Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Shortening of "criticism" section on main-page and Re-rrangement of subsections

I hope moderators would make sure that people focus better on the edits. It is time the criticism section on the main page is reduced to a paragraph. I am moving my previous edit to the end of the page.

It is hoped that the criticism sub-section on the main page be shortened as soon as possible. I request the admins helping to edit the page to kindly make sure that it is done at the earliest. Also Samuel Luo's Personal webpage deosnt belong to the references section. Kindly remove the same from the references.

Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sections Falun Gong outside China and the section on the persectution of Falun Gong, in my opinion, must come above thse section on "criticism". Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough notable criticisms to report (and I think there are) then there is no reason to shorten their section other than some people must think it makes FLG look bad. The criticisms can be introduced in a general way on the main article page and then detailed on the daughter article. For criticisms to stay in the articles, they won't be allegations Wikipedia is making, but reports of criticism others have made. Just like many other popular movements, FLG in general and Li Hongzhi in particular are in for a lot. --Fire Star 火星 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The mainpage section was what I pointed out neds to tbe shortened. A page on Falun Gong cant be 3/4th "critcism". Covenant, if you are the moderator here, I request you tomake sure that this is done at the earliest. Also please delete Samuel's personal webpage from the "refrences" section. Thankyou. 220.226.58.150 07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of critism section belongs to original research. Fnhddzs 17:19, 26

July 2006 (UTC)

I share the same opinion. A lot of it is original research.

07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Reporting the opinions of critics does not constitute original research. --Tomananda 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf replies

I am surprised by the strong reactions my text provoked. I wrote it with the intention of pointing out some important matters I'd like to discuss. Instead of receiving civilized and well-versed responses from the active contributors, my text was chopped and sliced in an obvious hurry, while the real issues were either avoided or slated with a few lines. I was accused of personal attacks and my writing was called "frustrating", even though I tried to foster mutual understanding between the editors. I would expect that this is quite apparent to any outsider. However, if I have insulted somebody by accident, I sincerely apologize.

In addition, if I am speaking on a too academic level and some people have a hard time understanding what I mean by a concept or an expression, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I'm trying to compress a lot of information into a few chapters, and I'm accustomed to using the jargon of cultural studies, hence my text inevitably reflects this background. If some major points are prevaricated for other reasons, I will continue to bring them up, so you'll have to deal with them sooner or later.

Let me start by repeating some concerns here and providing additional material to back them up. The first commentary was about accusations of covering up Li's high-level teachings. Tomananda introduced two quotations from Master Li to underpin his POV, but he didn't even try to dispute my own understanding of this issue. Let me quote myself, because I don't feel the urge to rephrase the text until somebody points out its deficiencies:

Learning something new always starts from the basics and proceeds further as the fundamentals of a certain mode of thinking have been grasped. Some people don't want to acknowledge that this holds true for Falun Gong as well, even though the entire educational system is based on this approach. Not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday anti-persecution activities has, in my opinion, at least two major reasons: the first one is that practitioners want to build a consensus against human rights atrocities in China, even among people who hold different beliefs. Falun Gong as a cultivation method is available to whoever wants to practice it, but as practitioners we don't want to impose our worldview on others by coercion or "evangelism". The second one is that the Western scientific method is by far the most dominant framework for observing and conceptualizing reality, and many people strongly believe in its exclusiveness and superiority. A system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized, especially by people who have been influenced by positivist philosophy. I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues (i.e. condemning torture, organ harvesting, brainwashing, slave labor, etc.) and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence.

Therefore, while I admit that some practitioners' conduct on this page might have seemed as if they didn't want to admit certain things, I claim that a lot of quarrel is based on their different understanding of the issues at hand. Mostly it's a question of somebody taking something at face value or another person seeking to understand its relation to the whole. And like I said, our different POVs lead to a situation where editors downplay or emphasize certain selections based on their preferences and intentions. We have been discussing these matters by e-mail with Cullum, Dilip and some others, and we all agree that we have nothing against a good, comprehensive exposition of Fa-rectification, Li's moral theory and other relevant matters, even the so-called "high-level teachings" that you say we want to hide from the public. Please refrain from accusing that we don't want to make them known when the real bone of contention is the discourse, not the content.

In addition, I understand Master Li's words from the third chapter of Zhuan Falun very differently. He's not saying that practitioners shouldn't tell the so-called "heavenly secrets" to "everyday people" - I think he's referring to the audience as "everyday people" and saying that he couldn't tell these matters irresponsibly. In Zhuan Falun, there are several instances where the expression is used in this sense. Some examples: "If you search externally for something, you will not obtain it by any means. With an everyday person’s body, an everyday person’s hands, and an everyday person’s mind, do you think that you can transform high-energy matter into gong or increase gong?"; "You cannot understand it with an ordinary person’s mentality, as it is just this rotating mechanism. The same is also true with our Falun, for it just rotates. By increasing the exercise time, it has solved for everyday persons the problem of practicing cultivation amidst normal living conditions."; "Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned."; "You are an everyday person. How can you cure diseases after studying it for two days? Isn’t that deceiving others? Doesn’t it encourage your attachment?" Of course, I could dig up more, but I think these suffice to prove my point.

Another commentary touched upon the editors' tendency to select their sources based on their personal beliefs, even when two sides of the story are easily available (emphasis added). Ironically, Samuel Luo immediately proved my point correct. We all know that the Falun Dafa association stated that the ten-plus practitioners were tortured to death at the Wanjia labor camp, and witnesses reported that the bodies were bruised all over, even though the Chinese authorities claimed that the practitioners hanged themselves. Of course, we know that the Chinese authorities tend to deny all their criminal stuff even when independent investigators provide strong proof of widespread torture, organ harvesting and other atrocities. Needless to say, we don't have to privilege either version of the events in Wikipedia. The reader can make his or her own conclusions, and this is what I mean by two sides of the story. I got the impression that Samuel Luo wants to believe the CCP, maybe because mass suicides are something a caricatural cult does, and his objective is to make Falun Gong seem as much like one as possible, right? He presents many of his assertions as rock-solid facts instead of admitting that he just prefers one side of the story, which surprisingly often originates from the Chinese authorities.

I also said that the article is lacking good background information. Maybe the word "narrative" was misunderstood; I simply meant that a good article first provides a context for the phenomenon and then moves on to describe its details and unique characteristics. Even Deng and Fang, while fiercely opposing Falun Gong, have stated: Falungong insists on being, or is accepted by the western media as, a part of the Chinese tradition, blending Buddhism, Daoism and Mysticism. Is it part of the Chinese Tradition? The simple answer to this question is affirmative, but the question is: which part? We have not claimed that all traditions are wise or all traditional practices are helpful to current problems. No matter what you think of these traditions or Master Li's interpretation of them, we have to provide a meaningful context for Falun Gong to elucidate its position in the cultural field. This belongs to the beginning of the article, because it clarifies a lot of issues and provides a rationale for the practitioners' profound motivation. That's what I intended to do with the "Ontological and Epistemological studies". I still don't understand why it was removed and the Origins chapter was replaced with some biographical trivia that doesn't deal with any real problematics.

Even though I talked about discerning the essential questions and addressing all parties' concerns, in Tomananda's eyes I was "confusing an encyclopedia article with the PR spin Falun Gong is used to creating." Maybe he didn't really grasp that he, too, belongs to a party I was talking about, and I was also trying to make his concerns catered for. What I want to see is a neutral, balanced article and a group of editors who are willing to give space for people with different starting points. This applies to pro-FLG and anti-FLG editors, as well as everybody else. This was also my real intent behind the guesswork about Tomananda's and Samuel Luo's motives - it was not to create stereotypes but an attempt to understand different opinions on a deeper level. Maybe I was mistaken in my estimations, but at least I didn't seek to "border on the personal attacks" against them.

On a side note, I found it peculiar to see the same persons accuse Falun Gong practitioners of "not [being] driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell." I find such language defamatory. For instance, I have met many tortured people - tortured for doing nothing but practicing a method I've myself found efficient and rewarding. I also know that the persecution has drastically altered the lives and families of millions of people in China and abroad. While the practitioners also believe that exposing the persecution belongs to their cultivation process, their concerns and worries are extremely genuine.

Another issue I find appalling is that some editors suggest that practitioners should act against their deepest spiritual beliefs and give in to their torturers by signing a declaration condemning Falun Gong. Samuel Luo even shifted the responsibility on Master Li, as if He - not the Chinese Communist Party - were the perpetrator of these acts. Suddenly Samuel seems to have sympathy for the detained practitioners, whilst he openly speaks in favor of the crackdown. In addition, in this context Samuel unwittingly admits that the practitioners are "in pain" and "giving up [their lives]", and of course we know that such a situation wouldn't exist if the authorities weren't breaking international laws. However, he still doesn't want to use the term "persecution" in the article but insists on "suppression".

There are still other issues I could raise, but this message is quite long already, so maybe I'll continue later. All in all, I want to have a civilized conversation with you, so please try to think what I am saying instead of straightforwardly denouncing or ignoring my concerns. I hope you also refrain from inserting your comments in between the chapters, as it shouldn't be too hard to reply in a solid format. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that I replied civilly, and will continue to do so, but I still disagree with your position. And please don't worry, you are by no means arguing over my head academically. The biggest problem I have with what you are saying is that I still see you and others here trying to present FLG and Li Hongzhi's other teachings seemingly in aid of winning converts rather than reporting them in an encyclopaedic manner. --Fire Star 火星 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda replies to Olaf

Your long post elicited a strong response from me because, among other issues, you tried to second guess the motives of two non-practioner editors (me and Samuel) in a way which was inappropriate, albeit presumably well-motivated. You also got into a rather tortured argument about the merits of the critical opinions reported in the "Is Falun Gong a Cult" section which I found offensive because: a) you and I worked cooperatively on that piece several months ago and b) it is not the topic we are presently discussing although, as you will see from the above, there is no end to the challenges some practitioners, especially Dilip, will make to the Criticism section.

You correctly point out that I did not respond to your paragraph in bold, so here's my point-by-point response:

First the postive:

1. You do acknowledge in your writing that practitioners don't talk about "concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday....activities." Since this is a point I have been making repeatedly, I appreciate your tacit agreement with me that this is the general behavior of practitioners.

2. You provide two explanations for this behavior (which I call "concealing the higher level teachings of the Falun Gong") and, even though I don't buy your explanations, I appreciate that they are well-thought out and sincere. (More on that below.)

Now the negative:

1. Your premise appears to be that writing an encylopedia article is akin to learning a new system from scratch. But in fact, no encyclopedia article is meant to replace a learning system and when you make that argument, it appears, as Fire Star aptly points out above, that you are attempting to win converts rather than simply reporting the basic teachings and practices of Falun Gong.

2. Your insertion of anti-persecution before the word activities in the sentence I partially quote from above is very telling and ultimately weakens your argument. Your framing of the explanation for "not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation" in the context of the allegations of persecution in China amounts to an admission that practitioners approach their job of editng in Wikipedia solely based on their goal of gaining sympathy for practitioners in China and condemnation of the Chinese government. I understand that this is a paramount issue for practitioners, but it is certainly not the only issue that needs to be addressed in an encylopedia article.

3. I am a compassionate person who strongly believes in human rights, but at the same time I find the Falun Gong's rigid insistence on a "one message all the time" approach to public relations hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating. Let me provide just a few examples of why:

  • Many of the claims of torture in China appear to be fabricated, or at least are so outrageously exaggerated as to elicit a distrusting reponse. Take for example the claims of organ harvesting at the Sujian facility. Supposedly there were 6,000 victims at this facility and they were operated on, alive, in the basement of the facility. But as reports have indicated the facility has no basement, and it is co-owned by a Malaysian organization which has recently visited the site. Other outside investigators have also weighed in, including US government officials, and there has been no collaboration of these reports which are based solely on the private testimony of two people who were interveiwed by the Falun Gong.
  • Under ordinary circumstances, one might want to give the Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt but hey, you guys have a big credibility problem. Your leader makes outrageous and contradictory claims and is not accessible to western media. When he has been interviewed by the press, he has claimed to be just an ordinary person. Yet to practitioners he is thought of as a god, savior, Buddha or whatever terminology you are comfortable with. It's clear that Li assumes extraordinary supernatural powers and by his own say-so the cultivation system he provides requires his personal intervention every step of the way. Yet it's been a royal struggle to have any of this information reported in Wikidpedia because there's been an endless series of outright lies from practitioners on some of the most basic stuff. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Take one small example on homosexuality: at one point, after we had agreed to post Li's poem "The World's Ten Evils" (which includes homosexuality)a practitioner actually logged on and claimed no where do we say that homosexuality is evil. And even now, in your own post, I notice that you don't mention Li at all when you talk about Falun Gong as an "existential theory" or whatever. Falun Gong is NOT just an "existential theory"..it is Li Hongzhi's revealed truths about the origin and fate of the cosmos, his role as savior, and his teaching about Fa-rectification. Please, let's start being honest about this.
  • Concerning civil rights, I notice that no practitioner has commented on the bullying tactics used by the Madrid lawyer last year. In effect, he was ready to have the organizers and presenters arrested for hate speech because, in his twisted logic, anything anyone says which is critical of Falun Gong amounts to aiding and abetting what he claims is "genocide" in China. Give me a break! And this kind of harassment of critics is not new to Falun Gong...it was, in fact, this kind of behavior that partially led to the ban in the first place. Can Samuel and the other presenters get an apology on this?

4. Your second "explanation" for why practitioners don't talk about the higher teachings is off the mark. You mention the dominance of the scientific method in the West and seem to justify the concealing of Li's higher truths from the general public because "a system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized." Well, maybe that's true, but is that really a justification for not reporting what those teachings are in an encylopedia article? You, Li Hongzhi and FG media maven Gail Rachlin may think of that as a winning strategy, but to me it paints Falun Gong practitioners as deceitful and not trustworthy. How can a group which claims to value "truthfullness" be so outraegously dishonest about its own beliefs? And if a group cannot speak the truth about what it believes to the general public, why should that public believe them when they make outraegous and undocumented claims about torture in a forein land?

5. You finish by saying "I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues...and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence. But really, Olaf, the people who criticize the Falun Gong can draw a distinction between human rights issues and what you strangely call "Falun Gong's existential theory." (Don't you mean "ontological theory"?) These two areas of inquiry are certainly not mutually exlusive and there is no reason why critics and editors in Wikipedia cannot address both issues in the same article. For me that means, at a minimum, we should report on:

  • Allegations of human rights abuses not just in China by the CCP but also in the West by over-zealous Falun Gong lawyers who seek to intimidate critics with unjustified legal threats.
  • The fact that much of what Falun Gong claims is happening to its practitioners in China is highly suspect, especially given Li Hongzhi's tendency to exaggerate and embellish the truth.
  • The fact that Li Hongzhi's stated objective is not just to stop any and all persecution of practitioners in China, but rather to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party through overt means, including the distribution of the Nine Commentaries.
  • "The fact that critics in China as well as the West have voiced legitmate concerns about the harmful effects of practicing the Falun Gong. Those harmful effects include health consequences for practitioners who do not seek medical help when needed due to their belief that perceived sickness is not really sickness, but rather an opportunity to get rid of karma.
  • The fact that critics in the West find Li's teachings on homosexuality, racial differences and mixed race people very disturbing and contradictory to a commitment to universal human rights.
  • And finally, the fact that Li assumes supernatural powers and absolute authority over his disciples and that this type of relationship is considered by some experts to be very destructive. Whether that makes Falun Gong a cult or not is debatable in the academic community, but certainly there is evidence of manipulation of the disciples and what some legal experts are now calling "undue influence." People who fall victim to authoritative, charismatic cult leaders are typically sucked into the group through deceptive recruitment and pressure from other group members over time. The Wikipedia article cannot draw a conclusion on this issue, but it certainly can report all sides of the debate.--Tomananda 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf replies to Tomananda

First, I want to thank you for your response. This is the style of argumentation I would like to see on this page instead of flame wars, even though I feel that some of your expressions are still somewhat hostile. Regardless, it's a tremendous improvement. Your point-by-point arguments also make it easier for everybody to see the real controversial issues, and now we can deal with them one by one.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear when I was comparing "everyday anti-persecution activities" with editing an encyclopaedia article. Some other issues were also misunderstood, so let me explain further. I and other practitioners have nothing against a good, comprehensive exposition of Falun Gong, its teachings and related problematics on this page. That's the nature of Wikipedia, and the editors and readers are all interested in or concerned about Falun Gong, whatever their personal motives are.

