Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 6

message: Fire Star has suggested I post the following bullet items from the Beliefs section for discussion. Please read post # 23 in Archive 5 "Response to Request for Comments"  for more detailed sources and comments concerning the formulation of my expository statements.  Also note subsequent discussion and the comments made by Olaf concerning who can be saved in the Fa-rectification (an apparent change in emphasis by Master Li due to the persecution in China)
--Tomananda 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this has all been posted here before, but lets start over from the beginning with a fresh page. What I'd like to do is solicit comments (relatively brief if possible) on each of these points. We will take them individually. In this one Li does seem to be exercising the role of a religious saviour. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, made similar promises. Do any FLG students have another take? --Fire Star 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posts from Main Page for Discussion, or, Let's Start Over 

message: Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.  In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:
"I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."
:::I know this has all been posted here before, but lets start over from the beginning with a fresh page. What I'd like to do is solicit comments (relatively brief if possible) on each of these points. We will take them individually. In this one Li does seem to be exercising the role of a religious saviour. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, made similar promises. Do any FLG students have another take? --Fire Star 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1. Li Hongzhi's Role as Savior in This Dharma-ending Period 

message: What I dont agree with is the commentary given - which, with the intention of portraying Falun Dafa as an "authoritarian cult", ( Tomananda himself admitted that is what he wants to do) completely distorts the content. The text has no basis on facts!!
1."Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period."
From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1, Section 7:
"Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School."
2.If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.
Doing exercises alone is not enough because this is cultivation practice not aerobics. And these quotes very clearly demonstrate that belief in Falun Dafa doesnot automatically lead to "salvation" as Tomananda claims. The term "candidate for salvation" deviates far from the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. The emphasis is always on cultivation of heart-nature(xinxing). See the quotes below:
From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe (1998)
"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either"
From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 1:
"Can you be considered a Falun Dafa disciple if you just practice these few sets of exercises everyday? Not necessarily. This is because true cultivation practice must follow the requirements of the xinxing standard that we have established, and you have to truly upgrade your xinxing—then, it is true cultivation practice. If you only practice the exercises without improving xinxing and without the powerful energy that strengthens everything, it cannot be called cultivation practice; neither can we treat you as Falun Dafa disciples."
From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 3:
"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."
This clearly distinguishes Falun Dafa from "religious belief":
From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 4, Section 4:
"Genuine cultivation practice depends entirely upon a
person him or herself, so it is useless to pray for something."
I find no realtion between Falun Dafa and Mormonism or Scientology!!! Falun Dafa is cultivation practice which is faaar from what they are. "50 cents" and Beethoven are musicians but there is a difference- but in this case I dont see even that much similarity!
Dilip rajeev 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilip Replies 

message: Note: This section was written in response to Olaf's commentary above.  There has definitely been a shift in emphasis in Falun Gong teachings concerning Fa-rectification over the years. Whereas the previous focus had been on the development of moral quality (xinxing) for a practitioner to reach individual consumation, the newer emphasis is on the requirment that Falun Gong practitioners work to save all sentient beings during the Fa-rectification, as well as "safeguard and uphold" the Dafa.
In Li Hongzhi's most recent speeches, a practitioner's requirment to "safeguard and uphold the Dafa" seems to mean that the practitioner must work to expose the "evil,wicked CCP" and educate the public about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.  This does not mean that Li Hongzhi has abandoned the moral teachings, but rather that he now emphasizes that all people can be saved providing they "do not play a negative role with regard to Dafa."   He can make exceptions and save even the "evil ones" by giving them them "benevolent solutions." 
Here's the proposed text:
 
It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation.  However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved.   In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process, providing they do not have "a bad attitude" towards the Dafa. In 2005
 Li Hongzhi stated:
  
“In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.”
--Tomananda 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5. Saving All Beings, the Good and the Bad 

message: Note this:
 
