the human world? He came from an even higher place, reincarnated at many different levels, and as he came down, level by level, he was different gods at various levels and he assumed the Fa titles of those levels as he passed through. And when he descended to the Fa Realm, he was the Holy Law-Wheel King, otherwise known as the Holy King Who Turns the Wheel. (Applause) (Here it is clear Li is talking about himself.) --Tomananda 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the 2006 San Francisco speech, if you read the entire section on Buddha Sakyamuni, you will see that even his reincarted culitvators, who have cultivated for many centuries, now have the opportunity for salvation from Li's Fa. Here's the text:

From high levels one can tell at a glance who are Buddha Sakyamuni’s disciples and who are not. Since they have to cultivate to a high level—Buddha Sakyamuni wants to save them to a realm that high—they couldn’t succeed in cultivation in one lifetime. So lifetime after lifetime, they’ve cultivated again and again for over twenty-five hundred years. Now, this last time, they’re supposed to reach Consummation. After their reaching Consummation in this lifetime, he will take all his disciples with him and all of them will leave the Saha Paradise. Among our Dafa disciples, many who are obtaining the Fa are Sakyamuni’s marked disciples. But most of Sakyamuni’s marked disciples are monks, though there are also ones among everyday people. Many of the ones among everyday people are already obtaining this Fa of ours. Actually, since we’ve discussed it to this point, I also want to tell you that with this Fa I’m teaching, it’s not that you have to go to our Falun Paradise. What I’ve been imparting are the principles of the entire cosmos. I am teaching something that huge. All of them want to obtain this Fa as well. Since the new cosmos has already been formed, and the Fa is rectifying the cosmos, one can return up there only by assimilating to the Fa of the cosmos. This is what Buddha Sakyamuni systematically arranged for his disciples long ago—he knew about this day. I know that disciples of many different paradises or of other upright cultivation ways are obtaining the Fa in Dafa. Most of Buddha Sakyamuni’s disciples are in the Han region. None are in India anymore. But there are also a number of them—very few—scattered in various places around the world. Most of them are in the Han region. The Han region is mainland China.

Notice that Li once again claims an exlusive role for his Fa in the rectified cosmos. He says Sakyamuni knew of this day (meaning the day that Li would appear and teach his Dafa to save mankind) and now, because the new cosmos has been formed, "one can return up there only by assimilating to the Fa of the cosmos." --Tomananda 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you know that these things, are entirelly your own interpretation? That means that is is POV! Ex:

"(In other words, the Dafa cultivation way is different from all other cultivation ways. Hence, it is exclusive in its ability to offer salvation.)" -Please tell me how "different" means that it is exclusive in it's ability to offer salvation, can you please tell me that? You are once again twisting the facts. With different, means the way in which the cultivators cultivate. For example, other cultivation methods withing the Buddha-School and Dao-School always left the ordinary human society and cultivated in mountains, Falun Dafa does not do it in that way, this is different.

"(Again, it is the one-of-a-kind cultivation way to offer salvation now during Fa-reciftication.)" -If Dafa disciples have no role model's in cultivation, does this mean that only Dafa can save one? Why are you only trying to state that there is only one way to salvation? Master has stated that there are countless countless cultivation ways, this means that there exists countless ways to salvation in the cosmos, because the goal of cultivation is to reach salvation. According to my understanding, with no role models, means that the cultivation withing Falun Dafa is entirely on oneself, and nobody can follow anybody else, only follow Dafa and cultivate their heart.

"(Here he says it: the situation is presided over by Dafa and it changes according to what is required so that Dafa can save sentient beings. Note he makes no mention of other cultivation practices saving sentient beings, only Dafa!) " -Why should he mention other cultivation practices every time he mentions Dafa? What has other cultivation practices have to do with Dafa? He only speaks to the cultivators of Falun Dafa, and not to cultivators of other schools, that is why he does not mention other cultivation practices.

"(Here it is clear Li is talking about himself.)" -This is also your own interpretation. He never said "I am Buddha Maitreya". He never said that, Master Li just explained the process in which Buddha Maitreya descended level by level. You can't use you own interpetation in the article, that is POV.

"Notice that Li once again claims an exlusive role for his Fa in the rectified cosmos. He says Sakyamuni knew of this day (meaning the day that Li would appear and teach his Dafa to save mankind) and now, because the new cosmos has been formed, "one can return up there only by assimilating to the Fa of the cosmos."" -According to my undertstanding, with Fa-Rectification, it is believed that the Dharma that all beings used to follow had deviated from Zhen-Shan-Ren (Which originally created all lives). So with Fa-Rectification it means that the deviated Fa will be rectified, and that cosmos once again will follow what created it, Zhen-Shan-Ren.

Tomananda, Im not negative against you, because in Falun Dafa we speak about Compassion for all sentient beings. I'm just doing what I'm supposed to do, clarifying the truth. I don't know if you are twisting the facts and inserting your own interpretation (wrong interpretation) with intention or if you really do not understand Falun Dafa. Im beginning to think that you are not doing it with intention, it is just that you do not understand Falun Dafa. It does not matter, I will still clarify the truth with compassion and make you understand that maybe alot of things you think about Falun Dafa is really not in that way.

/Omido 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, to argue that editors you simply disagree with "don't understand" an issue, or that you represent the sole "truth" of an issue, regardless of other editors' behaviour, goes against the assume good faith policy, and isn't a viable position in an argument over content. Most people don't see FLG as representing "truth" and to argue that they should before they can edit the article accurately isn't convincing. Indeed, based on Li's instructions to his followers for them not to discuss "high level" matters of FLG doctrine with outsiders, I am of the opinion that the only way we can get a reasonably accurate article is to have the majority of it reported by "outsiders" here. --Fire Star 火星 17:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I personally believe FLG is the Truth of the universe and nothing can change that, but that is not what I said. What is said that I will clarify the truth ABOUT FLG, that is what I said. Im not accepting Tomananda's role as an editor as long as he does not change this behaviour he has. He only wants a couple of things in the article:

-Dafa “great law" is currently judging mankind and weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification". -Li claims to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind. -Li promises to turn his disciples into gods.

These are the goal of Tomananda, and he is twisting facts and changing how things really are. The Fa-Rectification is not what Tomananda want people to think it is, so I can't accept it. Master Li has used countless ways to describe the Fa-Rectification, why use the quotes that can cause missunderstanding among non-practitioners? Why not use quotes which non-practitioners can understand? What I mean with that they don't understand is: There are alot of ways to view the Fa-Rectification, Master Li has used alot of different ways to describe the Fa-Rectification. In every new speech, Master Li describes the Fa-Rectification in a completely new way, but Tomananda ONLY want's to use two different quotes, and these two quotes are quotes which can cause missunderstandings if one does not know what the Fa-Rectification is and if one has not read the other speeches! Tomananda, I can't accept that. /Omido 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the old attack the critics routine of Falun Gong! When you can't rationally respond to a series of statements from your master which you don't want to be made public, you claim the person who presented those statements is "twisting facts and changing how things really are." It is amazing how you can deny what your master has said over and over again. As I've said before, your mandacity amazes me. --Tomananda 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have told you many times that I have no problems with making my Master's speeches public, I am proud of Falun Dafa and Master Li and I think that Falun Dafa is so wonderful, upright and good, why would I want to hide anything? It's just that I don't accept the way you present things, because your way of seeing things are incorrect. I will never deny Falun Gong or the words of Master Li, because I am a genuine Falun Dafa disciple that cultivates Truth-Compassion-Forbearence. /Omido 19:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: If you mean what you say, and you truly have no problems with making your Master's words public, then I assume you will accept the quote from Zhuan Falun which appears in the introductory paragraph:

In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [1]

You will recall that there was a big fuss that I was using Li quotes that are more recent than the 15 year old Zhuan Falun, so another editor came up with that quote. It pretty much summarizes what Li said the Dafa was when he wrote the Zhuan Falun. Surely you can agree to its inclusion in the introduction, right? --Tomananda 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I accept my Master's teachings, because I am a Dafa disciple. I told you, that it is no problem to quote Master Li in the introduction, but here are two factors here that needs to be rectified:

1. There is a newer translation of Zhuan Falun, this is the newest one so the quotes should be used from this one, there it says like this:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."

