Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

jakarta,indonesia outrage

I know i still new in here and my english not so very good, so i not try verbal attacking them even i like to attack them cause make me and my community suffer cause they unwise action, so i still have upset and pain cause them, so i try erase my personal scream to them that my point in the main articel, even i accused they lying, but that cause i read the epoch time who have only one side story from they prespektif only and other story from they member, this to me like bending the truth, lying and what reality happend certainly in the field are diffrent.

So I certainly still upset cause they did and uncare to our community and culture and how they reaching they own agenda. who add more wound to us as result when we strugling to live in indonesia after we have been have mayor disaster in the past.

So better put reference who have both side reference that i have think for more balance for both side.

and i bit told what is the indonesia chinatown to give perspektif what they do in this buisnis area. so please who more advanced and more netral point of view.Daimond 07:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

oww, that bit shocking looking in the above the epoch time are part of falungong Daimond 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

Seems like nothing's happening. How should we proceed? Are the mediators waiting for a blazing revert war, or should we just initiate some discussion here on the talk page? I have found some interesting new sources, and I'd really like to continue with the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've checked the wp pages in weeks, and I'm really dissapointed that there has been absolutely no progress since I last checked. It's completely stagnent. Weren't we supposed to have gotten a mediator or something? If so, then where are they? I'd really like to continue too. Mcconn 14:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda?

When I was in China, people told me that the local newspapers claimed that members of Falun Gong had killed some homeless people. Whether this is true or not, these claims by the Chinese government should be addressed in the article. That the Chinese government makes these claims (true or false) is fact. --Ryan Wise 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)--66.87.184.227 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese government has made a lot of incredible statements. For example, they still claim that there was no massacre on the Tiananmen square in 1989. It's no problem mentioning such things in a proper context; they are typical (and worn-out) examples of political indoctrination. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can be an evidence. I grew up from China, I had no idea of what the Chinese TV said could be lies until I left China and met my previous teacher. I was told by TV that no people died on the square and students killed the soldiers. My teacher told me he went to see the five rescued dead bodies put in the university across the street of our school. The bodies would have been erased as evidence if not rescued just as the police/army washed away the blood on the Tiananmen square by water. He had never (dared) mentioned such things before. The bodies were very very miserable. Some with their bicycles punching through their bodies when the tank grinded them. However, the sad things are reoccurring now. Even now, one of Chinese friends coming from China said he thought the organ harvesting is ok because he heard that Falun Gong teach practitioners suicide (such as self-immolation). The Falun Gong teachings clearly teach "committing suicide is sinful[1]". The Chinese propoganda makers did not even read the Falun Gong teachings before they forged the claims. It's really sad. Fnhddzs 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What sort of hyped-up exaggerated emotional appeal is that, Fnhddzs? FLG may claim committing suicide is sinful yet, despite your not-so-subtle link on the self-immolation incident to a FLG source, one still cannot rule out, conclusively, that it did not happen. As for organ harvesting, if anyone thought it was just some CCP practice, maybe you should question the American doctor who was in the news less than a month ago who was doing exactly the same thing. I'm not saying it's morally and ethically praiseworthy but you can't simply lambast it as simply a uniquely CCP excess. As for the Tiananmen incident you only talk about bodies and blood - merely emotional appeal. If you condemn this incident, then to subsequently use this to justify any FLG belief is even more unacceptable. (N.B. I refuse to make a judgement, moral or not, on the Tiananmen incident. I believe history will later judge the incident more fairly). Jsw663 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On working towards an objectve, neutral article

A lot of the content here doesnot conform to wikipedia rules regarding NPOV or Reliable Sources. Further, a lot of well sourced information has been deleted or replaced by self-written POV in the versions in which the pages are currently locked.

I was just going through the posts on the subject here..I really dont wish to contribute more to the arguments... and so am making this post under a seperate title. At the same time I would really urge you to go through the teachings of Falun Dafa for that is the only way we can work towards an objective article..

http://www.falundafa.org/eng/media.htm#GUANGZHOU

I know someone may suggest this topic has been brought up elsewhere... but please allow me to request you to go through atleast the first four lectures before voicing your opinion on the matter...

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture1.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture2.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture3.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture4.rm

Master Da Liu, the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North America said at the age of 95,"I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."

I am not asking you believe anything or accept what Da Liu said .. but please give it a thought .. Tens of millions around the world find Falun Gong extremely beneficial to Mind and Body ..Why did Master Da Liu say so? If you just go through the lectures and try out the exercises you would objectively know what Falun Dafa is.. Isnt everything else just borrowed opinion .... 220.226.58.72 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we do know that millions of Chinese people changed their former practices to Falun Dafa, but I remember Fire Star saying that Da Liu did not introduce Tai Chi to North America. Maybe it was a specific branch or something? Does somebody have more information? ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 12:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some material on the Falun Gong claims of Organ Harvesting: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/156/ I think these link will be useful.--Andres18 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How ironic a post about striving for an 'objective, neutral' article should conclude with "please give [FLG's teachings] a thought". We are not talking about objective and neutral for the average FLG practitioner. We are talking about NPOV for the community, ie where more people are non-FLG than FLG, at large. One can keep posting about 'objectivity' and 'neutrality' but if they are only undisguised covers for FLG propaganda then, since FLG discussion should be prohibited and that includes any pro-FLG teachings, this talk page ought to be drastically edited / reduced. Jsw663 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Unless 220.226.58.72 can actually cite examples of POV etc., making an empty allegation merely confirms your own unwillingness to accept other opinions, even a truly neutral one. Jsw663 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument that editors working on the page, people who are interpreting the teachings of Falun Dafa, should take the time to actually read the teachings was already made, and it's not too far above. Although I agree with the argument, we don't need to keep pushing it. And when we do it this way, 220.226.58.72, it sounds just like a rant, and it's really hard for the other editors to take it seriously. Your post above, about why the persecution started, is even more rant-like. The talk forum isn't a soap box, and that kind of posting only aggravates others. Mcconn 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

When people get agitated, they cannot think clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Li adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above comment by 81.82.177.5 (who deleted virtually the entire discussion to enforce his views in the above post) or Willempie only confirms several things - 1. complete and perhaps wilful ignorance of the "This is not a FLG Discussion Forum" rule; 2. Distortion of truths, or if not, making drastic assumptions. For example, 'practitioners appear to be law-abiding citizens, non-violent and peace-loving people' - but of course we can only say that once you completely dismiss contrary evidence as 'CCP propaganda', and twist certain criticisms totally out of proportion, attempt to give something with little foundation a basis or justification, e.g. 'sociological law', or of course at times simply appealing to raw emotion, e.g. saying people dismiss FLG simply as a 'different' set of beliefs which people are not 'used to'. At other times no point is actually being made but hoping that by using keywords (highlighted in bold) or ridiculously vague generalizations such as "So, to determine whether something is a threat or not, only a calm, and level-headed study of the subject and its manifestations in society can determine its true nature."

What is even more hypocritical is that although the CCP is supposed to ONLY develop propaganda according to these FLGers and criticise CCP authoritarian rule, they justify their beliefs solely on one person's utterings - Li Hongzhi - who is essentially imposing his 'authoritarian' (i.e. only justified) set of beliefs, without real critique. Is any human perfect? Is any set of beliefs perfect? If FLG is an 'ideology' then has any ideology turned out to be flawless? If it's not flawless, then do FLGers realize what its flaws are, and why some FLG critics are not simply CCP-propagandists? It is shutting oneself off from one set of beliefs and totally embracing another without the capacity to constructively criticise (point by point) what exactly is wrong with both sides, and give each side roughly equal treatment.

We then move onto that person's conclusions, who says that condemning FLG as evil is 'unscientific' and irrational, although this is not elaborated on. How is FLG critique (both CCP and non-CCP sources) unscientific? How is it irrational? The second of the two questions was partly answered, but only by restricting oneself to a purely FLG view of the world - total embracement and unquestioning of one person's set of beliefs. Ironic, given that these same people accuse people under the CCP not having an 'independent' mind or having a 'genuine' capacity of self-critique either. The person then ends with "Don't judge all practitioners based on one case" - although nelgecting the increasing number of cases which question FLG 'teachings'. As if implying that FLGers had a breadth of opinions, the person then says "we're still a bunch of individuals, you see", although neglecting to add that this is only so within those who use the set of FLG beliefs at its core to view the world and different organizations.

Objectivity can only be best achieved (though not always fully) by not totally embracing or subscribing oneself to either set of beliefs - the ability to see everything from a 'third-person' point of view. Once one has embraced any one set of beliefs so totally that they cannot tolerate any criticisms of it, and is even willing to delete the entire discussion section that appears to question the viability of FLG beliefs, then one is clearly not objective any longer. What is the most ridiculous in the argument made by the FLGer above is, of course, the fact that you can replace every 'FLG' reference with 'communism', and replace 'Li's teachings' with 'Marx's teachings' and hey, you'll have a communist 'beliefs' leaflet. In the end, they can talk about how "coercion is not advocated as acceptable behaviour" but it does not rule out such actions "when necessary", making what they're doing on here, ie making grand statements, as hollow as the Islamic extremists distorting the Koran's section on 'jihad' to justify crashing planes into the WTC on 9/11/2001. Jsw663 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

220.226.24.143 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Like Fire_Star said, it does become annoying when an encyclopedic discussion website turns into an advertisement for a group's beliefs. Unlike what Asdfg has said, I have taken the time not only to view those websites but also read the entire Wiki article itself, including the one on FLG persecutions. Whilst I always find it prudent to question sources, that doesn't mean I am dismissing anything outright - I just take some sources and types of evidence to be more credible than others. It is also because the pro-CCP and anti-FLG side is being underrepresented on this board that I appear to be overcompensating, but like with a legal trial where only one side is representing the case, inevitably there will be distortion or exaggeration of certain facts - not only that, but to know HOW and WHY they would do that one has to question their agenda / motive behind their actions. So whilst I'm not saying that FLG persecution did not happen, I'm not going to readily believe every single case that appears on pro-FLG sources now, am I?

Moreover, like I said before, I have read enough basics about FLG to understand, generally, what it's all about. Just because I don't criticize Li's teachings directly doesn't show a lack of understanding of FLG. I merely emphasize the effect FLG has on its followers and on certain societies at large. I can understand why you cannot understand how someone who is not CCP can criticise FLG even after reading Li's teachings (which there are plenty of on this discussion board, btw), but then to have selective critical capacity only ensures that one is not being totally objective. That may seem to apply to my situation too, but since I only have the benefit of Samuel's limited range of criticisms, people reading this will also need to understand the other side too. People should also have the benefit of someone else commentating who have not been heavily involved with FLG in the past (ie not strongly pro- or anti-FLG) and thus not dismissable as merely a disaffected ex-believer or completely enamored believer, ie excessively opinionated either way. Perhaps, Asdfg, you should ask yourself why I place so much emphasis on the results (FLG practitioners' actions) instead of the theory (FLG principles). Jsw663 10:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to bring up is that whenever FLG practitioners ask us to read the books and lectures, they are assuming we haven't done so. What people need to realise is that some of us who don't admire Li or FLG have gotten to these conclusions just by reading Li's books and lectures. I am a sifu of Wu style T'ai Chi Ch'uan who has studied with the best neigong teachers in China. I am well versed in the both the martial and healing aspects of those arts, I am acquainted with the Chinese language and the sometimes obscure metaphor used by both Taoist and Buddhist approaches to these subjects, and I have been trained to teach these arts, using precise didactic structures (formulated and refined through many generations by the original T'ai Chi families) to my own students. So, with that background, when I read Zhuan Falun and Li's lectures, I know what I am reading and I know what he is saying. What I can tell you, and this relates directly to how FLG practitioners are going to have to approach discussing these articles with me at least, is that Li Hongzhi (rather like George W. Bush) has yet to prove that he can do what he says. He makes incredibly grandiose claims, yet the actual evidence seems to point in another direction. Orthodox T'ai Chi teachers have to prove they know what they are on about, physically and theoretically, and have to demonstrate a one to one correspondence with what they can do physically and T'ai Chi theory. If they cannot, then they are labelled frauds by the teachers who actually do make such a demonstration.

How this affects the FLG articles is that there are a few of us at Wikipedia who don't have an interest in obscuring Li's teachings; what he has actually said, where he said it, when he said it and to whom, in aid of promoting FLG. And we aren't going away. On the other hand, I am satisfied that simple reporting of these things is enough, we should let plain, bland quotes tell the story, report the magic spells (zhen, shan, ren, etc.) as only one part of the article, not the whole (as was suggested by a practitioner above) and avoid castigating Li in the articles. Also, I believe that the evidence supports the reporting of the CCP brutally imprisoning, torturing and killing FLG practitioners, and I also think we should include the reports of organ harvesting, if they come from verifiable news sources. --Fire Star 火星 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Falun Xiulian Dafa is Buddhahood Cultivation - not a martial art. Changes in the body and mind are percieved by practitioners here and now. From the start almost all practitioners can feel the falun rotate ; long term chronic conditions disappear in days. Things such as the small and great heavenly circuits open up in weeks of practice. Practitioners can sense the the energy mechanisms rotate continually, through out the day. As I sit here and type this I can feel the rotations of the maoyou heavenly circuit.

Zen-Shan-Ren are not to be confused with human emotions or sentimental concepts . There is absolutely no form of weakness in Zhen-Shan-Ren. The Dao School talks about the Truth(Zhen), and the Buddha School Compassion(Shan). To comprehend Zhen-Shan-Ren is far beyond the intellect or the emotions.

220.226.58.194 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that you can say that all day, but you can't demonstrate it. I can demonstrate that what I teach is accurate because I teach martial art. If I know martial art well, the bad guy hits the floor and doesn't get up. If I don't, I hit the floor. As simple as that, no claims, no excuses and no word games. I've had to "cultivate" for 21 years to get what kung fu I have. At this point in my training if you hit me, your hand breaks, you kick me, your foot breaks. Very few people have the ability to hurt me physically without a weapon of some kind and a clear shot. All my internal and external meridians have to be completely and thoroughly balanced to pull that one off, let me tell you. I can see that FLG exercises are incapable of producing these results, and find it laughable that you guys put so much stock in what is apparently (again, to me) a complete doddle. I say this so that you know you will need better arguments than simple preaching to get your missionary activities into our articles. For example: to say "To comprehend Zhen-Shan-Ren is far beyond the intellect or the emotions" is meaningless for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, because that is what humans have, and what they are interpreting what they read here with. I could say "My astral body is in your kitchen" and insist that I know exactly everything that you have eaten there for the last three years, too, but unless I can prove it by actually naming the dishes you've eaten alone, I'm just as nonsensical as anyone else who trades in such claims. So, FLG people say they have tolerance, compassion and forbearance, but I have yet to see them display any of those attributes in a meaningful way, especially here. That is the weakness of relying on magic spells to win converts, and it certainly isn't good enough for us cynical Wikipedia editors. So, how do we move forward? Lacking my conversion to FLG (which isn't very likely) you folks are going to have to be satisfied with what I mentioned above, neutral citations of things that Li Hongzhi, his supporters and critics have said in the public domain. No apologetics, no interpretations, just the public record, pro and con, warts and all. --Fire Star 火星 21:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only natural that some laugh at Buddhahood Cultivators - It is a matter of enlightenment quality. No true cultivator of the Dao goes around demonstrating the higher faculties that emerge through cultivation. It is necessary to distinguish those who practice cultivation from those who belong to the circus.

