Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Untitled

Archived discussion:


There have been a lot of recent small edits that have introduced a lot of pro-FLG info. Most of it is OK by me, but the removal of older blocks of text and replacing them with copy that makes assertions of opinion on Wikipedia's behalf are going to be removed. Any assertions of opinions about FLG's effectiveness or spiritual superiority have to be ascribed to Li or FLG, not to the prose of the article. If it keeps up, I'll have to tag the article with an NPOV sticker until I can undo the damage. --Fire Star 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


It is requested most humbly that the article be reverted to the one on " 2:31 2 March, 2006 "... I had been working on re-structuring the article on the whole. As of now I am spending more time studying the teachings of Falun Dafa. I am putting in a lot of effort to ensure accuracy and comleteness. Kindly allow me a few days time before such drastic changes are made. It is requested that I may please be be given a chances to complete the re-structuring and then the article reverted if majority opinion is that it should be... I am putting in a lot of effort and time in the direction and I hope you will grant me time to complete my changes. As of now, kindly donot consider it a finished work. Thanking You. Dilip rajeev 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. As I said, most of the changes were interesting and helpful, especially the awards and commendations sections, but the informative body of the text that was removed was worked out over a long period of time by a consensus of people editing this article, and its removal without discussion will continue to be reverted. Please see the archived talk for this article. Everyone sees FLG with different eyes: the CCP sees it as an evil cult, traditionalists see them as a loopy "new religion" and FLG followers see Li as the saviour of mankind. Wikipedia should not espouse any of these POVs, rather we have to simply report them dispassionately, without weasel words or advertising copy; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Direct apologetics and "How-to" manuals for and about FLG don't really have a place in an encyclopaedia article. No one "owns" WP articles, and as Mcconn and I were discussing before, every point should be considered with such a long, controversial subject if the article isn't going to simply be reverted. As the script on every edit page says: Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Fire Star 17:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We must remember that Falun Gong is practiced by well over 100 milion practitioners world over . We cant casually call it " controversial qigong"- infact they are the majority and without argument the most popular system of qigong... we discuss the controversies in a section - the reader decides if it is controversial - we dont beat things into people's heads.

Not everyone agrees it is "controversial qigong" there are many Buddhist monks practicing Falun Gong..atleast a 100 million qigong practitioners wont agree with that... We must also understand that we are talking about a cultivation way and we must respect the fact that we are talking about faith. We cant casually talk about things - for instance tainmu is not said to be " in the pineal gland" but to be of material existance in other dimensions. I refer you to the lecture 2 of falun dafa (audio/ video lectures on falundafa website)

Buddhism talks about 49 levels of hell, Deva Mara, ghosts and spirits, or evil demons... can you start an article on Buddhist Beliefs saying... and it is not the hollywood concept of demons shayamuni talks about... a lot of context goes behind it.... The Ancient Gnostic Bible, "Pistis Sophia" says :

Bartholomew said: “A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?”

Jesus said: “The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer.

“When then the time is completed through the sphere, the receivers of Yaldabaōth come after their soul, and he with his forty-and-nine demons taketh vengeance on it eleven years.

“Thereafter they carry it to the fire-rivers and seething pitch-seas, which are full of demons with pigs’ faces. They eat into them and take vengeance on them in the fire-rivers another eleven years.

“Thereafter they carry them into the outer darkness until the day of judgment when the great darkness is judged; and then they will be dissolved and destroyed."

How much sense would it make to discuss this section in detail in an encyclopaedia article on Gnosticism?


The gnostics, tantrism, hinduism and several other traditions talk about tianmu. for instance the gnostics say that the materially existing higher dimensions can be percieved through the faculty of the third eye. We dont see an article on hinduism or buddhism starting with so and so says there is a third eye in the pineal gland!


If we chose to disuss something on beliefs regarding extra terrestrials, what excuse is there not to discuss this paragraph

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

and its striking similarity to what one of the fore-most scientists suggests might serve as an explanation for quantum behaviour


“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each electron (elementary particle) acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality”- David Bohm, In Wholeness and Implicate order.


The word demon is used in the sense - a being removed from the nature of the cosmos - zen shan ren.... For practitioners there is much higher meaning to this...A LOT of explanation must go into these terms and I am not joking... kindly go through the Falun Dafa teachings.... We are not just putting things out of context but what we are doing is out-right distortion and we dont even remotely suspect the extent to which we are doing it. Dilip rajeev 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


When you say it is "based on the religous belief of Li Hongzhi".... let me ask you - how do we know it is so? 100 million differ.... How do you know it is not handed down? ... We say it was first taught in 1992 by Li Hongzhi. Anything else is assumption and Distortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dilip rajeev (talk • contribs)

Well, the 100 million number is only one claim. There can be an argument made that more people do some form of Taijiquan or even yoga everyday, but we can't really know for sure. And of course FLG is controversial, just ask the current Chinese govt.! We don't say that controversy is justified, we are saying that it exists, and it does exist, there is a lot of evidence of controversy in our external links section if nothing else. Many, many people take exception to Li Hongzhi's public statements. As I've mentioned before, even the popular American television show Law & Order had its main character call FLG practitioners "weirdos". I have studied FLG, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, etc. and Li's claims that his teachings are superior to the religious teachings of others are typical of claims made by religious leaders trying to win converts, and place his movement firmly in the religious arena. The language of Li's public lectures, and his claims of spiritual supremacy for himself in his lectures and publications is blatantly religious. How do we know that it is handed down? Li doesn't name his teachers. Wikipedia cannot say or even imply that Li has any spiritual authority beyond his own group, and the article must stay scrupulously neutral. To discuss disputed points, we should list them numerically and go over them one by one. Even if we don't agree, perhaps we may find some language to report things that we can agree on. --Fire Star 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

from a dialectical perspective, instead of saying controversial system of qi-gong why not say well acclaimed- as it has the greatest number of practitioners and has recieved around a thousand awards from over the world... far greater than any other system of qi gong has...several renowned qi-gong experts have spoken in praise of Falun Gong:

... Master Da Liu. ...born 1906 in Kiangshu province, China and started learning TaiQi with several masters. In the early 1950´s he came to USA and he was the FIRST TaiQi teacher in America, he wrote several books about Ta Qi, meditation and I-Ging.

In the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement: "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."

Shao, Xiaodong considered by the acedemic community to be one of the world's foremost "experts" on Qi Gong who was The academic counselor of therapeutic Qigong for China Qigong Science Research Society and China Human Body Science Society... is himself a Falun Dafa practitioner as according to him, Falun Gong is an "advanced cultivation Dafa (Great Way)"


... My point is we dont have to label falun gong "controverial". We are discussing the controversies and people can judge for themselves. Keep the article objective. An encyclopaedia article is not a place ot go over disputed quotes "on by "one" and ignore the other intricate and profound teachings. It is IMPOSSIBLE to bring into picture all the context behinnd even one quote- disputed or otherwise.

An article on chritianity wouldnt keep emphasisng the controversies surrounding the church and list one by one each disputed "quote" from the bible.. we must respect faith.... the article must give an over-all unbiased view on the the practice. Not talking about whether it is Li Hiongzi's religious belief or otherwise. We are making it very clear, that it was introduced by Li Hongzhi... on the otherhand, authoritatively emphasizing it is based on "Li Hongzhi's religious beliefs" is putting in personal notions into the article.

Dilip rajeev 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 


100 million, infact, is is a 1998 estimate.. Some recent estimates put the number well over 200 million...

This statement is also Inaccurate : "exercises".."said by them to develop high levels" .... Never is it said in any of the Falun Gong books that exercises are to develop "gong"... Refer the Lecture Videos... to understand the purpose of the exercises...

Any religion/religious movement/qigong/whatever that has controversies surrounding it is controversial. Falun Gong does. As Falun Gong people are wont to attack Christianity, here are four full articles that are entirely about controversies about the church and the bible.
  1. Christian theological controversy
  2. Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief
  3. Criticisms of Christianity
  4. Criticism of the Bible
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
We can't have this become an ad for FLG. As I've mentioned before, there are many well meaning, enthisastic FLG followers who would have the article read "FLG is universally loved by everyone and Master Li is the saviour of mankind!" but that just isn't going to happen, I'm afraid. We do have to discuss every point, that is the way consensus for this kind of article works. We can report the awards and acclamations, but we also have to report the criticisms and controversy, we will not pretend they don't exist. It isn't about respect, much more important to Wikipedia are the the interests of neutrality, many people revere Li and FLG, seeing them as beneficial to health and of high moral standards, many other people see them as racist, manipulative lunatics with pretensions to a xenophobic theocracy. We have to mention both. --Fire Star 13:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa and Qigong

Seems that in the above articles some people seem to claim all qigong and qigong practitioners as some how belonging to Falun Dafa.... which they do not. That might be why numbers are so inflated. In the words of the great detective Joe Friday... "Just the facts... m'am".Mike 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Neutrality

Fire Star, It is hoped that we all will refrain from pouring in our own POV into the article. The earlier edition was accepted, in majority opinion, to be more un-biased and neutral and as much as it was agreed upon to be a better base. I was watching the edits you added - Facts cannot and must not be presented in a manner that distorts the the context behind it. Subjective interpolation must be avoided. I appreciate the neutrality you have shown throughout and it is hoped that you will continue doing so.

It was? There is a long history here of anti- and pro-FLG people coming by and doing drive by edits to rewrite the article either extremely negatively or positively. Neither is acceptable. I'd say it is about 50-50. To insist that there is no controversy over FLG when there most certainly is much documentation of such seems like an attempt at advertising. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And to say that I am demonstratiing a POV without providing evidence goes against our assume good faith policy. As I've mentioned before (and it was rejected by Dilip rajeev), I'm happy to work with anyone; list your concerns, and we'll address them one by one. --Fire Star 14:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Fire star has intentionally introduced his POV into the article. I must emphasize that he has maintained an objective stand-point and that it is to be appreciated. I do request him to put time into studying Falun Gong teachings(I am doing the same) so that accuracy is not sacrificied in the name of verbal/surface neutrality-- I have this concern regarding certain paragraphs. Further, I understand that I hadnt discussed/justified the changed I had made, in detail, in the talk section...

Dilip rajeev 15:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussing Requested Changes

1. In my opinion, "is a controversial system of qigong based on the religious beliefs of its founder". is better changed to "is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..."

for these reasons: 1. We dont have to make assumptions regarding wether the system is based on "the religious beliefs" of Li Hongzhi or not. The term "based on religious beliefs of" is a vague term with so many connotations behind it. Further its a POV.

---> "introduced by Li Hongzhi" makes it clear that it was "introduced by Li Hongzhi".

2. Wikipedia doesnt have to introduce the system as " a controversial system". We are clearly discussing the controversies in the later sections of the article. Should Falun gong be introduced to the un-informed reader as a "controversial" system? Shouldnt we be discussing the controversies, objectively, rather than emphatically declare Falun gong to be "a controversial system" to the reader? We must be careful about it and remember that even renowned masters of qi-gong arts like Master Da Liu (who introduced tai-chi to America ) differ on the issue:

At the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement: "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm positive we can find language that we are all happy with if we consider these things together.
How about:
  • 1."is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..." then followed by "and has generated some controversy, particularly in regards to the Chinese govt."
  • 2. The controversy is one of the most notable features of FLG's public profile for most people. More people practise orthodox Buddhism, but you don't hear about them as much because they aren't being persecuted (as much) by the CCP. My compromise suggestion would be to mention the controversial nature of FLG's relationship with China and other religions later in the introduction.
FLG isn't being singled out, if you look at the Talk:Tai Chi Chuan, or Talk:Jesus or Talk:Scientology pages (and hundreds of others) you'll see that there is an awful lot of controversy surrounding all of these subjects. What I mean is that we don't mean it in a pejorative sense, we aren't taking exception to FLG, but we are reporting that others do. Think of it more as one more bland fact, along with the list commendations and human rights organisations involved and religious issues, about a huge international phenomenon. Cheers, --Fire Star 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I accept your suggestion.... but arent we starting the very next paragraph... with "The government of the People's Republic of China began a nation-wide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999.".. so would it be re-dundant? just some thoughts... I will think about how to phrase the statement well. I mean - my idea of a good article is one in which we present the fact as such and let people decide... there should be good flow and and little redundancy. We must be able to get ideas across without beating it into the reader's head. The fact that the very next paragraph talks about the falun gong being supressed in China brings the central controversy into picture. minimal edit: "an empty yet conscious state of mind concept taken from Taoism" has been changed to "A taoist Term for an Empty yet conscious state of Mind" which i think is a better way of phrasing the sentence.


changes to morality section

In the morality section: Title "Morality" changed to "Emphasis on Good Moral Nature" -- Which is more descriptive... Falun gong doesnt have any "set of moral standards" for practitioners:

"Of course, if we want to lose ordinary people’s different desires and meet the standard for a true cultivator, and if we want to achieve that instantly, then it’s not easy. You have to do it gradually. You hear what I say, “do it gradually,” and you say “Teacher told me to do it gradually, so I’ll just take my time.” But that’s not right! You have to be strict with yourself, but we do let you improve gradually. If you achieved it instantly today, you’d be a Buddha today, and that’s just not realistic." -Zhuan Falun

"If you are always compassionate and friendly to others, if you always consider other people when you do things, and whenever you have issues with other people you first think about whether they can take it or whether it will cause them harm, then you won’t have any problem. So, when you cultivate you should follow high and even higher standards. " -Zhuan Falun

" Li Hongzhi claims that according to Buddhism( The Diamond Sutra, this is the “Dharma Ending Period” and that “Nobody should blame others for it, as everyone has added fuel to the flame.” " This sentence has absolutely has no meaning!!!

sentence, restructured, and "claims" changed to "points out"

From the Diamond Sutra ( sect. 6 in the translation by A.F. Price and Wong Mou-lam).

The time following Buddha Shakyamuni's demise is divided into three periods: .... the Perfect Age of the Dharma, lasting 500 years, when the Buddha's teaching (usually meditation) was correctly practiced and Enlightenment often attained....the Dharma Semblance Age, lasting about 1,000 years, when a form of the teaching was practiced but Enlightenment seldom attained... and then the Dharma-Ending Age begins...

God!!! I found this while searching for material from Buddhist Scriptures to justify argument that this is the Dharma Ending Age.... It sent a shiver through my spine...


"Alas! In the evil time

Of the Dharma-Ending Age,

Living beings' blessings are slight,

It is difficult to train them.

Far indeed from the sages of the past!

Their deviant views are deep.

Demons are strong, the Dharma is weak;

Many are the wrongs and injuries.

Hearing the door of the Thus Come One's sudden teaching,

They hate not destroying it as they would smash a tile.

The doing is in the mind;

The body suffers the calamities.

There's no need for unjust accusations that shift the blame to others.

If you don't wish to invite the karma of the unintermittent [hell],

Do not slander the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma. "

-Gautama Buddha (SE 62-63)

http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89

paragraph after paragraph, Buddha Gautama's words in the sutra( given in the website above)seemed to be about Falun Dafa.. "shocking " is the only word I can say now... I will discuss the article later.. after I regain my composure!!!

... if you go through the falun dafa texts ... you will see that the main reason why Falun Dafa practitioners spend a lot of time clarifying the truth about the situation in China is that they want to save people who have been 'poisoned' by the CCP's stories from bringing upon themselves terrible karma by having negative thoughts against the Dharma and slandering the Dharma... There is just too much to talk about... I guess I'll leave it at that..... study the books of Falun Dafa and read the Sutra.. you'll be shocked beyond words..

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

Fire Star, I think we have been knowingly sacrificing too much accuracy ... and deviating from the truth... by phrasing sentences like "Falun gong's CLAIMS of torture"... while the united nations, united states congress and many other international bodies agree on the issue...

.. we have been presenting Falun Gong's teachings in such a way that it terribly and intentionally distorts the context behind it...turth matters much more than surface neurality.. and we have to live upto our responsibity...


The campaign of persecution [against Falun Gong] has been... carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People’s Republic of China." United States Congress (Resolution No. 188 Unanimously Passed 420-0)

"Jiang’s horrific form of genocide is a terror that does not just destroy lives, but [aims to] destroy faith… It is a terror that must be brought to justice." Georges-Henri Beauthier Renowned Human Rights Attorney


"At least 43 psychiatric hospitals all over China are being used to detain and torture [Falun Gong] practitioners...We know some of the drugs the hospitals force on sane individuals in an attempt to destroy their will and spirit... we know of the widespread use of psychotropic drugs by ordinary police in jails, brainwashing centers, and labor camps." Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Former President of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

“The Communist Party must vanquish Falun Gong… How could it be possible that the Marxist theory we endorse and the materialism and atheism that we believe in can’t vanquish what Falun Gong propagates? If it were true, wouldn’t we become laughing stocks?” -From a letter written by the then President of China, Jiang Zemin to Senior Communist Party Officials on April 25 1999

Also see the United Nations Report on the Persecution of Falun Gong...

Let us atleast not put these undisputed things as if to say falun gong practitioners are making up fancy tales of torture..

I have, in the light of discussions made eariler changed, made changes to the introduction - changing the text that declares falun gong's system of Qi Gong controversial... to a much more neutral one...

Statement Inaccurate... relation ship between chi karma and diseases discussed in the "Cultivation of Mind and Body" section... Exercises are not said to develod gong... purpose of the exercises also discussed in section "Cultivation of Mind and Body" .. "Falun Gong's qigong-like practises are said by them to develop high levels of 功, gōng, which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.) Falun Gong adherents make the claim that gōng possesses healing properties, and that 氣 qi (which means "breath") only suppresses or postpones illness. See also: kung fu, traditional Chinese medicine."

Many occurances of "Li Claims".. most changed to "Li Hongzhi states"... "claims" has derogatory connotations. Refering to a person by the first name is not acceptable in western culture...

Fire Star,I wanted to discuss these two paragrahs with you:

"In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years....So it has to do with high-level beings as well. If this situation is to be turned around, it has to begin from high levels."

Hundereds of such concepts are discussed in the lectures... why pick out a few sensational sounding ones and put it in lime-light? Moreover so much context goes into it... they are unequivocably distorting the meaning behind the teachings... |for instance what is meant by alien beings has been discussed in detail in another lecture...arent we ignoring the conext behind it completley.. very different from the hollywood concept.... ANd They sound almost childish!!!!... Like saying :he said "..." and "...." and "..." see what they believe in....

