Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 5

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

message: Fire Star, It is hoped that we all will refrain from pouring in our own POV into the article. The earlier edition was accepted, in majority opinion, to be more un-biased and neutral and as much as it was agreed upon to be a better base. I was watching the edits you added - Facts cannot and must not be presented in a manner that distorts the the context behind it. Subjective interpolation must be avoided. I appreciate the neutrality you have shown throughout and it is hoped that you will continue doing so.
:It was? There is a long history here of anti- and pro-FLG people coming by and doing drive by edits to rewrite the article either extremely negatively or positively. Neither is acceptable. I'd say it is about 50-50. To insist that there is no controversy over FLG when there most certainly is much documentation of such seems like an attempt at advertising. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And to say that I am demonstratiing a POV without providing evidence goes against our assume good faith policy. As I've mentioned before (and it was rejected by Dilip rajeev), I'm happy to work with anyone; list your concerns, and we'll address them one by one. --Fire Star 14:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 1.
In my opinion,
"is a controversial system of qigong based on the religious beliefs of its founder".
is better changed to "is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..."
for these reasons:
1. We dont have to make assumptions regarding wether the system is based on "the religious beliefs" of Li Hongzhi or not. The term "based on religious beliefs of" is a vague term with so many connotations behind it. Further its a POV.
---> "introduced by Li Hongzhi" makes it clear that it was "introduced by Li Hongzhi".
2. Wikipedia doesnt have to introduce the system as " a controversial system". We are clearly discussing the controversies in the later sections of the article. Should Falun gong be introduced to the un-informed reader as a "controversial" system? Shouldnt we be discussing the controversies, objectively, rather than emphatically declare Falun gong to be "a controversial system" to the reader? We must be careful about it and remember that even renowned masters of qi-gong arts like Master Da Liu (who introduced tai-chi to America ) differ on the issue:
At the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement: "I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa.
:Thank you for your kind words. I'm positive we can find language that we are all happy with if we consider these things together.
:How about:
*1."is a system of qigong introduced by Li Hongzhi..." then followed by "and has generated some controversy, particularly in regards to the Chinese govt."
*2. The controversy is one of the most notable features of FLG's public profile for most people. More people practise orthodox Buddhism, but you don't hear about them as much because they aren't being persecuted (as much) by the CCP. My compromise suggestion would be to mention the controversial nature of FLG's relationship with China and other religions later in the introduction.
:FLG isn't being singled out, if you look at the Talk:Tai Chi Chuan, or Talk:Jesus or Talk:Scientology pages (and hundreds of others) you'll see that there is an awful lot of controversy surrounding all of these subjects. What I mean is that we don't mean it in a pejorative sense, we aren't taking exception to FLG, but we are reporting that others do. Think of it more as one more bland fact, along with the list commendations and human rights organisations involved and religious issues, about a huge international phenomenon. Cheers, --Fire Star 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing Requested Changes 

message: Olaf Stefanos, I have reservations on you calling the poor guy an "agent provocateur" and "vandal", I think he is behind the great firewall and desperately wants to speak out.... seems he tried editing the page through proxy but all quotes became something like \' .... and then he ended up replacing the whole article with
"Broters and sisters, I need your help. My internet can not go to Wikipedia, and Editing from proxy does no help. It turns all \' to \\\'.
Here there are lots of text and links sponsored by the CCP, I thank it if you remove them."
... then he himself(?) reverted the whole page back...
Friend, if u r reading this... you may discuss your concerns with us on the talk page...
:I know. I noticed this, and if this "poor guy" is reading, I apologize. I just thought that his edits were silly vandalism (but I didn't actually call him a vandal, it was the other IP/person reverting). It seems he didn't intentionally want to mess up the article. I will assume better faith from this day on. ---Olaf Stephanos 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's way more Falun Gong-sponsored links in this article than "CCP-sponsored" ones. Even if he does make a successful change we'd probably end up reverting his edit due to POV. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts of edit from Behind Firewall?? 

message: .
.
There really isnt any difference between the teachings in the books... only that a superficial understanding may make it seem like there is...  Infact the word "moral" is rarely used... It is xinxing or mind-nature that is emphasized.. now that a section by the name is there in the wikipedia... we somehow need to ensure accuracy...
A quote from Zhuan Falun:
"
"If you are always 
compassionate and friendly to others, if you always consider other people when you do 
things, and whenever you have issues with other people you first think about whether 
they can take it or whether it will cause them harm, then you won’t have any problem. 
So, when you cultivate you should follow high and even higher standards.  "
That is why I wrote "Falun Gong requires practitioners to set high moral standards for themselves"...
I will go through all the books in greater detail...
"Falun Gong's qigong style practises are said by them to develop high levels of 功, gōng, which Falun Gong practitioners use to mean "high level energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen.)" 
Why not change it to....
"Falun gong uses the word gong to mean "high level energy"  which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)."
I see that this para has been removed from the beliefs section... while it is central to falun gong's view on qi gong... while three or four sensational sounding statements from the whole sets of lectures running to around 1000 pages have been projectes....
"Li Hongzhi states that the term "qigong" is of recent origin. That originally such disciplines had names like "The Dhyana of Vajra", "Ninefold Immortality Elixir method" and "Dafa of Cultivating Dao" and that the lowest level things of some cultivation ways, the things for healing and fitness, were brought out to the general public under the name "qigong". According to the QiJournal, It wasn't until 1953, when Liu Gui-zheng published a paper entitled "Practice On Qigong Therapy", that the term qigong (ch'i kung) was adopted as the popular name for this type of exercise system. Prior to that date, there were many terms given to such exercise, such as Daoyin, Xingqi, Liandan, Xuangong, Yangshengong, etc. ""
:I like this: "Falun gong uses the word gong from Falun Gong:  功, pronounced gōng, to mean "high level energy" which is an unconventional use of the word (In Mandarin Chinese it means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen)." If FLG literature doesn't use the words "moral" or "morality" much, neither should we, I'd say. --Fire Star 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing Discussion on Edits 

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

message: This is a re-post of an earlier post on 3/5/06 which no one responded to:
NEED TO REVISE INTRODUCTORY SECTION
The recent round of edits on this piece have totally distorted the over-all presentation of what the basics of Falun Gong are. After mentioning the "five sets of meditation exercises" in the first paragraph, the piece now launches directly into a lengthy discussion of the history of the Falun Gong in China. The first sentence does, at least, mention the word "Falun Dafa"...but then fails to go on to explain the difference between Falun Gong (which are the meditation exercises) and the Falun Dafa (which is Master Li's great law). It is fundamentially inaccurate to represent the Falun Gong as merely a set of mediation exercises. Master Li has told his practitioners that if all they do is the exercises, then they can't be considered Falun Gong practitioners. Thus the Falun Dafa...and Master Li's absolute insistence that all his disciples protect and defend the Dafa...is the core of Falun Gong.
Here's my suggested addition:
Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). More important than the meditation exercises, however, is Master Li's Dafa, or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would no longer be considered a practitioner by the Master. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos, so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.
Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
Critics of the Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Master Li establishes between himself and his followers, using a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than just a new religious movement. A number of prominent American cult experts, including Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have stated that Master Li meets the classic definition of a manipulative cult leader.
If the Wikipedia piece on the Falun Gong is going to have any claim of objectivity, it must also represent the views of its critics. I am proposing that something like the above be added to frame the discussion at the beginning of the piece.  As an alternative, it would be ok to just add the first two paragaphs (which are hypenated) and then add a new section on the controversial aspects of Falun Gong (similar to the treatment of Scientology by Wikipedia).
--Tomananda 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide citations to the Sanger and Hassan publications, they should certainly be mentioned in the article, and also at Li Hongzhi. --Fire Star 15:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises! 

message: Fire Star.. I am replacing the sentence on Gong with your suggestion...  we have a whole section to deal with if we are to change the word "Morality"... yet we have the responsibilty to not sacrifice on accuracy... friend, could you go through the books and lectures of Falun Gong? I suggest, from personal experience, that going through the lectures in chronological order mt help understand them faster... mt help us do this job better.. thanx...
I changed "high level energy" to "cultivation energy" ... which is first hand translaion from the book Falun Gong....
Fire Star, The paragraphs below... do they flow with the article... the concepts like tianmu are mentioned in the next paragraph... mixing of races is discussed in the next section.... and anthrolpological beliefs have also been discussed in the next paragaph....
"In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years, some of humanity's predestinations had been averted, including a "comet catastrophe" and "the third world war." [1]
In some of his published lectures, Li states that aliens, gods and demons exist, humans have a "celestial eye" in their pineal gland (tianmu, also known as the "third eye"), that Earth has been influenced by extraterrestrials [2], and that remains of unknown prehistoric civilizations can still be found, for instance, in the bottom of the oceans. According to some sources, Li also explains that mixed-race people are instruments of an alien plot to destroy humanity's link to heaven. "By mixing the races of humans, the aliens make humans cast off gods," he said in a lecture in Switzerland. These same sources claim that he made a statement: "by embedding their technology and science in human bodies, aliens control their thoughts". However, this is one of the several instances where the alleged direct quotes cannot be traced back to Li. In his Switzerland lecture[3], Li stated: "The way alien beings get human beings to shake free of the gods is to mix the races, causing human beings to become rootless people, just like the plant hybrids people make nowadays." And further, "They have formed a layer of their body within the human body." According to Li, humans are not to be blamed for this: "There are other reasons why they dare to do this sort of thing. It has happened because the Fa of the universe has deviated and gods no longer look after things. So it has to do with high-level beings as well. If this situation is to be turned around, it has to begin from high levels."
-Dilip Rajeev 
:First off, as a courtesy to the rest of us, people should sign their discussion so that we know who we are discussing with. Secondly, I think the info flows fine, the thing is that Li said these things in the course of his teaching, so they are germane to an article on what he teaches. If he didn't want to seem sensational (and perhaps a bit potty to some people) he shouldn't have said them, I suppose...--Fire Star 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing Discussion 

