Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 2

message: ---------------------------------------------------------
Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong 
Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” In an Asian Studies Review article entitled “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’” (2005), Chinese scholar Dr. Benjamin Penny evaluates the relationship between these practices in an historical and critical context. Penny reports that some of Falun Gong’s earliest criticism came from religious leaders who objected to Li’s misuse of Buddhist terms and “his misrepresentations of the basic tenets of Buddhism.”
As early as 1996, the Chinese Buddhist Association and Buddhist journals were issuing in-depth critiques of the Falun Gong. While acknowledging that the leadership of the Buddhist Association found itself in a delicate position after the ban of the 1999 ban, Penny suggests that their early criticism of the Falun Gong bears an importance that goes beyond any political considerations. Of particular significance were the writings of Chen Xingqiao—a deputy secretary of the Buddhist Association in Harbin. Having first attended one of Li’s lectures in 1994, Chen wrote an essay in 1996 which was meant to expose what he considered to be Li’s misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrine and terminology. As reported by Penny, the Buddhist Association held a seminar in January 1998 “to discuss the problem of the Falun Gong” and later in the year published in the journal Fayin a long essay of Chen’s criticizing Li Hongzhi’s “Rolling Dharma Wheel and his Gongfu.” In the article, Chen reaches the conclusion that Falun Gong cannot be considered a form of Qigong. As summarized by Penny, Chen argues that the Qigong “has to do with the manipulation of qi with the goals of ‘calming the spirit and the heart, curing diseases and strengthening the body,” but when these activities cross over into the acquisition of higher powers, seeking enlightenment, long life, immortality or Buddhahood, they belong to religion.”
Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddha School, Li states in Zhuan Falun that “it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period.” Here Penny points out that Li “is drawing a distinction between fojia and fojiao—that is, between, literally, a school of the Buddha (whatever that might mean) and a religion or teaching of the Buddha.” But in Zhuan Falun Li also states that “The Dharma that Sakyamuni professed two thousand years ago was only for everyday people at a very low level; it was taught to those who had just evolved from a primitive society and still possessed very simple minds.” Thus traditional Buddhism is considered inferior to the Dafa. Li goes on to state: “Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending period, let alone offer salvation to others.”
In Falun Gong, many traditional Buddhist terms have been given new meanings. Benjamin Perry (2005) cites a few examples. (The phrases in quotes are Perry’s interpretations of their meanings.)
The Buddhist term falun or dharmacakra “refers to the Buddhist truth itself, set in motion…with the first lecture the Buddha gave after his enlightenment.” In Falun Gong it is a physical object, a “law wheel,” which Li implants in the abdomen of his disciples. 
The Buddhist term fashen or dharmakaya literally means “the body of Buddhist doctrine, the real nature of Buddha.” In Falun Gong fashen are Li’s “eyes and ears, protecting practitioners from evil influences, warning them if they are deviating from the proper path.” 
The Chinese term gong, among its other uses, “is the standard term...for the Buddhist idea of merit.” In Falun Gong, cultivators are said to develop De (virtue) through their own efforts, but need the intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into gong (cultivation energy.) 
The Buddhist term karma or yeli means actions or deeds. In Falun Gong, karma “is an uquivocally bad thing. There is no ‘good karma’ and karma is understood to be acquired through the performance of bad actions.” 
As with the terms falun and fashen, both karma and de are materialized in Falun Gong. Karma is said to be “a black substance” and de is “a white substance.”
As reported by Penny, Chen concludes that Falun Gong is neither Qigong nor Buddhism, but rather has the characteristics of a popular religion (minjian zongjiao.) But he uses a different Chinese term...waido, meaning “heresy” in this context...to describe Falun Gong in the title of the article. In the introduction to Chen’s article, the editors of Fayin describe Falun Gong as one of China’s “popular superstitions” [minjian mixin], being part of a long tradition of culturally absorbing traditions dating back to the Qin and Han periods. Penny concludes: “Although, in my analysis, Falun Gong cannot usefully be seen as a Buddhist heresy, it is my contention that in the crowded qigong world of the early 1990s it was strategically important for Falun Gong to emphasise and exploit its Buddhist affiliations for positioning in the gigong marketplace.”
When writing about the historical context of Falun Gong, some commentators in the west have emphasized the similarities between Li’s Dafa and a variety of traditions, both old and new. In Falun Gong: The End of Days, Maria Chang states:
More than being a religion, an examination of Falun Gong’s beliefs and practices, as revealed in Li’s writings and lectures, indicates that it bears striking similarities to such historical Chinese sectarian religious societies as the White Lotus and the Eight Trigrams. Although Li disavows a belief in the main deity of those two societies—the Unbegotten Eternal Mother (Wusheng laomu)—his ideas are similar to theirs in the eclectic blending of Buddhism, Daosim, classical folk religion, and magic. To this amalgam are added some modern touches: just as the ideology of the Taiping rebels was modernized by a banal Christianity, the beliefs of Falun Gong are given a contemporary veneer via references to science and UFOs. 
------------------------------------------
24.189.163.169 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving down Tormananda's new edit for review