In my opinion, Master Li's words from Zhuan Falun or the San Francisco lecture do not mean that the high-level content of Falun Gong cannot be discussed with people. I already suggested that the expression "everyday people" refers to the audience. Master Li was talking about himself teaching these matters to the general public. In San Francisco, Li said: "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." (emphasis added)

I've always understood that "clarifying the truth" means informing people about the persecution - this expression wasn't even used before July 1999. Of course, this Wikipedia article can serve the purpose of summing up the practitioners' side of the story, but it is absolutely different from arranging an anti-torture exhibition on the street, distributing flyers and initiating discussions with the passers-by. As far as I understand, Master Li is specifically talking about these kinds of activities. You all know that practitioners are willing to introduce Falun Gong with all its content to anybody who wants to learn it, and all the material is freely available on the Internet.

Bearing this in mind, please read my previous message once more. Maybe you see what I mean. We only want the international community to stop the atrocities in China, and we want to have the people condemn the persecution, regardless of what they think about "gods", "Buddhas" or other "high-level cultivation" matters. You must understand that our fellow practitioners are suffering tremendously in China, and we want to tell the world about this situation, whereas cultivation practice and metaphysical assumptions are delicate matters involving personal choices and reasoning. Yes, practitioners do believe that this is "saving people" - awaking and encouraging their consciences and innate goodness. You don't have to agree with our beliefs, but please don't allow the persecution against us to go on any longer.

"Concealing" or "covering up" the teachings is definitely not how we understand the disputes surrounding this article. We are concerned about representation and form - or discourse, not content, as I stated before. Therefore, I would advice you to seriously ponder why practitioners do not share your interpretations of a specific matter. It's not a matter of "outrageous lies and deceit" but a genuinely different understanding. All practitioners may feel that there's something acutely wrong with a particular interpretation, but perhaps not everybody is able to address the real moot points. One good example is what I just talked about: I don't think Master Li means that practitioners should intentionally "hide" the content of Falun Dafa from the public eye, but talking about human rights from a more secular viewpoint means respecting people's different values and reaching a wider audience. After all, it is usually the practitioners who initiate such communication. Writing a Wikipedia article is an altogether different matter. The text should be as informative as possible, because it's voluntarily read by curious people. Of course, providing them with a good and neutral explanation calls for co-operation instead of fights, defaming language and playing games.

I repeat myself: a good article always provides a background and a context. We have a right to demand that the rationale for practicing Falun Gong is explained in a neutral framework. It is not irrational and arbitrary behaviour, provided that we understand "rationality" as consistent conduct resulting from a set of axioms (this is roughly the present understanding of all humanistic studies). Moreover, practitioners think that Falun Gong's popularity cannot be reduced to any sociological or psychological motives. We are fully capable of providing a meaningful historical and cultural context for what we are doing, and even though it adds greatly to the perplexity of these matters, it unquestionably belongs into the beginning of a Wikipedia article on Falun Gong. This is also the point I meant by saying that learning a new system starts from scratch. I didn't say that we should leave the "advanced" stuff out of the article. I mean that we first provide the background, then the specifics. We want a logical arrangement and a red thread running throughout.

Why do I want us to pay more attention to narratives and discourses? Oftentimes the intentions of a certain writer become apparent from the implications of the text, how the text is constructed and structured, which matters are emphazised or downplayed, et cetera. Of course, editing Wikipedia is a dialectical process, and the adverse party can always improve the text (except now, because the article is locked!). This is the principle I've been trying to follow in my work, and I've previously stated that I consider revert wars counterproductive, regardless of who is involved. I am decidedly not claiming that the practitioners' conduct on this page has been impeccable, but we should keep in mind that conflicts usually escalate when both parties have something to correct in their behaviour.

Now to the question of "outrageously exaggerated claims of torture". You mentioned Sujiatun and organ harvesting. I'm not sure if you know about this, but the former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour and a human rights lawyer David Matas released an independent investigation report on 6th of July. [1] Here is a quotation from its conclusions: "Based on what we now know, we have come to the regrettable conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries. [...] Our conclusion comes not from any one single item of evidence, but rather the piecing together of all the evidence we have considered. Each portion of the evidence we have considered is, in itself, verifiable and, in most cases, incontestable. Put together, they paint a damning whole picture. It is their combination that has convinced us."

I don't know why you belittled and showed contempt for these allegations when they surfaced. Of course, I understand that they are unbelievably shocking, and most people cannot grasp their atrociousness. Unfortunately, the current evidence is convincing enough to state that the allegations are probably true. I suggest that you read through the Kilgour-Matas report. It has received a lot of media attention around the world. Vice president of the European parliament Edward McMillan-Scott visited China on a fact-finding mission in May. He has recently stated that "there is enough circumstantial evidence to alert the international community to what amounts to genocide”. [2] I don't say that you have to present an apology because of your disdainful words, but please stop playing down the severity of this persecution from now on.

You are saying that we have a political agenda. I do recognize that some people view practitioners' criticism towards the CCP as political action. However, we need to make a distinction between 1) seeking political power as such and 2) criticizing a political actor that is engaging in criminal actions. There is no indication in Falun Gong's texts that practitioners or Master Li would be interested in political power - quite the opposite. Of course, you may harbour conspiracy theories, while I see the matter in a more ingenuous light. The Nine Commentaries contextualizes the persecution of Falun Gong by providing an exposition of the cultural history of communism in China. Its purpose is to make people break out from the Chinese Communist Party and all affiliated organizations in order to save them. That is what practitioners sincerely believe - they are dragging people out from the throes of a dying red dragon. Master Li is also very consistent about this issue.

You also made a comment about Master Li claiming supernormal powers. I remember that one time Samuel Luo said something like "Master Li is making allegations of powers that exist only in Chinese fables and myths" (I don't remember the exact wording). What makes such claims more plausible than usual? If you read French, I recommend that you browse through this page, even though it's clearly pro-FLG. [3] In addition, here are some scientific papers on qigong. [4] In reality, there are a lot more, but they are mostly in Chinese. "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted" (Journal of Asian Studies 58) As we know, there are two competing paradigms, naturalist and supernaturalist. If so many Western scientists weren't obstinately clinging to secular materialism, our understanding of reality would have already improved a great deal. How did the ancient Chinese know about the five elements, yin/yang or the network of meridians? Did they really see with their "third eye"? These are largely unanswered questions.

I quote the French site I mentioned: "Les validations expérimentales de certains des phénomènes du Qigong, en dépit d’exagérations dans des « shows » télévisés, créèrent un climat général favorable à la pratique et à la recherche sur le Qigong. A cette époque, il s’agissait d’une véritable révolution scientifique pour le monde chinois : ces techniques, en plus de procurer santé et longévité, semblaient pouvoir faire éclore les facultés latentes des hommes et prouver la véracité des prouesses des héros légendaires. Avec la définition du « Qi externe » comme substance matérielle, le Qigong se validait aux yeux de l’opinion publique – et du gouvernement – comme une démarche matérialiste, plus comme une « superstition féodale ». Il pouvait alors être promu comme la quintessence de la culture chinoise, un domaine d’indéniable supériorité sur l’Occident." It really was something like a scientific revolution and a source of national pride - it was no longer "feudal superstition". A lot of experiments validated that qigong masters possessed extraordinary energies. However, in the end of the 1980s, a lot of charlatans appeared, and the Qigong Research Society gave the title "qigong master" only to rare individuals who were thoroughly tested. One of them was Li Hongzhi. We know that Falun Gong received many awards; in addition to being named the "Star Qigong School" two times in a row, it won the "scientific advancement award" in 1993, and Master Li was named the "most acclaimed qigong master". Even the Chinese embassy in Paris invited Li to teach Falun Gong to French people in 1995! I will not summarize more, because my point is clear as crystal: the persecution of Falun Gong is just another example of gross historical revisionism. It is an attempt to eradicate by violent means a genuine cultural phenomenon that was considered threatening by Jiang Zemin. I believe that history will prove me correct, but in an encyclopaedia article it suffices to say that this is simply our side of the story.

Danny Schechter, author of "Falun Gong's Challenge to China", has stated after talking to Li in person: "We did a film on Reverend Moon and the Reunification Church for PBS's Frontline. My initial impression was that the Falun Gong leader was like Reverend Moon. But I was wrong. He is not a self-aggrandizing, self-promoting leader in that sense. He is a unifying symbol in a cultural tradition. He seems more to be an anti-leader leader because he is not politically astute in the traditional sense." [5] I wholeheartedly agree with him.

In my next message, I will answer Fire Star's allegations about Li saying that Westerners are "too stupid to understand his Dafa" (Fire Star's words, not Li's). I think Master Li is talking about the differences between the Western and the Eastern mindsets, and I can provide some anthropological research to back up my opinions. There are also other issues that I left unanswered. I don't want to suffocate you with too long messages, so I will first let you comment on this. Regards. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My words on the subject were in two edits. The first was posed in a question, exactly: "...non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings?" and the quote Tomananda provided from Li narrowed Li's statements specifically to white people. The second thing I said on the subject was "his opinions on ... the relative intelligence of different races". I have not quoted Li as saying Westerners were "too stupid to understand his Dafa" as you explicitly stated I did. If you are going to refute my arguments "academically", "anthropologically" or otherwise, it will help you to quote me exactly. That is the courteous thing to do, and will expose you to less disregard from other editors. Explaining away Li's statements using fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine claims and allegations (the current Chinese government declaring someone a "qigong master" is akin to the Roman emperor Nero proclaiming someone an "orthodox Christian"), (inaccurate) quotations and diversionary complaints about the motives and intelligence of your interlocutors is apologetics in the classical sense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That the context of the quote in question is obviously Li's self-congratulatory xenophobia can safely be left to the reader, IMO. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Saying there isn't enough context every time Li is quoted by an outsider in an attempt to micro-manage Li's public utterances to make him seem less insane and less of a racist than his books, lectures and interviews tend to show him to be is disruption of the editing process, if not to make your point, then at least to filibuster the article into inutility. In the long run, all of the hand wringing by FLG acolytes adds more weight to my argument that you guys have been and are just here trolling for converts, and not at all interested in a balanced encyclopaedia article. If Li is everything you guys believe him to be, what is so bad about letting the "master's" words speak for themselves? --Fire Star 火星 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
An inaccurate quotation was an obvious mistake on my part, and I apologize.
On the other hand, if your accusations of "micro-manag[ing] Li's public arguments", "filibustering the article into inutility" and "trolling for converts" - in addition to completely disregarding my explicit wishes of taking the concerns of all editors into account - are not ad hominem, I don't know what is. All the topics I discussed are directly relevant to this article. I would also like to specifically know what you mean by "complaining about the motives and intelligence of [my] interlocutors". While I've always realized that you don't share my position, Fire Star, I remember that you used to be more moderate in your replies. You even had a balancing effect on many people, and somebody even awarded you a barnstar for the "neutrality and patience on the Falun Gong article", but based on what I've read recently, you've just been adding fuel to the fire. I don't know if you notice the scorn in your words yourself. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Despite what you say, my messages are civil, and I am interested in the concerns of other editors. You may project what you want into it, but my language is perfectly clear. You've misquoted me, and in a "fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine" way you are ingnoring your error in aid of dismissing me as newly immoderate. Calling you on a misquote makes me immoderate? Since you haven't addressed the primary issue of the message you are replying to, perhaps it isn't surprising that you are also reading what you want to read into what I've actually said as well. To be clear, I don't scorn you, I just don't believe you. Your argumentative methods so far lack credibility and are only convincing me that my assumptions about FLG practitioners are correct. --Fire Star 火星 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out my misquote was not immoderate, it was the right thing to do. Did you see my apology?
Regardless, the essential meaning of that sentence doesn't change, because "non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings" are also your own words. You did not address the primary issues of the message you replied to, either. Instead, you accused my arguments of being "fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine" and off-handedly called them "apologetics in the classical sense".
You don't have to believe what I say, but I want counterarguments, not a self-assertive, categorical dismissal of all that I'm concerned about. Maybe it's not scorn - maybe it's just ridicule. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Falun Gong's Credibility Problem

Olaf, I am not going to play this game. Your use of French quotes and your sophomoric air of assumed intellect does not address the fundmental issue I raised in my post: that Falun Gong has a big credibility problem. The only way you can convince me that you are able and willing to speak the truth about Falun Gong is to speak the truth about Master Li Hongzhi,which includes his self-proclaimed role as the exclusive savior of mankind and his claim that his Dafa is judging all beings and weeding out the unworthy. Master Li says he has removed the names of all Falun Gong practitioners from the registry list in Hell and promises to turn his followers into gods as long as they fulfill their obligations as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."

You and every other Falun Gong practitioner/editor has been promised salvation by Master Li. But you have been told by Li that you can no longer expect to be saved simply by studying Zhuan Falun or doing the exercises. Rather, you must expose what he considers to be the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party and help to destroy that party through a variety of actions, including speading the nine commentaries and telling endless stories of persecution of practitioners in China. Even if the all the Falun Gong claims of persecution, torture and organ harvesting were true, and even if all of that were to stop today, Li Hongzhi's goal would not be satisfied because the Chinese Communist Party would still exist. The soteriological condition for Falun Gong practioners is clear: salvation = the destruction of the CCP.

But sadly, I am not buying your story. There is a point at which one's credibility is so damaged that even if the truth is spoken, the listener doesn't believe...or just tunes out. You say to Fire Star emphatically, even arrogantly, that you demand a detailed reponse to your arguments. But why should Fire Star or any other non-practitioner editor respond to your request when you yourself have ignored the post you claim to be responding to? Unless and until you and the other practitioners demonstrate a willingness to accept edits which report Li's self-proclaimed status as the exclusive savior of mankind and his teaching that his Dafa is judging all sentient beings and weeding out the unworthy during this period of Fa-rectification, there is little point for us to continue any discussion on these pages. Your explanation that practitioners don't talk about these things because Western thinking, which is too postivistic for your taste, may reject Falun Gong teachings does not wash.

One more thing: I did an earlier post about honoring the life and death of Dr. Lili Feng. Even though Dr. Feng dedicated her life to finding scientific evidence to prove the supernatural health benefits of Falun Gong practice, and even though her status as an honored Falun Gong practitioner has been recognized on many occassions by the Falun Gong, now that she has died it appears that she is being ignored by Falun Gong leadership and Li himself. If you can prove me wrong...if there is some Falun Gong honorarium for Lili Feng that I have missed...please tell me. Otherwise, Olaf, I ask that you once again intervene with the pratitioner/editors of Clearwisdom. Please ask them to post a suitable honorarium for Dr. Lili Feng. My suspicion is that pratitioners are only honored by Master Li as long as they demonstrate their utility in his campaign to destroy the CCP. I would love to be proven wrong on this, since I believe there is human decency in all of us. So please write once again to those Clearwisdom editors to make this request. Thanks. --Tomananda 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step: Fa-rectification

What we need next is a concise definition of Fa-rectification that can be used in the lead section. It will need to be supported by references. We should start from scratch since old discussions were ultimately fruitless. It should be one or two sentences long. We'll take suggestions only for three days, then open it up for comments on them. CovenantD 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions, no comments, for a definition

Here's my (Mcconn's) suggestion:

In Falun Dafa belief the universe has deviated from its original characteristic of Truth Benevolence Forbearance. According to Li, Fa-Rectification is the process of renewing the entire universe and having it return to its original purity. --Mcconn 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Building on that, I (Fire Star) would propose something like:
In Falun Dafa Li Hongzhi claims that the universe has deviated from what he says are its original characteristics of Truth, Benevolence and Forbearance. According to Li, Fa-Rectification is the process of renewing the entire universe, returning it to its original purity. --Fire Star 火星 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the above (Samuel Luo):

Li teaches that because of mankind’s moral corruption, the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification,” [6] a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. In this process, the Falun Dafa weeds out the corrupted and saving only those who cherish virtue and do good.[7] --Samuel Luo 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (Kent8888):

According to Li humankind which becoming hopelessly corrupt has entered the stage of what he calls “the final period of Last Havoc.” [8] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [9] a process where Li’s law (Dafa) would punish the evil and reward the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. --Kent8888 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda's suggestion:

  • According to Li, humans have become so corrupt that “Gods don’t care about them anymore” and “No religion is being watched over by the Gods.” [10] It is believed that we have entered the stage of “the final period of Last Havoc” in which all beings are being judged by Li’s Dafa (great law). [11], [12] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [13], a process where the Dafa punishes the evil and rewards the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. There is some debate about who will be eliminated and who will be saved in the Fa-rectification. However, Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples.” [14], [15] --Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've had enough time. Covenant, can we open it up for comments now? Mcconn 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. CovenantD 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Let the Fa commenting begin!

We have five versions, some based on others. What we need are comments about accuracy, NPOV, and verifiability.