message: Fire Star,  thanks for inviting me to document the representations I made in paragraph three of my proposed addition to the introduction.   Here they are:
Cult experts speaking about Li Hongzhi:
1.  Steven Hassan is a leading American cult counselor who wrote:  Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (Sommerville, Mass: Freedom of Mind Press, 2000)  He has made several comments about Li Hongzhi.
a)  Founder Li Hongzhi “comes very much out of the cult extreme, the authoritarian stereotype.”   Quote from San Francisco Chronicle article 12/18/05 at:
SF Chronicle
b)  Mr. Hassan wrote a rather long statement about why he has “grave concerns about the personage of Li Hongzhi,  head of Falun Dafa and his organization”  on his own website.
His statement really needs to be read in its entirety to get the full meaning of where he stands on the Falun Gong.  It appears in a section called “Notes from Steve Hassan 12/02” at the bottom of this web page:
 Steve Hassan
2.  Dr. Margaret Singer was probably the world’s most respected pioneer and scholar on the subject of destructive cults.  In 1996 she published her landmark book:   Cults in Our Midst: the Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives.  She passed away in 2003.  
a)  Quote from New Times article:
“Some will say it’s not but Falun Gong looks like a cult to me,”  cult expert Margaret Singer told New Times reporter Joel Emgardio wveral years ago.  “My criteria is a self-appointed person with secret knowledge to share, who gets his followers convinced he is the pipeline to the eternal good life.  Doesn’t that sound like Master Li?”
See:  Joel P. Emgardio,  “Spiritual CULTivation,”  New Times,  Los Angeles,  March 23-29, 2000.
b)  Quotes from San Francisco Chronicle:
“If you want a good description of a cult, all you have to do is read what they say they are” said Margaret Singer [referring to the Falun Gong]. a longtime crusader against authoritarian religious groups.  They actually say ‘Don’t Think.’  Just recite the master’s teaching.”
…
Falun Gong critics at the conference say that they have nothing against the exercises but charge that the movement’s founder,  Master Li Hongzhi – now living in exile in New York – leads an authoritarian sect that is breaking up Chinese families, discouraging devotees to seek medical care and misrepresenting its true teachings.
….
Singer said she has been contacted 44 times by concerned relatives of Falun Gong members, 35 of them of Chinese background.  “Their children have begun talking to them in memorized jargon, reading from the words of Master Li,” she said.
See: Don Lattin, “Falun Gong Derided as Authoritarian Sect by Anti-cult Experts in Seattle,”  San Francisco Chronicle,  April 29, 2000
Although Western cult experts have yet to come to a common agreement on exactly how to define a cult, most agree that there are common characteristics that are employed by the cult leaders themselves.  By almost any reasonable standard,  Master Li’s manipulative style of  leadership fits that bill.    There are many examples in Master Li’s own words of how he does this,  and I would be happy to compile a documented list of those quotes for a separate posting.
The important point here is that we cannot rely on the representations made by  Falun Gong practitioners about what the Falun Gong is all about.  Practitioners conceal the “higher teachings” of Master Li Hongzhi because he commands them to do so.  In a very recent speech in San Francisco (available on a Falun Gong website)  Master Li stated:
“So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things.”  Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (Lecture Portion), November 5, 2005.
Li's San Francisco Speech
Fire Star:  Can I go ahead and post the three paragraphs I proposed in my earlier post called "Li's Dafa is the essential part of Falun Gong, not the exercises?"  I know it will be subject to futher editing,  but it would make the process easier for all of us.
--Tomananda 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. It could even be its own section of the article. I believe we have a responsibility to use sources from inside and outside FLG at Wikipedia. FLG's ardent devotees have a tendency IMO to often use weasel words to present what they do in a less sensational light, to make them appear more "mainstream" or at least apolitical, which they demonstrably aren't. That cult experts would be alarmed at what Li has said doesn't surprise me. On a personal note to Dilip, I am well versed in Buddhism, Taoism, qigong and neigong myself, and when I see evidence that FLG can do what I can do, then I will be impressed enough to study its exercises. So far, to my knowledge at least, they haven't demonstrated any remarkable abilities in the demos I've seen or in the practitioners I've dealt with, rather the opposite. Faith is fine, but we can't report their abilities as proven fact. --Fire Star 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Li Hongzhi as an Authoritarian Cult Leader 

message: Dilip: You must not have read very far.  Here are my sources for the first two paragraphs I added to the introductory section.  I already sited my sources for the last paragraph in the earlier post.  Let me know if I have left anything un-covered.  Most of these sources are in the form of a PDF or DOC file on a Falun Gong website, and I don't know how to provide them as a link.  If you can help, that would be fine.
Central to "Falun Gong" is five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting). More important than the meditation exercises, however, is Master Li's Dafa(1), or "great law." Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period.  If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.
Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)
Critics of the Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Master Li establishes between himself and his followers, using a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than just a new religious movement. A number of prominent American cult experts, including Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have stated that Master Li meets the classic definition of a manipulative cult leader.
Sources:
1.  Master’s Li’s Dafa:
 “I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi.  It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth.”   “Awakening”  (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
2.  Li as exclusive savior:
 a)  “If I cannot save you, nobody can do it.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition.  p. 160 on-line document at:   http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/index.html
  b)  “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you.  Therefore, I must take care of you.”   Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.
 c)  “I am the only person in the world who is teaching orthodox Fa in public.  I have done something nobody did in the past and opened such a large door in the Dharma-ending time.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition. p. 101
3. Studying the Dafa, not the exercises, is the essence of Falun Gong
“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun?  It is to guide your cultivation practice!  As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.”   “What is Cultivation Practice?”  (September 6, 1996)  Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.
4.  Promising to make his practitioners Gods:
This thought appears throughout most of Li’s more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples.     For example, in a speech in 2003, Li said: 
“I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.”  Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)
5.  Li’s  Dafa created all beings:
“Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos.”  
“Using at Will”  (June 28, 200) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
6.  Master Li protects his disciples (but also threatens them if they should not live up to the standards required by his Dafa:
a) “My Fashen (law body) knows everything.  He knows everything on your mind, and he can do anything.  He will not take care of you if you do not practice cultivation, and he will help you all the way to the end if you practice cultivation.”  Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition,
p. 170.
b) “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things (plagiarized Li’s Dafa).  Don’t think your master might do something to you.  You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa.  Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.”   “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized”   (September 22, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I
7.  Master Li’s Dafa “weeding out” people in the Fa-rectification
a)  weeding out the critics:
     “Let me tell you,  when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.”  “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000),  p. 1.
b) weeding out the evil people, including homosexuals:
 “All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”
“A Suggestion” (April 10,2001) in Essentials for Further Advancement II
Note:  Since homosexuality is one of the world’s ten evils, and homosexuals have “dark
hearts, turning demonic”  there’s no question that practicing homosexuals will be “weeded out”  by Master Li’s great “Fa-rectification.”  See:  “The World’s Ten Evils”
(July 7, 1998) 
See: http://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614
c)  weeding out the "dregs" of humanity:
"Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out."   Essentials for Further Advancement II,   item 28
d)  weeding out a great many people:
“The number who will be weeded out is large and terrifying. At the beginning people will still feel shocked, while by the end they'll be numb to it. What kind of state will a person be in when he sees dead people strewn everywhere on the street?”  “Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Conference” (November 29, 2003)  Q & A section.  
--Tomananda 03:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for new paragraphs in introductory section: 

message: Dear Practitioner:  I give a long list of Li Hongzhi's quotes and you call them my opinions?  The truth is that you are avoiding talking about what is probably the most important part of Master Li's teachings:  the idea of Fa-rectification.   I noticed that after the practioners' last big round of edits on the Wikipedia piece, the word Fa-rectification had been totally deleted.  Why is that?  
You might be interested in knowing that a review of all of Master Li's speeches in 2005 reveals that the word Fa-rectification appears almost twice as often as the word Cultivation.
And in all those same speeches you will find the word Gong only once.
The point I am making is this:  Fa-rectification is a core concept of the Falun Gong, much more important than the meditative exercises.  To simply say I am quoting things out of context will not work.  I am at least as familiar as you are with Master Li's teachings.  I challenge you to go back to the Master Li quotes I have listed above and explain to me what their meaning is other than what I have entered.
The corrupt people of the world are going to be weeded out by Master Li's Fa-rectification, while Falun Gong practioners are going to be saved, even turned into Gods.  Is that not correct?
It is what your Master teaches,  and unless you are willing to repudiate at least some of the Master's teachings...are you?...I have to conclude that you are being evasive about your own beliefs.
What are your own thoughts on the Fa-rectification, anyway?  Do you think people are already being "weeded out" in Master Li's Fa-rectification?  When Master Li said in New York in 2003 that the SARS epidemic was "the first round of cleansing" how would you explain that way of thinking?
When he said that SARS was "Heaven punishing people"  what people was he referring to?  Any why, exactly, should these people be punished?
By the way, you didn't sign your post.
--Tomananda 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Are Concealing the Core Beliefs of Falun Gong 

message: Fire Star:  Please explain what is happening here.  An anyonymous editor has deleted my edits, which you approved and which I have fully documented in the discussion above. This seems like bullying to me. Rather than deal with the text as text, making line-by-line edit recommendations, there's a generalized response from a practitioner which really doesn't deal with the Li Honzhi quotes.  Can you revert the text to what it was after my update?  If not, there is absolutely no objectivity in this article.  As you yourself observed above, this Wickipedia article is in danger of becoming an advertisement for the Falun Gong. 
--Tomananda 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, those things happen. My suggestion is to revert and place "see talk page" in the edit summary. Discussion here is the way to avoid a revert war. --Fire Star 14:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette 

message: Dilip,
I notice in your response you avoid making reference to Li's many quotes on Fa-rectification,
and prefer instead to draw (inacccurate)analogies to other religions.  Li Honhzi is a lot clearer than you are in his meaning, especially when it comes to Fa-rectification and practitioners becoming Gods. If you choose not to acknowledge these things publicly, there's little I can do about it. After all, Master Li does say to his practitioners "you absolutely must not speak at the higher levels"  when talking with ordinary people. (San Francisco,2005)  Why should I expect anything different from you now?
As it stands now, there is no balance or objectivity in the Wikipedia piece.  If the anonymous user you refer to has several stars and absolute editing powers, then God bless him.
So let's pretend that the Falun Gong Wikipedia report is complete and balanced, without explaining the concept of Fa-rectification in detail, or without having a section on the very real contorversies about Master Li's teachings (by which I mean other than relations with China.)
Some people will go to Wikipedia and believe what they read. Others will recognize the self-promotion for what it is. 
 --Tomananda 07:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Quotes from Li Hongzhi Say What They Mean 

message: Dilip,
You've gone off on a tangent.  Here are the two paragraphs I wrote:
Central to "Falun Dafa" is belief in Li's God-like role as the exclusive savior (2) of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple (3) and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods (4) as long as they stand up for the Dafa. Master Li has stated that his Dafa created all beings in the cosmos (5), so in a sense Master Li himself can be considered a creator God.
Also central to the Falun Dafa is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons...sickness, old age and even death will return to them (6). If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by Master Li's great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.” (7)
You've offered a lot of extraneous comments, but you have failed to say what of the above you find
incorrect.  For example,  do you disagree with my statement that "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa."   The Master says:
"I will also save you and turn you into Gods…since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need.” Los Angeles Lecture (February 15, 2003)
So what is wrong with my sentence, if anything?  
And by the way,  do you believe you are already a God...or on your way to becoming a God?  You know, I have been told by some practitioners who are married (hetorsexual) that their spouse has said to them they are a God.  But these marriages usually wind up breaking up.  Are you married?
Is your wife a Falun Gong practitioner?   You know, one of the complaints about Falun Gong is how it breaks up families. 
--Tomananda 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Questioning each others beliefs is off point a bit. We should stick to discussing the article. --Fire Star 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One More Time 