2. There should be included something about Truth-Compassion-Forbearence and Xinxing cultivation in the introduction, if it doesn't, then no Falun Dafa practitioner will be able to accept it, because Falun Dafa is all about Truth-Compassion-Forbearence and Xinxing cultivation.

/Omido 20:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, I don't have any problem with including the moral teaching of Truth-Compassion-Forebearance in the summary. It is clearly one of the central concepts of Falun Gong and it therefore deserves to be mentioned in the summary. All along I have asked that we be inclusive rather than exclusive in our editing contributions. Concening which Zhuan Falun translation to use, I do think the one that says "last havoc" is a more literal translation of the Chinese than the one that says "this final period of kalpa's end." The word kalpa comes from the Hindu tradition, and I don't think Li uses much or any Hindu words, as such, in his teachings. He uses terms from Buddhism, the Dao and even Christianity, but as far as I know he doesn't draw from Hinduism. I also notice that the edition of Zhuan Falun you prefer was an American translation. I am wondering if the translators for that edition didn't insert some of their own beliefs, since Hinduism, or at least Yoga and the Bagahvad Gita, are rather popular in the states. --Tomananda 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Tomananda, but I can assure you that nobody will put their own belief in the translation of Zhuan Falun, everybody is very strict and careful when doing the translation because Fa in Falun Gong is very precious to practitioners, so it is very important that is remain's unchanged. It is not only from hindu tradition, it is also from Buddhism tradition:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Asamkhiya_kalpa/id/74530

Kalpa is a part of the Buddhism cosmology. /Omido 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Buddhist term which seems more appropriate for this idea is "Dharma-ending period" not Kalpa, and Li has most certianly used "Dharma-ending period". Obviously the Buddhists borrowed the term from the Hindu scriptures, and much of Buddhism does, in fact, come from Hinduism. Still, the question we need to ask is what does the actual Chinese call it? --Tomananda 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

By using the word "kalpa" or 劫 it is more absurd since the term is also used in Taoism and I-Kuan Tao. The word itself means havoc and the term hints an "end of days".

Oh, and it seems the editors haven't fully fixed the other translations.[2]

有人講觀世音又成佛了？

　　不要聽人家亂講就相信。我跟大家講，到了末法時期的人類社會，覺者們都撒手不管了，也不允許他們管了。不但人類社會都撒手不管了，而且末劫中他們的處境也很困難了，都顧不過自己來了。

[3] Some people say that Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara has become a Buddha?

Don’t believe others’ nonsense. I’ll tell you, when the Dharma-Ending Period arrived the Enlightened Beings all stopped doing anything about human society, and they are not allowed to do anything about it anymore. What’s more, during the time of Last Havoc their situation is very difficult, too, and they can’t even take care of themselves.

--Yenchin 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, it does not matter so much what you think about the word kalpa, the last translation of Zhuan Falun is the last translation of Zhuan Falun, and it is also the most accurate one, so it will be used if we are quoting. You saying that Buddhism borrows from Hinduism is all POV, I would say Hinduism borrows from Buddhism. It does not matter if you think the translation is bad, the latest translation is the one that will be used and in there it says Kalpa.

/Omido 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, you do not get to decide by yourself which version is the one that will be used. CovenantD 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The latest one should be used, this is obvious. Why use an old translation? what is the intention? Please explain this. Omido 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of info by Dilip

Don't do it and demand in the edit summary that it be discussed. If you want something discussed, you have a responsibility to start the topic and explain why you don't think it should be used. CovenantD 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-Sections on the main page

Can we please do something about the Critism and conterversies sub-sections on the main page? Omido 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent

Section added...please help format and update --Otomo 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) According to the People's Daily article, Jing Zhanyi a senior engineer applied for a process patent paid for by Li Hongzhi. This issue has caused quite a stir in the Falun Gong community and brought out questions about Mr. Li character.

People's DailyClumsy fraud, harmful heresy

[edit] Dilip, I have reverted your last two edits because..

• The word "main" means principal or most important. As the original sentence reports, the most important or "main" critics of the Falun Gong before the ban were Chinese religious writers and academics whose views were reported in Chinese media. This is a fact, and if we substitute the words "some of" it implies that there were other significant categories of FG critics before the ban and, as far as I know, there weren't. So this is not, as you claim, a POV, it simply says the main critics (that we know about) came from these two groups.

• The Buddhist critiques were most definitely "in depth" and in fact Penny in his article makes a big point of how detailed the critiques were. They went on for several editions of a journal over a period of time. So they most definitely were "in depth". If you want I will find the comple quote and post it here. But like most of my editing, I prefer not to clutter up the main article with unnecessary details.

• The paragraph you added which starts with "On the other hand..." is redudent. If you read down in the article you will see that this issue is covered clearly and adquately in the section which starts: "Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddhist School, Li states "it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period." --Tomananda 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the 'Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs' subsection

Tomananda, referring to what you wrote above, to Dilip, please link or just post that stuff. I'd like to read it and we can share understandings. I'm referring to Penny's article and also the things he is referring to.

About the article:

I read the section called 'Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs'. To be honest I think this section could do with some work, and I find its presentation misleading. It seems like someone has put some work into it, and I do not want to attack anyone. I know it is a page for criticism, but I see some problems. I will write for a while and explain things and try to elaborate on that, providing quotes from Dafa materials. I will try to do that over the next few days or week. I think that with some discussion things can be resolved. Let me give you an example of what I mean just now. I haven't altered anything. From the article:

Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” However, as reported by Benjamin Penny [6], Falun Gong’s earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition.

Master states clearly that Falun Dafa is not based on Buddhism, and it has nothing to do with Buddhism. Many times he has stated that. Falun Dafa is a cultivation way from The Buddha School, that does not mean that it is the Buddhism founded by Sakyamuni, or that it is related to the Buddhism founded by Sakyamuni. Because the word 'Buddha' is present, some confusion may arise. I understand. So where it says that first sentence, 'whether falun gong... derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism...' that is in fact wrong. There is no question. Falun Dafa is not seeking to derive legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism, nor attempting to represent the basic tenets of that tradition. Just read Zhuan Falun and that becomes very clear.

The rest of the article continues from this mistaken understanding and talks about early Buddhist critics, and also cites Penny and lists some words whose meanings have supposed to have been changed etc. All of this is mistaken. I can find some quotes from Zhuan Falun and we can chat more, I am just pointing this out here now. I see that you want to include these kind of critical things, but I think that they have been contexualised wrongly. As they are now, they stand as criticisms of Falun Dafa attempting to usurp some Buddhist terms, or attempting to derive legitimacy, or things like that, from Buddhism. This is not the case.