Comments of Mcconn's version

Agree it reads well, its concise, explanatory, neutral and it doesnt advertise falun gong in any way.--Andres18 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Agree. Fnhddzs 04:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Fire Star's additions

Ah yes, comments. I want to comment that when we do define "Fa-rectification" we should have a brief mention that the word "fa" 法 is one with a long religious and secular history in Chinese culture that Li is using in a compound, a new coinage, to present his supernatural doctrines. --Fire Star 火星 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is the point I want to make too. Falun Gong is translated into "Practice of the Wheel of Law" and Falun Dafa is "Great Law of the Wheel of Law" in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. They are different things. --Mr.He 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but i think the first one reads much better for an introduction, firestar's version perhaps makes it all sort of redundant “master li says” “what he says are” If we use Mccon's version "In Falun Dafa Belief" we get a shorter writing and it already sets us in the context without the need of repeating ourselves. I dont think a mention that the word fa has a religious connotation historically should be added. As you may know, in Falun Gong a religion can be a cultivation system but a cultivation system is not necessarily a religion, the common reader doesnt know this so adding this detail will confuse the reader into associating falun gong with a religion, falun gong practitioners do not consider falun gong to be a religion so this addition would be non-neutral.--Andres18 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Samuel's version

The main problem, which is also true for Kent's and Tomanda's version, is that the emphasis is placed on humankind's moral degradation. Fa-Rectification has very little to do with human kind's moral degradation and is instead a response to the decline of the whole universe (of which humankind is only one tiny tiny level). So this emphasis is wrong. Also, Falun Dafa doesn't weed out anything, the Fa-Rectification does. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i totally agree with Mcconn, but i think the use of “weeds out” is too strong and not neutral at all. How did you come up with "because of mankind's moral corruption, humanity is undergoing a process called Fa Rectification"??? im sorry but i clicked on the 28 link and i couldnt find anything that would imply this anywhere. Im sure that if you have read a little about Falun Gong ( im guessing it is necessary to do it in order to be able to criticize it objectively ) you will notice falun dafa does not weed out anything, what you want to do is use "Falun Dafa" because it contains the word "Dafa" in it and since the common reader may not know what "Dafa" is and may not understand the difference between "Dafa" and Falun Dafa, you are taking advantage of this similarity to claim that falun dafa weeds out the corrupted people. Thus, misleading the reader into thinking Falun Gong will punish "evil people" which is a characteristical way of thinking of a dangerous cult. I strongly disagree with this suggestion.--Andres18 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Kent8888's version

(Refactored from above section) I like Kent's version, but find it a bit skimpy and lacking in needed citations. --Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis is in the wrong place (see my comment for Samuel's version), which makes it misleading. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hopelessly corrupt"....? im sorry but i dont agree to your version--Andres18 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Tomananda's version

(Refactored from above section) This is a highly controversial topic and since all my previous suggestions were rejected by Falun Gong practitioners, I am willing to approve this modified version. Using Kent's paragraph as a base, this version cites all the needed sources and manages, in a short paragraph to cover the basics. It also hints at the controversy about who exactly will be eliminated in the Fa-rectrification, without trying to give an answer (so that people will feel inspired to read further in a daughter article.)--Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too long, which really throws off the balance in the intro. Two sentences can summarize the main idea, but this is overkill for the intro. My comments for the others also hold for this. Plus, your emphasis on Mr. Li stating that some people are already being punished is off since that is hardly ever mentioned when he talks about the Fa-Rectification. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this version most comprehensive. --Mr.He 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may find this version most comprehensive because you are a critic and it solely expresses the critics POV, how can this version be neutral?. Again taking quotes and placing them out of context to form your own POV based on them, just like making up a puzzle taking pieces from here and there. But you always come up with the excuse "Its your masters words! how dare you question him?" Yes, he said those words, but he didnt mean what you pretend it to mean by taking out of context all these quotes and putting them into your own context to make it look like he meant all these things you've come up with. The fact that you included Mr Li's quotes on your suggestion doesnt make it neutral.

I don’t think I am a critic, this is why. I have no objection to Falun Gong ideology and practices, though I would not recommend it to anyone I know. There are many religious groups out there with strange beliefs. I also don’t care whether the Falun Gong is a cult; one man’s cult is another’s religion, right?
Recently people in the office joked about gong to China for new organs, I am sure you know why. As a Chinese I am deeply humiliated. I would prey to God to beg his forgiveness for Chinese who are capable of committing such heinous killing, if the Falun Gong accusation is true. Honesty to me is the basic virtue, without it there is no trust, peace, friendship, love…. How can the Falun Gong produce such a lie to bring shame to all Chinese people for its battle with the Chinese government?
I like tomananda’s version. In a short paragraph it covers an aspect of core Falun Gong belief system, with citations. You don’t like it because it tells the truth. Truthfulness is something that practitioners don’t care to practice. Hmm, after all, maybe I am a critic, a critic of dishonesty. --Mr.He 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. He, since you mentioned you would pray to god for forgiveness for chinese who kill and so on, then in order to explain myself better, please allow me to suppose you believe in God. Thats fine, i believe in cultivation, i think i have the right to do so. If you asked somebody who believes in the existentialist theory or in a religion which would be different from yours, what they think about cristianity, they might think it is a strange belief if they dont know it well enough. I dont see anything wrong with being a person who follows Truth Benevolence Forbearance.

I dont think Falun Gong is fighting the Chinese government, at least i dont have this mentality. I mean, im a practitioner and i dont want to destroy the communist party or whatever, i just want the persecution to stop, thats all. And i think this is what Mr. Li is encouraging the practitioners to do because there are many people suffering in China just because they believe in these principles. About the organ harvesting accussations, well, they could or could not be true, but in case they werent true, please dont think all falun gong practitioners got together and said "Oh lets make up something so that other people can have simpathy for us and we can destroy the communist party". Lying is against the core principles of Truth Benevolence Forbearance so people who do not follow this principles cannot be considered practitioners, sure, anyone can come and say "Im a practitioner" thats not necessarily true. So if something is really happening then its wrong and it should stop but if someone made it up, then that person is not a practitioner. Since we are not a formal organization i dont think there can be anyone to represent falun gong except Mr. Li, if someone is in favor of falun gong and makes a mistake in the process then you cant atribute his fault to the entirety of falun gong, i dont think its fair, thats why i think its not useful when someone posts something like "Oh This and That other guy who are practitioners did this and that, how horrible! falun gong is not good" i dont think this is fair, people make mistakes and the fact that we are cultivators doesnt mean we cant make mistakes during this process.

Since i already started a long post ill answer Tomananda's post. Why is it that i dont like his version? well, because when he is going to create an explanatory pargraph he uses the following procedure. Let me give an example, ill write an explanation of what i just said in the paragraph bellow but with the intention to criticize it without neutrality:

In Andres's post which is an answer to Mr. He, he says if you asked a non cristian what he thinks about cristianity "they might think it is a strange belief if they dont know it well enough." Which implies cristianity, which is one of the most popular and accepted religions in the world is "strange" and that non-cristian people are not knowledgeable enough to understand the principles of cristianity. He claims he doesnt want to "destroy the communist party or whatever" and in the middle of his arguent, says that he is doubtfull that the organ harvesting accussations made by his fellow falun gong practitioners themselves are true. He neglects falun gong practitioners who dont follow the principles set by master lee saying that the "people who do not follow this principles cannot be considered practitioners". Also he explained that he doesnt "think there can be anyone to represent falun gong except Mr. Li" who is the famous leader of this "non-formal" organization.

Now please tell me, do you think that what i just wrote was what i really meant with my answer to Mr. He? no it is not, this is what happens when you take some quotes out of context and create an explanation based on them with the intention to criticize in a non neutral way. There is the excuse "I am just clearly exposing what Andres said to Mr. He! Those are his words, im using his own quotes how can you say he didnt mean that?" but now then is this a valid excuse? can you really notice the difference?.

This is the reason why i dont agree with Tomanandas suggestion, the fact that i dont agree with it doesnt mean im speaking "nonsense" or lying in anyway, or that im "hiding the truth" im just exposing my opinion. The critics are the critics, they have their own point of views and opinions on Falun Gong, fine, i respect it, you have all the right to have them, but we (practitioners) also have our own opinions and point of views regarding Falun Gong, the fact that you dont agree with them does not mean we are lying or that we are being dishonest or hiding the "true meaning" (which is your personal opinion on Falun Gong) of Mr. Li's teachings. I know sometimes it can be frustrating but i think everyone makes mistakes and if we are kind enough to point it out respectfully then perhaps we'll be able to work more efficiently.--Andres18 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres: I quote Master Li, and you claim that by quoting him "he didn't mean what I pretend it to mean." This is nonsense. I am merely reporting the teachings. What do you think I am "pretending" those teachings to mean? More importantly, since these are your own master's words, what do you think they mean? Instead of issuing blanket rejections, you need to deal with the actual text.--Tomananda 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) There is more, quoting you: "Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples" i think this is clearly trying to give an answer isnt it?. I could extend myself but i think i have posted enough reasons to justify why i dont agree with this version not even in the starting sentence.Besides, its too long for an introduction--Andres18 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a game, with no end in sight. You will never agree to any wording that clearly reports the master's teachings, will you? --Tomananda 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with your version because its not neutral, its just you trying to attack falun gong and its too long. Perhaps it would be great if you could consider the neutrality of your suggestions before you post them--Andres18 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Really Andres? Reporting Li's teachings verbatim consitutes an attack on Li? Or is it that you are so used to distorting the teachings of Falun Gong in order to promote the downfall of the CCP that you've just forgotten what it feels like to be truthful? Anything goes as long as it works towards the elimination of the CCP, right? It's even ok to lie, because the ends justify the means, right? So much for "higher truths" and the principles of "Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance." --Tomananda 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in Canada last month, Li clarified once again what a practitioner must do:

  • the goal of Dafa disciples' clarifying the truth during this period is to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way.

..and he also clarified that he directs this process of Fa-rectification:

  • No matter how many Law Bodies Master has or how enormous his power is in the cosmos, his main body is [after all] amidst layers of partitioning of the old cosmos, and is directing everything in Fa-rectification from this world.

..and he encouraged his disciples to envision the future without the CCP:

  • Right now people are wondering: What will happen when the wicked Party is gone? What will things be like then? What will China's future government be like? There is no need to think or do anything about that. Of course, as you validate the Fa and clarify the truth, you can infer things with your current understanding. There is no problem with doing that, since it's okay to infer things based on the normal logic and understanding a person has. But as far as what will really happen, that's not up to human beings, and it won't resemble how people now imagine it.

Yet despite the revolutionary exhortations that are spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi, all in the name of salvation, practitioners continue to deny that there is a political agenda of the Falun Gong, or that there is a cosmic process, directed by Li himself, which is eliminating (in a really scary way) all the evil and wrotten people of the world, starting with those who are members of the Chinese Communist Party. Whether this goal is worthwhile or not is not the point, the point is that this is the explicit goal of Li Hongzhi and he has made it a condition for salvation for all his practitioners. And yet denials and obfustations continue endlessly. --Tomananda 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Introduction

Here's my proposed paragraph. Once again, there's been the usual blanket rejection of my edit alleging it's "out of context" or "represents my POV," but there has been no attempt to respond to the actual words which come directly from Li. This is the fourth time I have put together a paragraph on salvation and Fa-rectification using the Master's own words and the fourth time it has been rejected out of hand. I think we need to take a poll on each sentence. If there's a sentence which is not true, please point it out and explain why.

  • According to Li, humans have become so corrupt that “Gods don’t care about them anymore” and “No religion is being watched over by the Gods.” [16] It is believed that we have entered the stage of “the final period of Last Havoc” in which all beings are being judged by Li’s Dafa (great law). [17], [18] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [19], a process where the Dafa punishes the evil and rewards the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. There is some debate about who will be eliminated and who will be saved in the Fa-rectification. However, Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples.” [20], [21] --Tomananda 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No one addressed the quote? If you look at my comments above, you'll see that I addressed the quotes content, as well as some other important problems with your intro. Take another look. Regarding the quote, put simply, just because Mr. Li has said something doesn't mean that it's worthy of being quoted. Regardless of how interesting you may personally find it, the bottom line is that it's got to be pertinant. As I said, although he may have said things along these lines in one or two instances, it is not something Mr. Li has talked a lot about and it has never been the focus of his talks on the Fa-Rectification. It's totally misleading to include this is such an elementary explanation of Fa-Rectification. Mcconn 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: How can you say that the quote in the first sentence...especially the second one...is not relevant to an understanding of Li's teaching on salvation and Fa-recification? It is totally relevant, because it reveals that according to Li other religious teachings cannot do what the Dafa can do. "No religon is being watched over by the Gods." Li has made that same claim in a variety of different ways, but the substance of the message...which is that the Dafa can save sentient beings during this time of the Fa-rectification, but the old religions can't...is most certainly relevant. You continue to resist a straight-forward reporting of this material. I am not attached to any particular quote, but no matter what quote I provide you reject it. Care to suggest some alternative wording that conveys the same thought? --Tomananda 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is all good information, and I would support its inclusion in a section on the supernatural teachings of Li. My only criticism is that it is just a little quote-heavy. This is a literary quibble having nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should report such things out of a practitioner's "context". Maybe take one or two of the quotes out in favour of a paraphrase with citations, or have more prose in between the same number of quotes? --Fire Star 火星 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Tomanda, you consider the most important aspect of Mr. Li's statements regarding Fa-Rectification to be statements that suggest only he can save sentient beings, right? This may be an important point when analysing Mr. Li's role in Falun Dafa, and his relationship with other religions and spirituality, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're looking for a concise explanation of the Fa-Rectification and what you're suggesting isn't it. What I think needs to be done is to look at the whole picture of what Fa-Rectification means, what Mr. Li has said about it, and then shrink that into a couple sentences. Your paraphragaph does not attempt to do this. The Fa-Rectification is not happening because human beings are corrupt, nor is it happening because Gods are not looking after human beings. These are telling of man's deviation, a deviation that has happened at the lowest level of the universe, but Fa-Rectification involves the entire universe. There are a lot of aspects of Fa-Rectification that are equally or more important than what your suggesting and if we were to include all of them the paragraph would be even longer. Your paragraph is already too long as it is. The weight of the paragraph needs to balanced with that of the other paragraphs in the intro. Our summary of Falun Dafa's core teachings and the persecution, are both quite concise, so this should likewise be concise. Doing otherwise would through off the balance (we were originally only suggesting a sentence or part of a sentence within the summary of the teachings). I feel that it's significance when weighed against the other aspects of the intro is not that big. I stand by my suggestion as the most focused, accurate, clearcut, and appropriately weighted of all of the suggestions up to now. Mcconn 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the article

Tony Sidaway thanks for the reminder. We should get back to the article. However I must say that the discussion we had in the last three days were all about the article. As you can see the article is blocked, our communication were aiming to solve the conflict between Falun Gong practitioners and critics.

I hope you guys don’t mind that I am moving things around. Any ideas about what to do next? --Samuel Luo 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WAIT A MIN

Samuel's personal website STILL exists in the references section.=

If Samuel's site goes, here's a partial list of other links that must be deleted:

Falun Dafa Information Center
The Epoch Times
Global Coalition to Bring Jiang Jamin to Justice
Friends of Falun Gong
Barend ter Haar's FG Evalution site

Dilip, stop changing the subject. Be a team player and help finish the first goal of writing about Falun Gong salvation and Fa-rectification. --Tomananda 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no comparing a personal website ith primary reerence. Covenant, kindly look into issue and take appropriate action. Dilip(220.226.27.254 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

All of the above, with exception of The Epoch Times, are personal or private interest websites. The Epoch Times has to be eliminated because it is not a legitmate newspaper, but rather was founded by Dafa disciples for the purpose of validating Li Hongzhi's teachings. That's what Li himself says about his newspaper and other media outlets. So the Epoch Times link has to go as well, if in fact you continue to push your agenda of removing Samuel's website. --Tomananda 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the Falun Dafa sites may private, since they are important Falun Dafa sites run by practitioners, they count as primary sources in the appropriate context. It's similar to how Noam Chomsky's personal website (if he had one) would be a primary source in an article about him. I think you know this. They are very different from a personal website of a massage-therapist/self-proclaimed critic. Mcconn 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn is any wiki policy being broken here? I suggest you and other practitioners who can not tolerate my website to read this discussion [22] --Samuel Luo 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section on main page needs to be shortened

We need to work on an into summarizing the criticism section. This cannot be postponed any longer.

