Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 12

Archived discussion:

• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive2, 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive3, 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive4, 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive5, 3 March 2006 to 21 March 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive6, 22 March 2006 to 10 April 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive7, 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive8, 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive9, 26 May 2006 to 2 June 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive10a, 2 June 2006 to 4 June 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive10b, 4 June 2006 to 10 June 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive11, 10 June 2006 to 27 June 2006
• Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive12, 27 June 2006 to 5 July 2006

1st paragraph discussion

What is agreed so far

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi in 1992.

What are the "central concepts?"

I think this might be easier if we stop working on the wording for a bit and decide what the central concepts are. So I'd like everybody to list what they think the two or three core principles are. No explanation, just a list. We can discuss after everyone's weighed in or 24 hours. And Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance count as one. CovenantD 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Individual Cultivation: Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is central, the assamilation of Truth-Compassion-Forbearence and that only by following "Truth-Compassion-Forbearence", one can reach enlightment in Falun Dafa.

2. Fa-Rectification Cultivation: How practitioners always clarify the truth about the evil persecution of Falun Gong to the people of the world. How the past Dharma of the universe will be rectified, and because of this the most wonderful future is waiting for all beings. How everybody that persecuted Dafa will meet retribution, because they persecuted the Buddha-Law.

/Omido 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

1. The qigong-like exercises Li teaches

2. Li's spiritual and moral teachings (zhen, shan, ren; his other derivations from older Chinese religions; his insistence on inadequacy of those and all other belief systems relative to FLG, "Fa-rectification", xenophobic and homophobic statements, etc.)

3. Li Hongzhi's unique and central rôle in personally formulating and guiding the spiritual progress of FLG practitioners

--Fire Star 火星 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Assimilating the Fa (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance) Simultaneously
2. mind and body double cultivation
3. Fa-Rectification Cultivation: cultivating in the process of resolving persecution.-- Fnhddzs 06:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

______

Here are the main points

• Dafa “great law" is currently judging mankind.
• It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification"
• Li claims to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind
• Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his fa (by assimilating Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance) and by exposing what he considers to be the evil regime in China. --Tomananda 08:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not much to add here:

• Claims emphasising on "high level", causing "ordinary people" unable to understand or reason.
• The Qi-Gong and its seemingly wonderful benefits.
• Li teaching that he is the savior.
• Li preaching about the end of days.
• In a more generous way to say it, anything Li says.

--Yenchin 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a few more:

• All human beings are sinners which is why they need the Master’s salvation.
• The true cause of sicknesses is one’s sin (Li uses the term Karma). And the illnesses of true believers will be cured by the Master. --Samuel Luo 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Olaf, Dilip, Mcconn, Miborovsky, others. I'm not likely to listen to your objections if you can't simply state what you think the two or three central concepts are. CovenantD 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cultivation of Zhen Shan Ren while maintaining an ordinary, common life in society.
• Fa Rectification cultivation (note: this is only something for the current period of time and isn't inherent in Falun Dafa cultivation)

Nothing, at this time, is more central than these. Anything else cannot be considered central in my opinion. Under normal circumstances, it would only be the first point, but because of this time period the second has taken significant importance as well. Sorry for not posting sooner. Mcconn 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Summation of central concepts

1. Zhen, shan, ren (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance)
2. Fa Rectification
3. Li's role as saviour

Looking through the lists that were provided, would everybody agree that these three are the main, central concepts that should be in the lead section? (In addition to the ONE sentence that we've agreed upon.) CovenantD 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the list. That is what is in Zhuan Falun, after all... As an aside, most people are likely to think that Falun Gong are Li's qigong exercises and that Falun Dafa is the religion (that Li denies is a religion). --Fire Star 火星 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with list of Central topics above. Also, I think Fire Star is right in suggesting we differentiate Falun Gong (the exercises) and the Dafa (Li's great law) which simultaneously judges all beings and, together with Li, provides a means for salvation. --Tomananda 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the list. English spekers might not understand the differences between the term Gong and Dafa, but Chinese speakers know that Gong refers to exercises and Dafa refers to religious teachings. --Samuel Luo 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems I missed the part where we were having a poll. Support the list. --Yenchin 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the list. --Kent8888 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree I still say that "Li as a savior" is not central enough to be included in the introduction. Mcconn 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

...

Convenant, Central in Falun Gong is Zhuan Falun, even Master Li has said this, and also all practitioners knows this. Central to Falun Gong is not that Li is a saviour, in Zhuan Falun Master Li rarely speaks about himself. Maybe practitioners opinion is that Li is a saviour, but it is still not central in Falun Gong and Master Li does not want to speak about himself, he just want to teach pracitioners how to cultivate. So central to Falun Gong is: Individual Cultivation (Zhen-Shan-Ren), Fa Rectification-Cultivation (Clarifying the truth, exposing the persecution, sending forth righteous thoughts).

/Omido 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, I'm getting very tired of being told what to think by you. Practioners may be compelled to go by what Li says, but that doesn't bind the non-practitioners. You've already given us your list. Now is the time for compromise and coming to agreement. If you can't do that, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. CovenantD 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This "central is Zhuan Falun" is pointless. It's like saying "The Bible is central to Christianity". Which means nothing for a person who wants to understand the religion. Unless you are suggesting to post the whole ZFL over here. (Again, isn't that what falundafa.org is for?) --Yenchin 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the list. That is what is in Zhuan Falun, after all... As an aside, most people are likely to think that Falun Gong are Li's qigong exercises and that Falun Dafa is the religion (that Li denies is a religion). --Fire Star 火星 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The term for "religion" (宗教;zongjiao) in Chinese has different connonatations than it does in English. Of course, the term is open for interpretation in any language, so go ahead and call it a religion if that's the way you see it. That doesn't make it a religion though. Mcconn 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly what Omido said about Zhuan Falun being central referred to the fact that only what is said and emphasised in Zhuan Falun is central. I don't agree that "Li as a savior" is a central concept of Falun Dafa. The fact that he has said this, I'm sure you can provide quotes, doesn't grant it centrality. Mr. Li has said a lot over the years, all of which is important for practitioners to know about, but it's not all central. I'd say what's central is that the only thing that is central is pure cultivation, "nothing but cultivation". As our Master has put it, it's the "Great way without form".

Actually, you know, Dafa is about cultivation only—Dafa has nothing but cultivation. And even though today the path of cultivation Dafa disciples take is different—in order to clarify the truth, to save more of the world’s people, to keep the persecution in check, and so on, some students have gotten together and started up media outlets or done this or that—none of that is part of Dafa itself. Those are cases of students walking their own paths validating the Fa, and those are things created by the students themselves. Teaching the Fa at the Meeting with Asia-Pacific Students

As I said, a great way has no form. No ordinary human forms are worthy of such a great Fa. So we manage things loosely and only look at people’s minds. If you cultivate, I will look after you. And this kind of care-taking is invisible to ordinary people, so it doesn’t have to take on any ordinary human form. Switzerland, 1998

I have imparted to you a broader, most ideal form of cultivation, for, "the Great Way has no form"! (Applause) Each of you is a part of society, belonging to different social strata, each having your own job or profession in society, and having your own skills that you have acquired. In each respective setting, under the guidance of Dafa and free of form, all are able to cultivate; there are no rules or regulations, no religious formalities, and no commandments.San Fanscisco, 2006

Mcconn 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: Your Master says the purpose of Dafa is to save people:

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

and he says only he and his Dafa can do it at this time

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

Nothing you have provided above contradicts the fundamental truth that Falun Dafa is presented as a means..in fact the only means...to save people during this period of Fa-rectification. --Tomananda 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with list of Central topics above. Also, I think Fire Star is right in suggesting we differentiate Falun Gong (the exercises) and the Dafa (Li's great law) which simultaneously judges all beings and, together with Li, provides a means for salvation. --Tomananda 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cultivation is about salvation, it is about returning to one's orginal self, to return home to the wonderful place one came from. This has been thought in Zenbuddhism, Tibetan Tantrism, Christianity, Daoism, Pure Land and many many other cultivation schools. The goal of cultivation is to escape ordinary people's suffering etc. In that sense, Falun Dafa is about salvation.

ConvenantD, I understand that you are frustrated, and you say you are tired of being told by me, but let me ask you: If you are not told by me, then who are you told by? Do you really think I will let anybody put anything in the article just because I have to compromise? I don't care if it takes 100 years, I will make sure the article get's done in the right way. I will cooperate with others, I will understand others with Shan (Compassion) and I will never try to hide anything, but there is one point, and that is that I won't allow anybody put anything personal in this article, this article have to report factual things and it has to do it in the right way. Of course we practitioners knows the teachings best, because we are practitioners and we are reading the book and other speeches over and over again every day. Other people just read them once, but not practitoners, they always read them.

Personally I don't care a bit about what other people thinks about Falun Gong, in my opinion, what other think about Falun Gong can only affect themselves, it can't affect anybody else. Still, it is my reponsobility (because I am a practitioner) to make sure people knows about the truth of Falun Gong and not POV things. This is in fact Compassion for all sentient beings.

/Omido 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: an enclylopedia article must be obejective and neutral. From what you keep saying, it appears you cannot be objective and neutral when it comes to editing the Falun Gong article. What is bothersome for me is that even though I rely on Master Li's own words, those words get attacked as my POV. In the above discussion, I was even accused of writing an edit which is "degrading" to the Falun Gong even though it was close to a verbatim summary of Master Li's teachings. Do you think it is degrading to report Master Li's teachings "at the higher levels" in Wikipedia? --Tomananda 19:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, neutral is exactly what I want. No I don't think it is wrong to report on Master Li's teachings, but one must be upright and not just take one sentence and misrepresent it. Don't you agree? /Omido 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the proposed language, which would come after the language on Tuthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance:

Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification. He teaches that his Dafa (great law)is currently judging all beings and promises to turn his "Dafa disciples" into Gods if they meet the moral requirments of the Dafa and work to expose what he considers to be the evil Chinese Communist regime. --Tomananda 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're proposing yet more new language when we haven't even reached agreement on what should be in the 1st paragraph yet. Cart before the horse and all that... CovenantD 01:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait until we decide on the content areas.--Tomananda 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems I missed the part where we were having a poll. Support the list. --Yenchin 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, that is exactly what I mean by misrepresenting things: 1. "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples" (Your own POV) 2. "claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification." It is much more complex than this, if you are going to explain about the salvation within Falun Dafa then alot has to be explained. 3. "He teaches that his Dafa (great law)is currently judging all beings and promises to turn his "Dafa disciples" into Gods if they meet the moral requirments of the Dafa." Same as above, alot more complicated than this, Master Li has used countless lectures to describe everything and you think one sentence is enough, this is what I call missrepresenting. 4. "expose what he considers to be the evil Chinese Communist regime." This sentence is also POV, Falun Gong practitioners are working on exposing the persecution of Falun Gong and clarify the truth about the persecution of Falun Gong, the goal is to stop the persecution of Falun Gong and saving people from the propaganda of CCP against Falun Gong. Falun Gong's goal and Falun Gong practitioners goal is absoloutly not to eliminate the CCP, the CCP will be eliminated by Gods.

All your sentences are POV because your understanding is POV. I said it once and I will say it again, you can not mix in your own POV in the article, that is final. It does not matter what you personally think about Falun Gong, it still can not be in the article, because it is POV, do you understand what I mean? Everything has to be factual and neutral, your sentences that you are presenting are not factual or neutral, so they are not based on the truth, but on your personal opinion. You have been trying to do this the whole time, misrepresenting things and trying to express your POV in the article.

/Omido 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding of what Falun Gong practitioners believe comes from the practitioners themselves who have told me they think of Li Hongzhi as a god or Buddha. If I am mistaken that Master Li "is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples" all we need to do is to ask practitioners to declare that you do not think of Li as a god or living (some say "main") Buddha. Let's take a little poll to resolve just this one issue now.