The concept of pre-historic civilizations, tainmu etc has been touched upon in a neutral way in the next paragraph.... the material seems redundant and doesnt flow along with the text... AND WAS CLEARLY ADDED BY SOMEONE WITH A STRONG POV

I am removing the two paragraphs... you may revert the changes if you think it requires further disussion.... The discussed changes have been made...

Hello everyone. I put them back, Li does say those things, unfortunately, and they are illustrative of the context which will interest outsiders about FLG's conceptual world. See the section on aliens at the Scientology article, for example. As for the word "claims" being derogatory, you have to read Neutral point of view. For a blatant example; Li says there are aliens, yet he can't produce an alien for examination, hence Li's statements are a claim. There may indeed be aliens somewhere, but he doesn't have one, so we cannot know if he is correct or not in his assumptions, hence the word "claim." This is common Wikipedia usage for religious articles. --Fire Star 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Friend, the I request you to please read through the texts of Falun Dafa... The Quote is by no means representative of Li Hongzhi or the beliefs of Falun Dafa. It is an intentional distortion. and those are not even quotes... but statements plucked out from here and there with a clear intent of defaming Falun Dafa... what about the context that goes behind.. and the required explanations. We must touch upon the concepts in a neutral manner and the next paragraph does that. I am not removing any existing information.


The statement regarding gong was removed as it is not correct. Falun Gongs books doesnt say so. The purpose of the exerxises is very different.... I am removing the incorrect statemnt on "gong"... simply because it is not true... I refer you to the video/audio lectures on the Falun Dafa Website.. -Dilip

And I am going to put it back. An instance of FLG's idiosyncratic use of the word gong is here: [1]. Please do not continue to unilaterally revert text that has a long history in the article. --Fire Star 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Te very reference you gave me says: " This is the principle for cultivating at high levels. Strictly speaking, the gong potency that determines one’s level isn’t developed through performing exercises but through xinxing cultivation. Improving xinxing is easier said than done. Cultivators must be able to put forth great effort, improve their enlightenment quality, bear hardships upon hardships, endure almost unendurable things, and so on. Why haven’t some people’s gong grown even though they have practiced for years? "

So tell me -is the statement accurate.? Allow me to edit it to improve accuracy. I am not replacing it.

"In religious cultivation in the past, Buddhists taught Emptiness—not thinking about anything, and entering the Gate of Emptiness. And Daoists taught Nothingness—having nothing, wanting nothing, and seeking nothing. Cultivators used to talk about, “Putting the mind on practicing, not putting the mind on getting gong.” So you cultivate in a state of nonaction and just focus on cultivating your character, then you’ll be making breakthroughs in your level, and you’ll definitely have whatever you should. If you can’t let go of something, isn’t that an attachment? Here we’re teaching such high-level Laws right at the outset, so of course the demands on your character are high. And that’s why you can’t come to learn the Law wanting to get something. " -Zhuan Falun

The point is the use of the word gong itself, FLG's usage is unique. Traditional Chinese medicine, qigong or martial art all uses it the same way, always as part of a compound qualifying something else. FLG uses it a different way. That won't be acknowledged in FLG literature. Standard uses include:

功夫 gōng fu /skill/art/kung fu/labor/effort/

功绩 gōng jī /feat/

功课 gōng kè /classwork/

功劳 gōng láo /contribution/meritorious/credit/

功率 gōng lǜ /power(the output of an engine)/

功率恶化 gōng lǜ è huà /power penalty/

功能 gōng néng /function/

功能集 gōng néng jí /function library/

功能群 gōng néng qún /functional group/

功效 gōng xiào /(n) efficacy/

I will have a go at the paragraph here in a bit to see if we can get it in a way that you'll like better, so check back. --Fire Star 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it too... we can point that out....we must try to improve accuracy as there is a whole section in the Book Zhuan Falun titled "Why doing Exercises doesnt increase gong"... Falun gong's concept of transforming de to gong is more similar to concepts found in cultivation ways like Universal Gnosticism... the usage is certainly quite different and falun gong literature doesnt hide that..

--- I had made minor change to the morality section.. and was about to revert it myself.. ... thought i must discuss it with you...

What about changing "Falun Gong includes a set of moral expectations for practitioners to emulate." to "Falun Gong lays emphasis on Good Moral Nature" ?

There are no sets of moral codes... so current statement is inaccurate...The previous version " Practitioners are required to set high moral standards for themselves", though accurate, may sound POV for someone who has not studied FG ... SO ""Falun Gong lays emphasis on good moral nature" -i think would be a good description..

The problem is we have to say it neutrally. If we (Wikipedia) say "good" or "high" morals we are making a judgment, asserting that FLG possesses same. If there are no moral codes taught by FLG at all, then we can delete the sentence entirely. If FLG says "high morals" or "good morals" or even "conservative morals" somewhere, then we have to feature it as a quote, and source the quote. It is a notable feature, and perhaps there is some variance between what FLG teaches in various books? --Fire Star 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

...please see section "continuing discussion"...

Attempts of edit from Behind Firewall??

Olaf Stefanos, I have reservations on you calling the poor guy an "agent provocateur" and "vandal", I think he is behind the great firewall and desperately wants to speak out.... seems he tried editing the page through proxy but all quotes became something like \' .... and then he ended up replacing the whole article with

"Broters and sisters, I need your help. My internet can not go to Wikipedia, and Editing from proxy does no help. It turns all \' to \\\'.

Here there are lots of text and links sponsored by the CCP, I thank it if you remove them."

... then he himself(?) reverted the whole page back...

Friend, if u r reading this... you may discuss your concerns with us on the talk page...

I know. I noticed this, and if this "poor guy" is reading, I apologize. I just thought that his edits were silly vandalism (but I didn't actually call him a vandal, it was the other IP/person reverting). It seems he didn't intentionally want to mess up the article. I will assume better faith from this day on. ---Olaf Stephanos 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There's way more Falun Gong-sponsored links in this article than "CCP-sponsored" ones. Even if he does make a successful change we'd probably end up reverting his edit due to POV. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion on Edits

. . There really isnt any difference between the teachings in the books... only that a superficial understanding may make it seem like there is... Infact the word "moral" is rarely used... It is xinxing or mind-nature that is emphasized.. now that a section by the name is there in the wikipedia... we somehow need to ensure accuracy... A quote from Zhuan Falun: " "If you are always compassionate and friendly to others, if you always consider other people when you do things, and whenever you have issues with other people you first think about whether they can take it or whether it will cause them harm, then you won’t have any problem. So, when you cultivate you should follow high and even higher standards. "

That is why I wrote "Falun Gong requires practitioners to set high moral standards for themselves"...

I will go through all the books in greater detail...

"Falun Gong's qigong style practises are said by them to develop high levels of 功, gōng, which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.)"

Why not change it to.... "Falun gong uses the word gong to mean "high level energy" which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)."

I see that this para has been removed from the beliefs section... while it is central to falun gong's view on qi gong... while three or four sensational sounding statements from the whole sets of lectures running to around 1000 pages have been projectes....

"Li Hongzhi states that the term "qigong" is of recent origin. That originally such disciplines had names like "The Dhyana of Vajra", "Ninefold Immortality Elixir method" and "Dafa of Cultivating Dao" and that the lowest level things of some cultivation ways, the things for healing and fitness, were brought out to the general public under the name "qigong". According to the QiJournal, It wasn't until 1953, when Liu Gui-zheng published a paper entitled "Practice On Qigong Therapy", that the term qigong (ch'i kung) was adopted as the popular name for this type of exercise system. Prior to that date, there were many terms given to such exercise, such as Daoyin, Xingqi, Liandan, Xuangong, Yangshengong, etc. ""

I like this: "Falun gong uses the word gong from Falun Gong: 功, pronounced gōng, to mean "high level energy" which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)." If FLG literature doesn't use the words "moral" or "morality" much, neither should we, I'd say. --Fire Star 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the use of "gong"

Although the use of "gong" is somewhat unconventional as compared to how it most often is used in compound words, as noted in the text, I'd like to add that this use still is rather conventional within qigong systems, where "fa-gong 发功" (a verb-noun compound not found in my Chinese dictionaries) is a quite common term (but possibly with meanings differing from school to school). Now the unconventionality of the use is, to my mind, not so strange with qigong itself being such a recent assemblage/label, but I suggest that the meaning about its FLG use be edited so as to accord this unconventionality of the use to qigong thinking in general instead of as something unique to FLG. Certainly there is no need to make FLG appear more strange than it already is/is seen as? Berox 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises!

This is a re-post of an earlier post on 3/5/06 which no one responded to:

NEED TO REVISE INTRODUCTORY SECTION

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

Here's my suggested addition:

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

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

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

If the Wikipedia piece on the Falun Gong is going to have any claim of objectivity, it must also represent the views of its critics. I am proposing that something like the above be added to frame the discussion at the beginning of the piece. As an alternative, it would be ok to just add the first two paragaphs (which are hypenated) and then add a new section on the controversial aspects of Falun Gong (similar to the treatment of Scientology by Wikipedia).

--Tomananda 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide citations to the Sanger and Hassan publications, they should certainly be mentioned in the article, and also at Li Hongzhi. --Fire Star 15:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hassan has an article on FLG [2], I like the part where he asks about the numbers of members in North America. --Yenchin 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Article will stay Objective and continue to get more Objective

Objectivity is not plucking out a few quotes... distorting it out of context and presenting it... Neither is it talking about every self-proclaimed experts stand-point...The current introduction to Falun Gong... mentions the concepts and even mentions the most controversial quotes ( according to practitioners-out of context).... this is not a place to criticize or praise Falun Gong... ... if you are to go by the opinion of every single person in the introduction... we will have a lot to say...

Right from Master Da Liu among the most reputed Tai chi Masters in America( who introduced tai chi to america, author of several books on tai chi and qi gong) who says he asks all his students to study falun dafa.... youfu Li a Martial arts exprt and tai chi professor who considers Falun Dafa to Be a Great Way of cultivation of Buddhahood... The previous academic counsellor to China qigong research society who himself a falun gong practitioner..

many prominent chi gong masters...the governor of canada... atlanta... ambassador mark palmer... prominent human rights attorneys...

For instance, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights ,UN director on reports of torture - 70 year old Theo van Boven speaks very strongly againt CCP's perecution of Falun Gong...according to him.. reports say that Mr. Xiao was "subjected to the so-called “water dungeon”… locking a naked person into a small iron cage with spikes on all sides. The cage is then lowered into filthy water up to the victim’s chest or neck in a completely dark room. The victim may be locked in the cage for days or even weeks, and urine and feces are excreted into the water.”

Theo Van Boven is also a winner of several reputed awards... could we quote him too?... no... we cant quote every single person.. we will only quote what honoured international authorities say... not every self proclaimed expert..

.. dis-information has been CCP's mot powerful ally in the persection... why would they block even the wikipedia article if they had nothing to hide? we would not allow such dis-information and distortions - used tctfully by the CCP to inundate hatred among the masses to creep into the article...

there are a million people saying a million personal things falun gong... we take an objective stance. quoting information first hand.. and we refuse to use your words to label people.. or to put quotes out of context...

Falun Dafa is cultivaion Practice... such beliefs donot exist in Falun Dafa... The Master protects disciples and a master is one who has complete his cultivation... similar beliefs are found in Buddhism... gnosticism... and all cultivation ways... we refuse to distort content.

I have personally gone through all the public lectures of Falun Dafa ... i dont find things even remotely close to what you talk about in any of the lectures...


-Dilip Rajeev

Continuing Discussion

Fire Star.. I am replacing the sentence on Gong with your suggestion... we have a whole section to deal with if we are to change the word "Morality"... yet we have the responsibilty to not sacrifice on accuracy... friend, could you go through the books and lectures of Falun Gong? I suggest, from personal experience, that going through the lectures in chronological order mt help understand them faster... mt help us do this job better.. thanx...

I changed "high level energy" to "cultivation energy" ... which is first hand translaion from the book Falun Gong....

Fire Star, The paragraphs below... do they flow with the article... the concepts like tianmu are mentioned in the next paragraph... mixing of races is discussed in the next section.... and anthrolpological beliefs have also been discussed in the next paragaph....

"In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years, some of humanity's predestinations had been averted, including a "comet catastrophe" and "the third world war." [1]

In some of his published lectures, Li states that aliens, gods and demons exist, humans have a "celestial eye" in their pineal gland (tianmu, also known as the "third eye"), that Earth has been influenced by extraterrestrials [2], and that remains of unknown prehistoric civilizations can still be found, for instance, in the bottom of the oceans. According to some sources, Li also explains that mixed-race people are instruments of an alien plot to destroy humanity's link to heaven. "By mixing the races of humans, the aliens make humans cast off gods," he said in a lecture in Switzerland. These same sources claim that he made a statement: "by embedding their technology and science in human bodies, aliens control their thoughts". However, this is one of the several instances where the alleged direct quotes cannot be traced back to Li. In his Switzerland lecture[3], Li stated: "The way alien beings get human beings to shake free of the gods is to mix the races, causing human beings to become rootless people, just like the plant hybrids people make nowadays." And further, "They have formed a layer of their body within the human body." According to Li, humans are not to be blamed for this: "There are other reasons why they dare to do this sort of thing. It has happened because the Fa of the universe has deviated and gods no longer look after things. So it has to do with high-level beings as well. If this situation is to be turned around, it has to begin from high levels."

-Dilip Rajeev

First off, as a courtesy to the rest of us, people should sign their discussion so that we know who we are discussing with. Secondly, I think the info flows fine, the thing is that Li said these things in the course of his teaching, so they are germane to an article on what he teaches. If he didn't want to seem sensational (and perhaps a bit potty to some people) he shouldn't have said them, I suppose...--Fire Star 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Li Hongzhi as an Authoritarian Cult Leader

Fire Star, thanks for inviting me to document the representations I made in paragraph three of my proposed addition to the introduction. Here they are:

Cult experts speaking about Li Hongzhi:

1. Steven Hassan is a leading American cult counselor who wrote: Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (Sommerville, Mass: Freedom of Mind Press, 2000) He has made several comments about Li Hongzhi.

a) Founder Li Hongzhi “comes very much out of the cult extreme, the authoritarian stereotype.” Quote from San Francisco Chronicle article 12/18/05 at:

SF Chronicle

b) Mr. Hassan wrote a rather long statement about why he has “grave concerns about the personage of Li Hongzhi, head of Falun Dafa and his organization” on his own website. His statement really needs to be read in its entirety to get the full meaning of where he stands on the Falun Gong. It appears in a section called “Notes from Steve Hassan 12/02” at the bottom of this web page:

Steve Hassan

2. Dr. Margaret Singer was probably the world’s most respected pioneer and scholar on the subject of destructive cults. In 1996 she published her landmark book: Cults in Our Midst: the Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives. She passed away in 2003.

a) Quote from New Times article:

“Some will say it’s not but Falun Gong looks like a cult to me,” cult expert Margaret Singer told New Times reporter Joel Emgardio wveral years ago. “My criteria is a self-appointed person with secret knowledge to share, who gets his followers convinced he is the pipeline to the eternal good life. Doesn’t that sound like Master Li?”

See: Joel P. Emgardio, “Spiritual CULTivation,” New Times, Los Angeles, March 23-29, 2000.

b) Quotes from San Francisco Chronicle:

“If you want a good description of a cult, all you have to do is read what they say they are” said Margaret Singer [referring to the Falun Gong]. a longtime crusader against authoritarian religious groups. They actually say ‘Don’t Think.’ Just recite the master’s teaching.” …

Falun Gong critics at the conference say that they have nothing against the exercises but charge that the movement’s founder, Master Li Hongzhi – now living in exile in New York – leads an authoritarian sect that is breaking up Chinese families, discouraging devotees to seek medical care and misrepresenting its true teachings.

….

Singer said she has been contacted 44 times by concerned relatives of Falun Gong members, 35 of them of Chinese background. “Their children have begun talking to them in memorized jargon, reading from the words of Master Li,” she said.

See: Don Lattin, “Falun Gong Derided as Authoritarian Sect by Anti-cult Experts in Seattle,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2000

Although Western cult experts have yet to come to a common agreement on exactly how to define a cult, most agree that there are common characteristics that are employed by the cult leaders themselves. By almost any reasonable standard, Master Li’s manipulative style of leadership fits that bill. There are many examples in Master Li’s own words of how he does this, and I would be happy to compile a documented list of those quotes for a separate posting.

The important point here is that we cannot rely on the representations made by Falun Gong practitioners about what the Falun Gong is all about. Practitioners conceal the “higher teachings” of Master Li Hongzhi because he commands them to do so. In a very recent speech in San Francisco (available on a Falun Gong website) Master Li stated:

“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 (Lecture Portion), November 5, 2005.

Li's San Francisco Speech

Fire Star: Can I go ahead and post the three paragraphs I proposed in my earlier post called "Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises?" I know it will be subject to futher editing, but it would make the process easier for all of us. --Tomananda 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. It could even be its own section of the article. I believe we have a responsibility to use sources from inside and outside FLG at Wikipedia. FLG's ardent devotees have a tendency IMO to often use weasel words to present what they do in a less sensational light, to make them appear more "mainstream" or at least apolitical, which they demonstrably aren't. That cult experts would be alarmed at what Li has said doesn't surprise me. On a personal note to Dilip, I am well versed in Buddhism, Taoism, qigong and neigong myself, and when I see evidence that FLG can do what I can do, then I will be impressed enough to study its exercises. So far, to my knowledge at least, they haven't demonstrated any remarkable abilities in the demos I've seen or in the practitioners I've dealt with, rather the opposite. Faith is fine, but we can't report their abilities as proven fact. --Fire Star 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Sources for new paragraphs in introductory section:

Dilip: You must not have read very far. Here are my sources for the first two paragraphs I added to the introductory section. I already sited my sources for the last paragraph in the earlier post. Let me know if I have left anything un-covered. Most of these sources are in the form of a PDF or DOC file on a Falun Gong website, and I don't know how to provide them as a link. If you can help, that would be fine.


Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). More important than the meditation exercises, however, is Master Li's Dafa(1), or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.

Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)

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

Sources:

1. Master’s Li’s Dafa: 

“I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi.  It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth.”   “Awakening”  (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

2. Li as exclusive savior: 

a)  “If I cannot save you, nobody can do it.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition.  p. 160 on-line document at:   http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html

 b)  “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you.  Therefore, I must take care of you.”   Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.

c)  “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.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition. p. 101

3. Studying the Dafa, not the exercises, is the essence of Falun Gong

“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.

4. Promising to make his practitioners Gods:

This thought appears throughout most of Li’s more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples. For example, in a speech in 2003, Li said:

“I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)

5. Li’s Dafa created all beings:

“Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.” “Using at Will” (June 28, 200) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.

6. Master Li protects his disciples (but also threatens them if they should not live up to the standards required by his Dafa:

a) “My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p. 170.

b) “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things (plagiarized Li’s Dafa). Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I


7. Master Li’s Dafa “weeding out” people in the Fa-rectification

a) weeding out the critics: 

    “Let me tell you,  when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.”  “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000),  p. 1.

b) weeding out the evil people, including homosexuals: 

“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”

“A Suggestion” (April 10,2001) in Essentials for Further Advancement II

Note: Since homosexuality is one of the world’s ten evils, and homosexuals have “dark hearts, turning demonic” there’s no question that practicing homosexuals will be “weeded out” by Master Li’s great “Fa-rectification.” See: “The World’s Ten Evils” (July 7, 1998)

See: http://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614

c) weeding out the "dregs" of humanity:

"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28


d) weeding out a great many people:

“The number who will be weeded out is large and terrifying. At the beginning people will still feel shocked, while by the end they'll be numb to it. What kind of state will a person be in when he sees dead people strewn everywhere on the street?” “Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Conference” (November 29, 2003) Q & A section.

--Tomananda 03:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Terribly out of context

What you say seem like a joke made in a very bad taste to me. You are terribly distorting everything. Do some justice to your own conscience!!! The term "evil beings " never refers to human beings!!!! Evil is considered very different from the human... the things that manipulate human mind to do bad deeds.... humans are considered inherently good!!! Concept of achieving buddhahood/godhood through cultivation doesnt carry the fairy tale concept of "god"... God is used in the sense a being who has achieved consummation/perfection through cultivation... For instance...

"“My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation."....

... the statement is there in all cultivation practices... masters of a school, through their faculties, guides the cultivators in cultivation...they are said to guide cultivators in cultivation... it has got absolutely no meanings to the effect you imply... read the paragraps surrounding it... HOW COULD YOU ATTRIBUTE SUCH A MEANING TO THE QUOTE???!!!... In Zhuan Falun II Li Hongzhi also talks about people who are practicing cultivation whithout they themseles not knowing it...

...to understand the concepts of cultivation ways... I refer you to the website www.gnosis-usa.com ...

... the concepts are very similar... and it has nothing to do with what you speak about... and it is not something unique to falun dafa....

... further you are putting every little thing out of context.... a 100 million people would emphatically disagree with the connotations you give to those satements... you dont even understand the vocabulary used in the teachings ... which is only understood by studying all th books

... Apparently you have not studied any of the books!!! I have read every single paragraph you quoted... I cant understand why ...neither do I know if it is intentional...but you are quoting everything terribly out of context...

.... We cant introduce Falun Gong based on opinions / interpretations of teachings.... there are just too many...

You Are Concealing the Core Beliefs of Falun Gong

Dear Practitioner: I give a long list of Li Hongzhi's quotes and you call them my opinions? The truth is that you are avoiding talking about what is probably the most important part of Master Li's teachings: the idea of Fa-rectification. I noticed that after the practioners' last big round of edits on the Wikipedia piece, the word Fa-rectification had been totally deleted. Why is that?

You might be interested in knowing that a review of all of Master Li's speeches in 2005 reveals that the word Fa-rectification appears almost twice as often as the word Cultivation. And in all those same speeches you will find the word Gong only once.

The point I am making is this: Fa-rectification is a core concept of the Falun Gong, much more important than the meditative exercises. To simply say I am quoting things out of context will not work. I am at least as familiar as you are with Master Li's teachings. I challenge you to go back to the Master Li quotes I have listed above and explain to me what their meaning is other than what I have entered.

The corrupt people of the world are going to be weeded out by Master Li's Fa-rectification, while Falun Gong practioners are going to be saved, even turned into Gods. Is that not correct? It is what your Master teaches, and unless you are willing to repudiate at least some of the Master's teachings...are you?...I have to conclude that you are being evasive about your own beliefs.

What are your own thoughts on the Fa-rectification, anyway? Do you think people are already being "weeded out" in Master Li's Fa-rectification? When Master Li said in New York in 2003 that the SARS epidemic was "the first round of cleansing" how would you explain that way of thinking?

When he said that SARS was "Heaven punishing people" what people was he referring to? Any why, exactly, should these people be punished?

By the way, you didn't sign your post. --Tomananda 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette

Fire Star: Please explain what is happening here. An anyonymous editor has deleted my edits, which you approved and which I have fully documented in the discussion above. This seems like bullying to me. Rather than deal with the text as text, making line-by-line edit recommendations, there's a generalized response from a practitioner which really doesn't deal with the Li Honzhi quotes. Can you revert the text to what it was after my update? If not, there is absolutely no objectivity in this article. As you yourself observed above, this Wickipedia article is in danger of becoming an advertisement for the Falun Gong.

--Tomananda 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, those things happen. My suggestion is to revert and place "see talk page" in the edit summary. Discussion here is the way to avoid a revert war. --Fire Star 14:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is concealing anything. Everybody is invited to go through the books. I myself have been going through it.

Friend,

Fa- rectification is not a "practice"... it is part of cultivation...The closest phrase I can find to it is the Hindu concept of "Dharma Punastaapana"... The dharma/teachings (Fa) rectifies the practitioners own heart... eliminating all evil within and the evil within the cosmic space encompassed by his bodies( not the physical body).... evil doesnot mean "evil people" ... there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH CONCEPT... EVIL refers to aggregates removed from the nature of the cosmos(zen shan ren) that control human thinking .... for instace ancient hindustani scriptures say... "you may hate sin... but never hate the sinner"...

See what Li Hongzhi says about homosexuality: "You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy."

...we see that homosexuality is strongly opposed in all traditions including gnosticism( see quote above from pistis sophia) and Buddist scriptures.. homosexuality is bad... doesnt mean homosexuals are!!!!!! ... hatred is bad.. doesnt mean who ever has felt hatred is!!!

... all cultivation ways clearly distinguish between aggregates that manipualte human thoughts to make them accumulate karma and the person himself.... They also point out that some of the greatst cultivators have arisen from the sinnrs of the past...

.. we see that in the teachings, cultivators are asked.. never to harbour even the slightest trace of hatred against the police men who torture them in prison... not to see it with human thoughts... to see that they themselves are being manipulated by the "evil"...

... The content you are trying to add is terribly inaccurate.... pulling out a few quote from here and there and attributing to them meaning that were never intented is....

-Dilip Rajeev

Let me also add that the "anonymous_user"... is not really anonymous... that is his user name!!!... he is a user with several stars....


The Quotes from Li Hongzhi Say What They Mean

Dilip,

I notice in your response you avoid making reference to Li's many quotes on Fa-rectification, and prefer instead to draw (inacccurate)analogies to other religions. Li Honhzi is a lot clearer than you are in his meaning, especially when it comes to Fa-rectification and practitioners becoming Gods. If you choose not to acknowledge these things publicly, there's little I can do about it. After all, Master Li does say to his practitioners "you absolutely must not speak at the higher levels" when talking with ordinary people. (San Francisco,2005) Why should I expect anything different from you now?

As it stands now, there is no balance or objectivity in the Wikipedia piece. If the anonymous user you refer to has several stars and absolute editing powers, then God bless him.

So let's pretend that the Falun Gong Wikipedia report is complete and balanced, without explaining the concept of Fa-rectification in detail, or without having a section on the very real contorversies about Master Li's teachings (by which I mean other than relations with China.)

Some people will go to Wikipedia and believe what they read. Others will recognize the self-promotion for what it is. 

--Tomananda 07:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Explaining some context

You say that the San francisco lecture says: "must not speak at too high a level" .. (you changed the wordings of the quote... but..)let me ask you - what was the context??? isnt it when letting others know about the persecution in China!!!!.... putting it so much out of context is really nothing more than a joke made in grotesque taste!!!

I must also say that practitioners would point out there is a lot more context to the quotes than what I point out.... ... many would be able to address the issues you have raised in much greater depth and clarity... I respect faith and I apologize to those practitioners who are reading this... further, to understand the context even superficially requires studying the teachings in great depth.... so I wont be able to share with you completely all the context I am aware of... there are pages to be written on each quote if you are have an understanding that can atleast be referred to as "an understanding"...but I will try to... pls read through in detail...

1. There is no concept of "A God" in cultivation ways... and the aim of cultivation practice is achieving "buddhahood"...Gautama was Mr Gautama before he completed his cultivation and he taught what he had enlightened-to to save people... taught them a path to Buddhahood( or godhood or perfection)...a cultivation way... He taught HIS OWN DHARMA... th dharma he had enlightened to.. Gnostics believe Jesus practiced cultivation in the cultivation way of "The Great Arcanum" ( see www.gnosis-usa.com )... incarnated his christ (achieved buddhahood/ perfection ) and taught what he had enlightened-to to save people... and that masters/buddhas in the gnostic school tkes care of cultivators in that school.... guiding them inn cultivation...

“I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth.” “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

2. Usually cultivation ways require people to leave the "mundane world".. go through unspeakable hardships and the path is considered almost impossible to walk... the Katha Upanishad (ancient vedic scripture) calls the path of cultivation "The Razor's Edge"... cultivation in a Dafa is considered to be the easiest.. one that be can walked without leaving the mundane world.... and a Dafa is only revealed because of profound historical reasons... If a being cant cultivate to perfection in Dafa... it is considered almost impossible for him to walk the path... his endurance is considered far from adequate... 

 “If I cannot save you, nobody can do it.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition.  p. 160 on-line document at:   http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html


... The dharma is taught to offer salvation to sentient beings... to show them a path (which they themselves must walk) to achive perfection( in every sense of the word)... Like I said before all cultivation ways require the Master to carefully guide the disciple and protect him.... compare similarity with buddhist and gnostic reaching... Gautama Buddha offered salvation to all sentient beings.. he is said to have protected the path of cultivation for his disciples.... All traditions say that it is impossible to cultivate without protection from high level masters.... Gautama Buddha himself said he had masters guiding him and protecting him during cultivation... Li Hongzhi has also said that had masters guiding him in his path of cultivation... 

 “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you.  Therefore, I must take care of you.”   Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.

c)

When a Dharma is taught there are profound reasons... The orthodox Fa is not causually taught....

“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.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition. p. 101


Regarding what Buddhism says on "Dharma-Ending time":

"Alas! In the evil time

Of the Dharma-Ending Age,

Living beings' blessings are slight,

It is difficult to train them.

Far indeed from the sages of the past!

Their deviant views are deep.

Demons are strong, the Dharma is weak;

Many are the wrongs and injuries.

Hearing the door of the Thus Come One's sudden teaching,

They hate not destroying it as they would smash a tile.

The doing is in the mind;

The body suffers the calamities.

There's no need for unjust accusations that shift the blame to others.

If you don't wish to invite the karma of the unintermittent [hell],

Do not slander the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma. "

-Gautama Buddha (SE 62-63)

http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89

According to buddhism (Gautama Buddha ) this is the Dharma Ending period in which all the teachings would cease to exist and a Great Way would spread . Hinduism calls this the kali yuga... gnostics also have very similar beliefs regarding the matter... I refer you to the above link to a Buddhist website.. which says this is the Dharma Ending Period... According to the Buddhist scripture the time period during which the orthodox Fa would spread again is characterized by several things including the reversal of Yin and Yang.. which according to chinese belief started in the 60s... according to gnostic belief it started on February 4th 1962....

3.

Dafa is cultivation ... studying Zhuan falun... which is considered by practitioners to encompass great inner meaning and to constantly guide the practitioner in letting go of all attachments like hatred, lust,greed, jealousy .. studying Zhuan Falun IS considered central to progressing in cultivation... we say that in the beliefs section...buddhist monks study the scriptures a lot... why? it guides them in cultivation... always having the teachings in mind helps the practitioner assimilate to zen-shan-ren... and let go of all bad things in his own mind.... exercises are to strengthen energy mechanism that continually transform ones benti.. the teachings guide the practitioner in cultivation...

“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.

4.

Achieving "god-hood" is letting go of all bad aggregates/attachments and achieving perfection... according to gnosticism, when all the bad aggregates are removed the WILL is freed to great extent.... and higher faculties emerge.... cultivation ways believe that the human is not a biped mammal with intellect... they say there are much higher faculties in the levels of the being which can be freed when one completes cultivation... and the person is said to have achieved godhood or perfection.... Li Hongzhi also makes clear that perfection can ONLY be acheived by cultivating oneself... Zhuan Falun makes it very clear that it is not achieved by belief or by praying... only through arduous cultivation...

“I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)

5. All taditions believe that it is the Dharama that guides the evolution of the cosmos... the law that guides all cosmic changes.... the law that can guide a cultivator in his course of cultivation... the law that has manifestations at all levels...Dafa means the Great Dharma...

“Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.” “Using at Will” (June 28, 200) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.

6. This absolutely is no threatening or anything of that sort!!!! Where did you get that idea from???.... It says that the master protects and guides the cultivator in cultivation; all the way to the end.... I request EVERYBODY reading this to please read the chapter/page containing the quote from Zhuan Falun 

“My Fashen (law body) knows everything. He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything. He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p. 170.


In all traditions... distorting/slandering the Dafa is considered the Greatest sin a sentient being can make.... see previous quote by Gautama Buddha too.. Buddha shayamuni sas that he who distorts the Dharma would have to go through 49 levels of Hell. In Pistis Sophia Jesus Christ says that he who slanders a true teaching will have to suffer the "49 demons"... “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things (plagiarized Li’s Dafa). Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I


7. 'Evil' doesnot refer to the true self of the 'person'!!pls see next section an prvious post i had made.....according to all traditions, Slanderng the dharma is said to bring upon oneself terrible karma... and if a person's words cause a being to lose his oppurtunity to cultivate the sin is considered unforgivable in the gnostic tradition....see buddhist belief in quote above... 

   “Let me tell you,  when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.”  “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000),  p. 1.

b) Pls see my prev post.. "evil beings" are evil beings that manipulate human minds to sin... never humans...

"You yourself are a primordial self that is unchangeable."...."When one breaks his frame of thought, he will easily feel and perceive his good temperament, disposition, fundamental nature and character which have formed his real self."..."One's Chief Spirit will not change because of the notions it has produced. Chief Spirit will not have its nature changed because of the notions it has produced. The human nature can be buried in, covered with or entirely surrounded by various notions and different kinds of karma and cannot show itself, but it will not change." -Zhuan Falun II

“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”

“A Suggestion” (April 10,2001) in Essentials for Further Advancement II

Note: Since homosexuality is one of the world’s ten evils, and homosexuals have “dark hearts, turning demonic” there’s no question that practicing homosexuals will be “weeded out” by Master Li’s great “Fa-rectification.” See: “The World’s Ten Evils” (July 7, 1998)

See: http://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614

c) ... what is meant by "dregs" of humanity? beings that harm mankind... and what is the "degenrate world"??

"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out." Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28


d) All traditions predict huge catastrophies and epidemics during this time... no suffering is considered to be of co-incidential nature... karma is considered to be of material reality in higher dimensions and when mankind's karma reaches terrible extents huge catastrophies and epidemics are said to manifest... that is considered to be the nature of the cosmos... by all traditions.. be it hinduism, gnosticism, buddhism or zoroastrainism... falun dafa lectures say that the immense catastrophies predicted in the ancient scriptures are non-existant....


“The number who will be weeded out is large and terrifying. At the beginning people will still feel shocked, while by the end they'll be numb to it. What kind of state will a person be in when he sees dead people strewn everywhere on the street?” “Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Conference” (November 29, 2003) Q & A section.

"Fa- rectification is not a "practice"... it is part of cultivation...The closest phrase I can find to it is the Hindu concept of "Dharma Punastaapana"... The dharma/teachings (Fa) rectifies the practitioners own heart... eliminating all evil within and the evil within the cosmic space encompassed by his bodies( not the physical body).... evil doesnot mean "evil people" ... there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH CONCEPT... EVIL refers to aggregates removed from the nature of the cosmos(zen shan ren) that control human thinking .... for instace ancient hindustani scriptures say... "you may hate sin... but never hate the sinner"...

See what Li Hongzhi says about homosexuality: "You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy."

...we see that homosexuality is strongly opposed in all traditions including gnosticism( see quote above from pistis sophia) and Buddist scriptures.. homosexuality is bad... doesnt mean homosexuals are!!!!!! ... hatred is bad.. doesnt mean who ever has felt hatred is!!!

... all cultivation ways clearly distinguish between aggregates that manipualte human thoughts to make them accumulate karma( referred to as evil) and the person himself.... They also point out that some of the greatest cultivators have risen from the sinners of the past...

.. we see that in the teachings, cultivators are asked.. never to harbour even the slightest trace of hatred against the police men who torture them in prison... not to see it with human thoughts... to see that they themselves are being manipulated by the "evil"...

... The content you are trying to add is terribly inaccurate.... pulling out a few quote from here and there and attributing to them meaning that were never intented is...

-Dilip rajeev

One More Time

Dilip,

You've gone off on a tangent. Here are the two paragraphs I wrote:

Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.

Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)

You've offered a lot of extraneous comments, but you have failed to say what of the above you find incorrect. For example, do you disagree with my statement that "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa." The Master says:

"I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)

So what is wrong with my sentence, if anything?

And by the way, do you believe you are already a God...or on your way to becoming a God? You know, I have been told by some practitioners who are married (hetorsexual) that their spouse has said to them they are a God. But these marriages usually wind up breaking up. Are you married? Is your wife a Falun Gong practitioner? You know, one of the complaints about Falun Gong is how it breaks up families.

--Tomananda 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Questioning each others beliefs is off point a bit. We should stick to discussing the article. --Fire Star 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please go through Falun Dafa books

I am not going "off-tangent". I pointed out why your statements are inaccurate ... and that you are (intentionally or otherwise) putting the quotes out of context...