Shortened? Why do we need to shorten what already is a very short summary of critical articles? Is it because you want to do everything in your power as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disiple" to whitewash the Falun Gong in Wikipedia? There is no editorial need to "shorten" this section. We did, however, agree to re-write it to function more like a true summary of the Criticism page, but that little project got sidetracked as you know. And by the way, there are way too many separate daughter pages for different aspects of the Falun Gong which Dilip created without any discussion among the editors. --Tomananda 20:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The order of the sub-titles need to be decided upon

The order needs to be changed? We haven't even completed the introduction section! This is yet another diversionary tactic from a Falun Gong practitioner whose very salvation depends on working towards the destruction of the CCP, which means censoring any and all material about the Falun Gong which does not fit nicely with its neatly packaged media image. Oh Glory Days! We are finally seeing the triumph of media manipulation over truth, all in the name of "Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance" The Dafa is judging all beings and we who do not fit the Dafa's media image shall be weeded out. Li says anyone who doesn't think the Dafa is good will be weeded out first, along with everyone who is a member or supporter of the CCP. That's a fact. What is less clear is whether all those don't-meet-the-standard-of-being-human homosexuals in the world will be weeded out now, or will we benefit from Li's divine forgiveness? And the big lie continues... --Tomananda 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please put up another page

All of these competing threads are pretty useless. The pro & anti FLG people will never let you get anywhere. It's like reading War & Peace to drudge through all of this. I suggest a cooling off period followed by a paragraph by paragraph page.

Cj cawley 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tomananda is very very hostile and irrational because he uses personal attacks and accusations almost all the time, which is so sad. Omido 12:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your post itself is a personal attack. My only complaint is that you refuse to report clearly lthat:

  • The Dafa is judging all beings
  • Li Hongzhi and the Dafa are the only source of salvation now
  • The cosmos is experiencing something called Fa-rectification in which evil beings will be eliminated (or weeded out)
  • The first people who will be eliminated are those who don't think the Dafa is good and members or supporters of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party. It is debatable what other categories, such as homosexuals, will be eliminated (see the daughter page)

Omido, I am very open on how we say these things and, in fact, have provided multiple ways to do it using a variety of different Li Hongzhi quotes. Even though I am a homosexual, I am willing to leave out that last sentence about "other categories" such as homosexuals possibily being eliminated in the Fa-rectification. The problem is not my hostility, it's your refusal to allow an honest reporting of Falun Gong teachings in the introduction.

As you know, your own role as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple" is to help save all sentient beings (yes, Li has said that and you know it). How can you save anyone if you are not willing to speak the truth about the teachings? Yes, I know you will say: Ah, but all we need to do now is to talk about the persecution in China. But to what end? The end is to eliminate the CCP and save people during this period of Fa-rectification. And the only way to save people now is by teaching the Dafa. So ironically, I am doing what you cannot do. You may once again put up a false argument, such as "you are quoting Li out of context" or "we are willing to write a whole page about this stuff, but it is not important enough to be mentioned in the introduction" but, really, that is just so much bull. It's not hostility I feel, but rather enormous frustration. --Tomananda 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, The problem is that whenever i read what you write i personally think i dont feel that it is the real meaning of his teachings and i also do not believe i am hiding its true meaning because if i dont i "wont reach consummation" or something like that. It is true that the Dafa is judging all beings, but its not Falun Gong ( Or Falun Dafa) who is doing it. i believe that there is a great law in the universe (Dafa) which judges these situations, for example, how do you know what is good and bad? i believe this is established by the Dafa. So it is very delicate to say "Dafa is judging all beings" just like that without providing a proper background of what Dafa really means and how Dafa is not Falun Gong or Falun Dafa, because people might think Falun Gong is just judging everyone and its not true. When you say Li Hongzhi and the Dafa are the only source of salvation, then its confusing because falun gong or falun dafa is not the Dafa. As a practitioner i believe it is the only source of salvation open to the public, other true ways of cultivation are not made public so i see it as a good oportunity to be a good person and cultivate using this system, im not hoping to be saved and so on, besides, in falun gong terms that would be an attatchment and its against Falun Gong's principles. i just think practitioners want to improve themselves and be better people every day. Im sorry but i must say i dont agree with this "The first people who will be eliminated are those who don't think the Dafa is good and members or supporters of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party." You dont agree with Falun Gong but that doesnt mean you are a bad person. The fact that you strongly oppose falun gong doesnt make you an "evil being" or something. The fact that you are a supporter of the communist party doesnt make you evil or bad either. Being truly a good person doesnt depend if you believe in Falun Gong or not, or if you are from the communist party or anything, it just depends on if you are really a good person, thats all. If you are a cultivator then i think we believe there are certain requirements set by the Dafa but if you are a good person and you want to cultivate, these problems will solve themselves. The way i see it, Falun Gong is not against homosexuals or will "eliminate them" the fact that someone is homosexual does not mean this person is not good or that this person is evil, i believe we just think homosexuality is not right as a behaviour because man was made for the woman and woman for the man in order for the species to survive. If you take it to a macroscale then if everyone was homosexual how would humanity survive?. Thats it, i dont have anything at all against homosexuals, i have had homosexual friends who are great people and i consider them even WAY much better than a lot of other heterosexual people i have met.

Lastly, i think Omido's post was not appropriate, you are accussing Tomananda of being irrational and hostile but i think you should understand you are being hostile and irrational yourself when you posted that message. Why? because you know saying those things about Tomananda is going to create a non favorable reaction which will originate a fight. If you think he is irritable and irrational why do you publicly post it for everyone to read? if you really think he is irritable then you know posting it just like that will irritate him. I think you have also made your own mistakes too and the fact that you are a practitioner does not mean you have the right to openly criticize other people as well. In fact, i think Tomananda reacted very well to your post and was tolerant enough not to fight back but instead chose to expose his point of view on the matter without irrespecting you. Im sorry if you believe im being harsh but i have repeatedly seen this behaviour on the talk page and i think it should stop in order to be able to work efficiently. Im not in favor of anyone in this discussion, im a practitioner and i know i have made mistakes too just like anyone else but if we dont change our attitude then we will not be able to finish this article.--Andres18 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Falun Dafa or Falun Gong is judging all beings; I said, correctly, the Dafa. And if it were used in an edit we would say "the Dafa (great law)is judging all people." That is a very simple statement and it corresponds precisely to what Li has said. Your comments really don't address the issue at hand: we need to have a paragraph which summarizes these teachings. Why don't you propose that language, providing it covers the key concepts I outlined above I will be happy. Let's stop with the distractions and get to work. And by the way, some of what you say is contradicted by Master Li, and in that case we must use his words to represent the teachings, not yours. He says people who do not think the Dafa is good will be the first weeded out. Let me assure you, I think the Dafa is very "bad"...I use the word "bad" but I don't think in those terms, while Li clearly does. I find it amusing that a spritual leader would be so conerned about what people think or say about something that is supposed to be "a great law." Does it matter whether I think the law of gravity is "good" or "bad"? Anyway, all I want is for the basic teachings to be summarized in the introduction and I will not yield. Here's the Li quote:
  • 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. It’s because no matter how bad some being in the cosmos are, they are even worse, for what they’re against is the Fa of the cosmos. So when we clarify the truth, we’re eliminating people’s evil thoughts towards Dafa. Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000 in Ann Arbor), p.1. --Tomananda 03:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: Concerning your comments on homosexuals, you are misrepresenting my argument and then defending against that misrepresentation. I believe that is one of the classic techniques used by apolologists. I never said "Falun Gong" will eliminate homosexuals. Li is very clear that homosexuals will be eliminated because of their bad karma in a slow and painful way. He is very clear that he doesn't think of homosexualality as meeting the standard of humans, that we have dark hearts turning demonic, etc. These are Li's words. Frankly, unless and until you are willing to refute your master's teachings on homosexuality (which are accurately summarized in the Criticism page)I am not interested in whether you think you have homosexual friends or not. The issue is, and always has been, what Li teaches. Please put your money where your mouth is and say, on this board, that you disagree with Li's teachings on homosexuality. Say it simply without equivocation and now. --Tomananda 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What Li meant with that quote was that people who are against the dafa or who dont agree with it are bad, its true, if you think being truthfull, benevolent and tolerant is something bad then how can you be good?. You said to stop the distractions? fine, you stop too, posting all these other useless topics isnt helping, im just limiting myself to replying at them and you say im creating a distraction, please... About your argument on homosexuals, im just speaking what i have learned from falun gong, again, what you think it says is not the meaning of it, you just read with the intention to criticize, if you tried to be objective things would be different. My personal comment was added just to try and demonstrate my point, if this is how you decided to answer at my comments, then i can say im not interested in wether you are a homosexual or not. I dont think using expressions like "put your money where your mouth is" are necessary in these posts, what you think about his teachings is not what is true in reality --Andres18 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your above post is much more honest than the one you did previously! I think the Dafa is a bunch of platitudes which Li borrowed from popular Chinese culture in order to launch his career as the biggest and best Qigong master in China. I know the Dafa is bad, because Li uses it to manipulate people and part of that manipulatation leads to dishonesty and intolerance. The point, Andres, is not that I think "truthfulnness, benevolence and tolerance" are "bad" but rather using those words to deceive the public and manipulate practitioners is bad. It's rather analagous to the use of the word "democracy" by President Bush to justify non-democratic actions in foreign lands. Bush says he spreads "democracy" in Iraq and then we all see the results. Li says he teaches "truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance" and then if we look hard enough at how the Falun Gong really conducts itself--do its actions really embody "truthfulness, benevolenance and forebearance"?--then we also see the results. I invite any casual observer to read through these discussions and ask yourself: have the Falun Gong practitioners really been honest about their core beliefs? And if they haven't been honest, the question to ask is: What can account for this strange behavior? Would a Christian be reluctant to declare that "Jesus saves"?
As to your feelings about homosexuals, you obviously are not prepared to refute any of Li Hongzhi's outrageously homophobic words and therefore I cannot take your statement about having a homosexual friend seriously. You have appararently chosen to believe every last word that Li Hongzhi says, without critical judgment, because he is your god, savior or Buddha (I don't care what particular word works for you). If you were a Catholic, you could disagree with the Pope in Rome and still count on being saved by Jesus. But since Li assumes the role of god (again choose any other word that works for you) no practitioner can disagree with him and still hope to be saved by his Dafa. If that were the extent of your position as a practitioner, I could accept it. But what I cannot accept is your refusal to come out of the closet with your core beliefs. More than anything else, it's the sneaky dishonesty of Falun Gong practitioners which makes me not respect, or trust anything else you say. As I said before, you guys have a big credibility problem and so far none of that has changed as result of these discussions.--Tomananda 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tomananda, perhaps i just have a different way of seeing his teachings. I think he is a very elevated person but honestly i dont see him as my personal god or something, actually, i see him the way i would see the dalai lama or something. Im not doing all this for fear of being "saved" or not, in fact i dont really care about being saved, i think most practitioners think this way (meaning they dont care about being saved or something) and i think they just want to be better people. I believe the higher level teachings sometimes require some personal experiences from practitioners in order to be understood much better, sometimes you see a few things or have some other kind of experiences that make you have more trust in the cultivation. Now maybe i think i understand much better your point of view, when you say you believe the Dafa is "bad" its not because of its principles but because you think its a political tool for manipulating people into hurting the Chinese government. For now we believe there is a persecution going on and we think it should stop, thats all. But me being a practitioner and all, i can say if Li said right now to do something against the Chinese government like overthrowing it or taking any kind of violent action or a mass protest in order to force the fall of the Chinese comunist party, i would not do it. I personally believe we are not hurting anyone with just communicating that there is a persecution going on against the practitioners in China. As you can see, even though its important to follow these principles of Truthfullness Benevolence Forbearance, people can make mistakes too, the fact that we have this principles as a good guide for life doesnt mean we are perfect and cannot make mistakes. If you think the Dafa is "bad" in the way you think it is then i wouldnt say you are actually against the Dafa so i do not think you can be considered a bad person in Falun Gong terms. You just have a different point of view on the matter and you are completely entitled to it. Omido, im sorry if i got you wrong but i think if you meant what you are talking about right now you should have said it in a different way, also, i dont think its proper to say "to give him a chance to change his behaviour and be easier to get along with." As you know, i guess if you put yourself in his place for a second, youll notice he also thinks you are not easy to get along with, im sure you can notice he gets frustrated sometimes just as you do too. Im sorry but as a practitioner i cannot suppose you did not intend to attack him with your post, i looked at it objectively and i dont think it was proper, im not saying they havent made mistakes on their side, i just think it wasnt correct. I dont think you are making anything up, im just saying that your previous post is not the most adequate way to approach this issue if thats how you feel. Im having serious personal problems which i have to attend to, this is why i cannot make such a long post and perhaps i wont be around all the time right now. Since there are all these topics coming on and on i think it would be a good idea to have a central thread and side topics to discuss but people should focus more on the central thread (the introduction paragraph) than in the other topics--Andres18 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment toward Tomananda was not to accuse him or attack him, but to express how difficult it is to work with him and to give him a chance to change his behaviour and be easier to get along with. You Andres as a practitioner should know that my intent was not to attack him, but to tell him to be less hostile and more cooperative. To be honest, I see many of Tomananda's comments as personal attacks and accusations, so it's not just something I'm making up. Omido

Also Tomananda, your attempts to make practitioners to change their way of thinking about Dafa and accept your notions about Dafa is something that will never happen. Practitioners are rock-solid in their beliefs in Falun Gong, because they know Falun Gong is true and that Master Li is a good person. Omido 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li is a good person? Is that a correct and complete statement of how you think about Master Li? If you think Master Li is just a good "person" then I assume you do not believe him to be infallible, divine or all powerful, since no "person" I know of can seriously claim those traits. So please clarify: is Master Li just a good person in your mind, or is there something more about Master Li's status, and your relationship to him, you feel comfortable reporting here? --Tomananda 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the disscussion on this article for a while and I think that in general people are taking this all too personally. On one hand, pro-FLG see direct criticisms on FLG as "incorrect interpretations" or character attacks on themselves and L.H. Zhi, criticizers of FLG themselves are a bit too zealous in imposing their viewpoints, and maybe overly pointed in their criticizms. Tomananda, I sense your intense frustration, but beating people over their heads with facts (no matter how good they are), and treating them as "being blinded" will not help in coming to a consensus. As for pro-FLG editors, remember that an encyclopedia should report facts, and do so in as plain and as uncoloured a way possible. The job of editors is to state facts without tailoring or interpreting them for the reader. I believe that this article has a lot to offer to people in understanding FLG and I really hate to see it being stuck in the mud and going no where. --Sjschen 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Worthy sentiments, and sentiments that have been expressed several times in the archives of this talk page. There is a level of frustration on both sides that is high, but I predict good old Wikipedia policy is eventually going to win out over fuzzy, clamorous Wikiality. I can't speak for Tomananda, but it is frustrating for me to debate with people who won't acknowledge the largely evidence-based opinions of others that FLG and Li say many things about themselves, their teachings and their motives yet often seem to act otherwise. These statements and actions are demonstrably in the public domain, so they will be in the article eventually, due to the weight of Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiable sources. Apologetics in aid of advertising is pretty easy to revert, even if I am the only one doing so it will be well documented and in accord with policy. We have had a good mediator, and if he is tired of all of this and doesn't want to do it anymore, I will thank him and request another. Failing that, it will be time for arbitration, sooner rather than later I'll say. The decisions (if any) by the Arbcom will then be enforcable by myself and other admins. --Fire Star 火星 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I view Teacher Li as my Teacher. He teaches me the Fa. I feel this Fa he is teaching me is very good, so I think he himself is very good. If I personally see him as a "Buddha" or not, then that opinion can not and will not represent Falun Gong, because Master Li has told everybody to treat him as an ordinary human being. The truth is, I don't see Teacher Li as a God, how can I see him as a God when he has never said that he is a God? He has never said who he is, he just said that he is an ordinary man that teaches people how to cultivate and be better persons. So I just see him as someone that teaches people how to cultivate the Dao. He teach me how to cultivate, so he is my Teacher, and anything else is your POV. Omido 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Li has said he is an ordinary man to the Western media, but he has told his followers he has many supernatural powers including:

  • He has fashen (law bodies) which surround practitioners bodies and know what they are thinking
  • He has traveled to Jesus' paradise and found there are no oriental people there
  • He will cure the illnesses of his practitioners directly
  • He is preventing the explosion of the universe
  • He protects his practitioners from harm
  • He will teach the gods his Dafa

Do you believe that each one of those claims is true? --Tomananda 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, whenever you see this, how about deleting this seemingly useless thread and helping us focus on the task at hand, ie. the Fa-Rectification content of the intro. In the past I wouldn't have considered the above discussion useless, but now having seen it so many times and never gone anwhere, I just don't think it's worth any of our time. When any of the issues discussed above become relevant to the article, then we can discuss them, but right now it's just a waste of time. Let's work together on the Fa-Rectification content and get this article unlocked. Mcconn 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Mcconn, we will not delete this discussion and our task at this point is to write about both the exclusive salvation offered by Li and the Fa-rectification. You seek to conceal not only the truth of Falun Gong on the main page, but on the discussion page as well. That is not acceptable.--Tomananda 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleting observations made with a direct bearing on how a group of editors debates with those who disagree with them? There is absolutely no precedent for that that I know of in Wikipedia history and the suggestion makes it look like Mcconn is trying to avoid the issue of having to acknowledge the opinions of editors who disagree with Li Hongzhi. --Fire Star 火星 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came off that way, it wasn't my intention. I was just suggesting a way to get our discussion back on track. You're right that it was a bad suggestion though. Deletion was a stupid idea. Here's another idea - move the discussion on our Fa-Rectification content suggestions to the bottom of the page. That would probably achieve the goal of my suggestion without any deletion. Mcconn 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the explanation. For getting us back on track, please see my latest suggestion at the bottom of the page. --Fire Star 火星 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he have said that he has fashen's. No he did not say that he have been to Jesus' paradise, he said that there are no oriental people there, but he did not say he has been there. He will not cure illnesses, he will purify the bodies of genuine cultivators. He did not say he is preventing the explosion of the universe, that is only your notion that is controlling you. Protects his practitioners from harm? He is rearranging the life of practitioners so that they can cultivate. He said that all levels are listening to this Dafa. Omido 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A Few of Li's Claims: Do Practitioners Believe Them to Be True?

