Wikipedia

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 16

< Talk:Falun Gong
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bradeos Graphon (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 7 November 2006 (→Suggested Guidelines etc...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Fire Star in topic Suggested Guidelines etc...

Template:RFMF

WikiProject iconChina NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Calm talk

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

These are policies of Wikipedia and style guides for writing good articles.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources : Examples for citing sources
Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Etiquette Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Archived discussions

It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken.
Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it.

To Do List

Pending tasks for Falun Gong/Archive 16:

edit - history - watch - refresh

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 16/to do

Suggested guidelines for determining Falun Gong's nature and relation to society

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

The main question here is, is Falun Gong dangerous? There is no use in criticising or slandering a belief just because its ideas are different, strange or hard to believe. All of us enjoy freedom of belief, and we should first of all respect each other. However if something does pose a threat to society, it should be exposed and put to a halt. So, before posting an article on Wikipedia, this question should be determined first.

I would also like to remind everyone that sociology acknowledges that new ideologies usually meet with a lot of resistance. Its' a sociological law. Falun Gong's elaborate cosmoly certainly has its share of 'strange' issues and its moral guidelines on some points really differ from what is currently accepted or recognized in modern, Western society.

Even though what Falun Gong’s relation to society should be, is clearly explained in Zhuan Falun, a lot of critics seem to have overlooked these clearly laid-out rules, and cannot help to focus on parts of Falun Gongs’ many texts that they find incomprehensible or sensational, thereby stirring up a controversy. On top of that, it is known that the Chinese regime has been using lies and propaganda to sow hatred and confusion (both at home and abroad) in this matter, complicating things even further.

When people get agitated, they cannot think clearly.

Only a calm, and level-headed study of the subject and its manifestations in society can help determine its true nature. First, lets' look straight into what Zhuan Falun, the main text of Falun Gong, has to say about how practitioners should relate to society...


It is mentioned repeatedly in Falun Gong's teachings that society is 'sliding downward fast'. Despite its criticism of society and certain social trends, it is worth noting that Falun Gong itself has never considered society (or any group therein) as the enemy. When it comes to the degeneration of morality, Li says:

Nobody should blame others for it, as everyone has added fuel to the flame.


When it comes to conduct guidelines, Falun Gong has consistently distinguished 'practitioners' from 'everyday people'. What can or should be expected from both parties differs, and how the relationship between the two should be is clearly explained by Mr. Li:

Everyday people will do whatever they want to, and that is their business; it is not possible for everyone to truly practice cultivation. As a practitioner, however, one should follow a higher standard, so I am hereby putting forward the requirements for practitioners.


Thus, Falun Gong's moral code is there for practitioners to follow. It is never said that it is the task of practitioners to expect or demand ‘everyday people’ to live up to these requirements. Differences in opinion or lifestyle are no excuse for discrimination, either:

Under all circumstances, we must be good and kind to others, not to mention our family members. We should treat everyone in the same way.


Furthermore, practitioners should not impose their views on others. Coercion is not advocated as acceptable behaviour.

If you do not want to practice cultivation, no one can force you—that would be the same as doing a wrong deed.


It is not practitioners’ task to regulate society. Freedom of choice is something Falun Gong practitioners are to respect.

In other words, no one will interfere with it in terms of which path you take, what you want, or what you try to get. We can only advise people to be good.


Li adds:

Some people say: "I just want to discipline bad people." I would say that you are best off becoming a policeman.


When it comes to extreme situations, however, an additional guideline is taken into consideration:

It is a xinxing (mind-nature) issue if you do not help stop a murder or arson when you see it. How will you otherwise demonstrate that you are a good person?



So it would seem that Falun Gong’s disapproval and criticism of certain trends in society do not serve the purpose of providing practitioners with excuses to blame, discriminate or mistreat their fellow men. Rather they seem to serve as guidelines to follow a path different from that of mainstream society, but without inflicting harm to that society or members thereof.

Looking at the facts, when we analyse Falun Gong practitioners' conduct in society over the past 14 years, it is apparent that there haven't been any notable problems: practitioners appear to be law-abiding citizens, non-violent and peace-loving people. This is also seen in the way Chinese practitioners have endured seven years of brutal persecution: not once have practitioners retaliated or assaulted their persecutors. This is both a fact and remarkable. At the same time, only very few people can be found who left Falun Gong disappointed.

I can understand some people's confusion, but wanting to portay Falun Gong as something evil, is in my opinion unscientific and not rational. I hope this clears up some doubts.

Another thing is, some of the controversial issues are in essence only footnotes in Falun Gong's cosmology. Thus, these things should not be blown out of proportion, either. The core of Falun Gong's teaching is cultivation: spiritual ascencion through conduct cultivation and self-discipline. All of the books and lectures are interpersed with the same messages over and over: be kind to everyone, treat everyone with the same kindness, etc. Admitted, that is hardly sensational, but it *is* the core of the teaching.

When I read what's on Wikipedia, I don't find too much about this, and that is a shame, because it is what Falun Gong is about. I would also like to remark that when reading these pages, some practitioners' replies don't always reflect a lot of compassion and forbearance (or wisdom). Don't judge all practitioners based on one case. We're still a bunch of individuals, you see.