Tomananda Claims: "It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation.  However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved."
From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe  (1998)
"No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart."
From Zhuan Falun,Lecture 4 Section 2 (Published in 1993):
"Someone asked, “Is it that if one has too much black substance one is unable to practice to
high levels?” One could say so, as with a lot of black substance, one’s enlightenment quality will be affected. Because it forms a field around one’s body and wraps a person up right in the
middle, one is cut off from Zhen-Shan-Ren, the characteristic of the universe. Thus, this person’s enlightenment quality may be poor. When people talk about cultivation practice and qigong, this person will consider all of them superstitious, and he will not believe them at all. He will find them ridiculous. It is usually this way, but not absolutely so. Is it that it’s too difficult for this person to practice cultivation, and that he is unable to achieve high-level gong? It is not so. We have said that Dafa is boundless, and it is completely up to your heart to practice cultivation. The master takes you through the entrance, and it is up to you, yourself to practice cultivation. It all depends upon how you, yourself practice cultivation. Whether you can practice cultivation all depends upon whether you can endure, sacrifice, and suffer. If you can commit your mind, no difficulties can stop you. I would say that there is not a problem."
I will be pointing out fallacies in all the claims made by Tomananda. Till then the editors are requested to make sure that such grossly twisted material doesnt go into the article.
Dilip rajeev 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip, you have good points, and I wish you would edit and provide background for Tomananda's additions instead of entirely removing them. We must settle this in a spirit of mutual cooperation. In addition, as a practitioner, one should exercise forbearance, don't you agree? If practitioners are right, everybody will probably understand it sooner or later, and if we're wrong, then we'll just move on, right? We don't have to impose on people what we think is true. It's not that differing opinions (be it "ours" or "theirs", even though I don't like such antagonistic separation) have anything to do with the authentic truth or falsehood of Dafa. Let's all take a step back and calm down! I assure you that we can work this out together. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilip Replies 

message: I notice that we are once again on the verge of an unnecesary and counter-productive revert war brought to us by practioner Dilip. There has been a great effort to reach compromise,  and much discussion about content and alternative points of view, leading to the creation of a new section called "Beliefs and Controversial Teachings."   In an edit done on 16:01, 24 March, Dilip deleted significant content, representing that change as merely  "re-arranging content".  I take this as an intentional effort to deceive other editors.   
I hope we can all agree to work cooperatively in building this article.  Part of that coorperation should include providing an honest edit summary.
The recent addition of highly controversial content about the alleged organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China is a case in point.  I, personally, am suspicious about the validity of those reports.  But at the same time, I do not have any verifiable sources I can bring to bear to justify changes in the content, so I have taken a pass on the discussion.  What would the others editors think if I were to revert that content away without any justification or discussion?  This is not a threat...I wouldn't stoop that low...but it is a request for mutual courtesy among all the editors who are working on this piece.
It seems to me that there will have to be sections of this article which bother both "sides" of this debate.  The Wikipedia rules do not demand consensus for the inclusion of content, but they do demand verifciation of sources.  As I've said previously,  I understand why Falun Gong practitioners work hard to conceal some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial teachings from the public domain.  If one were to sit through an hour or two presentation about Falun Dafa, one probably would hear nothing about Fa-rectification, or Li Hongzhi's role as savior and protector in that process.  But this content must be included in any objective report on the Falun Gong, and I believe that represents the majority opinion of the editors.
 --Tomananda 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishonest Editing Techniques 

message: Tomananda's edition was crafted so that it seemed to imply that the city of San Francisco decided to include a statement against Falun Gong's beliefs in particular. He himself had omitted the phrase that was far more important for understanding what they meant. The resolution states: "the San Francisco Board of Supervisors explicitly states that the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco, and that this resolution in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong."
Also, "purporting to be a representation of the complete resolution" is another accusation that is not based on the original Clearwisdom source. The resolution contained a lot of things about the rape and torture of practitioners, and so on, but they are not found in the CW article. Apparently, the Clearwisdom editors decided to only include certain selections. It would be a different case for you if the whole resolution really was found on the Clearwisdom site, except for the omitted sentence in question.
Personally, I agree that they should have provided a link to the complete resolution, and it would've been even better if they really had included the complete text in the Minghui/CW article. I sent e-mail to feedback@clearwisdom.net and stated our opinions about the omissions. However, in my opinion, accusing Clearwisdom of a deliberate fraud in this article is definitely a POV. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The San Francisco Resolution 66-06 