Omido, here are the quotes:

No oriental people in Jesus’ paradise

“I have also found no oriental people in Jesus’ paradise. It is very sad!....I have also found no white people in Buddha’s paradise in the past.” Falun Dafa Lecture in Sydney Australia (1996)

You are correct, Li did not say preciseley that he visited Jesus' paradise, just that he "found" no orientals there. When one claims to have found something at a place, one is assumed to have visited that place either in one's corporeal form, or psychically. The question remains: do you believe this claim?

Li cures illness directly:

“Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at the exercise sites will have my Fashen (law bodies) to cure their illnesses.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.126

“The true cultivator has no disease, which my Law body has eradicated, and all that should be done will be done and there is nothing of acupoint massage. . . . It is no problem if you are a doctor because it is your job in ordinary people.” The Law Explication for Falun Dafa’s Assistants of Changchun, (September 18, 1994), p.11.

You are incorrect, Li clearly does say he cures illnesses directly and also that true cultivators will not have disease because his law body will eradicate their disease. The question remains: do you believe this claim?

Li is preventing the explosion of the universe:

“Today's scientists, too, have discovered the situation in which great changes are taking place in the cosmos. They've discovered that the scope of the universe they can currently see is expanding faster and faster, and the speed of the expansion keeps accelerating. I didn't want to talk about this before--I only taught principles of the Fa. Let's think about it: what does this expansion mean? Something only expands before it explodes; it expands and expands, and when it reaches a certain point it suddenly bursts. So everything is in its final stage. A lot of beings are watching all this with anxiety. As for the old forces, they, with their requirements in mind, are also anxious. Of course, the beings in the new cosmos are also eagerly longing for the conclusion of all this. The immense force of the whole Fa-rectification is doing its final work at an even more forceful speed, which transcends all times. Now it's only a little bit away from catching up with the speed of the surface's expansion. Of course, the speed of the expansion seems to be slow in terms of human time, but it's in fact very fast. I am doing things very fast, too. I've told you before that however much is done up there, that much can be broken through at lower levels. Although the universe is expanding, I'm doing things at an extremely fast speed, and I can definitely catch up with it. If I don't catch up with it, I can tell you, the final disintegration would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist. If I do catch up with it, it's resolved. Not only will I catch up with it, but I will also surpass it, and that's when the Fa rectifies the human world.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Boston (April 27, 2002)

You are wrong, Li clearly claims he is keeping up with the exploding universe and therefore preventing its final disintergration. The question is: do you believe this claim?

Li protects his practitioners from harm:

“If you are a genuine practitioner, our Falun will safeguard you. I am rooted in the universe. If anyone could harm you, he would be able to harm me. To make it plainly, he would be able to harm this universe.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.44

“I have adjusted your bodies and installed ‘Falun’ (a law wheel installed by the master in the lower abdomen of practitioners) . . . and my Fashen (law body) also protects you. “ Falun Gong, revised edition, p.50

You are again wrong. Li has often spoken about how he (or his fashen) protect practitioners from harm.

Omido, rather denying that Li has made these claims, I request that you provide a simple answer to my question: do you not believe any of these claims? Or if you do believe all of these claims, do you really think Li is nothing more than a person who is a good teacher? This is not a trick question and I am not saying you do not have a right to believe these things. But as long as you deny that you believe these things, I will distrust everything you say. Once again, I am deeply concerned about your credibility. Rather than engaging in evasive answers, or denials of the accuracy of my reporting of Li's teachings, why not speak the truth? --Tomananda 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I believe in everything Teacher Li has taught, all those things you are quoting, I do believe in them. But to be honest, I do not feel that you have understood things very well, that is why I do not agree with you. I believe in everything Teacher Li has said, but I believe in nothing that you say. That is the difference. Omido 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you believe in everything Li has said, then surely you don't believe that Li is just an ordinary person. An ordinary person cannot do the things he claims to do in the above list, right?
The question remains: when Li contradicts himself, how do you decide what is true? For example, Li has said he is just an ordinary person to the Western media, but he has also made many claims of supernatural powers which simply cannot be held by an ordinary person. So the problem here is not my interprettation of things (it doesn't matter what I think about Li) but rather your interpretation.
There's no reason why you can't think for yourself and have your own interpretation on these questions, is there? In an earlier post you said "how can I consider Li to be a god since he has never said he is a god?"...my answer to that is simple: unless you are truly brainwashed...which means you have lost your ability to think independently from Li...you can easily say: "Even though Li has not said he is a god, I think of him as a kind of god or Buddha" (or whatever word works for you.) Before you became a FG practioner, didn't you make statements like that all the time?--Tomananda 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request formal mediation

It doesn't look like CovenantD is coming back. Should we request formal mediation? --Kent8888 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has only been a few days. People sometimes disappear for days at a time, especially if the weather is nice where they live. I'd give him until next Monday. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The next mediator needs a hammer & anvil. These conversations have all been going in circles. That's what happens with the FLG people - bait & switch. Cj cawley 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government mass organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners

Is China harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners?

Articles:

--HResearcher 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

China is organ harvesting according the the chinese and english epoch times.

60.225.199.123 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong mass brain harvesting of Communist cadres!!!
See for reference *insert dodgy self-made site*
Just kidding. --Sumple (Talk) 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the sources suggesting that this happening are dodgy? Mcconn 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. All of them appear to derive from the same few unreliable sources (the Epoch Times, a FLG mouthpiece). The fact that a story is repeated several times does not make it true, except to Stalin ("A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth").
I doubt the veracity of this story because it is way too sensationalistic. Without some neutral and reliable source, it seems like concoction (e.g. for immigration purposes). --Sumple (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners, stop telling your lies!!!

The organ harvesting allegation is a Falun Gong lie.

On April 13, 2006, an official from the hospital gave the following statement: “the hospital is lacking the required facilities to conduct organ transplants and has no basement to house the Falun Gong practitioners.” Le Tian, Falun Gong lies slammed by hospital China Daily, April 13, 2006.

According to a document from Ministry of Health of Malaysia, this hospital—Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center—is partly owned by a Malaysian company, Country Heights Health Sanctuary. [23]

The US government did investigate and the Chinese government cooperated. Officers and staff from the U.S. embassy in Beijing and the U.S. consulate in Shenyang city have visited the area and the specific site on two separate occasions. According to the State department report, “In these visits the officers were allowed to tour the entire facility and grounds and found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.” US State Department, U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alleged Concentration Camp in China 16 April 2006

More articles expressing doubts about the Falun Gong allegation.

Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation doubts FLG's claim: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese

HK newspaper Takunpao's investigation discredits FLGs claim: http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/03/31/ZM-545907.htm

A reporter's first hand experience with Falun Gong media outlet, Epoch Times: http://holidarity.blogspot.com/2006/04/organ-harvesting-controversy.html

Samuel makes a good point in his article:

Does the group really believe that six thousand of its members were murdered in Sujiatun? The answer is no. The Falun Gong has kept a record of practitioners who allegedly died due to abuses; their personal information and the causes of their death have been disclosed in a section on the group’s official clearwisdom.net. As of June 3, 2006 the death toll was numbered at 2,898, and none of them were killed in the so-call Sujiatun concentration camp.8 In other words the victims of this crime do not exist! Despite the much so-call evidence and condemnations posted on Falun Gong websites, there is no attempt to account for these six thousand victims—a natural response if the group really believed such a crime has taken place. [24]

Many in the Chinese community here believe the Falun Gong is supported by the Taiwanese government. --Mr.He 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been released a 45 page independent investigation (not by FLG people) which states that the organ harvesting are really happening. Omido 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok boys. First of all, the first source of the organ harvesting allegations did not come from a practitioner or anyone who had anything to do with Falun Gong, it was the ex-wife of a sergan. If you don't think that the source is credible, then read the investigation done by David Matas and David Kilgor to find out why she is. You don't believe Epoch Times or practitioners? Fine. But at this point the weight on these allegations come from the report done by the two affirmentioned Canadians, not practitioners themselves. These are high profile individuals with very good reputations. If I were you I would read up on them and read their investigation report before you go any further with denouncing their claims. After conducting an independent investigation they firmly believe that this organ harvesting is happening and on a large scale. You can currently access their report at this site: http://www.come4u.info/ . I think this is a temporary site until they can get a better domain name.
Also take a look at Kilgor and Matas' response to an article in the Embassy Newspaper here
Samual's argument is poor. The death toll listed on clearwisdom is not the number of practitioners we believe to have died from the persecution. Instead, it is the number of deaths verified through eyewitness accounts. Practitioners have always said that the true number is likely much higher. Plus, there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China.
It took the Chinese government weeks to respond to the allegations of organ harvesting. After a number of weeks they released a statement denying the claims and invited a US delegation to investigate. This was more than enough time to cover up anything they had to hide (and you know they would certainly do this if the allegations were true). This delegation was then given a show tour of the facility.
Overall, I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling. Olaf already commented on how some people's hatred for Falun Gong has spilled over into support for the Chinese government. You may deny this, but your actions show otherwise. Mcconn 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for Mr.He's assertion that Falun Gong is backed by the Taiwanese government, what fact is this based on? It sounds completely ridiculous. "Anti-Chinese forces" working together, right? Give me a break. Mcconn 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes and discussion for them

Okay, I have been procrastinating but got some time now. I realised that for many diffs, there is no more immediate explanation than what's in the edit summary. But what's disputed further, we can discuss. I number and link there here anyway, so it's clear what's going on. Again, I request that each edit be dealt with separately, and that responses not be ad-hominem, but actually dealing with the straightforward question of wikipedia policy and sources. You can see how to easily set up the numbering system, or use your own way. Is this the best way of keeping track of the discussion? Anyway, we can try it like this. Would it be more helpful if I copied and pasted the edit summaries right here, so we can see? At the moment I just have two browsers on each side of the screen and can refer to them back and forth easily, but if the paper trail needs to be clearer, I am happy to oblige.

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28] -- This needs a source or it's simply a random snippet that someone put in cause they thought it sounded good. Do I misunderstand something? It's like putting in any random comment or statement, right? Doesn't make sense.
  5. [29] -- I could be missing something here. Like in all the cases, happy for an explanation if I misunderstand something. But I didn't believe the CCP was a reliable source? Maybe it could be handled with context, or something? In this case, it's not clear how their view is relevant to the discussion, though, since they are not RS, and the CCP's view on Falun Gong is most relevant in the section about their view? Am I wrong?
  6. [30]
  7. [31] -- this is actually a more complex issue. It's basically a question of how the cult label debate should be treated in the article. I don't think major revision is necessary to the current version. But I think there are two key points that are both verifiable through sources and important for the page to reflect. 1) the origin of the term. 2) the "uptake" or response the term has received among journalists and scholars--i.e., how it's most often talked about and contextualised. More on that later. In short, I believe this should be in the section that explains the CCP's propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. But it's not enough to simply assert that. The point is to show that such an argument actually has strong textual support. Wikipedia has to conform to what the sources say, so the placement of this material should reflect the best sources.
  8. [32]
  9. [33]
  10. [34]
  11. [35]
  12. [36]
  13. [37]
  14. [38]
  15. [39]
  16. [40]
  17. [41]

--Asdfg12345 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes have been reverted multiple times, and no one has made any attempt to respond to the edit summaries or the info above. I also wrote above whether it would help if I ported the edit summaries here, but no response... This is now kinda entering the realm of fantasy. But I just watched the last half of that star trek prequel, so I'm feeling pretty optimistic. It's hope that makes me so assiduous. I'm just going to restore the information that I added to the article. I will also list the other problems that currently exist, as I perceive them. These are all in various states of non-discussion. As in, the problem is brought up, someone makes a dismissive remark, abandons dialogue, and nothing further. Then, apparently, it's "no consensus" so no one can edit. anyway. I have taken note of how to make good edits, so I hope things are even more transparent. --Asdfg12345 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a lot of material to the article. I didn't change much of what was already there. Apparently that's a no-no. And I tried to check the diffs to see that they were all very clear. All these edits in the midst of so much turmoil, it seems pretty contentious. I know. I will explain briefly. I don't think it's right that I be intimidated from editing the pages because people are revert happy, because they call me names, say I'm a pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher, and whatever else. The pages just need improvement. I'm not going to not do that because of irrational arguments levelled at me. This isnt' meant to be provocative. I just do not want to get caught up in all this drama. I only added information, impeccably sourced, and often quite relevant. Most of the time it balanced an existing POV, or added some (what I would consider) background or context. I will be interested to see whether someone dares revert them all. I was careful to not actually modify the existing structure or content, so as not to invite that sort of thing. So I basically just added stuff. I welcome others to build on it, work with it, and play with it constructively. If you revert it all and call me names, I'll be sad. Unfortunately though, I won't be surprised. But it will be a great example of the collapse of the editing environment around here if it happens. I think the edits stand on their own, and I think they fit the context of the article. I suggest you read through them before deleting them. Judge whether they are good or useful changes or not. Don't tell me that I have to get a consensus on each point before I can add information. That's not true. This is a dynamic, work in progress, right? As I say, my changes are simply adding information. First read, think, and consider: is it a net benefit to the page, to the encyclopedia? We can change and discuss, change and discuss. I hope I'm not acting out of line, but I've been considering the events of the last few days, and I think it would be wrong to just give up on improving the pages because I've been met with hostility. Live long and prosper.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this diff and unfortunately it's not as clean cut as I tried to make it. I apologise if that is annoying to anyone. I don't think it will be hard to recognise that nothing much of the existing content has actually been changed, though. Only the minimum necessary to add more information. The real changes are additions. Over and out.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Donot Slander a true cultivation way

You apparently are just repeating CCP's tales... You dont seem to have the slightest clue on what you are talking about.

There are reasons why Falun Dafa cultivators clarify the truth about the persecution to people and that has nothing to do with "politics". When someone carries bad thoughts against a true teaching and slanders the Dharma isnt he accumulating terrible sins? Where is his being heading for?

Falun Dafa prcatitioners are letting the world know of the terrible and most inhumane persecution innocent people are facing in China.. hoping to bring an end to these unspeakable atrocities.. and you label that "politics"?

People like you think Buddhist scriptures are something for intellectual studies... you study it like some kind of philosophy and then you are "qualified" for whatever..

The Dalai Lama has said Falun Dafa is "very good".

Gautama Buddha himself prophesized that during this period of time the Great Law (Da Fa ) would spread far and wide.. A Sutra refers to the teaching by the name "the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma.( Fa Lun )" and "the Thus Come One's sudden teaching"

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.( Fa Lun )

- Gautama Buddha

(SE 62-63)

It is only natural that people who consider themselves "qualified" by reading some scriptures as if they were some made-up specualtive philosophy appear during in this period of time.. ... I request you to read this Sutra ..