message: Homosexuality in the context of Li's teachings on karma
This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.
As in many traditional practices, lust is thought of as something that hinders a person's progress in cultivation. Pointing to this fact, practitioners say Falun Gong practice itself is not homophobic because when Teacher Li speaks, he speaks to practitioners and not to non-practitioners and non-practitioners can do whatever they want and nobody can say whether it is right or wrong.
This passage or stub doesn't make much sense when Li states that homosexuality is evil. And why does it not speak for non-practitioner or practitioner when he states it's evil. And to be a practitioner you can't be homosexual. So I don't understand the logic of this at all. Sounds like double talk to me. 
It's also the same as I'm nazi and I believe in white supremecy but since you're not nazi it doesn't apply to you and I'm not saying you should believe in nazism. But if you want to be a nazi you can't be non-white. That does not make me a racist because I don't enforce non-believers on my ideas. It's the same reasoning which doesn't make sense. Anyone want to comment on the twist of logic the author used to write this?24.189.163.169 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not homophobic? 

message: Tomananda, please give me the source for Patsy Rahn, I need to valitate it and see if it fits wikipedia standards.
The Patsy Rahn paper was published and is verifiable.  It meets Wiki standards and the details of the citation appear in the resources section of the main page.  I might add that the source was discussed some time ago.  But here's a question for you:  who are you?  Are you truly an anyonomous user, or did you just forget to sign your post?  --Tomananda 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patsy Rahn

message: I think the edits by Mcconn are reasonable. We need to allow to present both sides. Fnhddzs 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits on "Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics"

message: "As reported by Christopher Hitchens in The Nation...."
You know, Christopher Hitchens article is not a verifiable source according to wikipedia standards. This is a article written by a private person for a newspaper, he is just a columnist, how can it be used in a serious Wikipedia article? I think it should be removed, what do you think convenant? /Omido 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to be changed, but not for the reason you mention. The article is not available online, so the actual, printed magazine article needs to be cited. When that is done I can look it up at my local library and figure it out. (You folks are really making me work.) CovenantD 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not good enough source 

message: Don't do it and demand in the edit summary that it be discussed. If you want something discussed, you have a responsibility to start the topic and explain why you don't think it should be used. CovenantD 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of info by Dilip 

message: Can we please do something about the Critism and conterversies sub-sections on the main page?
Omido 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-Sections on the main page 

message: Section added...please help format and update --Otomo 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent  

message: *The word "main" means principal or most important.  As the original sentence reports, the most important or "main" critics of the Falun Gong before the ban were Chinese religious writers and academics whose views were reported in Chinese media.  This is a fact, and if we substitute the words "some of" it implies that there were other significant categories of FG critics before the ban and, as far as I know, there weren't.  So this is not, as you claim, a POV, it simply says the main critics (that we know about) came from these two groups.
*The Buddhist critiques were most definitely "in depth" and in fact Penny in his article makes a big point of how detailed the critiques were.  They went on for several editions of a journal over a period of time.  So they most definitely were "in depth".  If you want I will find the comple quote and post it here.  But like most of my editing, I prefer not to clutter up the main article with unnecessary details.  
*The paragraph you added which starts with "On the other hand..." is redudent.  If you read down in the article you will see that this issue is covered clearly and adquately in the section which starts:  "Although Falun Gong is part of the Buddhist School, Li states "it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism or Buddhism in the Dharma-ending period." --Tomananda 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dilip, I have reverted your last two edits because..