message: I am not going "off-tangent". I pointed out why your statements are inaccurate ... and that you are (intentionally or otherwise) putting the quotes out of context...
Buddhist concept of cultivation is cultivation of buddhahood... "Buddha-hood" is achieved through cultivation--never by "standing up" for anybody!!! where did u get that idea from....??? A falun gong practitioner is a cultivator- nothing more; nothing less.
My concept of "god" is so very different from yours!!... I request you to please study the books and lectures of the gnostic cultivation way... www.gnosis-usa.com ... you will understand what cultivation ways mean by the concept "god" ...I have never seen any practitioner who has claimed themselves to be gods!!! I have seen Falun Dafa practice bringing peace, joy and health to innumerable families... I am yet to see a family break up because of Falun Dafa... i just happenned to read this article.. I request you to patiently go through the entire article... http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2006/3/1/70417.htmlhealth survery conductd by reputed researchers show a 99% improvement rate in mental health with Falun Gong practice and a CURE rate of 58%!!!
You may also interact with me over my email id... dilip_rajeev@msn.com
Friend, when you so emphatically want to put foward Falun Gong as a mind control cult ( i cant understand Why!!!).. please see that one of the world's greatest authorities on physchiatry - Abraham L. Halpern, M.D. (Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, New York Medical College
Former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law) .. is himself a Board Member of Friends of Falun Gong ....
:Again, please sign posts, as you are editing from a rotating IP it is hard to follow sometimes. The issue isn't that any of us think FLG is a cult, it is that Steve Hassan and his colleagues do. It also doesn't matter what any of us think of God or gods. Whether the cult experts take Li's statements out of context or not isn't our problem, they are notable, verifiably documented critics and should be in the article. We can provide the context of what FLG stands for and what its critics believe about them, the reader has to make up their own mind, we don't make it up for them. This is the controversial nature of FLG that I was on about earlier, a lot of people are wary of Li and his public position. We have to report that. --Fire Star 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please go through Falun Dafa books 

message: The newly introduced paragraphs in the "beliefs" section:
"Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li's role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this "Dharma ending" period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li's Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.
Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation, while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa, corrupt people, homosexuals and the "dregs" of humanity can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”"
Has been edited to improve accuracy and bring it closer to what is said in the books... Please see Zhuan Falun...  and the quotes below..
Falun Dafa is said to be  the only "orthodox Fa" being taught during the "Dharma ending period". Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all disciples during cultivation and that a person may be considered to be a disciple only if he cultivates his xinxing(mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of Dafa. It is said that while a cultivator can achieve a disease free state;  birth, old-age, sickness and death are just "facts of life" for ordinary people. And thus, a person can only be helped if he can elevate his mind-nature to the level of a cultivator.
If practitioners cultivate in accordance with Dafa, it is said that the goal of cultivation practice- Buddhahood can be achieved. It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa(Dharma) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa(Dharma) in the process of Fa-rectification. Slandering the Fa(Dharma) is considered an act that brings terrible karma on oneself. It is also said that those who slander the Dafa, the "dregs" of humanity and others who have accumulated a lot of karma are likely to be eliminated when the Fa(Dharma) rectifies the human world. 
-------------
Never has it been said that "homosexuals" and "corrupt people" are to be eliminAted in Fa rectification... the word "salvation" is rarely used ... it iS the concept of achieving Buddhahood ...... The concept of Fa- Rectification concisely presented before it is dicussed...
it is only said that birth old age sickness and deaths are "facts of life" and manifestations of the Fa at this level...  never anything to the effect that if a person stops practicing, old-age, sickness and "even" death ...I HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THERE IS AN ATTEMPT(DELIBERATE or OTHERWISE) TO COMPLETELY DISTORT WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOOK... I cant understand how this person would miss the word "birth"!!! 
and  ' "dregs" of humanity ' CHANGED TO ' "dregs of humanity" '(position of the quote)
.... something else of importance that I wanted to point out.... the para added lately said "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa."!!! 
....
 this lecture from Frankfurt germany , emphatically says:
If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the             point  of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either 
FROM LECTURES IN EUROPE(Germany):
" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he 
did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart 
in order to save a person.If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the     point  of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t 
elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t 
change, even a Buddha can’t help him. "
From Zhuan Falun....
"We emphasize one point: If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we 
cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a 
principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have 
predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due 
to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a 
karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not 
have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the 
same as committing a bad deed. ".........
"Why can this be done for a practitioner, then? It is because a practitioner is most precious, 
for he or she wants to practice cultivation. Therefore, developing this thought is most precious. "....
.."Therefore, once a person wants to practice cultivation, his or her Buddha-nature is considered to have come forth. Such a thought is most precious, for this person wants to return to his or her original, true self and transcend the ordinary human level. 
 
Perhaps everyone has heard this statement in Buddhism: “When one’s Buddha-nature 
emerges, it will shake ‘the world of ten directions.’”  Whoever sees it will come to give a hand 
and help this person out unconditionally. In providing salvation to humankind, the Buddha 
School does not attach any condition or seek returns, and it will help unconditionally. 
Accordingly, we can do many things for practitioners. But for an everyday person who just 
wants to be an everyday person and to cure his or her illness, it will not work."
Dilip rajeev 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the version you are putting in doesn't have the word slander in quotes. Without quotes, it has to be a paraphrase, and "criticizing" is a neutral description of behaviour to be punished by "Fa-rectification". The wording is going to have to be changed. You have said in edit summaries that it isn't "remotely factual" yet Tomananda has done a pretty good job of documenting these things to be what Li has said. FLG practitioners may see what Li has said many different ways, but unless the interpretation is published elsewhere (and even then it will be one interpretation of many) we shouldn't have it in the article. --Fire Star 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly Introduced Paragraphs 

message: I have added a request for comment at the above link in order to solicit further input on this apparent impasse. --Fire Star 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy]] 

message: Fire Star:  I am happy with your most recent edit Revision 3:16 13 march 2006.  However, I have spent most of today composing a long response to your request for comments which winds up with slightly different wording, but the same meaning.  Either version (your's or mine) is fine with me.  I'm very sorry for adding so much length to the discussion page:
Revision as of 16:15, 12 March 2006
Line 37:
1. Paragraph One, sentence one:
Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s roles as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period.
Sources:
a) “Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation in the future.  If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it.”   Zhuan Falun, 2nd, edition.  p. 160 on-line document at:   
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture8.html#4
b)  “Because I come precisely to offer salvation to all sentient beings, if I am not responsible to you, reading such things will bring danger to you.  Therefore, I must take care of you.”   Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney Australia), p. 20.
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm
c) “Some people say, ‘If I believe in Jesus, I will be able to go to heaven.’ I say that you won't. Why not? It is because people nowadays do not understand the true meaning of what Jesus said.”  Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney, Australia), p.4
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm
d)  “The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was provided for ordinary people of the extremely low levels two thousand five hundred years ago, who just evolved from the primitive society with simple minds.  The Dharma-ending Period that he referred to is today.  Now people can no longer practice cultivation with that Dharma. Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.”    Zhuan Falun, 2nd print edition, p.13
Comment: 
The words save (in the soteriological sense) or salvation were spoken by Master Li 40 times in the Sydney speech alone.
2. Paragraph One, sentence Two:
If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to live up to Master Li’s Dafa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.
Source:
“Why do I tell you to study, read and memorize Zhuan Falun?  It is to guide your cultivation practice!  As to those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.”   “What is Cultivation Practice?”  (September 6, 1996)  Essentials for Further Advancement, English Version.
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz51.htm
Comments: 
1).  In order to make the edit correspond exactly with Li’s words (see 4b), I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”
2) I do not object to substituting the word consummation for salvation, but then this would require defining the word consummation.  Since salvation is the more general word, understood by everyone, I argue that it works better in this very short summary. 
3. Paragraph One, sentence Three:
Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they stand up for the Dafa.
Sources:
a) “I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high.” (Applause)
Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference (February 15, 2003)
http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2003/2/27/32713.html
b) “A Dafa disciple who fails to achieve the effect of the safeguarding and upholding Dafa has no way of reaching Consummation.”   “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,”  Same source as C below:
c) “Dafa disciples are magnificent because you are here at the same time as the period of Master’s Fa-rectification and are able to safeguard and uphold Dafa. If what you do is no longer worthy of a Dafa disciple, think about it, if under the greatest mercy since the beginning of Heaven and Earth and under Buddha’s infinite grace you still can’t do well, how could there be another chance?”  “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 40 
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_40.htm
Comments: 
1).   Li’s promise to turn his practitioners into Gods appears fairly frequently in his more recent speeches. It’s a comment that usually elicits a lot of applause from his devoted disciples.  Who wouldn’t want to be turned into a God?
2). “Safeguarding and upholding the Dafa” is an essential requirement that Master Li puts on his practitioners.  He speaks about it frequently.  In these quotes, he explicitly associates that requirement with both “reaching consummation” and being “worthy of a Dafa disciple.” 
By replacing my wording with the statement that a person can be considered a disciple “only if he cultivates his xinxing (mind-nature) in accordance with the teachings of the Dafa”  practitioner Dilip is engaging in apologetics (to use Fire Star’s term).  It is essential to explicitly state Li’s larger teaching that you must also “safeguard and uphold the Dafa” in order to be considered his disciple.
3)  In keeping with the spirit of making the summary words agree with Li’s own words,  even when they are not directly quoted,  I would agree to changing “stand up for the Dafa” to “safeguard and uphold the Dafa.”   
4. Paragraph Two, sentence one:
Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to live up to the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them.
Sources:
a)  “Practitioners will gain protection from my Law Bodies (fashen) when they accept my Falun Dafa teachings and genuinely practice cultivation. As long as you persevere in practicing cultivation, my Law Bodies will protect you until you reach Consummation. Should you decide to stop cultivating at some point, my Law Bodies will leave you.”
The Great Consumation Way of Falun Dafa (translation updated April 2001)
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/dymf_1.htm#8
b)  “If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”  “Issue of Pursuit,”  Zhuan Falen, Third Edition,,Internet (March 2000) 
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html#5
c) “If you follow the right way in cultivation practice, nobody will dare to touch you casually.  Besides, you have the protection of my Fashen (law body), and you will not run into any danger.”  “What Has the Teacher Given to Practitioners,”  Zhuan Falen, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000):
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html#8
d) “Falun Gong cultivators look quite different in age from everyday people—they do not look their actual age. So the primary features of cultivation methods that cultivate both mind and body are: prolonging life, deterring aging, and lengthening people’s life expectancy.”  “Characteristics of Falun Gong Cultivation in Falun Gong”  in Falun Gong (4th translation edition, April 2001)
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg_2.htm#3
Here are some examples of “bad things” that are removed, but can return to you:
-- illness and aging:  While you are cultivating “you will look like an ordinary person from the appearance.  The only difference is that you will appear younger than those who are your age.  Certainly, the bad things in your body will, first of all, have to be removed, including illnesses.”  Zhuan Falun, Third Edition, Internet (March 2000)
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture1.html#7
-- death for those who plagiarize Li’s Dafa: “In recent years some practitioners suddenly died; some of them died precisely because they did such things.  Don’t think your master might do something to you.  You should know that there are numerous guardian Gods of the Fa at various levels whose very duty is to protect the Fa.  Furthermore, demons won’t leave you alone!....Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life.”   “Dafa Can Never be Plagiarized”   (September 22, 1996)  Essentials for Further Advancement I.
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz55.htm
Comments:
1. I would agree to change “fail to live up to the requirements of the Dafa” to “do not follow the requirements of the Fa.”
2.  The above quotes fully establish the idea that Li and his Fashen (law bodies) protect
Falun Gong practitioners.   It is an essential teaching.  In fact, virtually all of the benefits that a practitioner gets from cultivating are at some point dependent upon the direct intervention of Master Li.  He installs a Falun (rotating law wheel) in the abdomen of each of the practitioners, which is necessary for cultivation.   His Fashen knows everything on a practitioner’s minds, but will not take care of that practitioner if he does not practice cultivation.  And in the karma-elimination process, although a practitioner
can get rid of a lot of his karma by his own cultivating efforts, he cannot eliminate all of his karma without the direct help of the Master.
3.  The above quotes also clearly establish the idea that through cultivation, and with Master Li’s help, practitioners can reap benefits such as having illness removed,  deterring aging and prolonging life. 
4.  While practitioner Dilip is correct in pointing out that a practitioner must also cultivate
his xinxing (mind-nature) as part of the practice, he fails to acknowledge the essential role of Master Li.  Although Li has never claimed to be God, he does claim powers that only a God could have and, when pressed, many practitioners will admit to thinking of him as God. But they are told by Li not to talk to ordinary people about Gods or the higher level teachings. Li said exactly that last year at a speech in San Francisco.  The reason why writing an objective piece about the Falun Gong is so difficult is because practitioners hold back their core beliefs.  Yes, it is all available on the internet...but how many people have the patience to ferrit it all out? 
5.  Paragraph Two, sentence two:
If practitioners live up to the Dafa, they are promised salvation,  while non-practitioners who criticize the Dafa,  corrupt people and the “dregs of humanity” can expect to be eliminated by the great law in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
Sources:
a)  weeding out people who don’t think the Dafa is good:
“Let me tell you,  when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.”  “Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000),  p. 1.
b)  weeding out “evil beings”
“All the evil beings in the world will be knocked down into hell when the Fa rectifies the human world, and for all eternity they will pay for the sins they committed.”
“A Suggestion” (April 10, 2001)  Essentials for Further Advancement II
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_25.htm
c)  weeding out “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world”
 
“Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”  Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28:
http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm
Comments:
1.  I would agree to change “live up to the Dafa”  to “follow the requirements of the Fa” so that the wording will reflect Li’s words exactly.
2.  Concerning the categories of people who will be “weeded out” in Master Li’s Fa-rectification, I agree to word changes that will reflects Li’s words more exactly.   The complete new sentence now reads:
“If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
A possible revised edit becomes:
Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in the “Dharma ending” period.   If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.  Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.
Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them.  If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world can expect to be eliminated by the Dafa in a process called “Fa-rectification.”
--Tomananda 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Request for Comments 

message: Fire Star:  I spent many hours documenting the two paragraph edit above using Li Honzhi wording throughout. It is an important and accurate reflection of Falun Gong beliefs, but one which Falun Gong practitioners don't like.  As you know, Dilip had posted his own two paragraph version which
can be considered apologetics and you had twice previously deleted his version through the use of revisions.   Now I find a new Falun Gong practitioner has again re-posted the Dilip version using as his justification "descriptive version preferred."
As I've said before, Falun Gong practitioners work hard to conceal Master Li's higher level teachings from the public.  If you read Master Li's November, 2005 San Francisco speech you will see why:
Li Hongzhi SF Speech
There are thousand of Falun Gong practitioners who could log on to Wikipedia every day and re-post the Dilip version over and over again.  This would be nonsense.   Instead of respondig to the justifications I have entered above, practitioner Aparna is simply trying to force a particular point of view.
I've gone ahead and posted my version for the first time. 
Can you intervene to make sure proper Wikipedia edit is followed in this discussion?
--Tomananda 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings. I do keep this page on my watchlist, and I have recently posted a request for input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. That is just a first step. If we get buried, I will ask other administrators to step in, and they can protect the page, ban spammers, etc. I feel it is unethical for myself to exercise such functions because I have edited here so much. I appreciate what you've contributed, as well as others, because we do want a fair and neutral presentation. Dilip has compromised quite a bit, and I am always willing to, but I feel that verifiable information should not be removed or glossed over in any article. I'm helping out as a 3rd party in a dispute over at Mahavatar Babaji that may interest you. The dispute is a little different, but the religious nature of the article and how to deal with such a hotbutton diplomatically is always interesting! Regards, --Fire Star 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette 

message: Tomananda,
Friend, I think the quotes pointed out by Olaf Stephanos quite clearly show that Falun Gong doesnt have the kind of beliefs you talk about in the paragraphs. And I dont consider pointing out errors in the paragraph should be labelled should be labelled "apologetics". I am quite sure that you understand that too. The paragraphs are, as  pointed out, inaccurate.  I think we must keep the paragraph (either version) out of the text till we reach a consensus through further discussion. The content of the paragraph is not something that long term editors of this article (like Olaf Stephanos) agree with. I think the paragraph requires futher dicussion, and the consent of multiple editors.
Dilip rajeev 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A POV doesn't only consist of what is said; it also involves what is not said, as well as what expressions are used. As I said, I don't oppose to mentioning these things in the article, but they must be contextualised by further information. Editing such a controversial article is not easy, and nobody should insert his or her contribution by fiat. I have nothing against a consensus. We're editors discussing an article, not "bullies". Regards, Olaf Stephanos 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: You have been repeatedly making this accusation. And that is why I write this. It is only said in the lectures that the act of homosexuality is bad ( distinguish that from the person)... It is very clearly said that the person may cultivate if he can break out of that... 
...Infact all the traditions I know, be it Buddhism, Christianity, or Gnosticism dont consider homosexuality normal... In Buddhism, it is, by precept, PROHIBIDDEN( see below) for a homosexual to become a monk!! Does that mean buddhists are "homophobic"??
... 
The Ancient Gnostic Bible, "Pistis Sophia", considered by many scholars to be authentic teachings of Jesus Christ, says :
Bartholomew said: “A man who hath intercourse with a male, what is his vengeance?”
Jesus said: “The measure of the man who hath intercourse with males and of the man with whom he lieth, is the same as that of the blasphemer.
“When then the time is completed through the sphere, the receivers of Yaldabaōth come after their soul, and he with his forty-and-nine demons taketh vengeance on it eleven years.
“Thereafter they carry it to the fire-rivers and seething pitch-seas, which are full of demons with pigs’ faces. They eat into them and take vengeance on them in the fire-rivers another eleven years.
“Thereafter they carry them into the outer darkness until the day of judgment when the great darkness is judged; and then they will be dissolved and destroyed."
The Buddhist Scriptures Say:
"The pandaka (Pali for "homosexual") had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'
"The monks spoke aggressively, 'Pandaka, you will surely be ... spiritually destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" ...
He went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'
The novices spoke, 'Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?'
"The pandaka then went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. 'Come all of you and assault me.' The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him.
"The Blessed One then ordered the monks, 'Behold monks, a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained, ... and (pandakas) who have already been ordained must be made to disrobe. "
A Conversation with A Gnostic Master:
Question: A homosexual who regenerates is not a homosexual any more?
Answer: Have you ever known any homosexuals, who in their life have truly, one hundred percent, stopped being homosexual?
There are none, because they are degenerated seeds, they can not be remade, because they are rotten. It is like degenerated vegetable seeds, which do not germinate, even being sown in a very good soil and in the best conditions, they do not germinate because they are degenerated.
So, there are also human seeds, human germs, which even being germs, are degenerated, and in any way they can be changed (or improved). Try to regenerate a seed, a vegetable germ, try to place it in perfect conditions to germinate, to see if it germinates after demonstrating that it is degenerated. Obviously it would not germinate. The same happens with the germs deposited in the sexual glands; a degenerated germ never germinates. A man can not come from it; he is a lost case.
"Normally the infrasexuals of homosexuality and lesbianism enter into the submerged involution of the infernal worlds. Very rare are those cases in which (through supreme pain) they repent and in a new existence they are born amongst normal people. Those cases are very rare, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and we will still have some fingers left. "
Question: Can in the next lives, a homosexual or a lesbian, get that (appropriate) condition? Can they change? Or are they going already into a complete involution?
Answer: It could happen that, through great repentance and great pain, in a future existence, they could have a very normal body. After having passed through great pain, that is possible.
Question: Master, I have a friend, who has committed herself to treat homosexuals to find out if she can regenerate them, and in her long experience as psychologist, she has never been able to regenerate any of them.
Answer: Because it is completely impossible, they are degenerated seeds. Tell your friend not to waste her time foolishly. That is impossible, a degenerated seed, is degenerated.
Many Western Inner Traditions call the homosexual the "The Male Vampire"... And Zoroastrainism.. one of the world's oldest religions .. says...
""The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas"" -The Venidad
I dont think I need to quote the Bible... or the teachings of Judaism.... Do all these traditions fall under your definition for being "homophobic"... ?
Dilip:  Your efforts to justify the intense homophobia of Li Hongzhi based on citing the anti-homosexuality teachings of other religions, while interesting, is not what is currently being discussed here.  As far as I know, no one has proposed any edits to the Wikipedia Falun Gong page concerning homosexuality.  I know that Master Li does not consider me human for being homosexual...I have a "dark heart, turning demonic" and my form of love does not "meet the standard of being human"....but so be it.  I don't expect Master Li to be very sophisticated when it comes to issues of homosexuality having grown up, as he did, in rural China.
If you really want to pursue an in-depth discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong as it relates to the teachings of other religions, I suggest we take this conversation off the Wikipedia discussion site all together. 
There was a very lengthy discussion about the homophobia of the Falun Gong at this site:
  Do you want to discuss this further there?
--Tomananda 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disapproval of homosexuality is by no means exclusive to FLG. It is, however, a notable feature of FLG. If other groups also disapprove, then it is very likely to be mentioned at their articles too. In the articles, we shouldn't say FLG are justified or unjustified in their disapproval, just that they express it. Different people see things differently. Just as many will be disgusted by apparent intolerance, there are going to be very many readers who will approve of FLG's stance, I'm sure! --Fire Star 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Tomananda's accusation 