I will give you a comprehensive response and address every part of that text in the time to come. I hope we can straighten this matter out; I think this misunderstanding and subsequent misrepresentation is unfortunate. ." --asdfg1234509:45 p.m. Viernes, 25 de Agosto de 2006

Oh this point has been made many times, and is covered in the article. There is relationship between Buddhism and Falun Gong, as spoken by Li himself. He says that Falun Gong is part of the Buddhist school, but is not Buddhism. This point is covered quite well by Penny. The other "relationship" between Falung Gong and Buddhism is that Li has used many Buddhist words, but has given them different meanings. This point is also made in the article. --Tomananda 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You havn't addressed the issue I raised. Read what I wrote again please. If it is still not clear read this http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz75.htm. That spells it out. That section needs to be changed. It is erroneous as it stands now. By the way it is 'The Buddha School' not 'The Buddhist School'. Within The Buddha School there are many cultivation ways, Buddhism being just one of them. Master is not trying to usurp terms or gain legitimacy from Buddhism, as this article indicates. That is an incorrect reporting of the facts. It is not the truth. I can provide quotes to back this up if you like, but is that really necessary? Also, they are not 'Buddhist words' that Master is using. Like it says in the article, directly, they are words in the Chinese vocabulary, they have also been used in Buddhism, and now Master is using them to explain Dafa. He is not seeking to use them as they are used in Buddhism in order to gain legitimacy for Dafa. The article is based on this mistaken understanding. Next time I will copy it in here, altered to how I think it would be better, then we can discuss. Basically the issue is that the early Chinese Buddhist critics did not or do not acknowledge Dafa; you do not acknowledge Dafa; Penny does not acknowledge Dafa. But that is all fine, and no one said you had to. But it is different to then write this which is misleading and shows a misunderstanding of the situation and the meaning of the terms. This needs to be fixed up. Do you see what I am saying now? I hope I have made it clear and we can move forward. Most of this should probably not be included because it is based on that mistaken understanding, which makes it irrelevant. Please do not dismiss this. --asdfg12345The current time in (UTC/GMT) is 4:21 sábado, 26 de agosto de 2006

Hi, I have reverted your recent changes. I am sorry but I have to say that Your changes derogate the value of this article and diminish its readability. For example, the following simple and precise statement “Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy,” was changed to this long and inaccurate statement “Critics have claimed that Falun Gong cultivation practice attempts to derive legitimacy from the teachings of Buddhism, but that it does not represent the Buddhist tradition.” --Samuel Luo 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The accuracy is contained in the latter statement. It is the critics claim that Falun Dafa tried to derive legitimacy from Buddhism. The critics are saying "Li Hongzhi is trying to derive legitimacy from Buddhism, but he's changed terms etc., and we say that he does not represent Buddhism". Actually, they are only saying that Li Hongzhi is attempting to derive legitimacy from Buddhism. The first statement confuses the issue. It is misleading. The latter statement, along with the other important changes, need to be in there. Especially the quote from Li Hongzhi, where he says that he solemnly declares that Falun Dafa has nothing to do with Buddhism at all. It is pretty clear, Samuel. You should not pretend that you do not understand. The changed statement is not at all inaccurate, nor is it unclear. You do not need to write comments like that. Anyone reading this will be able to see what is going on. In fact, I am just repeating what I have already said. You seem to be reverting every change I make. Let's just forget about Falun Gong, stick to wikipedia policy, and worry about making the articles encyclopedic, accurate and clear from now on. --Asdfg12345 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra comments. Firstly I would like to apologise. I did exactly the same thing I accused you of doing - that is, simply reverting and not compromising or trying to understand the other's point of view. I was hasty and I did that, so I am sorry. I have put that sentence back, since it expresses the fact that there has been dispute about whether Dafa derives legitimacy from Buddhism. I see that the word "controvesy" itself means something like "some people have said such and such", so putting it that way is okay by me. I made a series of other changes, and I think that they should remain, since they all help to explain the matters further and clear up some important points. As editors we have a duty to explain everything clearly and not omit any elements that help a reader to understand the nature of the issues. Also, from now on I will try to take a more measured approach both to editing and writing comments here. I think the above comment of mine was sharp, too hasty, and did not try to incorporate what you were saying, which I now realise is legitimate. I just jumped right into refutations. So I apologise for that as well.--Asdfg12345 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, a minor thing, I changed "is a matter of some controvesy" to "has been" since I think that reads better and is more accurate.--Asdfg12345 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] above section continued, addressed to Yueyen

Yueyen read the above. it was only recently that I acted on that. What was there was actually misreporting the situation. I have changed that to report what actually happened. You can work that out very easily by reading it. I will mention it quickly here: the early critics were claiming that Li represents Buddhism and is trying to gain legitimacy from Buddhism, but that he misrepresented Buddhism and changed terms. That is what they claimed - it should be reported. What should also be reported is that Li Hongzhi has stated that he is not representing Buddhism, nor trying to derive legitimacy from Buddhism, and that he is not trying to usurp Buddhist terms. The quotes back that up. We are just trying to report what happened, not push any POV or opinion. That is just the situation, and that is what the facts are. What was there was written in a way such as to obscure that. You cannot deny what I have said. It is a very straightforward matter. Your reverting that, saying it is "POV" is very deceitful and in obvious violation of wikipedia policies. That is against the spirit of wikipedia. I have actually made it NPOV now. This is simply too clearcut for you to deny. At this point it is not so much about Falun Gong or not, but simply about writing articles according to wikipedia guidelines and policies. You are preventing that from happening. I will try to contact some moderator about this, so they can take a look. --Asdfg12345 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

== Latest revert war ==--Asdfg12345 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I put that sentence back, apologies for not understanding. I thought the Buddhist terms were Penny's definitions and the Falun Dafa terms were meant to be quotes from Li Hongzhi.

Please point out how the changes I have made diminish the quality of the article, how they could be regarded as blanking, and why they are continually being reverted. If you can think of ways to make the explanations of these things even better, then go ahead and do it. Please don't just revert every change I make with little discussion, or feel possessive about things on wikipedia. Like I said, all the changes I did were expansions and clarifications on the existing content. That enhances the quality of these pages. If things are written ambiguously, selectively, or in an incomplete way, don't you think that degrades the quality of the encyclopedia? Don't you think that it's appropriate in the criticisms, for the purpose of readers' understanding, and following the format of the rest of the page, to also include information about what Falun Dafa itself says with regard to the parts of the teachings being criticised? It is the teachings of Falun Dafa being criticised, right, so how could the actual teachings fail to be explained properly? I think it would be an oversight not to actually explain what is being criticised. It seems in this case that the criticism (for example, that Falun Gong has tried to derive legitimacy from Buddhist terms etc.), falls apart in the light of the truth, but there's nothing I can do about that. We just need to report it. It's true that so-and-so did make some criticisms, but when looked at in the context of what Li Hongzhi has actually said, it seems that they are based on an incorrect understanding. Well let's just tell it like it is and people can make up their own minds. You are claiming that practitioner's want to cover things up. I think this is a good example of you yourself trying to obscure things here.