message: I have not extrapolated in my edit on San Francisco's Resolution 66-06.  However,  you are correct in pointing out that I did not include all of my sources.  I have rectified that problem.
Here's the expanded edit, complete with sources from two respected news sources:
In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which was subsequently misrepresented on an official Falun Gong website. Given San Francisco’s long tradition of tolerance and the Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality, there was controversy about the exact wording of the resolution.  As reported in the Sing Tao Daily ( 2/1/2006), four of the supervisors, when asked about the resolution, stated “that they either don’t understand the Falun Gong belief system or do not support it; in addition, they feel uncomfortable about the Falun Gong’s homophobic positions.”   The Chinese supervisor who had co-sponsored the resolution and worked to amend it in committee,  was quoted in the Bay Area Reporter  :
I am concerned about these homophobic teachings. It is a good thing these were called out. I don't think people understand the Falun Gong. So to the extent it is educating the community, it is a good thing." 
Aware of these teachings, the sponsors of the resolution amended the original draft language to include a disclaimer.  As a result, the Board passed Resolution 66-06 , condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, while also stating that “the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco” and that the resolution “in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong.”  Shortly thereafter, the Clearwisdom website published an altered version of the resolution which omitted the disclaimer language.   Purporting to be a representation of the complete resolution, , the Clearwisdom version  creates the false impression that the City and County of San Francisco sanctions Li Hongzhi’s teachings, which it explicitly does not. 
Olaf and Dilip:  There's even more I could add about this issue, including other instances where the Falun Gong has intentionally deceived American politicians about their beliefs in order to get their support for either a resolution or an activity. For example, Supervisor Fiona Ma...who was praised in a full page ad run by the Epoch Times for her sponsorship of the Falun Gong resolution...withdrew her support for a 2005 Falun Gong art exhibit in San Francisco after she learned about the political nature of the exhibition.  As you may know,  Supervisor Ma is the "Chinese supervisor"  who is quoted in the edit.  I know Supervisor Ma personally, as well as many of the other San Francsico supervisors. I also attended the sub-committee meeting in which the original Chris Daly/Falun Gong version of Resolution 66-06 was presented for public comment.  The San Franciso Board of supervisors films all of it's meeting and they are accessible on the web as streaming video.  
Dilip: it surprises me that on this particular issue you would claim that I am not being factual.
I believe in reporting the truth and, as Olaf commented in his edit summary, some of the truth about the Falun Gong now posted in Wikipedia will be taken as "displeasing" by Falun Gong practitioners.  But that is no justification for deleting it.
--Tomananda 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Board of Supervisors was concerned about the homophobia of the Falun Gong, but passed an amended version of the resolution which added disclaimer language 

message: As I commented in the past, Falun Gong practitioners don’t believe qi can purify a person’s body. Instead, that's what gong does. People can purify their qi through practicing qigong and get better health by doing so, but that’s different. A person's body only begins to be purified after he goes beyond the level of qi. So I altered the definition a little.
Mcconn 13:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little note about “qi” 