message: Tomananda, you are using too many manipulative tactics to influence other editors.
1. Where is it said:
"Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them."?
In Zhuan Falun it is said: 
"If you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we 
cannot do anything and will be unable to help you. Why is this? It is because there is such a 
principle in the universe: Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have 
predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due 
to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a 
karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not 
have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the 
same as committing a bad deed. "
Let me ask you: where is it said that stopping cultivation practice would result in "even death" returning to the practitioner. 
2. "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa."
From Lecture in Frankfurt, Germany:
" Since Jesus had such great abilities and his father was Lord of the Caucasians, couldn’t he do whatever he wanted? Why did he spend so much effort on Earth persuading people to do good, telling people principles of the truth, and suffering so much for human beings? And at that time he also had to endure suppression and sabotage from other religions. Why then bother to do things the way he did? It means that even though he had such great abilities, he still had to rectify the human heart in order to save a person. If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain. That’s what I mean when I say that if a person’s heart doesn’t change, even a Buddha can’t help him. ""
Isnt it very clearly said that one can achieve (godhood) consummation only by cultivating one's mind-nature?? 
3. "requirement of Dafa"
Where do you get that term from? and what are these "requirements" you speak about??
Let me keep the paras out till issues are resolved the version to be put in agreed upon.
Dilip rajeev 20:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointing out POVs 

message: Olaf,
You say I don’t seem to “assume good faith” on the part of Falun Gong practitioners in this editing process.   As someone who has had a great deal of communication with Falun Gong practitioners over many years,  I need to point out that if you view Falun Gong as an authoritarian cult,  as I do,  then the  tendency of practitioners to conceal their core beliefs makes a lot of sense.  I don’t think Falun Gong practitioners think they are doing any thing wrong when they do this, so it would  be inaccurate to accuse them of not acting ”in good faith.” 
But at the same time, surely you can see in the series of communications above that there has been a stubborn resistance on the part of multiple practitioners to acknowledge even the basics of their beliefs.   For example, something as simple as a statement that Li Hongzhi offers salvation to people in this Dharma ending period  (forget for a moment which people can be saved),  was never once acknowledged by Dilip or the other practitioners who followed after him.  In fact, Dilip outrageously said that my edits weren’t even “remotely factual” and then proceeded to substitute two paragraphs of his own making in which no mention of Li Hongzhi’s role as savior is mentioned.   This kind of behavior is typical for Falun Gong practitioners.  On more than one occasion I have sat through a formal presentation of Falun Gong lasting more than an hour, and virtually no mention of Li Hongzhi has been made.  Instead, we hear all about the health benefits of the exercises and words like “cultivation,” but no mention of the critical role Li Hongzi plays in cultivation and certainly no mention of “Fa-rectification.”  
My goal in making modest (in terms of length at least) edits is to insert into this
article some facts about the teachings which, as you suggest, may make Falun Gong practitioners uncomfortable.  Fire Star has stated that when we add something in an edit,
we shouldn’t do that at the expense of another person.  In other words, where there is a debate about what needs to be included, we should add rather than replace content.  
Using that as a guiding principle, I will suggest some additions to the two paragraphs that now appear at the bottom of the Beliefs section to accommodate some of you concerns.
1.  You point out that in Turning the Wheel Towards the Human World Li Hongzhi said that Fa-rectification is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones.  I agree that some mention of this needs to be made, but not at the expense of other statements Li Hongzhi has made about Fa-rectification and the weeding out people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, “the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.”   Li Hongzhi has made many statements about Fa-rectification and the categories of people he says who will be “weeded out.”  As with any prolific author, he sometimes seems to contradict himself.   When that occurs, a good article will report the apparent contradictions, not hide them.
2.  You point out that Master Li states that it is for the purpose of saving people that “we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is.”    Although I know Li Hongzhi has said words to that effect, I do not believe that it belongs in the two paragraphs we are now talking about.   Keep in mind that I had originally inserted a version of those two paragraphs in the introduction.  When Fire Star modified the paragraphs slightly and inserted them at the end of the Beliefs section, it was an acknowledgment that some important teachings had been left out. 
In terms of the overall composition of the piece,   we can either have a separate section on the controversies surrounding Falung Gong (see the Wikipedia piece on Scientology for a possible model) or we can continue using the overall organization we presently have.  Under the present structure, I strongly argue that a discussion of the beliefs of Falun Gong must be presented independent of the situation in China, which is covered in great detail in other sections. 
Also, I need to point out that language such as “wicked” to describe the CCP is, itself, a point of view.   There’s a counter argument that can be made about the status of Falun Gong practitioners in China along these lines:  While we all condemn the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners for their beliefs,  the ban of Falun Gong that was instituted by the government in 1999 was justified based on the need to protect society from Li Hongzhi’s dangerous teachings (eg:  “sickness karma”) and the harassment by practitioners of Falun Gong critics.  Although I make this point, I do not intend to pursue any edits along these lines, so there is no need for us to get into a debate in this area.  I am just pointing out that in terms of over-all structure, the Beliefs section should not be bogged down with POV’s about the situation in China, since those POV’s are best handled in their own sections.
3.  In this item you get into some of the details of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology which, if fully presented in the Wikipedia piece, would probably best be handled in a separate section.   But as to your basic point that “Fa-rectification is to save all beings that can be saved,”  I think I responded to that idea in item # 1 above.
4.  You provide more of Li Hongzhi’s quotes here which demonstrate that his priority for practitioners at this time is for them to focus exclusively on the persecution in China  when they are “clarifying the truth”  and saving people during the Fa-rectification.  You don’t need to find any more quotes along those lines, because I fully understand that this is, in fact, the priority.  But priorities change, while the soteriological  beliefs of the Falun Gong would  remain, even if Li Hongzhi did achieve his goal of reducing membership in the CCP to zero.   To argue that this is not a political goal of the Falun Gong because it also helps practitioners to reach salvation during Fa-rectification strikes me as nothing but weasel words, to use Fire Star’s formulation. 
In my own point of view, the Falun Gong is an authoritarian cult which uses the promise of salvation to achieve a political goal.   However, I am not arguing that this point of view needs to be inserted into the Beliefs section of the Wikipedia article.  But by the same token, I would hope that you would agree not to gloss over the essential teachings of Li Hongzhi concerning his role as the only savior of mankind during this Dharma-ending period.  That is the basic teaching and it holds true regardless of what happens in China. 
--Tomananda 20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Olaf's Post Above 

message: Fire Star:  Your revision at 18:45 17 March has been replaced with new words from Dilip, who continues to do what he accuses me of:  replacing whole paragraphs, rather than discussing changes to existing text in this section.  Again, I feel like I am being bullyed by a host of Falun Gong practitioners.  Olaf made some substantive suggestions about possible additions to the Beliefs section which I have just responded to above.
Please revert the text,  again,  to the earlier version.
--Tomananda 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Star:  Please Intervene Again 

message: I am proposing the addition of a few sentences to explain "sickness karma" in the section entitled "Cultivation of Mind and Body."  As with other core teachings, I was surprised that some mention of sickness karma was not already in the text. Rather than assuming lack of good faith, I will assume it was just an oversight.
Although the teachings on "sickness karma" are quite controversial, I have crafted a presentation which, I believe, is devoid of bias or POV. To show the context, I have included the existing sentence in the affected paragraph in italics:
It is believed that though the purpose of cultivation practice is not healing and fitness, an illness free state can manifest even from the beginning stages of cultivation practice of mind and body and that this has directly to do with how much one can elevate one’s Xinxing (mind-nature).  When sickness is experienced, practitioners are taught not to be attached to the idea that they are actually experiencing sickness in the traditional sense, but instead to think of sickness as an opportunity to eliminate karma.  In Zhuan Falun , it is said:
:“I will purify your body. The body purification will be done only for those who come to truly learn the practice and the Fa. We emphasize one point: if you cannot relinquish the attachment or concern for illness, we cannot do anything and will be unable to help you.”:
Although practitioners are not told that they cannot take medicine when they are sick,  they are challenged, as part of their cultivation practice, to avoid seeking traditional medical help in order to realize the karma-eliminating benefits of sickness.  In Falun Gong ,  it is said:
:“Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation.  If you believed in it, why would you take medication?”:
--Tomananda 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply reporting the sourced material, as you have proposed, seems fine. It gives some context to another bit of copy in the article about FLG's approach to medicine. --Fire Star 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit in ''Cultivation of Mind and Body'' Section 