The only thing that can "hurt" a person are the psychological aggregates he carries within himself - hatred, fear, anger, pride, jealousy etc. The ability to take blows (from an ordinary person) you talk about is nothing but an ordinary skill anyone can obtain through pursuit and practice.

The purpose of energy mechanisms is to transform your benti from the most micro-cosmic dimensions - the very matter your body is composed of changes . Not to create a "balance" between qi "meridians".

"Convert" to what? To practice cultivation, the wish must emerge from one's heart.

220.226.34.176 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to be careful, that "circus" crack is a violation of WP:NPA and will get you blocked if you continue to argue in that manner. Consider this your first warning. Such arguments dismissing teachers of systems you believe to be in competition with your religion, besides not showing much "compassion", are also illogical, and bolster my position that all FLG can do is claim, not demonstrate. And then, when called on that issue, you insult! So much for "tolerance". If I'm going to teach the technique I've learned from my teachers, I must demonstrate it. That Li has taught you to call the simple mechanics of your breathing Falun energy or some such doesn't prove that he is a living god, just that he thinks he can get away with claimimg something every living person does every day is something only he can teach. My new point for purposes of this discussion is that you aren't discussiing the article at all, you are discussing what you believe about FLG. Wikipedia isn't a Falungong discussion forum. --Fire Star 火星 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely replying to a statement of yours. I absolutely dont intent to compare Tai Chi with any other cultivation way - I dont have such silly attachments. Tai Chi is a Great cultivation way of the Dao School. Unfortunately the Fa of heart cultivation of this Way hasnt been handed down. What is infinitely more saddening is that many consider it a simple boxing art. You can practice the movements for a lifetime and still attain little if you dont cultivate your heart nature. What you are and how your life unfolds is merely a reflection of your heart-nature - your level of being. There is immense wisdom in the Cosmos, no phenomena is of co-incidental nature and it is impossible to gain whatever you wish with the mentality of pursuit or by doing some fancy "movements". Falun Gong is no "breathing exercises" and I think you know that well. The Dao school talks about the "True man" and I dont know what this concept of "living god" is.

If it is selfishness, fears, manipulative mentality, abominable insecurities and prejudices that drive your actions and thoughts - that precisely is what your level of being is; what your heart nature is and what your are - irrespective of how long you have been doing a set of movements. Never in the history of the Cosmos has these aggregates brought joy to any sentient being. If it is wisdom and direct comprehension of the Fa of the Cosmos that you count on that is what your level of being is.

220.226.34.176 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Putting things directly isnt always bad. It doesnt mean you are attached to "self-righteousness". It is sometimes better to be honest and straightforward especially when you feel the other person is capable of understanding. If your intention is pure and stems from compassion alone, the other person will be able to sense that. Falun Dafa is not a religion and Tai Chi is not just a martial art. They are two different cultivation ways. In cultivation one has to pay attention to cultivation of heart-nature - be it in Tai Chi or Tibetan Tantrism.

220.226.34.176 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that what Mcconn said above is precisely the way to go forward with this article. I can agree to disagree as long as we have civility in discussing the article. I mentioned my training in regard to my interest in the article, and why I flatter myself that understand what Li Hongzhi is talking about when I read his stuff. I will not put what I believe about him or FLG in any article. As well, practitioners shouldn't. If we talk about about FLG's belief system, we have to mention it in terms of what Li (as well as traditional Taoism and Buddhism inasmuch as Li mentions them so that people can compare and contrast) has actually said, and not rate his statements in order of what we feel to be their relative importance. He himself may have qualified his teachings in such a way, and that would be encyclopaedic, IMO, but any of our editors doing so (while saying other editors aren't qualified to) is engaging in apologetics. --Fire Star 火星 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, I think if we can can come up with some way to ensure all edits to the pages conform to wikipedia policies on original research and that relevant material is not deleted that in itself would be sufficient to help us work toward a good article.

220.226.34.176 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A Falun Gong program on KPFA FM radio

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

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

See the new Amnesty International report here

Quote:

Report on alleged live organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners

• A report published by independent researchers David Matas and David Kilgour on 6th July 2006, concludes that large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners are victims of 'systematic' organ harvesting, whilst still alive, throughout China.

• Amnesty International is continuing to analyse sources of information about the Falun Gong organ harvesting allegations, including the report published by Canadians David Matas and David Kilgour.

• Amnesty International is carrying out its own investigation on this issue. These investigations are being hampered by the particular difficulty of collecting reliable evidence in China, including official restrictions on access for international human rights organizations.

• Amnesty International has noted the response of the Chinese authorities to the Canadian report, which states among other things that China has 'consistently abided by the relevant guiding principles of the World Health Organization endorsed in 1991, prohibiting the sale of human organs and stipulating that donors' written consent must be obtained beforehand'. Amnesty International considers this statement to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China.

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

Quoting the section above the one you did on the same source -

"Trade in Organs of Executed Prisoners

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

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

Amnesty International notes the introduction, in China, of new regulations on organ transplants on 1 July 2006 banning the buying and selling of organs. However, questions remain about how well the regulations will be enforced, particularly in view of the high commercial value of organ sales in China. Amnesty International also notes that the regulations fail to address the basic issue of the source of organs for transplantation."

• • This shows several things:- a) the number actually executed is a guess, not a fact. If the NPC member was telling a fact then s/he would have been framed for treason if it were a real state secret. Even if it were a fact, it was reported in early 2004. In the Amnesty International source itself it says it cannot be determined (but they can guess?) how many of the executions were FLGers. b) second paragraph quotes (my emphasis in bold) "... makes it impossible to determine..." Thus it is speculation once again, not fact. c) third paragraph notes China introduced new regulations on 1 July 2006 regarding the trade of organs. Funny I don't see these 'fair, balanced and objective' FLGers also noting the one and only proven fact reported in that entire section I quoted above. d) Naturally for the paragraph 'sroberson' quoted, it merely points out several independent facts/observations (that the two were independent researchers and that they made CONCLUSIONS - ie not proveable fact) This is what I mean by distinguishing the level of reliability of sources. They can dress it up in fancy, opinionated language but I always question what facts are actually being said in the article, and distinguish it from the assertions. Of course I am not saying that the assertions are untrue, but that another, similar objective researcher may come to different conclusions based on different, or in this case the same, limited number of facts in existence. Jsw663 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are conclusions because real, third-party discovery and investigation isn't permitted in China. If this was in no way true, why would they prevent third-parties from investigating?

But you must also look at the source of these conclusions. I place a higher importance and belief on the conclusions of internationally respected human rights lawyers and a former Canadian under-secretaries of state, than your conclusions. Or do you have any specialized training in international human rights infringement investigations? I would be happy to learn of your specialized training, and then, perhaps I'd be more inclined to not just assume you're being a contrarian and/or just toting the Party line.

By definition, there will be a lack of proof of things happening in a totalitarian state. They are totalitarian for a reason. For example, do think there is any "proof" that corruption is wide-spread in China? Does this lack of "proof" mean that it doesn't exist?

--sroberson 11:00, 6 November 2006 -0500 GMT

I'll tackle your reply's three main points in three paragraphs. Third-party investigation isn't permitted in China? Yet foreign journalists tend to spend most of their time doing just that... one must also remember there is a difference between public information, sensitive (restricted) public information and classified state secrets. The difference is important to draw the line between the rights of free speech and its infringement against national law. FLGers do not determine what constitutes as a state secret, and the state does not have any particular reason to leave itself vulnerable to anti-state actors' exploitation of any constitutionally-guaranteed rights. After all, the PRC's constitution does guarantee free speech but only when it does not act contrary to national law or state security. Where one sets the boundary of course depends on one's political leanings, unless one nurses a particular grievance against the CCP and thinks, despite the vastly different conditions between China as an industrializing country and the US/UK as an industrialized one, that the CCP ought to abide by the same standard regardless of domestic conditions and cultural factors.

Conclusions can be very misleading when used with selective facts. Think, Iraq War, WMD intelligence (very limited and reliability questioned), US President. Are you saying that the head of the world's only superpower is less reliable than several human rights lawyers (whose speciality has a reason) or ex-Canadian undersecretary (whose opinion is based on public sources and Canadian intelligence - I doubt he would have access to reliable non-FLG sources)? (If you don't get what I'm trying to say here, it is that with selective facts, or even sometimes with the full set of facts, one can come to the wrong conclusion) You see, whilst I'm not saying something did not happen, I'm definitely not saying it must have happened either, and the ability to question something that happened, as well as trying to prove it, is necessary to give speculations and hypotheses credibility and justification. If you have had any legal training, you should be aware that conclusions (ie inference) do not hold the same weight as findings of fact in the court of law, as it is well known that even expert witnesses can and do give directly contrary testimony, even though both sets of witnesses could be telling the whole truth, from their point of view, based on certain facts. If you have read any of my other posts it should be pretty clear I'm not affiliated with the CCP.

Regarding your second paragraph, to say that there will be a lack of proof of things happening in a totalitarian state is like saying that it is impossible to condemn Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet of war crimes since none of their genocides / murders can be accounted for. Maybe you want to reconsider that statement. Unless, of course, it is merely an anti-CCP statement dressed up in pseudo-morality. Jsw663 13:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But what do you yourself really think Jsw? --Asdfg12345 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Asdfg12345, maybe you'd like to reply to the post. As for Fire Star's post, she encapsulates my argument almost entirely - only, of course, if FLG practitioners CAN actually know what true objectivity is. The 'enlightenment quality' appears to give ample room for outrageous speculation by FLG practitioners. If you say that proof can only be done by practising then are you lending more credibility to ex-practitioners like Samuel instead of non-practitioning but decently-read 3rd-party people? Jsw663 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. We can't solve any of these issues here. All we can do is agree to disagree and get on with the article. It is simple; if we can step back and concentrate on adding info in accord with Wikipedia policy then we will be fine and the article can grow. If people continue to edit in defiance of those policies and general consensus (if such exists) then the articles will remain protected. When the mediation committee picks up the case, then we will have some more input from uninvolved editors, which will be a big help towards building consensus. --Fire Star 火星 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Guidelines etc...

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

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

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

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

What I found on Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

This argument has been made over and over again by practitioners who seek to make Li's homophobic teachings acceptable to the Westerners. If you don't think Li's teachings are homophobic you clearly don't understand what the meaning of the word aversion is. When a self-proclaimed creator of gods and holder of the only truth in the universe teaches that homosexuals will be eliminated through a particulary slow and painful process...and that they have "dark hearts, turning demonic"...all fair minded people will recoil in disgust and see Li's teachings for what they are. The word homophobic fits Li's teachings perfectly.

The real question to ask is: why does Li single out homosexuals for his most intense condemnation? Why does he say of homosexuals...and only homosexuals...that they accumulate a particularly large amount of black karma by virtue of their homosexual behavior (read the Switzerland speech for the full statement.) History has shown that many of the world's most extreme homophobes have turned out to be self-loathing gays who cannot come to terms with their own god-given sexuality. The self-loathing usually comes from one of the fundmentalist religions, or in the case of Chinese culture, the Falun Gong.

Li has never appeared to be comfortable with the human condition or human diversity in all it's spendor. It was not until I had read literally a thousand or more pages of Li's writings that I came to the conclusion that Li must be a very frightened man. He has a cosmic imagination and ability to pursuade others to live in his fear-based world-view, but beyond that he remains so very small-minded. He certainly does not live up to the standard of acceptance and non-judgementalism set forth by Sakyamuni. --Tomananda 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A small correction: Li says that homosexuals might have to go through this process if it were not for the Fa-rectification. You are always avoiding this issue. When Li talks about the gods' way of handling things, he often mentions that the gods have deviated. That changes the meaning of the text quite drastically. Of course, I don't expect you to change your opinions. But I have stated many times that this whole question is much broader, and it involves a difference in what is perceived as natural ("cosmic") morality and conventional ("human") morality. Falun Gong practitioners have never pushed a social agenda that would in any way restrict the rights of homosexuals. It's nothing like the attitude of the Christian fundamentalists and other such groups. I'm slightly curious about why you make such a big issue out of Falun Gong, as there are a lot of movements out there who truly want to infringe upon your rights.

Basically, you are accusing Falun Gong practitioners (and Li Hongzhi in particular) of committing a thoughtcrime. When you describe Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality as "homophobia", it seems that you'd like to create fiercely emotional, violent and discriminatory connotations. Such a term is not only POV, but it also shifts the attention from the point about natural morality I made above. You know that the idea of an independently existing cosmic standard for living beings at different levels is crucial in Falun Gong. On the other hand, "homophobia" is definitely a pejorative, non-neutral term. When applied to people who simply think differently, it suggests that the person making the accusation already knows the "natural standard" (concerning homosexuality, at least), and anybody who doesn't agree with it has a "phobia" or other unresolved personal problems. You are appealing to metaphysics yourself. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In partial reply, but more of a question, to 71.202.116.33 and Olaf - is Li basically saying that homosexuals can be alleviated of their 'sin' by turning to FLG? Jsw663 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. What he means by Fa-rectification has nothing to do with whether one practices Falun Gong or not. According to my understanding, he means that because all beings have deviated, and there are flaws even in the highest levels of the cosmos, the sentient beings' past actions will not be held against them. You probably know the traditional idea of Man following Earth, Earth following Heaven, Heaven following Dao, and Dao following what is natural, which means that the human society simply expresses the changes in the greater cosmos, and nothing in history is accidental.

Li thinks that the Fa-rectification is the only way to resolve such problems at the root; therefore, those who interfere with it (by getting involved with the persecution of Dafa and siding with the 'evil') cannot enter the future as this whole affair ends and the old cosmos ceases to exist. Correct me if I've misunderstood. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Tomananda, you did not understand my reply. Where does it say that homosexuals have to give up gay sex at this moment, otherwise they will be "punished by gods"? Wasn't I talking about how Falun Gong teaches universal forgiveness of all sentient beings regardless of their past actions, provided that they don't take part in the persecution? If you read Li's words carefully, you might get his point: he's talking about "gods" (referring to certain beings of old cosmos) punishing homosexuality in such a manner, not Fa-rectification. The latter is intended to solve these problems at the root. Whether something is righteous from an universal perspective or not, that's another issue, and it's a special concern for cultivators seeking to elevate themselves. If Falun Gong is true, maybe people will be more aware of such questions in the future.

Disciple asks: How can we save homosexuals more effectively?

Teacher: They are sentient beings, so save them just like the other ordinary sentient beings. Save them if you can, and treat them just like anyone else. The more you regard them as a special group, the less you will be able to save them. Just save them as you would any other persons. Save them if you can. If you can't, then you can't. [2] ---Olaf Stephanos 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Olaf, you must clarify this post. If "homosexuality" is not one of the root problems that will be eliminated by Li's Fa-rectifiction, then one must conclude that homosexuality will continue to exist after the cosmos is rectified. Do you agree with that conclusion?

As to your not worshipping Li....do you believe that his Dafa is the only means for salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification or don't you? Do you believe that Li will teach the gods his Dafa? And that he will turn his disciples into gods?

As to my accusing Li and practitioners of "thought crimes"...what a silly construction to use for people who claim to be spiritual. The fact that Falun Gong practitioners fail to evaluate Li's teachings critically (I've never heard any practitioner ever disagree with anything Li has ever said) does not constitute "thought crimes." Failure to think critically is not a crime but it is unfortunately part of human nature. It's also an attribute that is found disproportionately in cult victims.