Can you say why the changes should not be allowed? --Asdfg12345 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The standard is to allow sourced material that is relevant to the content. Most of the content in the section you are blanking in comes directly from the work of academics who have written about Falun Gong. Although you may not agree with their POV's, their statements about FG are appropriate. So the rule of thumb should be: don't delete material. If you want to add material that's ok, but not if it means destroying the flow of a particular section. There's different ways of doing this and I am willing to work with you on it. One suggested model of a section that was written by both me and Olaf is the section on "Is Falun Gong a cult?" If you read that section, you'll notice that it leads with a summary of the critics who argue that FG is a cult, but then is followed up with several paragraphs of material which aims to challenge or totally refute those claims. --Tomananda 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think it'd be best if we could cooperate, and I would like to cooperate with you. I don't know what I have deleted. I thought I was careful not to have deleted anything. Take a closer look. If there was anything I inadvertently deleted, please add it back in, you have my apologies, and I assure you that it was not my intention. Just then I added in a paragraph at the beginning which had been removed, I am not sure if I did that or not. Anyway, the main changes I thought to make were to clarify what Li Hongzhi has said on the matters. I also expanded the comparison of definitions, plus changes to the "saviour or supernatural entity" part. There is more I want to do, and none of it would be deleting content, only ever expansions and clarifications.--Asdfg12345 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for cooperation, but we have not agreed to an overall strategy in working through the article. Actually, we did agree at one point, but we are ignoring that scheme. Based on your edits here, and your comments about homosexuality on the main page, it now appears that you and other practitoners are keen on doing major re-writes in the criticism page. We need to agree to what we are doing with the help of the mediator, rather than launching into what may become another revert war on the last unforzen page, don't you agree? --Tomananda 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obscuring the Master's Teachings on homosexuality

Olaf, your recent edit which claims to better reflect the teachings in fact obscures what the Master has said about the future of homosexuals in the Fa-rectification. It is clear that Li teaches that there never was and never will be homosexuality among the beings at the higher realms, that homosexuality itself is one of the things which will be "rectified" in his Fa-rectification. Yet in your edit you seek to conceal that basic fact with this statement:

• Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s Fa-rectification, homosexuals could expect to receive a particularly harsh punishment from the Gods.

What that statement fails to make clear is that:

• 1. There won't be any homosexuals after the Fa-rectification and

  2. Homosexuals can avoid being punished by the gods if they give up having homosexual sex.

Li's meaning is quite clear and explicit in the Switzerland speech. Both I and a FG practitioner...I think it was McConn...spent an enormous amount of time working on this section. There is no justification for your changing this language, thereby obscuring the Master's basic teachings re: homosexuality. Unless you are willing to show that Li believes the exact oposite...that homosexuality will exist after the Fa-rectification...then your edit must be rejected because it is highly misleading.--Tomananda 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already wrote a message concerning this on the main talk page. Let me quote myself:

You are being very possessive about the article. This is Wikipedia. Instead of making modifications, you've grown accustomed to simply reverting back to your preferred version, which, from our perspective, amounts to blanking. I hope you'd understand that the only way to reach any eventual neutrality is to work in a dialectical fashion. You have selected the following quote yourself: "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods." For some curious reason you have changed the conditional tense would into will as you elaborate on these words. Would you mind explaining why? Also, why do you think that the quote I selected from a Los Angeles lecture is not relevant? You are accusing pro-FLG editors of a lot of things, but we have good reasons to believe that you tend to omit the context in order to make the quotes seem more shocking.

What your version suggests is that a harsh punishment is in store for all homosexuals who don't stop their practice. This, however, does not conform to Li's actual words. Whether homosexuality will exist after Fa-rectification is another matter; it doesn't have to have anything to do with this punishment you're suggesting. You can choose any quote you like - I don't want to blank anything - but if you're trying to prevent me from introducing sourced material to contextualize these issues, that's nothing to do with fair play or co-operation.

I'm reverting the article to the version I edited. If you want to dispute any of the modifications I made, please do it here. If I've omitted something, you can add it, but if you delete my additions, you should clearly explain why you think they're not justified. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, you are way off in what you have added here: "without the Fa-rectification which, according to Li, provides universal forgiveness for all sentient beings." It is quite clear that there will not be any homosexuals or homosexual behavior once Fa-rectification is complete. To say that Fa-recification provides "universal forgiveness for all sentient beings" without also saying that it will eliminate all homosexuality is offensively deceptive.

Unless you can produce a Li quote which indicates that homosexaulity will be allowed to exist after Fa-recitication is completed, you must aknowledge that what Li is talking about is the complete elimination of all homosexuality at the higher realms. Thus the only distinction between what will happen to homosexuals at the hands of the gods (elimination through a slow and painful process) and what will happen to homosexuals through the Fa-rectification (an elimination that might not be slow and painful) is one of process rather than result.

Your edits obscure this basic fact by making it appear that in some undefined way homosexuals can be "saved" and look forward to a higher existence as homosexuals after Fa-rectification. You and I both know that is not the case, so I cannot allow you to obscure the basic teachings in this section. Li's basic message is quite clear: you can be saved by giving up your homosexual behavior, or by having it taken away from you by my Fa-rectification. But regardless of what you do, you cannot expect to exist as a homosexual once my Fa has rectified the cosmos.

As to who is reverting whom, you have not done any work in this section for many months, and now you are coming along and doing wholesale changes without any agreement. --Tomananda 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos your interpretation of Li’s words is your own POV and original research. Li’s statement makes his position towards gays very clear there really is no need for you to interpret his words. Should this revert war over the homophobic issue stop at the inclusion of Li’s statement? I hope we can agree on that. --Samuel Luo 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi teaches: When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them. Do you know why wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters happen in this world? They’re precisely because human beings have karma, and those events exist to remove it. No matter how wonderful a time period may be in the future, there will still be wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters on earth. They are a way of eliminating karma for people. Some people who have sinned can have their karma eliminated through the death of the flesh body and suffering, and then they’ll be free of that karma when they reincarnate. Their lives don’t really die and they reincarnate again. But the karma that some people have accrued is too much, in which case the fundamental elements of their existence will be implicated and destroyed. Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic. That’s the issue. That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. A person should live in an upright manner, living honorably like a human being. He shouldn’t indulge his demon-nature and do whatever he likes. [4]

Samuel, why didn't you quote all the relevant answers to these questions? Neither of you commented on what I said about the conditional tense in the original text. Also, why did you not simply remove the controversial sentence, but instead blanked out all the legitimate changes I made? If the article claims that homosexuals will receive a horrifying punishment in the hands of gods, it is not based on the primary source. True, you could deduce from Li's words that homosexuality (as a trait) won't exist after the Fa-rectification. I can easily agree with a version that states such a thing. However, I won't be satisfied until the following is apparent from the article: Li claims that he's saving homosexuals from the punishment envisioned by gods, not that the homosexuals (meaning, human beings practicing homosexuality) would be on their way to this particular punishment. This is something you're claiming now. The meaning is turned upside down. Either version probably seems equally ridiculous and even offensive to you. I only want a truthful and accurate reporting of Li's words.

By the way, Tomananda: you always say how we worked with the section concerning "cult" allegations in a good spirit. How come the quote from Margaret Singer has been moved to the bottom of the paragraph, and why did you revert it back when I fixed it? ---Olaf Stephanos 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that you will not accept a critical but truthful and accurate reporting of Li's words. If you like a revert war so be it. By the way Dr. Margaret Singer’s quote is perfect for the conclusion of that section. --Samuel Luo 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Such an attitude does not belong to Wikipedia, and neither do you own this page; it is not an extension of your personal website. You should provide arguments against each of the specific points I raised. Otherwise, I deem that you're just trying to monopolize the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Falun Gong pretending to be a Buddhist group

Li introduced himself this way in his bio: “At the age of four, Mr. Li received personal instructions from Law Master Quan Jue, the 10th heir to the Great Law of the Buddha School…The second master mainly taught him Taoist Gongfu.” [5] He also dressed himself in Buddhist ropes, those pictures were available on Li Honzghi page earlier. His organization is called East Buddhist Studies Association in the US. So it is true that he has been pretending to be a Buddhist group and you can not deny that. --Yueyuen 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand what Falun Gong means by "the Buddha school"? I know perfectly well that there are pictures of Master Li wearing a traditional orange robe, usually associated with Buddhist monks. Falun Gong is for cultivating Buddhahood, but it has been so clearly pointed out that Falun Gong has never been presented as a part of the Buddhist or Daoist religions that I am totally befuddled by what you're saying. No other critic on this page has ever made such allegations - you're the only one. Even in your version it is stated: "Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddha School, Li states in Zhuan Falun that “it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period.” [11] Here Penny points out that Li “is drawing a distinction between fojia and fojiao—that is, between, literally, a school of the Buddha (whatever that might mean) and a religion or teaching of the Buddha.”"