message: Fire Star, I am surprised that you support putting in all these out of context quotes... I am even more surprised that you fail to see that the person has a strong POV. With regard to sickness karma and its relation to medicine SO MUCH is said in the lectures.... To take an aribtrary line from it and put forward it as the belief of Falun Gong... ARE YOU DOING JUSTICE TO THE BELIEFS OF FALUN GONG WHEN YOU DO THIS?? 
In regard to the previous paragraphs... it is not that you want it in there... or that I dont.. It is that majority of the editors preferred the contextualized version.... Yet, somehow the other version is in there!!  Nobody owns wikipedia. Do  you call this a discussion??  Tomananda... I can only call your strategies perverted - I hope that you will be more upright.You deleted 
paragraphs from the orginal text and when I pointed that out... you start whining and present it as if I deleted your paras.... I wanted the editors to reach a consensus on which version to put in.. AND BY 
EDITORS I MEAN MAJORITY OF THE EDITORS I am replacing it with a contextualized version -which was better accepted.
Let me emphasize this - When majority of the editors prefer a contextualized version, whining is not the way to get your version into the text.
I repeat that your claims like "even death" would return to those who stop practice are nothing but abonimable lies. Yet they find their way into the article. 
When an everyday person gets sick and doesn’t go to the hospital or doesn’t take medicine, that doesn’t conform to the principles of everyday people, it doesn’t conform to the principles of this world, and people can’t accept it: “Of course a person needs to take medicine when he gets sick.” “Of course a person needs to go to the hospital for treatment when he gets sick.” This is how people deal with this, and it isn’t wrong. But as a cultivator you can’t confuse yourself with an everyday person. To put it a bit seriously, you’re no longer human. As I just said, humans have various emotions and desires, and live for emotion (qing). During the course of cultivation you are gradually taking these things more lightly and gradually letting go of them until you completely discard them. Humans live for these things, but you don’t. Could you be the same as a human? You aren’t the same. Since that’s the case, why don’t you apply high-level principles that aren’t the same as those of humans to evaluate problems and to evaluate yourself and the things you encounter? That’s the way it should be. That’s why I’ve told you that when we cultivators feel uncomfortable somewhere in our bodies it isn’t sickness. Yet what everyday people consider a sick state, and the state that’s reflected in a cultivator’s body when his karma is being reduced, are the same. It’s hard for everyday people to tell the difference. That’s why cultivation practice stresses enlightening (wu). If they weren’t the same, everyone would practice cultivation and the question of enlightening wouldn’t exist. If only wonderful things happened in a person’s body and even a little discomfort felt like what immortals feel, tell me, who wouldn’t cultivate? Everyone would, but then it wouldn’t count—it wouldn’t count as cultivation. Besides, people aren’t allowed to cultivate that way, as there would be no enlightening involved. So in cultivation you’re bound to be tested amidst the uncertainty of what’s true and what’s false to see how you deal with the matter at hand—to see whether you’ll regard yourself as a cultivator or as an average, everyday person. Isn’t this to see whether you can cultivate? Of course, you appear to be ordinary and no different from an everyday person on the surface, but you are in fact a cultivator.
            Yesterday I discussed Buddha Fa cultivation. Cultivation is the most important thing in the cosmos. A human being wants to ascend to a realm that high, and become an Arhat,[4] a Bodhisattva,[5] a Buddha, a Dao, or a God; if a human being with a body full of karma is to become a God, wouldn’t you say it’s a serious matter? Shouldn’t you view these matters strictly with a high standard and hold yourself to righteous thinking? If you still view these matters from an ordinary human perspective, aren’t you an ordinary human yourself? This is such a serious matter—enabling you to become a Buddha—yet you still regard yourself as human and still evaluate these things with human principles. Then it won’t work; you aren’t serious about it, so you can’t cultivate. Buddhas, Daos, and Gods aren’t like what today’s monks and today’s people think. As you know, Buddhas and Gods don’t have ordinary human emotion, nor do they have an ordinary human way of thinking or the notions that are in ordinary humans’ understandings of things. Their way of thinking is of a completely different realm, and they’re free of human concepts and notions of things. Now people have humanized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and think of them as if they had human emotions and humanness. When some people go to temples to worship Buddhas and burn incense, they don’t go there for cultivation or out of respect, but to ask for things—asking Buddhas with their attachments. Think about it, what a bad intention that is!
Let me talk to you more about the relationship between taking medicine and eliminating karma. Just now I said that it is the karma accrued lifetime after lifetime that causes sickness. What is that karma? The smaller the particles of the karma that exists in other dimensions—the smaller its grain—the more power it has. When it seeps into our dimension, it’s a microorganism, the most microscopic virus. So would you say that sickness is accidental? It can’t be understood by modern medicine or modern science, which can only understand the kind of phenomena that manifest in this surface dimension composed of the layer of the largest particles, which are formed by molecules. So it’s considered a sickness, a tumor, an infection somewhere, or something else; but today’s science can’t see the fundamental cause of people becoming sick, and it always explains with the limited reasons that can be understood by everyday people. Of course, when someone gets sick, it usually conforms to the principles at the level of this world, and there’s usually an external factor in this world that induces the sickness to manifest. Then it appears to really conform to the principles of this world. In fact, it’s just an external factor that makes it in conformity with the principles of this world or the state of this world. But the fundamental cause and the sickness don’t originate in this dimension. So when you take medicine now you’re killing this sickness or the virus at the surface. Medicine can truly kill viruses at the surface. Yet a practitioner’s gong[7] is automatically destroying viruses and karma. But as soon as medicine kills the surface virus that has seeped over from other dimensions, the virus—karma—over on the other side will know, since everything is alive, and it will stop coming over. Then you feel that you’ve recovered because you took the medicine. But let me tell you that it nonetheless accumulates over there. Life after life human beings are accumulating this stuff. When the accumulation reaches a certain extent, the person becomes incurable and when he dies he’s totally destroyed. He loses his life—forever loses his life. That’s how horrifying it is. So here I’ve explained to you the relationship. It’s not that people aren’t allowed to take medicine. When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment.
            But how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? Of course, we could push all of it out for you in other dimensions. But the Fa of this cosmos has a principle: You have to endure suffering in this regard when your karma is eliminated for you. You have to endure the same suffering you caused others before. But for cultivators, we can’t let you endure all of it in the same way, as you’d die and then you wouldn’t be able to cultivate. As a cultivator, after you reach Consummation you will repay the harmed lives with blessings. But you do have to endure the portion of mental pain. While enduring the part owed to others, you pay off the karma, because you suffer. Things aren’t isolated. While paying off the karma, you must regard yourself as a cultivator in the midst of the pain. When you don’t consider it sickness you truly have a high-level understanding of this matter, rather than an ordinary human way of thinking. Then haven’t your realm and mind improved in this regard? Isn’t that the issue? It’s a joke to think that one can improve in cultivation by doing the exercises alone. The exercises are a supplementary means to Consummation.
Dilip:  I did not delete paragraphs that were previously there.  The two paragraphs that are at issue, placed at the end of the Beliefs section by Fire Star, were then replaced by your paragraphs. A mere check of the Wikipedia history will prove that to be the case.  You are correct, no one owns Wikipedia, yet you act like you do.  You also are engaging in name calling, using words like "perverted."  Are you calling my actions perverted because I am a homosexual?  
In any case,  there is a separate discussion going on with Olaf concerning the content of the second paragraph in question.  I agreed with Olaf that some mention of Master Li's most recent statements on who gets saved in Fa-rectification should be added to that second paragraph.  By simply deleting it, as you have once again done, you are not being cooperative in the editing process.
Concerning the death quote, yes,  Master Li does say that.  I provided you with the citation.  He also says that cultivation prolongs life,  but that the effect only lasts while you are cultivating.  Once you are returned to the status of an "ordinary" person, those life-prolonging benefits go away.  Your quote above actually supports what I am saying.  The Master is saying that ordinary people go to the hospital when they are sick, but cultivators shouldn't confuse themselves with ordinary people.  As a cultivator, you are no longer human.  But when you loose the status of cultivator (by not following the requirments of the Dafa), you return to human status and can no longer benefit from the life-prolonging and disease-curing effects of cultivation.  This all seems quite understandable to me,  why do you have a problem with it appearing in the Wikipedia article?   
By the way, one of the characteristics of cults is that cult leaders create a sense of separateness between the followers and the rest of society.  Cult leaders offer their followers a special status...like Master Li telling his disciples they are no longer human...and perpetuate that wall of separation by saying that the rest of society really can't understand the high level or secret nature of their own beliefs. 
Another characteristic of cults is the practice of deception.  In the case of Falun Gong,  while it is true that all the teachings are there on the internet for everyone to read, most people trust that the practitioners themselves will report the complete story.  So this Wikipedia article becomes important.  It is an article that needs to tell the whole truth of Falun Gong beliefs and not gloss over the parts about Master Li's critical role in cultivation.  
Oops--I forgot to acknowledge that in your quote above Master Li does say practitioners will become Buddhas,  which I know is your preferred language.  But the Master also says,  repeatedly, that Falun Gong practitioners will be turned into Gods. He even uses God
in the quote you yourself provide above. (I hope you don't mind that I bolded that clause in your post.) To omit the word God or Gods merely because you want all of Falun Gong to sound like orthodox Buddhism...which it isn't...is, in itself, a point of view.  I will acknowledge you for your consistency, however.  Just as you don't want to see the word Gods appearing in this article,  you also apparantly don't want to see the word salvation.  
--Tomananda 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have POV, some are pro, some are anti, even boredom with the subject is a POV - but we don't have to act on it. Quotes may seem out of context, but our linking features are to provide context. Where it gets dodgy is when we start to assert things that aren't in the public record. We should only say Li says "blah". If there is a controversy, we should actually name the groups that find FLG controversial, and provide links to their info. As well, if there is FLG apologetics providing context, we should also link to that. Also, not instead of. It is a balancing act. The drier the citations, the less emotional resistance they will engender, and the more likely it is that we will all be happy with the article in the end. We aren't supposed to argue the validity of any philosophy ourselves, we only have to give people the tools, all the tools, to research further if they want. That is why encyclopaedias are found in the reference sections of libraries. --Fire Star 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting in Quotes Out of Context 

message: This is an article. Not a collection of quotes. Our purpose is to present an "as accurate as possible" article on Falun Gong. The contextual version is not apologetics. We try to explain to the greatest extent we can the context behind any quote we put in. The editor himself must first arduously and in-depth study the teachings of the school. I had been doing the same so that we may have an encyclopaedia quality article here. The contextualized version explains a lot of things including what Fa-Rectification is. Most editors felt the other vesion is simply not accurate... We have some serious thinking to do. I donot plan to bent down and sacrifice a bit on accuracy ... Or to let the article go down a bit in quality... Allowing one bit of inaccuracy is as good as letting pages of inaccurate material inside... We need to revise the paras... especially so when so many editors consider it inaccurate..
Tomananda, I didnt have any clue as to what your sexual orientation is( how was I to know?). If I knew I wouldnt have posted those quotes on homosexuality. I am terribly sorry... there exists bad things in all of us; eliminating those things is what is meant by cultivation... and schools of cultivation tell us that they are not of our true selves and that only by freeing ourselves of those aggregates (called egos in the Gnostic school) can one's true self rise up in its ineffable glory... The greatest cultivators have emerged from the sinners of the past.. It is only greater glory if one can completely rise above all those things.. the lotus grows in mud .. though you may call this a POV :) .. the red rose is more beautiful than the white one... I also want you to know that what the ancient cultivation ways tell us is not mere philosophy.. but a mathematically precise description of reality... which you may validate for yourself... there is far more to reality than what we think we know... the mammal intellect in itself is incapable of understanding higher teachings... but there are higher faculties in the human... 
Friend, I would like to exchange something which I consider is of great and urgent importance with you over email... it is more than just about Falun Gong... my email id is dilip_rajeev@msn.com ... could you kindly give me your e-mail id?
Dilip rajeev 09:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Apologetics 

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

message: Olaf has pointed out that the last paragraph in the Beliefs section does not report that Li Hongzhi's teachings concerning the Fa-rectication have changed over time.  He now offers salvation to all people, good and bad alike.  In order to address that concern, as well as provide additional context as requested by Dilip, I have expanded that paragraph as follows:
Existing paragraph:
Also found is the idea that Master Li protects all his disciples, but that if they fail to follow the requirements of his Dafa he will withdraw his protection and their bodies will be returned to those of ordinary persons and that sickness, old age and even death will return to them. If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, while people who think that the Dafa isn’t good, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world.
Proposed New Text:
Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm.  These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power and the mighty power of the Fa.”  They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds.   Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun  :
  
“If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly.  What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”  
  
While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites.   However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result.  In Zhuan 
Falun  Li Hongzhi states:
  
“If you do not follow the requirements of the Fa, you are not a practitioner of Falun Dafa. Because you want to be an everyday person, your body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” 
  
In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to 
the Fa’s requirements.  In Zhuan Falun  Li Hongzhi states;
  
“When you continually practice cultivation, you will constantly prolong your life. …There is a criterion, however, that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”
  
There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death.  In The Essentials  Li Hongzhi states:
  
“Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died? Some of them died precisely because they did such things. Don’t think that your master might do something to you….. Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.”
   