If you don't agree just respond with "I do not believe Master Li is a god or living Buddha"

As to the rest of my edit, it is all supported by direct Li quotes which I can provide. As editors, it is not a sufficient response to merely reject language in an edit because you think "it is much more complex than that." You need to suggest alternative wording. --Tomananda 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido, if the proper qualifying language is there, we can report what Li Hongzhi has said in the public arena. We can't report that we believe or disbelieve what he says, but we can say, and accurately, neutrally paraphrase, not interpret, what Li has published publicly. We are all here to make sure it happens that way. Of course we all have a personal POV, as do you yourself. It doesn't have to enter the article, and to say "All your sentences are POV because your understanding is POV" applies equally to you, as well. If Tomanada has to stop editing the article based on that logic, then you do, too. --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we start ruling out editors based on that criteria, I might end up the only one left! CovenantD 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say even among practitioners, different people may not have the exactly same understanding. The Master said (not in original word, rephrased by me, may not accurate), it is hard to find two people at the same level. But there is only one Fa. So I think a good way may be: not to let the words with disputes to be included in the article. Yes, paraphrasing is not to interpret. If we want to report, we'd better not report only one or two quotes without reporting its context. Fnhddzs 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, taking it back to the issue being disputed. I still say that "Li as a savior" is not central enough to be included in the introduction. No one is denying that from time to time Mr. Li has emphasised the fact that it is through him that practitioners are able to obtain salvation. He has said this, but not enough to grant it centrality. What is instead emphasised is that only through practitioners cultivating themselves according to Dafa can they be saved. If you want to talk about "validating the Fa" being a criterion for salvation, then we're talking about Fa-Rectification cultivation. As I and others have stated before, this isn't something inherently part of Falun Dafa, but instead has come about as a result of the persecution. All of this is repeating things I've already said. Mcconn 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you're repeating yourself - I guess this is the first time I got it. I've added a truncated version of your statement with the other straw poll votes.

Where do you feel it appropriate to mention Li's role in salvation, if not in the intro? Per guidance at Wikipedia:Lead section, the introduction should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer (what editors can agree are...) the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. CovenantD 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, to an outsider looking in, the bit about Li as exclusive saviour to all mankind is likely to seem a very important feature, indeed a primary characterisation of his entire dogma. It, and what follows from it, are what truly differentiate him from traditional teachers of Taoism and Buddhism. To FLG practitioners, insiders who are told by their master to obscure his "higher level" teachings to the public, it should be one of the "higher level" features Li doesn't want them talking about, what with Li's unique personal attributes being the source of their "Fa". Reporting it as a "central feature" is therefore feasible, IMO. Li representing himself as the sole source of all blessings for humankind does tend to seem important, especially to someone who is interested in studying the underlying rationale, the authority by which Li claims to teach. --Fire Star 火星 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star, that is exactly why this stuff must be reported in the introduction. To only report that Falun Gong is a cultivation method without reporting that the ultimate goal of this cultivation is salvation (or reaching "consumation") would be a gross mis-representation of the teachings. It's as if we were trying to summarize Christianity by only reporting Jesus's golden rule. The fact that the goal of cultivation is, in fact, salvation was just acknowledged by Mccon above:

• No one is denying that from time to time Mr. Li has emphasised the fact that it is through him that practitioners are able to obtain salvation. He has said this, but not enough to grant it centrality. What is instead emphasised is that only through practitioners cultivating themselves according to Dafa can they be saved.

So, yes, the goal of cultivatioin is to "be saved" to use Mcconn's construction. surely this language is a start. The other thought, which the practitioners are less willing to acknowledge, is that Falun Gong cultivation itself, according to Li, requires his personal intervention. There are numerous quotes to support that argument, but one of the simplest is:

• Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

I think Li has pretty much summarized his own teachings in the above quote. He says, clearly enough, that "a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally" He then goes on to stress that his disciples must "speak up for the Dafa" while "Dafa disciples are being persecuted." This is a part of the central teaching. But he also says his disciples have the opportunity of becoming gods (his words, not mine) and uses that theme frequently in his lectures. Frankly, I resent all the endless evasions that come from Falun Gong practitoners. Every time a non-practitioner puts up a suggested edit, their response is that it's "not that simple." Yet the basic teaching is simply reported by the Master himself. Sometimes I have used the Master's own words (absent the quotation marks to improve readabilty) and then I am accused of writing an edit that is "degrading" to the Falun Gong. This endless debate can only be understood in the context of Li's strict rule that when talking to ordinary people, practitioners absolutely must not speak at the higher levels. --Tomananda 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the introduction could occupy two paragraphs because there are so many topics to deal with, but we can avoid making these two paragraphs very long. First we could speak about the basic knowledge regarding falun gong, then we could talk about the more complicated things on the second paragraph. We could mention about "masters li role as a saviour" but i think it should be exposed in a more neutral way in which we can both agree and id say we could put it on the second paragraph and also mention a bit about the fa rectification there too. Its suppossed to be neutral right? then if the reader wants to know more about these complicated concepts he can search for more info on daughter pages or whatever which speak more specifically about this matters. I have some ideas that might be neutral, just read them and tell me what you think. "It is believed master li has brought this system to aid the morality of mankind and provide the salvation of human beings" we could restructure this one a bit, but i guess its a neutral statement. Also, master li can be considered a living buddha in a way but just like you would consider the dalai lama perhaps, nobody makes a big deal about it right?, i think we should avoid the term god because your concept it different from ours, perhaps we could use the term "higher being" i think it contrasts with both understandings right? But im not sure if it is central enough to put it on the introduccion Hm, got to go by now, ill bring up some more ideas later on. Just in case, I apologize for the inconvenients before.--Andres18 02:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your ideas. Can I put you down as a yes for the straw poll? CovenantD 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Andres18 I like the idea of having two paragraphs, one for Li’s role as a savior and one for Fa-rectification. Why don’t you provide us with a suggestion? --Kent8888 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those weren't the two paragraphs he was suggesting. Mcconn 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its a little embarassing to say this but im not sure what the straw poll is....could you please give me a link? thanks!. I havent got too much time on my hands lately so id really appreciate it.--Andres18 16:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Falun_Gong#Summation_of_central_concepts Here you are. CovenantD 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! ok well, i agree with the list but i think one more situation should be added which is letting go of attatchments, its also a part of falun gong practice.--Andres18 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li's Definition of "Cultivation"

How could I have missed this? Here it is, Li's definition of "culvitation" spoken plainly and simply:

"Cultivation is the process that enables a human being to ascend to heaven and become a god, so how could it not be hard?" “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

Why don't we use these words in the introduction? --Tomananda 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see nobody answered to your suggestion, im sure you must know why.--Andres18 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples" (Your own POV) 2. "claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification."

"Jesus Christ, who is thought of as God or God's son by his disciples, claims that he and his Christianity are the only source of salvation for mankind during this age of human history."

No Tomananda, not degrading at all! Whitemanners 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a little confused here. Who is doing the degrading and who is being degraded? --Kent8888 06:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitemanners: You are not making any sense. If we are going to coorperate as editors on this article, it seems to me we should at least answer each others questions. Here are my questions to you:

1. Concerning the wording : "who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples"...do you believe that is untrue? As a practioner, do you NOT think of Master Li as a god or living Buddha? I asked this question earlier and so far no one has responded.

2. Why do you consider your Master's words degrading? This is an honest question. Li has definitely said that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification, hasn't he? And do you really think it is "degrading" to report this honestly? Would you prefer some different wording?

3. If the sentence you put together about the role of Jesus as Christ and Savior for mankind were worded slightly differently, I would have no problem with it...nor would millions of Christians. The wording you have proposed is not totally accurate, however, because I don't know of anything in the New Testament which would support the distinction about "this age of human history" Also, the word "disciples" does not include present day believers in Christianity. But Jesus did speak of himself as the Son of God, so that wording is OK, and he did say no one gets to the father except through the son (or words to that effect). Here's my question, if I were to re-write the Christianity sentence a bit to make it historically correct, would you still think of it as "degrading"? If so, why? --Tomananda 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: You might not be familiar with how encylopedias typically summarize religious teachings. Here's one example for the Christian belief in the Rapture. Only some denominations of Chrisitianty believe in the Rapture, but this does provide a good example of how to present an idea which involves eschatology (the study of the end or end-periods):

• The Rapture is an event in certain systems of Christian eschatology (the study of the end times) whereby it is believed that all Christians will be taken from Earth by Jesus Christ into Heaven. Although almost all forms of Christianity believe that those who are "saved" will enter Heaven, the term "rapture" is usually applied specifically to the belief that Christians will be taken into heaven prior to the Second Coming of Christ, and there will be a period of time where non-Christians will still be left on earth before Christ arrives to set up his earthly kingdom.

Notice in the above example, the second coming of Christ is mentioned. A great many fundamentalist Christians believe this to be true and have no problem reporting it as such in Wikipedia. They certainly wouldn't consider these words "degrading." --Tomananda 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Master Li's word are not degrading, it is how you summarize it and present them that is degrading, is it really so that you fail to see that your sentences are degrading? /Omido 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: Sorry, but if you find the words I use degrading that means you find Li's words degrading because they are one and the same. I have been careful not to paraphrase the Master's teachings and have presented them without adding any of my own POV. Frankly, I am rather shocked that you would find what Master Li says "degrading." Do other practititoners feel the same way? And Omido, please answer my question. Do you agree with this statement:

"Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples"

Do you not think of Master Li in this way? If Master Li is not a god or Buddha to you, what words would you use in a sentence like this? --Tomananda 07:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

People have been selling "the end of the world" since it began.

Li is no different from others in this respect including Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. preachers. Clearly, if his followers actually followed his teachings, then there would not be so many deaths "for the cause". How can so many deaths e a good thing?

BTW, I'M BACK..... Cj cawley 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... Master Li??? Do you see the Jesus Christ article going "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is regarded by his disciplies as the saviour of the world ...."? No! Do you know why? NPOV!

I have nothing against Falun Gong followers personally, but the particular specimens on this page do not appear to understand the NPOV policy.

Please keep your personal beliefs to yourself. --Sumple (Talk) 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill answer to your questions:

1. Concerning the wording : "who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples"...do you believe that is untrue? As a practioner, do you NOT think of Master Li as a god or living Buddha? I asked this question earlier and so far no one has responded.

i have responded it before, i guess ill have to answer it again....Saying "Master Li is thought o as a god or living buddha by his disciples" is not appropriate because our concept of god or buddha or dao is different from the common concepts you or people have. Please read my last post at the "Digressing a bit" topic, ill quote from there:

"When you propose posting something like "LI is thought as a god or living buddha by his followers...." this can be easily misunderstood because the concept of god and buddha that you have and that other people have is different from our concept of god or buddha so people get the wrong idea, one example among many is they might think we worship Li, thats contrary to our belief because worship is an attatchment and in falun gong practice, you are supossed to leave all attatchments. If you use words like "higher being" for example then i think its a little bit more accurate, its like the dalai lama for example, people see him as a higher being, a more "elevated" person and so on but nobody sees him as you would see god the "creator of heaven and earth". Another example, we dont think Mr Li created the world."

2. Why do you consider your Master's words degrading? This is an honest question. Li has definitely said that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification, hasn't he? And do you really think it is "degrading" to report this honestly? Would you prefer some different wording?.

We dont consider master Li's words degrading, we consider your use of those words to your convenience to create a non neutral argument as degrading, please dont regard anything you post as absolute or as Li's words, they are not. You created this argument taking quotes from here and there and putting pieces up together like a puzzle to create your argument, dont be upset if we dont agree, im sure we can come up to a mutual understanding.

3. If the sentence you put together about the role of Jesus as Christ and Savior for mankind were worded slightly differently, I would have no problem with it...nor would millions of Christians. The wording you have proposed is not totally accurate, however, because I don't know of anything in the New Testament which would support the distinction about "this age of human history" Also, the word "disciples" does not include present day believers in Christianity. But Jesus did speak of himself as the Son of God, so that wording is OK, and he did say no one gets to the father except through the son (or words to that effect). Here's my question, if I were to re-write the Christianity sentence a bit to make it historically correct, would you still think of it as "degrading"? If so, why? --Tomananda 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its all about the intention with which you write something, my advice is just read what you wrote before you decide if its neutral or not, to you it sounds perfect because you are the critic but try to assume a neutral position, imagine you are not a critic or a practitioner and you read the words you wrote, is it really neutral? what impression of falun gong do you get when you read it? a really bad one of course. The idea is not to make Falun Gong have a good impression on people, its just to leave a doubt, not to subjectively make the reader think falun gong is a cult which is your opinion. The fact that you take a bunch of Li's quotes and put them all together to create a paragraph doesnt mean its neutral, you can easily put them all together to make them say what you want to say and not what it really wants to say, and then of course there is the excuse "Those are his words! how dare you disagree with this? arent you a practitioner?". --Andres18 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Health benefits

Given the deletion of the article Research into health benefits of Falun Gong, is it permissable to edit the section Research into Health Benefits so that it reads as follows:

Suggested Health Benefits

Media reports have suggested Falun Gong practitioners receive health benefits from the cultivation practice. . However, little research has been undertaken into the purported health benefits of Falun Gong practice. A conference paper in 2004 and a study by the same team published in 2005 using six subjects indicated there may be health benefits.