Also, the keywords "East Buddhist Studies Association" did not yield a single result on Google. What on earth are you talking about? From now on, please provide sources for your claims. Debating about self-evident matters is truly a waste of time. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Li and the Falun Gong present themselves as a group associated with the Buddhism in public but within the group Li denounces Buddhism this is call deception a common technique used by cults. I will find the url to that organization for you. --Yueyuen 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, why can you not provide me anything to back up your claims? I would be satisfied even with a single quote where Li or Falun Gong practitioners would've presented themselves as a group associated with the Buddhist religion. Find me one within 12 hours. If you fail to do this, I assume that your allegations are null and void, and therefore I'll definitely revert back to my version. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty evidences like this one "The Buddha Fa" is most profound; among all the theories in the world, it is the most intricate and extraordinary science." [6] Li advertised his group as a school of Buddhism ever since the beginning to lure people. Only when people are deceived into the group would he then tell them that the Falun Gong is greater than Buddhism. What a scheme. --Yueyuen 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, are you for real? I have thoroughly explained why Falun Gong talks about Buddhas and cultivating Buddhahood but views Buddhism as a totally separate thing. There's never been any ambivalence about this. You didn't provide me a single quote to refute what I say, and because you don't take this seriously, you just cannot prevent me from introducing sourced material. And what about the quote I highlighted above? It states exactly the same thing, and it's from your version. From Zhuan Falun:

The Buddha School qigong is not the Buddhist religion. I must make this point clear to everyone. In fact, the Tao School qigong is not the Taoist religion, either. Some of you are always confused by these things. Some people are monks from temples, and some are lay Buddhists. They think that they know a little more about Buddhist religion, so they enthusiastically promote Buddhism among our practitioners. Let me tell you that you should not do such a thing because it is something from a different cultivation school. Religion has religious forms. Here we are teaching the cultivation part of our school. Except for those monks and nuns who are Falun Dafa disciples, everyone else should not observe religious forms. Therefore, our school is not Buddhism in the Dharma-ending Period.

The Dharma in Buddhism is only a tiny part of the Buddha Fa. There are still many kinds of great high-level Fa. Different levels also have different Fa. Sakyamuni said that there were eighty-four thousand cultivation ways. The Buddhist religion includes only a few cultivation ways. It only has Tiantai, Huayan, Zen Buddhism, Pure Land, Tantrism, etc. They do not even account for a small number! Therefore, Buddhism cannot represent the entire Buddha Fa, and it is only a tiny part of the Buddha Fa. Our Falun Dafa is also one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School, and it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending Period; neither is it related to modern religions.

Olaf: I don't think Yueyuen is arguing that Falun Gong claims to be a kind of Buddhist religion. Clearly that is not the case as evidenced by the Benjamin Penny article which is referenced above. However, it is absurd to deny that Falun Gong is connected with the tradition (or school) of Buddhism, because clearly it is. Not only does Li draw much of his terminology directly from Buddhism (as Penny points out in great detail), but the Falun Gong itself uses the term Buddha in it's official representations. I did an earlier post on this subject, in a different context, but let me summarize the facts here:

On July 10, 2000, the Falun Gong filed a request for a US Patent to market commercial items such as T-shirts, sweaters, jackets, etc. under the name "Falun Gong" in English. A similar patent request was filed on June 17, 2005 to patent the name Falun Gong and Chinese Characters. According to publicly available copies of these patent requests, the registrant and owner of these patents is:

• Eastern US Buddha's Study (Falun Dafa) Association, Inc.
• 375 South End Avenue, New York, New York 10280

The attorney of record for both these patents is a man named Eric D. Offner. All US patents are available on-line through a government service called the "Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). The URL I have for one of these patents is: [7] however, I believe one needs to go to home page first in order to access these documents.

Ironically, the only reason I know about the existence of this patent is that when Samuel received a legal threat from a Falun Gong lawyer in New York seeking to shut down his website for alleged patent infringement, the letter made mention of the patent Falun Gong holds. As Samuel describes in his recent interview with KPFA [8], he was able to get the help of the ACLU to respond to this threat.

Here's the point: the Falun Gong clearly represents itself as being connected in some way with Buddhism and Buddha. It uses Buddhist terms and it has even created a corporation with the title Buddha in it. Whether the term "Buddha" here refers to Li Hongzhi himself or the original Sakyamuni is not relevant to this discussion. If Falun Gong wants to dis-associate from the term Buddha or Buddhism, I really think it needs to form a new for-profit corporation with a new title. Don't you agree? --Tomananda 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do homosexuals smell bad?

(This is my response to Olaf’s post on the main discussion page concerning our recent back-and-forth edit reverts on the subject of homophobia.)

Before responding to your points, I want to say that we might be missing an important causative agent for what some consider Falun Gong’s homophobia: the fact that homosexuals “smell bad.”

Two days ago I received a thoughtful e-mail from a Falun Gong practitioner who told me: “There is a distinct odor that comes from homosexuals engaged in emotion and attraction, and it smells really bad to my nose. I haven’t been around this very often, so maybe I am just not used to it.” If he is correct in his moral judgment, than it might be that homosexuals can avoid being eliminated in the Fa-rectification by simply taking better care of their hygiene. Sadly, the link between olfactory aversion to homosexuals and the statement of Li Hongzhi that homosexuals are “dirty” and “disgusting” has not been fully explored by ethicists. Perhaps we can ditch the term homophobic all together, and replace it with “smell averse.” But there’s one problem: Google reveals that some heterosexual males have experienced strong olfactory aversion to their female partner’s genitalia. [9] Do these females deserve to eliminated because of how they smell? Of course not, unless they are lesbians, in which case they are as damned as their gay male friends.

In his e-mail, the practitioner concluded his comments by saying: “I may be too harsh, and I feel like I am talking to someone I have never met before and that is a young child. Call this a hate crime, whatever. I don’t hate you.” Boy that’s a relief! How comforting to know that I may not smell bad after all, but just have a childish fixation on men. As a 62-year-old man, the child label is pretty cool….plus, according to a dude named Jesus it qualifies me for his “kingdom of heaven.”

Here’s my response to your specific concerns:

1. If we can’t agree to some label like “olfactory adverse” for Li’s teachings on homosexuality, let's just settle on the term “homophobic.” Most recently this term was used by elected politicians, community leaders and even the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco. [10] If you don’t think these folk are suitable sources because they do not have academic credentials, I suggest that we will need to re-evaluate the use of other similar sourced material in this article, including the section on Falun Gong awards (from elected politicians) and those claims about organ harvesting in Sujian and elsewhere (unless they are made by Harvard academics.)

2. You are correct in saying that “FLG doesn’t have an agenda to restrict the rights of homosexuals” and I have no objection to that point being made in this article. Why not add it to the stub section?