Buddhist concept of cultivation is cultivation of buddhahood... "Buddha-hood" is achieved through cultivation--never by "standing up" for anybody!!! where did u get that idea from....??? A falun gong practitioner is a cultivator- nothing more; nothing less.

My concept of "god" is so very different from yours!!... I request you to please study the books and lectures of the gnostic cultivation way... www.gnosis-usa.com ... you will understand what cultivation ways mean by the concept "god" ...I have never seen any practitioner who has claimed themselves to be gods!!! I have seen Falun Dafa practice bringing peace, joy and health to innumerable families... I am yet to see a family break up because of Falun Dafa... i just happenned to read this article.. I request you to patiently go through the entire article... http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/3/1/70417.htmlhealth survery conductd by reputed researchers show a 99% improvement rate in mental health with Falun Gong practice and a CURE rate of 58%!!!

You may also interact with me over my email id... dilip_rajeev@msn.com

Friend, when you so emphatically want to put foward Falun Gong as a mind control cult ( i cant understand Why!!!).. please see that one of the world's greatest authorities on physchiatry - Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. (Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) .. is himself a Board Member of Friends of Falun Gong ....

Again, please sign posts, as you are editing from a rotating IP it is hard to follow sometimes. The issue isn't that any of us think FLG is a cult, it is that Steve Hassan and his colleagues do. It also doesn't matter what any of us think of God or gods. Whether the cult experts take Li's statements out of context or not isn't our problem, they are notable, verifiably documented critics and should be in the article. We can provide the context of what FLG stands for and what its critics believe about them, the reader has to make up their own mind, we don't make it up for them. This is the controversial nature of FLG that I was on about earlier, a lot of people are wary of Li and his public position. We have to report that. --Fire Star 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Newly Introduced Paragraphs

The newly introduced paragraphs in the "beliefs" section:

"Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li's role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.

Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”"

Has been edited to improve accuracy and bring it closer to what is said in the books... Please see Zhuan Falun... and the quotes below..

Falun Dafa is said to be the only "orthodox Fa" being taught during the "Dharma ending period". Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all disciples during cultivation and that a person may be considered to be a disciple only if he cultivates his xinxing(mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of Dafa. It is said that while a cultivator can achieve a disease free state; birth, old-age, sickness and death are just "facts of life" for ordinary people. And thus, a person can only be helped if he can elevate his mind-nature to the level of a cultivator.

If practitioners cultivate in accordance with Dafa, it is said that the goal of cultivation practice- Buddhahood can be achieved. It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa(Dharma) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa(Dharma) in the process of Fa-rectification. Slandering the Fa(Dharma) is considered an act that brings terrible karma on oneself. It is also said that those who slander the Dafa, the "dregs" of humanity and others who have accumulated a lot of karma are likely to be eliminated when the Fa(Dharma) rectifies the human world.

Never has it been said that "homosexuals" and "corrupt people" are to be eliminAted in Fa rectification... the word "salvation" is rarely used ... it iS the concept of achieving Buddhahood ...... The concept of Fa- Rectification concisely presented before it is dicussed... it is only said that birth old age sickness and deaths are "facts of life" and manifestations of the Fa at this level... never anything to the effect that if a person stops practicing, old-age, sickness and "even" death ...I HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE IS AN ATTEMPT(DELIBERATE or OTHERWISE) TO COMPLETELY DISTORT WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOOK... I cant understand how this person would miss the word "birth"!!!

and ' "dregs" of humanity ' CHANGED TO ' "dregs of humanity" '(position of the quote)

.... something else of importance that I wanted to point out.... the para added lately said "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa."!!! .... 

this lecture from Frankfurt germany , emphatically says:

If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either


FROM LECTURES IN EUROPE(Germany):

" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart in order to save a person.If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t change, even a Buddha can’t help him. "

From Zhuan Falun....


"We emphasize one point: If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the same as committing a bad deed. "......... "Why can this be done for a practitioner, then? It is because a practitioner is most precious, for he or she wants to practice cultivation. Therefore, developing this thought is most precious. ".... .."Therefore, once a person wants to practice cultivation, his or her Buddha-nature is considered to have come forth. Such a thought is most precious, for this person wants to return to his or her original, true self and transcend the ordinary human level.

Perhaps everyone has heard this statement in Buddhism: “When one’s Buddha-nature emerges, it will shake ‘the world of ten directions.’” Whoever sees it will come to give a hand and help this person out unconditionally. In providing salvation to humankind, the Buddha School does not attach any condition or seek returns, and it will help unconditionally. Accordingly, we can do many things for practitioners. But for an everyday person who just wants to be an everyday person and to cure his or her illness, it will not work." Dilip rajeev 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, Please donot replace the factual verion of the paragraphs in the beliefs section with a POV version. i was thinking it is an edit conflit... I am the praragraphs with the factual version. Please see to it that it is not reverted... Tibetan tantrism, lamaism, shakyamunis teachings are all considered cultivation ways in falun dafa... it is never said that falun gong is the only cultivation way!!See my above post too... -Dilip Rajeev

Florid prose ==

The rewrite of Tomananda's latest paragraphs that I have reverted twice now introduces language that implies (among other things) that any criticism of FLG is "slander". That itself is a POV. I feel that the language should be left in the drier version, instead of the version that reads like an FLG advert. --Fire Star 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Fire Star,

I used the word slander becaue that is the word used in the lectures... it is NOT SAID ANYWHERE THAT "CRITICIZING" The Dharma would bring a lot of karma on the inividual.... the word used in the lectures is "SLANDER"... i think "slander" and "criticism" are different....

But the version you are putting in doesn't have the word slander in quotes. Without quotes, it has to be a paraphrase, and "criticizing" is a neutral description of behaviour to be punished by "Fa-rectification". The wording is going to have to be changed. You have said in edit summaries that it isn't "remotely factual" yet Tomananda has done a pretty good job of documenting these things to be what Li has said. FLG practitioners may see what Li has said many different ways, but unless the interpretation is published elsewhere (and even then it will be one interpretation of many) we shouldn't have it in the article. --Fire Star 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Fire Star,

Criticism and slander are different things. The lectures say slandering the dafa is an act that brings karma on oneself... we say in the beliefs section that slandering the dahma is considered....

I am not talking about interpretations. A quote has no meaning outside the "context"... If you just read the pargraph surrounding the quote or the chapter it is in, you will understand what I am talking about... and you may verify for yourself by reading the books...

"not even remotely factual" is to put it mildly.. let me please point out a few things....

Tomananada says according to Falun Gong, one can achieve comsummation (he uses the word salvation) by "standing up" for falun gong!!! it is repeatedly said in the lectures only by cultivating one's xinxing can you go forward in cultivation... and even praying or hoping for things to go well in cultivation is considered futile:

"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either..." - Lectures in Europe


It is said in the lectures that while a cultivator can achieve a disease free state; birth, old-age, sickness and death are just "facts of life" for ordinary people. And thus, a dis-ease free state can be achieved only if a person can elevate his mind-nature to the level of a cultivator. but tomananda puts it as :

"if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them."


you wont find anything of that sort in the lectures!!! and pls note the "even death" part!!!

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

I have added a request for comment at the above link in order to solicit further input on this apparent impasse. --Fire Star 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Response to Request for Comments

Fire Star: I am happy with your most recent edit Revision 3:16 13 march 2006. However, I have spent most of today composing a long response to your request for comments which winds up with slightly different wording, but the same meaning. Either version (your's or mine) is fine with me. I'm very sorry for adding so much length to the discussion page:

Revision as of 16:15, 12 March 2006

Line 37:

1. Paragraph One, sentence one:

Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s roles as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period.

Sources:

a) “Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation in the future. If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition. p. 160 on-line document at: http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture8.html#4

b) “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you. Therefore, I must take care of you.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20. http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

c) “Some people say, ‘If I believe in Jesus, I will be able to go to heaven.’ I say that you won't. Why not? It is because people nowadays do not understand the true meaning of what Jesus said.” Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney, Australia), p.4 http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

d) “The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was provided for ordinary people of the extremely low levels two thousand five hundred years ago, who just evolved from the primitive society with simple minds. The Dharma-ending Period that he referred to is today. Now people can no longer practice cultivation with that Dharma. Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd print edition, p.13

Comment:

The words save (in the soteriological sense) or salvation were spoken by Master Li 40 times in the Sydney speech alone.


2. Paragraph One, sentence Two:

If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li’s Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.

Source:

“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun? It is to guide your cultivation practice! As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.” “What is Cultivation Practice?” (September 6, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version. http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz51.htm

Comments:

1). In order to make the edit correspond exactly with Li’s words (see 4b), I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”

2) I do not object to substituting the word consummation for salvation, but then this would require defining the word consummation. Since salvation is the more general word, understood by everyone, I argue that it works better in this very short summary.


3. Paragraph One, sentence Three:

Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.

Sources:

a) “I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high.” (Applause) Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference (February 15, 2003) http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2003/2/27/32713.html

b) “A Dafa disciple who fails to achieve the effect of the safeguarding and upholding Dafa has no way of reaching Consummation.” “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Same source as C below:

c) “Dafa disciples are magnificent because you are here at the same time as the period of Master’s Fa-rectification and are able to safeguard and uphold Dafa. If what you do is no longer worthy of a Dafa disciple, think about it, if under the greatest mercy since the beginning of Heaven and Earth and under Buddha’s infinite grace you still can’t do well, how could there be another chance?” “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 40 http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_40.htm

Comments:

1). Li’s promise to turn his practitioners into Gods appears fairly frequently in his more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples. Who wouldn’t want to be turned into a God?

2). “Safeguarding and upholding the Dafa” is an essential requirement that Master Li puts on his practitioners. He speaks about it frequently. In these quotes, he explicitly associates that requirement with both “reaching consummation” and being “worthy of a Dafa disciple.”

By replacing my wording with the statement that a person can be considered a disciple “only if he cultivates his xinxing (mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of the Dafa” practitioner Dilip is engaging in apologetics (to use Fire Star’s term). It is essential to explicitly state Li’s larger teaching that you must also “safeguard and uphold the Dafa” in order to be considered his disciple.

3) In keeping with the spirit of making the summary words agree with Li’s own words, even when they are not directly quoted, I would agree to changing “stand up for the Dafa” to “safeguard and uphold the Dafa.”


4. Paragraph Two, sentence one:

Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them.

Sources:

a) “Practitioners will gain protection from my Law Bodies (fashen) when they accept my Falun Dafa teachings and genuinely practice cultivation. As long as you persevere in practicing cultivation, my Law Bodies will protect you until you reach Consummation. Should you decide to stop cultivating at some point, my Law Bodies will leave you.” The Great Consumation Way of Falun Dafa (translation updated April 2001) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/dymf_1.htm#8

b) “If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” “Issue of Pursuit,” Zhuan Falen, Third Edition,,Internet (March 2000) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html#5

c) “If you follow the right way in cultivation practice, nobody will dare to touch you casually. Besides, you have the protection of my Fashen (law body), and you will not run into any danger.” “What Has the Teacher Given to Practitioners,” Zhuan Falen, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000): http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html#8

d) “Falun Gong cultivators look quite different in age from everyday people—they do not look their actual age. So the primary features of cultivation methods that cultivate both mind and body are: prolonging life, deterring aging, and lengthening people’s life expectancy.” “Characteristics of Falun Gong Cultivation in Falun Gong” in Falun Gong (4th translation edition, April 2001) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg_2.htm#3


Here are some examples of “bad things” that are removed, but can return to you:

-- illness and aging: While you are cultivating “you will look like an ordinary person from the appearance. The only difference is that you will appear younger than those who are your age. Certainly, the bad things in your body will, first of all, have to be removed, including illnesses.” Zhuan Falun, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture1.html#7


-- death for those who plagiarize Li’s Dafa: “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement I. http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz55.htm

Comments:

1. I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”

2. The above quotes fully establish the idea that Li and his Fashen (law bodies) protect Falun Gong practitioners. It is an essential teaching. In fact, virtually all of the benefits that a practitioner gets from cultivating are at some point dependent upon the direct intervention of Master Li. He installs a Falun (rotating law wheel) in the abdomen of each of the practitioners, which is necessary for cultivation. His Fashen knows everything on a practitioner’s minds, but will not take care of that practitioner if he does not practice cultivation. And in the karma-elimination process, although a practitioner can get rid of a lot of his karma by his own cultivating efforts, he cannot eliminate all of his karma without the direct help of the Master.

3. The above quotes also clearly establish the idea that through cultivation, and with Master Li’s help, practitioners can reap benefits such as having illness removed, deterring aging and prolonging life.

4. While practitioner Dilip is correct in pointing out that a practitioner must also cultivate his xinxing (mind-nature) as part of the practice, he fails to acknowledge the essential role of Master Li. Although Li has never claimed to be God, he does claim powers that only a God could have and, when pressed, many practitioners will admit to thinking of him as God. But they are told by Li not to talk to ordinary people about Gods or the higher level teachings. Li said exactly that last year at a speech in San Francisco. The reason why writing an objective piece about the Falun Gong is so difficult is because practitioners hold back their core beliefs. Yes, it is all available on the internet...but how many people have the patience to ferrit it all out?


5. Paragraph Two, sentence two:

If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people and the “dregs of humanity” can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”

Sources:

a) weeding out people who don’t think the Dafa is good:

“Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.” “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000), p. 1.

b) weeding out “evil beings”

“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.” “A Suggestion” (April 10, 2001) Essentials for Further Advancement II http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_25.htm

c) weeding out “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world”

“Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28: http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm

Comments:

1. I would agree to change “live up to the Dafa” to “follow the requirements of the Fa” so that the wording will reflect Li’s words exactly.

2. Concerning the categories of people who will be “weeded out” in Master Li’s Fa-rectification, I agree to word changes that will reflects Li’s words more exactly. The complete new sentence now reads:

“If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.”

A possible revised edit becomes:

Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.

Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.” --Tomananda 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette

Fire Star: I spent many hours documenting the two paragraph edit above using Li Honzhi wording throughout. It is an important and accurate reflection of Falun Gong beliefs, but one which Falun Gong practitioners don't like. As you know, Dilip had posted his own two paragraph version which can be considered apologetics and you had twice previously deleted his version through the use of revisions. Now I find a new Falun Gong practitioner has again re-posted the Dilip version using as his justification "descriptive version preferred."

As I've said before, Falun Gong practitioners work hard to conceal Master Li's higher level teachings from the public. If you read Master Li's November, 2005 San Francisco speech you will see why: Li Hongzhi SF Speech

There are thousand of Falun Gong practitioners who could log on to Wikipedia every day and re-post the Dilip version over and over again. This would be nonsense. Instead of respondig to the justifications I have entered above, practitioner Aparna is simply trying to force a particular point of view.

I've gone ahead and posted my version for the first time.

Can you intervene to make sure proper Wikipedia edit is followed in this discussion?

--Tomananda 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I do keep this page on my watchlist, and I have recently posted a request for input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. That is just a first step. If we get buried, I will ask other administrators to step in, and they can protect the page, ban spammers, etc. I feel it is unethical for myself to exercise such functions because I have edited here so much. I appreciate what you've contributed, as well as others, because we do want a fair and neutral presentation. Dilip has compromised quite a bit, and I am always willing to, but I feel that verifiable information should not be removed or glossed over in any article. I'm helping out as a 3rd party in a dispute over at Mahavatar Babaji that may interest you. The dispute is a little different, but the religious nature of the article and how to deal with such a hotbutton diplomatically is always interesting! Regards, --Fire Star 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The San Fransisco lecture only says that practitioners must not talk "at too high a level" when telling people about the "persecution" in china. Falun Gong practitioners believe there are higher cosmic factors behind it. I dont see anything like you imply in the lecture.

"Aparna" has only made the context behind the things you put in clear. I dont think she removed any information. I certainly would prefer a version that makes context clear and brings more facts to the reader over a POV. Msriram 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Generalized Apologetics is Not a Response to a Serious Revision

So now it begins, a parade of Falun Gong practitioners editing in the same two paragraphs that Dilip entered some days ago, again and again, not once referring to the actual wording in the revision I submitted before Dilip replaced my two paragraphs with his, or the copious sources I have cited to justify that language (see item #24 above). This is not how a cooperative discussion about Wikipedia content is supposed to occur. Vital information to understanding what the Falun Gong really teaches has been systematically edited out by practitioners, and that should not be allowed to stand.

Msriram, Aparna and Dilip: Why do you continue to reject my wording that comes directly from Master Li concerning his self-proclaimed role as savior; Fa-rectification and the people who will be weeded out; and how he promises to turn practitioners into Gods? A careful review of Master Li's statements will show that the language I have used reflects exactly what he has said in countless writings, recent speeches, the Essentials, and elsewhere. Fa-rectification and Li's role as the only Savior of mankind in this Dharma-ending period is core to the teaching and you know it. Yet you want to conceal any meaningful report on that. Why?

Here's what Master Li said in his San Francisco speech:

"So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high a level." He went on to tell practitioners they should only talk about the persecution in China and then concluded "As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things."

Yet in Wikipedia we must "talk about those things" if the piece on Falun Gong is going to have any pretense of objectivity and balance. Just because the Master wants you to focus on the persecution now, does not justify editing out the soteriological teachings of Master Li. Otherwise, the Wikipedia piece becomes nothing more than an advertisment for the Falung Gong's political agenda in China.

If there is an administrator monitoring this discussion, I ask that you read through the postings above and weigh in on this debate. It doesn't make sense to revert over and over again the same two paragraphs.