message: Tomananda, referring to what you wrote above, to Dilip, please link or just post that stuff. I'd like to read it and we can share understandings. I'm referring to Penny's article and also the things he is referring to.
About the article:
I read the section called 'Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs'. To be honest I think this section could do with some work, and I find its presentation misleading. It seems like someone has put some work into it, and I do not want to attack anyone. I know it is a page for criticism, but I see some problems. I will write for a while and explain things and try to elaborate on that, providing quotes from Dafa materials. I will try to do that over the next few days or week. I think that with some discussion things can be resolved. Let me give you an example of what I mean just now. I haven't altered anything. From the article:
Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy. Supporters say that traditional Chinese teachings called the Fa (Dharma) or “Dharma and principles” form the foundation for their Falun Dafa. In Zhuan Falun, Li states “the Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during the historical period of this human civilization.” However, as reported by Benjamin Penny [6], Falun Gong’s earliest critics stated that by dramatically changing the meanings of traditional Buddhist terms, Li misrepresents the basic tenets of Buddhism and should not claim to be part of that tradition.
Master states clearly that Falun Dafa is not based on Buddhism, and it has nothing to do with Buddhism. Many times he has stated that. Falun Dafa is a cultivation way from The Buddha School, that does not mean that it is the Buddhism founded by Sakyamuni, or that it is related to the Buddhism founded by Sakyamuni. Because the word 'Buddha' is present, some confusion may arise. I understand. So where it says that first sentence, 'whether falun gong... derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism...' that is in fact wrong. There is no question. Falun Dafa is not seeking to derive legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism, nor attempting to represent the basic tenets of that tradition. Just read Zhuan Falun and that becomes very clear. 
The rest of the article continues from this mistaken understanding and talks about early Buddhist critics, and also cites Penny and lists some words whose meanings have supposed to have been changed etc. All of this is mistaken. I can find some quotes from Zhuan Falun and we can chat more, I am just pointing this out here now. I see that you want to include these kind of critical things, but I think that they have been contexualised wrongly. As they are now, they stand as criticisms of Falun Dafa attempting to usurp some Buddhist terms, or attempting to derive legitimacy, or things like that, from Buddhism. This is not the case.
I will give you a comprehensive response and address every part of that text in the time to come. I hope we can straighten this matter out; I think this misunderstanding and subsequent misrepresentation is unfortunate. ." --asdfg1234509:45 p.m. Viernes, 25 de Agosto de 2006
:Oh this point has been made many times, and is covered in the article.  There is relationship between Buddhism and Falun Gong, as spoken by Li himself.  He says that Falun Gong is part of the Buddhist school, but is not Buddhism.  This point is covered quite well by Penny.  The other "relationship" between Falung Gong and Buddhism is that Li has used many Buddhist words, but has given them different meanings.  This point is also made in the article.  --Tomananda 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have reverted your recent changes.  I am sorry but I have to say that Your changes derogate the value of this article and diminish its readability.  For example, the following simple and precise statement “Whether Falun Gong cultivation practice derives legitimacy from the ancient teachings of Buddhism is a matter of some controversy,” was changed to this long and inaccurate statement “Critics have claimed that Falun Gong cultivation practice attempts to derive legitimacy from the teachings of Buddhism, but that it does not represent the Buddhist tradition.”    --Samuel Luo 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on the 'Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs' subsection 

message: Yueyen read the above. it was only recently that I acted on that. What was there was actually misreporting the situation. I have changed that to report what actually happened. You can work that out very easily by reading it. I will mention it quickly here:
the early critics were claiming that Li represents Buddhism and is trying to gain legitimacy from Buddhism, but that he misrepresented Buddhism and changed terms. That is what they claimed - it should be reported.
What should also be reported is that Li Hongzhi has stated that he is not representing Buddhism, nor trying to derive legitimacy from Buddhism, and that he is not trying to usurp Buddhist terms. The quotes back that up. We are just trying to report what happened, not push any POV or opinion.
That is just the situation, and that is what the facts are. What was there was written in a way such as to obscure that. You cannot deny what I have said. It is a very straightforward matter. Your reverting that, saying it is "POV" is very deceitful and in obvious violation of wikipedia policies. That is against the spirit of wikipedia. I have actually made it NPOV now. This is simply too clearcut for you to deny. At this point it is not so much about Falun Gong or not, but simply about writing articles according to wikipedia guidelines and policies. You are preventing that from happening. I will try to contact some moderator about this, so they can take a look. --Asdfg12345 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard is to allow sourced material that is relevant to the content.  Most of the content in the section you are blanking in comes directly from the work of academics who have written about Falun Gong.  Although you may not agree with their POV's, their statements about FG are appropriate.  So the rule of thumb should be: don't delete material.  If you want to add material that's ok, but not if it means destroying the flow of a particular section.  There's different ways of doing this and I am willing to work with you on it.   One suggested model of a section that was written by both me and Olaf is the section on "Is Falun Gong a cult?"  If you read that section, you'll notice that it leads with a summary of the critics who argue that FG is a cult, but then is followed up with several paragraphs of material which aims to challenge or totally refute those claims. --Tomananda 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for cooperation, but we have not agreed to an overall strategy in working through the article.  Actually, we did agree at one point, but we are ignoring that scheme.  Based on your edits here, and your comments about homosexuality on the main page, it now appears that you and other practitoners are keen on doing major re-writes in the criticism page.  We need to agree to what we are doing with the help of the mediator, rather than launching into what may become another revert war on the last unforzen page,  don't you agree?   --Tomananda 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  above section continued, addressed to Yueyen 

message: Current discussion relating to the organization of the FG daughter pages, as well as debate about the content which appears on this Criticism page, has been moved to the Mediation Talk page at:
 under the section
"General Organization".--Tomananda 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please go to Mediation Talk Page for Current Discussion