References as follows:

Thanks, Hiding Talk 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on Health section

The Health benefits article is gone and a disinterested admin has suggested the above change to this main article to compensate. I want a straw poll on the wording, to run for 24 hours, then we have this inserted if people agree. CovenantD 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Fire Star 火星 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. And it is short enough to put in the main article. Fnhddzs 00:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with conditions. I'd suggest a revision of sources 1,2,3,4. --Yenchin 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the first sentence. It is the practitioners who are suggesting the health benefits, the media is merely reporting their words. --Samuel Luo 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject The wording of the proposed edit is pure POV and is not acceptable because:

• Alleged, rather than suggested is the correct qualifier for FG health benefits
• The media hasn't reported these benefits, FG practitioners have.
• Master Li says that sickness is an opportunity to get rid of karma, therefore when a practitioner is sick...it's a test of his/her belief in the "sickness karma" teachings. If you believe in the disease curing benefits of Falun Gong, Master Li asks, why would you take medicine?
• Because many FG practitioners do believe in Li's teaching on sickness karma, they have jeopardised their health by practicing FG.
• Some apologists for the FG actually compare FG to Christian Science, arguing that Li's claim that he heals his practitioners' illnesses directly is just a matter of religious freedom. However, unlike Christian Science, the FG does not limit it's health benefit claims to adults. There are numerous testimonials on FG websites from children about how they believe in the Master's teachings and do not take medication when they are sick. The first time a minor child of a FG practitioner dies in the US because of Li's "sickness karma" teachings I anticipate a very big law suit. Established case law in the US says that parents cannot jeopardise the health of their children because of their religious beliefs.
• Although there are some media reports of FG practitioner claims of health benefits, there are also media reports of family members of FG practitioners whose health has been damaged because of their refusal to seek medical treatment. --Tomananda 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, once again you are preaching your anti Falun Gong message - only your first two points are relevant. Come up with research to refute the studies, not just your own allegations. I personally resent your allegation of POV on part of the admin who suggested the above. I'm familiar with his work in other areas of Wikipedia and he one of the most level headed and knowledgable admins I've seen. Assuming good faith is something you have failed to do here. CovenantD 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Covenant, but I am reporting teachings and practices of Falun Gong that are not well known in the West, but nevertheless must be included in this discussion. It seems that it is you who is not assuming good faith here and I resent it. You may be familiar with this administrator's work and respect it, but that doesn't mean that his proposed edit does not represent POV. Keep in mind that Li's teachings on "sickness karma," together with his claims to directly cure the illnesses of practitioners, are essential to a full understanding of FG's health claims benefits. I am sure the editor you so well respect has "good faith" in what he has proposed, but by the same token I suspect he is not fully informed on this issue. It is not the editor's POV that I cite here, but rather the FG's itself.

Frankly, Covenant, the tone of your post above suggests that you lack the needed objectivity to play the role of a neutral, albeit unofficial, mediator in this discussion. You of all editors should recognize that I have been seeking to accurately report FG teachings and that, in itself, should not be characterized as "preaching" my "anti-Falun Gong message". Sadly, the Falun Gong's well-constructed image in the West as an innocuous meditation group has distorted the reality of what the practice really does to people. In the case of Li's sickness karma, there are media reports of harm coming to practitioners for not seeking medical attention when needed. I can provide the sources for that claim, but first posted a summary above just so that the editor who posted his proposed edit could quickly see the other side of the argument. Again, for you to slam me for doing this puts into question your own objectivity. --Tomananda 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop chucking about accusations and instead post concerns? Good faith should just be assumed on all sides by all parties, and everyone should accept that we're here to create a NPOV encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: There is a structural question we should decide on concerning the alleged health benefits edit which is: should we plan for one main page article on this topic, as the editor above seems to propose, or should we have two paired articles, with the counter claims appearing on the Criticism page. Just to remind everyone, the latter was once the plan as exemplified by this stub of an article in the Criticism and controversies page:

Attitude toward traditional medicine

These critics point to what they see as dangerous consequences in practicing Falun Gong, including alleged health risks from abandoning traditional treatment when practitioners are sick.

--Tomananda 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

• There's a report in The Guardian from May 22, 2003, which notes:

"Scaling back on health commitments was seen by China's reformers as a central part of economic liberalisation. But, as the government found to its cost, if the state does not provide health security, people turn to any promise of health, however implausible. Falun Gong, the religious sect that exploded on to the national scene four years ago, and which the Chinese government has been trying to suppress ever since, owes much of its mass appeal to the belief that it conferred good health on its practitioners."

• There's also a report in the Belfast News Letter, Nov 22, 2001; p. 14 which states:

"Practitioners believe Falun Gong aids health and even gives accomplished followers supernatural powers."

• The Independent notes:

"The perceived health benefits of Falun Gong, an eclectic blend of Qigong, Buddhism and Taoism, partly explain the group's popular surge in the mid-90s, particularly among its many elderly supporters.

• The Scotsman notes:

"China also claims that the Falun Gong is a threat to public health and security, and has caused 1,600 deaths" The Communist Party denounces the sect's claims as "anti- science", the same kind of feudalistic thinking the 1949 revolution was designed to eradicate."

• I've amended the proposed text to address these articles and also the concerns expressed so far.

• Is this quote from the Scotsman, Fitness,the ancient way Scotsman (Edinburgh); Jul 7, 2000; Jessica Werb; p. 12 in any way relevant?

'Hall and Kitching may be convinced of the power of qi gong, but most physiotherapists tend to take a more orthodox view on the matter.

"In a warm-up, you've got to look at stretching the muscles and going through dynamic movements which mimic the actual movements you're going to be doing in your sport," says Karen Pearce, the physiotherapist appointed to the 1996 Great Britain Olympic women's hockey team.

A spokesperson for the Edinburgh University Sports Injury Clinic adds: "There is no scientific evidence that t'ai chi or qi gong can prevent sports injuries or improve performance."'

Alleged Health Benefits

Note, text amended 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Media articles have noted that practitioners of Falun Gong do so to receive health benefits and even supernatural powers from the cultivation practice, and it is these "perceived benefits" which "partly explain the group's popular surge in the mid-90s".. However, little research has been undertaken into the purported health benefits of Falun Gong practice. A conference paper in 2004 and a study by the same team published in 2005 using six subjects indicated there may be health benefits. However, the Chinese government has claimed that "the Falun Gong is a threat to public health and security, and has caused 1,600 deaths."

In the west, scholars and family members of Falun Gong have voiced concerns about the possible harmful health effects of practicing Falun Gong. , ,. Nancy Chen, a U C. Berkeley medical anthropologist who has studied mental health care in post-Mao China, has stated she does not find China’s (earlier) figure of 1,400 deaths attributable to practicing Falun Gong “baseless or necessarily inaccurate.” As reported in the Western media, family members of Falun Gong practitioners have also voiced concerns about the alleged negative health effects of practicing Falun Gong. >,,

References as follows:

Thoughts? Hiding Talk 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job of editing in the two POV's about FG health benefit claims! After tracking down a few of my sources (I haven't even been thinking about this topic), I can add a sentence (with sources)at the end of your lead paragraph which will report some of the health concerns as reported by Western media, so as to round it all out. --Tomananda 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note I have added two sentences to the summary edit proposed by Hiding. I think we should decide whether this will appear as it's own main page article, or just be a summary on the main page, linked to a separate article on an auxiliary page. --Tomananda 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This entangled with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong#Attitude_toward_traditional_medicine

Also if the death reason is suicide, that contradicts with Falun Gong teachings which regard any form of killing including suicide as a sin. Fnhddzs 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: I don't mean to entangle this edit with the stub article that exists on the Criticism page. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the proposal was to write a new article to appear on the main page, in which case there wouldn't be another article on the criticism page. I am open to either structure, but added the two sentences above assuming that it would be just one article.

As to the details about those 1,400 or so deaths in China...they weren't all based on suicide, but rather included deaths caused by not seeking traditional medical treatment for terminal diseases. But even for those that were based on claims of suicide, another editor has already pointed out a falacy in your argument. It's true that Li Hongzhi prohibits suicide, but that fact does not refute the possibility, or even the probablilty, of some Falun Gong practitioners violating that rule. To argue that the alleged suicides of Falun Gong practitioners could not have happened because that would be a violation of Falun Gong ethics is like arguing that priests in the Catholic Church could not have committed any child molestation because their church teaches against that behavior. --Tomananda 00:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. Maybe I am wrong. Are you talking about the Research Into Benefits section? If yes, we all agreed before to have that section. Yes, I know among the 1,400 deaths, besides suicide, there are people refusing taking medicines. However, it is not a goal of Falun Gong of curing illness. I would say the health benefits are just a by-product which could come but could not be pursued. Falun Gong does not prohibit people to take medicine. Only genuine (who truly follow the Zhen, Shan, Ren teachings) practitioners' body could be purified, manifested by their improved health. Fnhddzs 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we didn't agree to split off that section. We didn't agree which sections should be split, we were still talking about it when somebody went ahead and did it anyway. CovenantD 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is to split off that section is not that important since we did not get to that specific point. That is, we don't disagree to split off that section either. We all agree to split off though. Fnhddzs 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Although you are correct that "Falun Gong does not prohibit people to take medicine," that is a misleading statement. It is clear from Li's teachings on Sickness Karma that to pursue cultivation one must let go of an ordinary person's concept of "sickness" and replace it with the idea that sickness is an opportunity to get rid of karma. And since karma elimination is a key to reaching consumation, it is an essential part of Falun Gong practice not seek traditional medical treatment when you are sick. And its because of this central teaching that some practitioners have (allegedly) died in China, and certainly risked their lives here in the US. --Tomananda 01:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I complained about practitioners creating new pages without consensus earlier. Why not merge the content on the deleted page into the FG teaching page? But what we should really be working on is the first paragraph of the intro. Can we get back to that? --Samuel Luo 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to but it seems that people would rather preach than edit. CovenantD 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Hiding's version above. On a side note, a plethora of new articles orbiting one narrow subject are prime candidates for Wikipedia:articles for deletion consideration. Anyone can propose an article for deletion. If it is considered worthy, it will be kept. If the articles are clearly spurious enough (blatant adverts, an entire page presenting Li's mystical claims as fact for example) they are likely to be speedy deleted by an admin monitoring the AfD page. --Fire Star 火星 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd love to get back to the editing for the introduction. Since a side issue has been introduced about the alleged health benefits section, maybe Hiding could make a proposal on the question of structure. Do we have a main page article, or a summary on the main page with a link to something on the Teachings page or some other page? Or something else? --Tomananda 05:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom... What are Falun Gong practitioners? Should Falun Gong practitioners follow the teachings? Obviously, illnesses could not be changed for people not following Falun Gong teachings. Otherwise, it is equivalent to say one can owe money but does not have to pay off. Since Falun Gong believes illnesses are rooted from karma, from past wrongdoings. Removing anybody's illnesses is not responsible nor fair. But for genuine cultivators, their bodies have to be purified to practice cultivation. So it is manifested as health benefits. I actually do not see the 1,400 carefully. I am not sure if there are such cases. I do know some people giving up the Falun Gong died of illnesses incurable by hospitals. Fnhddzs 05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Yes, Li's teachings on "Sickness Karma" relate only to Falun Gong practitioners, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report those teachings...and the possible harmful effects of those teachings...in this Wikipedia article. As you know, there has been much criticism about Falun Gong's teachings on Sickness Karma starting with China in the early 1990's, but also extending to the West. All I am proposing to do is present both sides. On the one hand, the Falun Gong claims that practitioners experience health benefits (in fact, Li says he cures illness directly). On the other hand, the teaching that a practitioner should avoid medical treatment when she is sick is, itself, problematic and has provoked considerable criticism. When we first created the Criticism and controversies page, I had assumed we would have a separate Criticism article on this topic. Since nothing much has been written, though, I am open to different structures...just as long as the alleged health dangers for a practitioner (who doesn't seek medical treatement when sick) are included in the article. It seems that what Hiding has started above is the beginning of an article that could include both sides of the debate. --Tomananda 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody would love to go back to the introduction, if without the interruption of the daughter article's deletion incident without consensus. But, feel free to go back to introduction. We can do these parallelly. right? Fnhddzs 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I found you are on the last reference's news report. So how are your parents' health recently? Hope them well. I would say Falun Gong never force people not seeing doctors. If one feel oneself is "ill", then s/he should see doctors since s/he at that point is not a practitioner. I remember in my beginning phase, I cooked Chinese herb for my stomache while listening to the cassettes of Falun Gong teachings. Until I heard the lectures on illnesses and medicine, I did not know. Still I finished the herb I bought since I did not want to waste money. But later on, my stomachache recurred. When it recurred, I treat it as karma. Finally it is gone for good with practicing Falun Gong, regardless how irregular my meal schedule is. I am really thankful to this. I am sorry about any confusions you may have from your family's experience. Fnhddzs 06:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggested paragraph will be ok if:

• Change this sentence "Media articles have noted that practitioners of Falun Gong do so to receive health benefits and even supernatural powers" to this sentence "Media articles have noted that practitioners have claimed to recieve health benefits and even supernatural powers from the practice". Why? Because practitioners don't seek health benefits, although they may be drawn by this at first. To say that they seek these things is misleading.