So Olaf, do you really believe that Li is now preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it? (as he said in Boston a few years back)or that the SARS epidemic in China was heaven's way of punishing people? (and therefore the best way to respond to that epidemic is to not seek medical help, but rather believe in Falun Gong?) Do you really believe these things? --Tomananda 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

These personal belief conflicts aren't issues we can solve here. What Olaf or Tomananda or I believe isn't important, but rather what sourced statements should be in the article(s) and why. I'm hoping our new mediator will be able to provide a fresh start towards prioritising these debates for us. --Fire Star 火星 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda: The "root problem", according to Li, is the deviation of the universe from its original purity. I do not practice Falun Gong because of the issues you bring forth. I know Li has talked about them (except "not seeking medical help for SARS", that's something you figured yourself). Nevertheless, I can easily leave these questions open, because I don't need to have an opinion about them.

I don't consider Falun Gong a religion but metaphysics, and if it's not true, I can move on and seek for another approach to a myriad of issues that call for explanation. At the moment I have no reason to believe that it couldn't be true. I think that Falun Gong is about a scientific revolution, and such transitions are always rather ambivalent. I believe this paradigm shift will ultimately prove that man's ability to truly understand the cosmos depends on his moral character. If you are mocking me because you think some things are already self-evident and "common sense", maybe you should read Thomas Kuhn.

I'm also convinced that Falun Gong is supernatural, not only because I look remarkably younger than before. Therefore, I don't lose my interest even when I'm faced with things that sound a little bit far out. Just like Fire Star stated, what I or you believe is not important. It may not be fruitful to prolong this discussion. I wanted to make a point about using the word "homophobic" in the article: it is not an encyclopaedic term, nor a clear and concise description in and of itself. ---Olaf Stephanos 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, if you make a claim that Li's teachings are not homophobic, then you do need to express an opinion in response to my first question: will homosexuality be eliminated in the Fa-rectification? I think the answer is clearly yes, but you seem reluctant to admit even this most basic observation about FG teachings. The bottom line for me has always been honesty. Li Hongzhi has managed to surround himself with many devoted followers who have become expert at evasive and deceptive practices. Please show me I am wrong here and answer my first question. To repeat:

If "homosexuality" is not one of the root problems that will be eliminated by Li's Fa-rectifiction, then one must conclude that homosexuality will continue to exist after the cosmos is rectified. Do you agree with that conclusion?

Fire Star: I totally agree with you that it doesn't matter what any of us believe. But once again, after months of discussion about Li's teachings on homosexuality, we have practitioner/editors making the same deceptive arguments about Li's homophobia that they did 4 months ago. In the Criticism section, I long ago introduced the term "homophobic" only as the opinion of critics of Falun Gong. We don't need to rehash this tired discussion over again. But frankly, since Olaf has made a claim about the Fa-rectification, I think we deserve an answer to my question. --Tomananda 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"A devoted follower who has become expert at evasive and deceptive practices", is that how you characterize me? Tomananda, why do you have to demean yourself to the level of personal insults?

Frankly, if some strange series of events would prove beyond question that homosexuality, premarital sex or other such things are not upright, I don't know how many people would still practice them. I don't know what should happen, and it doesn't depend on my opinion to begin with. Because you obviously believe that Falun Gong is not true, I wonder why you'd care so much. Let people believe what they want, even if it's a flying spaghetti monster from your point of view. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prove that homosexuality and premarital sex are not upright? Olaf, all I know is that homosexuality for me is an inborn trait which does not harm anyone else on this planet. You might not like to think about homosexual sex..or conversely, you might be afraid of thinking about homosexual sex because of fear you might be "that way"...but in either case, homosexuality occurs in countless species on this planet and has been part of the human condidition from the beginning of recorded history. It is as natural as being left-handed; it is part of the blessed creation, despite Li's pronouncments to the contrary.

Olaf, I will ask you the question again:

If "homosexuality" is not one of the root problems that will be eliminated by Li's Fa-rectifiction, then one must conclude that homosexuality will continue to exist after the cosmos is rectified. Do you agree with that conclusion?

I feel you should answer this question directly. Whatever your answer is will be ok with me. Again, I am just looking for some honesty from you. --Tomananda 00:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Li considers homosexuality a "root problem"; on the contrary, these "root problems" are related to the deviation of the universe at high levels. Of course, there are low-level expressions of this deviance, but they are simply reflections of what has been happening above and within. But I've understood that even the deviation of the universe is a natural phenomenon, just like it is natural for all things to deteriorate. Therefore, my direct answer is here, and I'm actually just rephrasing what I've said before: if the universe was returned to a "state of original purity", and homosexuality wasn't a part of that state, it would undoubtedly disappear. Maybe that's what Li is referring to when he mentioned "gays who have lost their ability of reasoning for the present time". (I'd like to see the original Chinese version, though, I think that this translation is not entirely accurate.) I can only guess.

Tomananda, I have been supporting gay rights in my life. There is nothing in me that would feel hatred or fear towards homosexuals. I've also had premarital sex. Yet I am willing to accept a practice system that doesn't approve of these things. Why? Because I have so good and tangible experiences with Falun Gong, and ultimately I know that it's not up to me to decide what is universally righteous or deviant. But I am not stupid, and I'm perfectly aware that I could be wrong. I just don't think I am. However, I'm not too keen to tell other people how to live, and I haven't seen other practitioners doing that, either. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. It's nuanced, but I'll take it to mean that you don't think there will be homosexuality in Li's purified world after his Fa-rectification has done it's cleansing. To me, that is clearly a homophobic position. In fact, much of what Li teaches about sexuality, mixed race people, etc. might be described as spiritual eugenics. But we've already covered all this material for the Criticism page, so let's just agree to disagree at this point. --Tomananda 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you call it "eugenics" when such things absolutely do not provoke any action on the practitioners' or Li Hongzhi's part? You probably want to use such terms because of their extremely negative connotations. But we are discussing supernatural matters, and if something will eventually prove them real, there's nothing we could do about it anyway. That's why I'm sincerely puzzled by your eagerness to engage in these endless metaphysical speculations. If Falun Gong is something like a flying spaghetti monster to you, why do you care so much, especially when nobody's forcing you to accept it? You could just say: "OK, if the persecution is so horrendous, I definitely don't approve of it, but practicing Falun Gong is not my cup of tea". A lot of people, including homosexuals, are just like that. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, the leaders of the American Eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century did not exterminate any of the "undersirables" whose humanity they denied. Later on, Hitler did using their writings as justification. Similarly, the radical group of late 20th century thinkers called "neo-conservatives" did not invade any countries in the name of spreading democracy. But the simple minded George W. Bush did, using their theories as his justification. Point is: words have consequences. Few people in the West know how radical and troubling Li Hongzhi's teachings are. My goal is simply to report those teachings in this Wikipedia article.

--Tomananda 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, Falun Gong is not "homophobic" or anything. You say that it was "inborn" in you - people carry in themselves things from previous lifetimes. The birth of the physical body is not your birth. The being of a person, the true self, is pure and is assimilated to Zen Shan Ren. But all of us carry karma, post-natal notions etc - all of which are conscious aggregates. The thoughts of those things are not to be confused with those of your true self.

It is different kinds of Karma that we accumulate throughout different lifetimes that determine, to a great extent, our personality, our life, our thoughts etc. If you can look inward in deep meditation you will see that none of those thoughts are yours. Think about it, In the cosmos there exists Yin and Yang, Male and Female... Is what determines good and bad the characteristic of the Cosmos or is it human notions? We cant just tell ourselves that we are pure and free from flaws... and label anything that challenges that notion of ours, "phobic" towards us.

220.226.80.34 06:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda about your comments on the mediation page about how the goal of Falun Gong is to overthrow the CCP, here is a passage, and there are many more, which directly contradicts that. From Chicago 2005, near the end:

...

The reality is that our fundamental goal is not to overthrow the wicked CCP, and I’m

not fighting against it—it’s not worthy! (Applause) How could those who are on their way to

divinity get caught up in fighting with people? Even if the wicked CCP is an evil spirit and

vicious fiend, it’s still not worthy. Fa-rectification is Fa-rectification, and as Dafa disciples go

about saving beings, they must dissolve all evil things that obstruct people’s salvation.

It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we

help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide

the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world’s people come to know it for what it

is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead

to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying

to do—our goal is to save sentient beings. Many things here in the human world, here in the

delusion, are hard to see for what they are, so it’s a matter of how people look at and understand

things.

...

I am not practicing Falun Gong because I have political aspirations. You said that we really have political aspirations and are lying about it. That's not how I feel. I am practicing Dafa for higher reasons, not for worldly reasons. You are allowed to think that I am lying to you, and that I secretly want the downfall of the CCP and that Teacher made everything up. That is your personal understanding, and no one will say you are wrong for that. You are allowed to think that way. But I must tell you my understanding of what I am doing. What you have said cannot be reported in wikipedia in that way. We can report what Li Hongzhi has said about the issue, and if there are people who have published something with their interpretations of Falun Gong as being political and so on, and it conforms to wikipedia policies, we can just report that as well.

I have never tried to blank presenting the, as you call them, "higher teachings". In terms of what appears on the wikipedia pages though, I am against misrepresentations aimed at creating a negative impression; personal interpretations of the teachings; quoting out of context or using quotes selectively or in order to create certain impressions; unbalanced, in terms of the meaning and context of the teachings as a whole, emphasis and reporting. I think everything else would be fine. There's no problem, is there? About homosexuality, mixed races, etc., I think Olaf said it pretty well. None of that has any practical significance. Those things all relate to understandings of the cosmos at higher levels, and for people not practicing Dafa it is as good as a big fairy tale. We don't want to hurt anyone or stop anyone from doing anything, we seek nothing in this world, and we only want to assimilate to Zhen-Shan-Ren. It's not just me saying that to cover things up. That's what the teachings actually say, and that is the actual reason why people practice Dafa. I have not said that those things should not be included in wikipedia, nor tried to prevent them from being included. These things as a whole belong to an entirely different ontological paradigm, so of course picking out parts here and there and viewing them with conventional human thinking will lead to misunderstandings. The context of all this as a whole has been neglected. What I am saying is not apologetics. These are a different order of ideas. It's fine to present what Li Hongzhi has said, but as responsible editors we should try to say a few things about the framework, right?--Asdfg12345 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the Falun Gong only consist of anti-CCP believers?

In reply to Asdfg's post (03:12, 8 Nov 2006 UTC), I guess that judging by that Chicago speech you aren't denying that FLG is a set of beliefs which hinge on being anti-CCP? If it is anti-CCP, ie anti-government, then is outlawing their seditious beliefs and activities so unjustified? I don't see why there is a need to precede almost every reference to the CCP with 'wicked' or 'evil' - does this not pre-determine / pre-judge FOR others without presenting any non-FLG-related facts? The comment that LHZ says that it's not worthy to fight the CCP because they are just 'people' whilst of course giving a statement which... well, fights the CCP (raising the subject voluntarily), is quite appalling. What makes FLG-followers better than 'people'? And what does that imply about how LHZ sees himself - as a God? Perhaps Samuel Luo's insistence that FLG's teachings be labelled as 'religious' was not that incorrect after all... Jsw663 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is anachronistic. Ever since the persecution began, Falun Gong practitioners have been brutally terrorized by the CCP. Do you expect that the victims of such crimes should just let the matter be? You are still confusing two things: 1) exposing a political actor, one that has verifiably committed crimes against humanity, in order to contextualize its ongoing criminal activities and 2) seeking political power as such. Falun Gong practitioners are doing the former. They are fully entitled to do that. In addition, because the CCP has persecuted the Buddha Fa, Falun Gong practitioners believe that it will be destroyed by the historical process in the not-too-distant future, regardless of whether we do anything about it or not. We can only advise people not to go down with the sinking boat. That's the basic idea. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would the CCP condemn the FLG if it supported the FLG, or remained strictly and completely out of politics (ie just a spiritual exercise)? If the FLG was just peace-loving and seeks reconciliation why do they resort to unpeaceful and disruptive tactics like satellite interception? I know it is easy to paint a picture where the FLG are perceived as victims when the CCP cannot publish state secrets which reveal the true reasons why they are outlawing FLG (although we can identify certain problems by analysis) - but unless the FLG proved to be an irritant and even seditious in the first place, it wouldn't have much need to outlaw it. Thus, my above comments seem only anachronistic to those who insist on seeing FLG's peaceful principles, but if theory is considered with how they are practised - and I mean all forms, not just its peaceful elements - then one realizes that FLG may, I repeat may, have an ulterior agenda to those which they preach on its surface (its public face). If you think for one moment that every person (after all nobody starts off as a FLG 'super-person') will accept something without questioning, and where they only receive one side's opinions as fact, then perhaps you, along with other FLG supporters and/or practitioners, are no less guilty of propaganda than the CCP.

Justifying seditious behavior by saying FLG faced extinction is like GW Bush justifying its foreign policy of preemption and war outside the US by hyping up external threats based on suspicions and guesswork. Victimization only appeals to emotion and opinion. Facts appeals to objectivity and encyclopedic knowledge-seekers. Jsw663 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sign up list for mediation

Please see: [3]. --Fire Star 火星 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Is Falun Gong homophobic?

Tomananda, is there perhaps some part of you that thinks Li Hongzhi's exposition on karmic retribution to be true? Forgive me for asking, but I am under the impression that you are somehow scared out of your wits by what Li Honghzi said. I can see no other reason why you still confuse his disapproval with hatred?

However, if you are shocked to learn that, according to Li, in the afterlife one will suffer hellish agony for one's sins (including homosexuality) - that is understandable, but it is nothing new; many traditional religions also share this view. That you are shocked to find out that in today's modern times someone still insists that homosexuality is a really bad sin, I can also understand. But it is no excuse for overlooking the fact that Li has never said FLG practitioners should hate or mistreat people because of their sins. An neutral editor should ignore this.

Furthermore, there is no policy of refusing homosexuals to pick up the practice and no one will force anyone to do something against their will. TAs there is no discrimination or hatred involved, I return to my point that "homophobic" is too big a label to put on FLG, because it insinuates hatred.

It is not unreasonable to agree on this. Willempie 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Scared of Li's small-minded pronoucements on the consequences of homosexuality? Hardly. What bothers me about Li's intense condemnation of gays...including his denial of our very humanity...is not that he reserves the worst of "punishments" for gays, but rather that he has essentially instructed his followers to obscure the core teachings of the Falun Gong to the general public. Because of that monumental deception, the Falun Gong has managed to get many American politicians to sign proclamations in favor of the Falung Gong without realizing the true nature of what they are endorsing. As documented in the Criticism section, some of these politicians have actually withdrawn their support for the FG once they have been informed that they were duped by the practitioners.

If the Falun Gong were to be honest about what Li teaches, I would probably not be that concerned about his intense homophobia. But as long as practitioners continue to deceive the public about their master's teachings concerning homosexuality, mixed-race marriages, sickness karma, Fa-rectification and Li's agenda to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party through a variety of actions (eg: propogation of the Nine Commentaries, jamming of Chinese TV signals to broadcast FG propaganda)I will continue to speak up.

Willelmpie, your post above makes the same kind of erroneous argument that multiple practitioners have made for many months. I have never once claimed that Falun Gong "discriminates" against gays in terms of the practice, or that Li personally teaches "hatred" towards gays. However, the proncouncements Li has made about homosexuals over the years are nevertheless extremely offensive to gays and lesbians, whose god-given sexuality is called dirty, disgusting and demonic by the Calvinistic Mr. Li.