--Tomananda 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Tomananda. I don't oppose to mentioning these things in the article, but you don't seem to assume good faith and acknowledge that other people have indeed tried to contextualize them, not simply "cover them up". For sure, their editions have not been entirely neutral, either, but instead of obstinately reverting the changes, each party should be open to suggestions. Certain questions do stir up emotional reactions, but we must strive towards objectivity and neutrality in any case. An editor isn't necessarily able to perceive his or her own bias. This applies to you, me, as well as any other contributor.
You say you've been studing Li Hongzhi's teachings in-depth, but you still seem to omit crucial aspects of the articles. Li has stated multiple times that specifically those who directly commit sins against the Buddha Dharma, support the persecution and choose the side of the Chinese Communist Party will be in serious trouble. Of course, people have different interpretations, and I think Li elaborates on the issue from multiple viewpoints. But considering the quotes below, for example, your additions are not sufficient, nor do they convey a neutral representation of his teachings.
I think the idea of "not speaking on too high level" has nothing to do with hiding the actual content of the teachings. If anybody is interested, he has access to all the material instantly. But if somebody's personal view of the world doesn't conform to Falun Dafa's teachings, he doesn't have to have anything to do with all this stuff about gods, cultivation and Buddhahood. How convenient - nobody's trying to convert you, and you're just asked to condemn the CCP's crimes against humanity, which is something that every moral person ought to agree with. But there are actually lots of muddle-headed individuals who have lost their conscience; just because they don't agree with the "high-level" content of Dafa, they actually believe that the persecution, imprisonments, torture, murders and organ harvesting are somehow justified or acceptable to a greater or lesser extent, and that is indeed dangerous (from Falun Dafa's point of view).
I think you should comment on the following quotes. Shouldn't we add these things to the article as well?
1. 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. That is the greatest mercy and true salvation. That's because in the universe positive and negative beings co-exist, and that is the principle of yin and yang and their mutual generation. (Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World)
2. It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world's people come to know it for what it is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying to do--our goal is to save sentient beings. Many things here in the human world, here in the delusion, are hard to see for what they are, so it's a matter of how people look at and understand things. (Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago, 2005)
3. When Dafa rectifies the Fa in the cosmos, things are carried out in a way different from in any cultivation form of the past, where [the cultivation form] would be responsible for only one particular type of being or the beings within only a certain range. Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved, which includes all forms of life that are created by gods and are present in a person’s main body. What’s more, many people have undergone great hardships over the course of the long, drawn-out years, so how could they not be saved? Aren’t humans the primary beings in the Three Realms? Don’t all of the beings in the Three Realms need to be saved? Then this cultivation form as well as the foundation that the human race has laid and the suffering that it has gone through over the course of the long years of history—isn’t it exactly these things that have enabled human beings to gain the greatest mighty-virtue of all time? And shouldn’t these beings be deemed the most outstanding and considered first for salvation? When this human place is made the base point of Fa-rectification, isn’t it only fitting that the first priority be to set free this group of beings, human beings? (Teaching the Fa at the 2005 Canada Fa Conference)
4. Everything that Dafa disciples are doing today and everything in society you encounter, I can tell you, you are saving all beings. So no matter what kind of person you meet, what strata of society he’s from, or what profession he’s in, don’t think that you’re just going to him to explain the truth merely because evil is persecuting Dafa disciples. I’ll tell you, saving all beings is first and foremost, and clarifying the truth is the way to save people. When people understand the facts and find out how wicked the persecution is, people will naturally know what to do. And if afterwards you ask him to lend support and do something about it, that’s him choosing a future. So with those people who’ve been deceived in the persecution, all the more so, how could you not give them a chance? If you don’t tell them the facts they will lose their futures forever. (Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Fa Conference)
Later I can search for more similar quotes related to these issues, if you wish, but right now I don't have time for intense scrutiny. I think it's obvious that a person's attitude towards the persecution is the only determining factor.
As for people's bodies being returned back to their original state if they don't cultivate according to Dafa, that might just be true. I'm really surprised to see the "supernatural" changes in a lot of people's bodies, including my own; sometimes, the practitioners' radiant appearance is truly eye-catching. They got it by cultivating in Falun Dafa, so I don't have problems believing that it might be gone if they decide to stop.
Humans becoming "gods" through cultivation practice isn't really a new idea, maybe it just seems unbelievable to a lot of folks. We're basically talking about forgotten cultural heritage. Besides, the concept of a "god" is not exactly the same in Eastern and Western traditions:
Suppose a man sitting here could do things without moving his hands and feet, [and] the other people could not do [them] even by moving their hands and feet - in those backward times [in ancient China], wouldn't people have called him a god? But actually, he's just a man with a cultivation achievement. (Lecture 1, audio recording from Guangzhou 1994)
I look forward to your comments, and I do believe we can reach a consensus. All the best to you, Tomananda!
---Olaf Stephanos 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck do you know of Chinese history anyway? Oh the CCP harvest organs just because the Epoch Times said so?Someone can't grasp the concept of NOPV--PatCheng 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

Tomananda, Friend, I think the quotes pointed out by Olaf Stephanos quite clearly show that Falun Gong doesnt have the kind of beliefs you talk about in the paragraphs. And I dont consider pointing out errors in the paragraph should be labelled should be labelled "apologetics". I am quite sure that you understand that too. The paragraphs are, as pointed out, inaccurate. I think we must keep the paragraph (either version) out of the text till we reach a consensus through further discussion. The content of the paragraph is not something that long term editors of this article (like Olaf Stephanos) agree with. I think the paragraph requires futher dicussion, and the consent of multiple editors. Dilip rajeev 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip:

You are wrong. Every statement in the two paragraphs is supported by Master Li Hongzhi's own teachings and the citations for the quotes are provided in topic #24 above. You are avoiding acknowledging the truth of Master Li's teachings to the general public, and that is a component of apologetics as defined by Wikipedia. The two paragraphs in question were, in fact, a revision of my words done by Fire Star and entered by him at the place you now find them. Fire Star, as you know, is an editor.

Fire Star: Please help. This kind of bullying by multiple FG practitioners is not fair, nor is there any reason in the argument. If there is a POV in my two paragrpahs, it is Master Li Hongzhi's point of view, which the practitioners don't want to be made public.

--Tomananda 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A POV doesn't only consist of what is said; it also involves what is not said, as well as what expressions are used. As I said, I don't oppose to mentioning these things in the article, but they must be contextualised by further information. Editing such a controversial article is not easy, and nobody should insert his or her contribution by fiat. I have nothing against a consensus. We're editors discussing an article, not "bullies". Regards, Olaf Stephanos 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: The comment about "bullying" had to do with the succession of practioners who one after another simply replaced my edit, which had previously been posted on the discussion page for comments, with a radical revision done by Dilip. I have provided copious citations for my modest edit revision which, by the way, was placed where it now is by Fire Star. I have accepted that it can be relegated to the end of the Beliefs section, but I cannot accept that over and over again practitioners simply delete and replace it with their own two paragraphs, while also claiming what I have written is inaccurate. It is not.

Perhaps the problem here is that no one wants to read through the long list of citations I provided above (see item #24) so in the spirit of cooperation I have added a Li Hongzhi quote to the text to support the first paragraph. I can certainly do a similar addtion for the second paragraph, but would appreciate any comments there are concerning the first paragraph. --Tomananda 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: Are you the same Finnish graduate student of cultural history and comparative religion who has done some postings on the homophobia of the Falun Gong at the sf.indymedia.org website? [3] The person who posted on that website identified himself as a Falun Gong practitioner, saying "And I really think Falun Gong hit the bull's eye: in my opinion, this is the real thing." If you are one and the same person, can you really be objective as a higher level editor on this piece? Is it possible to get a second editor involved in this discussion, so that there's a real balance of opinions at the editor level? --Tomananda 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very succinctly, Li Hongzhi does indeed seem to promise that he is a universal saviour and that by following him precisely he can change you into a divine being. Also, not everyone who is sceptical of Li and FLG approves of what the CCP has done to them. Wikipedia isn't a place for FLG practitioners to explain away what Li has said, or to assert that FLG is orthodox Buddhist or Taoist teaching, or for anyone else to assert that the CCP is right and FLG had it coming. Editors with a pro-FLG POV are welcome to edit, but as the edit screen says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. In any Wikipedia article, if other editors don't agree with what you are putting in, they are going to change it. I have modified Tomananda's prose somewhat on occasion, as people have modified mine. If someone were to come here and put in the article that Li Hongzhi is a baby-eating demon, I would take that out, too. If people really want their version in, the first step in a compromise is to include it without removing the work of others. That is much less likely to be completely removed than an edit at the expense of someone else. There is no gurantee that it won't at least be changed, of course. A friend of mine told me he didn't like Wikipedia because he thought it was like "writing in sand". That is how it must seem to people who feel attached to their writing. --Fire Star 23:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I dont think your strategy of saying anybody who differs with your view point is a falun gong practitioner is ... I read through the links you posted. I dont see anything like you are talking about. You even exaggerated the statements made by the cult experts!! Aparna r 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aparna: You'll find all the sources for the cult experts in the discussion above at: [4]

Actually, the bits taken out are pretty clearly referenced here: [5]. I'm going to be reverting. --Fire Star 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


...

The quote is sourced. But the text of the paragraphs are far from being factual. Dilip rajeev 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tomananda's accusation

You have been repeatedly making this accusation. And that is why I write this. It is only said in the lectures that the act of homosexuality is bad ( distinguish that from the person)... It is very clearly said that the person may cultivate if he can break out of that...

...Infact all the traditions I know, be it Buddhism, Christianity, or Gnosticism dont consider homosexuality normal... In Buddhism, it is, by precept, PROHIBIDDEN( see below) for a homosexual to become a monk!! Does that mean buddhists are "homophobic"??

...

The Ancient Gnostic Bible, "Pistis Sophia", considered by many scholars to be authentic teachings of Jesus Christ, says :

Bartholomew said: “A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?”

Jesus said: “The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer.

“When then the time is completed through the sphere, the receivers of Yaldabaōth come after their soul, and he with his forty-and-nine demons taketh vengeance on it eleven years.

“Thereafter they carry it to the fire-rivers and seething pitch-seas, which are full of demons with pigs’ faces. They eat into them and take vengeance on them in the fire-rivers another eleven years.

“Thereafter they carry them into the outer darkness until the day of judgment when the great darkness is judged; and then they will be dissolved and destroyed."


The Buddhist Scriptures Say:

"The pandaka (Pali for "homosexual") had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'

"The monks spoke aggressively, 'Pandaka, you will surely be ... spiritually destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" ...

He went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'

The novices spoke, 'Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?'

"The pandaka then went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. 'Come all of you and assault me.' The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him.

"The Blessed One then ordered the monks, 'Behold monks, a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained, ... and (pandakas) who have already been ordained must be made to disrobe. "


A Conversation with A Gnostic Master:

Question: A homosexual who regenerates is not a homosexual any more?

Answer: Have you ever known any homosexuals, who in their life have truly, one hundred percent, stopped being homosexual?

There are none, because they are degenerated seeds, they can not be remade, because they are rotten. It is like degenerated vegetable seeds, which do not germinate, even being sown in a very good soil and in the best conditions, they do not germinate because they are degenerated.

So, there are also human seeds, human germs, which even being germs, are degenerated, and in any way they can be changed (or improved). Try to regenerate a seed, a vegetable germ, try to place it in perfect conditions to germinate, to see if it germinates after demonstrating that it is degenerated. Obviously it would not germinate. The same happens with the germs deposited in the sexual glands; a degenerated germ never germinates. A man can not come from it; he is a lost case.

"Normally the infrasexuals of homosexuality and lesbianism enter into the submerged involution of the infernal worlds. Very rare are those cases in which (through supreme pain) they repent and in a new existence they are born amongst normal people. Those cases are very rare, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and we will still have some fingers left. "

Question: Can in the next lives, a homosexual or a lesbian, get that (appropriate) condition? Can they change? Or are they going already into a complete involution?

Answer: It could happen that, through great repentance and great pain, in a future existence, they could have a very normal body. After having passed through great pain, that is possible.

Question: Master, I have a friend, who has committed herself to treat homosexuals to find out if she can regenerate them, and in her long experience as psychologist, she has never been able to regenerate any of them.

Answer: Because it is completely impossible, they are degenerated seeds. Tell your friend not to waste her time foolishly. That is impossible, a degenerated seed, is degenerated.

Many Western Inner Traditions call the homosexual the "The Male Vampire"... And Zoroastrainism.. one of the world's oldest religions .. says... ""The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas"" -The Venidad

I dont think I need to quote the Bible... or the teachings of Judaism.... Do all these traditions fall under your definition for being "homophobic"... ?


Dilip: Your efforts to justify the intense homophobia of Li Hongzhi based on citing the anti-homosexuality teachings of other religions, while interesting, is not what is currently being discussed here. As far as I know, no one has proposed any edits to the Wikipedia Falun Gong page concerning homosexuality. I know that Master Li does not consider me human for being homosexual...I have a "dark heart, turning demonic" and my form of love does not "meet the standard of being human"....but so be it. I don't expect Master Li to be very sophisticated when it comes to issues of homosexuality having grown up, as he did, in rural China.

If you really want to pursue an in-depth discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong as it relates to the teachings of other religions, I suggest we take this conversation off the Wikipedia discussion site all together.

There was a very lengthy discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong at this site: [6] Do you want to discuss this further there? --Tomananda 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Disapproval of homosexuality is by no means exclusive to FLG. It is, however, a notable feature of FLG. If other groups also disapprove, then it is very likely to be mentioned at their articles too. In the articles, we shouldn't say FLG are justified or unjustified in their disapproval, just that they express it. Different people see things differently. Just as many will be disgusted by apparent intolerance, there are going to be very many readers who will approve of FLG's stance, I'm sure! --Fire Star 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out POVs

Tomananda, you are using too many manipulative tactics to influence other editors.

1. Where is it said: "Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them."?

In Zhuan Falun it is said: "If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the same as committing a bad deed. "


Let me ask you: where is it said that stopping cultivation practice would result in "even death" returning to the practitioner.

2. "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa."

From Lecture in Frankfurt, Germany:


" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart in order to save a person. If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t change, even a Buddha can’t help him. ""

Isnt it very clearly said that one can achieve (godhood) consummation only by cultivating one's mind-nature??

3. "requirement of Dafa" Where do you get that term from? and what are these "requirements" you speak about??

Let me keep the paras out till issues are resolved the version to be put in agreed upon. Dilip rajeev 20:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: We all have our POV's. The point here is that you have deleted the two paragraphs once again which is not in the spirit of cooperative article building. You'll notice that Fire Star has reverted the text back to the earlier version. You must by now also be aware that I have provided multiple sources for every thing that I included in those two paragraphs. You also continue to mis-represent what I have said. For example, I never said that death would result merely from stopping Falun Gong cultivation. Here's the Master Li quote:

Death for those who plagiarize Li’s Dafa: “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think your master might do something to you. You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa. Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.” “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized” (September 22, 1996) Essentials for Further Advancement I. [7]

So there you have it: if you do something really bad, like plagiarizing Master Li's Dafa, he withdraws his protection and warns that the demons will get you. These types of threats by Master Li against practitioners who do not live up to the requirments of his Dafa constitute, in my own point of view, "undue influence" in the legal sense. The practitioners are made to be fearful of what will happen to them if they should stray from Master Li's control. It's the old carrot and stick approach: do what my Dafa requires of you and I will turn you into Gods, but disobey the Dafa and I will no longer protect you from all those demons. --Tomananda 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Response to Olaf's Post Above

Olaf,

You say I don’t seem to “assume good faith” on the part of Falun Gong practitioners in this editing process. As someone who has had a great deal of communication with Falun Gong practitioners over many years, I need to point out that if you view Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult, as I do, then the tendency of practitioners to conceal their core beliefs makes a lot of sense. I don’t think Falun Gong practitioners think they are doing any thing wrong when they do this, so it would be inaccurate to accuse them of not acting ”in good faith.”

But at the same time, surely you can see in the series of communications above that there has been a stubborn resistance on the part of multiple practitioners to acknowledge even the basics of their beliefs. For example, something as simple as a statement that Li Hongzhi offers salvation to people in this Dharma ending period (forget for a moment which people can be saved), was never once acknowledged by Dilip or the other practitioners who followed after him. In fact, Dilip outrageously said that my edits weren’t even “remotely factual” and then proceeded to substitute two paragraphs of his own making in which no mention of Li Hongzhi’s role as savior is mentioned. This kind of behavior is typical for Falun Gong practitioners. On more than one occasion I have sat through a formal presentation of Falun Gong lasting more than an hour, and virtually no mention of Li Hongzhi has been made. Instead, we hear all about the health benefits of the exercises and words like “cultivation,” but no mention of the critical role Li Hongzi plays in cultivation and certainly no mention of “Fa-rectification.”

My goal in making modest (in terms of length at least) edits is to insert into this article some facts about the teachings which, as you suggest, may make Falun Gong practitioners uncomfortable. Fire Star has stated that when we add something in an edit, we shouldn’t do that at the expense of another person. In other words, where there is a debate about what needs to be included, we should add rather than replace content. Using that as a guiding principle, I will suggest some additions to the two paragraphs that now appear at the bottom of the Beliefs section to accommodate some of you concerns.

1. You point out that in Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World Li Hongzhi said that Fa-rectification is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones. I agree that some mention of this needs to be made, but not at the expense of other statements Li Hongzhi has made about Fa-rectification and the weeding out people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.” Li Hongzhi has made many statements about Fa-rectification and the categories of people he says who will be “weeded out.” As with any prolific author, he sometimes seems to contradict himself. When that occurs, a good article will report the apparent contradictions, not hide them.

2. You point out that Master Li states that it is for the purpose of saving people that “we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is.” Although I know Li Hongzhi has said words to that effect, I do not believe that it belongs in the two paragraphs we are now talking about. Keep in mind that I had originally inserted a version of those two paragraphs in the introduction. When Fire Star modified the paragraphs slightly and inserted them at the end of the Beliefs section, it was an acknowledgment that some important teachings had been left out.

In terms of the overall composition of the piece, we can either have a separate section on the controversies surrounding Falung Gong (see the Wikipedia piece on Scientology for a possible model) or we can continue using the overall organization we presently have. Under the present structure, I strongly argue that a discussion of the beliefs of Falun Gong must be presented independent of the situation in China, which is covered in great detail in other sections.

Also, I need to point out that language such as “wicked” to describe the CCP is, itself, a point of view. There’s a counter argument that can be made about the status of Falun Gong practitioners in China along these lines: While we all condemn the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners for their beliefs, the ban of Falun Gong that was instituted by the government in 1999 was justified based on the need to protect society from Li Hongzhi’s dangerous teachings (eg: “sickness karma”) and the harassment by practitioners of Falun Gong critics. Although I make this point, I do not intend to pursue any edits along these lines, so there is no need for us to get into a debate in this area. I am just pointing out that in terms of over-all structure, the Beliefs section should not be bogged down with POV’s about the situation in China, since those POV’s are best handled in their own sections.