Although I think the sentence is correct as it stands, I don't object to this change.

• Change "In the west, scholars and family members of Falun Gong have voiced concerns about the possible harmful health effects of practicing Falun Gong." to "In the west, some scholars and family members of Falun Gong have voiced concerns about the possible harmful health effects of practicing Falun Gong."

I don't accept this change because it seems to diminish the weight given to these reports based on an assessment of numbers which is not needed. If you look elsewhere in this article you'll see we generally don't qualify with words like "some," so I don't see a need for it here. When it comes to "scholars," the trught is that not many have written about this subject and for those that have, I would argue that "many" would be the more accurate qualifier. When it comes to "family members," I also think that "many" might be more correct, but how are we to know for sure?

• Change "As reported in the Western media, family members of Falun Gong practitioners have also voiced concerns about the alleged negative health effects of practicing Falun Gong" to "As reported in the Western media, there have been cases of family members of Falun Gong practitioners voicing concerns over the alleged negative health effects of practicing Falun Gong."

Your proposed wording is overly complicated. We're talking about reports of concerns, which don't necessarily constitute "cases".

• Suggestion: We can add a sentence about there being hundreds of personal accounts of health benefits reported on Clearwisdom.[1] "Clearwisdom, a main Falun Gong website, contains hundreds of personal accounts of alleged health benefits."

Mcconn 17:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here again you are quantifying unfairly, plus relying on a source which we haven't yet agreed to. Yes, the Clearwisdom site has "hundreds" of testimonials about the alleged health benefits of Falun Gong but to my mind those testimonials are all meant to promote Falun Gong recruitment. How about wording like this: "On Clearwisdom, Falun Gong's main website, the general public can read many unsubstantiated testimonials from practitioners reporting miraculous cures allegedly resulting from the practice of Falun Gong." --Tomananda 21:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Revised wording:

Media articles have noted that practitioners of Falun Gong have claimed to receive health benefits and even supernatural powers from the cultivation practice, and it is these "perceived benefits" which "partly explain the group's popular surge in the mid-90s.".. On Clearwisdom, Falun Gong's main website, the general public can read many unsubstantiated testimonials from practitioners reporting miraculous cures allegedly resulting from the practice of Falun Gong. However, little research has been undertaken into the purported health benefits of Falun Gong practice. A conference paper in 2004 and a study by the same team published in 2005 using six subjects indicated there may be health benefits. However, the Chinese government has claimed that "the Falun Gong is a threat to public health and security, and has caused 1,600 deaths."

In the west, scholars and family members of Falun Gong have voiced concerns about the possible harmful health effects of practicing Falun Gong. , ,. Nancy Chen, a U C. Berkeley medical anthropologist who has studied mental health care in post-Mao China, has stated she does not find China’s (earlier) figure of 1,400 deaths attributable to practicing Falun Gong “baseless or necessarily inaccurate.” As reported in the Western media, family members of Falun Gong practitioners have also voiced concerns about the alleged negative health effects of practicing Falun Gong. >,,

What do you mean by promoting? Can't we report what people say? Why no other countries except China has death case? Fnhddzs 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, your analysis of these personal accounts being promotion is totally pov. It goes without saying that personal accounts are unsubstantiated. There's no need to say that. Also, although practitioners frequent clearwisdom, it's not a fact that it's the main website. So we should just say "a main website". Here's another suggestion: "Clearwisdom, a main Falun Gong website, contains hundreds of alleged personal accounts of health benefits and miraculous cures recieved from practicing Falun Gong." I moved the word alleged in case you're doubting that these are truly personal accounts. However, I can assure you that I've heard similar stories from about 1 in every 2 practitioners I've ever met, if not more. We've got no reason to make them up. Also, your version does not include some of my suggestions. If these suggestions are unreasonable please say so, rather than ignore them.Mcconn 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with the introduction

Alright, this is my proposal:

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation within the Buddha-School which was introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). and Xinxing Cultivation (a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance by letting go of various attachments and desires) (the cultivation of your heart to assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe, Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance according to Li ), with cultivation taking priority over the exercises. In Zhuan Falun, Falun Dafa is introduced by Li in this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious." In recent years, due to the persecution, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of "Fa-Rectification" and "Fa-Rectification Cultivation"

AGREE To be honest, this is completely fair. Why? Tomananda, Samuel and other editors agreed on quoting Master Li when introducing Falun Dafa. This introduction also includes it, but a newer translation and not a old one. It also includes the concept of XinXing cultivation. This one is according to my opinion the best introduction.

Of course you agree to your own proposal, but you actually saying so makes it look like you are padding the vote at best, or agreeing to someone else's unsigned proposal at worst. Regardless, the above is unacceptable. It isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is POV advertising copy. It isn't your voice we will agree to here, but Wikipedia's voice. You have to at least try to be neutral to get any consideration. For example, saying that the exercises are "a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe" is never going to be allowed at Wikipedia. Almost any other editor who came by and saw that in an article would remove it on sight. Using quotes to report Li's many unprovable assertions as if we were imputing them to be factual isn't acceptable, either. --Fire Star 火星 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire star, I don't understand what you mean, what is the problem? Earlier everybody said that we should quote Master Li in this issue, I just took a newer translation. Also, according to Falun Gong, Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is the nature of the Universe, so they will follow the nature of the Universe, why is it a problem to honestly report on Falun Gong's teachings? Why do you call it advertisement?

"a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe" this is explaining what Xingxing cultivation is, please be rational, explain what you think should not be there, I see nothing that is "advertisement", as you call it. /Omido 15:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido, "a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe" is what it claims to be, not what it is from a completely NPOV. I have to agree with Fire Star on this one that the language used is POV and not acceptable. I've struck it and another POV statement from the proposed text. CovenantD 16:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost Agree, except I would put the teachings before the exercises. Since cultivation of heart is before the exercises (in my own words, here is the quotes [2]

This Dafa thus requires both cultivation and exercises, with cultivation taking priority over the exercises. A person’s gong will not increase if he merely does the exercises and fails to cultivate his xinxing. A person who only cultivates his xinxing and does not perform the exercises of the Great Consummation Way will find the growth of his gong potency impeded and his original-body (benti) unchanged.

). Fnhddzs 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC) By the way, if Fire Star does not like the quotes, it is ok for me to remove it. I thought other editors like it so much. Fnhddzs 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Fire Star, I remember you also said we should use quotes (We are better off using Li's exact words. --Fire Star 火星 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[3]). And at that time I said we should not cite quotes without cite context quotes. Now that you change your idea, it is fine to remove it. Fnhddzs 16:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is an editorial thing. The quotes are set up in a context that implies Wikipedia believes what Li Hongzhi says, indeed, they border on spamming Wikipedia to win converts to FLG, not what you'd find in a neutral encyclopaedia article. Can you see that? We can and should report quotes, and exactly, but not use them to imply that the quotes are true. For example, Li claims to be "Buddhist school" and that is fine, but it should be clearly pointed out that it is Li's assertion, and not simply placed in the intro to the article where someone may accept it as a given, as there are questions whether what Li believes and/or teaches really can be called Buddhism. --Fire Star 火星 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

References that support the text need to be included, not just placeholders. We need to be able to verify them. CovenantD 17:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Note I was bold to add one word, with cultivation taking priority over excercises. Fnhddzs 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire star, I do not understand why you think that if we include Master Li's quote it would imply that Wikipedia believes it is true. It just says: "In Zhuan Falun, Falun Dafa is introduced by Li in this way:" How does this imply that wikipedia believes in it or not? It just says how Master Li introduce Falun Gong. When you say that quoting Master Li is making advertisement, it is kind of sad. This article is supposed to report about Falun Gong, how can it be "advertisement" to quote how the founder of Falun Gong introduces Falun Dafa? Earlier you said we should quote, and now when we quote you are saying that it is advertisement. Please stop making up these kind of execuses. /Omido 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the Xinxing cultivation will change to this: "Xinxing Cultivation (a process in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance by letting go of various attachments and desires)" Now that it does not say "nature of the Universe", are you satisfied?

/Omido 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because it still asserts something as fact that is so esoteric as to be unprovable. There is no way to objectively say that one assimilates those virtues. CovenantD 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As well, Omido shouldn't take personally that putting a pro-FLG billboard in the intro to the article isn't how we do things here. The quote can either be thoroughly qualified or be put into a later, more detailed part of the article where it can be approached deliberately. I'm not "making up excuses" by insisting on a spam-free intro. --Fire Star 火星 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have incorporated the following central concepts of Falun Gong in my new suggestion.

1. Zhen, shan, ren (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance) 2. Fa Rectification 3. Li's role as saviour --Samuel Luo 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). [4] While the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, tolerance are being stressed in the teachings, in Zhuan Falun, the Falun Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc (also translated the kalpa's end), I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [5] Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in the Fa-rectification. [6]

---

The translation used in samuel’s suggestion is better than the one used in Omido’s. The Chinese original text and two versions of translation are listed below. The highlighted text in the first version shows the accuracy of translation.

我们法轮大法是佛家８万４千法门中的一法门，在我们这一次人类文明历史时期从来没有公开传出过，但是，在史前一个时期广泛度过人。我在末劫最后时期再一次把他洪传出来，所以他是极其珍贵的。

Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious.

Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious.

kalpa (4320000000 years) is the term used in religion fitting in the context. Again, I disagree defining Falun gong only with five sets of exercises. Fnhddzs 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC) A better wording for "his Dafa" could be he claims that the Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance is the Fa or supereme nature of the universe. I don't recall he said it is "his" Dafa.Fnhddzs 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I Disagree with Samuel about using the old translation, because I believe the newest is most neutral and fair against someone that does not know what Falun Gong is. Also, they translated Zhuan Falun again because practitioners thought that the old translation was inaccurate, so why should we use the old translation? Does not make any sence. /Omido 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns voiced above, but think there may be a compromise between these two versions, which also deals with the Last Havoc vs. the kalpa's end problem. Here's my proposal:

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and teachings. [7] Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (mind nature or character), they can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance--with cultivation taking priority over the exercises[29][30]. In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi introduces Falun Dafa this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc (also translated the kalpa's end), I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [8] Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in the Fa-rectification. [9]

By the way, speaking of different translations, what is the basis for using "endurance" in place of "forebearance" in the above quote. Endurance does not strike me as a moral value, while forebearance clearly is. --Tomananda 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How about: "In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi introduces Falun Dafa this way..." to clearly delineate who is saying what. Also, it may help at a certain point to have more in-depth definitions. For example, 忍 is an important concept with resonances throughout Chinese culture, and isn't something new Li pulled out of a hat. --Fire Star 火星 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I Support Tomananda's version with modifications from Fire Star. The first version in this subsection once again treats FLG as "within the Buddha School". Something that has no basis of support. --Yenchin 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better. But could you please add teachings when you define what the Falun Gong refers to. Also you know, the wording of "his Dafa" is not appropriate. "the only source" is also not appropriate. Fnhddzs 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change requested by Firestar and added "teachings" as requested by Fnhddza. But I am reluctant to delete the "his" before Dafa, and certainly Li does say that he and Dafa are the only source of salvation at this time. Here's one of the quotes:

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to delete the "his" before Dafa, but really we do need to say "only source of salvation" because that is a major theme of Li's. Remember he even says Jesus and the the old Buddhists in their caves can no longer save people during this current period, only the Dafa can. So let's keep that part in for the sake of accuracy. --Tomananda 07:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are three supporting quotes to justify the use of "his" before Dafa:

• My Dafa is taught to today's Dafa disciples, not to ordinary people, and you shouldn't get overly concerned about what people think. As long as you walk straightly your own cultivation path here in the human world, everyone will see you in a positive light. San Francisco 2005

• Dafa (Great Law) has only one master, me, and Dafa Itself doesn’t have any “persons in charge.” You’re just people in charge amidst this Fa-rectification form and counter-persecution form. . . .. Everyone is a cultivating disciple. Make sure you keep these things in mind. Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A.,December 29, 2001, p. 8.