The above comment by 81.82.177.5 (who deleted virtually the entire discussion to enforce his views in the above post) or Willempie only confirms several things - 1. complete and perhaps wilful ignorance of the "This is not a FLG Discussion Forum" rule; 2. Distortion of truths, or if not, making drastic assumptions. For example, 'practitioners appear to be law-abiding citizens, non-violent and peace-loving people' - but of course we can only say that once you completely dismiss contrary evidence as 'CCP propaganda', and twist certain criticisms totally out of proportion, attempt to give something with little foundation a basis or justification, e.g. 'sociological law', or of course at times simply appealing to raw emotion, e.g. saying people dismiss FLG simply as a 'different' set of beliefs which people are not 'used to'. At other times no point is actually being made but hoping that by using keywords (highlighted in bold) or ridiculously vague generalizations such as "So, to determine whether something is a threat or not, only a calm, and level-headed study of the subject and its manifestations in society can determine its true nature."
What is even more hypocritical is that although the CCP is supposed to ONLY develop propaganda according to these FLGers and criticise CCP authoritarian rule, they justify their beliefs solely on one person's utterings - Li Hongzhi - who is essentially imposing his 'authoritarian' (i.e. only justified) set of beliefs, without real critique. Is any human perfect? Is any set of beliefs perfect? If FLG is an 'ideology' then has any ideology turned out to be flawless? If it's not flawless, then do FLGers realize what its flaws are, and why some FLG critics are not simply CCP-propagandists? It is shutting oneself off from one set of beliefs and totally embracing another without the capacity to constructively criticise (point by point) what exactly is wrong with both sides, and give each side roughly equal treatment.
We then move onto that person's conclusions, who says that condemning FLG as evil is 'unscientific' and irrational, although this is not elaborated on. How is FLG critique (both CCP and non-CCP sources) unscientific? How is it irrational? The second of the two questions was partly answered, but only by restricting oneself to a purely FLG view of the world - total embracement and unquestioning of one person's set of beliefs. Ironic, given that these same people accuse people under the CCP not having an 'independent' mind or having a 'genuine' capacity of self-critique either. The person then ends with "Don't judge all practitioners based on one case" - although nelgecting the increasing number of cases which question FLG 'teachings'. As if implying that FLGers had a breadth of opinions, the person then says "we're still a bunch of individuals, you see", although neglecting to add that this is only so within those who use the set of FLG beliefs at its core to view the world and different organizations.
Objectivity can only be best achieved (though not always fully) by not totally embracing or subscribing oneself to either set of beliefs - the ability to see everything from a 'third-person' point of view. Once one has embraced any one set of beliefs so totally that they cannot tolerate any criticisms of it, and is even willing to delete the entire discussion section that appears to question the viability of FLG beliefs, then one is clearly not objective any longer. What is the most ridiculous in the argument made by the FLGer above is, of course, the fact that you can replace every 'FLG' reference with 'communism', and replace 'Li's teachings' with 'Marx's teachings' and hey, you'll have a communist 'beliefs' leaflet. In the end, they can talk about how "coercion is not advocated as acceptable behaviour" but it does not rule out such actions "when necessary", making what they're doing on here, ie making grand statements, as hollow as the Islamic extremists distorting the Koran's section on 'jihad' to justify crashing planes into the WTC on 9/11/2001. Jsw663 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, please, lets not go to the extreme here. Lets remember this is for discussing things pertaining to the article. Regretably i dont agree with erasing all the talk page just to post a comment favoring Falun Gong. But i also dont think its proper to offend someone with Irony and sarcasm just because he did something incorrect. If we both want to be taken seriously then lets just please focus on the article.--Andres18 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to understand how people can feel frustrated by being preached to over and over instead of engaged in a discussion. We don't have to determine anything about FLG, we just report what Li says, what his followers say (if anything), what the CCP and other critics (positive and negative) have to say, all statements in the public domain and that's it. This isn't a discussion forum, and no one is expected to prove anything about whether Li is a living god, a demonic sorceror or an insane, incompetent boob. We are here report FLG as an encyclopaedia, not engage in apologetics. --Fire Star 火星 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The set of beliefs is Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance. So you can say we are shutting everything else out and embracing that. That is the set of beliefs we have replaced everything else with. We just care about that. We are saying that Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance is flawless, perfect, and complete. The point of our practicing Falun Gong is to assimilate ourselves to that. We aren't after anything else. Can you say that we have done anything wrong for that? Isn't that a great thing? What else are you still looking for? Actually, Zhen-Shan-Ren is all you need. But we will never impose learning Dafa on anyone. It has to come from your own heart. I wanted to clear that up. Fire Star what you said is good as well. The articles are nearly all locked at the moment, and I find that sometimes editors seem disinterested in making positive progress on articles, but prefer to simply revert any changes. I guess I am talking mainly about Yueyen, and Samuel. Since this is the situation, sometimes it may be good to discuss understandings on this page, to have a more informed bunch of people editing the articles. We can exchange ideas and understand each other's point of view this way. I have just above stated my understanding of Dafa to Jsw to help him understand where we are coming from. Probably that person didn't mean to erase the talk page like that, it seems like a mistake. --Asdfg12345 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is because of this attitude that the article is blocked. Yes, Li talks about Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance but he has also talked about other things. --Samuel Luo 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Falun Gong is not an "ideology". Please think about it - do ideologies cause system level changes in gene expression( as reported in the study by Richard Johnson et. al., presented on the main page) or improvements health levels ?