message: Dilip: We've had this discussion before. Reporting Li Hongzhi's teachings does not mean I am reporting my own point of view.  What's more, his teachings on salvation and his exclusive role in offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification are pervasive.  He talks about this stuff in virtually every lecture now, and you know it.  But for some reason you are uncomfortable having it reported here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a word for that...It's called apologetics. 
Concerning the teachings on homosexuality:  they are important, too. Think about it! If US Representative Anna Eschoo had been told the truth about Falun Gong teachings when she was asked to sign that letter supporting Li Hongzhi for a Nobel Prize, she wouldn't have done it.  As 
reported in the San Jose Mercury News, Representative Eshoo "subsequently rescinded her nomination, writing to the Nobel Institute that while practitioners deserve freedom of speech, belief and assembly, Mr. Li has made statements that are offensive to me and are counter to many of my core beliefs.
Also, Dilip, I need to remind you that you were the first editor to introduce a detailed justification for Falung Gong's teachings on homosexuality in the discussion pages...not me.   You also have written to me personally suggesting that for my own good I should stop my sinful homosexual behavior because if I don't, I will suffer in the Fa-rectification (or words to that effect.)  
It is simply not true that all religions condemn homosexuality as a sin.  The Chinese major religious traditions do not do that.  It is Li Hongzhi who has cobbled together pieces of Buddhism, the Tao, Christianity, and belief in alien interference with the lives of human beings, to come up with one of the most starkly judgmental, anti-science and anti-humanity philosophies I have ever encountered.  And that's not all!  Li Hongzhi repeatedly warns his followers about the dire consequences of not obeying his Dafa.  You better watch out! he warns in a 2003 lecture:
When you're disrespectful of your Master, do you know what I think? I don't mind in the least. Right now, do you know who I am? You only know the human image I manifest. What manifests before you over on the other side are also images within the cosmos. In the future you won't know who I ultimately am. No being in the cosmos will know who I ultimately am. Whether you treat me well or not, I don't mind in the least, but the old forces will destroy you in the tribulation. Watch out!
To add insult to injury, he tells his followers not to reveal what those "higher teachings" are to ordinary people. So just think about it!  Aren't there two worlds views here?  One that the practitioners talk about among themselves, and the other a PR-driven distortion of the teachings made to appeal to a Western audience?  So as editors of Wikipedia, don't we all have to work to 
present all the major views about the Falun Gong, not just those which you are comfortable reporting?
--Tomananda 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Concealing What Falun Gong is All About 

message: I would like to know what other editors feel on these recently added Paragraphs. The content of which has been described as a POV by many other editors . Taking into consideration the viewpoint of the editors,  in my opinion,  we should remove the content from the article, discuss them them further in the talk section, proper changes be made, and if found necessary, add them back into the article. Please let me know your opinion regarding this too. The quotes chosen and commentary which distorts the context completely reflects, in my opinion, a strong POV on part of the editor.
The  recently added paras are:
"Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period; In Zhuan Falun [5] he states “If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it.” If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong 
.
.
.
you from the most microcosmic point to the surface of your being, and this even includes any thoughts a being may have. I rectify from the bottom up, all the way through. That would have been the best kind of benevolent solution, and not a single being would have fallen, not a single being would have sinned against Dafa and this Fa-rectification. Wouldn’t that have been wonderful? But no, they insisted on doing this, and it’s brought on this disaster in human society."
Dilip rajeev 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of Editors 

message: This page is very long. I just want some basic information about teachings, practice, history, and politics. This page is long and rambly enough that I cannot get to the basic info without much effort.
Any suggestions as to what could be broken out? I think that, for instance, the issue homosexuality could get a nice page of its own, like, say, Homosexuality and Judaism, with the little frame on the right linking to other pages in the "Homosexuality and Foo" series. The main article could then have a summary of a few sentences, and a reference, sort of like these:
194.109.198.99 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever did this reorganization did a great job! Was it Olaf or Fire Star?  In any case, I think this new organization will make editing a whole lot easier and, hopefully, will avoid uneccessary disputes about the inclusion of content.  Not all topics will be of interest to all people, but that's not a justification for omitting important information. I also agree that at some point we should consider splitting major sections off the main page (leaving a brief topic summary on the main page). However, I recommnend that we hold off a bit before doing that in order to get used to the new categories this anyonymous editor has created.  Thanks!
--Tomananda 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't me, but I agree it's a fine idea. A fresh perspective can be a big help with an article this complicated. --Fire Star 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarize and split 