3. In this item you get into some of the details of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology which, if fully presented in the Wikipedia piece, would probably best be handled in a separate section. But as to your basic point that “Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved,” I think I responded to that idea in item # 1 above.

4. You provide more of Li Hongzhi’s quotes here which demonstrate that his priority for practitioners at this time is for them to focus exclusively on the persecution in China when they are “clarifying the truth” and saving people during the Fa-rectification. You don’t need to find any more quotes along those lines, because I fully understand that this is, in fact, the priority. But priorities change, while the soteriological beliefs of the Falun Gong would remain, even if Li Hongzhi did achieve his goal of reducing membership in the CCP to zero. To argue that this is not a political goal of the Falun Gong because it also helps practitioners to reach salvation during Fa-rectification strikes me as nothing but weasel words, to use Fire Star’s formulation.

In my own point of view, the Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult which uses the promise of salvation to achieve a political goal. However, I am not arguing that this point of view needs to be inserted into the Beliefs section of the Wikipedia article. But by the same token, I would hope that you would agree not to gloss over the essential teachings of Li Hongzhi concerning his role as the only savior of mankind during this Dharma-ending period. That is the basic teaching and it holds true regardless of what happens in China. --Tomananda 20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Fire Star: Please Intervene Again

Fire Star: Your revision at 18:45 17 March has been replaced with new words from Dilip, who continues to do what he accuses me of: replacing whole paragraphs, rather than discussing changes to existing text in this section. Again, I feel like I am being bullyed by a host of Falun Gong practitioners. Olaf made some substantive suggestions about possible additions to the Beliefs section which I have just responded to above.

Please revert the text, again, to the earlier version.

--Tomananda 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Edit in Cultivation of Mind and Body Section

I am proposing the addition of a few sentences to explain "sickness karma" in the section entitled "Cultivation of Mind and Body." As with other core teachings, I was surprised that some mention of sickness karma was not already in the text. Rather than assuming lack of good faith, I will assume it was just an oversight.

Although the teachings on "sickness karma" are quite controversial, I have crafted a presentation which, I believe, is devoid of bias or POV. To show the context, I have included the existing sentence in the affected paragraph in italics:

It is believed that though the purpose of cultivation practice is not healing and fitness, an illness free state can manifest even from the beginning stages of cultivation practice of mind and body and that this has directly to do with how much one can elevate one’s Xinxing (mind-nature). When sickness is experienced, practitioners are taught not to be attached to the idea that they are actually experiencing sickness in the traditional sense, but instead to think of sickness as an opportunity to eliminate karma. In Zhuan Falun [8], it is said:

“I will purify your body. The body purification will be done only for those who come to truly learn the practice and the Fa. We emphasize one point: if you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you.”:

Although practitioners are not told that they cannot take medicine when they are sick, they are challenged, as part of their cultivation practice, to avoid seeking traditional medical help in order to realize the karma-eliminating benefits of sickness. In Falun Gong [9], it is said:

“Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication?”:

--Tomananda 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply reporting the sourced material, as you have proposed, seems fine. It gives some context to another bit of copy in the article about FLG's approach to medicine. --Fire Star 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Apologetics

This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an as accurate as possible article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can through the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality.

Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry. Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and urgent importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com

Putting in Quotes Out of Context

Fire Star, I am surprised that you support putting in all these out of context quotes... I am even more surprised that you fail to see that the person has a strong POV. With regard to sickness karma and its relation to medicine SO MUCH is said in the lectures.... To take an aribtrary line from it and put forward it as the belief of Falun Gong... ARE YOU DOING JUSTICE TO THE BELIEFS OF FALUN GONG WHEN YOU DO THIS??

In regard to the previous paragraphs... it is not that you want it in there... or that I dont.. It is that majority of the editors preferred the contextualized version.... Yet, somehow the other version is in there!! Nobody owns wikipedia. Do you call this a discussion?? Tomananda... I can only call your strategies perverted - I hope that you will be more upright.You deleted paragraphs from the orginal text and when I pointed that out... you start whining and present it as if I deleted your paras.... I wanted the editors to reach a consensus on which version to put in.. AND BY EDITORS I MEAN MAJORITY OF THE EDITORS I am replacing it with a contextualized version -which was better accepted.

Let me emphasize this - When majority of the editors prefer a contextualized version, whining is not the way to get your version into the text.

I repeat that your claims like "even death" would return to those who stop practice are nothing but abonimable lies. Yet they find their way into the article.

When an everyday person gets sick and doesn’t go to the hospital or doesn’t take medicine, that doesn’t conform to the principles of everyday people, it doesn’t conform to the principles of this world, and people can’t accept it: “Of course a person needs to take medicine when he gets sick.” “Of course a person needs to go to the hospital for treatment when he gets sick.” This is how people deal with this, and it isn’t wrong. But as a cultivator you can’t confuse yourself with an everyday person. To put it a bit seriously, you’re no longer human. As I just said, humans have various emotions and desires, and live for emotion (qing). During the course of cultivation you are gradually taking these things more lightly and gradually letting go of them until you completely discard them. Humans live for these things, but you don’t. Could you be the same as a human? You aren’t the same. Since that’s the case, why don’t you apply high-level principles that aren’t the same as those of humans to evaluate problems and to evaluate yourself and the things you encounter? That’s the way it should be. That’s why I’ve told you that when we cultivators feel uncomfortable somewhere in our bodies it isn’t sickness. Yet what everyday people consider a sick state, and the state that’s reflected in a cultivator’s body when his karma is being reduced, are the same. It’s hard for everyday people to tell the difference. That’s why cultivation practice stresses enlightening (wu). If they weren’t the same, everyone would practice cultivation and the question of enlightening wouldn’t exist. If only wonderful things happened in a person’s body and even a little discomfort felt like what immortals feel, tell me, who wouldn’t cultivate? Everyone would, but then it wouldn’t count—it wouldn’t count as cultivation. Besides, people aren’t allowed to cultivate that way, as there would be no enlightening involved. So in cultivation you’re bound to be tested amidst the uncertainty of what’s true and what’s false to see how you deal with the matter at hand—to see whether you’ll regard yourself as a cultivator or as an average, everyday person. Isn’t this to see whether you can cultivate? Of course, you appear to be ordinary and no different from an everyday person on the surface, but you are in fact a cultivator.

Yesterday I discussed Buddha Fa cultivation. Cultivation is the most important thing in the cosmos. A human being wants to ascend to a realm that high, and become an Arhat,[4] a Bodhisattva,[5] a Buddha, a Dao, or a God; if a human being with a body full of karma is to become a God, wouldn’t you say it’s a serious matter? Shouldn’t you view these matters strictly with a high standard and hold yourself to righteous thinking? If you still view these matters from an ordinary human perspective, aren’t you an ordinary human yourself? This is such a serious matter—enabling you to become a Buddha—yet you still regard yourself as human and still evaluate these things with human principles. Then it won’t work; you aren’t serious about it, so you can’t cultivate. Buddhas, Daos, and Gods aren’t like what today’s monks and today’s people think. As you know, Buddhas and Gods don’t have ordinary human emotion, nor do they have an ordinary human way of thinking or the notions that are in ordinary humans’ understandings of things. Their way of thinking is of a completely different realm, and they’re free of human concepts and notions of things. Now people have humanized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and think of them as if they had human emotions and humanness. When some people go to temples to worship Buddhas and burn incense, they don’t go there for cultivation or out of respect, but to ask for things—asking Buddhas with their attachments. Think about it, what a bad intention that is!

Let me talk to you more about the relationship between taking medicine and eliminating karma. Just now I said that it is the karma accrued lifetime after lifetime that causes sickness. What is that karma? The smaller the particles of the karma that exists in other dimensions—the smaller its grain—the more power it has. When it seeps into our dimension, it’s a microorganism, the most microscopic virus. So would you say that sickness is accidental? It can’t be understood by modern medicine or modern science, which can only understand the kind of phenomena that manifest in this surface dimension composed of the layer of the largest particles, which are formed by molecules. So it’s considered a sickness, a tumor, an infection somewhere, or something else; but today’s science can’t see the fundamental cause of people becoming sick, and it always explains with the limited reasons that can be understood by everyday people. Of course, when someone gets sick, it usually conforms to the principles at the level of this world, and there’s usually an external factor in this world that induces the sickness to manifest. Then it appears to really conform to the principles of this world. In fact, it’s just an external factor that makes it in conformity with the principles of this world or the state of this world. But the fundamental cause and the sickness don’t originate in this dimension. So when you take medicine now you’re killing this sickness or the virus at the surface. Medicine can truly kill viruses at the surface. Yet a practitioner’s gong[7] is automatically destroying viruses and karma. But as soon as medicine kills the surface virus that has seeped over from other dimensions, the virus—karma—over on the other side will know, since everything is alive, and it will stop coming over. Then you feel that you’ve recovered because you took the medicine. But let me tell you that it nonetheless accumulates over there. Life after life human beings are accumulating this stuff. When the accumulation reaches a certain extent, the person becomes incurable and when he dies he’s totally destroyed. He loses his life—forever loses his life. That’s how horrifying it is. So here I’ve explained to you the relationship. It’s not that people aren’t allowed to take medicine. When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment.

But how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? Of course, we could push all of it out for you in other dimensions. But the Fa of this cosmos has a principle: You have to endure suffering in this regard when your karma is eliminated for you. You have to endure the same suffering you caused others before. But for cultivators, we can’t let you endure all of it in the same way, as you’d die and then you wouldn’t be able to cultivate. As a cultivator, after you reach Consummation you will repay the harmed lives with blessings. But you do have to endure the portion of mental pain. While enduring the part owed to others, you pay off the karma, because you suffer. Things aren’t isolated. While paying off the karma, you must regard yourself as a cultivator in the midst of the pain. When you don’t consider it sickness you truly have a high-level understanding of this matter, rather than an ordinary human way of thinking. Then haven’t your realm and mind improved in this regard? Isn’t that the issue? It’s a joke to think that one can improve in cultivation by doing the exercises alone. The exercises are a supplementary means to Consummation.


Dilip: I did not delete paragraphs that were previously there. The two paragraphs that are at issue, placed at the end of the Beliefs section by Fire Star, were then replaced by your paragraphs. A mere check of the Wikipedia history will prove that to be the case. You are correct, no one owns Wikipedia, yet you act like you do. You also are engaging in name calling, using words like "perverted." Are you calling my actions perverted because I am a homosexual?

In any case, there is a separate discussion going on with Olaf concerning the content of the second paragraph in question. I agreed with Olaf that some mention of Master Li's most recent statements on who gets saved in Fa-rectification should be added to that second paragraph. By simply deleting it, as you have once again done, you are not being cooperative in the editing process.

Concerning the death quote, yes, Master Li does say that. I provided you with the citation. He also says that cultivation prolongs life, but that the effect only lasts while you are cultivating. Once you are returned to the status of an "ordinary" person, those life-prolonging benefits go away. Your quote above actually supports what I am saying. The Master is saying that ordinary people go to the hospital when they are sick, but cultivators shouldn't confuse themselves with ordinary people. As a cultivator, you are no longer human. But when you loose the status of cultivator (by not following the requirments of the Dafa), you return to human status and can no longer benefit from the life-prolonging and disease-curing effects of cultivation. This all seems quite understandable to me, why do you have a problem with it appearing in the Wikipedia article?

By the way, one of the characteristics of cults is that cult leaders create a sense of separateness between the followers and the rest of society. Cult leaders offer their followers a special status...like Master Li telling his disciples they are no longer human...and perpetuate that wall of separation by saying that the rest of society really can't understand the high level or secret nature of their own beliefs.

Another characteristic of cults is the practice of deception. In the case of Falun Gong, while it is true that all the teachings are there on the internet for everyone to read, most people trust that the practitioners themselves will report the complete story. So this Wikipedia article becomes important. It is an article that needs to tell the whole truth of Falun Gong beliefs and not gloss over the parts about Master Li's critical role in cultivation.

Oops--I forgot to acknowledge that in your quote above Master Li does say practitioners will become Buddhas, which I know is your preferred language. But the Master also says, repeatedly, that Falun Gong practitioners will be turned into Gods. He even uses God in the quote you yourself provide above. (I hope you don't mind that I bolded that clause in your post.) To omit the word God or Gods merely because you want all of Falun Gong to sound like orthodox Buddhism...which it isn't...is, in itself, a point of view. I will acknowledge you for your consistency, however. Just as you don't want to see the word Gods appearing in this article, you also apparantly don't want to see the word salvation.

--Tomananda 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We all have POV, some are pro, some are anti, even boredom with the subject is a POV - but we don't have to act on it. Quotes may seem out of context, but our linking features are to provide context. Where it gets dodgy is when we start to assert things that aren't in the public record. We should only say Li says "blah". If there is a controversy, we should actually name the groups that find FLG controversial, and provide links to their info. As well, if there is FLG apologetics providing context, we should also link to that. Also, not instead of. It is a balancing act. The drier the citations, the less emotional resistance they will engender, and the more likely it is that we will all be happy with the article in the end. We aren't supposed to argue the validity of any philosophy ourselves, we only have to give people the tools, all the tools, to research further if they want. That is why encyclopaedias are found in the reference sections of libraries. --Fire Star 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Apologetics

This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an "as accurate as possible" article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality... Allowing one bit of inaccuracy is as good as letting pages of inaccurate material inside... We need to revise the paras... especially so when so many editors consider it inaccurate..

Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry... there exists bad things in all of us; eliminating those things is what is meant by cultivation... and schools of cultivation tell us that they are not of our true selves and that only by freeing ourselves of those aggregates (called egos in the Gnostic school) can one's true self rise up in its ineffable glory... The greatest cultivators have emerged from the sinners of the past.. It is only greater glory if one can completely rise above all those things.. the lotus grows in mud .. though you may call this a POV :) .. the red rose is more beautiful than the white one... I also want you to know that what the ancient cultivation ways tell us is not mere philosophy.. but a mathematically precise description of reality... which you may validate for yourself... there is far more to reality than what we think we know... the mammal intellect in itself is incapable of understanding higher teachings... but there are higher faculties in the human...

Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and urgent importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com ... could you kindly give me your e-mail id?

Dilip rajeev 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote by Master Da Liu

Master Da Liu, being the first Master to introduce the West to QiGong and Tai Chi, and being the author of several books on qi gong and taichi.. and Falun Gong being considered a system of Qi Gong of the Buddha School, I would like to know what the editors feel regarding pointing out Master Da Liu's opinion on Falun Gong in the article.. Dilip rajeev 09:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Edit on Fa-rectification

Olaf has pointed out that the last paragraph in the Beliefs section does not report that Li Hongzhi's teachings concerning the Fa-rectication have changed over time. He now offers salvation to all people, good and bad alike. In order to address that concern, as well as provide additional context as requested by Dilip, I have expanded that paragraph as follows:

Existing paragraph:

Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.

Proposed New Text:

Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power and the mighty power of the Fa.” They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds. Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun [10] :

“If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly. What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”

While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result. In Zhuan Falun [11] Li Hongzhi states:

“If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”

In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun [12] Li Hongzhi states;

“When you continually practice cultivation, you will constantly prolong your life. …There is a criterion, however, that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”

There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death. In The Essentials [13] Li Hongzhi states:

“Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died? Some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think that your master might do something to you….. Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.”

If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation. The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation. In 1999[14]in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned:

“Mankind! Awaken! The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. What path a person takes in life is his own choosing. One thought a person has might determine his future.”

Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. In 2001 [15] Li Hongzhi made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:

“Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”

It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved. In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process. In 2005 [16] Li Hongzhi stated:

“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.”

In order to be saved one must not have “a bad attitude” towards the Dafa which apparently means that one must side with the Falun Gong in its fight with the Chinese government concerning the alleged persecution of practitioners. In the same lecture [17] Li Hongzhi states:

“It is the CCP itself that chose to make Dafa its enemy. From the moment it proclaimed that it must defeat Falun Gong, the evil spirit of the CCP and the CCP's wicked, base group that has been persecuting Dafa disciples in the human world were condemned to death by all of the cosmos's gods.”

--Tomananda 10:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the Wierd commentary

Absurd. Anybody can be a Falun Gong practitioner provided he lets go of all his bad traits and fundamentally changes himself - otherwise just by labelling himself so he is not.... you put it as if some criteria for being a practitioner has been suddenly relaxed... I dont have a problem with putting all the quotes in. It is the wierd commentary you add to them. I would be glad to have your email id, as there is a lot I want to discuss with you. Fire Star, I request you that you be wary that people donot put in absurd POV( the above material i dont think is just a POV..) content into the article -- and use a couple of quotes from here and there to fool the un-informed.

Further, the article is already far larger than the recommended size for a wikipedia article. Dilip rajeev 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Olaf and Dilip

I have posted a shortened version of the above and I consider it to be a compromise from my earlier, two paragraph version. I've tried to accomodate what Olaf documented concerning the change in Li Hongzhi's teachings on Fa-rectification. I am open to amended language there, but I am not open to concealing the basics about Li Hongzhi turning practioners into Gods (a word he uses almost constantly, as opposed to your use of Buddhhood), his protection of practitioners, or his earlier formulation of Fa-rectification which includes categories of people being weeded out.

I orginally said all of this in two short paragraphs but you, Dilip, complained that I had not provided context. Now I have. Most of the content in this piece is highly favorable to the Falun Gong. It even includes questionable health claims, such as those of Lili Fong. As Fire Star has said repeatedly, edits should not be done at the expense of other people's writing. Dilip, your repeated attempts to delete certain vocabulary and ideas...all part of Master Li's teachings...is really troublesome. An enclyclopedia needs to cover all the basics of a religion, not just those aspects you are proud of. And what could be more basic and important than Li Hongzhi's idea of Fa-rectification and who it effects? If anything, some of the other puff pieces, such as the awards section, could be taken out.

Dilip, concerning your comments on homosexuality, you and Li Hongzhi do not know what you are talking about. It is not appropriate to get into a discussion on this topic on this site, but suffice it to say that homosexuality is a God-given trait just as heterosexuality is. You are wrong in asserting all religions condemn homosexuality. Some do, some don't. If you want to debate with me on that topic, please do a posting on the SF.indymedia.org website. --Tomananda 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not my aim to argue homosexuality. I responded against your accusations. "Lili Fong" is a Phd at Baylor College... well respected by the academic community.. I am also willing to present statements ( which you may call "highly favourable") by a reputed French Neuro scientist. If presenting the truth as the truth causes Falun Gong to appear good - then it should...Tomananda, I hope you donot manipulate Fire Star's good faith. I am sure he wouldnt allow a single edit that you have put into the article had he read all the material of Falun Gong in-depth.. which I am sure he will do when he can get the time.