3. You are not exactly correct in saying that “FLG practitioners have taken no discriminatory actions against homosexuals.” While there is no sexuality test for those new people who show up to FG exercise sites initially, it is quite clear both from Li’s statements and those of practitioners, that if a homosexual were to become a regular practitioner, he would be encouraged to give up homosexual sex. In fact, Li singles out homosexuality as a behavior which creates more karma than other sins, so in that sense homosexuals are discriminated against by the master himself. Really, Olaf, don't you think that Li's tendency to think of homosexuality as a sin comparable to murder is a bit over-the-top? To me it's akin to being left-handed in a right-handed world.

4. You say that “all consequences for such behavior are perceived as metaphysical laws, not something initiated by humans.” Olaf, can’t you come up with some better justification than that? The early eugenicists who tried to scientifically catalogue different types of “degenerate people” and thus justify their elimination (or segregation) from society used the same kind of thinking as you do. Apparently you believe as Li does that homosexuals “do not meet the standard of being human” and will be eliminated in the Fa-rectification. Li states that “degenerate beings” will be eliminated in his Fa-rectification…and that certainly includes homosexuals, doesn’t it? But to suggest that because Li describes the future elimination of homosexuals in metaphysical and cosmic terms he can be absolved from personal responsibility for the consequences of those teachings amounts to circular reasoning. What’s more, Li clearly says that his personal intervention is needed for beings to be saved by his Dafa. He also says that without him, the cosmos wouldn’t exist. Given Li’s own pronouncements, can you really say that there are “metaphysical laws” which operate independently from Li Hongzhi? If so, does that mean that Li is not the all-powerful and all-knowing god, the creator of the Dafa which created the cosmos? Please be clear on this point, because if you do believe that there can be a “metaphysical law” which is not subservient to Li Hongzhi, there may be some hope for a more reasonable understanding of the Falun Gong.

5. You state: “Li says that because he is teaching this Fa, the people who practice homosexuality will not be annihilated.” But what does that mean? In the Switzerland speech, Li clearly means that by teaching the Fa homosexuals will have the opportunity to avoid annihilation by not engaging in homosexual behavior. At the end of the Switzerland speech, Li gives detailed answers to two questions: 1. Why is homosexuality considered immoral? and 2. Why is it that homosexuals are considered bad people?

In answering these questions, Li suggests that homosexuals are worthy of divine punishment because their sexual activities fail to procreate future generations, which is the reason “heaven created man and women.” He also characterizes homosexual behavior as a major sin: “it’s a case of people no longer having the moral code of human beings, and then they are unworthy of being human beings.” He then immediately goes on to say: “Let me tell you why today’s society has become how it is. It results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check.”

In the answer to the second question, Li elaborates on the nature of homosexual sex and it’s consequences. As to its nature, he clearly states that homosexual sex creates a huge amount of karma, so much in fact that extraordinary means are needed to get rid of that much karma. As to the consequences of all this karma accumulation, Li makes it clear that “gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them.” He then goes on to say that natural and man-made disasters exist as “a way of eliminating karma for people.” However, because homosexuals have so much karma, their karma-elimination process at the hands of the gods involves an annihilation which destroys “the fundamental elements of their existence.”

What is not totally clear in the Switzerland speech is whether Li simply means that because of his teaching of the Fa homosexuals are given the opportunity to renounce their sexual practices (thus avoiding elimination by the gods) or rather that in returning to the higher realms, homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals and thus “saved” as heterosexuals. If he means the latter, should we assume that when practitioners return to the higher realms they are still bound by their genders and procreative roles? Or if female beings cease to have babies at higher realms, what would the point be of making a moral imperative of traditional male-to-female genital sex?

Olaf, I reverted your edits because they deleted important information about these teachings and inserted information that was not even contained in the Switzerland speech. You actually made edits in multiple places in this section which had the effect of totally destroying part of the basic concept described above. Four of your edits, scattered throughout the section, were particularly egregious for me:

a) The deletion of the phrase “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” which were exactly the words used by Li when answering the first question.

b) The substitution of the words “Fa-rectification” in the sentence “Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s Fa-rectification, homosexuals could expect to receive a particularly harsh punishment. Since the term “Fa-rectification” doesn’t even occur in this speech, don’t you think it’s inappropriate? Clearly Li is claiming that the gods won’t eliminate homosexuals because of his Dafa, meaning the great teachings, rather than his Fa-rectification. And what part of the Dafa is he referring to? Why it’s so obvious: don’t have gay sex and you can avoid being eliminated by the gods!

c) The elimination of the sentence: “In the Switzerland speech, Li stated that by renouncing their sexual behavior homosexuals could experience a different outcome.” Again, I believe that meaning is clear from the context and I don’t think it should just be deleted without justification.

d) The insertion of: “without the Fa-rectification which, according to Li, provides universal forgiveness for all sentient beings…” Olaf, there is no mention of "universal forgiveness" in the Switzerland speech. I think what you are referring to here is Li’s statement made many years later in which he said he would provide “beneficial solutions” to all beings, regardless of their sins. I can see why you would want to add this information, but clearly it does not belong in a summary of a 1998 speech Li made in Geneva, Switzerland. Just to remind you, a quote of this sort was added to another edit section many months ago (I think by you). I never objected to that quote, nor did I try to delete it or change it. However, if you go back and check, I think you will find that it was flagged by Covenant or me because it didn’t have a source. So if you're willing to do a little research, why not track down that quote and write up an addtional paragraph about Li's "beneficial solutions" to appear either at the end of the first section (because of chronology) or in the second stub section?

Olaf, I know there is some ambiguity in the sacred texts of Falun Gong on the subject of homosexuality and I am prepared to work with you in a cooperative way to expand the existing edit on homosexuality. It seems to me the starting point should be the addition of new material, in the appropriate place, rather than the deletion and substitution of material which is limited to describing specific texts. --Tomananda 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you post the email address of (name deleted) on my user talk page please, Tomananda? I would like to contact him. If you do not feel that you would be breaching some confidentially or doing a wrong deed, also please post the entire email. --Asdfg12345 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know if he would like that. Since I have quoted from his e-mail, I am willing to forward a copy of it to you if you provide me with your e-mail address. --Tomananda 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

