Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 1

message: Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional  terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy.   In Zhuan Falun,  Li states: “Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while the 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 of De outside of your body into Gong.” 
 
According to Deng and Fang, Li uses traditional religious terms in order to gain the commitment of new initiates through miscommunication:
Through adoption of confusing terminologies, followers are led into miscommitting—believing they are practicing Qigong or qigong of the Buddhist school (Fojia Gong, it is also Li’s invention to include it as part of Buddhism).  Built upon this technique, Li was able (we believe to a lesser extent he still has this capacity) to use the socially acceptable terms to create an impression of conformity but retains the ability to claim supernormality.  The problem for Falungong is to introduce such self-proclaimed extraordinariness without arousing the suspicion of abnormality; instead it must provoke trust built on the traditional labels. 
 
Deng and Fang argue that Falun Gong's unique cultivation mechanism -- involving the accumulation of De (virtue) and the master’s intervention to transform it to Gong -- and it's use of traditional terms in novel ways was a source of early criticism from the religious community:
Though the creation and misapplication of the traditional terms with “new meanings” Li is able to promote Falungong without a radical appearance.  By confusing the readers, Li makes them commit to what they believe as a “new” traditional school of Buddhism or a form of qigong.  The inconsistence between the message and the intended object creates the disparity to some students well versed in traditional studies.  It was this kind of terminology dispute that prompted the earlier and insightful criticism of Falungong from the religious circle.
Other critics have pointed to the range of sources Li used to create his unique version of Qi Gong.  In Falun Gong: The End of Days, Maria Hsia Chang writes:  "By 1992...Li Hongzhi had devised his own variant of qigong, which he combined with elements from China's traditional creeds of Buddhism and Daoism to create a new religious movement--the syncretic sect of Falun Gong."   
====Suggestions for edits====
I've added (citation needed) above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contradiction here, other than possibly Li's himself. Zhuan Falun clearly states that De is accumulated by doing good deeds,  suffering, etc:
*"The white substance – De (virtues) will be attained through doing good deeds while the black substance – karma will be procured by committing wrong deeds."  Zuan Falun,   p.144-145 
*We have said that De is attained through enduring, suffering pains, or doing good deeds.  Therefore, this situation will occur in the sitting meditation. Zhuan Falun  p.148
The fact that elsewhere Li talks about preserving the De you already have is not a contradiction. Both can be true.  More importantly, your long quote is off-topic.  The main point in this section is two fold:
* Li applies new meanings to traditional Qi Gong terms
* Li's interpretation of how gong (energy) is evolved is drastically different from traditional Qi Gong.  In the case of Falun Gong, the master's intervention is required.
It's those two points which form the essence of the criticism and by inserting an over-long quote which does not relate to those points the effect will merely be to undermine the criticism with uneccessary and distracting content.  That, in fact, is a form of apologetics.  --Tomananda 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note I have deleted that last block quote from the edit and added two others from the same source.  There's no need to go off into a tangent with this material.  --Tomananda 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of the Falun Gong versus Qi Gong section, I was responding to Dilip's critique of the last block quote.  I think we should respond to the challenges first, not try to do any major re-writes. That was my intent for this section, and I'm not planning on doing anything more. (Except perhaps provide citations here and there if needed).  If you think I added a bit more than I should have, I apologize.  However, I certainly allow for the possibility of a "rebuttal" edit being added by practitoners.  Anyway, that's how I see this process working: the rule should be that we add if needed, but don't delete (unless it's in response to a specific challgenge from the other side.)--Tomananda 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, just checking. I wasn't absolutely clear that it was in response to Dilip. Carry on :) CovenantD 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, you've proven your point. Actually, the first quote did that. So the controversy isn't that Falun Gong uses different meanings for words and terms, but the differences themselves and the confusion that they cause. Perhaps the section, and people's comments, can focus on those aspects. CovenantD 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Deng and Fang do focus on Li's assignment of different meanings to traditional terms and make the argument that he intentionally gains intiatiates because of his use of familiar terms.  I have merely reported that criticism.  (Deng and Fang say X about Y).  The problem here is that Dilip hasn't really written a readable response. Three paragraph block quotes from Li don't do it.  In this section,  and also in the homosexuality section, the practitioners should be able to summarize the opinions of other commentators about the criticism.  For example, are there any Qi Gong experts who would argue that Deng and Fang are wrong?  Are there other respected Qi Gong schools that also have divergent meanings for words like De and Gong?  Actually I don't know, and that might be interesting to report.--Tomananda 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong

message: I've added (citation needed) above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contradiction here, other than possibly Li's himself. Zhuan Falun clearly states that De is accumulated by doing good deeds,  suffering, etc:
*"The white substance – De (virtues) will be attained through doing good deeds while the black substance – karma will be procured by committing wrong deeds."  Zuan Falun,   p.144-145 
*We have said that De is attained through enduring, suffering pains, or doing good deeds.  Therefore, this situation will occur in the sitting meditation. Zhuan Falun  p.148
The fact that elsewhere Li talks about preserving the De you already have is not a contradiction. Both can be true.  More importantly, your long quote is off-topic.  The main point in this section is two fold:
* Li applies new meanings to traditional Qi Gong terms
* Li's interpretation of how gong (energy) is evolved is drastically different from traditional Qi Gong.  In the case of Falun Gong, the master's intervention is required.
It's those two points which form the essence of the criticism and by inserting an over-long quote which does not relate to those points the effect will merely be to undermine the criticism with uneccessary and distracting content.  That, in fact, is a form of apologetics.  --Tomananda 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note I have deleted that last block quote from the edit and added two others from the same source.  There's no need to go off into a tangent with this material.  --Tomananda 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of the Falun Gong versus Qi Gong section, I was responding to Dilip's critique of the last block quote.  I think we should respond to the challenges first, not try to do any major re-writes. That was my intent for this section, and I'm not planning on doing anything more. (Except perhaps provide citations here and there if needed).  If you think I added a bit more than I should have, I apologize.  However, I certainly allow for the possibility of a "rebuttal" edit being added by practitoners.  Anyway, that's how I see this process working: the rule should be that we add if needed, but don't delete (unless it's in response to a specific challgenge from the other side.)--Tomananda 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, just checking. I wasn't absolutely clear that it was in response to Dilip. Carry on :) CovenantD 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for edits

message: These quotes , dated December 21 1995 and several others make it  clear that the terminology used in Falun Dafa carries different meaning from traditional ones .I draw the attention of other editors to this.
"Some students were once lay Buddhists and have a very deep impression of the terms in Buddhist scriptures. When they find that I use words identical to those in Buddhism, they think that their meanings are the same as in Buddhism. In fact, they do not denote exactly the same meanings. Some terms in the Buddhism of the Han region are Chinese vocabulary, and they are not exclusively terms from Buddhism."
Dilip rajeev 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, you've proven your point. Actually, the first quote did that. So the controversy isn't that Falun Gong uses different meanings for words and terms, but the differences themselves and the confusion that they cause. Perhaps the section, and people's comments, can focus on those aspects. CovenantD 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Deng and Fang do focus on Li's assignment of different meanings to traditional terms and make the argument that he intentionally gains intiatiates because of his use of familiar terms.  I have merely reported that criticism.  (Deng and Fang say X about Y).  The problem here is that Dilip hasn't really written a readable response. Three paragraph block quotes from Li don't do it.  In this section,  and also in the homosexuality section, the practitioners should be able to summarize the opinions of other commentators about the criticism.  For example, are there any Qi Gong experts who would argue that Deng and Fang are wrong?  Are there other respected Qi Gong schools that also have divergent meanings for words like De and Gong?  Actually I don't know, and that might be interesting to report.--Tomananda 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Terminology

message: Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period; In Zhuan Falun 
he states  “If I cannot save you,  nobody else can do it.”  If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:
"I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."
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." 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 that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”  
</blockquote>  
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 that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged.  However, there is a criterion "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", referring to old people whom he claims should have died already, according to his conception of their predestined life span.
====Suggestions for edits====
*I've added [citation needed] above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Li as a savior or supernatural entity