• 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

These quotes more than justify using the phrase Li and his Dafa, but I am still willing to drop it as long as we mention that the Dafa is the only source of salvation. --Tomananda 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be offended Mr. Tomananda: but this is possibly the worst analysis of a section of writing I have ever seen!!!! another thing- don't think my silence means I agree with you. I don't. You clearly ignored everything I said in the earlier discussion. When are you going to actually meet me, the FLG practitioners, or anyone else in the arena of public discussion, and stop trying to push your own agenda?? No man can always be right, but it seems you never admit you are wrong, and you fail to even accept the basics of anything you disagree with. I feel that my continuning discussion with you is the same thing as talking to the wall. There's just no point. At all. So if my words have any effect, do try in the future ok? do try to LISTEN to what the other party has to say. Thank you,Whitemanners 10:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofended? Not at all. You accuse me of providing "the worst analysis of a section of writing you have ever seen" and then launch into a personal attack against me, rather than providing an alternative analysis of your own. I at least did provide an analysis and based it on quotes, what have you provided beyond an arrogant speech? In fact, I do listen, which is why, for example, I added the translation of ending kalpa as an alternative for last havoc.--Tomananda 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally Disagree with Tomananda about his introduction, we have over and over stated that we wan't the new translation to be used, but Tomananda just ignores other editors and continues with his own things. I totally agree with Whitemanners, speaking with Tomananda is really like speaking to a wall, he does not listen and he does not want to use other editors idea's. This behaviour can not be accepted, not by someone that has no in-depth knowledge about Dafa and still want to do edits. Also, one more things:

Because of your objection to the translation of last havoc I provided the alternative kalpa translation which you seem to have missed. As to speaking to a wall, there part of Wikipedia etiquette is that editors are expected to answer each others questions rather than ignore them. In the case of you #1 accusation below, I posted a question to all practitioners above and no one responeded. The question is:

Is any practitioner willing to state publicly that they do not think of Master Li as a god or living Buddha? Since no one responded to that question...and I have been told many times by practititioners that they do think of Li as a god... I let that wording stand pending some alternative wording. As with so much of practitioner feedback on this issue, it becomes circular. You attack my words but never provide simple and clear wording of your own. Could that be because you really don't want the world to know how you think of Master Li? In that case, what a strange cultivation practice/religion Falun Gong is. Some would even call it a deceptive cult. --Tomananda 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his disciples" | this is Tomananda's POV

See my response to this accusation above. --Tomananda 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2. "claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in the Fa-rectification." | This is chaotic, it can not be used in the introduction, why? Because the issue of the Fa-Rectification is extremely complex, it seems even Tomananda does not really know what the Fa-Rectification is about. We can only mention the Fa-Rectification in the introductiona and link it to and entire section that explains (with many of Master Li's quotes) what the Fa-Rectification is about. Tomananda, how many times have I told you that Master Li has used more than 20 speeches to describe the Fa-Rectification, so it can't be explained in one sentence. Why are you so narrow-minded and irrational? Have you lost the ability to work with others? Why are you still holding on to your own thinking? Can you be called a editor?

Yes, you have mentioned those 20 speeches many times. It proves how important a concept this is for Falun Gong, yet it has been the non-practitioner editors who have been demanding that it be covered in this article. Why is that? As to the complexitity of the concept, even complex ideas can be summarized in Wikipedia articles. Earlier I gave the example of the Wikipedia article on Einstein's general theory of relativity. You'll notice it is summarized in about 4 sentences....can you or another practitioner/editor offer a similarly concise summary for us? If so, I haven't seen anything yet. --Tomananda 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

/Omido 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

FLG devotees accusing others of intransigence is delightfully ironic. That being said, after much thought, I don't think the language "Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his disciples" is going to work. For starters, we would have to find a source that reliably quotes "many of his disciples". I think we should instead focus on how Li Hongzhi characterises himself in relation to the Buddha. In th following quotes he goes on at length about how what Gautama Buddha taught was only one fraction of what he teaches, and how what he teaches is better than other religions. He also explicitly makes clear how he is hiding religious principles in the guise of qigong. I'm sorry the quotes are so long, but they bear directly on the issue being debated:

Firestar: I think you are correct, we will have to abandon the idea of reporting what Falun Gong practitioners think about Master Li in this article and replace that with a report of what Li says about himself. --Tomananda 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From [10]

"Of course, we have quite a few new practitioners here, some of whom may find what I am talking about very profound upon hearing it. It is known that all religions tell people to be good so that they can go to heaven. As for Buddhism, the Paradise of Ultimate Bliss, of course, is also a paradise in heaven. Historically, enlightened beings and sages all spoke of how to be a good person and that only by reaching the standard of a higher realm can one go to heaven. However, none of them explained the principles behind it. This is because that all such great enlightened beings appeared about two thousand years ago, whether it was Jesus, Buddha Sakyamuni or Lao Zi, etc. People at that time were not the same as people today. At that time they were more simple-minded and kinder. Their thoughts were not as complicated. Because the mentality of the people at that time was different from that of today, the Fa they taught then could work at that time, and what they taught could fully enable one to complete cultivation. With the passage of time, the human mind today is becoming increasingly complicated, and the ways of thinking have also changed. Accordingly, people nowadays cannot comprehend what these great enlightened beings taught in the past. Therefore, when people read these scriptures now, they feel unable to understand the true meaning. Although I am teaching the Fa today in the form of Qigong, people all know that I am in fact teaching the Buddha Fa. Some may wonder, "Isn’t your teaching of the Buddha Fa unlike the way Buddha Sakyamuni spoke?" If I used Buddha Sakyamuni’s words to teach it, nobody today would understand it. Buddha Sakyamuni’s language was the language of mankind at that time, so the people at that time could understand it. Then, in teaching the Buddha Fa today, I have to use modern language to speak to everyone, and only then will you be able to understand it. Some may still question, "but what you teach is not the same as the scriptures from Buddhism." Did Buddha Sakyamuni teach the Fa taught by the seven primeval Buddhas? If Maitreya came down to the world, would he repeat what Buddha Sakyamuni said? All enlightened beings that provide salvation teach the Fa that they have become enlightened to and make it public to save people. In this book, I have written many things on cultivation practice. One begins cultivation practice as an ordinary person, and there will be Fa to guide your cultivation practice until you complete your cultivation. I have truly done something that no one ever did in the past by teaching a greater fundamental Dafa (great law) of the universe. Such things cannot be found even if you check out all the books at home or abroad, from the past or today. The principles that I have taught are the characteristics of the universe and the essence of the Buddha Fa, which are truthfully expressed through my language. Many people think after reading the book, and some people ask, "How much scholarly knowledge does Teacher Li have? He seems to have included in the book a wide range of knowledge, from ancient times up to today, both domestic and abroad, such as astronomy, geography, history, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, high-energy physics, and philosophy." People think that the teacher’s scholarly knowledge is very extensive and profound. In fact, to compare with others in terms of ordinary human knowledge, I feel rather inadequate. However, as for these theories, you may have either read all the books in the world or studied all the subjects on earth, you still cannot acquire them. You may have learned all the scholarly knowledge in the world, you are still an ordinary person. This is because you are just a person at this human level and remain an ordinary person, except that you have mastered a little bit more ordinary human knowledge. Whereas, the principles that I have taught and what I have said are not things at this ordinary human level. They are beyond this ordinary human level. Therefore, its principles do not come from ordinary human knowledge. The Fa encompasses all the knowledge from the universe to ordinary human society."

"I have expressed all the principles of the Fa from the lowest level to the highest level of the universe in a very plain and simple language of the ordinary people and through Qigong, the lowest form of cultivation practice. After reading the book for the first time, you will find that it is teaching people the principles of how to be a good person. If you read it again, you will find that what it states are not the principles of ordinary people, but it is a book beyond ordinary human knowledge. If you can read it a third time, you will find that it is a book of heaven. If you continue to read it, you will love it so much that you simply cannot let it go of your hands. In China, there are people who are still reading it after reading it over a hundred times. They just cannot put it down as there is so much implied meaning in it. The more they read it, the more there is to read. The more they read it, the more they get out of it. Why is that? Although I have disclosed many heavenly secrets, a non-practitioner cannot see them on the surface. Only when you read the book constantly as a practitioner, can you find the implied meanings in it. This is because one is constantly making progress during the course of cultivation practice. Why did you feel at the beginning that this book was telling the principles of how to be a good person? Why wouldn’t you feel the same way after reading it for the second time? Why has your understanding increased? It is because if one wants to practice cultivation, he must first of all start from the baseline of ordinary people. He will gradually improve his Xinxing (mind-nature, moral quality) and reach a higher standard. When you have reached the standard of the first level, there must be Fa of that level to guide your cultivation practice. When you have reached the second level, you will need the corresponding Fa at the second level to guide your cultivation practice in that realm. As you are constantly making progress, this Fa will still be able to guide your cultivation practice accordingly within that realm. That is to say that regardless of which level your cultivation reaches you will still need the Fa of that level to guide your cultivation practice so that you may complete cultivation in the end. I have inserted all these things throughout this book. Thus, as long as you want to genuinely practice cultivation, you will be able to see such things, which will be able to guide you to move up in cultivation practice. The implied meanings in this book are rather profound. Even if you read it ten thousand times, it will still guide your cultivation practice until you complete your cultivation. Speaking of completing cultivation, it is known that Jesus said, "You can go to heaven if you have faith in me." It is said in Buddhism, "If one cultivates Buddhahood, he may go to the Paradise of Ultimate Bliss." Of course, they all put it very simply and did not stress that only through the actual cultivation practice can one go there. However, religion is also cultivation practice in essence. It is just that whether it was Buddha Sakyamuni or Jesus, they all saw the same fact, as the saying goes in the community of cultivators "Cultivation depends upon the individual himself, and the transformation of Gong is up to the master." Ordinary people did not know this either. Ordinary people think, "By doing the exercise, I will be able to attain a certain amount of Gong." This is a joke in our view, and it is absolutely impossible. Of course, if you want to practice cultivation, the master would need to be genuinely responsible to you and would install many of these energy mechanisms in your body. He would also plant many things like seeds in your body. Only then, will you be able to succeed in your cultivation practice. In addition, during the course of cultivation practice, the master must look after you, protect you, eliminate your karma, and help with the transformation of your Gong. Only then will you be able to move up in cultivation practice. Religions do not talk about cultivation practice. Why is that? Jesus knew, "If you have faith in me you will be able to move up in your cultivation practice." Nowadays, one cannot practice cultivation in religions simply because of his inability to understand the real meaning of what he said. Many people think, "I believe in Jesus, and I will be able to go to heaven upon death." Please think about it. We want to go to heaven, but how do we get there? You carry an ordinary person's mind with various sentimentalities and desires, your various attachments, the competitive mentality, as well as the show-off mentality. There are just too many such bad attachments of ordinary people. If you were allowed to be there with Buddhas, you might compete with Buddhas or start a fight because your ordinary human mind has not been given up. If you find a Bodhisattva so beautiful, you may develop some evil thoughts. Can this be allowed? Of course it won't be allowed. Thus, you will have to give up these attachments and the filth as well as bad thoughts in ordinary human society. Only then can you ascend to such a realm. One is able to go there by cultivation or by faith. However, following confessions, one should not repeat the mistake. In this way, one will become better and better. Only after reaching the standard of a deity, can one go to heaven. This is in fact cultivation practice."

"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. Jesus is at the level of Tathagata and also an enlightened being in the realm of Buddha. Ordinary people cannot understand the implications of what he said. Only when you constantly practice cultivation by following his method, can you gradually comprehend the implications of what he said. For instance, Jesus said, "If you have faith in me, you will be able to go to heaven." In fact, you must follow the principles that he taught you to be a good person. Only then do you genuinely have faith in him and can you go to heaven. Otherwise, why did he say that much?! While making confessions, you may find yourself doing it well and in the right mood. However, once you step outside the door of the church, you continue to behave at your own will and may become even worse than an ordinary person. How can you go to heaven? Your mind has not been elevated at all. As Jesus put it, "If you have faith in me, you can go to heaven." That means if you have faith in him, you must follow what he said, that is genuine faith, isn't it? This principle is also true in other religions."