got an edit conflict before: Also, from my perspective, something noteworthy in all of this is that you keep saying that you only want to report all of the teachings, leaving nothing out, and not trying to cover anything up or mix in bias or motives, etc., etc.. I see other anti-Falun Gong editors like Yueyen and Samuel whose behaviour I do not interpret in the same light - that is, it seems clear to me that they would sacrifice the integrity of wikipedia for their goals, while perhaps you think that you could better achieve your goals while maintaining the integrity of wikipedia. I don't want to respond to all your points, but as long you as keep claiming that you are committed to reporting ALL the teachings, those sections about the stuff on homosexuals in the teachings being understood solely as metaphysical laws and nothing more, certainly nothing initiated by humans - despite what you say about the eugenics stuff which is unrelated to what goes into wikipedia here - as well as the fact that practitioners have absolutely no political agenda to restrict the rights of homosexuals, and also the things Olaf has brought up about Fa-rectification - universal salvation and forgiveness - changing things for the fate of homosexuals... all of that should be mentioned alongside the rest. That is as important as the other parts. Of course, I am not trying to say Falun Gong sees homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation - not at all - but it is about context and a correct understanding of the meaning of what Li Hongzhi is teaching. It isn't right for you to suggest it all be put down the bottom, or that these things about the Fa-rectification are not relevant etc. It is important for you to remain consistent, or like some other editors, you too will have nothing. It is wrong to decide which parts of the teachings are relevant to different situations, and adapt things that way for a particular impression. The idea should be that the teachings will stand for themselves and we just report them. You have affirmed this before, so I thought I should tell you that in this instance I do not think you are fully abiding by that... Also, I would never suggest to someone (a homosexual) who came along to practice that he or she should give up homosexuality. That is just some thinking you had. Cultivation comes from the heart, and a rational understanding of the Fa.--Asdfg12345 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I put my email on your user talk page. I don't know if you meant you are just going to forward the email, and not an address I can contact him on. If you are not going to provide an address, don't worry about it. --Asdfg12345 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ASDFG: I think you may have missed one of my major points, which is that the first section of the edit reports teachings which are considered homophobic by critics and it does so by reporting summaries of the teachings on a speech-by-speech basis. The reason I said "the bottom" of the first section for Olaf's "universal forgiveness" teachings is because they were spoken, I believe, in 2005 or 2006. I can't speak for Yueyen or Samuel, so I won't comment on your comments about their editing style or objectives. My objective is to tell the truth about the Falun Gong, and to do that I have had to spend many months arguing with practitioners over some pretty petty stuff. The brief summary of Li's teachings on homosexuality that we are now discussing absorbed endless hours of debate..which you were not part of...and included a number of compromizes meant to satisfy concerns of other FG editors. We can go over this material yet again, but regardless of how you slice it I believe we will wind up adding material and not deleting material.When it comes to significant additions like the "universal salvation" stuff, obviously some work needs to be done to flesh out sources, etc.

I have read Li Hongzhi very thoroughly and I am convinced he added the "universal salvation" stuff later in his career in order to get more support for his campaign to eliminate the CCP. I am not aware of any Li statements that go back to the 1998 period or earlier in which he stated that he would provide "beneficial solutions" for all sinners except those who support the CCP, so that they could be saved in his Fa-rectification. If you're going to be proposing some additional material, I hope you will take into account the specific comments I made in the previous post.--Tomananda 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions and interpretations have no meaning so don't bring them in anymore. We will report the whole; all the teachings are comprehensive, complete, and interrelate to one another. You can't decide how you want to portray them according to your deviant understanding. It's locked now anyway, but let's do it right in future.--Asdfg12345 11:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I thought you were going to be cooperative about this editing process! What you say above sounds like a threat to me. My post about the homosexuality section provides item-by-item recommendations on previous edits and there are a number of items in which I agree that new material can be added and make some suggestions...eg: can someone find the source for that "benevolent solutions" material that Olaf wants to introduce? Rather than respond to these practical recommendations, you issue a blanket threat and call my understanding of the Falun Gong "deviant". Let me ask you, in what sense is my understanding of the Falun Gong "deviant"? Do you say that because I dare to speak the truth about the teachings "at the higher levels"? Li tells his disciples that they absolutely must not talk to ordinary people about the teachings at the higher levels. He commands his followers not to disclose certain specific aspects of his teachings, including his promise to turn practitioners into gods, or his warning that all who resist his Dafa will be eliminated in his Fa-rectification. These are your Master's core teachings, but where are they reported clearly in this article? If they are reported at all, that information has come from the critics of FG, not practitioners themselves. Your continued efforts to conceal or obscure Master Li's core teachings are not in keeping with what your role should be as an editor. I also notice that you have yet to repond to that question asked by the mediatior. Is that because you intend to boycott the mediation process? --Tomananda 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to do everything right, I will follow that mediation thing up. The tone of my note was sharp, but how could I possibly threaten you? Just because you have read the Fa does not at all mean that you understand it. You are so far from a true understanding it's really amazing. We can report what Li Hongzhi has said, which is not a problem, but you were talking about which parts to include based on your own understanding. Furthermore, your understanding is really warped. I have said to you time and time again that I am not trying to conceal the teachings, so I don't think it's fair for you to accuse me of that. I think you have even said that I have demonstrated a willingness to speak in a frank way about this subject. It isn't a matter of me wanting to conceal anything. The issue of universal salvation and forgiveness is right there in Zhuan Falun, from the beginning it was always about giving humans a way to practice cultivation and return to their original, true selves. Plus, when you refer to the teachings I think that you should either exercise more caution or cite them. I know citing each one would be an ask, but when you say things like: "Li tells his disciples that they absolutely must not talk to ordinary people about the teachings at the higher levels. He commands his followers not to disclose certain specific aspects of his teachings, including his promise to turn practitioners into gods, or his warning that all who resist his Dafa will be eliminated in his Fa-rectification." I have no idea what you're talking about. That's absolutely not true. Why would we be trying to engage with you guys and work towards an article, right? We'd either do nothing, or never say a word on the discussion pages and simply do revert after revert from different IPs... at the very least, I would not be talking to you like this if that were true. I will look at what Olaf wants to introduce and try to find a source for it. In the meantime, can I request that you please look through the edits on the page, find the ones I have made to the "Qigong and other beliefs", "Li as saviour or supernatural entitity" and see if you are happy with those. I don't think it was fair for you to have reverted them without looking for them. Also, I find it difficult to write sentences in a nice way or in a better way. So what I am saying does not come across too well, or whatever. I want to cooperate with you and make a truthful article in accordance with wikipedia policies. That hasn't changed.--Asdfg12345 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Li Hongzhi commands his practitioners to not talk about the higher teachings when communicating with “ordinary people” is a well-established fact and I’m surprised that you would challenge the accuracy of my statement. You are of course aware of his statement in Zhuan Falun:

“It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p. 91.

In my post above, I was referring to Li’s more recent (2005) speech in San Francisco in which he talks a lot about gods, their role in spreading the Nine Commentaries and what happens to cultivators when they reach Consumation. In that speech, he reminds the practitioners about their ultimate goal: “What is cultivation? It is marching to godhood.” He also mentions “the simply indescribable” things that cultivators will be shown. “The new cosmos is incomparably glorious, magnificent and sacred.”

Despite all Li’s talk about gods, turning practitioners into gods and reaching consummation, Li also says in this speech that practitioners cannot talk about this stuff when talking to ordinary people. There is no ambiguity to his words:

"So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things." Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2005/12/4/67552.html --Tomananda 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading the archives when I first took an interest in contributing to this. Olaf responded by bolding the words "So when you clarify the truth..." Someone also pointed out to you that that quote from Zhuan Falun is in the context of a Master accepting people into discipleship, also see Lecture 8, Whoever Practices Cultivation Will Attain Gong, second paragraph. I wrote heaps of stuff then deleted it. It would be really silly to think we could actually "conceal" the "inner teachings", wouldn't it? It's all on the internet, so how would it be even possible? Whatever you yourself think is fine, but in editing the article I think we should try to make it more neutral.--Asdfg12345 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Falun Gong practitioners conceal or distort the master's teachings all the time. Sometimes it's pretty outrageous...like the practitioner who did a recent post above saying that FG doesn't consider homosexuality "evil." But concerning editing in this article, would there even be content on the "higher teachings" if it were not for the contributions of the critical editors? Why don't you go back a year in the edits and tell me how much you can find about "Fa-rectification" for example?