message: *I've added [citation needed] above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for edits

message: 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." 
In Zhuan Falun, Li explains that catastrophes “which destroy everything in the universe” are recurring events in the history of our universe.  He claims he “made a careful investigation once and found out that mankind has been through the state of complete annihilation eighty one times.”
In a speech in Boston in 2002, Li reported that scientists have discovered that the observable universe “is expanding faster and faster, and the speed of the expansion keeps accelerating.”   Explaining that “something only expands before it explodes,” Li told his audience that he and the immense force of Fa-rectification have so far been able to avert an explosion:
Although the universe is expanding, I’m doing things at an extremely fast speed, and I can definitely catch up with it.  If I don’t catch up with it, I can tell you, the final disintegration would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist. If I do catch up with, everything is resolved. Not only will I catch up with it, but I will also surpass it, and that's when the Fa rectifies the human world 
Deng and Fang (2000), suggest that Li’s teachings on cosmic explosions and the existence of advanced pre-historical civilizations were “borrowed from Western catastrophists and pseudo-archaeologists” whose ideas were commonly reported 
in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”   They report that early in the history of Falun Gong scientists “criticized Li and his followers for creating a deceptive science by misusing scientific terms and theories.”  
====Suggestions for edits====
Quite honestly, I'm not sure how the expanding bit fits into the historical influence part. Maybe it's explained in the full speech (which I haven't finished reading yet), but from reading the above excerpt it seems as though he's talking about the present and perhaps the future. It could use a bit of tying-in to show it's relevance to historical influence of Falun Gong. CovenantD 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions 

message: Quite honestly, I'm not sure how the expanding bit fits into the historical influence part. Maybe it's explained in the full speech (which I haven't finished reading yet), but from reading the above excerpt it seems as though he's talking about the present and perhaps the future. It could use a bit of tying-in to show it's relevance to historical influence of Falun Gong. CovenantD 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for edits

message: In order to guide our current discussion, I am reposting this section on the discussion page. It covers a controversial topic fairly and represents both sides of the academic debate.  To me, this section serves as a model for what is needed in other controversial sections as well.--Tomananda 22:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Falun Gong a cult?

message: I began the article with what I hope is a bland (even "neutral") summary of some of the main points of contention. I was not trying to be comprehensive, nor was I really keen on being as accurate as possible. But I tried hard to provide a balance between the two sides of each issue.
Surely someone can do better than I have done. I don't really want to "contribute" to the article. Think of what I wrote merely as "priming the pump". --Uncle Ed 13:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: I am concerned about representing these "Deng and Feng" a political "science" professor and microbiologist as some kind of authority of Falun Gong. They are by no means any authority on QI Gong or Xiu Lian.
Regarding the section on Homosexuality we must put the teachings of Falun Gong on this matter in Block quotes.. no need to write our own commentaries or that of Deng and Feng.. The Blockquotes would just run a few paragraphs and there is no need to dispute over the material then.
Kindly put forward your suggestions on the issue. Thankyou. Kindly look into the material on terminology I posted in reply to the allegation made in the first paragraph. Thankyou.
While a political science professor says Falun Gong is very different from Qi Gong... Master Da Liu the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North America and the author of several books on Qi Gong, Tai Chi and I Ching considers Falun Dafa a Dafa (Great Way) of the Buddha School. 
In 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." 
 Dilip rajeev 11:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Suggestions 

message: Cut from intro:
:The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as racist, homophobic and anti-science by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by Falun Gong's founder are fairly interpretted.
This seems overly broad. I customized it for the homosexuality section, with a link to Homophobia. 
I didn't see anything in the body of the article about racism, but no doubt there *is* something. Let's address that.
I'm not sure about the "anti-science" part. Perhaps that refers to the "refusal to seek traditional treatment" aspect? How about a source for that, should be easy to find. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics and supporters