Buddhism for instance tells us that the Dharma is not some ideology or some kind of speculative philosophy but the truth at a level, enlightened to ( through cultivation) and precisely taught.. And the veracity of the teaching is experienced through practice - here and now. For instance the Law of Cause and effect exists in the cosmos, and it will exist irrespective of what ideology I start believing in or stop believing in. The human carries the faculties to objectively comprehend the cosmos and these faculties emerge through Xiulian . Gautama Buddha or Lao Zi werent teaching "ideologies."

If we are to understand what Tai Chi is - How smart is it to form our opinion by looking at what the CCP says about it or what Mr James Randi thinks about it? Ofcourse, an encyclopaedia article on Tai Chi should take into consideration different perspectives - but shouldnt the article itself be more of an indepth study on that science?

That is why I said in my previous post that going the through the primary source - the Nine Lectures is absolutely necessary if we are to work towards a good article on the topic. To give a crude analogy- how can one hope to write an article on Quantum Mechanics by just going through the opinions different people hold on that model? To do so one must study Quantum Mechanics itself and understand its foundations and what it is.

220.226.24.143 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Samuel in my understanding the article is blocked because of the constant reverting. That is not related to my personal understanding of Dafa, or an attitude you perceived in the above comment. I think that everything Mr. Li Hongzhi has said is based on Zhen-Shan-Ren. This is wikipedia so we just report things and my opinion does not matter, but the fundamental purpose of Falun Dafa, and the reason people are practicing it, as repeatedly stated in the teachings, has been overlooked a lot of the time in favour of imaginative interpretations or attempts to create different kinds of misleading impressions. You really do not even want to report the actual key concepts of Falun Dafa; Zhen-Shan-Ren. You seem to want this wikipage to look like your personal website; you have demonstrated that. I was telling Jsw things because it seems that he still has not taken the time to listen to the lectures and still not read much about or tried to really understand the persecution. Jsw, I think unless you do those things, like I have mentioned before, your understanding on this issue will have trouble developing. Actually, the best response to all your comments would just be to ask you again to please actually read about this stuff. Why don't you listen to the lectures? Why don't you read the reports made by NGO's, and the Kilgour-Matas report? Why don't you take a good look at the evidence? You have only dismissed and doubted, and an above post seems to suggest that you do not even really believe the persecution exists?! I have not encountered anyone else who has seriously doubted those things about torture, rape, beatings, execution, organ harvesting etc. are real. Objectivity: just look at the evidence. In these discussions and in working on the article, the fundamental issues about Falun Gong and the persecution may be easy to forget. I keep saying the same thing, so like Andres suggested, I won't post any more of these comments. Finally, Jsw, please take a step back and try to understand what I wrote. It may help to read it through slowly a few times.--Asdfg12345 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Like Fire_Star said, it does become annoying when an encyclopedic discussion website turns into an advertisement for a group's beliefs. Unlike what Asdfg has said, I have taken the time not only to view those websites but also read the entire Wiki article itself, including the one on FLG persecutions. Whilst I always find it prudent to question sources, that doesn't mean I am dismissing anything outright - I just take some sources and types of evidence to be more credible than others. It is also because the pro-CCP and anti-FLG side is being underrepresented on this board that I appear to be overcompensating, but like with a legal trial where only one side is representing the case, inevitably there will be distortion or exaggeration of certain facts - not only that, but to know HOW and WHY they would do that one has to question their agenda / motive behind their actions. So whilst I'm not saying that FLG persecution did not happen, I'm not going to readily believe every single case that appears on pro-FLG sources now, am I?
Moreover, like I said before, I have read enough basics about FLG to understand, generally, what it's all about. Just because I don't criticize Li's teachings directly doesn't show a lack of understanding of FLG. I merely emphasize the effect FLG has on its followers and on certain societies at large. I can understand why you cannot understand how someone who is not CCP can criticise FLG even after reading Li's teachings (which there are plenty of on this discussion board, btw), but then to have selective critical capacity only ensures that one is not being totally objective. That may seem to apply to my situation too, but since I only have the benefit of Samuel's limited range of criticisms, people reading this will also need to understand the other side too. People should also have the benefit of someone else commentating who have not been heavily involved with FLG in the past (ie not strongly pro- or anti-FLG) and thus not dismissable as merely a disaffected ex-believer or completely enamored believer, ie excessively opinionated either way. Perhaps, Asdfg, you should ask yourself why I place so much emphasis on the results (FLG practitioners' actions) instead of the theory (FLG principles). Jsw663 10:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Another point I'd like to bring up is that whenever FLG practitioners ask us to read the books and lectures, they are assuming we haven't done so. What people need to realise is that some of us who don't admire Li or FLG have gotten to these conclusions just by reading Li's books and lectures. I am a sifu of Wu style T'ai Chi Ch'uan who has studied with the best neigong teachers in China. I am well versed in the both the martial and healing aspects of those arts, I am acquainted with the Chinese language and the sometimes obscure metaphor used by both Taoist and Buddhist approaches to these subjects, and I have been trained to teach these arts, using precise didactic structures (formulated and refined through many generations by the original T'ai Chi families) to my own students. So, with that background, when I read Zhuan Falun and Li's lectures, I know what I am reading and I know what he is saying. What I can tell you, and this relates directly to how FLG practitioners are going to have to approach discussing these articles with me at least, is that Li Hongzhi (rather like George W. Bush) has yet to prove that he can do what he says. He makes incredibly grandiose claims, yet the actual evidence seems to point in another direction. Orthodox T'ai Chi teachers have to prove they know what they are on about, physically and theoretically, and have to demonstrate a one to one correspondence with what they can do physically and T'ai Chi theory. If they cannot, then they are labelled frauds by the teachers who actually do make such a demonstration.
How this affects the FLG articles is that there are a few of us at Wikipedia who don't have an interest in obscuring Li's teachings; what he has actually said, where he said it, when he said it and to whom, in aid of promoting FLG. And we aren't going away. On the other hand, I am satisfied that simple reporting of these things is enough, we should let plain, bland quotes tell the story, report the magic spells (zhen, shan, ren, etc.) as only one part of the article, not the whole (as was suggested by a practitioner above) and avoid castigating Li in the articles. Also, I believe that the evidence supports the reporting of the CCP brutally imprisoning, torturing and killing FLG practitioners, and I also think we should include the reports of organ harvesting, if they come from verifiable news sources. --Fire Star 火星 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Falun Xiulian Dafa is Buddhahood Cultivation - not a martial art. Changes in the body and mind are percieved by practitioners here and now. From the start almost all practitioners can feel the falun rotate ; long term chronic conditions disappear in days. Things such as the small and great heavenly circuits open up in weeks of practice. Practitioners can sense the the energy mechanisms rotate continually, through out the day. As I sit here and type this I can feel the rotations of the maoyou heavenly circuit.
Zen-Shan-Ren are not to be confused with human emotions or sentimental concepts . There is absolutely no form of weakness in Zhen-Shan-Ren. The Dao School talks about the Truth(Zhen), and the Buddha School Compassion(Shan). To comprehend Zhen-Shan-Ren is far beyond the intellect or the emotions.
220.226.58.194 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My point was that you can say that all day, but you can't demonstrate it. I can demonstrate that what I teach is accurate because I teach martial art. If I know martial art well, the bad guy hits the floor and doesn't get up. If I don't, I hit the floor. As simple as that, no claims, no excuses and no word games. I've had to "cultivate" for 21 years to get what kung fu I have. At this point in my training if you hit me, your hand breaks, you kick me, your foot breaks. Very few people have the ability to hurt me physically without a weapon of some kind and a clear shot. All my internal and external meridians have to be completely and thoroughly balanced to pull that one off, let me tell you. I can see that FLG exercises are incapable of producing these results, and find it laughable that you guys put so much stock in what is apparently (again, to me) a complete doddle. I say this so that you know you will need better arguments than simple preaching to get your missionary activities into our articles. For example: to say "To comprehend Zhen-Shan-Ren is far beyond the intellect or the emotions" is meaningless for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, because that is what humans have, and what they are interpreting what they read here with. I could say "My astral body is in your kitchen" and insist that I know exactly everything that you have eaten there for the last three years, too, but unless I can prove it by actually naming the dishes you've eaten alone, I'm just as nonsensical as anyone else who trades in such claims. So, FLG people say they have tolerance, compassion and forbearance, but I have yet to see them display any of those attributes in a meaningful way, especially here. That is the weakness of relying on magic spells to win converts, and it certainly isn't good enough for us cynical Wikipedia editors. So, how do we move forward? Lacking my conversion to FLG (which isn't very likely) you folks are going to have to be satisfied with what I mentioned above, neutral citations of things that Li Hongzhi, his supporters and critics have said in the public domain. No apologetics, no interpretations, just the public record, pro and con, warts and all. --Fire Star 火星 21:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