In response to the issue you raised: You may argue that hatred, greed, karma, the murderer's mentality and everything was made by "god".. there exists suffering in the cosmos.. beings are given free-will but when they act against the nature of the cosmos, they accumulate karma... and karma , the traditions say, is the cause of suffering... homosexuality is only considered an act that brings terrible karma on oneself... see discussion on homosexuality on the page... http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t261.html ( which answers the issue you raised in-depth) ... there is order in the cosmos... suffering itself becomes benevolent when you want to go back...

Friend, I request you , in utmost sincerity, to address the same question here on the forum http://www.gnosis-usa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261 ( starting a new thread...) Dilip rajeev 13:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. Condemnation of homosexuality is common in organised religion, so the most remarkable feature of Li's teachings for me are the theories on alien mind control a la Scientology. The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward. The article size issue isn't a big one (no pun intended) apparently... --Fire Star 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can make it sound wierd or beautiful- depending on your POV... depending on the quote you pull out... I could pull in a 100 quotes from the books add my own interpretation to it and add it to the article...

Falun gong's concept of alien beings differs starkly from scientology's. Clubbing both together stems from a lack of understandig. Further, that is a central belief in scientology. Dilip rajeev 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf responds

Greetings, dear editors.

I apologize for not having time to carefully evaluate the proposed changes and write a detailed commentary. There's just too much going on, and you seem to be really engaged in this issue. However, I wish you could all calm down a little bit, especially Dilip, who seems to reflect somewhat passionate emotional outbursts in his text, in my opinion. This is a friendly reminder! We all tend to get excited and even provoked every now and then. But I have to say that I disagree with Dilip regarding certain issues, and I can see why some of you feel he doesn't want the article to cover certain questions. However, I don't blame him for that, because I also see that the new additions are not entirely balanced interpretations of Li's teachings as a whole. Here in Wikipedia, if you feel somebody's editions aren't neutral or just, you can provide a better context and thus strive towards a NPOV. I have found that revert wars are practically a waste of time. Somebody's always going to disagree with you, and it's a vicious circle that makes people react even more fervently. It's better to leave the article in an unbalanced state for a while and do some research to eventually provide conclusive information and sources.

Tomananda: Yes, I am the same person who posted on the Indymedia website. And I do practice Falun Gong. If you read through my previous discussions (mostly in /Archive4), maybe you'll get understand my position better. I have talked about biases and subjectivity before, so I will not repeat myself here.

Falun Gong is a terribly complicated issue, because many people absolutely cannot agree with its ontological and epistemological theories. Criticizing the master-disciple relationship is one good example: such things exist in all genuine cultivation practices, and Falun Gong is considerably less rigid in this regard. It's the sheer immensity of the phenomenon that makes it particularily suspicious to some observers. Personally, I think Falun Gong has nothing to do with an authoritarian cult. (Of course, if I did, I probably wouldn't practice it myself.)

The most unfortunate thing is that sometimes people agree with the crackdown because they have strong opinions against "pseudo-science", "quackery" and "superstition". This applies to some so-called cult experts as well. We must remember that the scientific community's viewpoints on Falun Gong are incredibly varied, while Scientology, for example, is denounced by practically everybody. Pointing out the opinions of some extremes (like Margaret Singer, for instance) or self-proclaimed and highly controversial "experts" with no academic education (like Rick Ross) is not sufficient, even though you certainly can mention them in an encyclopedia article, if you also tell about the criticism they have received. I intend to elaborate on this issue.

If you feel that something absolutely cannot be true, it is sure to smell fishy to you, and you're prone to suspect a hidden agenda or conspiracy. I have enough self-reflectivity to admit that I cannot know whether everything about FLG is true. But I know it has supernatural effects on the human body that surpass the capability of modern science, and that's just about enough for me. Why, I look several years younger than before, I can see certain things in other dimensions, etc. And I know a lot of perfectly sane, well-educated practitioners with similar (or even more peculiar) experiences. How could I not find it worthwhile? I take Falun Gong seriously because the practice manifests a tangible reality, it's not just dogma or mind-blowing theories. Mind you, I do find some of Li's statements quite far out, but his method is indeed astonishing, and I'd like to hear what such a person has to say. Teaching an intricate system of qigong is not like teaching aerobics, and it's not a new Jane Fonda fitness video. Maybe he does know what he's talking about, maybe the truth is somewhere in between; who can say at this point? Interesting, isn't it?

I've also studied authoritarian cults and ideologies, and I'm well aware of different manipulative techniques. Actually, I've probed quite deep into these issues in my studies. These things are not entirely within the scope of this article, so I won't discuss them here. Maybe we can exchange personal e-mails or move to some other discussion forum if you're interested in my points of view and why I disagree with your categorization of Falun Gong. But, as I said, first you could read what I've written here before. I can see from your discussions that you're a good writer, and I'm genuinely interested to hear what you have to say.

When I have time, I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. I already browsed through them quickly, but there's just too many other things to take care of right now.

Best regards,

Olaf Stephanos 16:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So anyone critical of FLG is automatically wrong. You're the prime example of a brainwashed cultist.--PatCheng 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: In additioin to what's said below, just a few comments in response to your personal observations above:

--I think you know that my text was not "cricizing" the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong, but rather reporting it. When I use words like "deception" in my discussion posts, I am referring to the common practice of Falun Gong practitioners to "conceal" (my word) that there even is a master-disciple relationship. I find this incredibly dishonest, but attribute it to the Master's teaching that when practitioners talk to ordinary people they must not talk at the higher levels.

--Like you, I am busy. But I will read up on your prior posts as you suggest.

--Concerning cult experts, I do not rely on Rick Ross in any way. However, Margaret Singer was a highly respected pioneer in the cultish studies community. Many people in that field do not agree with her theory of brianwashing, but by the same token no one who has followed her has been able to establish a consensus position on what constitutes "undue influence," "brainwashing," or "coercive manipulation." Meanwhile, Steven Hassan continues to have direct working experience with cult members and ex-cult members and his opinion matters. Having said that, I see your point of reporting other opinions. Maybe creating an entire section on "Critics of Falun Gong" is the way to go. But for now I have been focusing on putting into the Beliefs section material that I consider essential for any real understanding of the Falun Gong.

--Since Dilip brought up the subject of homosexuality, I felt I had to respond, but I am not planning to do any edits in that section. He seems to be very attached to the idea of justifying the homophobia of the Falun Gong, but ironically at this point I would rather put that entire discussion on a back burner.

--Right now, I feel frustrated at this continuing back and forth between me and Dilip. I sincerely hope he answers the questions I posed to him below.

--I appreciate your openess to discussion, willingness to ackowledge divergent views and often insightful observations about the subject matter.

--Tomananda 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: Please Revert Again

Yesterday Dilip said that there was agreement of the editors about replacing the existing paragraphs at the end of the Beliefs section with his own revisions. Today we have just heard from two editors. Fire Star is not bothered by the text, it's use of quotes or it's connecting language.

Fire Star comments: I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. . . . The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward.

Olaf has now weighed in. He says: I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. In an earlier post, Olaf said he did not have any objection to any of the insertions I had made, but he pointed out in a detailed post how it lacked important information, especially concerning Fa-rectification. In response to Olaf's commentary, I went back to the original sources and created a version to answer some of Olaf's concerns. I am totally open to more changes from Olaf about those revisions.

Now today we have Dilip, once again, deleting all of this work and replacing it with his version which fails to report the whole story of Li Hongzhi's teachings.

Dilip: Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? Or that his Fashen (Law bodies) play a key role in that protection, as explained in the Zhuan Falun? Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi tells practioners they will be turned into Gods? Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?

Please Fire Star: do another revert, and then we can go from there! I'm open to all kinds of compromises, but to engage in an edit war with Dilip rather than addressing my concerns that important content is being withheld is a waste of time and effort.

Wikipedia etiguette asks that we answer each other's questions or concerns. Dilip: in the spirit of cooperation, are you willing to answer my questions above?

--Tomananda 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Make that one more. Dilip's "majority of editors" does not exist. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Very well, but you guys can revert, too. Now I'm done for another 10 hours due to WP:3RR. Since I do edit this page I'm not functioning as an admin, I'm just another editor. I think the contribution makes sense as it is, but if Dilip can contextualize it more without removing anything, that would be OK too. My main goal is to have a good, neutral article that people can live with. --Fire Star 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Replies

First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes..

q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only

Savior for mankind at this time?


For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to:

1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism , Pure Land

Buddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation

2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an

intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being

just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his

level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings as

their gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... If

you willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce term

god... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed with

context...

3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong

doesnt automatically lead to salvation....

"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then

I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help

you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I

can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when

you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t

elevate, then all of that is in vain."

"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still

useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."


q. Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in

Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm?

If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch upon

them, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links

to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the

reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...


q. Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?

First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is

Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term

"cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context...


When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out

bad people.. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...

attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....


I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if

you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual..

I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...

"This cosmos is so vast and its structure is so complex. I’ve told you about the composition of dimensions. For example, matter is composed of molecules and even more microscopic particles. The dimension that we know of is also composed of these particles. Today, the particles known to science include molecules, atoms, neutrons, atomic nuclei, and electrons; and then there are quarks and neutrinos. What’s further down is unknown to today’s science. So what I’ve said is that the realm of each level of these particles is what we call the plane of that level. Actually, particles aren’t

distributed on a plane; instead, within a given level, they exist everywhere—not on a plane. Humankind doesn’t have a term for it, so we’ll just call it a plane; this is the only way we can describe it. Right within that realm—within that layer of particles’ realm—a dimension is formed. Between particles are dimensions, and inside particles themselves are also dimensions. Yet particles can also make up particles of different sizes. Then, among the particles of different sizes that are composed of one particular particle are again dimensions. This is the concept of dimensions that I explained to you last time. I’ve always said that between atoms and molecules is a vast dimension. We humans live between the layer of the largest particles made up of molecules, and planets that we see, which are a layer of particles. Humans live in that dimension. A planet is also a particle. Going further, the Milky Way galaxy also has an outer shell. Might the Milky Way galaxy and the countless other galaxies spread throughout the cosmos form a dimension? They’re also interrelated. Then beyond the galaxies, there is still another cosmic expanse—then is this cosmic expanse a layer of particles? It sure is a layer of particles. The cosmos is incredibly vast—there’s simply no way to describe how vast it is. Furthermore, three thousand universes like the one we inhabit make up a larger layer of universe, which has an outer shell and is a particle of a universe of an even larger layer. Yet the particles I just talked about was expanding from just one point. As a matter of fact, particles of each layer are spread throughout the entire cosmos. Yet even what I just described are only two layers of universes and you already find it mind-boggling. In fact, the future humankind’s science won’t be able to know this, either—humankind will never be able to know things that high-level. Even with the extent we discussed to, that layer of particles is but a speck of dust—a tiny speck of dust—in this vast cosmos. Think about how enormous this cosmos is! This is the type of dimension I’ve been telling you about all along.

Last time I again discussed the composition of dimensions. In addition to the type of dimensions between atoms and molecules and between planets and molecules, the atomic particles in each layer also make up particles of different sizes. Then between the layers of these different-sized particles are again dimensions. Take molecules, for example: We normally know that there’s a dimension between molecules and atoms. If atoms are to make up molecules, many atoms need to be arranged together to make up a molecule. Then, between a layer of larger particles composed of fewer atomic particles and [another layer of] larger particles composed of more atomic particles is yet another level of dimension. As I’ve said, molecules can form any thing at the outermost surface—things like what we humans can see, such as steel, iron, water, air, wood, and our human bodies. This is the layer of matter at the surface that humans can see, and it’s composed of the layer of the largest particles that are composed of molecules. Yet molecules also make up a second, counting downward, layer of particles that are slightly smaller than these largest molecular particles. They can also make up a third, counting downward, layer of particles—all of these are composed of molecules, because molecules can make up particles of different sizes. Then among them are also dimensions, so this cosmos is extremely complex. There’s more to this, because within each level of dimension there are also vertical ones, that is, dimensions of different levels. In other words, there are dimensions of different levels that are like the many layers of heavens understood by religions. In addition, in dimensions at different levels there also exist different unitary paradises. It’s extremely complex. I’ve only told you about a common phenomenon."

To many fallacies in Tomananda's version

There are too many fallacies in the text introduced. At one point, tomananda claims that the criteria for becoming a practitioner has been somehow loosened. The idea makes no sense when you measure it with the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. See that from very early lectures, for example, this one from Germany says:

"No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart. If you don’t cultivate, then nothing can be done. "

From the very earliest lectures it is said that anyone may cultivate irrespective of the karma, if he can strengthen his will and has the heart for cultivation.

The prolonging life quote is for extremely old people. You could only be hiding that intentionally as Zhuan Falun says that extremely clearly in the paragraphs/sentences before.

Aparna r 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Another Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette

Aparna, we don't just delete entire sections of a text...especially one that is currently being discussed for possible revisons. It is yet another example of the bullying tactics that Falun Gong practioners engage in.

--Tomananda 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Response to Dilip

First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes.. q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time?

For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to: 1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism , Pure LandBuddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation

You seem to be saying that you agree Li Hongzhi offers salvation (the first part of the sentence) but that you don’t agree that he is the only one offering salvation for mankind at this time. Yes, there are other cultivation ways which Master Li talks about in Zhuan Falun, but isn’t the larger point that Master Li makes in Zhuan Falun that he is the only one offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification? That message, permeates his teachings. In Zhuan Falun he repeatedly contrasts the cultivation he teaches at the higher levels with those of other traditions. He even calls the original Fa taught by Sakyamuni “primitive” and says it cannot save the people of today. He also states in Zhuan Falun: “Today, we have made public to you such a great cultivation way, and I have delivered it to your doorstep. It will be up to you whether you can practice cultivation and make it…..If you cannot do it and cannot practice cultivation, you should not think about practicing cultivation from now on. Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation. If I cannot save you, nobody else can.”

2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings astheir gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... Ifyou willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce termgod... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed withcontext...

Yes, there are Gods at higher levels whom Master Li refers to, and different traditions have different ideas for what the word God means, but there is no need to explain all of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology to simply say he promises to turn his practitioners into Gods. Yes, the Gods Li refers to at the higher levels are limited (Li will teach them his Dafa after all) and I get all of that. But we do not need to introduce a great deal of complexity in this section to get the basic point across. If you can suggest a short clarifying phrase, or even a sentence, to qualify the meaning of the word God in this section, fine with me. But to recast the whole thing into an exposition of Master Li’s cosmology or his version of the creation myth would destroy the cohesiveness of these paragraphs. If you want to really expand on all that, I believe you should write up a separate section.

3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong doesnt automatically lead to salvation.... "If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain." "Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."

Here again, you are introducing a level of complexity that is not needed here. Of course Falun Gong cultivation does not automatically lead to salvation. And, yes, a very short description of what salvation means might fit in this context. But if you envision a lengthy exposition on salvation, then I think we are talking about something different than what is now being discussed. Keep in mind that Olaf intends to offer some additional context, too. Let’s at least attempt to proceed by modifying the existing text, rather than creating whole new sections…at least for now.

q) Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch uponthem, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...

Again, I think it is a matter of length and overall cohesiveness. This is an encylopedia article, not a book. As Fire Star has suggested, additional context can always be provided though the external links. I would prefer that you suggest modifications to the wording I have proposed.

q) Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood? First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term "cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context..

Sure, it is clear that you prefer the term Buddha or Buddhahood, but the problem is that Li Hongzhi uses the terms God and Gods in this context and that language needs to be reported as well. In fact, I am a bit surprised that you would want to alter Li Hongzhi’s words so much. It is almost as if you want to edit the teachings in such a way that the finished result does not reflect the original. Since you are a practitioner, that surprises me. Oddly, it appears that I care more about being faithful to Master Li’s formulations than you do. Also, there’s no reason why different sections can’t use their own vocabulary. Keep in mind that the two paragraphs that were added at the end began with words like: “It is also believed that….”

q) When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out bad people. The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....

Well,yes and yes. Master Li does describe Fa-rectification in those terms, so blame him, not me. And you already provided a pretty good sentence which briefly explains the the bigger picture: “It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa( Dharma ) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in the process of "Fa-rectification". I would reformulate that wording to appear as follows: Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. It is said that the cosmic firmament, from very high level, has deviated form the Fa (Dharma)_ and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in this process. In 2001 [18] Li Hongzhi made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:

I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual.

Again, I think you are making this more complex than it needs to be. Master Li himself introduces the idea of the Fashen fairly succinctly in Zhuan Falun and we don’t need to write a whole book about it. But, yes, I do think that the Fa-shen as a means of protecting practitioners (as well as knowing what they are thinking and in my point of view controlling them) is absolutely essential.

I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...

Please refer to my comments above. It sounds like you want to write an entire section on Master Li’s cosmology. While that’s fine with me, it is really not needed to get across the point that Master Li’s law bodies protect his practitioners. These ideas are not that difficult to grasp. Are you just trying to burry them in a mountain of irrelevant teachings? An encyclopedia article needs to present the basics, not all the details.