Thus I have heard. At one time the Buddha was in the state of Kushinagara. The Tathagata was to enter Nirvana within three months and the bhikshus and Bodhisattvas as well as the great multitude of beings had come to the Buddha to pay homage to the Buddha and to bow in reverence. The World Honored One was tranquil and silent. He spoke not a word and his light did not appear. Worthy Ananda bowed and asked the Buddha, "O Bhagavan, heretofore whenever you spoke the Dharma, awesome light would naturally appear. Yet today among this great assembly there is no such radiance. There must be a good cause for this, and we wish to hear the Bhagavan's explanation."
The Buddha remained silent and did not answer until the request had been repeated three times. He then told Ananda, "After I enter Nirvana, when the Dharma is about to perish, during the Evil Age of the Five Turbidities (see Five Turbidities), the way of demons will flourish. Demonic beings will become Shramanas they will pervert and destroy my teachings.... They will lack compassion and they will bear hatred and jealousy even among themselves.
"At that time there will be Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats who will reverently and diligently cultivate immaculate virtue. They will be respected by all people and their teachings will be fair and egalitarian. These cultivators of the Fa will take pity on the poor, they will be mindful of the aged, and they will save and give counsel to those people they find in difficult circumstances. They will at all times exhort others to worship and to protect the sutras and images of the Buddha. They will do meritorious deeds, be resolute and kind and never harm others. They will forsake their bodies for others' benefit. They will hold no great regard for themselves but will be patient, yielding, humane, and peaceful.
"If such people exist, the hordes of demonic bhikshus will be jealous of them. The demons will harass them, slander and defame them, expel them from their midst and degrade them. They will ostracize the good monks from the monastic community. Thereafter these demons will not cultivate the Way-virtue. Their temples and monastic buildings will be vacant and overgrown with weeds. For want of care and maintenance their Way-places will drift into ruin and oblivion. The demonic bhikshus will only be greedy for wealth and will amass great heaps of goods. They will refuse to distribute any of it or to use it to gain blessings and virtue.

. . .

"When the lives of these demonic bhikshus come to an end their essential spirits will fall into the avici hells. Having committed the five evil sins, they will suffer successive rebirths as hungry ghosts and as animals. They will know all such states of woe as they pass on through aeons as numerous as sands on the banks of the Ganges River. When their offenses are accounted for they will be reborn in a border land where the Triple Jewel is unknown.
"When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no longer speak the Dharma. ( According to the Dao school and The Book of Changes this precisely is the period of reversal of yin and yang )
Those genuine Shramanas they see will be looked upon as dung and no one will have faith in them. When the Dharma is about to perish, all the gods will begin to weep. Rivers will dry up and the five grains will not ripen. Epidemic diseases will frequently take the lives of multitudes of people. The masses will toil and suffer while the local officials will plot and scheme. No one will adhere to principles. Instead, all people will be ever more numerous like the sands of the ocean-bed. Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two. As the aeon comes to a close, the revolution of the sun and the moon will grow short and the lifespan of people will decrease. Their hair will turn white at the age of forty years. Because of excessive licentious behavior they will quickly exhaust their seminal fluids and will die at a young age, usually before sixty years. As the life-span of males decreases, that of females will increase to seventy, eighty, ninety, or one hundred years.
"The great rivers will rise up in disharmony with their natural cycles, yet people will not take notice or feel concern. Extremes of climate will soon be taken for granted. . . .
"Then there will be Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats who will gather together in an unprecedented assembly because they will have all been harried and pursued by hordes of demons. They will no longer dwell in the assemblies, but the Three Vehicles will retreat to the wilderness. In a tranquil place, they will find shelter, happiness, and long life. Gods will protect them and the moon will shine down upon them. The Three Vehicles will have an opportunity to meet together and the way will flourish. However, within fifty-two years the and the , the Standing Buddha Samadhi, will be the first to change and then disappear. The twelve divisions of the canon will gradually follow until they vanish completely, never to appear again. Its words and texts will be totally unknown ever after. The precept sashes of Shramanas will turn white of themselves. When my Dharma disappears, it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.

.I al . .

Worthy Ananda addressed the Buddha, "What should we call this Sutra and how shall we uphold it?"
The Buddha said, "Ananda, this Sutra is called . Tell everyone to propagate it widely; the merit of your actions will be measureless, beyond reckoning."
When the fourfold assembly of disciples heard this Sutra, they grieved and wept. Each of them resolved to attain the true Path of the Supreme Sage. Then bowing to the Buddha, they withdrew.

(SS I xiv-xvi)

Latest archiving

I have archived the last bit of the talk page as it was getting way too big to deal with. If there are bits that you want to use for a point about editing the article, please either link to the appropriate archive or cut and paste quote to here. Thanks. --Fire Star 火星 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job Fire Star, but you archived current discussion, so I am restoring the discussion about alleged mass organ harvesting by the Chinese government of Falun Gong members.

Can we please get back to the topics at hand?

We need to get a new moderator. I would volunteer; however, the FLG cult members would never allow it. Cj cawley 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

of course they would never allow it... when you use such POV language! Frade 11:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government mass organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners

Is China harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners?

Articles:

--HResearcher 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

China is organ harvesting according the the chinese and english epoch times.

60.225.199.123 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong mass brain harvesting of Communist cadres!!!
See for reference *insert dodgy self-made site*
Just kidding. --Sumple (Talk) 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the sources suggesting that this happening are dodgy? Mcconn 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. All of them appear to derive from the same few unreliable sources (the Epoch Times, a FLG mouthpiece). The fact that a story is repeated several times does not make it true, except to Stalin ("A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth").
I doubt the veracity of this story because it is way too sensationalistic. Without some neutral and reliable source, it seems like concoction (e.g. for immigration purposes). --Sumple (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Omido, there is an independent 45 page report. I'm waiting for him to supply proof of this report. --HResearcher 10:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ The new link is up and running. Mcconn 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that does need to be investigated by an Independent third party organization. David Matas and David Kilgour are, from what I know of them, Falun Gong practitioners and may have ulterior motivations and hidden agendas. BUT, I and say this with the up most caution, during WW2 only the Jewish papers talked about the holocaust as early as 1939 where as the mainstream press only picked up on it two years after the war ended.

David Kilgour is not a Falun Gong practitioner. He is the former Chief Prosecutor of Canada, and a former federal politician having server over 20 years in parliament. This report is independent, and will no doubt form the basis for any further investigations by the likes of Amnesty, etc. Frade 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately in today’s world it is all too easy to create an organization and use it to say anything you want. Politicians do it all the time; half the PAC’s that endorse them are ones they created themselves!

We all should encourage groups like Amnesty International and other human rights watch groups to examine this issue and publish their findings. --Otomo 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The organ harvesting allegation is a Falun Gong lie

On April 13, 2006, an official from the hospital gave the following statement: “the hospital is lacking the required facilities to conduct organ transplants and has no basement to house the Falun Gong practitioners.” Le Tian, Falun Gong lies slammed by hospital China Daily, April 13, 2006.

According to a document from Ministry of Health of Malaysia, this hospital—Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center—is partly owned by a Malaysian company, Country Heights Health Sanctuary. [42]

The US government did investigate and the Chinese government cooperated. Officers and staff from the U.S. embassy in Beijing and the U.S. consulate in Shenyang city have visited the area and the specific site on two separate occasions. According to the State department report, “In these visits the officers were allowed to tour the entire facility and grounds and found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.” US State Department, U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alleged Concentration Camp in China 16 April 2006

More articles expressing doubts about the Falun Gong allegation.

Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation doubts FLG's claim: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese

HK newspaper Takunpao's investigation discredits FLGs claim: http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/03/31/ZM-545907.htm

A reporter's first hand experience with Falun Gong media outlet, Epoch Times: http://holidarity.blogspot.com/2006/04/organ-harvesting-controversy.html

Samuel makes a good point in his article:

Does the group really believe that six thousand of its members were murdered in Sujiatun? The answer is no. The Falun Gong has kept a record of practitioners who allegedly died due to abuses; their personal information and the causes of their death have been disclosed in a section on the group’s official clearwisdom.net. As of June 3, 2006 the death toll was numbered at 2,898, and none of them were killed in the so-call Sujiatun concentration camp.8 In other words the victims of this crime do not exist! Despite the much so-call evidence and condemnations posted on Falun Gong websites, there is no attempt to account for these six thousand victims—a natural response if the group really believed such a crime has taken place. [43]

Many in the Chinese community here believe the Falun Gong is supported by the Taiwanese government. --Mr.He 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been released a 45 page independent investigation (not by FLG people) which states that the organ harvesting are really happening. Omido 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok boys. First of all, the first source of the organ harvesting allegations did not come from a practitioner or anyone who had anything to do with Falun Gong, it was the ex-wife of a sergan. If you don't think that the source is credible, then read the investigation done by David Matas and David Kilgor to find out why she is. You don't believe Epoch Times or practitioners? Fine. But at this point the weight on these allegations come from the report done by the two affirmentioned Canadians, not practitioners themselves. These are high profile individuals with very good reputations. If I were you I would read up on them and read their investigation report before you go any further with denouncing their claims. After conducting an independent investigation they firmly believe that this organ harvesting is happening and on a large scale. You can currently access their report at this site: http://www.come4u.info/ . I think this is a temporary site until they can get a better domain name.
Also take a look at Kilgor and Matas' response to an article in the Embassy Newspaper here
Samual's argument is poor. The death toll listed on clearwisdom is not the number of practitioners we believe to have died from the persecution. Instead, it is the number of deaths verified through eyewitness accounts. Practitioners have always said that the true number is likely much higher. Plus, there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China.
It took the Chinese government weeks to respond to the allegations of organ harvesting. After a number of weeks they released a statement denying the claims and invited a US delegation to investigate. This was more than enough time to cover up anything they had to hide (and you know they would certainly do this if the allegations were true). This delegation was then given a show tour of the facility.
Overall, I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling. Olaf already commented on how some people's hatred for Falun Gong has spilled over into support for the Chinese government. You may deny this, but your actions show otherwise. Mcconn 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for Mr.He's assertion that Falun Gong is backed by the Taiwanese government, what fact is this based on? It sounds completely ridiculous. "Anti-Chinese forces" working together, right? Give me a break. Mcconn 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

These two Canadians, David Matas and David Kilgor are simply repeating the words of the Falun Gong. The US government has clearly stated that such a crime did not take place, why would I want to believe these Candians who have not even been to China? When the allegation first surface I thought you guys had a legitimate concerned, but as the story developes I found you guys have no interest in studying the evidnences and the facts. All you guys have done is pushing the allegation while ignoring the reports from the US state department and other reliable sources. This is why I believe the whole thing is produced by the Falun Gong, a cult according to American cult experts. I can assure you guys that this lie has turned many Chinese who had chose to ignore the Falun Gong against your cult. --Mr.He 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. He, unless you've got something concrete to back up your statements I'm not going to bother responding. I doubt you've even looked at Matas and Kilgor's report or their statments in response to criticism. You place great emphasis on a very shallow and sketchy investigation, while ignoring the more crucial facts. Take some time to do a little more research, consider the other perspective and really try to weigh the situtation. If you can do this I think you'll see which side truly tips the scale. Mcconn 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So it's probably all true, and the Chinese government or somebody related is here trying to deny it with their own lies? --HResearcher 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Mcconn I hope you can show people here some respect by not calling us “boys.”

Because this Chinese hospital is partly owned by a Malaysian company which means it is out of the control of local Chinese authorities, and because the US government has verified that such an allegation is false, people like me and Mr. He would rightfully refuse to believe Falun Gong’s Organ Harvesting allegation. Deception is a distinctive trait of Falun Gong. You said that “there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China,” how about the 30 million practitioners outside of China that your group claims to have in 1999? It looks like they have all gone missing, who is killing them? You also said: “I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling.” What we are doing is exercising our critical thinking or reality check; only cult members would believe in something which is backed by no facts. HResearcher Editing others' words here is a violation, remember that. Are you trying to make anyone who disagrees with the Falun Gong a cousin of the Chinese government? --Samuel Luo 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited other' words? You mean I changed the sub-header. Anyway, there are conflicting stories which means there is a lot of room for further investigation! And from what I understand there is more investigation underway. --HResearcher 06:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The organ harvesting allegation

Omido, can you please post a link to that 45 page report? --HResearcher 10:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ This is the new domain name, so please disregard the temporary link I provided above. Mcconn 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More political heavyweights are now coming out in support of the claims. In particular, Edward McMillan-Scott, vice-president of the EU, who is currently touring with David Kilgour to raise awareness of the issue. Unlike the US "investigation", McMillan-Scott has actually uncovered more telling evidence pointing towards truth of the allegations.Frade 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Financially supporting the Falun Gong???

Is the Taiwanese government supporting the Falun Gong? Here is what I know, until the beginning of this year boxes of VCDs and pamphlets had shipped to my mother’s house from Taiwan every week. They were then distributed in San Francisco by other practitioners. Every practitioner I talked to told me that producing these material in Taiwan cost much less than anywhere else. No matter how little money they cost someone still has to pay for them, but when I ask who is paying no one knows. Can you tell me why for the last four years (at least) huge quantities of Falun Gong propagandist material were produced and shipped from Taiwan and no one knows who is paying for them?

I have a friend who is working for San Francisco Examiner, a free newspaper. Three years ago he estimated that it costs about $250,000 per month to run the Epoch Times, a nationwide free newspaper which had no ads in its first two years. Who is paying? Practitioners I talked to told me that some rich practitioners in real state business have been paying for it but again no one knows their names. Also it is well known in San Francisco Chinatown that those elderly people protesting in front of Chinese consulate five days a week have been paid about $50 a day. The Falun Gong seems to have a very deep pocket, who is behind it? Many people believe it is the Taiwanese government some believe it is the CIA? What do you believe, aliens from Mars? --Samuel Luo 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong people seem to have a endless supply of material for free distribution, and many of these material are highly political. The "Nine Commentary On the CPC" VCDs and books are good exmples. These political propaganda are calling for the downfall of the Chinese governmnet. Producing the VCDs cost some money but what is more costly is the documentary contained in the VCD, who is paying for the producion of this film? Also the books are printed in good quality which certainly cost a lot of money, who is paying for them? So, these material are coming from Taiwan that explains everything. --Mr.He 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a prevalent view in the Chinese community, at least here in Australia, that FLG is supported in some way by the Taiwanese government. For example, the recent defector Chen Yonglin defected with FLG support, and now he is popping up at events held by the present Taiwanese regime (that is, officials affiliated with the Democratic Progressive Party). I am not saying that this is evidence of financial backing, but that is certainly how many overseas Chinese view the situation. --Sumple (Talk) 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you that I am a practitioner from Australia, and I have not been involved with things for a very long time. I gradually came to understand what Falun Gong was about and my involvement grew over time. Everything, all materials, posters, events, everything I came across, was paid for by practitioners directly. I have personally put several hundred Australian dollars toward fliers. A doublesided piece of A4 paper costs 1c AUD. For example, one event cost $400 AUD in papers, and several practitioners all contributed. I´ve only been really involved for six months, doing things. People have jobs and they earn money, jobs in the government with decent wages. Those who understand what Falun Gong is in this period of time, and once I came to understand, would not bat an eyelid at giving over a lot of money for this cause. Furthermore, those in China do not bat an eyelid at the thought of brutal torture and a painful death. Maybe the thought of a Falun Gong practitioner now would be "what else have I got to do with the money I earn?" Of course, some people have families and they must look after them. Part of being a practitioner is learning the meaning of responsibility and certainly all practitioners, and Falun Gong in this period of time, is strictly being responsible to themselves and to this society. You are unable to understand the mentality of these people, but I can tell you that in my experience all money that I saw changing hands was between practitioners and printing houses. -- 0:59:04, 7 of August, 2006

You guys are really "digging into a bulls horn". You can gather all the "facts" you want, but you'll never prove anything with this argument. Why? Because it's simply not true. Again, I don't really feel the need to say much about this. No one gets paid any money to protest in front of the Chinese embassy. That's a total lie and, like the rest of your argument, you'll only waste your time trying to prove it. As for materials, there are practitioners in all professions (including graffic design, software engineering, programing, etc.) so as long as we've got the time and the resources (these days you don't need many resources to create a video like that of the nine commentaries) we can do pretty much anything we need. No one has to do anything. It's only because practitioners believe firmly in the cause that they do what they do. As for Sujiatun, I don't personally know all the details (in terms of the Malasian owner relationship), however, the sources never came from Falun Gong practitioners (we merely reported it). So if you think they're lying you can't say that it's Falun Gong practitioners who are lying. This aside, independant and reputable investigators who know a lot more than anyone here does about this whole thing have found these sources credible. Again, I suggest that you actually read the Kilgour and Matas report. It seems that you hold onto your opinion rather blindly (just my perspective). Mcconn 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Practitioners have contributed money for printing leaflets, but they have not paid for the boxes of VCDs and booklets from Taiwan nor did they pay for the Epoch Times, the radio network Sound of Hope and the satellite television station New Tang Dynasty. Mcconn, it is true that we don’t have any evidence to back our claim but don’t you find it interesting that no practitioner can provide evidence to relieve our suspicion? --Samuel Luo 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the boxes from Taiwan full of Dafa material. I have also asked who pays for this, and the answer is the practitioners pay for it. I have been at a few meetings where practitioners put out a lot of money to get boxes of Dafa material shipped to them. Some practitioners are well off that they can spend a few hundred each month on material or have a business to make things such as the VCD's or do some small print runs. Fa conferances are often funded by the hosting practitioners. This is normal for groups like this. JW, Mormons and Moonies all pay for thier material to hand out too. After all, buying materials and handing them out is part of being a practitioner, and somewhat expected. --Otomo 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of evidence would you be looking for? If you want tax receipts and the like, those are the kind of things to be brought up in a court of law, not a simple discussion such as this. How do you know practitioners didn't pay for these things? I bet your parents or some other local practitioners payed for the stuff from Taiwan. Here's the big secret you've all been waiting for: In Taiwan it's cheaper to print things and there is a high concentration of practitioners there, some owning bookstores and probably some owning or operating print houses. So a lot of materials (not all) are made in Taiwan, then when practitioners in different areas need some materials from Taiwan, they contact them, place an order, and pay the printing and shipping costs. There you go. That's how it is. Mcconn 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