It is only natural that some laugh at Buddhahood Cultivators - It is a matter of enlightenment quality. No true cultivator of the Dao goes around demonstrating the higher faculties that emerge through cultivation. It is necessary to distinguish those who practice cultivation from those who belong to the circus.
The only thing that can "hurt" a person are the psychological aggregates he carries within himself - hatred, fear, anger, pride, jealousy etc. The ability to take blows (from an ordinary person) you talk about is nothing but an ordinary skill anyone can obtain through pursuit and practice.
The purpose of energy mechanisms is to transform your benti from the most micro-cosmic dimensions - the very matter your body is composed of changes . Not to create a "balance" between qi "meridians".
"Convert" to what? To practice cultivation, the wish must emerge from one's heart.
220.226.34.176 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You are going to have to be careful, that "circus" crack is a violation of WP:NPA and will get you blocked if you continue to argue in that manner. Consider this your first warning. Such arguments dismissing teachers of systems you believe to be in competition with your religion, besides not showing much "compassion", are also illogical, and bolster my position that all FLG can do is claim, not demonstrate. And then, when called on that issue, you insult! So much for "tolerance". If I'm going to teach the technique I've learned from my teachers, I must demonstrate it. That Li has taught you to call the simple mechanics of your breathing Falun energy or some such doesn't prove that he is a living god, just that he thinks he can get away with claimimg something every living person does every day is something only he can teach. My new point for purposes of this discussion is that you aren't discussiing the article at all, you are discussing what you believe about FLG. Wikipedia isn't a Falungong discussion forum. --Fire Star 火星 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I was merely replying to a statement of yours. I absolutely dont intent to compare Tai Chi with any other cultivation way - I dont have such silly attachments. Tai Chi is a Great cultivation way of the Dao School. Unfortunately the Fa of heart cultivation of this Way hasnt been handed down. What is infinitely more saddening is that many consider it a simple boxing art. You can practice the movements for a lifetime and still attain little if you dont cultivate your heart nature. What you are and how your life unfolds is merely a reflection of your heart-nature - your level of being. There is immense wisdom in the Cosmos, no phenomena is of co-incidental nature and it is impossible to gain whatever you wish with the mentality of pursuit or by doing some fancy "movements". Falun Gong is no "breathing exercises" and I think you know that well. The Dao school talks about the "True man" and I dont know what this concept of "living god" is.
If it is selfishness, fears, manipulative mentality, abominable insecurities and prejudices that drive your actions and thoughts - that precisely is what your level of being is; what your heart nature is and what your are - irrespective of how long you have been doing a set of movements. Never in the history of the Cosmos has these aggregates brought joy to any sentient being. If it is wisdom and direct comprehension of the Fa of the Cosmos that you count on that is what your level of being is.
220.226.34.176 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