--Tomananda 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

People Differ

The point is - what you present as the "truth" is far from it. Moreover this is not the format required of an encyclopaedia article. An article should be an article. The quotes are all put out of context. There is no violation of wikipedia etiquette - on the otherhand you are casually messing up the article ignoring what is being pointed out by other editors. I am not deleting any information - just mis-information. I think others understand that too. Aparna r 12:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is only your opinion that it is misinformation. Someone else may say that it seems like you are saying that anything that isn't approved by official FLG dogma is "misinformation." You are making a purely religious argument, not an argument based on material in the public domain. You can try to spin Li's comments, saying we don't understand them (again, a rteligious argument, assuming facts not in evidence), but they are still what they are, and he still said them. I'm for including them. --Fire Star 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is always the question of which quotes to select from all the texts we have at our disposal. These are obviously selected because of their controversial nature, but as I've said before, POV doesn't consist only of what is said, it also involves what is not said. By themselves, and without providing a comprehensive background for all the terms and axioms, they're simply confusing, and I can definitely understand why Aparna and Dilip are not satisfied. It's almost (not exactly, but almost) like saying "time travel is possible, according to quantum mystics" - but for a layman who is not familiar with quantum physics at all, such a statement is just balderdash. We should focus on what is implied by choosing particular quotes, and that's what this debate is all about, in my opinion.
Shouldn't we also include FLG's theory on the structure of dimensions? How, exactly, Li thinks these fashen exist (e.g. he says they're born in the dantian when high-level cultivation practice is reached, etc.) And when we get here, shouldn't we also explain what is dantian, and what other traditions have said about it? We get into a maze of definitions, gray areas, paradigmatic controversy... you name it. And the article gets way too long.
One important thing that isn't mentioned in the article is that a lot of FLG is commentary on the questions in the qigong community that have already been discussed for a few decades. The institutional field where Falun Gong emerged was not religion but "frontier science" or "alternative science" (or "pseudo-science", depending on your viewpoint). Did you know that according to Traditional Chinese Medicine, there exists a "triple burner" in the human body? How many laymen in the West would accept such a concept that is, however, taken quite seriously in certain Chinese scientific traditions? The same applies to the five elements theory, et cetera, et cetera.
These are some of the reasons why I also think that your criteria for choosing the relevant quotes only reflect a certain POV (namely, "Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult"), and we must discuss the issue further. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Olaf. I am well aware of the approach of TCM and qigong to similar issues, as well as those of Chinese Buddhism and Taoism. I am all for as much context as possible, but the quotes are exceptional, sensational pronouncements from an internationally famous teacher, and are discussed as being informative for the general public as to where the guy's head is at on many forums. Having the quotes, sourced, and further detail from FLG sources together is a fine idea, IMO. I think if we have both, then the article will be served. Li's public statements are also overtly religious and centred on his role as a spiritual guide, from a qigong teacher's POV, to the point that he downplays the actual repetition of his exercises in favour of adherence to his doctrine. These things aren't said to imply anything (personally, I don't think FLG is an authoritarian cult, but more of an idiosyncratic new religion, as almost any organised religion can be seen as authoritarian from the right perspective), there are literally hundreds if not thousands of other religious/spiritual teachers who do say (or have said) similar things, but I feel the seemingly eccentric positions reported by Li himself should be covered because he is so famous. --Fire Star 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be much better and un-biased to just provide links to appropriate material. Dilip rajeev 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out those praragraphs as an understanding of such material is needed for the reader to appreciate what the concept of Fa- Shen and higher dimensional realities as taught in Falun Gong is. If we cant do that in the article we can only provide links to appropriate material rather than define thiongs as we please.

Dilip rajeev 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, That it is mis-information is not an opinion. You will understand it if you study the books. Think about it there are many tens of millions world over practicing Falun Gong including many top scientists, medical scientists, and even top most psychiatrists like Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. Professor (Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College, Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) is a board member of FoFG. Do you think if the beliefs of Falun Dafa were like tomananda puts it all these people would practice cultivation in Dafa? Anybody may choose a 100 quotes to put into the article. But that is not what we mean by an article. I dont think everyone who differs with Tomananda is a practitioner.

Dilip rajeev 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

" By themselves, and without providing a comprehensive background for all the terms and axioms, they're simply confusing, and I can definitely understand why Aparna and Dilip are not satisfied. It's almost (not exactly, but almost) like saying "time travel is possible, according to quantum mystics" - but for a layman who is not familiar with quantum physics at all, such a statement is just balderdash. We should focus on what is implied by choosing particular quotes, and that's what this debate is all about, in my opinion.

Shouldn't we also include FLG's theory on the structure of dimensions? How, exactly, Li thinks these fashen exist (e.g. he says they're born in the dantian when high-level cultivation practice is reached, etc.) And when we get here, shouldn't we also explain what is dantian, and what other traditions have said about it? We get into a maze of definitions, gray areas, paradigmatic controversy... you name it. And the article gets way too long." - Olaf

Precisely. Falun Gong's teachings are not a disconnected set of quotes or religious beliefs. If it were so; so many ( including top scientists and well known intellectuals) wouldnt be practicing Falun Gong. We are not covering up anything neither do we have to present things totally out of context. We are providing links to all Falun Dafa material and the teachings.

Falun Gong's teachings are not a set of "religious" beliefs. In my perspective, it is a mathematically precise science.

For instance, compare this paragraph

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

and its striking similarity to what one of the greatest scientists of this era suggests might serve as an explanation for quantum behaviour:


“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each electron (elementary particle) acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality”- David Bohm, In Wholeness and Implicate order.


Dilip rajeev 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The Role of Master Li

Olaf: Your comments surprise me. Earlier on you did not object to the introduction of this material and now you seem to. The truth is that everything that appears reflects Master Li's teachings and most of it comes directly from the Zhuan Falun. The exposition I have written which surrounds the quotes provides context, and there is continuity in the whole piece as well. It is not because it is confusing that you object, but rather because it talks about Master Li's critical role in cultivation. Falun Gong practitioners do not own this Wikipedia article.

This discussion about the cosmology of Falun Gong is off the point. If there is a desire to write a section on cosmology, then so be it. What's at issue now is a section which focuses on Master Li's role in culitvation, something he himself makes quite clear in Zhuan Falun. If I were putting this material in and then adding my own opinion that because of this master-disciple relationship Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult, I could see that you might object for reasons of POV. But I am not. I am merely reporting the truth of Master Li's teachings in an extremely neutral way.

I'm sorry you don't like seeing in a public article statements about Master Li as the exclusive savior of mankind in this Dharma-ending period, but it is most certainly an accurate reflection of the teachings and you know it. As I have said over and over again, one of the characteristics of a cult is deception about the "higher teachings" or the "secret teachings" to the general public, and that is what this current discussion is all about.

But please understand, I am not trying to make that case in the body of the article, only in this discussion section. Let's report accurately what Master Li says about his role in cultivation, and let the readers decide. --Tomananda 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you already mentioned that your involvement in this debate is because you want to show that the characteristics of an authoritarian cult apply to Falun Gong as well. (My understanding of what Li said in San Francisco about talking to people on a layman's level is different, but we don't need to get into that now; I will return to this question later.) It seems, in my opinion, as if you're viewing this whole thing from an ivory tower with a predetermined template of "cultism", and that is unfortunate, because it tends to obscure some valid points others have made. We want a neutral piece of good prose, and I assure that I'm certainly not in opposition to you or any other editor involved in this discussion, I'm just trying to make you guys chew over alternative viewpoints. I promise to consider whatever you have to say, and I sincerely hope that all editors can respect each other in good faith.
It's understandable that you're frustrated about the treatment of your additions, and I've not agreed with the revert war (it's not that there are uniform cliques of "Falun Gong practitioners" and their "critics"!). I'm sure you have noticed that I explicitly demand better contextualization, not "concealment". But the quotations cannot be selected to merely prove a point.
One last addition: I seriously urge you to read Noah Porter's book "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study". It is a Master's Thesis for the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, and it's also been published as a paperback. Personally, and having studied cultural anthropology myself, I consider it the best academic study on the Falun Gong phenomenon to date. Based on his fieldwork among U.S. practitioners, Porter disagrees with the categorization of Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult. He's well versed in literature, and he also provides extensive background for the whole phenomenon. You can find the PDF here[19]. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Olaf: You've mis-interpretted my motives here. Although I do beleive that the Falun Gong is an authoriatarian cult, I am happy with the very modest statement citing the opinions of prominent cult experts which appears at the end of the "Foreign Views" section. I believe that very short paragraph is totally in keeping with Wikipedia rules and philosophy: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." That is exactly what my "cult" edit did, but without any real elaboration. When you mentioned that there are other points of view about whether Falun Gong is a cult, I suggested that we might want to expand that paragraph into an entire section.
The reason I have inserted my POV on cults in the discussion section is that for me it explains the behavior of so many FG practitioners. In Wikipedia speak, we are experiencing apologetics in a big way, plus the wholesale blanking of text without any serious attempt to work out a compromise with the author of that text (me). Stated differently, it is unfair tactics to continually blank out a well developed and thoroughly sourced edit, rather than to respond directly to the language that is used in that text. Keep in mind, I developed that expanded version to replace my original (modest) two paragraph version precisely to address the concerns about context, as well as your concern that I failed to report that Li Honzhi's emphasis now in the Fa-rectification is that he will save all people, the good and bad alike, providing they have "a good attitude" towards the Dafa. (Please feel free to modify my language, but I do think that's a fair representation of the teachings.)
Wikipedia says that "Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts..." I recognize that it is possible for a group to be deceptive without being a cult. But regardless of how one explains the behavior, I have experienced deceptive tactics from Falun Gong practitioners for the past four years of my life. To use an analogy, it is like talking to early Christians who might present the golden rule and other teachings of Jesus as the essence of their belief, but steadfastly resist acknowledging that Jesus has some role in their salvation. All reasonable people would consider such behavior as fundamentally dishonest, yet it is what Falun Gong practitioners do all the time. This current edit discussion is a case in point. So here's my question to you:

If this behavior is not the result of Master Li's instructions, than what else might explain it? Here's what the Master says in Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition,p91:

'"It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."'

With directives like that from the Master, why shouldn't I conclude that practitioners are simply obeying him when they engage in endless apologetics about the Falun Gong. If there's another explanation, I'd like to hear it. --Tomananda 21:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology to mcconn

Sorry McConn, when I reverted the article to the version that is currently being debated I missed that you had done some editing in the paragraph above the section on Master Li's role as savior and protector of the practitioners. I have now restored the text to include your changes.

By the way, here's what Master Li says about the development of Gong in Zhuan Falun (p.28):

"Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while transformation of Gong is up to the master. The master gives you the Gong that develops your Gong, which will be at work. It can transform the substance De outside or your body into gong....If you want to improve Gong, your gong will not be improved withouth paying attention to Xinxing cultivation."

I am not proposing that you make any changes to that paragraph, but thought the above quote...which also goes to the importance of Master Li's direct intervention during cultivation practice...is interesing. Practitioners get their Gong from the Master, as well as their Falun (which he installs). He also is directly involved in the elimination of karma (pushing to get rid of the last bit of karma that a practitioner can't manage on his own.) --Tomananda 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


The gong that evolves gong, in my understanding, are energy mechanisms that evolves gong from de. It is not the gong of the student. Tomananda, you are not allowed to single-handedly edit the article. I disagree with adding such non factual material

Msriram 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Msriram, You've got to be kidding! You've just done a major blanking of text which has, in one form or another, appeared on this page since March 11th and has been hotly debated on these discussion pages (see above). Wikipedia etiquette asks all of us to respect the input of others and not to engage in wholesale, drive-by blanking. I don't remember reading any recent input from you concerning the edits which you object to.

You make a comment above that is correct, but not relevant to the comment I made. The correct part is: "the gong that evolves gong are energy mechanisms that evolve gong from de." But you have not responded to the quote from Zhuan Falun above, so I have to question why you are being so evasive. The quote is: "The master gives you the gong that develops your gong." Do you agree with that statement? If so, do you have an objection to making it public?

By the way, I assume from your knowledge of this material that you are also a practitioner. Is that correct?

--Tomananda 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I'd like to make it clear, as I mentioned above, that since I edit this page regularly I'm not functioning as an admin in this discussion and would not use admin features unless there were repeated, blatant violations of WP:NPA, which there hasn't been a hint of here. I'm just another editor. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. --Fire Star 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, If that's the case that leaves Miborovsky and Olaf Stephanos as the only other administrors who have commented on this discussion. Miborovsky responded to Dilip's assertion that there was a "majority of editors" who supported his blanking of my long-discussed edit by saying that Dilip's majority didn't exist. Olaf has commented above that he accepts letting my edit stand pending further discussion for context. So now we have Msriram doing a drive-by blanking. Do drive-by blankings ever become an issue for administrators to deal with, or is this all just a game of survival of the "faction" that has the greatest numbers? --Tomananda 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, both of those editors have editied the page, too, so they are in the same boat I am. Drive-by reversions are dealt with by 3RR just like any other. In this case, however, the editor did leave a note here on the talk page. My suggestion now is to list the disputed quotes here, and each of us can comment on them. I am myself convinced of their validity, but a detailed discussion will help us all see more clearly. If you list each point with a bullet, I'll archive the above talk and we can start with a fresh page. --Fire Star 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Competing Narratives"

I have boldly changed the section heading "Competing Narratives About Falun Gong" to "Controversial Issues Regarding Falun Gong". The reason is that the concept of "narratives" is relativistic jargon from the post-modernist flank of the humanities and social sciences. We are not dealing simply with narratives here: we are trying to present true and correct information about the article's subject. Anybody care to comment on that? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call, except for capitalization ;) ...and you're getting really good at avoiding the hot-button word "controversies". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the other headings also need "bold" fixing to make them more NPOV and in-context. Much of the "history" section headings is the product of asdfg's work in the past few days. Colipon+(Talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I disagree with what you say. Wikipedia is actually not about showing true and correct information about the subject of articles, merely about presenting verifiable information about them—that is, it's precisely about presenting different narratives. This is clear in the policies. Look at WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It's all about presenting what the sources say on the subject, in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. According to WP:V, it's not about "the truth" of the subject. This from WP:NPOV is also relevant:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common.

Anyway. Since this is the objection, and that it's based on a view that appears to run counter to policy, I hope it will be okay if I change it again.--Asdfg12345 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So could you explain what "competing narratives" is supposed to mean, then? And by the way, your "hope" is misplaced. Martin was not talking about "the truth", but rather "true and correct". So don't bring up the NPOV-thing, it doesn't quite cut it here. But back to the meaning of "competing narratives" -- what say ye? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seb, it's just supposed to mean what the surface meaning of those words say. Competing narratives. There are competing narratives about Falun Gong. There is the narrative of the CCP, which casts Falun Gong as a well organised money making cult, then there is the narrative from Falun Gong, which casts Falun Gong as a peaceful, unorganised meditation and spiritual practice. Then there are scholars and other people who give a range of views (many, I'd add, leaning toward the Falun Gong narrative and few supporting the CCP narrative). These are the competing narratives. The section exemplifies some of these trends. It kinda needs more information on the commentary about this though, in terms of how Falun Gong and the CCP talk about each other. I will do some more research along these lines. I hope I've explained my meaning. About Martin's remarks, I don't see a difference between "true and correct" and "the truth." Anyway, the point is just to show what the sources say. I think it's just simple, fair and neutral if we make clear up front that there are different takes on these things, then go ahead and lay out what they are in accordance with their prevalence. I understand this to be what wikipedia requires of us.--Asdfg12345 03:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  • All this changing of section headings is more insidious than adding some commentary favourable to the FLG or removing some which is critical as it seeks to define the discussion within the section as an exclusively polarised discourse. Sure there is some polarity in the discourses, but there is in fact a whole range of narratives – an entire spectrum, if you like – so it's not exactly reasonable to refer to the narratives as 'competing'. The word also implies that the views are mutually exclusive, which they are not. I also object to the reinstatement of the reference to the "friction with party state", because that also attempts to set a misleading agenda – the friction was much wider, from others in the qigong movement, sceptics, the Buddhists, etc. If this warring doesn't stop, I'm going to rewind this back to an earlier version and let you cry over it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to this later. Disappointed with the accusation of "insidious" editing, and the threats. If the page can be improved, please go and improve it; that's what we're all here for--not to make enemies and make each other cry. There's a lot to say on all these points; in any case, how the article is structured should be a broad reflection of how these things are conveyed in the best sources, of which there are many. I don't think it's controversial having something about the lead-up to the persecution, that's perfectly natural. "Skeptics and opponents" doesn't quite illustrate that, because it was the sustained protests and refusal to be cowed that pissed the authorities off. The section should reflect that it was basically an escalating thing, where Falun Gong refused to back down in the face of the criticism and banning of Zhuan Falun, etc., leading all the way up to April 25. And for "competing narratives" -- doesn't really matter what it's called, but calling it "organisation" predisposes things to a particular POV, which is not what we want. It's even unclear in that section whether it's referring to Falun Gong inside or outside China, the scope isn't clear. Anyway. Doing lots of research now, will have more to bring to the table (yes, the shared table, the table that is wikipedia that we share, that we cooperate on) later.--Asdfg12345 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source for how criticism from the Buddhist association was related to the persecution? If you want the narrative as some kind of, society is rising up against Falun Gong kinda thing, that will need to be substantiated. As far as the sources go, these were just criticisms. The only criticism related to the persecution is He Zuoxiu and his buddies, as far as I am aware; this is what lead to the protests and then the persecution. There was friction with the Party-State, and then there was positive reception from the wider society and negative reception--and, mind you, a great deal more positive reception, given that 70million figure. Anyway, the point is that these discourses need to be traceable back to sources. Finally, I don't know what the big idea is with attempting to sanitise the page of the word "persecution." That strikes me as odd. The sources use it, it belongs as a description of the persecution on wikipedia. At the very least, if that's still disputed, let's muster what material we can and settle the dispute; it doesn't mean that every time the persecution is referred to it needs to have the word "persecution," but we also shouldn't cram in euphemisms all the time and try to purge this word from the pages. Seems a bit silly.--Asdfg12345 12:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • We need a flag which gives a wordcount of the number of appearances of the word 'persecution' in each of this family of articles. ;-) I countt four instances right now in the body of this article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping watch, let me do that now. Would you care to explain the removal of the Brady remark from the self-immolation section? I find it unusual that you would revert with no explanation. She's a respected academic in the field of Chinese propaganda; the reason for swapping her comment out for a Falun Gong strawman is unclear to me. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Bearing in mind the reams FLG sources have written about the incident being a setup, this comment is 'humorous'. It looked like a throwaway remark, a soundbyte. We don't cite Brady on anything else. I read through the relevant page of the source text and the preceding page, and found nothing there to indicate that this could not have been replaced by something more 'sober'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand what you mean. It's the "hollywood stunt" thing, right? I can see how that kind of, changes the tone of things. I agree with making it a bit more straightforward. I demand the same of you, so I'm happy to submit to that here. I forget what happened with this in the end. i have to contribute every day, not so sporadically. Sorry.--Asdfg12345 12:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_5&oldid=1136719052"