I would like to ask everyone involved here to quickly read through the requirements at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. We will be requesting a neutral, official mediator in a non-partisan request to go over the dispute and suggest a plan to go forward. This is the next step in the dispute resolution process. In this step, there are no good guys or bad guys, just disagreement. To insist that anyone is wrong at this stage will derail the process, so I am asking forbearance from everyone while we make this request. Please comment below, I propose making the request in 5 days time if we can get a consensus to move forward with it. --Fire Star 火星 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments below this line

What happened to Covenant? Mcconn 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding about a request he made about this page and he ended up being temporarily blocked a couple of days ago, apparently. Understandably, he probably isn't likely to be willing to continue at this point. Part of why I proposed a 5 day discussion period was to see if he would come back voluntarily. If not (again, understandably) then we still have an article dispute to resolve. --Fire Star 火星 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's go for official mediation in 5 days. I think we should point out to the mediator that Covenant has already created a "To Do" list and that we should proceed according to the list. Also, my understanding is that technically Wikipedia does not require a consensus in order to request mediation. In other words, there may be a hold out who is against mediation, but we can still go ahead and request it anyway. --Tomananda 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That is true, even one editor can make the request. The more of us who participate the request, the easier and quicker it will be to get a mediator to sign on, though. Interestingly, the head of the mediation committe is the same Admin that temp-blocked Covenant. --Fire Star 火星 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD has done a lot on Falun Gong pages; I hope he comes back. But if he chooses not to return we should definitely seek a formal mediator. Firestar has set the deadline on August 8th. On that day I propose that the article be restored to this version 22:28, 6 July 2006. --Samuel Luo 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda and Samuel,

The persecution in China is real, and you yourself know that.. why do you support that most cruel persecution? Could a person with a bit of goodness in his heart do such a thing? Calm down and look inside... Why do you hate people who cultivate truth, compassion and endurance? What is it that makes you hate zen-shan-ren? Could it be good?

Even after reading all the lies spread by the CCP, people know Falun Gong is good the moment they see the lecture videos.. or meet a practitioner.. they can objectively feel the compassion and goodness..

You may believe that the picture of the world formed by your senses is the truth... but isnt that blind belief in your own notions? The truth can only be objectively understood through cultivation practice.. only in the absence of notions and attachments can the truth be understood.. Whether you believe it or not.. the cosmos carries immense wisdom... it has its characteristic.. which may be put in human terms as zen-shan-ren.. the dao school cultivates zhen.. the buddha school cultivates shan - grand compassion towards all sentient beings..

Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and all true masters pointed flaws in us which we must eliminate if we are to assimilate to the cosmic characterisitc.. as you progress in cultivation you understand things yourself... you know certain things are bad and goes against your own true nature and the characterisitc of the Cosmos... you made a big issue saying that homosexuality is not considered an upright human behaviour... how could it be? but that doesnt mean the person himself is bad.. What does the Bible say on that? What does the Buddhist scriptures say? As long as a person can realize there are flaws within himself.. and that he must completely eliminate such things that goes against his own true nature he can practice cultivation... but if he thinks I've been like this for as long as i can remember and this is me, he is going down with those things.... they turn against all upright teachings , what Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha taught... they tell themselves Gautama Buddha and Jesus Christ were making things up... and even slander the teachings.. what are they doing to themselves?

When Falun Gong grew so quickly in popularity in China some people who made A living out of teaching qi gong started to slander Falun Gong.. because of their selfish fears.. they dont even remotely suspect what they are doing to themselves by slandering a true cultivation way....

People when they listen to the lectures and spend time with practitioner know Falun Dafa is not something ordinary.... and the faith practitioners have in Falun Dafa is solid like a diamond and unshakable as it comes from cultivation practice, rational understanding, and innumerable objective experiences..

Some with a lot of karma feel terrified when they hear zhen-shan-ren ... why is it so? Think about it if a person wants to coverup and support the killing of innocents what is he carrying within himself? and what about a person who supports the killing of those who cultivate zhen-shan-ren? What kind of person is he?

We must look inwards with sincereity and understand what we have become and what our true self is..

Dilip rajeev 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok you are again telling us that the Falun Dafa is the most righteous teaching and practitioners are the most righteous people on earth. In this case why is that every time I want to show the Master’s writing to the world you guys always try to stop me? His words are the most holy, right? --Samuel Luo 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Complete List of teachings of Falun Dafa
Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China
Zhuan Falun(Translation by North American Practitioners)
Falun Gong
Exercise Instruction Videos
Essentials for Further Advancement
Other Speeches and Writings of Li Hongzhi
None of us have ever done such a thing. I have repeatedly said that I hope all editors go through all the teachings of Falun Dafa. All teachings being available for free download. You are taking a semi quote..completely taking it out of context and distorting the meaning.. and giving fancy interpretations to it.. so as to justify your absurd claims.

202.83.32.248 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly argument! I am not giving any interpretation to Li's teachings. Li's words speak for themselves and the fact that Falun Gong practitioners refuse to acknowledge what Li says is an outrageous lie...a lie which Li himself has created by saying you must not speak at the higher levels when talking to ordinary people. Why not? Your role as Fa-rectification Dafa disciples is to save us ordinary people, isn't it? Think about it! If you don't speak the truth about what Li teaches, how are you ever going to save us? However, I do have compassion for the bind Li has put you in. I hope that some day there may be just one practitioner out there who hasn't been totally indoctrinated yet into the Falun Gong party line who might just benefit from reading these discussions. --Tomananda 05:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A Survey for Dilip, Mcconn, Andres, Olaf and company

Hey guys, Omido said he believes all these statements of Master Li. Do you as well?

No oriental people in Jesus’ paradise

“I have also found no oriental people in Jesus’ paradise. It is very sad!....I have also found no white people in Buddha’s paradise in the past.” Falun Dafa Lecture in Sydney Australia (1996)

Li cures illness directly:

“Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at the exercise sites will have my Fashen (law bodies) to cure their illnesses.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.126

“The true cultivator has no disease, which my Law body has eradicated, and all that should be done will be done and there is nothing of acupoint massage. . . . It is no problem if you are a doctor because it is your job in ordinary people.” The Law Explication for Falun Dafa’s Assistants of Changchun, (September 18, 1994), p.11.

Li is preventing the explosion of the universe:

“Today's scientists, too, have discovered the situation in which great changes are taking place in the cosmos. They've discovered that the scope of the universe they can currently see is expanding faster and faster, and the speed of the expansion keeps accelerating. I didn't want to talk about this before--I only taught principles of the Fa. Let's think about it: what does this expansion mean? Something only expands before it explodes; it expands and expands, and when it reaches a certain point it suddenly bursts. So everything is in its final stage. A lot of beings are watching all this with anxiety. As for the old forces, they, with their requirements in mind, are also anxious. Of course, the beings in the new cosmos are also eagerly longing for the conclusion of all this. The immense force of the whole Fa-rectification is doing its final work at an even more forceful speed, which transcends all times. Now it's only a little bit away from catching up with the speed of the surface's expansion. Of course, the speed of the expansion seems to be slow in terms of human time, but it's in fact very fast. I am doing things very fast, too. I've told you before that however much is done up there, that much can be broken through at lower levels. Although the universe is expanding, I'm doing things at an extremely fast speed, and I can definitely catch up with it. If I don't catch up with it, I can tell you, the final disintegration would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist. If I do catch up with it, it's resolved. Not only will I catch up with it, but I will also surpass it, and that's when the Fa rectifies the human world.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Boston (April 27, 2002)

Li protects his practitioners from harm:

“If you are a genuine practitioner, our Falun will safeguard you. I am rooted in the universe. If anyone could harm you, he would be able to harm me. To make it plainly, he would be able to harm this universe.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.44

“I have adjusted your bodies and installed ‘Falun’ (a law wheel installed by the master in the lower abdomen of practitioners) . . . and my Fashen (law body) also protects you. “ Falun Gong, revised edition, p.50

Until Falun Gong practitioners are willing to speak the truth about their beliefs, I cannot believe anything else they say. Consider this Wikipedia editing project a test: if you can make clear statements about your belief in Li Hongzhi's great supernatural powers, his exclusive ability to offer salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification, then you pass the test. As long as you continue to conceal the true teachings of Falun Gong, I cannot believe anything else you say about anything. And Dilip, I am not impressed with your sermon above. --Tomananda 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, Tomanada, practitioners of Falun Dafa believe in the teachings of Mr. Li. I think anyone who considers themself a practitioner believes in all of Mr. Li's teachings. This said, in a practitioners course of cultivation it's common to experience doubts over certain things at certain times. This is a natural test of faith that I believe occurs whenever anyone puts their faith in a belief and practices it wholeheartedly. And perhaps there are some things that one may always have difficulty understanding, but because one has gained faith through rational understanding and practice of many other things related to the practice, one nonetheless still believes them. This is faith and I think most people can understand this when they think about it. This is to say, I think your asking these questions is useless. As practitioners we believe in Mr. Li, but at the same time don't like playing your little games. So we may not always respond to these kind of things. From now on I think you should take it as a given that we believe in Mr. Li's words. I've said something similar to this to you before. Mcconn 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Mcconn is right. I think that the most important reason for this, on my part, is what he said about "faith through rational understanding and practice of many other things related to the practice". For example, I know that the Falun Gong exercises work unlike anything else one can encounter in this world. That isn't really a matter of belief. I think any "unbeliever" would agree on their anomalous nature after doing the two-hour set of exercises a few times. Of course, if we want specific proof, this fact alone doesn't verify the truthfulness of Li's Dafa. But because of this - in addition to other equally striking phenomena, such as the miraculous changes in the human body and the quality of one's skin resulting from the practice of Falun Dafa - it is not hard to believe in the existence of extraordinary things. Having practiced for four and a half years, I have naturally encountered many other things, too. In short, we know for certain that impressive Falun Gong related phenomena do exist, so why wouldn't we believe in what Master Li says when he has already introduced the world something nobody else has done - something from an utterly different paradigm but still manifesting a tangible reality? On a lighter note, it's like magical realism, right?
But I'm also not into playing games, and I have lots of other things to attend to, so sometimes I just don't feel the urge to respond. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the mediator

At least there are more real world people now. Cj cawley 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get CovenantD back

Tomananda and Samuel Luo are responsible for his block. He was investigating them being gay lovers and roommates, and was blocked because of a dispute.

Everyone, it is important for credibility reasons that you fully disclose your relationships with other editors.

I for one find it strange that Samuel has already been accused of sockpuppeting Yueyuen, only to discover the man lives in a house with his FLG parents, and shares a room with Tomananda. This situation is very strange. Very. Something really weird is going on. And I wonder if there is some sort of motive behind Samuel and his lover's many, many posts on Wiki. In fact, it sounds like(from the article Samuel posted), Samuel and Tomananda are being supported by Samuel's FLG parents, living in their house. Samuel is a real person, judging from the article, but his motives are strange. Who puts so much energy, almost every minute of the day, into fighting their parent's religion? Who attacks their parent's religion, when even as a grown man, said person cannot even support himself and still lives with the parents at an old age?

Anyone have a way to interpret all of this? It surely makes no sense. Whitemanners 01:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda and I share a house and the same Comcast account therefore the only IP address. Although Tomananda is gay and I am straight, we are good friends who share the same values like treating others as one would want to be treated. And that the Iraq war is based on lies and the Falun Gong is a deceptive, manipulative, racist and homophobic cult.
As a son who embraces the traditional values of Chinese family life, I was going to live with my parents and take care of them all of their lives. But sadly I had to leave my parents because living at home became stressful and emotionally draining. My parents abandoned their medical treatments after being brainwashed into believing that their Master would cure their illnesses with his divine power, and they were clearly heading towards disasters. Sadly all my attempts to stave off catastrophe failed. I hated seeing Li’s portrait in our living room and hearing his audio tapes endlessly playing in the kitchen. Leaving them gave me a chance to maintain my inner peace so I can recover and figure out what to do to get my family back and combat this cult.
Whitemanners the above message is not for you but to let everyone know that Tomananda and I are two users sharing the same IP address. I would not expect a heartless creature like you to understand the feeling of a son who has been trying his very best to maintain the relationship with his parents while fighting the cult that has broken up his family. You think I have done a lot, no not really. I want to thank you for giving me this push to contribute more on wikipedia. Stay with us, you will see how much more I can contribute. --Samuel Luo 06:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know how to interpret this situation! We should all consider who the real people are in this discussion and who the phonies are. A real person will be proud of who he is and respect all others for who they are. Real people speak the truth without fear of being judged by others. As a gay man who came out in the 1960's, I know the destructive nature of living a lie. Living in a wonderfully diverse, dynamic city and having many loving relationships with people of various ethnicities and sexual orientations make me feel blessed. Your curiousity about my relationship with Samuel,our living arrangements or other aspects of our personal lives is quite amusing. I'll let you make whatever speculations you want, because none of this relates to editing this Wikipedia article.
Meanwhile, if I am to believe that you are a real person, I ask you to take the survey above about your beliefs in Master Li's teachings. If you are like Omido, you will respond by saying that you believe in everything that Master Li says, and nothing that I say. That's cool with me. Just be honest and tell us what you do believe as a Falun Gong practitioner--other than the fact that homosexuals have dark hearts, turning demonic, etc. In a sense, I am asking that you come out of the Falun Gong closet and speak truthfully about Master Li and your relationship to him. I will not ridicule you, but rather respect you for being honest for a change. --Tomananda 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, I am very sorry to hear that your family has been breaking up and I admire your determination in combating this cult. I also want to thank you for writing such a good article on your website. I hope you and your parents can get back together soon. I strongly recommend people to check out Samuel’s article-- The untold story of Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) and its Master --Mr.He 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning Will Robinson, Danger, Danger !!!

If that's not a personal attack, then I don't know what is. How is someone going to "check someone out" over the net? Also, who cares? Two people are still two people. Don't both of their opinions count? What's the difference between the two of them & two FLG people?