message: I'm not trying to "own" this article. If you all (or most of you) want me to butt out, I will. About half the of the time when I've started a stub the way I have (and continued it as I did this morning), it turns out splendidly. The contributors who really know something about the topic take over start describing each disputed aspect fairly.
But if you want to blank it again, I won't revert. Hey, I'm just here to help. If my "help" isn't helping, then I'll stop. --Uncle Ed 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't go. Seems that people will still listen to what you have to say at this point. CovenantD 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Uncle Ed, please stay with us.  You are a voice of reason and without your intervention I don't think we will make any progress. --Tomananda 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration amoung contributors

message: :I am not convinced that this group fulfills my BITE model in its entirety. I have not had an opportunity to interview any individuals who have been very involved with this group and decided to leave. I do have a strong impression that Thought control and Phobia indoctrination (emotional control) is very much used. 
That's the first quote I found by googling "Li Hongzhi (singer OR hassan)". Your turn: look up Singer, please? --Uncle Ed 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Hassan takes the bite out of mind control accusations

message: I asked for quotes in addition to Hassan, and I got one from Margaret Singer. The quote from Hassan sounds mild - not nearly as harsh a slam as he gave the Moonies. The quote from Sanger seems to be "just her opinion". 
I suggest we add both those quotes to the article, and let readers decide for themselves what to conclude. If they click on Singer and read the article on her, they'll run across the fact that US courts stopped accepting her as an expert witness. The APA gave her a chance to prove her mind control theory, but she couldn't convince them.
I am not arguing that she is wrong - I'm a mediator and I'm staying completely neutral here. I'm just letting you know something about Singer which POV pushers might not know. If your purpose is to condemn FG, it might not work if readers think that the APA discredited Singer.
Anyway, who cares what some so-called expert's OPINION is? Readers want to know what facts they observed which led to their conclusions. If Hassan or Singer argue that Li's charisma or semi-messianic claims make FG a cult, that's their point of view and they are welcome to it. Let's include their POV and balance it with quotes from sociologists or ex-FG practioners (if any).
Ed: have you actually read the section on Is Falun Gong a cult? It reports the statements of Hassan and Singer and follows up with the counter-POV.  It is quite well balanced and has already been discussed among the editors, so for my money we don't need to revisit this one particular section...unless, after reading it, you have a different opinion. --Tomananda 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult quotes: can we get a balance? 

message: Ed has said that this section doesn't need to be here because it's not something that's in contention and he thinks it's covered in the Teachings article. (I don't know if it is or isn't - I haven't checked.) Tomananda thinks it needs to be included because it is one of the criticisms about Falun Gong. Thoughts on those two perspectives? Remember this is about whether this section meets the criteria for inclusion in the Criticism and controvery article, not whether Li is or isn't a savior. CovenantD 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is quite controversial as demonstrated by previous deletions of the content. We must remember that we had a major revert war which brought us to the place we are today.  There are many Falun Gong practitioners on this board, for example Dilip, who have objected to this content appearing in the article.  If the known editors who favor Falun Gong (Dilip, Mcconn, Fnddzhs and Olaf) can right now make a statement that they will refrain from deleting this content in a future revert war, I would be ok with it appearing in the main article rather than the controversy article.  I have asked this question before.  Responses?  --Tomananda 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of the ''Savior'' section