If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation.  The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation.  In 1999in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned:
  
“Mankind! Awaken! The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. What path a person takes in life is his own choosing. One thought a person has might determine his future.”
  
Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called  “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt  people will be eliminated,  leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards.   In  2001  Li Hongzhi  made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:
  
“Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”
  
It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation.  However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved.   In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process.  In 2005
 Li Hongzhi stated:
  
“In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.”
  
In order to be saved one must not have “a bad attitude” towards the Dafa which apparently means that one must side with the Falun Gong in its fight with the Chinese government concerning the alleged persecution of practitioners.   In the same lecture  Li Hongzhi states:
  
“It is the CCP itself that chose to make Dafa its enemy. From the moment it proclaimed that it must defeat Falun Gong, the evil spirit of the CCP and the CCP's wicked, base group that has been persecuting Dafa disciples in the human world were condemned to death by all of the cosmos's gods.”
--Tomananda 10:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit on Fa-rectification 

message: Absurd. Anybody can be a Falun Gong practitioner provided he lets go of all his bad traits and fundamentally changes himself - otherwise just by labelling himself so he is not.... you put it as if some criteria for being a practitioner has been suddenly relaxed... I dont have a problem with putting all the quotes in. It is the wierd commentary you add to them. I would be glad to have your email id, as there is a lot I want to discuss with you.  Fire Star, I request you that you be wary that people donot put in absurd POV( the above material i dont think is just a POV..) content into the article -- and use a couple of quotes from here and there to fool the un-informed. 
Further, the article is already far larger than the recommended size for a wikipedia article. 
Dilip rajeev 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is the Wierd commentary 

message: I have posted a shortened version of the above and I consider it to be a compromise from my earlier, two paragraph version.  I've tried to accomodate what Olaf documented concerning the change in Li Hongzhi's teachings on Fa-rectification.  I am open to amended language there,  but I am not open to concealing the basics about Li Hongzhi turning practioners into Gods (a word he uses almost constantly, as opposed to your use of Buddhhood), his protection of practitioners, or his earlier formulation of Fa-rectification which includes categories of people being weeded out. 
I orginally said all of this in two short paragraphs but you, Dilip,  complained that I had not provided context.  Now I have.  Most of the content in this piece is highly favorable to the Falun Gong.  It even includes questionable health claims, such as those of Lili Fong.  As Fire Star has said repeatedly, edits should not be done at the expense of other people's writing.  Dilip, your repeated attempts to delete certain vocabulary and ideas...all part of Master Li's teachings...is really troublesome.  An enclyclopedia needs to cover all the basics of a religion,
not just those aspects you are proud of.  And what could be more basic and important than Li Hongzhi's idea of Fa-rectification and who it effects?  If anything, some of the other puff pieces, such as the awards section, could be taken out. 
Dilip, concerning your comments on homosexuality, you and Li Hongzhi do not know what you are talking about. It is not appropriate to get into a discussion on this topic on this site,  but suffice it to say that homosexuality is a God-given trait just as heterosexuality is.  You are wrong in asserting all religions condemn homosexuality.  Some do, some don't.  If you want to debate with me on that topic, please do a posting on the SF.indymedia.org website.
--Tomananda 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. Condemnation of homosexuality is common in organised religion, so the most remarkable feature of Li's teachings for me are the theories on alien mind control a la Scientology. The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward. The article size issue isn't a big one (no pun intended) apparently... --Fire Star 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaf and Dilip 

message: Greetings, dear editors.
I apologize for not having time to carefully evaluate the proposed changes and write a detailed commentary. There's just too much going on, and you seem to be really engaged in this issue. However, I wish you could all calm down a little bit, especially Dilip, who seems to reflect somewhat passionate emotional outbursts in his text, in my opinion. This is a friendly reminder! We all tend to get excited and even provoked every now and then. But I have to say that I disagree with Dilip regarding certain issues, and I can see why some of you feel he doesn't want the article to cover certain questions. However, I don't blame him for that, because I also see that the new additions are not entirely balanced interpretations of Li's teachings as a whole. Here in Wikipedia, if you feel somebody's editions aren't neutral or just, you can provide a better context and thus strive towards a NPOV. I have found that revert wars are practically a waste of time. Somebody's always going to disagree with you, and it's a vicious circle that makes people react even more fervently. It's better to leave the article in an unbalanced state for a while and do some research to eventually provide conclusive information and sources.
Tomananda: Yes, I am the same person who posted on the Indymedia website. And I do practice Falun Gong. If you read through my previous discussions (mostly in /Archive4), maybe you'll get understand my position better. I have talked about biases and subjectivity before, so I will not repeat myself here.
Falun Gong is a terribly complicated issue, because many people absolutely cannot agree with its ontological and epistemological theories. Criticizing the master-disciple relationship is one good example: such things exist in all genuine cultivation practices, and Falun Gong is considerably less rigid in this regard. It's the sheer immensity of the phenomenon that makes it particularily suspicious to some observers. Personally, I think Falun Gong has nothing to do with an authoritarian cult. (Of course, if I did, I probably wouldn't practice it myself.)
The most unfortunate thing is that sometimes people agree with the crackdown because they have strong opinions against "pseudo-science", "quackery" and "superstition". This applies to some so-called cult experts as well. We must remember that the scientific community's viewpoints on Falun Gong are incredibly varied, while Scientology, for example, is denounced by practically everybody. Pointing out the opinions of some extremes (like Margaret Singer, for instance) or self-proclaimed and highly controversial "experts" with no academic education (like Rick Ross) is not sufficient, even though you certainly can mention them in an encyclopedia article, if you also tell about the criticism they have received. I intend to elaborate on this issue.
If you feel that something absolutely cannot be true, it is sure to smell fishy to you, and you're prone to suspect a hidden agenda or conspiracy. I have enough self-reflectivity to admit that I cannot know whether everything about FLG is true. But I know it has supernatural effects on the human body that surpass the capability of modern science, and that's just about enough for me. Why, I look several years younger than before, I can see certain things in other dimensions, etc. And I know a lot of perfectly sane, well-educated practitioners with similar (or even more peculiar) experiences. How could I not find it worthwhile? I take Falun Gong seriously because the practice manifests a tangible reality, it's not just dogma or mind-blowing theories. Mind you, I do find some of Li's statements quite far out, but his method is indeed astonishing, and I'd like to hear what such a person has to say. Teaching an intricate system of qigong is not like teaching aerobics, and it's not a new Jane Fonda fitness video. Maybe he does know what he's talking about, maybe the truth is somewhere in between; who can say at this point? Interesting, isn't it?
I've also studied authoritarian cults and ideologies, and I'm well aware of different manipulative techniques. Actually, I've probed quite deep into these issues in my studies. These things are not entirely within the scope of this article, so I won't discuss them here. Maybe we can exchange personal e-mails or move to some other discussion forum if you're interested in my points of view and why I disagree with your categorization of Falun Gong. But, as I said, first you could read what I've written here before. I can see from your discussions that you're a good writer, and I'm genuinely interested to hear what you have to say.
When I have time, I will scrutinize your new additions into the article. I already browsed through them quickly, but there's just too many other things to take care of right now.
Best regards,
Olaf Stephanos 16:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaf responds 

message: Yesterday Dilip said that there was agreement of the editors about replacing the existing paragraphs at the end of the Beliefs section with his own revisions.  Today we have just heard from two editors.  Fire Star is not bothered by the text, it's use of quotes or it's connecting language. 
Fire Star comments:  I agree that what Tomananda put in does seem weird, but it seems weird to me because Li says these things. . . . The quotes are sourced and laid out in a form that contains no condemnatory commentary. We have links to FLG websites if people are intrigued by any of the things put in the article. It is straightforward.
Olaf has now weighed in. He says: I will scrutinize your new additions into the article.  In an earlier post,  Olaf said he did not have any objection to any of the insertions I had made, but he pointed out in a detailed post how it lacked important information, especially concerning Fa-rectification.  In response to Olaf's commentary, I went back to the original sources and created a version to answer some of Olaf's concerns.  I am totally open to more changes from Olaf about those revisions. 
Now today we have Dilip, once again, deleting all of this work and replacing it with his version
which fails to report the whole story of Li Hongzhi's teachings.
Dilip:  Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time?  Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm? Or that his Fashen (Law bodies) play a key role in that protection, as explained in the Zhuan Falun?  Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi tells practioners they will be turned into Gods? Why do you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood? 
Please Fire Star: do another revert, and then we can go from there! I'm open to all kinds of compromises, but to engage in an edit war with Dilip rather than addressing my concerns that important content is being withheld is a waste of time and effort.
Wikipedia etiguette asks that we answer each other's questions or concerns.  Dilip: in the spirit of cooperation, are you willing to answer my questions above?
--Tomananda 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that one more. Dilip's "majority of editors" does not exist. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, but you guys can revert, too. Now I'm done for another 10 hours due to WP:3RR. Since I do edit this page I'm not functioning as an admin, I'm just another editor. I think the contribution makes sense as it is, but if Dilip can contextualize it more without removing anything, that would be OK too. My main goal is to have a good, neutral article that people can live with. --Fire Star 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Star: Please Revert Again 

message: There are too many fallacies in the text introduced. At one point, tomananda claims that the criteria for becoming a practitioner has been somehow loosened. The idea makes no sense when you measure it with the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. See that from very early lectures, for example, this one from Germany says:
"No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will 
look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart. If you don’t cultivate, then 
nothing can be done. "
From the very earliest lectures it is said that anyone may cultivate irrespective of the karma, if he can strengthen his will and has the heart for cultivation.
The prolonging life quote is for extremely old people. You could only be hiding that intentionally as Zhuan Falun says that extremely clearly in the paragraphs/sentences before.
Aparna r 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To many fallacies in Tomananda's version 