My only goal in editing this Wikipedia article is to let the truth be told. As long as you and others continue to engage in apologetics about this material, we will continue to avoid reaching the point where all of Falun Gong teachings are presented fairly and straight-forwardly to the general public. It's about time the truth about Falun Gong were told and I value Wikipedia for providing the space for that to happen. --Tomananda 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be interesting to consider what the old traditions including The Scriptures of Buddhism, The Bible, The Pistis Sophia etc say. In Buddhism it is 'forbidden for a homosexual to become a monk. Shakyamuni's Buddhism tells such a person will have to go through forty and nine levels of hell and unintermittent suffering. The following passage is from the Gnostic Bible The Pistis Sophia:

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

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

“If the time of such an one is completed through the sphere, the Receivers of Yaldabaoth come after him and bind him by his tongue to a great demon with a horse’s face; they spend three days travelling round with him in the world, and take vengeance on him.

“Thereafter they lead him into the region of the cold and of the snow, and take vengeance on him there eleven years.

“Thereafter they lead him down into the chaos before Yaldabaoth and his forty-and-nine demons, ( In Buddhist Sciptures they say "forty nine levels of hell") and every one of his demons taketh vengeance on him another eleven years.

“Thereafter they lead him into the outer darkness until the day when the great Ruler with the dragon’s face who encircleth the darkness, shall be judged. And that soul becometh frozen up and destroyed and dissolved." ( Buddhist scriptures call it "Annihilation of mind and body".)

In a Gnostic work, it is asked if a homosexual can change.. The reply to which, I quote here..

"..it is completely impossible, they are degenerated seeds. That is impossible, a degenerated seed, is degenerated..." "...and this degeneration is due to the sexual abuses, because if one person abuses sex, that person can come (in a new existence) degenerated, comes as a germ, degenerated by the abuse. "..."Normally the infrasexuals of homosexuality and lesbianism enter into the submerged involution of the infernal worlds. Very rare are those cases in which (through supreme pain) they repent and in a new existence they are born amongst normal people. Those cases are very rare, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and we will still have some fingers left. "

The ancient Zoroastrian law book, The Vendidad states:

"The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas"

Just pointing out what those scriptures say. Nothing to do with my personal "beliefs".

When a non-black person calls a black person “nigger” he is being racist. Applying the same logic, the damnation Li has stated against gays as a group makes him homophobic. If you don’t agree we can post Li’s statements about gays on the wiki homosexual page and websites host by gays to ask for more opinion. --Samuel Luo 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cutting homosexuals from the body Dafa

Since we're talking about whether FG teachings can be characterized as "homophobic" I am posting here a letter from a FG practitioner named Dan which was posted on the SFIndymedia website, but then deleted by the site administrator, who considered the content "homophobic." It provides the clearest explanation yet of Li's cosmic views concerning homosexuals and, sorry, it does seem a just a bit homophobic to me.

Further clarification by Dan Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 8:19 PM

“But for any "spiritual" leader to think that any God would want to eliminate any human being for an in-born trait such as homosexuality is beyond silly.”

You know, I had the same thought when I first heard about the holocaust in Germany when I was a child.

However calling homosexuality an inborn trait is a bit of a misnomer. To explain that I’ll have to go deeper into various prehistoric events that occurred, and that are both the cause of homosexuality and part of the need for Fa rectification.

You see, a person’s gender is more than a simple physiological matter; every ones soul has an inherent gender, some being male, and others female. Originally it was supposed to be that a male soul would only be born into a male body, and a female soul would only be born into a female body. It was in fact very much the case for quite some time until something happened that screwed everything up. What exactly happened is irrelevant, other than to say this event is what caused some men and women to be born into the wrong bodies.

This is most often the cause of what most people would call a “tomboy” or “tomgirl” tendency. Even though a male soul was born into a female body, that soul often still had the inherent tendencies of a male persona; the same is true vice versa.

Now this itself is not a bad thing, except when it comes to a person’s sexual activity. Regardless of what gender a person’s soul is, their sexual activity must conform to the natural way of living as prescribed for Humans. Failure to do so will lead to unfortunate consequences.

“It is also a hateful thought”

Last I checked “hate” is an emotion. I do not have the emotion of “hatred” toward anyone who is homosexual, or anyone else for that matter. However if your definition of a “hateful” person is anyone who disagrees with you, or your way of life, I think that’s just sad.

As for the issue of SARS, I was not there; I did not see what was transpiring so I’m not going to comment on it in any specific ways. It’s like the holocaust in Nazi Germany, I was not there personally and I’m not going to talk about it as if I was. I can tell you that historically speaking, whenever peoples karma accumulates enough all kinds of natural and man made disasters will abound. By and large it is those people who have the largest amounts of karma who are at the receiving end of the worst of any disaster, be it an earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, disease, ect…

It’s just that things are arranged to appear random intentionally, in order to give narrow minded people an excuse so they can say “It was just a natural phenomena”. The truth of the matter is that everything is alive and everything knows what it is doing. If it is your time to go, then nothing is going to save your life; if it is not your time to go then nothing can kill you. It’s not absolute since a person can choose to commit murder for instance, and there are unnatural births and deaths in the balance of things.

I could give half a dozen examples from my own life of times when by all rights a certain accident should have killed me, but I emerged with barely a scratch. There are no co-incidents, everything happens for a reason.

To say that a it would be silly for a God to want to eliminate deviant Human beings is like saying it would be silly for a Human being to want to eliminate a cancerous tumor. In many ways God’s view deviant Human beings as the same as cancer. Look at it this way, the prevailing medical wisdom is such that if you get a cancerous tumor it should be cut out, and or killed with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. As far as I know those are the only ways that modern medicine knows of curing cancer.

Would you want to kill a cancerous tumor that started growing in your brain? Who would call you silly for wanting to be cured? We all know that cancer is simply deviated cells that no longer perform their intended function and if left un-dealt with will threaten the life of the person who has cancer.

Has it occurred to you yet that since I have been saying that everything is alive and everything knows what it is doing, that the Earth itself is alive and it knows what it is doing? Then to use the analogy of a cell of a human body, you and I and everything that lives on this planet is just like a cell that lives in the body of this planet. Such a comparison is not perfectly fitting, buy it helps you get the idea. Now as “cells” of the body of the planet Earth we have our intended function, which is in general, to be kind to one another, live productive virtuous lives, make more Humans, and live in harmony with natures design. If we deviate from that intended function too far we become as cancer cells that threaten the well-being and perhaps even the very life of the planet Earth.

Traditionally the course of action that was taken was to simply expunge the deviated Human beings and be done with it. Just as the prevailing wisdom of modern medical science is to expunge a cancerous tumor. But what if somebody came up with a way to rectify cancerous cells, and return them back to a healthy state whereby they preformed their intended function once again? Who would not go for that? The only difference is that Human beings have to choose their future, whereas the cells of ones flesh body don’t really have any choice about anything.

As such this period of time is exactly the time wherein Human beings choose where they wish to position themselves. The choice is simple: live in harmony with the ways of nature, or choose not to live in harmony with the ways of nature; and all that entails. Specifically, that dose not mean that one must relinquish homosexuality at this time. Nor dose it mean that one must agree with everything that any spiritual teaching says. If you don’t agree with the teachings of Falun Gong, then that’s just fine you don’t need to agree and you can believe whatever you want. I would caution you however, as I would caution anybody be they practitioners of Falun Gong, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, homosexuals, heterosexuals ect… That harboring resentment towards others is most certainly not harmonious with the ways of nature, and absolutely no good will come of it.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other; there is nothing wrong with believing whatever you like. Just harbor no resentment, or ill will toward anyone and you will be doing fine.

Yours truly, Dan.

P.S. Yes I do practice Falun Gong by the way.

Note: This and two other letters from Dan were deleted by the editor of www.sf.indymedia.org shortly after they were posted on 2/07/06. Dan’s e-mail address is: danclow75@hotmail.com

You said:

"It provides the clearest explanation yet of Li's cosmic views concerning homosexuals and, sorry, it does seem a just a bit homophobic to me."

What Li has said provide the clearest explanation. This is one person's understanding. We are concerned with reporting what Li Hongzhi has said and coming to an understanding of these things in the context of the teachings as a whole. This is just one person's opinion, and it should not be taken as anything definitive. --Asdfg12345 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: Unless you're saying that Wikipedia can never report the opinions of practitioners, I don't see your point. Just to remind you, this entire discussion began with the assertion by a practitioner that it was not reasonable to characterize Li's teachings as "homophobic."

Earlier this year the issue of Falun Gong's homophobia was famously exposed to the public in a front page article in San Francisco's BAR newspaper [4] At that time, the Falun Gong was threatenening legal action against the City and County of San Francisco because it felt it was discriminated against by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, which denied it permission to march in the Chinese New Year's parade. The BAR article reports that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce ran an advertisement which accused Falun Gong of being homophobic. The point here is that while you may not accept the label "homophobic" for Li's teachings, others do. The bottom line for me is that both POVs can and should be reported in Wikipedia providing they come from sourced material and do not represent original research. While I agree that direct quotes from Li are also essential, they are not sufficient for a complete understanding of the controversies surrounding Falun Gong.

What makes this whole editing process so tiresome is that FG editors tend to obscure the teachings by engaging in endless discussion about semantics rather than meaning. What's important is not the label "homophobic" for Li's teachings, but rather the fact that he denies the humanity of homosexuals and apparently envisions an idealized higher realm in which there are no homosexuals.

Please re-read Dan's post above and consider whether you agree or disagree with his charterization of Falun Gong teachings on homosexuality. If you disagree with his charaterization, could you explain where he's gotten it wrong? The sad fact is that I think Dan has very accurately summarized Li's teachings about returning to the higher realms. --Tomananda 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that because what practitioners say is different to what Li Hongzhi has said. The person who introduced Dan's letters made it sound like "this is what Falun Gong says about homosexuality", and that is not true. What Li Hongzhi has said, and only what Li Hongzhi has said, is what Falun Gong says about homosexuality. This is important.

Whether it is homophobic or not depends how you define homophobic. I think the general objection to that label is that it connotes either irrationality or human feelings. Right now I'm not going to write a lot and try to explain my understanding of what Falun Gong teaches in terms of homosexuality. I don't have any objections to reporting the teachings, like I said earlier. I just want to make sure the context is not ommitted in favour of some agendas. Perhaps it is inevitable that this will all be understood within people's existing notions and paradigm for understanding the universe, but I think at least some attempt should be made to explain where this is coming from. It's so radically different from what you think.

I wrote a lot of other things and spent a while. I have deleted it all. We can just report the teachings in the context of the teachings and that will be fine. I will save my time for when the time comes.

I do not want to appear to be frustrating your efforts to write truthful things, or make you feel like I want to obscure anything. Do you think it would help if I copied the part on homosexuality from the relevant page, put it in a word doc and altered it based on what Li Hongzhi has said and given the context of the teachings as a whole - I mean, wrote something up, then sent it back to you? You could look at it, alter it, and so on. In this way we would then have a piece of writing which explained this matter. I could forward it to other practitioners and we could come up with something. I want to cooperate with you as long as its in line with neutrality and wikipedia policies, and the teachings are not presented selectively and so on. Tell me if you think that would advance the process. --Asdfg12345 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see any value in your copying Li's teachings and cutting and pasting them to Dan's e-mail. It's disappointing that you don't feel up to commenting on Dan's posting yourself, but I understand that Li demands that his practitioners never present his teachings in their own words. Basically, it doesn't seem to matter what practitioners think about this subect because you don't have the freedom to think for youself...of if you do, you won't share those thoughts with non-practitioners. We've been down this path before. I am tired of this endless discussion that goes nowhere. Let's just stop this thread and wait for the mediator to guide us, sytematicaly, through the material. --Tomananda 08:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Asdfg12345 was referring to what will be included in the article. I don't think that's such a bad idea, and I wonder why you refuse to cooperate. We have to base the text on Li Hongzhi's exact teachings, anyway, that is something we have agreed upon. This way we could prepare a version that is satisfactory to both parties and then present it to the mediator. ---Olaf Stephanos 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am just talking about writing something up for Falun Gong and the subject of homosexuality. Probably tonight I can get started, and I'll forward it to others to alter, then you can take a look at it Tomananda. If for each section we did something like this, maybe we could do some good work and make progress.--Asdfg12345 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have a section on homosexuality which took us several months to complete. It is in two sub-sections, and the second sub-section is just a stub. If you are talking about expanding the second sub-section, that's fine with me. If you're talking about deleting all the Li quotes or the precise indirect quotes that were constructed in the first section, then I have a problem with that. We are going over old ground here and at this point it seems clear to me that intervention from a mediator is needed, and that intervention should help us to agree on a strategy for dealing with the entire article, not just one controversial subject within the article.

Also, I gather from your response that neither one of you is capable or willing to exress your own view on this subject. Obviously we won't use Dan's statement in the article, yet it is a pretty comprehensive explanation in one practitioner's words about returning to the higher levels (which I assume is what you envision for Fa-rectification). Dan's post makes clear that homosexuals will not exist when Falun Gong practitoners return to their higher levels. Even though homosexuality is a naturally occuring expression of sexuality in humans and many other species, the Falun Gong belief system seems to say that because it is "immoral" it cannot and did not exist in the higher realms of beings from wence we all came. Is that correct? And if it is correct, am I to assume that other forms of gender-based sexuality do exist in the higher realms? In other words, do these higher beings that you guys envision still have what amounts to "male" and "female" genetalia which in some way hook together? And if there is traditional penis and vagina intercourse going on in these higher realms, do the female higher beings get pregnant and have babies? This is not just a casual question, because if the claimed immorality of homosexuality is based on the absense of procreation, then wouldn't the rationale for your condemnation of homosexuality disappear in a realm where there is no gender-based procreation?

If you can respond to my questions in your own words, that would be great. If you can't, please explain why. --Tomananda 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just took a look at that section too, and I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with it. When I proposed writing something up I hadn't looked at it properly. Maybe it might be good to expand some aspects, but I don't know. What were some other specific issues that you feel need explanation, in terms of the articles? I'm not responding to the stuff about homosexuality because it would take a long time and have no outcome. --Asdfg12345 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a significant and welcome statement on your part. If you're ok with the homosexuality article as it is, so am I. Or if you want to add some material to the second stub, that's ok too. (I actually wrote most of the second stub using my understanding from various posts done by FG practitioners, but always thought someone would come along and expand it somewhat.)