message: In case no committment comes from Dilip, Mcconn, Fnddzh and Olaf to refrain from deleting this section as previosly presented, I am now proposing an enhanced version to appear in the Criticism and controversy section.  In this new version, I have made clear what the controversy is (denial of Li's divine status by practitioners) combined with critical commentary to the effect that he most certainly does consider himself divine.  Here's the re-write:
===Li as a savior or supernatural entity===
Although practitioners claim that Falun Gong is merely a “cultivation practice,” some commentators point to Li’s divine status as
proof that Falun Gong can rightly be considered a religion.  (Chang, 2004).    While Li himself has never claimed to be God,
he has spoken of himself as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending period.”   In Zhuan Falun 
he states  “If I cannot save you,  nobody else can do it.”  If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:
"I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."
Chang opines: “If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in falun gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity.”   Included in the idea of Li’s supernatural status is his claim of having numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect his practitioners from harm.  These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power." 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 that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”  
</blockquote>  
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 that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged.  However, there is a criterion "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", referring to old people whom he claims should have died already, according to his conception of their predestined life span.
According to Chang, the existence of Li’s law bodies combined with his claim to be without karma amount to an admission of his divine nature:  “Li also maintained that human beings do not have law bodies and that only he – as well as buddhas, daos and gods – have law bodies.  Falun Gong practitioners must wait until they have completed their cultivation, and attained buddhahood, to have such bodies.”
source:  Maria Hsia Chang, Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004)
===Suggestions===
In my personal opinion, some of the material is "original research" and is far from accurate.  Nowhere is it said that as long as you "safeguard" the Dafa you'll achieve Buddhahood. Please see this quote. 
Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe says:
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.
Another thing I want to point out is.. We must make clear what these so called "requirements" are:
True cultivation depends completely on cultivating your mind, so as long as you’re able to cultivate, and as long as you can keep on cultivating solidly and steadfastly, we’ll guide you as a disciple. Treating you any other way wouldn’t work. But some people can’t seem to really take themselves to be cultivators and keep on cultivating. It’s just not doable for some people. But a lot of people will really keep up their cultivation. And as long as you keep on cultivating we’ll guide you as a disciple.
So if somebody just does these few sets of movements every day, you think he counts as a Falun Dafa disciple? Probably not. The reason is, when you truly cultivate you have to discipline yourself with that character(xinxing) standard we talk about, you have to really improve your own character(xinxing), and then, and only then, is it true cultivation.
-Zhuan Falun
Note that xinxing is not just "character" in the ordinary sense of the term....
Xinxing encompasses how to deal with the two matters of gain and loss. "Gain" is to gain conformity to the nature of the universe. The nature that comprises the universe is Zhen-Shan-Ren. A cultivator’s degree of conformity to the nature of the universe is reflected in the amount of his or her virtue. "Loss" is to abandon negative thoughts and behaviors, such as greed, the pursuit of personal gain, lust, desire, killing, fighting, theft, robbery, deception, jealousy, etc. If one is to cultivate to high levels, one also needs to break with the pursuit of desires, something inherent in humans. In other words, one should let go of all attachments and take lightly all matters of personal gain and reputation. 
In my understanding, Falun Dafa requires one to cultivate one's xinxing (heart-nature or mind-nature). It must be made clear that the "requirement" is that...
Dilip rajeev 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip:  Here you're talking about the section called Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions which I haven't yet gotten to, but now I will. I agree with you that the word "manipulated" reflects a POV and I will change it to the more neutral verb:  "persuaded".   Is that word ok with you?  There are other issues that need to be addressed in that section, and I will be attending to them shortly. --Tomananda 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Olaf and Covenant:  Please note that I have made some changes in this section (including changing it's title) and posted a question to Olaf concerning documenting the action which the Clearwisdom editors took when they deleted the incomplete version of the SF Resoltion.  Please respond there. 
--Tomananda 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write of ''Li as savior or supernatural entity '' 