220.226.34.176, you are ranting about your personal beliefs. I don't know what kind of fruit you think this kind of arguing will bear. Fire Star's criticisms of you are grounded, and I think you should think about them. Although I can agree with some of the points you've made, they are compromised by what I percieve as your self-righteousness. Moreover, I want to reiterate Fire Star's comment that this is not a Falun Gong discussion forum. When making arguments like the above, this should be considered. I recommend that you try harder to consider the other side. Since I'm posting, I'll mention that Mr. Li has actually performed a number of miracles, it's just that we don't focus on these things. I've read and heard personal accounts of these by practitioners who have witnessed them. You can read some of them here. I believe that there are also some things documented by Chinese research institutes, but I haven't seen the reports (I haven't really made a point to try to find them). But as for Falun Gong as whole, it's about cultivating the heart, rather than specific skills. What we develop, for the most part, can only be felt and experienced by the individual, and if one does develop certain abilities they are generally forbidden from demonstration. In this regard, it's much closer to a religion than a martial art, and there's no need to compare apples and oranges. Mcconn 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

McConn, can you point to any specific article on that page of the link you posted? All it has, from what I can see, are links to people meeting with Li and their... *ahem* positive experiences... but no article/picture with links to any photographed / verifiable 'miracles'. Jsw663 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Putting things directly isnt always bad. It doesnt mean you are attached to "self-righteousness". It is sometimes better to be honest and straightforward especially when you feel the other person is capable of understanding. If your intention is pure and stems from compassion alone, the other person will be able to sense that. Falun Dafa is not a religion and Tai Chi is not just a martial art. They are two different cultivation ways. In cultivation one has to pay attention to cultivation of heart-nature - be it in Tai Chi or Tibetan Tantrism.
220.226.34.176 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel that what Mcconn said above is precisely the way to go forward with this article. I can agree to disagree as long as we have civility in discussing the article. I mentioned my training in regard to my interest in the article, and why I flatter myself that understand what Li Hongzhi is talking about when I read his stuff. I will not put what I believe about him or FLG in any article. As well, practitioners shouldn't. If we talk about about FLG's belief system, we have to mention it in terms of what Li (as well as traditional Taoism and Buddhism inasmuch as Li mentions them so that people can compare and contrast) has actually said, and not rate his statements in order of what we feel to be their relative importance. He himself may have qualified his teachings in such a way, and that would be encyclopaedic, IMO, but any of our editors doing so (while saying other editors aren't qualified to) is engaging in apologetics. --Fire Star 火星 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Fire Star, I think if we can can come up with some way to ensure all edits to the pages conform to wikipedia policies on original research and that relevant material is not deleted that in itself would be sufficient to help us work toward a good article.
220.226.34.176 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A Falun Gong program on KPFA FM radio

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe it is the first broadcast of this kind. The Falun Gong --Yueyuen 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New Amnesty International Falun Gong Persecution Fact Sheet included Recent Organ Harvesting Reports

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

See the new Amnesty International report here

Quote:

Report on alleged live organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners

  • A report published by independent researchers David Matas and David Kilgour on 6th July 2006, concludes that large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners are victims of 'systematic' organ harvesting, whilst still alive, throughout China.
  • Amnesty International is continuing to analyse sources of information about the Falun Gong organ harvesting allegations, including the report published by Canadians David Matas and David Kilgour.
  • Amnesty International is carrying out its own investigation on this issue. These investigations are being hampered by the particular difficulty of collecting reliable evidence in China, including official restrictions on access for international human rights organizations.
  • Amnesty International has noted the response of the Chinese authorities to the Canadian report, which states among other things that China has 'consistently abided by the relevant guiding principles of the World Health Organization endorsed in 1991, prohibiting the sale of human organs and stipulating that donors' written consent must be obtained beforehand'. Amnesty International considers this statement to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China.