"What Buddha Sakyamuni said was later compiled and written down as scriptures. Still later, people began to regard how much one reads the scriptures and how much Buddhist knowledge one masters as cultivation practice. In fact, there were no scriptures at all when Buddha Sakyamuni was around. The scriptures were only systematically compiled five hundreds years later, and they had already departed from what Buddha Sakyamuni had said during his time. However, at that time people were only expected to know so much, and knowing too much would be improper. So, what happened was inevitable. In his later years, Buddha Sakyamuni finally said, "I have not taught any Fa in my lifetime." Buddha Sakyamuni said this because he indeed did not teach the Fa of this universe, nor did he mention the manifestation of this characteristic of Zhen-Shan-Ren in ordinary human society or at his level of Tathagata. He indeed did not teach it! What was it that Buddha Tathagata taught then? What he taught was what he had been enlightened to during the cultivation practice in his previous lifetimes, some situations of cultivation practice in his previous reincarnations, cultivation practice stories as well as his understanding of some specific manifestation of the Fa. As the scriptures were sorted out on and off, they are not systematic either. Then, why did people later on regard what Buddha Sakyamuni said as the Buddha Fa? On the one hand, this is the human understanding. On the other hand, it is because Sakyamuni is a Buddha. Accordingly, what he said bears the Buddha nature. Teachings bearing the Buddha nature will thus be a layer of the Buddha principles to mankind, which is then regarded as the Buddha Fa. However, he indeed did not systematically teach the principles of cultivation practice, the characteristic of the universe, nor did he explain why one could ascend to higher levels, etc. Indeed, he did not make it public! Therefore, I said that I have done something nobody did in the past, and I have opened a big door. I have done something even greater. That is, I have made public all the principles of cultivation practice as well as the elements for completing cultivation. In addition, I have talked about it very systematically. This is why the gods at very high levels have said, "You have left man a ladder to heaven-- Zhuan Falun." I am not saying here how I am in comparison with Buddha Sakyamuni. I do not have such an attachment. I am not in the ordinary human sentimentality and do not have an attachment to fame and interest in the world. Since I am making these things public, I will be responsible to you and state such a principle clearly to you. I do not want anything from you, nor will I ask for a penny from you. I am only teaching you to turn to goodness. Someone asked me, "Teacher, you have taught us so many things and have given us so much. What do you want?" I said, "I do not want anything. I have just come to save you. I just want your heart to be good and want you to be able to move up." It's because we have found that, for a person, being human is not the purpose. People today are all lost in the false reality of ordinary human society and think that they have to be this way as human beings. In particular, the moral values of the human society are now declining very badly. Everyone is drifting downward in this flooding current, and society as a whole is declining. Then, no one is aware that he is declining downhill. Some people think that they are good people when they consider themselves a little bit better than others. In fact, you are sizing yourselves up against this declined standard, and you are only a little bit better than others amidst all the badness. If you are able to practice cultivation and return to this original realm of human society, you will find even from not too high a level that today’s people and the human society rather frightening! It is truly terrifying! You will find that mankind today are indeed full of all the ten sins."

"The great enlightened beings, may they be Buddhas, Taoists, or gods, no longer consider today's people as human beings. This statement may seem to be a bit absolute. Of course, there are still good people. However, what they are referring to is mankind as a whole and on a large scale. It is indeed like this. In the past, when one went to a temple or a church to make a confession, he would feel that Jesus or a being in heaven was indeed listening to him talking. In addition, there would be such a responding echo in his mind as though answering his questions. Yet, people today will not have such a feeling, and those who worship Buddhas cannot see the presence of Buddhas either. Why is that? It is because people in human society have become less and less enlightened, and people in human society have become increasingly corrupted. Then, gods will no longer take care of them. Because modern people have quite a great deal of karma and are becoming less and less enlightened, when facing retribution after they have done something wrong, they would take it as a mere coincidence. I have seen that although human moral values are declining very badly, yet people are all declining with this flooding current without being aware of it. Some people still have their Buddha nature and their original nature. Through my teaching over these years, there are many people who have raised their level through cultivation practice and the level of their cultivation practice is very high. Some people have become enlightened, some are in gradual enlightenment, and some are already practising cultivation within Fruit Status. I feel very happy that I have not done such a thing in vain. I have been responsible to mankind and to society. I have not disclosed the heavenly secrets for nothing and I am enabling people to ascend through cultivation practice."

…

"However, human society also has a big advantage: because a person suffers, he is able to practice cultivation. Why is a Buddha always a Buddha in that realm of Buddhahood? Why can’t he ascend even higher? Why can’t a Bodhisattva become a Buddha through cultivation? Because they cannot find a place to suffer a little bit even if they want to. He could practice cultivation precisely because he is able to consolidate his Buddha nature in a maze. If there is no maze for him over there and he is able to see everything, then cultivation does not count because one can see everything. Therefore, cultivation and enlightenment come first. Seeing comes later. Some people say, "If I see it, I will practice cultivation. If I do not see it, I will not practice cultivation." If everyone were allowed to see it, ordinary human society would no longer be human society, but a society of gods. With one hundred percent and no one left out, everyone would practice cultivation. Those people with all kinds of unforgivable sins and people with worse character would all want to practice cultivation. Do you think that it is still a human society? It is precisely because man has become corrupt that he has fallen into this environment. If you want to return where you came from, you must have the following two factors. One is suffering. The other is enlightenment. With regard to enlightenment, Jesus talked about faith while enlightenment is required in the East. If you have lost these things, you will not be able to practice cultivation. However, why is it that people normally find it very difficult during the course of cultivation? Actually, cultivation practice is not difficult. The difficulty lies in the inability to let go of ordinary human mind. Man has never been told what the Buddha Fa is in history. People had all regarded what Buddha Sakyamuni said as the systematic Buddha Fa. Please think about it. This enormous universe is quite complete and rather wise. Buddha Sakyamuni only mentioned a small portion of the Buddha principles. Besides, Buddha Sakyamuni did not disclose to man everything he knew either. He only taught people what they should know. Therefore, the Dharma left for human society now is only a tiny, tiny bit of the Buddha Fa. I mentioned earlier that the things that I have left to human society are many, and I have done something that no one did in the past."

We are going to need language like: "Li Hongzhi, who believes himself to be..." or ""claims that he is beyond the level of Buddha". and then provide this citation. --Fire Star 火星 13:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you move these quotes to your user talk and instead leave a link on the discussion page. This is what has been done when other users post long messages like this, and you shouldn't be an exception. Mcconn 15:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The long bits I suggested should be moved before was an original essay by Andres18, originally from another user's talk page and moved by that user to this page. The above was not intended as a side discussion for anyone's talk page and is immediately germane to Tomanada's suggested wording for the article, they are actual quotes from the architect of the subject of the article and I will not move them. If CovenantD wants to move them in his capacity as a neutral moderator, that is fine with me. No one else has my permission to move them. --Fire Star 火星 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I will appreciate to see the related wikipedia specification on pasting long quotes. Some admins on Chinese wiki said pasting long quotes is a waste of resources. I don't know that is their personal policy used for whatever quotes they don't like to see or that is really a wiki policy. As to correlation to the article, the last topic I copied Andres's was exactly germane to the talk page. He requested me to paste here. And I saw covenant did once for another user. The only reason I followed your suggestion is I think it is a bit long and I am not really clear about how the wiki policy say. I would appreciate if you could give me a link. Fnhddzs 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Whether the quotes are originated from my talk page or from falundafa websites, they are all quotes. Fnhddzs 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a specification, but Wikipedia is not paper. Andres18 wasn't working a specific line or section of the article, he was giving his general advice on (I believe) how we should all be friendly to Falungong when we edit. If you had edited any articles outside of the Falungong orbit, you'd be more likely to know that article talk pages are where progress is usually made in the the realm of factual documentation from the public domain to support or challenge statements proposed for our articles. The above quote is entirely geared toward determining whether or not Li or his followers claim him to be a living Buddha. I only pulled the paragraphs in which he mentions relations to other religions. It wasn't the entire lecture (for which I provided a link for the curious), and it wasn't from a user talk page or intended for a user talk page. It is intended for this page to provide background for a consideration in relation to a statement that Tomanada wants in the article. After you and the other FLG devotees have repeatedly loaded this talk page with reams of circular faith-based logic and outright proselytizing, I find your objections to be disingenuous. --Fire Star 火星 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't object to put your quote still here. I was curious about if there is a policy. You know, people just suggest so and nobody will force to remove it (except rude admin could do that as on Chinese wiki). Regarding that you said Andres's post was not related to the article, I have to disagree. Here is what Andres wrote, [11] He almost gave suggestions paragraph by paragraph regarding the article's edits. Intead of saying how to treat Falun gong friendly, he said we should be focused on edits. He was very enthusiastic on editing although he was new to wiki. Fnhddzs 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't object to Andres18's post at all, or find it objectionable, but I saw it as kind of a sidebar to our discussions at the time since, as you say, he was brand new to the discussions. --Fire Star 火星 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "new". Fnhddzs 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"I think the above rather lengthy contribution should be placed on a talk page provided by a link" so people who might be interested in reading a whole conference of Master Li can do so. Lastly, i think non neutral posts should be ignored since the page we are trying to edit is neutral.--Andres18 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Firestar: thanks for posting the long quote from Master Li. You are correct that it is appropriate for this discussion. Basically, Li says that the traditional religions can no longer save people because humans were much simpler in their thinking 2,000 years ago. Only Li and the/his Dafa can save people at this time in our history. Using some of the material you provided in the long quote above, what do you think of the following wording:

Revised edit to address Fire Star's concerns:

• Li Hongzhi claims he has “truly done something that no one ever did in the past by teaching a greater fundamental Dafa (great law) of the universe.” According to Li, the Fa taught by the great enlightened beings—Jesus, Buddha Sakyamuni and Lao Zi---no longer can save people because our modern culture and way of thinking is more complex than those of ancient times. Li also teaches that mankind has become so corrupt that the gods have abandoned them: "no religion is being watched over by the gods, because gods see that humankind is too depraved and so they no longer regard human beings as human beings." (North America speech,1998) Because of this moral corruption, Li teaches that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. As part of this process, the Dafa judges and "weeds out" people who are not worthy of being saved. --Tomananda 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a good start. To be fair, Li provides a longer explanation we should include about why people were simpler that involves the relative complexity of the modern world compared to the ancient that makes him sound less crazy. Also, as Judeo-Christian-centric as it may sound, "gods" isn't usually capitalised. --Fire Star 火星 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: Please note I made some changes to the edit above to accomodate your suggestions. --Tomananda 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Tom... made some progress. But I disagree the interpreting of Fa-rectification in Tom.... 's version. Although you may have some quotes, you don't have the full quotes in those over 20 articles by Master Li to summarize the full idea. That is definitely not a paraphrase of what Fa-rectification is. It is a tempted interpretation in a hurry. So we could only mention Fa-rectification, as in Omido's version and links to its section which will try to fully detail this topic. Fnhddzs 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Now mentioning it with a more detailed section later sounds like a good idea. In fact, each of the ideas mentioned in the lead section should be expanded on in later sections. CovenantD 16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to say a bit more than just "Fa-rectification" in the introduction. Just above I've posted a proposed paragraph which includes a short "definition" of Fa-rectification which was actually provided by the practitioners, with a bit more exposition. --Tomananda 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think whether Li introduced Falun Gong in that one sentence quote is also debatable. We could say Li said this word. But is this word to introduce Falun Gong? I've mentioned there are words earlier than that word in the same chapter, which seem to give better introduction. So we could say: it is mentioned in the Li's Lecture one in the book Zhuanfa Lun that "". I don't think it is used as an introduction. Here is that earlier word mentioning "our Falun Dafa".[12]

"Our Falun Dafa discipline, the Law Wheel Great Way, goes by the highest standard of the universe, to be True, Good, and Endure, and we cultivate these all together. So what we cultivate is huge." Fnhddzs 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The word Havoc and the word kalpa have the same Chinese character 劫 (jie). In an ealier paragraph of Talk one[13], it is written "Back in his day, Shakyamuni said that he completed his cultivation and became Enlightened many, many hundreds of millions of kalpa ago. So then how many years are in a kalpa? One kalpa is many, many hundreds of millions of years. You really can’t even imagine a number that huge. "