message: In my personal opinion, some of the material is "original research" and is far from accurate.  Nowhere is it said that as long as you "safeguard" the Dafa you'll achieve Buddhahood. Please see this quote. 
Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe says:
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.
Another thing I want to point out is.. We must make clear what these so called "requirements" are:
True cultivation depends completely on cultivating your mind, so as long as you’re able to cultivate, and as long as you can keep on cultivating solidly and steadfastly, we’ll guide you as a disciple. Treating you any other way wouldn’t work. But some people can’t seem to really take themselves to be cultivators and keep on cultivating. It’s just not doable for some people. But a lot of people will really keep up their cultivation. And as long as you keep on cultivating we’ll guide you as a disciple.
So if somebody just does these few sets of movements every day, you think he counts as a Falun Dafa disciple? Probably not. The reason is, when you truly cultivate you have to discipline yourself with that character(xinxing) standard we talk about, you have to really improve your own character(xinxing), and then, and only then, is it true cultivation.
-Zhuan Falun
Note that xinxing is not just "character" in the ordinary sense of the term....
Xinxing encompasses how to deal with the two matters of gain and loss. "Gain" is to gain conformity to the nature of the universe. The nature that comprises the universe is Zhen-Shan-Ren. A cultivator’s degree of conformity to the nature of the universe is reflected in the amount of his or her virtue. "Loss" is to abandon negative thoughts and behaviors, such as greed, the pursuit of personal gain, lust, desire, killing, fighting, theft, robbery, deception, jealousy, etc. If one is to cultivate to high levels, one also needs to break with the pursuit of desires, something inherent in humans. In other words, one should let go of all attachments and take lightly all matters of personal gain and reputation. 
In my understanding, Falun Dafa requires one to cultivate one's xinxing (heart-nature or mind-nature). It must be made clear that the "requirement" is that...
Dilip rajeev 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip:  Here you're talking about the section called Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions which I haven't yet gotten to, but now I will. I agree with you that the word "manipulated" reflects a POV and I will change it to the more neutral verb:  "persuaded".   Is that word ok with you?  There are other issues that need to be addressed in that section, and I will be attending to them shortly. --Tomananda 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Olaf and Covenant:  Please note that I have made some changes in this section (including changing it's title) and posted a question to Olaf concerning documenting the action which the Clearwisdom editors took when they deleted the incomplete version of the SF Resoltion.  Please respond there. 
--Tomananda 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Dilip:  Are you actually claiming that Li allows his Dafa disciples to remain disciples if they don't safeguard the Dafa?  I'm sure you're not, becaue Li has repeatedly set that as a non-negotiable condidition for maintaining one's status as a practitioner, and clearly you have to be a practitioner first before you can be a candidate for becoming a god.  If you'd like, I can provide many Li quotes to support what I am saying.  
There are several basic problems with what you have written in your long suggestion:
1. Your logic is incorrect.  Here's the statement you object to:
:If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.
Notice that the subject of the statement is "Falun Gong practitioners" and it is assumed that Falun Gong practitioners must also maintain a good moral character. In fact, that is covered by the first sentence about the necessity of following the requirements of the Fa.  But as you know, merely maintaining a good moral character is not sufficient even for keeping your status as a practitioner,  much less for becomming a god.  If you are saying we need to add a second condition in this text just to reinforce that point, I am open to that.  Perhaps we need to revise that second sentence along these lines:
:"Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa, and maintain good moral character in accordance with the characteristics of the universe."  Or, if you prefer, I would accept other words for "safeguard and uphold"  such as "validate".  Li uses all three of those words when telling practitioners what they must do.
But it is absolutely not true that a practitioner who does not safeguard and uphold (or "validate") the Dafa can even remotely be considered a candidate for godhood.  Thus your error of logic:  my text correctly states that condition X is necessary for result Z.  You come along and instead of saying that condition X and Y are both necessary for result Z, you argue, Oh no, condition Y is what's needed for result Z.  Another way to present this way of reasoning is to say that condition X is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to yield result Z. 
What's more, you spend all your time talking about the condition itself, but totally avoid talking about the desired result Z...which in this case is the promised godhood of practitiors.  Why are you so evasive about that?
2. Your post fails to provide specific editing suggesting for the actual text.  As with your previous posts, you have merely written an idependent essay here on the importance of maintaining your xinxing as a practitioner.  That information has already been covered in the teachings section.  This section is about Li's status as a god or supernatural entity, and his promise to practitioners that they have the possibility of becoming gods.
3. As previously stated,  Falun Gong practitioners habitually conceal Li's teachings "at the higher levels" when talking to ordinary people (and when editing in Wikipedia as well.)  You  prove my point by writing off-topic essays which act as a diversion from the actual subject matter under discussion. The word for your tactics is apologetics.  In this particular case,  you have produced a bunch of long Li quotes about the importance of maintaining one's xinxing in cultivation.  All that is true, but it does not directly address the issue of Li's status as a god or supernatural entity,  which is the topic of this section.  
By continuing to change the subject to something else, you waste a lot of time in discussion, without offering any specifics on the actual text.  Is this diversionary tactic of yours intentional?   Or do you simply not want the Wikipedia article to so clearly report Li's status as a god or supernatural being? Over the years, I have spoken with many practitioners and asked them the question:  "Do you think of Li as a god?"  Invariably, after a lot of hedging and weasel words on their part, they say, yes, they do.  And now, in this discussion, we are having a similar conversation.  
At a certain point, I have to question whether you even want to work as an editor in this article. Each time we deal with a specific problem, you seem to find a way to avoid the specific issues. Case in point:  There was a long discussion about the Li quotes you provided in response to the topic on "The difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong"  Two editors, me and Covenant, both agreed that one of your quotes should be added and we both suggested that your first quote was the best and asked you to provide the source.  If you are serious about playing the role of editor, these are the kind of "work tasks" you and the rest of us have to do in order to build a complete article.   --Tomananda 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Dilip's Suggestion 