--sroberson 10:36, 3 November 2006 -0500 GMT

Quoting the section above the one you did on the same source -
"Trade in Organs of Executed Prisoners
Chinese authorities conceal national statistics on the death penalty as a "state secret". Based on public reports available, AI has estimated that at least 1,770 people were executed and 3,900 people were sentenced to death during 2005, although the true figures are believed to be much higher. In March 2004, a senior member of the National People's Congress announced that China executes around 10,000 people per year.


There is a widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China. The lack of transparency surrounding such practices makes it impossible to determine whether written consent was obtained. Amnesty International also remains deeply concerned that those faced with imminent execution are not in a position to provide 'free and informed consent' to having their organs extracted.


Amnesty International notes the introduction, in China, of new regulations on organ transplants on 1 July 2006 banning the buying and selling of organs. However, questions remain about how well the regulations will be enforced, particularly in view of the high commercial value of organ sales in China. Amnesty International also notes that the regulations fail to address the basic issue of the source of organs for transplantation."
    • This shows several things:- a) the number actually executed is a guess, not a fact. If the NPC member was telling a fact then s/he would have been framed for treason if it were a real state secret. Even if it were a fact, it was reported in early 2004. In the Amnesty International source itself it says it cannot be determined (but they can guess?) how many of the executions were FLGers. b) second paragraph quotes (my emphasis in bold) "... makes it impossible to determine..." Thus it is speculation once again, not fact. c) third paragraph notes China introduced new regulations on 1 July 2006 regarding the trade of organs. Funny I don't see these 'fair, balanced and objective' FLGers also noting the one and only proven fact reported in that entire section I quoted above. d) Naturally for the paragraph 'sroberson' quoted, it merely points out several independent facts/observations (that the two were independent researchers and that they made CONCLUSIONS - ie not proveable fact) This is what I mean by distinguishing the level of reliability of sources. They can dress it up in fancy, opinionated language but I always question what facts are actually being said in the article, and distinguish it from the assertions. Of course I am not saying that the assertions are untrue, but that another, similar objective researcher may come to different conclusions based on different, or in this case the same, limited number of facts in existence. Jsw663 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are conclusions because real, third-party discovery and investigation isn't permitted in China. If this was in no way true, why would they prevent third-parties from investigating?
But you must also look at the source of these conclusions. I place a higher importance and belief on the conclusions of internationally respected human rights lawyers and a former Canadian under-secretaries of state, than your conclusions. Or do you have any specialized training in international human rights infringement investigations? I would be happy to learn of your specialized training, and then, perhaps I'd be more inclined to not just assume you're being a contrarian and/or just toting the Party line.
By definition, there will be a lack of proof of things happening in a totalitarian state. They are totalitarian for a reason. For example, do think there is any "proof" that corruption is wide-spread in China? Does this lack of "proof" mean that it doesn't exist?
--sroberson 11:00, 6 November 2006 -0500 GMT
I'll tackle your reply's three main points in three paragraphs. Third-party investigation isn't permitted in China? Yet foreign journalists tend to spend most of their time doing just that... one must also remember there is a difference between public information, sensitive (restricted) public information and classified state secrets. The difference is important to draw the line between the rights of free speech and its infringement against national law. FLGers do not determine what constitutes as a state secret, and the state does not have any particular reason to leave itself vulnerable to anti-state actors' exploitation of any constitutionally-guaranteed rights. After all, the PRC's constitution does guarantee free speech but only when it does not act contrary to national law or state security. Where one sets the boundary of course depends on one's political leanings, unless one nurses a particular grievance against the CCP and thinks, despite the vastly different conditions between China as an industrializing country and the US/UK as an industrialized one, that the CCP ought to abide by the same standard regardless of domestic conditions and cultural factors.
Conclusions can be very misleading when used with selective facts. Think, Iraq War, WMD intelligence (very limited and reliability questioned), US President. Are you saying that the head of the world's only superpower is less reliable than several human rights lawyers (whose speciality has a reason) or ex-Canadian undersecretary (whose opinion is based on public sources and Canadian intelligence - I doubt he would have access to reliable non-FLG sources)? (If you don't get what I'm trying to say here, it is that with selective facts, or even sometimes with the full set of facts, one can come to the wrong conclusion) You see, whilst I'm not saying something did not happen, I'm definitely not saying it must have happened either, and the ability to question something that happened, as well as trying to prove it, is necessary to give speculations and hypotheses credibility and justification. If you have had any legal training, you should be aware that conclusions (ie inference) do not hold the same weight as findings of fact in the court of law, as it is well known that even expert witnesses can and do give directly contrary testimony, even though both sets of witnesses could be telling the whole truth, from their point of view, based on certain facts. If you have read any of my other posts it should be pretty clear I'm not affiliated with the CCP.
Regarding your second paragraph, to say that there will be a lack of proof of things happening in a totalitarian state is like saying that it is impossible to condemn Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet of war crimes since none of their genocides / murders can be accounted for. Maybe you want to reconsider that statement. Unless, of course, it is merely an anti-CCP statement dressed up in pseudo-morality. Jsw663 13:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
But what do you yourself really think Jsw? --Asdfg12345 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, what Teacher has said can be proven just by practicing. There is the matter of enlightenment quality. But I like what you said about just reporting it. --Asdfg12345 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Asdfg12345, maybe you'd like to reply to the post. As for Fire Star's post, she encapsulates my argument almost entirely - only, of course, if FLG practitioners CAN actually know what true objectivity is. The 'enlightenment quality' appears to give ample room for outrageous speculation by FLG practitioners. If you say that proof can only be done by practising then are you lending more credibility to ex-practitioners like Samuel instead of non-practitioning but decently-read 3rd-party people? Jsw663 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. We can't solve any of these issues here. All we can do is agree to disagree and get on with the article. It is simple; if we can step back and concentrate on adding info in accord with Wikipedia policy then we will be fine and the article can grow. If people continue to edit in defiance of those policies and general consensus (if such exists) then the articles will remain protected. When the mediation committee picks up the case, then we will have some more input from uninvolved editors, which will be a big help towards building consensus. --Fire Star 火星 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Guidelines etc...