Concerning the article as a whole, my only request is that we approach it sytematically with the help of a mediator, rather than piece-meal. With the help of a previous unofficial mediator, we did collectively agree on a comprehensive plan for dealing with all the different edits on all the pages, why can't we just go back to that plan and work through it, step by step? --Tomananda 17:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do want to cooperate with you. It strikes me as odd though, that you would say "rather than starting a revert war, let's wait for the mediator and do it systematically", without actually identifying any real problems with the edits I did. I explained that they were all expansions on existing content, with no deletions. You can see that, just look, there's been quite a few changes on different parts, and as I see it they all enhance the content, explain it further, and do nothing to diminish it. If by that comment you are indicating that if I revert it back you will continue to revert it to your version, thus creating an edit war, I would rather not revert it again, and wait for a mediator as you suggest. But I don't understand what the problems are with the edits, and why we can't just keep them? I would like for you to explain that. In general I don't have an overall strategy for any major rewriting on the page. The only thing I feel I am able to do is attempt to more fully explain the teachings of Falun Dafa against the criticisms. For example, in the part about Rahn and Singer's criticism of Dafa in its attitude toward "ordinary people" and the "us vs them" mentality they identify, and so on, I would seek to explain the issue further with reference to the teachings, about how Dafa is teaching people to transcend this human plane and become divine beings, which is in itself very much outside the way regular people conceive of their lives. This creates an inherent distinction between how cultivators understand themselves as opposed to how non-cultivators understand themselves, but that Li Hongzhi has required everyone to conform to ordinary human society to the maximum extent possible, including interpersonal relationships, food, shelter, transport and so on. Anything I change would not be what the critics say, but only to provide a richer background of the teachings against their criticisms. That's just an example. There's not really scope for much of that anyway, as the page is not for explaining the teachings. I guess just a few minor changes here and there is all I would be looking at. That stub can certainly be extended to cover the things I was saying earlier, to present the question of homosexuality in the context of the teachings as a whole. It can't be long though. Anyway, let me know about my question.--201.235.83.171 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Obviously that is me, I thought I was logged in. --Asdfg12345 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't even read all your changes because I have become so accustomed to defending against blanking that I didn't see the point of devoting any serious time to your edits. If you check out the Epoch Times page you'll see the most recent example, where an anyonymous FG editor has been trying to delete an extremely relavant quote from Master Li concerning the founding of the Falun Gong. Since you appear to be sincere about your desire to cooperatively edit, I will honor that gesture by reading all of your edit changes and responding appropriately. I'll do that posting later today or tomorrow. Most Americans are now celebrating the historic victory of Democrats who have now taken over both the House and the Senate, thereby creating a powerful check against the out-of-control George W. Bush and his misguided neo-conserative advisors. I am one of those Americans who feels a need to celebrate just now, so you'll have to give me a little time to respond. --Tomananda 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah no problem. As for the Epoch Times page, in the same breath as mentioning that the Fa-rectification is weeding out corrupt people, why don't you also mention that Li Hongzhi has said he is providing universal salvation? Isn't that a rather pertinent piece of information to accompany the mention of Fa-rectification? I don't want to get involved in that page, there appears to be people doing things already, but you are neglecting an important piece of information there, right? I've only ever asked that the whole truth be stated, not just the parts you want to create an impression. Besides, claims of universal salvation are pretty well snorted at these days anyway, aren't they? That is also a sensationalist sentence whichever way it goes. The main point of the newspaper was because no one else was reporting about the persecution, so practitioners started to do it. That kind of explanation is also true, it is looking at the issue from another angle, so why don't you include that as well? You could include that simultaneous explanation of the reason for its inception - the reason according to higher-dimensional understandings and that according to human understandings. I think that would be a more comprehensive and responsible way to address the issue. Do you see what I am saying? --Asdfg12345 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see I altered the defintion of Dafa a bit - but I am curious about where all that information in the body of the article came from? I couldn't see any references or anything, just writing. Did someone just write it up based on what they had read from different places? I am not criticising it, I don't know much about the subject, but I suppose that I am slightly curious. If you know about where all that information came from, let me know. Also, I wonder if that sentence that defines "Dafa" is allowed to be there like that, without a direct reference. It seems to be no more than a summary from one perspective of what "Dafa" means. Aside from that, and considering that I think the critics will want at least something there related to the "Fa-rectification" theme, I think at the same time it is only proper to actually state that there is some talk of universal salvation based on Zhen-Shan-Ren. That is a more important element to it, rather than just "weeding out corrupt beings". --Asdfg12345 12:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot find the section you have been working on for so long (or can I?).

Here's my concern. If we are going to tell everyone that Falun Gong believes that "homosexuality will get one hellish punishment in the afterlife because it oversteps the boundaries of what is human behavior as laid down by Heaven", I hope we can tell it to the audience in a way that makes clear that Falun Gong's disapproval absolutely does not equal hatred.

If we believe that homosexuals will get punished for their sins, I want no ambiguity about it: it's not FLG practitioners who are going to be the executioners. Willempie 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What a weasilly stand for you to take! I'm sure the early eugenicists didn't "hate" the categories of human beings they deemed "unfit" or "degenerated." In fact, quite the oppostite: they actually claimed a scientific basis for their exclusionary theories. And then Hitler came along and used those theories to justify the concept of "the master race" and the systematic extermination of homosexuals, jews and gyspies. Frankly, I don't give a damn about whatever emotions you claim to have concerning homosexuals. You can say you love us or hate us or have no emotions whatsoever. What matters is what your Master says about us. As long as you continue to honor the Master's demonization of gays and his denial of our very humanity; and as long as you look forward to a day when all of us will be punished for our "sins" and eliminated in a slow and painful way, you are complicit with the master. Suggest you read the following books on the eugentics movement and the consequences of denying the humanity of cateogories of people:

1. Elof Axel Carlson, The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea (New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001

2.Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Four Walls eight Windows, 2003)

Since when is it a question of "if" we are going to report the truth of Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality here on Wikipedia? There is no question that we must report all the well-concealed "higher truths" that the cult leader Master Li Hongzhi has espoused. I believe that for all his lies and manipulations, Master Li will suffer a particulary slow and painful elination at the hands of the real gods. But don't blame me for any of this, I won't be the one doing the elimination. --Tomananda 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a short comment. I already explained this: Master Li has not said that the gays will be eliminated in a slow and painful way. Basically, he's saying that would happen without intervention. That's an equally kooky claim to you, I'm sure. It just doesn't have the same shock value, so maybe that's why you want to stick to your personal interpretation. From now on, let's base our discussion on the actual teachings.

One more thing: you seem to be more eager to make hypotheses about possible future misrepresentations of Li Hongzhi's teachings than to condemn the real war against "the weak", "the defenseless" and "the unfit" that is taking place in communist China. But I'm afraid you don't see these people as your peers... ---Olaf Stephanos 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: the fact that we dirty, disgusting, demonic homosexuals can avoid the fate of elimination by the gods if we give up loving people of the same gender (thanks to Li's benevolent intervention) does not absolve the Falun Gong of being "homophobic." Before I learned what Li Hongzhi really teaches about homosexuality (and what you guys all believe, but seldom talk about), I used to think that the Pope in Rome was the most homophobic of all religious leaders. But actually Li's pronoucements are worse. Unlike the Catholic Church, which stresses the intrinsic dignity of all human beings as part of god's creation, Li stresses the intrinsic corruption of all human beings. While having contempt for the human condition in general, Li reserves his biggest condemnations and vitriolic adjectives for just two categories of human beings: homosexuals and the Chinese Communist Party leaders. Homosexuals are put in the same category of murderers, yet we hear much more about the fate of homosexuals than we do of murderers. You have the hutzpah to claim these teachings are not homophobic, while lecturing me about my "misrepresentations" of Li's teachings and my alleged lack of sympathy for those FG practitiors who are persecuted in China.

It's interesting that even though we have gone over these issues multiple times, it is always a FG practitioner who resurrects the same old tired apolgetic arguments about Li's homosexuality teachings. And it's always the same arugments spoken by FG practitioners all around the world, because that's how cults work. So what we hear, over and over again, is that Falun Gong is not "homophobic" because the practitioners don't hate homosexuals and don't discriminate against them. Never mind that the actual teachings deny the very humanity of homosexuals and single out homosexuals for the worst punishment imaginable at the hands of the gods (unless they give up their evil practices). Who else other than the "evil scoundrels" who control the CCP are singled out for such intense condemnation by Li Hongzhi?

Yet rather than offering a real defense of these teachings (other than contextualizing them in terms of Li's cosmology)Falun Gong practitioners continue to hide behind the evasive claim that because some practitioners may be persecuted or even tortured in China, we here in the West shouldn't be talking about those homophobic teachings. We also shouldn't talk about Li's teachings on "sickness karma" (about not seeking medical treatment) because even if these teachings do jeopardize the health of Falun Gong practitioners, the only subject worth talking about is what FG wants us to talk about: what's happening in China.

Guess what, Olaf, I don't live in China. And even though I have great sympathy for any victims of governmental abuse in China, I have come to seriously doubt most of what the Falun Gong says about those alleged abuses because, as a group, you have a track record of deception, lies and attacks on critics. The funny thing is that the Falun Gong always claims the the CCP makes up lies, yet the Falun Gong's own propaganda seems so blatantly fabricated that I wind up tuning all of it out. And since Li Hongzhi has told his disciples that they must work to destroy the CCP in order to reach Falun Gong consumation, I am all the more sceptical about most of your claims.

At this point, we usually hear an indignent complaint from a FG practitioner somewhere in the world. The gist of the complaint is: WE ARE NOT POLITICAL SO STOP CALLING US POLITICAL. I don't give a damn whether the FG's actions against the CCP (some of which are illegal) can be characterized as political, social, spiritual or recreational. As usual, you evade an honest discussion about your group's agenda (destroy the CCP) and teachings (anti-gay and anti-science for starters) by engaging in ad hominem attacks against your critics.

You can think of me anything you like. You can claim I am heartless, indifferent to the suffering of mankind and blind to persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. And despite all of that, I will continue to speak the truth about Falun Gong's teachings and practices. --Tomananda 03:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomamanda don't forget to check out those edits on the criticisms page and verify they have not blanked any content. Also, I could write something very long back to that, but one thing I would like to point out is that I have not said that people aren't allowed to criticise Falun Gong or the things about homosexuality and whatnot. I think Olaf has mentioned it, but I would just emphasis that despite all you say, at the end of the day people who practice Falun Gong are just reading some books, meditating, and trying to be kind to their fellow man - homosexuals included. We cultivate Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, and in China at the moment people who practice Falun Gong are having many evil things done to them. As long as those basic facts are acknowledged, the rest is fine by me. It may be difficult to balance that relationship, but I think it's fairly important to do so.--Asdfg12345 12:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg, I intend to do that but as you can see the long-agreed upon edit on homosexuality is now, once again, under attack by Olaf...so I have to defend the existing content. This was all hashed out many months ago and is a total waste of time, but so be it. At this point you appear to be the most reasonable and cooperative editor on the board. I was all set to work on your stuff yesterday until a FG practitioner introduced an unnecessary argument about the use of the term "homophobia". As you yourself say, the edit that was written many months ago does not claim that FG is homopobic, but rather simply reports that as a POV of critics of the FG. The existing edit was the result of painstaking work and cooperation between myself and several FG practitioners. Yet now it is under attack. When I say this process is tiresome, it certainly is. --Tomananda 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are being very possessive about the article. This is Wikipedia. Instead of making modifications, you've grown accustomed to simply reverting back to your preferred version, which, from our perspective, amounts to blanking. I hope you'd understand that the only way to reach any eventual neutrality is to work in a dialectical fashion. You have selected the following quote yourself: "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods." For some curious reason you have changed the conditional tense would into will as you elaborate on these words. Would you mind explaining why? Also, why do you think that the quote I selected from a Los Angeles lecture is not relevant? You are accusing pro-FLG editors of a lot of things, but we have good reasons to believe that you tend to omit the context in order to make the quotes seem more shocking. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Falun Gong homophobic?

Since we can not reach a agreement on this issue let's just vote on it. Vote yes if you think the Falun Gong is homophobic and vote no if you don't. More info available here--Samuel Luo 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes as per Li's own words. Stops that controversy dead.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 04:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, all I know is that the FG hates gays. --Yueyuen 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the very definition of homophobia.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But Falun Gong people do not discriminate gays nor would they physically hurt gay people. --Yueyuen 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes since gays are described in a negative way. --Yenchin 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• No! But why are we discussing this when there is no set wikipedia definition for homophobia anyways? --Supercraft99 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought there was a set definition as per Wikipedia for it.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I told a gay friend of mine what Li has said about homosexuality, his response was this: "tell that moron to go back to China." Yes he also said that Li and the Falun Gong is homophobic. --Yueyuen 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If the word "homophobic" is to be used to describe Falun Gong's views on homosexuality, it is just a matter of how "homophobic" is defined. This is quite basic. I don't see what's wrong with the way it is explained in the link you put, where it says "Falun Gong and homosexuality", then "teachings that are seen as homophobic by critics" - that is a fairly neutral way to put it. I said above that the general objection to the word "homophobic", or at least from my perspective, is that it suggests that there is some emotional or irrational element to the views on homosexuality. Since there is dispute over that, I would opt to just leave the description the way it stands. I don't understand what need there is for a poll.--Asdfg12345 11:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a matter of definition. Somehow I get the impression that Tomananda's insistence on using the word "homophobic" is similar to George W. Bush's definition of "terrorism" in the broadest possible sense. By doing this, all the accusations against a variety of different phenomena can be lumped together. Even though the actual differences within such a category can be enormous, it is an effective way of appealing to emotions and seeking popular support for one's agenda. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, you couldn't be more wrong on this. The use of the term homophobia to describe Li's teachings on homosexuality is perfectly correct. Perhaps you haven't checked an English dictionary on this yet, so let me report here how The American Heritage College dictionary defines homophobia:

• 1. Aversion to gay or lesbian people or their lifestyle
• 2. Behavior or an act based on homophobia

It's meaning number one that I am using when I say that Li's teachings are homophobic. Unless you can demonstrarte that Li Hongzhi's teachings do not reflect "an aversion to gay or lesbian people or their lifestyle" you must accept my use of this term. When I say "accept my use of this term" I DO NOT mean that my view that FG is homophobic must be presented in Wikipedia as accepted fact, but rather that it correctly reflects the views of Critics of Falun Gong who do, indeed, find Li's teachings to reflect "an aversion to gay or lesbian people or their lifestyle."

Please also read above my response to Asdfg on this subject. --Tomananda 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so we got into the root of our dispute: we understand the term differently. Even Google finds multiple definitions for it. [5] Could you think of anything that didn't approve of homosexuality but could not be defined as "homophobic"? If not, maybe it's no use to keep on debating about this. But how about using a term that's slightly less ambivalent and politically loaded, such as "heteronormative"? It's not exactly descriptive, either - I don't think we can find any definition that would exactly match Falun Gong's teachings. This is the definition for "heteronormativity" I can find in Wikipedia:

In gender theory and queer theory, heteronormativity is the perceived reinforcement of certain beliefs by many social institutions and social policies. These beliefs include the belief that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female; that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes; and that each sex has certain natural roles in life. Thus, physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should in any given person align to either all-male or all-female norms, and heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation.

---Olaf Stephanos 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: While Li's teachings are, indeed, heteronormative, the term that is used in common discourse...and in fact has been used by critics and commentators of the Falun Gong...is homophobic. Although much has been written in gender theory about heteronormativity...and a good friend of mine, a professor of Political Theory at an East Coast college, has written on this subject herself...I have yet to discover any sourced material which uses the term in reference to Li Hongzhi's teachings. Please keep in mind that we cannot do original research on Wikipedia and to start using academic terms such as heteronormative to describe Falun Gong teachings at this point would amount to original research. --Tomananda 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if (and when) we have sourced, critical material that calls Li's teachings "homophobic", there's no reason we couldn't refer to them in the article. You have a point there.