message: Aparna, we don't just delete entire sections of a text...especially one that is currently being discussed for possible revisons.   It is yet another example of the bullying tactics that Falun Gong practioners engage in.  
--Tomananda 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Violation of Wikipedia Etiquette 

message: First of all, we have a well agreed upon and readable version of the article here... we must make sure that it is not converted into a random(?) collection of quotes.... Then anybody can come and put in a 100 quotes..
q.Why are you uncomfortable reporting that Li Hongzhi says he offers salvation and is the only Savior for mankind at this time?
For A LOT of reasons including, but not limited to:
1. First of all it is said in the book Zhuan Falun that Tibetan tantrism , Pure LandBuddhism etc are all true cultivation ways - i.e. they offer salvation
You seem to be saying that you agree Li Hongzhi offers salvation (the first part of the sentence) but that you don’t agree that he is the only one offering salvation for mankind at this time. 
Yes, there are other cultivation ways which Master Li talks about in Zhuan Falun,  but isn’t the larger point that Master Li makes in Zhuan Falun that he is the only one offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification?   That message, permeates his teachings.   In Zhuan Falun he repeatedly contrasts the cultivation he teaches at the higher levels with those of other traditions.  He even calls the original Fa taught by Sakyamuni “primitive” and says it cannot save the people of today.   He also states in Zhuan Falun:
“Today, we have made public to you such a great cultivation way, and I have delivered it to your doorstep.  It will be up to you whether you can practice cultivation and make it…..If you cannot do it and cannot practice cultivation, you should not think about practicing cultivation from now on.  Except for the demons that will deceive you, nobody else will teach you and you will not be able to practice cultivation.  If I cannot save you, nobody else can.”
2. It must be made very clear what Falun Gong mens by the word "God". Falun gong has an intricate set of teachings on higher dimensional realities (to put it loosely) a "god" being just a higher being, limited by his level... just like a human is limited by his level...even gods being able to move up by cultivation... gods considering higer beings astheir gods... none of the beings knowing the ultimate truth of the cosmos and so on.... Ifyou willing to let me write on all these things(concisely) I am willing to introduce termgod... The teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong can only be accurately portrayed withcontext...
Yes, there are Gods at higher levels whom Master Li refers to, and different traditions have different ideas for what the word God means, but there is no need to explain all of Li Hongzhi’s cosmology to simply say he promises to turn his practitioners into Gods.  Yes, the Gods Li refers to at the higher levels are limited (Li will teach them his Dafa after all) and I get all of that.   But we do not need to introduce a great deal of complexity in this section to get the basic point across.  If you can suggest a short clarifying phrase, or even a sentence, to qualify the meaning of the word God in this section, fine with me.   But to recast the whole thing into an exposition of Master Li’s cosmology or his version of the creation myth would destroy the cohesiveness of these paragraphs.  If you want to really expand on all that, I believe you should write up a separate section.
3. Falun Gong's concept of "offering salvation" must be made clear... praciting falun gong doesnt automatically lead to salvation....
"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either . I can teach you the principles of the Fa, I can help you evolve gong, I can eliminate a portion of your karma for you, I can protect you, and I can do a huge range of things for you that you don’t know about but that are necessary when you Consummate and afterwards. But if your heart doesn’t change and your mind doesn’t elevate, then all of that is in vain."
"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."
Here again, you are introducing a level of complexity that is not needed here.  Of course Falun Gong cultivation does not automatically lead to salvation.  And, yes, a very short description of what salvation means might fit in this context.   But if you envision a lengthy exposition on salvation, then I think we are talking about something different than what is now being discussed.  Keep in mind that Olaf intends to offer some additional context, too.  Let’s at least attempt to proceed by modifying the existing text, rather than creating whole new sections…at least for now.
q) Why are you uncomfortable reporting that as part of the master-disciple relationship in Falun Gong the Master protects his followers from harm?
If we can explain the concept of Fa-Shen, in detail and accurately before we touch uponthem, then we may. We cannot irresponsibly use terms in an article... We are providing links to all the teachings of Falun Gong-- So we are not hiding anything and we are allowing the reader to read it in proper context. Again so much is said about Fa-Shen in the lectures...
Again, I think it is a matter of length and overall cohesiveness.  This is an encylopedia article, not a book.   As Fire Star has suggested, additional context can always be provided though the external links.   I would prefer that you suggest modifications to the wording I have proposed.
q)  Why do  you insist that the only word that can be used for this idea is Buddha or Buddhahood?
First, it is a cultivation practice of the Buddha School, so what it cultivates is Buddhahood. Seondly, To make the aspect of cultivation involved clear... I prefer the term "cultivation of Buddhahood".. achieving buddhahood through cultivation... Inshort that term helps outline the context..
Sure, it is clear that you prefer the term Buddha or Buddhahood, but the problem is that Li Hongzhi uses the terms God and Gods  in this context and that language needs to be reported as well.  In fact, I am a bit surprised that you would want to alter Li Hongzhi’s words so much.  It is almost as if you want to edit the teachings in such a way that the finished result does not reflect the original.  Since you are a practitioner, that surprises me.  Oddly, it appears that I care more about being faithful to Master Li’s formulations than you do.
Also, there’s no reason why different sections can’t use their own vocabulary.   Keep in mind that the two paragraphs that were added at the end began with words like: “It is also believed that….”  
q) When you write about Fa-rectification, you present it as if it is something for wiping out bad people.  The term fa-rectification must explained very clearly before it is used...attempt in the direction has been made the contextualized version....
Well,yes and yes.  Master Li does describe Fa-rectification in those terms, so blame him, not me.   And you already provided a pretty good  sentence which briefly explains the the bigger picture: “It is also said that the cosmic firmament, from very high levels, has deviated from the Fa( Dharma ) and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in the process of "Fa-rectification".  I would reformulate that wording to appear as follows:
Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called  “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards.  It is said that the cosmic firmament,  from very high level, has deviated form the Fa (Dharma)_ and that all levels are being rectified by the Fa in this process.   In  2001  Li Hongzhi  made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:
  
I am willing to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, Law Bodies etc with context and concisely if you think we must do so in the article. Plucking out random(??) quotes is not the way to do it. Kindy give me a few weeks time as I need to study oer a 1000 pages of material in-dpeth to come up with something that can be called factual.
Again, I think you are making this more complex than it needs to be.   Master Li himself introduces the idea of the Fashen fairly succinctly in Zhuan Falun and we don’t need to write a whole book about it.   But,  yes,  I do think that the Fa-shen as a means of protecting practitioners (as well as knowing what they are thinking and in my point of view controlling them) is absolutely essential.
I want to ensure that things are explained accurtly and with context. For Instance, to explain the concept of Fa-Shen, one must explain the concept of higher dimensions... (Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article not a newspaper article) which is explained in pages of material in the books... just to pull out a few paras...
Please refer to my comments above.   It sounds  like you want to write an entire section on Master Li’s cosmology.  While that’s fine with me, it is really not needed to get across the point that Master Li’s law bodies protect his practitioners.   These ideas are not that difficult to grasp.   Are you just trying to burry them in a mountain of irrelevant teachings?   An encyclopedia article needs to present the basics, not all the details.
  
--Tomananda 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Dilip 

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

message: Sorry McConn, when I reverted the article to the version that is currently being debated I missed that you had done some editing in the paragraph above the section on Master Li's role as savior and protector of the practitioners.  I have now restored the text to include your changes.
By the way, here's what Master Li says about the development of Gong in Zhuan Falun (p.28):
"Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while transformation of Gong is up to the master.  The master gives you the Gong that develops your Gong, which will be at work.  It can transform the substance De outside or your body into gong....If you want to improve Gong, your gong will not be improved withouth paying attention to Xinxing cultivation."
I am not proposing that you make any changes to that paragraph, but thought the above quote...which also goes to the importance of Master Li's direct intervention during cultivation practice...is interesing.  Practitioners get their Gong from the Master,  as well as their Falun
(which he installs).  He also is directly involved in the elimination of karma (pushing to get rid of the last bit of karma that a practitioner can't manage on his own.) 
--Tomananda 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Msriram,  You've got to be kidding!  You've just done a major blanking of text which has, in one form or another, appeared on this page since March 11th and has been hotly debated on these discussion pages (see above). Wikipedia etiquette asks all of us to respect the input of others and not to engage in wholesale, drive-by blanking.  I don't remember reading any recent input from you concerning the edits which you object to.
You make a comment above that is correct, but not relevant to the comment I made.  The correct part is:  "the gong that evolves gong are energy mechanisms that evolve gong from de."  But you have not responded to the quote from Zhuan Falun above, so I have to question why you are being so evasive.  The quote is:  "The master gives you the gong that develops your gong."  Do you agree with that statement?  If so, do you have an objection to making it public?  
By the way,  I assume from your knowledge of this material that you are also a practitioner.  Is that correct?
--Tomananda 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology to mcconn 

message: I'd like to make it clear, as I mentioned above, that since I edit this page regularly I'm not functioning as an admin in this discussion and would not use admin features unless there were repeated, blatant violations of WP:NPA, which there hasn't been a hint of here. I'm just another editor. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. --Fire Star 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire Star,  If that's the case that leaves Miborovsky and Olaf Stephanos as the only other administrors who have commented on this discussion.  Miborovsky responded to Dilip's assertion that there was a "majority of editors" who supported his blanking of my long-discussed edit by saying that Dilip's majority didn't exist.  Olaf has commented above that he accepts letting my edit stand pending further discussion for context.  So now we have Msriram doing a drive-by blanking. Do drive-by blankings ever become an issue for administrators to deal with, or is this all just a game of survival of the "faction"  that has the greatest numbers?  --Tomananda 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, both of those editors have editied the page, too, so they are in the same boat I am. Drive-by reversions are dealt with by 3RR just like any other. In this case, however, the editor did leave a note here on the talk page. My suggestion now is to list the disputed quotes here, and each of us can comment on them. I am myself convinced of their validity, but a detailed discussion will help us all see more clearly. If you list each point with a bullet, I'll archive the above talk and we can start with a fresh page. --Fire Star 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I have boldly changed the section heading "Competing Narratives About Falun Gong" to "Controversial Issues Regarding Falun Gong". The reason is that the concept of "narratives" is relativistic jargon from the post-modernist flank of the humanities and social sciences. We are not dealing simply with narratives here: we are trying to present true and correct information about the article's subject. Anybody care to comment on that? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, except for capitalization ;) ...and you're getting really good at avoiding the hot-button word "controversies". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the other headings also need "bold" fixing to make them more NPOV and in-context. Much of the "history" section headings is the product of asdfg's work in the past few days. Colipon+(Talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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