As for the medical issues, Dr Feng is a good example. I hope that the ex-wife will follow in her footsteps. Actually, I like the concept of retroactively voiding a person's validity after death. It's a pretty novel idea. Cj cawley 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What really bothers me about how the Falun Gong has ignored Lili Feng's death (by not reporting it on their websites, as if she never existed) is that apparently the practitioners are saying among themselves that she didn't spend enough time studying the Dafa. The suggestion here is that if she had, she might not have died. But what that thinking leaves out is Li's teaching that sickness is an opportunity to get rid of karma and perhaps Dr. Feng had a lot of karma. So a much better scenario could have been written by the Falun Gong for their website. It could have reported that Dr. Feng had made a great contribution to the Falun Gong through her research and that she will always be honored for that. Li then could have said something about karma elimination and how Lili, having now gotten rid of all her karma with his help, is in Falun Gong paradise. I find it truly shocking that some kind of recognition like that has not been provided by Li or at least the top Falun Gong leadership. So much for loyalty to your own soldiers! If the failure of the Falun Gong to recognize and honor the work of Lili Feng doesn't prove the exploitative nature of the Falun Gong, I don't know what does. --Tomananda 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why Dr. Lili Feng died, but there is no "top Falun Gong leadership" (would you name these persons and why they are "leaders", in other words, who is under their rule?). Besides, everybody's cultivation is a private matter. Nobody can do it on another person's behalf. And there are no "heroes" or role models in Falun Gong, that's your own sarcasm. Cultivation practice is about returning to one's own, true self. You just don't seem to understand our mentality.
Moreover, it is practically impossible for modern medicine to cure liver cancer [correction: pancreatic cancer], because it's one of the most fatal sicknesses. Some people choose to resort to homeopathy, some to traditional chinese medicine, some to synthetic drugs, some to qigong. Enforced medicalization is rather cocksure. We know that qigong in general can cure diseases, but Falun Gong also emphasizes that such effects depend on the individual's own pursuits and purposes.
It seems you aren't really concerned about Dr. Lili Feng, you are more interested in how you can polemize and exploit her bones. I have repeatedly stated that if we are right, we don't need proof for that, because everybody would know it in the future, and then it'd show that it was all just a question of "enlightenment quality" to begin with. If we are wrong, then we'll just "swallow our medicine". I have acted to the best of my knowledge, and I believe you have done the same. "Objectively" speaking, condemning CCP's human rights violations emphatically and unequivocally shouldn't depend on whether Falun Gong is completely true or not. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Responding to you point by point:
  • Other than Li Hongzhi himself, leaders of Falun Gong include it's "unofficial" spokespersons and media contacts; for example, Gail Rachlin (NYC)generally speaks for the group as a whole and Sherry Zhang plays a similar role in the San Francisco Bay Area. Then there's the fact that the very words Falun Gong (both in English and Chinese) have been patented by the US Patent and Trademark Office. In the more recent patent (Filing date June 17, 2005) the following commercial goods and services are listed for the Falun Gong: "T-shirts; jackets; pants; shirts; vests; suits; dresses; skirts; rain jackets; rain coats; scarves; hats; shoes; baseball caps; head bands; pins; pens; pencils; balloons and umbrellas." To continue to pretend there is no organizational structure for the Falun Gong is patently (no pun intended) false.
  • You might want to say my use of the word "leaders" is inappropriate, but what else would you call people who organize activities and speak for an organization? Like you, I am involved in grassroots actitivities on a volunteer basis and there's no question that there are "leaders" of our various groups in California. This is not something to be ashamed of, so I don't know why we are even discussing it. Could it be because Li has said that in Falun Gong "there are no persons in charge"? But he has also spoken, most recently, of "persons in charge." So go figure. Anyway, it's clear to me that Falun Gong leadership (or maybe just Li himself) is responsible for maintaining a consistent PR image for the Falun Gong which is partly based on lies. Do I need to remind you of the way the Clearwisdom editors altered the San Francisco resolution on it's website, deleting wording that might not be totally favorable to the Falun Gong?
  • Despite your suspicions of my motives, my posted concerns about the way the Falun Gong has not publicly acknowledged the death of Dr. Lili Feng are genuine. Because I know some Falun Gong practitioners personally, I ask myself the question: what would happen if one of them were to die? Would the Falun Gong also ignore their deaths as inconvenient facts that might be construed to contradict the Master's teachings on sickness karma? One of the practioner/editors on this site has a mother who has a serious illness which is currently in remission. He attributes her current good health to Falun Gong practice. I also wonder: what if she were to have a relapse of this illness (which in western medical terms is very likely) some day. Would he blame her for this relapse, thinking that she just hadn't been a good enough practitioner? If so, don't you see something very wrong and exploitative about that?
Being on the inside of Falun Gong as a neutral observer, many practitioners that become ill or have a relapse are often accused of not having enough faith in the Teachings and as Mr. Li as the Master. This has lead to many practitioners to just leave FG when they become ill. If the ill practitioner remains then there is also an sort of inquisition where other practitioners will ask the person who has become ill if they have any other spiritual material other than Dafa in their homes and are asked to throw it out. If the practitioner becomes very ill there tends to be a shunning of the individual. If the practitioner dies it is then declared that the person was never really a Falun Gong practitioner and that to much of the "Old Forces" interfered with that person. Though, I have also seen practitioners come to FG with illnesses and after a time do get better. Though I would argue that exercise, positive thoughts and social interaction where more likely the cure than anything else. --Otomo 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So Olaf, if you can grant me the benefit of the doubt and assume I am sincerely concerned about the absence of any public recognition of Dr. Lili Feng, would you please answer my original question: why hasn't the Falun Gong done a posting about her death on it's websites? --Tomananda 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, Olaf says: "We know that qigong in general can cure diseases, but Falun Gong also emphasizes that such effects depend on the individual's own pursuits and purposes." Considering and working with a person's life choices and intent is a fundamental part of any traditional Chinese martial art, qigong or TCM training not to mention Western medical training ("Choosing to smoke cigarettes is bad for you"). It certainly isn't unique to FLG. --Fire Star 火星 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa is Cultivation Practice

Ah yes, more FL preaching. Hallowed are the Ori. --Yenchin 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa is cultivation practice.. not a group or anything.... you can practice Falun Dafa without ever meeting any other practitioner.. the sole reason practitioners came together and put a up a few websites like clearwisdom.net was because of the persecution happening in China.. so that kind-hearted people may get to know...

For one thing neither me nor Omid is blindly believing in anything.. it is unnecessary to believe or doubt when you understand.. belief and skepticism are just two words for saying "I dont understand it"... You dont say "I believe in the Newton's Laws".. Neither would you say "I am a Newton's Laws' Skeptic" .. you understand that it is just a model that serves as insight into motion at non-relativistic speeds..

Falun Dafa practitioners are not believing in anything .. we understand things objectively through our own experience and xiulian.. the Fa guides the practitioner in Xiulian.. right from the begining most people can feel the falun rotate.. There are Falun Dafa practice groups in Stanford, Princeton, Yale and Harvard.. do you really think all these people are blindly believing in something?

Samuel, Please go through any one of these nine lecture videos and then try to decide for yourself what Falun Dafa is..

Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China

For one thing.. we are not "phobic" towards anybody. We cultivate compassion. Look at what the Bible and the what the Buddhist scriptures say on that. Was Jesus Christ "homophobic"? Was Gautama Buddha "homophobic"? You dont even remotely suspect what the state of mind of Jesus Christ or Buddha Gautama was. Do you really think they were ordinary people suffering from phobias?

Many people including my own mother have had their chronic illness cured, almost miraculously, on just starting to practice Falun Gong. Samuel, I wanted to talk to you many times.. I even thought of talking to you over messenger..your parents are not blindly believing in something.. Falun Dafa is not something ordinary..

Dilip rajeev 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Falun Gong is not something "ordinary". "Ordinary" doesn't involve the MURDER others. In better news though, User:Whitemanners has been indefinitely banned. Good riddance.Phanatical 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Phanatical, I see that you have been temporarily blocked too. What you say are nothing but words from the CCP propoganda, made up to justify their killing of thousands of innocents. You could go through the pages of Amnesty International, HRW or FDI ( http://www.faluninfo.net ) to know what has been happening in China and how the CCP has used propaganda to inundate hatred. You may want to go through this magazine..

http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion5/Compassion5-v35-screen.pdf

here's an animation on the persecution that I just came across on a wikipedia user page..

http://media1.minghui.org/media/flash/2005/8/16/dove.swf

Dilip rajeev 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev we know what the FAlun Gong is by reading Li's own words, so why don't you keep your POVs to yourself? --Kent8888 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No, clearly you don't. ;-) --Mcconn 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Without Li the Cosmos Wouldn't Exist

Here's yet another quote from Li about his role as savior during this period of Fa-rectification:

  • No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist. The reason I have come here is to save all sentient beings amidst the Fa-rectification at a time when the colossal firmament of the cosmos is disintegrating. Touring North America Teaching the Fa (March, 2002) http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2002/4/14/2002natourlect.html

Should we use this one in the introduction? --Tomananda 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not if it isn't a reliable source. Unless you intention is to use this article as an attack page on the Falun Gong. --HResearcher 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it is a claim from LHZ, right? --Yenchin 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See, there is a lot of context that goes behind the quote. See this quote by Master Li Hongzhi from Teaching the Fa at the Easter U.S. Fa Conference (1999)

"As I’ve said, and I need to repeat it: I am sitting here as a human erbeing, so regard me as a human being. Just like you, I need to eat and sleep. Of course, every being has his origin. I also have my origin."

-Li Hongzhi

Dilip rajeev 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How dishonest practitioners are! Li has repeadly said he and his Dafa are saving all sentient beings and I have provided many quotes to that effect. To remind you, we are trying to write some text for the introduction which covers both Li and the Dafa's exclusive role in salvation combined with Fa-rectification. This particular quote combines both of those concepts. In response, a practitioner says I am trying to attack Li. How can my quoting Li be attacking him? And for you to provide a quote in which Li says he is a human being...so what? Li has also told the western media he is just an ordinary human being. But ordinary human beings don't have the supernatural powers that Li has. So if there is a problem here, it is not mine...it is yours. And if there is a need for "context" then the context for this article would need to report that Li has said contradictory things about his own status. However, Li has consistently said he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation during this period of Fa-rectification. Sooner or later this material will need to be reported in the introduction of this article and the fact that practitioners continue to deny the truth of their master's teachings is offensive to me and the general public. As I have said repeatedly, if you can't be honest about the core beliefs of Falun Gong...and that most definitely includes salvation by Li and his Dafa during this period ohe f Fa-rectification...then how can we trust you to be honest about anything else, including all those improbable stories of organ harvesting, for example? It's the credibility of the Falun Gong that is on the line here, not mine. --Tomananda 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We cultivate the truth. We are not "dis-honest". It seems "contradictory" to you only because you dont even remotely understand this science. A human is not a pile of molecules - thats just what your fourth grade biology text told you.

I dont know what you are driven by but I know that most people would rather die than spend all day supporting one of the most cruel persecutions in history and parrotting the lies invented to justify it. Have you ever thought how many families would have been devastated by your all-day efforts to cover-up the truth? Have you ever thought how many children would have died and how many families left in heart-wrenching pain?

Falun Dafa is cultivation practice. You may not be able to even understand what Fa- Recitification is or what the Fa is. You may think these are all made up. You may think its a good thing to spend all day attacking buddhahood cultivators... You may think that the law of karma is a joke.. but reality has nothing to do with what you start thinking or stop thinking.. every person has to suffer the consequences of his own actions.

No matter however much you lie the moment a good person reads the Fa or listens to the lectures he knows it is something profound. Even by just looking at the photo of a practitioner in meditation he is able to sense the goodness and compassion.

Dilip rajeev 10:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev Cultivate the truth is what you claim but concealing the truth is what you do. Being deceptive is just one of the many problems with the Falun Gong. This cult had cheated money from millions of Chinese people and killed fourteen hundred of them. It systematically suppressed its critics’ free speech and even threatened the society with social disturbance. The Falun Gong is a fraud and its ban a just action to protect people’s rights, social stability and lives. The majority of Chinese in and outside of China support the ban! And they are happy for ex-practitioners who are now living a normal life free from the manipulation and exploitation of Master Li. --Samuel Luo 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"To remind you, we are trying to write some text for the introduction which covers both Li and the Dafa's exclusive role in salvation combined with Fa-rectification." No, Tomanda. We're trying to agree on a couple sentences about the Fa-Rectification in the intro. There was never any agreement to talk about Li's exclusivity as a savior in the intro or that this should be related to the Fa-Rectification content. As for Mr. Li being just a man, Shakyamuni also said that he was just a man (this statement is quite well-known), but he walked on water, healed the ill, and performed many more miracles like these. Was he contradicting himself too? Just because you think something is contradictory doesn't mean it really is. If you try to think about in what ways these kinds of statements could possibly not be contradictory and coexist you might come to some new understandings or at least broaden your perspective. Mcconn 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You are still both fundamentally dishonest. Certain branches of Christianity have as their doctrine the idea that Jesus Christ was both human (if not, how could his suffering on the cross mattered?) and divine (if not, how could he offer salvation?) Your dishonesty is in not saying something similar for Li. Instead, you keep accusing me of attacking him by quoting his words. The honest response would be to say: yes, Li has said all these things, we do believe them and they are important concepts in Falun Gong. But we believe his divine status and human status are not contradictory because, etc. Why don't you propose your own wording to convey these concepts in a clear and concise fashion? It's not my job to reconcile apparantly contradictory statements of Li, but by the same token it is outrageous for you to continue to deny that Li has made these statements and that they relate, directly, to an understanding of Falun Gong.
As to having compassion for Falun Gong practitioners...I most certainly do. However, I do not believe, for example, that 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had their organs harvested while they were alive in the basement of a facility in China which doesn't even have a basement and is co-owned by a Malaysian organization. When I say you guys have a big credibility problem, I mean it. --Tomananda 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Tom.... Sujiatun is not the only sites. Unfortunately, there are lot of sites. In China, a cosmetic surgeon can do kidney transplantation. So many things may not be imaginable by people like you and me. Also Sujiatun has a lot of underground facilities which you and me are not clear. Please do not be judgemental. Lives are precious. Please stay cool headed. Please be open-minded. Fnhddzs 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
By pointing out that there are other sites, you seem to be conceding that the Sujiatun story is not true. Please don't lecture me about valuing human life. Your tactic is quite obvious and amounts to a false argument: "You cannot criticize us because some of our members are being persecuted or tortured in China. If you do criticize us, you do not value human life." This argument is total bull, and also insulting to me as a caring person. Even if some of the claims of torture that the Falun Gong makes are true, the fact that others appear to be fabricated still needs to be pointed out. At what point do people stop believing in your claims all together? That's what's at issue here...your credibility as a group. --Tomananda 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We are still waiting for your comments on the Kilgour and Matas report. [44] This issue is extremely serious. Kilgour is a former crown prosecutor and a former Secretary of State. I'd like to see you dispute his viewpoint.
In addition, criticism of Falun Gong doesn't mean approval of persecution. At least Samuel Luo has explicitly stated that he approves of it. Do you think it helps "your credibility as a group"? ---Olaf Stephanos 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And I am still waiting for your comments to explain the absence of any public recognition of Dr. Lili Feng. You guys are so good at changing topics! I point out that one particular report about 6,000 live organ harvestings in Sujiatum is not credible and you respond by saying, well why don't you read this other report from Canada instead and tell us what you think. Let's make a deal! I will read the Canadian report and respond with my honest opinions about what it says, providing you give me an honest answer to why the Falun Gong has not acknowledged the life and death of Dr. Lili Feng in the public sphere. Olaf, if you check in an earlier section above you will see that I've written a response to your allegations that I am cynically using Dr. Feng's death to make points against the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: In responding to my question about Falun Gong's public silence concerning Lili Feng's death, you need to cite something more than just an appeal to a practitioner's privacy. I do not expect any explanation whatsover concerning the cause of Lili Feng's death, but only an acknowledgment that she has died. Surely that's the least her family can expect. I consider this to be a common decency that cuts across all religious ideologies and am frankly astounded that this has not been done. One is used to seeing the accounts of practitioner deaths in China on Clearwisdom and other Falun Gong sites, why doesn't the same rule apply for the death of a practitioner who lived here in the United States? Why the double standard? --Tomananda 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Olaf Stephanos I do not support any persecution or torture, what I support is the ban of the Falun Gong which stopped this cult from deceiving and hurting more people. --Samuel Luo 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the discrediting of the Sujiatun allegations, I already mentioned how sketchy the US embassy officials tour was. After the being lead through the hospital by the hand, a U.S. embassy official said, "We did not find evidence showing this hospital's function exceeds that of a typical hospital." But the U.S. embassy official visited the hospital several weeks after the the crimes at the Sujiatun Concentration Camp were exposed, and the official on tour was accompanied by the hospital's leadership. Think about it: let's say a murderer kills someone, then he cleans up the crime site and disposes of the evidence. Later, the killer takes people to view the site to prove his innocence. Of course people will not get to see any evidence. In the amount of time the CCP had between the surfacing of the allegations and the show tour, they could cover up anything. Moreover, the surgical equipment used to remove Falun Gong practitioners' organs is not different from ordinary surgical equipment; how could a visitor tell whether this equipment had been used to remove organs or not? The official did not find evidence. This merely means the official did not see an organ harvesting procedures during that particular visit, but that does not prove that "the organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in secret concentration camps" never happened. If the CCP had nothing to hide then they wouldn't be so dodgy, and they would allow an independant investigation free from their control, but they won't. And instead they put our weak statements with empty accusations and twist the facts. You can take a look at some Canadian practitioners' response to the embassy's statement here --Mcconn 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are under estimating the ability American officials. Frankly, between the words of US officials and the words of Falun Gong practitioners I rather believe these officials. Master Li and some Falun Gong practitioners claim to have a third eye and possess the supernormal ability of Clairvoyance which allows them to see things tens of thousands of miles away. [45] Did you guys find out about this Organ Harvesting atrocity with this supernormal ability? I am just curious. --Samuel Luo 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope the official mediator comes soon, lets see if you dare to post your sarcastic little posts in front of him.--Andres18 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_14&oldid=1278580620"