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Oops! My sincerest apologies if I erased a whole part of the discussion when posting 'suggested guidelines'.... Didn't do that on purpose...

Anyway, criticism flies like sharp swords around here... The reason I posted 'suggested guidelines' was that we should put things in their proper context. The whole "xenophobia" and "homophobia" issues, when presented in an encyclopedia, may paint a wrong picture if they aren't presented in their right contexts. And that context is what's in *all* of Li's Teachings, namely that Li does not preach hatred, nor does he ask his followers to mistreat their fellow man.

That's my concern, and that's objectivity also.

What Li's teaches is that even though a practitioner (should) completely disapprove of homosexuality, they still should treat *everyone* with the same kindness. If you're not going to discriminate homosexuals, but only disapprove of their sexuality on an ideological level, can it be called "homophobia"?

What I found on Wikipedia:

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.[2]

The term homophobic, meaning "prejudiced against homosexual people"[3], is pejorative in the same manner that bigoted or prejudiced is pejorative. Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.[4]


As homophobia can mean both "disapproval of" as well as "hatred" and "hostility", I object to the use of this word when referring to Falun Gong's teachings, because hatred and hostility are not advocated in the teachings. Using the term "homophobia" may suggest otherwise.

The same goes for "xenophobia". This is supported by the facts: no one has ever been denied to practice FG for being colored or of mixed race. Many FG couples are of mixed race (especially part Asian). Li's exposition on segregated heavens serves no practical purpose as it is only a marginal note in the teachings. It does not provoke any action on the part of the practitioners.


That's all for now. Sorry once again for having deleted part of the discussion.

This argument has been made over and over again by practitioners who seek to make Li's homophobic teachings acceptable to the Westerners. If you don't think Li's teachings are homophobic you clearly don't understand what the meaning of the word aversion is. When a self-proclaimed creator of gods and holder of the only truth in the universe teaches that homosexuals will be eliminated through a particulary slow and painful process...and that they have "dark hearts, turning demonic"...all fair minded people will recoil in disgust and see Li's teachings for what they are. The word homophobic fits Li's teachings perfectly.
The real question to ask is: why does Li single out homosexuals for his most intense condemnation? Why does he say of homosexuals...and only homosexuals...that they accumulate a particularly large amount of black karma by virtue of their homosexual behavior (read the Switzerland speech for the full statement.) History has shown that many of the world's most extreme homophobes have turned out to be self-loathing gays who cannot come to terms with their own god-given sexuality. The self-loathing usually comes from one of the fundmentalist religions, or in the case of Chinese culture, the Falun Gong.
Li has never appeared to be comfortable with the human condition or human diversity in all it's spendor. It was not until I had read literally a thousand or more pages of Li's writings that I came to the conclusion that Li must be a very frightened man. He has a cosmic imagination and ability to pursuade others to live in his fear-based world-view, but beyond that he remains so very small-minded. He certainly does not live up to the standard of acceptance and non-judgementalism set forth by Sakyamuni. --Tomananda 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
A small correction: Li says that homosexuals might have to go through this process if it were not for the Fa-rectification. You are always avoiding this issue. When Li talks about the gods' way of handling things, he often mentions that the gods have deviated. That changes the meaning of the text quite drastically. Of course, I don't expect you to change your opinions. But I have stated many times that this whole question is much broader, and it involves a difference in what is perceived as natural ("cosmic") morality and conventional ("human") morality. Falun Gong practitioners have never pushed a social agenda that would in any way restrict the rights of homosexuals. It's nothing like the attitude of the Christian fundamentalists and other such groups. I'm slightly curious about why you make such a big issue out of Falun Gong, as there are a lot of movements out there who truly want to infringe upon your rights.
Basically, you are accusing Falun Gong practitioners (and Li Hongzhi in particular) of committing a thoughtcrime. When you describe Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality as "homophobia", it seems that you'd like to create fiercely emotional, violent and discriminatory connotations. Such a term is not only POV, but it also shifts the attention from the point about natural morality I made above. You know that the idea of an independently existing cosmic standard for living beings at different levels is crucial in Falun Gong. On the other hand, "homophobia" is definitely a pejorative, non-neutral term. When applied to people who simply think differently, it suggests that the person making the accusation already knows the "natural standard" (concerning homosexuality, at least), and anybody who doesn't agree with it has a "phobia" or other unresolved personal problems. You are appealing to metaphysics yourself. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In partial reply, but more of a question, to 71.202.116.33 and Olaf - is Li basically saying that homosexuals can be alleviated of their 'sin' by turning to FLG? Jsw663 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No. What he means by Fa-rectification has nothing to do with whether one practices Falun Gong or not. According to my understanding, he means that because all beings have deviated, and there are flaws even in the highest levels of the cosmos, the sentient beings' past actions will not be held against them. You probably know the traditional idea of Man following Earth, Earth following Heaven, Heaven following Dao, and Dao following what is natural, which means that the human society simply expresses the changes in the greater cosmos, and nothing in history is accidental.
Li thinks that the Fa-rectification is the only way to resolve such problems at the root; therefore, those who interfere with it (by getting involved with the persecution of Dafa and siding with the 'evil') cannot enter the future as this whole affair ends and the old cosmos ceases to exist. Correct me if I've misunderstood. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, your defense of Li's homophobic teachings proves my point. To sugggest that a homosexual can be saved from punishment by the gods because Falun Gong teaches not to have gay sex (because it creates so much black karma that the only way to eliminate it is through a very slow and painful process) actually supports the label of "homophobic" for Falun Gong. Your logic is tortured and contradictory. As a homosexual, if I am to believe Li's teachings (or your interpretation of Li's teachings) I am required to give up physically loving other men because in Li's mind gay sex is "disgusting and dirty"...an act that to him proves gays "have lost their ability to reason at this time." (That's a quote from your bible, Zhuan Falun.)