We should still clarify what makes Falun Gong different from many other groups who have received this label: 1) FLG doesn't have an agenda to restrict the political rights of homosexuals, 2) FLG practitioners have taken no discriminatory actions against homosexuals, 3) all consequences for such behaviour are perceived as metaphysical laws, not as something initiated by humans, and 4) Li says that because he is teaching this Fa, the people who practice homosexuality will not be "annihilated": "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods." Regardless of what you think of such statements, they're sourced, and we shall edit the article accordingly. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the comments are directed to practitioners to apply to their cultivation. Basically, my understanding is that homosexuality is an attachment that needs to be removed in cultivation. This is from Zhuan Falun, Lecture Seven, The Issue of Killing:

"...I am teaching the Fa to practitioners instead of casually telling everyday people how to live. With regard to how one should deal with specific issues, you should make a judgment according to Dafa. You should do things however you see fit. Everyday people will do whatever they want to, and that is their business; it is not possible for everyone to truly practice cultivation. As a practitioner, however, one should follow a higher standard, so I am hereby putting forward the requirements for practitioners."

In the above statement, Mr. Li is referring to killing animals for cooking, but I believe you can apply that to just about anything that is said in the teachings of Falun Dafa, thats just understanidng. Also, I'm not entirely sure if that was appropriate to the discussion, but I'll post it anyway. Homophobia implies fear, and fear is an attachment, and it breeds intolerance. My understanding is that homophobia would be an attachment that needs to be removed (if one has it.)

On a side note, I've lived with several people who were gay, and I have had no problems with them, its really none of my business. One of them, who is a friend of mine, has read Zhuan Falun with no complaints, and practiced the 5 exercises, and I'm not sure if she still continues.

Hopefully, this isn't too off-topic... I'm not too experienced with this process. Boraxmole 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, please read my response to your post above on the Talk Criticism page. And Boraxmole, it appears you are not fully aware of Li's teachings on homosexuality. You can kill animals for cooking and still be considered a human being, but not so if you have homosexual sex according to Li. Li singles out homosexuality as a major sin and he claims that homosexuals can no longer be considered human. Do you disagree with these statements? Of course I don't expect any practitioner to ever disagree with any utterance Li Hongzhi has made, so please consider my question rhetorical. --Tomananda 11:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't say that Li or FLG is homophobic in our article. We can report what Li said (the bit about "disgusting" etc. which may lead readers concerned with such things to that conclusion), and we can report if notable private organisations, critics, journalists or govt. agencies say that about what Li teaches. But we shouldn't ourselves label the subject. In the same light, our articles shouldn't soft pedal what Li has said, "explaining away" Li's statement based on our own opnions without a source for those statements either. Evidence has to support our argument on Wikipedia, or the argument will eventually be disregarded. --Fire Star 火星 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Firestar: You're absolutely correct, it is not the job of editors to characterize teachings one way or the other. I am not proposing that Wikipedia describe Li's teachings as "homophobic" but only that Wikipedia report the sourced opinions of commentators and critics who do consider his teachings homophobic. If you check out the section on the Criticism page, you'll see that the term "homophobic" only appears twice: once in the introduction and again in the title of a sub-section: "Teachings that are seen as homophobic by critics." In neither case is the word presented as fact. Also, I expanded on this in a post I just did in Talk Criticism. --Tomananda 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Firestar and Tomananda. The use of any 'charged' word, such as "homophobic", "terrorist", "racist", "anti-semitic", needs to be cited. If there are other cites that refute the charge those can be added as well. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to determine which is the "truth", that would be original research. What we should discuss is how the claims and counter claims need to be balanced. For instance, if the claim of someone being "homophobic" is obscure and widely refuted the article could document that. This type of discussion comes up all the time. For an interesting similar discussion that relates to the term "hate crime", see talk:Matthew Shepard. -- Samuel Wantman 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to all involved here that this vote and anything that may come from it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Talk pages are not for discussing an article's subject. If you can find a reputable critic who accuses Falun Gong of being homophobic, then add the critic's name and his or her accusation to the article. Any discussion that is not relevant to this needs to end now. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Diferences between Falun Gong and other beliefs

Hello, I’d like to propose an edit to this section on the criticism page, so I thought we could all talk about it. I noticed the paragraph says:

“Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” However, as reported by Benjamin Penny (2005), Falun Gong’s earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition.”

But in Zhuan Falun, the main book of Falun Dafa, on “The Third Talk” in the “Buddhist Qi Gong and Buddhism” section, Li Hongzhi states the following:

“Buddhist qigong is not Buddhism the religion—I want to make sure you understand this. And actually, Daoist qigong isn’t Daoism the religion. Some of us are never clear about these things. Some people who are monks practicing in monasteries and some others who are lay Buddhists think they know more about Buddhist things than other people, so they really cause a stir promoting Buddhism’s things among our students. I want to tell you: don’t do that, because those are a different discipline’s things. Religions have religious forms, while what we’re transmitting here is the cultivation part of our discipline. We don’t worry about religious forms unless you’re a specialized Falun Dafa disciple. So anyway, we’re not part of Buddhism in the Age of the Law’s End. The Law in Buddhism is only a small part of the Buddha Law. There are a lot of other profound Great Law practices, and every level has a different Law. Shakyamuni said that there are 84,000 cultivation disciplines. And how many disciplines are there in Buddhism? It has just a few, like the Tendai sect, Huayan sect, Zen sect, Pure Land, and the Esoteric sect. They don’t even add up to a fraction of it! So it can’t cover the entire Buddha Law, it’s just a small part of Buddha Law. Our Falun Dafa is also one of the 84,000 disciplines, but it’s never been related to Buddhism, from the original Buddhism right on up to the one in the Age of the Law’s End. And it doesn’t have anything to do with today’s religions.”

Which means Falun Dafa does not belong to the religion of Buddhism and Mr. Li Hongzhi’s teachings do not derive from Buddhism at all. It also says very clearly he is not claiming to be a part of the Buddhist tradition but completely the opposite. What do you all think about this?.--Andres18 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this has been ongoing. Actually, I wrote another part to explain this aspect of the differences between Falun Dafa and other beliefs or traditions. I will just stick it back over the top, since no one had a problem with it last time. Introducing the "controversy" over whether Falun Dafa derives legitimacy from Buddhism would require more space and still not accurately explain what the difference is. In that case, quotes from Li Hongzhi would have to be used to explain that Falun Dafa is NOT trying to derive legitimacy from Buddhism, and so on - this method cuts the process short and gets to the heart of the matter of what the difference is. Okay, we can discuss further if there are going to be problems. I am just sticking it back cause no one had any problems with it last time. I also made some other changes that weren't immediately pounced on, so I will try to chase those up and put them back as well. --Asdfg12345 01:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit totally removes all critical content from this section, which is by definition meant to report critical opinions of the Falun Gong. This is not acceptable, so I am glad that Covenant has reverted your change. Frankly, I am disappointed, since I thought we were going to work cooperatively on this stuff. --Tomananda 02:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the edit because i want to work cooperatively, so i was asking for everyone else's opinion. Why dont you tell us your opinion on this matter?. I dont think there can only be one sided critical content on the page, so if you want to present the critics, the proFG editors also have a point, so the opinion from our side ( ProFG ) should also be taken seriously if we are all aiming for a neutral article. By the way, i didnt make those edits, im just proposing a change--Andres18 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to play games. I don't mind how it is, as long as the quote from Li Hongzhi is there which contradicts the critics. I don't know what I was thinking. My attitude toward working on the articles has not changed. It's locked now anyway, so the point of this note is just to tell you I didn't mean anything by that.--Asdfg12345

I'll propose a writing for this, i wrote this post to establish the idea and see what everyone thinks. Im sure Tom and everyone else wont mind at all if we propose a paragraph which doesnt remove the critical content but at the same time reflects our point of view.--Andres18 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about this:

“ Critics claim that whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. As reported by Benjamin Penny (2005), Falun Gong’s earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition. Supporters claim that In Zhuan Falun, the main book of the practice, Li states that "Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School but it’s never been related to Buddhism..." (footnote) that any Buddhist cultivation system is not the religion of Buddhism and that they both belong to the Buddha School.

Seems pretty fair to me, what does everyone think about it?--Andres18 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This change is fine with me, but I think the wording could be improved slighlty. How about something like this:

However, supporters point out that in Zhuan Falun, the main book of the practice, Li states that "Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School but it’s never been related to Buddhism..." (footnote) While Falun Gong is one of many Buddhist cultivation systems and is part of the Buddha School, it is not the religion of Buddhism. --Tomananda 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction needed: Andres, if you go back and check the Li quote you'll see that he did not say "it's never been related to Buddhism"..or at least not at that point. The end quotation mark needs to be moved, or perhaps you can find another Li quote to support the comment? --Tomananda 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? hmm, let me check these quotes then. As soon as i find something useful, ill post it. Ok! found the quote, almost at the last line he says: "Our Falun Dafa is also one of the 84,000 disciplines, but it’s never been related to Buddhism, from the original Buddhism right on up to the one in the Age of the Law’s End. And it doesn’t have anything to do with today’s religions.”"

For further reference, this is the paragraph from which i extracted the quote:

“Buddhist qigong is not Buddhism the religion—I want to make sure you understand this. And actually, Daoist qigong isn’t Daoism the religion. Some of us are never clear about these things. Some people who are monks practicing in monasteries and some others who are lay Buddhists think they know more about Buddhist things than other people, so they really cause a stir promoting Buddhism’s things among our students. I want to tell you: don’t do that, because those are a different discipline’s things. Religions have religious forms, while what we’re transmitting here is the cultivation part of our discipline. We don’t worry about religious forms unless you’re a specialized Falun Dafa disciple. So anyway, we’re not part of Buddhism in the Age of the Law’s End. The Law in Buddhism is only a small part of the Buddha Law. There are a lot of other profound Great Law practices, and every level has a different Law. Shakyamuni said that there are 84,000 cultivation disciplines. And how many disciplines are there in Buddhism? It has just a few, like the Tendai sect, Huayan sect, Zen sect, Pure Land, and the Esoteric sect. They don’t even add up to a fraction of it! So it can’t cover the entire Buddha Law, it’s just a small part of Buddha Law. Our Falun Dafa is also one of the 84,000 disciplines, but it’s never been related to Buddhism, from the original Buddhism right on up to the one in the Age of the Law’s End. And it doesn’t have anything to do with today’s religions.”

If something isnt right, please let me know, im not very experienced with making writings including quotations. By the way, i really liked the improved wording you proposed, thank you. --Andres18 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the footnote to make it more neutral:

Critics claim that whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. As reported by Benjamin Penny(2005), Falun Gong's earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition. However, supporters point out that in Zhuan Falun, the main book of the practice, Li states that "Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha's School but it's never been related to Buddhism..."

(footnote) Falun Gong states that while it is one of many Buddhist cultivation systems and is part of the Buddha School, it is not the religion of Buddhism [reference?]. Fnhddzs 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Balancing the Intro

The intro seems a little unbalanced to me, for example, on the beggining of the article it says:

"...The PRC government claims to have banned the group for what it considers to be illegal activities.[1] The Falun Gong claims that the ban was the result of personal jealousy of the group’s popularity on the part of Jiang Zemin, a former President of the People's Republic of China"

Well, i can say that evidently, the proFG side of this argument was not written by a practitioner. If you go to the link on the page, you will notice that the clearwisdom site explains it this way:

"It must first be understood that the Communist Party is officially atheist, so anything of a spiritual nature is discouraged and often outlawed because it is not in keeping with Communist ideology. For those of us in nations with democratically elected governments, freedom of belief is considered to be one of the most basic universal rights, but in China, such fundamental human rights are rarely protected."

further down it says:

"Jiang ordered the persecution out of personal jealousy, and a sense that he could not totally control the people's hearts and minds"

If you noticed the last quote, its very one sided, very pro-Falun Gong, but i think you cannot say he ordered the persecution just because of personal jealousy, there is another element on the quote which is "a sense that he could not totally control the people's hearts and minds" but then if you add this, it would sound too Pro-Falun Gong right? then why use this quote if it is going to be reported incompletely? its not objective and saying a political leader ordered a persecution because of his personal feelings is not an argument strong enough to stand against "alleged illegal activities". I recommend we use the first quote that Clearwisdom presents, its more neutral, balances the article and i believe it is the main reason for the ban.

It seems more balanced to me, what do you think?--Andres18 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support including all three parts of the reasoning since they are all included in the source. The personal allegation against Jiang is important. CovenantD 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

''"...The PRC government claims it banned the group for what it considers to be illegal activities, including "causing deaths by organizing and using cult organization" (Footnote). The Falun gong claims it was banned due to the perceived incompatability of the communist government's atheist nature with Falun Gong's belief system, as well as Jian Zemin's personal jealosy over the growing success of the movement." (Footnote) --Tomananda 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The PRC also accused the FG guilty of supressing the free speech of critics and threatened social stability.--Samuel Luo 07:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to point out that I have removed samuel Luo's personal website and xyz.org from the references section. Dilip rajeev 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel a summary for the criticism section is required. A major portion of the main page is covered by what has been labelled "criticism". Also would like to point out that the sources used need to be scrutinized as per policies laid out in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Further the same content appears in the main page as well as in the subpage titled "criticism and.." Dilip rajeev

Just a note to Andres18's comment, I would have thought that the CCP would discourage all things RELIGIOUS especially where they encourage one to submit to a non-government authority over themselves, e.g. in Falun Gong's case, it is LHZ; in Catholicism's case, it is the Pope. Since the CCP is atheist BECAUSE it does not submit to any 'higher' authority, it can label any action such as Falun Gong's as anti-government and thus seditious. After all, how many Falun Gong practitioners submit themselves to the CCP BEFORE Li Hongzhi? Thus there is the potential to be anti-CCP... and since Li Hongzhi has criticized the CCP over and over again, what can you expect the CCP to do? Tolerate anti-government incitement?

This is why I think the proposed intro does not accurately reflect CCP thinking, and most importantly, the REASON behind their actions. If one can only see it as personal jealousy they are either gullible or do not think through carefully why the CCP took its actions. (PS I disagree with Dilip rajeev - it is more important that the FLG page does not become some propaganda advertisement - there is a distinction between information and propaganda, albeit a very thin line) Jsw663 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, your logic is anachronistic. If you seek to justify the crackdown by claiming that Li Hongzhi was somehow inciting people against the government, just give me a quote where he would've criticized CCP or in any way commented the Chinese politics before the persecution started. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And once again, instead of denying the above, you simply dismiss it on a point of 'logic' - after all, in your view, how can the FLG NOT be the victims? If you read my comments even slightly carefully you will note that FLG commands its practitioners to submit themselves to Li Hongzhi personally much like a 'God', placing him above the CCP or any duty by the Chinese to their own state / government. There is nothing anachronistic about this nor is their any error in logic. It had the potential to become seditious, and once it came under the slightest threat it instantly revealed its true character - inherently anti-CCP. Unless, of course, you are saying that Li Hongzhi can justify FLG being both apolitical and political at different points in time - but that would be a contradiction in theory AND logic, would it not? Or are you going to desperately try and argue that being anti-CCP does not make Falun Gong political? Don't stretch the definition of 'logic' too far... Jsw663 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FLG does not command practitioners to "submit themselves to Li Hongzhi personally much like a 'God'". I've practiced for five years, and I've never submitted myself to anybody. Falun Gong teaches people to become law-abiding and moral citizens. But do you think the practitioners are going to just stand and watch while they're being persecuted? Do you advise us to give in? Or what would you suggest to make the persecution stop?