message: Translation version B of “The world’s ten evils” posted by Tomananda is far more literal and accurate than version A posted by Olaf. One obvious mistranslation of version A is that the second half of four stanzas start with the word “people” which is not found in Li’s writing. The following list of characters from version B also shows its accuracy: dark heart, following, leading, mutant mankind, Fond of audaciousness, competing at ruthlessness. Looks like the argument is centered around the translation of “心.” The literal and accurate translation of “心暗” is “dark heart” in version B. “心” first means the heart, the organ in the body, and often used in making moral judgments. “心” should only be translated into "mind" when it is used to discuss mental power. There is a good reason for creating translation version B.
--Samuel Luo 20:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Tomanda's comment about each stanza being a category; The poem is provided below in it's entirety, so the reader can then understand the reference according to their own understanding. Writing "In one poem Li lists 'homosexuality, licentious desires' as one category of The World’s Ten Evils", seems to stear the reader's interpretation too much and takes away from the fact that it's a poem. It's enough to call it a stanza, which I think is undebatable. In my opinion, the same goes for saying "lists" verses "includes".Mcconn 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Li's words 

message: I removed your text, Tomananda. The points are:
1. From now on, everybody must start citing their sources better and check that they comply to Wikipedia policies. You can only quote newspapers, scientific studies, journals and reputed article sources.
2. There is no original research in Wikipedia. We do not accept stuff from personal websites, nor do we quote people who are nobodies. From what I can see, the general mentality among the editors of this article is currently that of proving one's point. Some editions have been full of personal extrapolation.
3. I think that the balance between different sections has suffered from attempts to turn this article into an "exposé" in and of itself. In addition, we don't generally use words like "reveal" or "expose" in non-partisan prose. 
4. Wikipedia is not a place to prove anything. It has become quite time-consuming to monitor this article now that a lot of the introduced editions are heavily disputed because of apparent defects. The same policies should apply to each and every article here, controversial or not.
5. I suggest that we all (I don't mean only you and Samuel Luo) take some time to go read all the rules of the game once again. , 
Best regards, ---Olaf Stephanos 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course there is no original research in Wikipedia.  But if you check out the history of this edit, you'll see that I was responding to the "original research" Mcconn had edited into the section on Falun Gong and sexual orientation.  It seems that Mcconn was not happy with the starkness of the reporting on Li's teachings on homosexuality and felt the section needed to balanced out with his own opinion of what Falun Gong practitoners think about this subject.  I objected to that approach because his own opinion amounted to apologetics (re-state the Master's teachings, leaving out the scary parts so as not to frighten the non-practitioners).  As it turns out,  I am happy with the final compromise language that you have not deleted in the last paragraph.  It includes one of Mcconn's original sentences, as well as addtional context from me, plus a link to a site which covers this topic in greater depth.  So if we can leave it at that, I am ok with it.
--Tomananda 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some grumble to everybody 

message: Mcconn:  I appreciate you honesty in the post above and would like to point out some implications.   You say "I don't think it's right to include the view that some practitioners disagree with Mr. Li on this issue."  In effect, you are saying that even if a practitioner privately disagrees with an aspect of Li's teachings, we shouldn't report that disagreement because "that would be at odds with being a disciple."  There are two implications in this:
1.  It is impossible to accurately report the opinions of Falun Gong practitioners in Wikipedia
because we (or they) will only be able to report those opinions which meet the standard of agreeing with Master Li.  
2.  A practitioner cannot think for himself on the important Falun Dafa stuff, but is allowed to  think for himself on the inconsequential stuff such as what is funny.
Have you ever thought that what you are descibing is the consequence of Li's authoritarian control?  Did you know that one of Dr. Margaret Singer's conditions for thought control in an authoritarian cult fits perfectly with the situation you describe?  
According to Dr. Singer, cults "put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval."
Think about it!  Li requires that you uphold and safeguard his Dafa as a non-negotiable condition for being his disciple.  You are not allowed to disagree and if you do Li warns you of  bad consequences.  He threatens to withdraw his protection and then the demons will get you. He says you'll lose your one-time-only chance at reaching salvation. And that his Fa-shen know everything that you are thinking 24/7...so your thinking is monitored even when you are alone.
Isn't this a kind of control mechanism?  If you truly agree with every last word that Li ever  utters, I suppose that's ok.  But what if you really don't, but have lost your ability to think independently?  What if part of this loss is from reading and listening to Li himself, but another part comes from the social pressure of your fellow practitioners who expect you to modify your thinking or language to conform to Li's teachings.  Li is always right and the practitioner is always wrong.  Does that accurately describe your situation?
So when it comes to editing in the opinions of practitioners to this Wikipedia article, based on what you have said, we will never get an objective report from any Falun Gong practitioner. Every disciple of Master Li will, by your definition of that role, never publicly voice disagreement with Master Li.  Instead, we will get cleverly formulated apologetics which evade the truth.  As long as your obedience to Master Li supercedes your own natural inclination to think for yourself, this problem will exist.  
--Tomananda 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you "believe everything Li says" what's the point of reporting "your own" beliefs about Falun Dafa in Wikipedia? 