message: I received an e-mail back from Essjay, the chair of the mediation committee, who said: 
:If you would like to have a member of the committee mediate officially, that is, on behalf of the Committee, you're welcome to file a request at RfM. Put a small note in the "previous steps in dispute resolution" (nothing expansive, we don't allow commentary on requests until they are accepted) that informal mediation has been attempted, but that formal mediation is requested.
Up until now we have only tried the informal mediation route.  My feeling is that we will ultimately need to go to formal mediation in order to resolve some of our differences.  But I am also willing to hold off long enough to see what progress we can make with the help of Covenant who is really our de facto mediator at this point.  How do the other editors feel about this?
--Tomananda 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Request for Formal Mediation 

message: Indeed, I think Tomananda's arguments are mostly original research. Why don't we all put down original research. How do other editors think?  Fnhddzs 05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Tomananda has been only quoting statements from Li and others published authors, and challenging practitioner editors to play by the wikipedia rules.  Please cite his original research here so we can discuss them if you had any. --Samuel Luo 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Using personal articles and labelling it as "sources" violate wikipedia policy. Such material will have to scrutinized and removed. 
Dilip rajeev 06:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using "Deng" and "Feng" and xyz.org as "sources"

message: Tomananda just alerted me that Dilip and Fnhddzs have deleted substantial portions of material from this page without first obtaining concensus. Please refrain from edit warring and unilateral deletion. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilip has once again reverted back to his favoured version without forming a consensus... -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dilip, you most certainly did delete the Deng and Fang material without discussion.  In fact, the Deng and Fang material was specifically discussed at length about two weeks ago in these very pages and editors such as Olaf, Ed Poor, Covenant and others had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant.  That standard would allow material appearing on a private website if it had also appeared elsewhere (such as an academic conference paper).  The Deng and Fang material clearly fits that criterion and there will be some verification of that coming from the ICSA soon.  Meanwhile, you have a large amount of material which doesn't even meet the more permissive standard set forth by Covenant. See discussion below.  --Tomananda 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war looming 

message: Serving the purpose of discussion. What is your reasons of changing back? Fnhddzs 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons were provided in Edit Summary 

message: The wall street jounal article only says the house was registered in Master Li Hongzhi's name. Ifact the article , which we dont have access to also says that it was offered by a practitioner and was refused. A letter to the editor that appeared in WSJ clarified the issue further.
Dilip rajeev 11:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Letters to the editor are not a valid source for anything other than primary references. It could be said that "X claims Y never accepted Z" but it CAN'T say "Y never accepted Z" because that's not part of the news reporting function of the paper. All they are responsible for is making sure the letter is from who it claims to be from. CovenantD 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing the Wall street journal claim

message: I'm willing to do it, keeping the relevant bits about Fang & Deng, citing sources and other current ongoing discussions. CovenantD 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive the talk page?