I've told you that seeking political power and exposing a criminal political actor are two different things. What are you expecting from the practitioners whose families have been broken and who've been tortured and sentenced to forced labour without committing a single crime? A Stockholm syndrome? Jsw663, I will not continue this discussion. I have personally met practitioners who've been tortured in China. Our ideas about how a government is allowed to behave are clearly far away from each other. I wonder if you're supporting the U.S. policies at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as well. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, two points: 1) The issue is that the FG seeks to destroy the CCP, not whether it's motives are "political," "spiritual," "recreational" or "delusional." The adjective doesn't matter, the action does. So Jsw663's point is that the CCP might reasonably want to defend itself against a powerful group which actively seeks to destroy it through a variety of means, some of which are illegal. and 2)If you really think you are not commanded by Li Hongzhi, prove it. Unless you are willing to publicly state that you disagree with something Li Hongzhi has said, then definitionally you have submitted to Li Hongzhi's authority because that is what HE demands.--Tomananda 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, we are discussing the reasons for the crackdown. You have not indicated any examples to show that Li Hongzhi or Falun Gong practitioners would've positioned themselves against the CCP before the persecution began. That's what I mean by anachronism. If you harbour some conspiracy theory, you'd better lay your sources on the table so that we can scrutinize them.

In response to your second comment: if I resolutely disagree about something, I ought to know the matter for sure. I don't have a direct access to metaphysical realms, so how could I know about such things? I have made a conscious decision to have a "gray area" in my epistemological field. And if I don't have a means to verify or falsify something at the moment, how could I have a decisive opinion about it? Therefore, my belief in Falun Gong has to be based on empirical facts, and thus the questions and answers I am willing to consider can be extended outside of these immediate experiences. I know Falun Gong is a great and effective practice system, as it has verifiably changed my appearance in ways that would be otherwise unattainable - that's apparent to practically everybody who knows me. (Let's not talk about internal changes, as they are harder to investigate.) Therefore, I choose Li Hongzhi as my master out of free will. Let's put it this way: if some things Li Hongzhi has said were not objectively true, I'd disagree about them. Of course - why wouldn't I? It's not that Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi has some sentimental value to me. I seek to investigate this ontological area that is not based on Western scientific models, but that's far from "submitting" myself under his "authority". I take him seriously, that's all. To put it in ordinary terms, I believe that he is a high-ranking professional of his field, and I have great confidence in his expertise. To me, from the point of view of certain premises and axioms, it's rational behaviour, not a matter of religious faith. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

High-ranking professional in his field? Really, Olaf, Li is more than that and you know it. If he were just a high-ranking professional, you could still disagree with him. Either you are being dishonest here, or you are avoiding the implications of what you are saying. What does it mean to you to choose Li Hongzhi as your master? Although you might not even recognize it in yourself, it clearly means (at least for now) that you have abandoned your critical judgment on all matters metaphsical in favor of Li's absolute authority. I guess that's an ok thing to do, but please try to recognize it in yourself.

As to the FG not "positioning itself against the CCP" before the ban...it most certainly did by organizing it's in-your-face demonstrations first against it's media critics and, finally, against the central government itself. It might not be a big deal for 10,000 Americans to demonstrate outside the Whitehouse, but in Chinese culture, Li's orchestrated protest against the seat of government in Beijing was most certainly an example of "positioning itself against the CCP." Li knew what he was doing at the time and some commentators considered it an educated gamble. Would the CCP bow to his un-precedented pressure and give him a place at the table of power, or would they turn on him to protect their own power and preserve public order? We all know what happened next. --Tomananda 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Li is a "high-ranking professional" in the field of internal cultivation practice. That field is full of "masters" and "supernatural phenomena" to begin with. I know it is not (yet) acknowledged by mainstream science, but I also know the structure of scientific revolutions, and I've decided to place my bet here. In the previous reply, I told you why I have no need to disagree with Li. The only things that have practical implications in my life are those concerning the cultivation of one's own character. I also know that the tangible effectiveness of his qigong movements is amplified by studying the Fa and assimilating to Zhen-Shan-Ren. Impressive changes have manifested in my body - they're not matters of intuition or belief. In addition, I have opposed totalitarian regimes ever since I was a teenager. After all that it has done to my fellow practitioners, the CCP is just another brick in the wall.

By the way, the April 25 manifestation was not against the central government. The practitioners had come to the nearby appeals' office. It is well known that the police chain instructed them to gather around the Zhongnanhai. If there was a problem in the first place, why would the authorities decisively ask them to move there? On April 27, the government announced that the manifestation had not broken any laws, and practicing Falun Gong would remain legal and sanctioned. How do you explain that? In the Western world, what followed would be usually termed "backstabbing". It's unbelievable that the president of San Francisco for Democracy can actually support a fascistic crackdown on people whose values he doesn't share, irrespective of the fact that these events take place in another country. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, your argument relies on an ad-hominen attack and side-steps the actual issue. I do not support fascism in any of it's forms; that includes the actions of totalitarian regimes in other countries, as well as the tendency towards fascism that I have seen developing in the US because of the influence of the (now-discredited) neo-conservatives. We were discussing whether the CCP had reason to ban the Falun Gong in the first place, and the answer, from their perspective, is a resounding yes. You use the term "fascistic" to describe the CCP...but what about the Falun Gong itself? Before the Beijing protest, there were multiple attempts to suppress the freedom of speech of media critics by staging huge sit-in type demonstrations in media offices, some of which actually resulted in the firing of staff who had done nothing wrong, other than to criticize Li's teachings.

You refuse to acknowledge the validity of any criticism of Li Hongzhi, his teachings, and the bullying tactics that the Falun Gong has engaged in throughout its entire history. As some commentators have wisely observed, the conflict between Li Hongzhi and the Chinese Communist Party is best understood as a conflict between two totalitarian regimes. While Li casts the conflict in absolutist moral terms, calling it "a showdown between good and evil in the universe," he fails to level with his Western supporters that his real objective is not just to stop the persecution of practitioners in China, but rather to cause the overthrow of the Chinese government. In my book, that makes Li Hongzhi a revolutionary of sorts and while I agree with his first objective, I strongly disagree with the manipulative and deceptive techniques he uses to reach his goal. As my mother taught me when I was a child, two wrongs do not make a right. --Tomananda 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomananda for your comments above and below this one here - it seems as if you have grasped my point quite well and cleverly added a few of your own. I just wanted to add one more which addresses Olaf's comments directly - let me quote him directly in two instances which I think he is contradicting himself - 1) "FLG does not command practitioners to "submit themselves to Li Hongzhi personally much like a 'God'" and 2) "I choose Li Hongzhi as my master out of free will." Therein he is acknowledging that he has submitted to Li Hongzhi as his master - submitted himself (almost) totally to one person's utterings. If Olaf tried to contest the point about free will, well actually a) nobody is forced to join the CCP, and b) nobody can choose their country of citizenship, their nationality or their ethnicity. And yes, I agree with Tomananda that FG cannot possibly be in a position to take any moral high ground when it compares itself to the CCP - not only that, but at least in the CCP it is people submitting themselves to a dictatorial party, or a group of leaders, whereas in Falun Gong, its practitioners are submitting itself to one person - in effect, how is FG better than an absolutist dictatorship? Jsw663 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points! By saying he doesn't need to disagree with Li, Olaf is effectively saying he doesn't need to doubt anything Li says. Although Falun Gong practitioners disagree, that is precisely the nature of cultish control. A cult member is manipulated into a position where she "voluntarily" abandons her critical thinking in deference to an all-powerful and all-knowing cult leader. Li has actually told his practitioners that they shouldn't think for themselves. --Tomananda 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairly speaking, what mr Luo proposes:

"...The PRC government claims it banned the group for what it considers to be illegal activities, including "causing deaths by organizing and using cult organization" (Footnote). The Falun gong claims it was banned due to the perceived incompatability of the communist government's atheist nature with Falun Gong's belief system, as well as Jian Zemin's personal jealosy over the growing sccess of the movement."

Isnt neutral at all to me. Ill explain why, you added "including "causing deaths by organizing and using cult organization" " and not only that, but you changed Falun Gong's allegation to your liking and said "percieved incompatibility". So literally you are saying that the CCP banned Falun Gong because they consider they have done illegal activities including causing deaths by organizing and using cult organization. But that Falun Gong says they were banned because they think the CCP's atheist nature is not commpatible with Falun Gong beliefs.

It really isnt balanced to me. Regardless of what the critics think, Falun Gong's point of view should be taken seriously, not conveniently modified to make the paragraph look the same or worse than before. I agree with CovenantD but id like to see a proposed paragraph including that.--Andres18 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Andres: We cross-posted here, so I didn't know about your above statement when I wrote my message below. It's important for you to know that I added the word "perceived" because it made sense to me, but having said that, I have no objection to it's being deleted. In fact I agree with you that the pro-FG side's understanding as to why it was banned should be taken seriously. It's not up to me to determine the best wording for that, since I don't even understand what your position is, exactly. So why don't you just go ahead and re-write the sentence that begins: "But the Falun Gong says they were banned because...." Really, I want it to represent accurately what you believe. --Tomananda 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jsw663 for such a succint and logical statement. You clearly get it and if you were to do editing in the article itself, the article would benefit greatly. The problem is that Falun Gong practitioners are not permitted to disagree with their master, because if they did he would withdraw his protection and they would lose their chance for salvation. The Master rules by intimidation and fear, yet he himself is removed from all public accountability. Just think about it! Li Hongzhi is a middle-aged man living somewhere in New York who claims that his "great law" created the cosmos and that the cosmos is undergoing a "Fa-recification" which he personally directs. At the same time, Li demands that his followers devote most of their time and energy to the destruction of the CCP. If what Li says about himself is true, he should be interviewed on CNN every day. Even the President of the United States is accountable to the people, yet this Li Hongzhi guy, who is provoking insurrections in mainland China in the name of salvation, is allowed to avoid all public scrutiny. Wouldn't you think someone in the mainstream media would take notice?

Yet there remain two different sides to this story, and both sides need to be represented in this Wikipedia article. So in the spirit of moving this discussion forward, I propose the following expanded language for our target paragraph:

"The PRC government claims it banned the group for what it considers to be illegal activities (causing deaths by organizing and using cult organization), suppressing the free speech of critics and threatening social stability. (Footnote). The Falun gong claims it was banned due to the perceived incompatibility of the communist government's atheist nature with their belief system, as well as Jian Zemin's personal jealosy over the growing success of the movement." (footnote)--Tomananda 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tomananda, thanks for your reply. (I've written one above already but the one to this point needs to be posted 'separately' within the same heading). I think the words 'free speech of critics' doesn't accurately reflect the CCP position - editing the first phrase to "The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their cult as responsible for causing deaths, morally corrupting its practitioners and threatening the overall social stability of the country" would be more accurate. As for the FG's position, just a few typos/spelling errors - it's Jiang (with the 'g' at the end) Zemin... and jealousy I think has a 'u' even in US spelling. Jsw663 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes. Your version is much smoother than mine, and if it more accurately reflects the position of the PRC, that's a good thing. Can you provide a footnote for that first sentence? Also, there was objection to the use of the word "perceived" in the second sentence, so I am proposing a rewrite of the second sentence. However, as I said before, a FG editor should provide the language for this second sentence, not critics of the FG. All that matters is that we report the two positions accurately and provide sources for what we say. That's it. So here's the latest version:

"The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their cult as responsible for causing deaths, morally corrupting its practitioners and threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to the communist government's atheist nature which cannot tolerate the group’s belief system, as well as Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement." (footnote) --Tomananda 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i havent been around. To tell you the truth, id say this one seems more fair to me since both point of views are expressed as claims and not a truth from Wikipedia so i think this version is more accurate. Id like to ask though, do you think it is possible to add to the FG part of the paragraph one more detail which is also mentioned on the clearwisdom site?. It would end up something like this:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their cult as responsible for causing deaths, morally corrupting its practitioners and threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to the communist government's atheist nature which cannot tolerate the group’s belief system, as well as Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and a sense that he could not control people's hearts and minds."

Doing it this way we are incuding everything that the clearwisdom site proposes on the cited website. Please tell me what you think.--Andres18 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise some people, but as long as the PRC government's claims + the FG claims are of roughly equal length similar to Andres18's proposal, I think it would be encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia and a satisfactory compromise, although the FG position could be summed up more succinctly I think. Regarding the citation, I'll try to find an English source for English wikipedia, which of course is not easy... Jsw663 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I need to add an adjective to the PRC position, plus make some grammatical changes... plus making the FG position slightly more succinct - which would make the proposed Wikipedia intro now:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their evil cult as responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, which threatens the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to the communist government's intolerance for alternative beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement (footnote).

Naturally FG practitioners may disagree with my version of their beliefs if they so wish. Jsw663 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Im a pro-FGeditor and i think its pretty good! But i noticed now, "alternative" doesnt seem completely appropriate to me i dont know. Why not change alternative for "other" ?

Like this:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their evil cult as responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, which threatens the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to the communist government's intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement (footnote).

I think its much better this way. What do you guys think? --Andres18 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Andres: Sounds ok to me, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't slighly change both sentences as follows:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to what it believes to be the communist government's intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement (footnote).

So with these minor changes, we can avoid the trap of appearing to report these two POV's as those of Wikipedia itself. What do you think? --Tomananda 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like a very good writing to me Tomananda, this way, wikipedia reports it from an "outsider's" point of view, which is the goal we want to reach. Now ive been thinking though in changing just a very small detail which is this: When you read the paragraph, on the Falun Gong part of the writing it says "for what it believes" and in the CCP part it says "considers", my question is, isnt "believes" a little bit weaker than "considers"? i mean, is believing something like not being completely sure? i know its a small detail and all but you'll have to excuse me since english isnt my first language so i know i may be wrong on this. Id like your advice to know if its necessary to make this change or not. Other than that, i think its perfect for posting, i hope anyone else agrees--Andres18 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to introduce some variation so that the paragraph wouldn't seem too repetitive. However, if you think that "other" and "alternative" are that different, or that "considers" and "believes" is that different, then change it. I wish more people other than you (Andres18) and Tomananda would contribute to this section. Jsw663 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that you mention it, i think the "alternative" is an important word to change, because, at least i got a bit confused when i read the paragraph with that word. About the "believes" well, i cant really find an appropriate word to change for anyways. But ill try to contact some FGeditors so we can have more input on this subsection. If Mr. Luo and the other non-FGeditors could also give their opinion it would be great. So far we have:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to what it believes to be the communist government's intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement (footnote)

So anyone else who hasnt given his opinion, please tell us what you think.--Andres18 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jss663 for pointing out this section. I did not know about it, and it looks indeed a very civilized way to discuss it :). I would like to propose this version:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and it was banned due to what it believes to be the communist government's atheist nature and intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and a sense that he could not control people's hearts and minds. (footnote)

In bold is only to highlight the part that I would like to be changed, I don't want any bold part in the article. --HappyInGeneral 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

HiG, I am glad to have pointed out this section to you. Wikipedia is about discussion, is it not? As for your proposed edits, I would just like to remind you that it is extremely tempting for both sides to extend their opinions to great length. I have also proposed before that we ought to keep both sides' opinions to roughly equal length, and very succinct. The reason for this is, of course, that each side can air their opinions in detail later on. So whilst I won't outrightly say your proposed edit is objectionable, I shall ask if you could summarize the FG opinion a bit more? Currently the length shows a bias towards the FG opinion. Jsw663 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these are lies and the persecution is due to the CCP's atheism, intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and a sense that he could not control people's thoughts or the Chinese identity.(footnote)

This is now as long for both, almost. There is a couple more words on the Falun Gong side. Any problems? New suggestions?--Asdfg12345 11:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The ban of Falun Gong

International laws such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,” call for the protection of religious freedom. However, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations on religious expression. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Article 300 of the Chinese criminal code stipulates “Whoever organizes and utilizes superstitious sects, secret societies, and cults or cheats others by utilizing superstition, thereby giving rise to the death of people,… illicit sexual relations with women, defraud money and property is to be convicted and punished.” The government banned the Falun Gong because it led to the death of 1,404 people and it suppressed the free speech of the critics. The ban is intended to protect public health and order and it is in accord with international laws. For more details please read this article [6].