When the word "Last Havoc" was used in the old version of translation, it has a footnoteword based on the translator's understanding [14] indicating this special combination of words is a term in the community of cultivators. "33 Last Havoc—The community of cultivators holds that the universe has three phases of evolution (The Beginning Havoc, The Middle Havoc, The Last Havoc), and that now is the The Last Havoc’s final period. "

So we have to explain it if it is used here even embedded in the quote just as what it has in the translation. Can we give it a footnote or bracket to include this footnote? If we can't, it would not be a fair quote in original shape. So we should not use it. Fnhddzs 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly.. Its not accurate to say. Falun Gong is "introduced as.. and it is necessary to make clear the meaning of words being used and the context.. when quoting 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal! We can change "introduced as" to "described as" --Tomananda 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for approaching to change. But I think "described as" may not be appropriate either. I think it is just one word mentioned in Li's talk. Can it describe the entirety of Falun Gong? Fnhddzs 20:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Please, give me a break! I ask that you read and consider my response to Dilip's posting below. I and other non-practitoners have bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of practitioners in this edit. We have used direct quotes and indirect quotes. We have proposed multiple versions. And no matter what is proposed, there is always a blanket rejection. I'm sorry, but this won't wash. --Tomananda 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Don't be so angry. You know I appreciate the progress you have made. You know all proposals from us were rejected:). I don't fully reject yours. Actually our versions are closer and closer now. Cheers, Fnhddzs 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC) But for introduction, we'd better avoid anything without consensus. We'd better detail them in the individual sections. It is not fair to put in the introduction those stuff hard to understand. Fnhddzs 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assign anger or other emotions to other editors. It doesn't help the process. Tomananda may not be angry; he may be frustrated, he may be amused, he may be exasperated, he may be a lot of things. Unilaterally assigning motive to a correspondant, called "projection", is often a dodge used to dishonestly avoid facing an issue for whatever reason. You can make it less personal and note that a person's post sounds angry (and still, if it really doesn't, you'll have to expect some criticism), but to say the person is angry goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Fire Star 火星 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me that comforting possible anger is regarded as not assuming good faith. Ok then I don't mind I won't say people are angry. Still I hope to find a wiki policy on this specification. If not, I would still respect your personal request.:) Fnhddzs 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Digressing a bit

I just wanted to share with you all something I think is quite relevant to the edit process.

A lot of the edit wars happening here, I believe, just arises from a lack of understanding.

I am writing this in an attempt to try to share a few things with you all which I believe, though not directly related to the edits, is quite central to working towards a good article.

I understand that some consider things like "xiulian", "religion", to be all "superstition".. Anyone who has practiced tai-chi or qi-gong knows "chi" is not a figment of imagination.. it can be objectively felt during practice.. There are many who practice tai-chi or qi-gong.. some cultivate in the tantric school, some cultivate buddhahood in Buddhism some cultivate the Great Dao, ..

Dilip: You still don't get it. I have not labeled the Falun Gong a "superstition". That very word comes from a more Chinese perspective and I am not Chinese. I am an American, and I am very comfortable with religious ideas as concepts. Personally, I don't think I have ever used the word "superstition" to describe any religion, although I have a Chinese friend who does.

The problem which I keep getting back to is that I do not feel you are being honest. Having spent years studying Falun Gong and having had many conversations with Falun Gong practitioners, I have a pretty good idea of the beliefs. Yet when I propose honest and NPOV ways of representing these beliefs, you call it my POV. In fact, even when I report your Master's words verbatim, they are called my POV and have even been characterized as "degrading." --Tomananda 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Qi" would seem too far fetched a concept to someone who hasnt ever tried qi gong.. but someone who has tried qi gong knows there is more to it.. he can objectively feel the qi field during practice.. when I started to practice falun gong.. i didnt even know what a "falun" was.. but in a few weeks of practice i could objectively feel the rotation of the falun during practice.. at that time i didnt even know it was something to "expect"... almost all who practice Falun Gong have their understanding built on their own experience( which certainly is not limited to feeling the rotations of falun during practicie :) ).. further a lot of health symptoms literally disappear on starting to practice.. thats not just my experience.. but that of many including my mom who suffered from spondylitis before starting to practice.. even in the very begining, changes happen not only at the physical level but also at the mental level..you dont dwell in selfish worries.. and you start to see everything with much kindness and compassion.. the very person changes..

.. if you look at those who practice Falun Gong they are often extremely well educated people.. not the kind of people who would blindly believe something.. There are practice groups in Harvard, Princeton and Yale.. I say this hoping it may help u appreciate that I am not blindly believing

in something.. I myself am a Mensa Member and a Top finisher in Microsoft Imagine Cup 2005..

Falun Gong is not blind belief or anything.. but a profound science, and the foundations of this

science are certainly not the silly notions we learned in school.. neither is this science understood by someone who would study it like reading a newspaper.. one must study it in-depth and truly cultivate oneself..

..even the terms like molecules and atoms dont carry the same meaning as the school text definition.. As I understand.. it often refers to particles of a plane..a more macrocosmic plane manifesting from a more microcosmic one...

Even the concept of Buddha, or God is not exactly the same as what we would pick-up from society..

I too am an intelligent person, and part of that intelligence makes me very sensitive to the fact that words are given meanings by the cultures they come out of. Sure, words like "god" or "buddha" have different meanings to different cultures. But that is not a justification for not using these words...only a challenge for presenting them in the right way. Time and again I have presented my own summaries of Falun Gong teachings, only to be met with the most evasive and inaccurate dismissals imaginable. --Tomananda 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I often find myself asking others to try out Falun Gong :D .. thats just because I find it really good .. too good to keep it to myself.. to truly understand the teachings it is necessary to cultivate oneself.. to elevate one's xinxing.. and study with a calm and clear mind.. it carries different meaning at different levels..

There are many practitioners here in the local Mensa.. There are MRCPS who practice and there are Particle physicists who practice Falun Gong.. so lets not try to label it all "superstition".. lets try to truly understand.. as they say its unnecessary to believe or doubt, to accept or reject when you understand..There is much more I wanted to share with you.. but lets move ahead with the work of making a factual article..

Again, Dilip, you are misconstruing my position. I am not trying to label the Falun Gong as a superstition in the introduction. Yes, the Chinese culture uses that language for some of its unorthodox religions, and I have even reported that in the Criticism page, but my own vocabulary doesn't rely on the word "superstition" ever. Here's what I think is happening: I am proposing what I consider to be neutral summaries of Falun Gong's teachings on salvation, fa-rectification, etc. and when practitioners like you see those words you become defensive, thinking that these words equate to "superstitions." Is that right? --Tomananda 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

.. i just hope we'll have a friendly atmosphere here.. where people strive for a good understanding of Falun Xiulian Dafa .. which, I believe, is necessary for working towards a good factual article.. not something driven by emotions and pre-assumptions. :)

Dilip rajeev 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, I appreciate your call for friendliness, but it is somewhat watered down by your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand Falungong. To lessen resistance, that line of reasoning has to go. --Fire Star 火星 17:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No Fire Star, I honestly didnt mean that. Whatever I know is very limited and tiny.. and I really would like to hear your understanding too so that I may be able to share with you whatever little I know on the same issue, and also the understanding I have as someone who cultivates Falun Dafa. I feel it would be great if we can have a friendly ambience here.

Dilip rajeev 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is fine. You will always find me friendly. I will defend my positions, of course, but it will always be without personal rancour. If I am wrong or have been wrong, I am prepared to apologise, and have done many times. It will be easier on the FLG people if they would try, just for the sake of argument, to objectively consider the positions of people who want an article that reports notable criticisms of Li and FLG. If you go back over this talk page's history for the last few years, you will see that I have several times been accused of promoting FLG myself, because I am committed as well to making sure that no one unfairly criticises FLG. --Fire Star 火星 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, I, too, consider myself to be a friendly person and, more importantly, spirtually inclined. Yet I see this problem we have in editing differently than you. When I propose that we report simply that "Li and his Dafa are believed to be offering the only means of salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification" or words to that effect, I am not being critical. What you and other practitioners on this site seem to miss is that it is not being "critical" to report what Falun Gong teaches "at the higher levels." We can debate the words, but we should not question the intent.

Falun Gong practitioners are not used to disclosing their beliefs "at the higher levels" to non-practitioners, and I believe that is why we are having so many problems. As I have said repeatedly, no fundamentalist Christian would call it "degrading" to report that "Jesus saves." In fact, quite the oppostite: they will proclaim that message loud and clear as part of the Gospel (good message). But when it comes to Falun Gong, there is no tranparency whatsoever. My explanation for this lack of transparency is, admitedly, "critical"--that is, I consider it to be a defining characteristic of a cult. But the fact that I consider Falun Gong to be a cult does not mean I don't wish to have an objective and NPOV report of the teachings and beliefs in the introduction section. Please notice that I have never suggested that we use the word cult in the introduction. But I have insisted that we use words like Fa-rectification, Dafa judging beings, and salvation, because these clearly are part of the core teachings.

There is a big irony here. The Falun Gong constantly seeks sympathy and support from westerners because of the alleged persecution and torture of its followers in China. Yet the method it chooses to seek this support is basically deceptive: it creates a media image of itself which conceals it's most important core beliefs. I, for one, do not like being lied to. You will recall that many weeks ago we spent endless days on reaching agreement on Li Hongzhi's teachings on homosexuality. There were many challenges to the edits I proposed...and some of those challenges were outright lies. For example, one practitioner, after we had introduced Li's "World's Ten Biggest Evils" poem, actually did a post which said "Falun Gong does not teach that homosexuality is evil." That's just one small example, but you get the idea.

Yes, let's proceed in a friendly and respectful manner. But at the same time, I ask for greater transparency on the part of Falun Gong practitioners. What that means is if I propose something like: "Li Hongzhi, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his followers..." and it is rejected, some explanation other than "it is just your POV" needs to be provided.

The truth is that this is not my POV, but rather a belief that has been reported to me by a significant number of Falun Gong practitioners in private, and sometimes in public. So rather than slamming me, you could say something like: "well, we don't feel we can objectively report this information because in the absence of a published study it would amount to original research." --Tomananda 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, with all due respect, I think you are mistaken here. Falun Gong practitioners are extremely proud of Master Li and Falun Gong. We practitioners are not trying to conceal everything. But there is one thing: For a human being to fully understand the idea of Falun Dafa (Fa-Rectification, Salvation for all sentient beings, Cultivation of Xinxing, The adaptation of Truth-Compassion-Forbearence) one has to read the book Zhuan Falun, and after one has a good understanding of Zhuan Falun, one has the ability to understand the other concepts by in-depth reading all articles several times. This is the main point. Im not saying that we should not speak about the teachings in Falun Dafa, rather Im saying that it is completely impossible for a non-practitioner to understand the concept of Falun Dafa by just a sentence or wikipedia article. That is why, when you are coming with your suggestions, they are very misleading and WRONG. Because practitioners does not see things that way, which means that your sentences are not Falun Dafa. It is completely impossible to take one sentence and just represent it as "Falun Dafa" or "Fa-Rectification". One can introduce the idea of Fa-Rectification on a very shallow level, but not in-depth. If non-practitioners have a wish to understand it fully, they should study the speeches of Master Li Hongzhi. Don't compare Falun Dafa to christianity, it is not the same thing. Omido 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I make a plea for greater transparency and this is the response? Did you know that cults routinely make arguments like yours as a recruitment strategy? Rather than presenting an honest upfront summary of what the beliefs and practices are, the cult recruiter paints a vague but intriguing picture that she says is too complex to present in just a day. The recruiter hints at secret knowledge which is hard-to-come-by, yet very precious. Over time, the recruit is indoctrinated into a completely different way of thinking which (surprise! surprise!)involves total dependency on the Master.

Omido: This is an encylopedia article, not an exercise in Falun Gong recruitment! The most complex theories known to man have been summarized in a few sentences in Wikipedia. I have repeatedly pointed to the Wikipedia article on Einstein's general theory of relativity as a model for doing this. I welcome...in fact challenge...any Falun Gong practitioner/editor to come up with a clear, concise and honest summary of the basic teachings for our summary section. If you are incapable or unwilling to do that, than it is your limitation as an editor, not my limitation as a non-believer, which is the obstacle. --Tomananda 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a summary ready? Please do not confuse something you disagree with as other's limitation to cater for your needs. Fnhddzs 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Ah, a little snippy comment that avoids the challenge of actually doing some serious editing! --Tomananda 01:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Fnhddzs 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a good example. At the Taijiquan article we only attempt a cursory explanation of the history, theory and technique as well as criticisms (I'm much harder on crappy Taijiquan teachers than I am on Li Hongzhi) while providing a lot of links for people to follow up if it interests them. Keeping it short, dry and unemotional minimises controversy and does a good job of contextualising the larger art in a readable summary (if I say so myself) and prevents us from having a whacking huge article to manage.