As to the "clarify the truth" quote...what exactly is your point? When Li issued that directive, he was clearly referring to what practitioners say to non-practitioners, and clearly he doesn't want the higher teachings, etc, to be revealed. As to the old saw that all the teachings are available on the internet...sure, that's true. But most people are not going to read through Li's verborse utterings which amount to literally thousands of pages. So the best way to hide stuff is to bury it in a mountain of verbiage. And then when an editor seeks to introduce an important point from the teachings (which may put the FG in a bad light), then there's chorus of objections. --Tomananda 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal salvation and forgiveness

Canada 2003: http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_94.htm

That is very much related to the sujbect at hand. Originally I had pasted here many paragraphs, but it was quite a lot so I thought it best not to use the discussion page for that. Anyway, there are a great deal more and I can find them. I don't have time at this moment though. I can get some direct and short quotes from that conference without any problems. Is there something on wikipedia where while the articles are locked, we come up with some version everyone agrees on, then when it is done upload it - maintaining it locked - and work in that way, so the real version is always locked, and we just discuss and make changes to a virtual version before consensus, at which time the real (I mean public) version is modified. Do you understand my question? That might be a good format to working on this, since we have encountered a lot of difficulty with the conventional method. Will respond to mediator. No time now. --Asdfg12345 12:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: I need to repeat what I've already said about this point. Yes, it is true that in more recent speeches Li has talked about forgiving sins in a more universal way than he previously had. In one particular quote (the source of which needs to be located) one might even conclude that homosexuals could make it to FG paradise, but never has it been suggested that they could do this without also giving up their "bad behavior." Yes, we can and should report this stuff, but in so doing we cannot delete or obscure what Li has so clearly stated in previous lectures. I want you to appreciate the fact that several practitioners and I spent literally months working out compromises that led to the creation of the homosexuality section as it now exists. Certainly there is material that could be added, and that especially includes Li's more recent statements concerning "benevolent solutions," but in adding this material, we cannot obscure what Li has said about homosexuals in the past. Again, I am willing to work with you on these edits and agree that the best way to do this is to post a working copy of a specific edit on the talk page, and go on from there. --Tomananda 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Forgot to mention that the 2003 speech you cite above does contain some of this thinking, but what is an even better (meaning clearer) Li statement on this topic is the one Olaf found many months ago. It was quoted in the "Fa-rectification: Li's version of the apocalpse" section as follows:

"In other lectures, Li seems to suggest that the “dregs of humanity and the degenerate world” can still be saved, as long as they do not interfere with the Fa-rectification process:

In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma." (can you find the citation for this important quote???)--Tomananda 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's from Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World: http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_122.htm. I agree with what you said, but I didn't think that Olaf's edits were at all hiding the content of the other things Li Hongzhi has said about homosexuality. They were basically additions and expansions, without any deletion or obscuration of content. I don't know why you opposed them so much. Can you click on the article page, go through the history, find Olaf's edits, and tell me what was wrong with them? Also, can you please check the edits I did and tell me what was wrong with them, as well? There were quite a few to the "qigong other beliefs" section, throughout the whole section, and also some changes to the "supernatural and savior" part. There is more to add in there, as well. I could paste it here if you would prefer, but I think it would end up quite long. However you like it. Also, don't you think that "Li's version of the apocalypse" is already a leading sentence, and POV? I think some people opposed "was the Tiananmen square self-immolation staged?" as the title for a section on the persecution page, and I can't really see how they are so different. I know it is a catchy way to introduce the subject, but I think something more neutral would be appropriate - "What is the Fa-rectification?" or just "Fa-rectification", maybe there is some others. Is there some way to make another discussion page where this content can be put, then edited back and forth at leisure until consensus? Or at least a way to make a blank wikipage? If not, let me know and we can use my userpage - I think putting it all here might make it a bit messy, what do you reckon? Okay, let me know on those items.

A few of Olaf's edits did blank important meaning, but I am not necessarily claiming it was done with malice or intentionally. The problem was that Olaf was using language and meaning from Li's later writings to change the meaning of his Switizerland speech...which, by the way, became a collective effort between me and a practitioner named McConn. Li has said different things about homosexuality over the years. The edit that exists depends on reporting Li's quotes verbatim, or in the case of the rather long (but important) Switzerland speech, a combination of direct and indirect quotes presented in the same order as they were spoken. Please go back to the Do homosexuals smell bad? post above and read items #2 to 5, followed by items a-d, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It seems to me what is needed is for someone to write some new material which covers the quote above, written in 2005, and suggests how it may apply to homosexuality. Keep in mind though, I don't think there's any evidence Li's "beneficial solutions" would go so far as to allow homosexuals to exist in the higher realms. So even with the beneficial solutions, Li apparently envisions beings at the higher realms who are exlusively heterosexual. Try as you may, I don't think any other interpretation will hold water.

Concerning your own edits, I remember reading them a while back and agreeing with some of them. But frankly I've completely lost track. I don't mind checking the history, but could you at least point me in the right direction (eg: cite what time period and which edits we are talking about?) --Tomananda 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: How do I cooperate with the meditation process? You mentioned I did not do something that I should have done, because maybe I wanted to boycott, but I don't know what I should do. I support mediation and think it is a great idea for this issue. I am not sure exactly what I need to do though. I put a comment on Armedblowfishes page, I am sure you read it... I think things are moving along in that regard anyway, so I guess when I see somewhere for me to contribute I will contribute.--Asdfg12345 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the impression you were boycotting the mediation process because even after I posted the thing about how we should all answer the mediator's question about whether we wanted to continue with mediation (which I posted on the Falun Gong Talk page), you were one of the editors who didn't respond. But then again, maybe you missed that post. You can still post a response, though, by going to the mediator's talk page and scrolling down to the last item "Falun Gong" here:

[11]--Tomananda 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

About that "homosexuality in higher realms" thing, I do not know how you got into that type of thinking, nor do I think that needs to be mentioned, or that there is any basis for mentioning that. Li Hongzhi has never said anything about sexual orientation in "higher realms", whether homosexual or heterosexual. It seems a mute point... let me know if I am missing something. I don't think we should rely too much on interpretations either, especially one's that are not really backed up by the teachings, and more especially those of people who are not practitioners and who don't understand anything.--Asdfg12345 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The absence of homosexuality "in the higher realms" becomes important only when or if FG practitioners insist on reporting a false view of the teachings: that is, the notion that:

a) Li was saying in his Switzerland speech that because of Fa-rectification, homosexuals would be saved. Clearly, he wasn't saying that at all (please read items a, b and c in the Do homosexuals smell bad? post above.) OR

b)after Fa-rectification homosexuals could expect to be saved because of Li's "benevolent solutions." This argument only makes sense if one mentions that by "being saved" homosexuals must give up their "bad behavior" (Li's words, not mine)either in this realm or the next. In fact, it seems clear to me that the Fa-recitification itself will return beings to the higher realms in which homosexuality doesn't exist. No other interpretation makes sense, because Li has repeatedly used homosexuality as the poster-boy (no pun intended) for his notion that mankind has become so corrupt that the gods no longer take care of us. In Li's view, the elimination of homosexuality is part of the purification process that he calls "Fa-rectification."

The bottom line for me is that if the existing content that is presented under the sub-title "Teachings that are considered homophobic by critics" is allowed to remain, I will not push for additional content that deals with the fate of homosexuality under the Fa-rectification. However, if we do wind up adding the "benevolent solutions" material to either of the two sections under homosexuality (and I think it would logically belong in the second section), then I expect that it will be contextualized in such a way that no one gets the impression that homosexuals as such can be saved by Li. --Tomananda 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please go to Mediation Talk Page for Current Discussion

Current discussion relating to the organization of the FG daughter pages, as well as debate about the content which appears on this Criticism page, has been moved to the Mediation Talk page at: [12] under the section "General Organization".--Tomananda 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)