What makes me most angry at the Falun Gong leadership is that these crooks, Li and his close associates, are exploiting the lives of innocent people. The Falun Gong claims to be trying to save practitioners in China, but the truth is they are only exploiting these people. Li hides in safety while pushing his followers to protest the government in China so the group can use their arrests and abuses (that might or might not have happened otherwise) to gain support in the west. Because the Falun Gong is so well funded, I am convinced that the Falun Gong leadership is being paid by someone. Wake up practitioners: Li and his Falun Gong are not worthy of your sacrifices. --Samuel Luo 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unforutnatley, FLG doesn't seems a religion to me but rather a political activist group hidden under a religion banner. Religion suppose preaching peace and forgiveness and love. Not provoke hatred and bitterness. I am totally agree with ya.

Come on Mr Luo, we all know this post isnt gonna lead anywhere. That is your position, i have my opinion on this matter too, if i were to post it here then you would post back your opinion regarding mine, and then id end up answering back or someone ese would join the conversation and so on, and in the end, we would all end up in a discussion not related to the article. If we shorten the times that we write discussion subsections non related to the article on the talkpage maybe it would even look much more organized and most people would just join the appropriate discussions. Perhaps that could speed up the process and we would end up this job sooner than expected, dont you think so?--Andres18 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Mediator

By now, all of us should have seen this posting from one of the Wikipedia mediators, Armedblowfish. I personally don't care whether we have "private" mediation or "public" mediation. In any case, I feel strongly that this mediation is the only way we will get out of this editing quagmire. Here's a copy of his posting, in case anyone missed it:

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. I don't know if it's a stale issue, so it would be good if a few of you let me know whether or not mediation is still needed. Since there are so many of you, I'm going to assume that all of you agree to me mediating until and unless I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless someone asks for private mediation, or I come to think private mediation might be better. I would, however, appreciate it if you just said something there to let me know if you are still around. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should vote on the issue of "public" versus "private" mediation. Although I am open to either, since he seems to prefer public mediation, that's how I will vote.

--Yes..and make it public --Tomananda 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between the two? Anyway either one is fine with me. --Samuel Luo 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: It appears that the mediator wants us to respond to this question on his talk page, so if you haven't responded yet, just click on (talk) There is also a mediation page which many of us posted to at: [7] but we won't use that page to respond to this question. --Tomananda 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a few Falun Gong members in the welfare office. I recognize them because seen them on street with the banner at Spadina/Dundas. Could anyone please tell me why they're not going out to get a real job before spend their time on those religion thing? I've someone translate what they are saying and written in article into French, all about political bashing instead of preaching what they believe and left politic behind.

Those annoying pictures led me thinking if Falun Gong succeeded turn China around, would China roll back to pre-WWll middle Iraqi-like war zone? Every body want a piece of pie and everyone want to be a corrupted King? We are talking about 100+ millions of would be terrorists and extremists from the Muslims majority west, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia North, Indochina South, Tibet and Highlander SE... Somalia alike scenario... except much worst. That's I call it a humanity crisis by the millions per day.

Remember Jim Jones of People temple? Koseph Di Mambro of Solar Temple? David Koresh of Branch Davidians, Asahara Shoko of Aum Shinrikyo, Osama Bin Laden of Al Qaeda...etc? All are misleading cults under the shadow of religion to manipulate those weaks and psychological dependency individual for their own benefit or power of supremacy.

I think Canada should ban them except purely religion practice.

You don't know anything about Falun Gong. I suggest you do a little more research before making such serious claims. Also, you seem to be suggesting that people on welfare should spend their every waking hour looking for jobs and should have no personal time to do what's meaningful for them. Mcconn 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf's answer to Tomananda and Jsw663

First of all, I find your ad hominem rather disgraceful. Do you think that labeling someone a "cult member who has abandoned all critical thinking" is a proper way to address another editor in Wikipedia? I am patiently trying to address our real concerns, but the more felicitous my remarks become, the more you sink into the level of overt derision and fail to comment what I've actually said.

Jsw663 claims that I have "submitted [myself] (almost) totally to one person's utterings". All this time I've said that I have rational reasons to believe that Li Hongzhi is not just telling tall tales. I like to believe that I'm quite well-educated, and you can be assured that I am familiar with a lot of "utterings" made by different people. I do understand your logic, though. In your view, there is no "Falun Gong" in the sense that practitioners talk about it. To you, it has nothing to do with "cultivation of mind and body", "other dimensions" or any "universal standards". In other words, you think that none of this substance exists in Falun Gong, and that's why the rationale for its cohesion must be sought elsewhere. I understand that the logical reasoning based on these premises leads into an altogether different understanding. Because you rather believe in the existence of a conspiracy, you talk about "The Falun Gong", "FLG leadership" and even "a conflict between two totalitarian regimes", which is... eh... have you ever heard of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Right.

There are people who claim that the 9/11 was organized by the Jews, or that man never really walked on the Moon. You can harbour any theories you want. You can claim that the only reason why anyone ever started to take Falun Gong seriously is that there's major deception involved, and that Falun Gong is just another Taiping rebellion organized by "seditious leaders" in disguise. You can concoct your own revisionist tales of what really took place in the 1990s, and you can always sweep the core points under the carpet. You shouldn't expect to change anything.

You cannot get over the fact that Falun Gong is one of the most popular forms of qigong in the Chinese history, and masses of people actually abandoned their former practices for it. You have to admit that qigong has been researched for decades, and its supernormal aspects are not just some marginal phenomena but the very center of the scientific debate. What kind of a paradigm shift will you suggest to account for them? What about the awards Falun Gong received at the Beijing health fairs? The prize for "scientific advancement" in 1993? The Qigong Institute's unrealized aims to make big money with Falun Gong? Your current theories can only explain them away as a big and silly spoof, but guess what: the Moon walk was not made in a Hollywood basement. Or if it was, you'd better provide some really good sources. Everything I've stated in this paragraph can be backed up.

There are millions of people who know that there's no replacement for Falun Gong. For us, it is not simply a matter of wild imagination - the transformation of mind and body induced by Falun Gong practice is concrete and real, and it certainly surpasses the capabilities of modern science and technology. Samuel Luo might say that "Li and his Falun Gong are not worthy of your sacrifices", but we already know that your theories and paradigms can never fathom what this phenomenon is about. That's why even violent brainwashing doesn't work too well on practitioners: they'd have to deny impressive, real and tangible experiences instead of letting go of some utopian ideals.

Falun Gong does not need any coercive leadership or structured discipline to maintain the devotion of its adherents. All that we're doing is done by highly motivated individuals. The so-called "organisation" is not some hierarchical structure you're suggesting. Like I've told you before, there are independent networks of people working with different projects. Oh, and there's no pecking order - nobody receives "commands" from above. I know this for sure, and thus I can immediately tell you're wrong. No matter how you try, I won't buy into that stuff. You think that the results we've attained would require a well-funded background organization, but you don't realize that there's a great number of highly educated professionals among the practitioners, and everybody's working without a salary. This way we're able to do a lot of things with relatively small expenses. Paying them with our day jobs is no problem. You are underestimating the power of conviction.

All that the Chinese practitioners ever wanted to do was to practice peacefully in a non-violent environment. These conditions were stripped away from them. I already told you that the police instructed them to gather around the Zhongnanhai. Bearing this in mind, why do you still claim that it was a demonstration against the central government? Why do you think we have no right to contextualize our persecution by spreading the Nine Commentaries? Do you really think that the practitioners would want to seize political power after the CCP falls? We are only trying to raise our suppressed voice: stop the madness. The Chinese practitioners are fully entitled to live as respected and free citizens of China. Whether someone believes in traditional virtues or some postmodern ideals of moral emancipation - that's not up to any political party to decide. We did not want this insane conflict, but we will never give in by state terrorism, and neither will we respond with violence even in the face of death. ---Olaf Stephanos 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos “All that the Chinese practitioners ever wanted to do was to practice peacefully in a non-violent environment?” There is nothing further from the truth than this statement. Falun Gong practitioners in China aggressively suppressed the free speech of journalists and critics before the government was alerted. Hundreds--and in some cases, thousands--of practitioners literally encircled media organizations demanding apology and retraction of their reports. This is what Asiaweek reports: “What Falungong does do is besiege opponents, literally. Li Hongzhi's demand that followers "promote the law" and "protect the law" seems to foster intolerance of criticism. Believers encircled media organizations in China 77 times over the past few years (and once in Hong Kong) over what they said was unfair coverage.” [8]

Many of the harassed media organizations gave in to the pressure of the group. On May 27, 1998—twelve days after the China Central TV, the largest network in China, had aired a positive coverage of the group—the local Beijing TV station broadcast a critical report of the group. More than a thousand practitioners besieged the station for days until “the TV station's chief fired the 24-year-old reporter involved and broadcast a favorable report about the group a few days later.” [9]Although these protests were not violent, they nevertheless were harassments and intimidations which violated Chinese laws and international human rights standards.

You said “The police instructed them (Falun Gong practitioners) to gather around the Zhongnanhai, Beijing?” Wow, so the Chinese government organized this protest against itself! You guys are so far up in your Falun Gong xxxx that you think you can bend the facts in whatever direction that serves your cultivation.--Samuel Luo 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, I'm sorry that you think I was attacking you. Here's what I said:

By saying he doesn't need to disagree with Li, Olaf is effectively saying he doesn't need to doubt anything Li says. Although Falun Gong practitioners disagree, that is precisely the nature of cultish control. A cult member is manipulated into a position where she "voluntarily" abandons her critical thinking in deference to an all-powerful and all-knowing cult leader. Li has actually told his practitioners that they shouldn't think for themselves.

After quoting and then paraprhasing your own statement about not needing to disagree with Li, I followed up with a more general point: that one of the characteristics of cultish control is that cult members lose the ability to doubt (or question) what their cult leader says. Let's be real: isn't that exactly what you have said about your relationship to Li? Or have I totally misunderstood your statement?

You can easily clear up the miscommunication by stating that there are things Li has said that you disagree with, or at least doubt. That's all you have to say to make me feel that you are capable of thinking independently of Li Hongzhi when it comes to his teachings. Just one example would make me happy. You could tell me that you really don't believe Li is personally preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it or that without him the universe wouldn't exist. You could confess that you don't agree with Li about the inhumanity of homosexuals, or that maybe he was just a bit off about the aliens who have invaded our planet and taken over our computers. Or that maybe he was just a tad mistaken when he defended his belief in levitation by pointing to the stage feats of David Coperfield. Gee, Olaf, is there absolutely nothing Li has said that you doubt? If there isn't, I have to again come to the conclusion that I stated above. Sorry. --Tomananda 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Olaf, glad to see that once again you view your replies as deserving of a new sub-section. First, to equate Falun Gong critics with Moon-walking and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists is far-fetched to the extreme when not too long ago Asdfg12345 insisted that skeptics and critics not talk about anything but Falun Gong content to demonstrate our 'understanding' of the workings of Falun Gong?

Secondly, the one person's utterings comment. Christians can admit that they submit to God's utterings through Jesus, or that St. Paul etc. were just writing down events in history that were witnessed by others. Yet, somehow, Falun Gong practitioners cannot admit they are submitting only to Li Hongzhi's utterings (after all, is anyone else BUT Li Hongzhi allowed to preach the Falun Gong principles?) Like Tomananda said, unless you can question at least one principle of Li's, the complete lack of critical capacity demonstrates that the brainwashing is not on our part but rather on yours. There are many Christians out there who do not completely believe in every principle, and indeed there are some conflicting interpretations (eg Protestant v Catholic). Yet with Falun Gong there is only one authoritative version - Li Hongzhi's - and no criticism is tolerated (as demonstrated by this board, to say the least).

Thirdly, the educated and professional people couldn't possibly choose the wrong path comment. Have you not learnt anything from Aum Sinrikyo? There were professors and civil servants and very successful businessmen who still support his cult, yet they viewed themselves justified to unleash biological weapons in the Tokyo subway. How about Falun Gong? I know FG practitioners refuse to believe anything the CCP says because it must be 'propaganda' and 'untruth', but everything Li Hongzhi says must be 100% true, even when he contradicts himself? Get real. To have such a distorted picture of reality and still insist they are not brainwashed only goes to show how far they have been brainwashed. Can you deny that FG intercepted satellite TV to broadcast FG propaganda in China? The self-immolation incident's critiques are not exactly rock-solid either; see previous discussion for counter-criticism. There are plenty of other examples.

Fourthly, "commands" from above. Well, all FG practitioners adhere to Li Hongzhi's principles and no-one else's, right? Is that not in effect "commands" from above, similar to Christians believing in the Ten Commandments?

Fifthly, one area FG practitioners and FG skeptics and critics will never agree on is whether FG is a peaceful movement, or one willing to resort to any action, violent, criminal or not, to achieve their aims. Why is this? It is to do with the fact the FG practitioners dismiss any inconvenient news as propaganda and hate speech, whereas anything that supports FG must be completely true. I am only viewing both sides' cases without dismissing anything as ridiculous. The FG sources try to dismiss any CCP view as lies because they were able to raise a few question marks about their sources and/or broadcasts. I said it was as ridiculous as them doubting whether the US had the Earth's first man walking on the moon. Yet when FG skeptics and critics raise a few questions about FG's practices you try to throw the same argument back in our face, when really, we were only trying to encourage all parties to consider all evidence instead of so readily dismissing one side AND so readily believing the other. Double standards?

Sixthly, the widely practiced point. If you know some history about Confucius, in his career he put to death a popular 'teacher' whilst he was a police officer, although he himself only had a handful of students for his own teachings. Why did he do that? Do you think it was purely out of personal jealousy? Similarly, do you think Jiang Zemin would outlaw FG purely out of personal jealousy?

Seventhly, consider Samuel Luo's evidence presented above which demonstrates that Falun Gong has used the very same tactics of which it is accusing the CCP of using. If any FG practitioner can provide counter-evidence, I'd like to hear/read it. But even if there is, can you simply dismiss Samuel's evidence? On what grounds?

Eighthly, the transformation / qigong is 'real' for its practitioners. I'm not doubting there's a peaceful side to every set of beliefs; Christianity, Islam, and most major religions preach peace, and that murder is a sin, etc. This shows that I am not dismissing FG on a lack of substance, but questioning the quality of the substance. Yet when you look at history such as the Crusades, it makes you wonder just how peaceful its practitioners really are. Are they really adhering to one person's "theory" or were they encouraged to resort to any means necessary to protect those principles - in effect condoning violent means? And if peaceful aims are to be enforced by violent means, how is that different from simply endorsing violent aims?

Last but not least I must admire your use of the phrase "highly motivated individuals" when describing FG. I just wonder what they were "highly motivated" by... Jsw663 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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