We spent several months arguing these points while writing the Criticism page and I don't see any purpose in re-stating all the discussion here. If there are new people reading this discussion, I suggest that they go back to the archived discussions for the Criticism and controversies page. --Tomananda 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you did not understand my reply. Where does it say that homosexuals have to give up gay sex at this moment, otherwise they will be "punished by gods"? Wasn't I talking about how Falun Gong teaches universal forgiveness of all sentient beings regardless of their past actions, provided that they don't take part in the persecution? If you read Li's words carefully, you might get his point: he's talking about "gods" (referring to certain beings of old cosmos) punishing homosexuality in such a manner, not Fa-rectification. The latter is intended to solve these problems at the root. Whether something is righteous from an universal perspective or not, that's another issue, and it's a special concern for cultivators seeking to elevate themselves. If Falun Gong is true, maybe people will be more aware of such questions in the future.
Disciple asks: How can we save homosexuals more effectively?
Teacher: They are sentient beings, so save them just like the other ordinary sentient beings. Save them if you can, and treat them just like anyone else. The more you regard them as a special group, the less you will be able to save them. Just save them as you would any other persons. Save them if you can. If you can't, then you can't. [1] ---Olaf Stephanos 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see the aburdity of your argument, Olaf? You condescendingly tell homosexuals that they should not label Falun Gong "homophobic" because all that is happening in Li's "Fa-rectification" is that the root cause of problems will be resolved. So by your twisted logic, homosexuals should happily look forward to a future existence in which there is no homosexuality and at the same time not even think for a moment that Li's world view is homophobic. Give me a break! Homosexuality is not a "root problem" that needs to be eliminated by Li Hongzhi's cosmic actions. If anything, homosexuality might be considered part of the solution to this planet's obscene over-population. As I have already pointed out, Li Hongzhi has a very big imagination, but also a very small mind. You are free to worship him as the savior of mankind if you like, but you are not free to mis-represent his teachings. --Tomananda 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Read my first reply once more. You are accusing Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong practitioners of a thoughtcrime. Disapproval of homosexuality per se is something that falls perfectly within the freedom of belief, as long as people with such opinions do not forcefully impose these ideas on others. We are not telling others how to live, and thus the label "homophobic" is not a neutral description. Also, I'd rather not have words put in my mouth: I did not talk of homosexuality as a "root problem". If one wants to set a certain moral standard for his personal conduct, he ought to be free to do that. That's what cultivation is about. I do not worship Li Hongzhi, but I've never encountered anything more impressive than his Falun Gong, and that's why I take him quite seriously. I can certainly accept different opinions and worldviews, but I'm also against misrepresenting what he actually teaches. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Olaf, you must clarify this post. If "homosexuality" is not one of the root problems that will be eliminated by Li's Fa-rectifiction, then one must conclude that homosexuality will continue to exist after the cosmos is rectified. Do you agree with that conclusion?
As to your not worshipping Li....do you believe that his Dafa is the only means for salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification or don't you? Do you believe that Li will teach the gods his Dafa? And that he will turn his disciples into gods?
As to my accusing Li and practitioners of "thought crimes"...what a silly construction to use for people who claim to be spiritual. The fact that Falun Gong practitioners fail to evaluate Li's teachings critically (I've never heard any practitioner ever disagree with anything Li has ever said) does not constitute "thought crimes." Failure to think critically is not a crime but it is unfortunately part of human nature. It's also an attribute that is found disproportionately in cult victims.
So Olaf, do you really believe that Li is now preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it? (as he said in Boston a few years back)or that the SARS epidemic in China was heaven's way of punishing people? (and therefore the best way to respond to that epidemic is to not seek medical help, but rather believe in Falun Gong?) Do you really believe these things? --Tomananda 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
These personal belief conflicts aren't issues we can solve here. What Olaf or Tomananda or I believe isn't important, but rather what sourced statements should be in the article(s) and why. I'm hoping our new mediator will be able to provide a fresh start towards prioritising these debates for us. --Fire Star 火星 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_16&oldid=86344253"