message: There is some controversy within the Falun Gong community concerning Li's teachings on homosexuality. Some practitioners have stated that each practitioner speaks for himself concerning this issue, while others claim that Li's teachings are directed towards practitioners for personal guidance and self-cultivation, rather than to discriminate against or judge others. Most practitioners seem to agree with Li that homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but instead reflects  deviations from the natural order that have occurred at the higher levels. These deviations are considered to be part of the cause of homosexuality and part of the need for Fa-rectification.
--Samuel Luo 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falun Gong and sexual orientation 

message: Yep, that's right. Getting a bunch of email spam from FLG lately. Getting more and more desperate, they are. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLG now debased to spamming? 

message: Its strange to see this article not make mention of a lot of the criticism that is levied against this group's more controversial teachings, in particular its eugenics ideas against "race mixing' and other conservative and controversial points of view, such as that homosexuals are not fully human be depraved demons, a cancer in the cosmos, etc. At least this is what I've been reading from critics who offer a lot of quotes, and practitioners have not rebutted these claims, saying they are 'internal' only, etc.  For example, [see http://sfist.com/2007/01/08/the_falun_gong_show_sfist_goes_to_the_ntdtv_chinese_new_year.php#comments] I came to his article to get the scoop with these controversies, but surprised to find no mention of it. Why the lack of info? Its not like wikipedia to have less info over more.76.14.42.191 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference to the race mixing comments on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.  I'm sure you understand that considering the scrutiny of a very activist group of members of this religion discussion of Hongzhi's more controversial statements requires above average quality references.  These can be hard to come by since the response to the FLG in english speaking countries has largely been to accept the idea of FLG as victims of "evil communists". Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Whoever you are, you should drop by more often. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, the article(s) have been thoroughly sanitised over the years of Falun Gong domination, which we are working to address. Please register, and get stuck in. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: In my honest opinion, I believe these things should be included on the main article, and given their weight in a section called "Criticism of Falun Gong" or "Falun Gong controversy", which is currently titled "public debate". Colipon+(Talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm glad to see a section at least that gives voice to the critics and controversies that surround the Falun Gong. I'm not sure I follow the logic of that last message above, though, unless its trying to make an argument about the veracity of those claims as merely an invention to rationalize repression, etc, i.e. the analogy of the Jews in Nazi Germany?  However, this goes beyond Wikipedia's goal: The issue is not about if a certain claim is actually true or not, but only if they are notable criticisms or not? Given they clearly are, I'd expect to see it given full breath here. If it's disputed, then lets give air to that view as well, per NPOV. I think the article already abundantly communicates the claims of the group as being persecuted in China by the govt. and offers evidence that this is the case. It is outlawed, after all. So I don't think there is any conspiracy to keep it hidden. :) My problem was that a criticisms section that one would expected to find was just completely missing, or just buried and not easily seen for readers to learn about.  This is not about "demonization," whether or not that is the real motivation behind the critics, but that it should be reported on, objectively. Suppressing information is counter to the purpose of Wikipeida, not being a place of activism or pushing for a particular causes, per se. Its much easier, and less conflict will ensue, if we follow the policy of "Verifiability Not Truth" as our guide here (esp. since people disagree about what the truth is).76.14.42.191 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing critical info