We know people are enthusiastic about FLG, and some of us are being kind and patient, believe it or not, but we aren't going away and we will have to be dealt with sooner or later, and on Wikipedia's terms, not Li Hongzhi's. --Fire Star 火星 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for people's enthusiasm. We are all coming for Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, i know im relatively new here and all but id like to say a few things: When you propose posting something like "LI is thought as a god or living buddha by his followers...." this can be easily misunderstood because the concept of god and buddha that you have and that other people have is different from our concept of god or buddha so people get the wrong idea, one example among many is they might think we worship Li, thats contrary to our belief because worship is an attatchment and in falun gong practice, you are supossed to leave all attatchments. If you use words like "higher being" for example then i think its a little bit more accurate, its like the dalai lama for example, people see him as a higher being, a more "elevated" person and so on but nobody sees him as you would see god the "creator of heaven and earth". Another example, we dont think Mr Li created the world.

The "higher-level" teachings you mentioned are not revealed to the new practitioners and preferably to non practitioners because nobody would believe them, the thing is, when you practice falun gong, you experience several situations that substantiate your understanding and give you more trust in your cultivation, then it makes it easier for you to believe and understand these "higher-level" concepts. Maybe you might see a few things or get several feelings or acquire certain special skills that have all been mentioned by Li and maybe some that havent and this way you come to believe and understand these things.

When you say master li has a "Dafa" that is judging everyone, this might be a seriously misunderstood by people too because we think the Fa or "law which is judging all sentient beings" is something very universal, its hard to understand because its not only a set of rules but its also a materially existing system of elements that conform the universe and well, in a way, the judgment situation represents what makes you understand the difference between good and bad. it sounds wrong to describe it as "master li's dafa is judging everyone" people might just think "Who does li think he is to go around judging me with his so called dafa?" and the real concept of what the "Dafa" is isnt being transmitted in a neutral way. Perhaps you could say that in Li's teachings there is the theory of the "Dafa" or something and perhaps provide a link to a daughter page to neutrally explain it in detail. Im glad you are trying to come up with neutral point of views and im sorry if i made any mistakes in the past, i apologize for it. But perhaps what you consider as neutral might not be considered as neutral by other editors so i think that we could discuss these ideas and come up with a good neutral statement that both sides can agree to.

When you say "Master Li's falun gong is the only way to salvation" thats also greatly misunderstood because people go like "huh, why on earth is that so?. Oh ok so i im a good person then ill go to hell because i didnt practice his falun gong stuff? thats so wrong" And its not true, Falun Gong is a cultivation system, like any traditional religion would be, but its not a religion because we dont worship any gods or pray or anything, so we think a religion might be a cultivation system but a cultivation system is not necessarily a religion. We think nowadays the morality of mankind is corrupted but cultivating is a process that aims to be a better person every day, we think its a way to improve yourself as a person. Falun Gong is just one way among many cultivation systems, if you are a good person it doesnt matter if you practice falun gong or not, what falun gong offers you is a set of things that have taken a loong time in being created and that has been adapted for popularization. We believe you can ascend in a million ways but as practitioners we consider falun gong is more convenient in this time and age, also, master li might have said its the "only source of salvation" because the set of things you obtain when you practice falun gong is veeeery hard to find and its not just given to anyone so for common people who dont live in monasteries or have a great innate quality it could be the only way to reach enlighthening. Its a little complicated to explain and i dont want to make a very long message but lets say that If you are a good person then you will be given chances to cultivate (not necessarily falun gong) in the future.

Im not trying to convince you about anything, im just telling you that perhaps some things you come up with, collide with our point of view so we dont see it as neutral. Please dont be discouraged, Thank you for your patience.--Andres18 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary of where we're at with the introduction

Hiding provided the base paragraph at the beginning of the previous section, then there were suggested changes that went beyond his original. After that, I proposed an alternative version to avoid some of the challlenges being made by practitioners. Here are the two summaries:

Modified version number one (based on Hiding and Samuel's original):

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and teachings. [15] Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (mind nature or character), they can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance--with cultivation taking priority over the exercises[29][30].

In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi describes Falun Dafa this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc (also translated the kalpa's end), I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [16] Master Li, who is thought of as a god or living Buddha by many of his disciples, claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in the Fa-rectification. [17]

Comments:

Modified version number two, using suggestions from Fire Star:

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and teachings. [18] Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (mind nature or character), they can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance--with cultivation taking priority over the exercises[29][30].

Li Hongzhi claims he has “truly done something that no one ever did in the past by teaching a greater fundamental Dafa (great law) of the universe.” According to Li, the Fa taught by the great enlightened beings—Jesus, Buddha Sakyamuni and Lao Zi---no longer can save people because our modern culture and way of thinking is more complex than what people experienced in ancient times. Li also teaches that mankind has become so corrupt that the gods have abandoned them: "no religion is being watched over by the gods, because gods see that humankind is too depraved and so they no longer regard human beings as human beings." (North America speech,1998) Because of this moral corruption, the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. As part of this process, the Dafa judges and "weeds out" people who are not worthy of being saved.

Comments:

---

First of all as I mentioned earlier, The concept of "God" in Falun Gong is different from the usual sense. Neither do practitioners use the term "living god".. practitioners also dont pray to Master Li Hongzhi...

Master Li uses the word "god" all the time. For you to say the use of the term "god" in Falun Gong is not in the usual sense does not help with the editing process. What would be helpful would be for you to suggest some additional language that would provide context (if that is possible). For example, Li has said many times that practitioners will become gods as a result of their cultivation practice and standing up for the Dafa. Can you explain further what that means?

Concerning your statement: "practitioners don't pray to Master Li Hongzhi"...did I ever suggest they do? The word "god" is not owned by the three Western religions..it is also used in Eastern relgions. I wish you would stop assuming that I am somehow speaking from a more narrow perspective than I am. When Li uses the words "gods" (usually in the plural) I assume he is not referring to the personal god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is possible to have an idea of "god" or "gods" which is different from the idea of a personal god that is well known in the west. When I report the word "god" or "gods" for Falun Gong teachings, I do not have in my mind the personal god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. I have a more generic sense of the word. You are free to provide your own definition for Falun Gong if you like. --Tomananda 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, Buddas, Gods, Daoists are names of enlightened beings. Enlightened beings could be enlightened on different levels, though. Fnhddzs 18:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another issue is putting partial quotes out of context. This must not be done.. The Dharma, or the Great Law is Law that governs everything in the Cosmos.. to give a crude analogy..Mechanics governs the motion of non-quantum bodies .. The Dharma is the Law that governs the evolution of Cosmos.. Everything emanates from the Dharma..And it is possible to enlighten to manifestations of the Law, at various levels, through cultivation practice.. And assimilate oneself to the manifestation of the Fa at a higher level, by letting go of the mind that is attached to its manifestations at lower levels..

Dilip: Yes, I know that Li speaks of the Dafa (great law) as something that created all beings in the cosmos (I think that's a direct quote) and also now is judging all beings. Li also speaks of the Dafa as something that belongs to him, and is spoken from his mouth to save people. Clearly the word Dafa is used in differnent ways by Li himself. Sometimes it is a set of teachings (which are spoken from his mouth), sometimes it is the creator of all beings in the cosmos, and sometimes it is the judge of the moral worth of all beings in the cosmos. Am I correct in saying this? Aren't these three different meanings for the term Dafa or Great Law?

Here's one thing I have always had a problem with in Li's system of cosmology/eschatology/ethics. If Dafa is truly a "great law" of the universe, does it really make any sense to talk about someone "defaming" the great law? Is it possible to "defame" the law of gravity? Does the law of gravity have an ego which is easily bruised? And what, exactly, does it mean to "defend" the Great Law? If it is the creator of all beings, shouldn't we just be concerned about understanding it, rather than worrying about it's reputation among humans? --Tomananda 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is called achieving Buddhahood.. There is life and and there are beings at all levels.. which we call "gods", "daos" or "Buddhas".. They are assimilated to a higher Fa(Dharma) and have greater control over matter and have a greater free will.. Even a god will consider beings at a higher level to be a god.. just as we humans consider beings at a higher level to be gods.. In my understanding a higher realm is often called a more microcosmic plane.. and the lower level.. a more macrocosmic-one..as the lower Fa emanates from a higher one.. and all this is just my understanding which I find keeps improving and changing as I cultivate myself and study the the books..

Well, Buddahood and godhood are interchangable terms for the purpose of describing Falun Dafa, aren't they? Li seems to use "god" more than "buddha" but really I assume they mean the same thing. So that's why I proposed this phrase: "Master Li, who is considered a god or living Buddha by his disciples"...my thought was that by using both terms, it would amount to an acknowlegment that we are not talking about "god" in the narrow, western religion sense. If you don't like my approach, suggest some alternative wording to fit in this sentence. --Tomananda 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li Hongzhi has explained these things through several lectures.. not a half-quote....Gautama Buddha himself said religions wont save people during the Dharma Ending peoriod.. Thats just what Gautama Buddha said.. The term Dharma ending period cannot be just understood as a period of moral degeneration. It is explained in several lectures and to understand the meaning requires an in-depth study of all the lectures.

Again, Dilip, our task in writing a summary is just that: to glean the most important points, even if they are not fully explained, and present them in an introduction. You keep suggesting that the "explanation" requires reading "several lectures"...yet that is not what a summary for an encylopedia article does. --Tomananda 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The term of "living buddha" as far as i know doesnt tally with Falun Gong..

Fine, I don't have any attachment to the adjective "living" before the word Buddha. Someone else on this site suggested that "main Buddha" would be more appropriate. Or maybe Buddha without any qualifier before it would be best. What do you think? --Tomananda 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha enlightened to the manifestation of the Dharma at a certain level and revealed what he understood to mankind.. and a left a way of achieving buddhahood.. and many have cultivated themselves to buddhahood in that way... a "living Buddha" doesn't, in anyway, represent what Falun Dafa teaches.. and practitioners never use that term..

OK, fine with me, just provide some alternative language that we can all agree on and we will make progress. Here's the forumula:

Master Li, who is thought of as (a) ________________ or (a)______________ by his disciples.

What words would you prefer to fill in the blanks? --Tomananda 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Master or Teacher. Fnhddzs 17:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fa _Rectification, Dharma Ending can all be discussed in the article.. but certainly not out of context and meaning, and without sufficient background, in the introduction..

Well, Dilip, for all your words above you haven't really proposed an alternative wording for the introduction. Introductions, by their very nature, do not provide a great deal of background. That's our job here...to summarize Falun Dafa in just a few short paragraphs. It seems to me that you are not willing or able to suggest wording that will work. That's fine, maybe some other practitioner can? --Tomananda 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the last word by Dilip. We'd hide nothing by full reporting. but we should not interpret something in a rush, especially in the introduction. Disagree with using "living budda" or "god". Master is our Master. I do not think the terms forged here. Fnhddzs 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that all you can say about Li: "Master is our Master?" Surely you can say more than that. What is his role in history at the present time? And when he says he will make his practititioeners gods (his word, not mine) what does that mean? Surely you can elaborate on something as important as this. --Tomananda 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "no religion is being watched over by the gods, because gods see that humankind is too depraved and so they no longer regard human beings as human beings." (North America speech,1998), I think this quote cannot support your POV. We are not abandoned either.

What in the world are you trying to say here? This is not my POV, but rather a direct quote from Master Li. What POV do you think I have? The point of Li's statement, I believe, is that the morality of mankind has gotten to be so bad that not even the gods care about humans anymore...but he does, so he is offering the Dafa as a means for salvation. Is that a correct statment in your mind? Forget for a moment that I even exist. Don't worry about what my POV may be about any of this..because it really doesn't matter. What do you, as a practitioner think?--Tomananda 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "cultivating their xinxing (mind nature or character), they can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance--with cultivation taking priority over the exercises". It is plausible. It does not say clearly what is cultivating of xinxing. The xinxing cultivation is itself to follow the teachings of "truthfulness, compassion and endurance" or assimilate to the supreme nature. Fnhddzs 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fnhddzs, you are correct. That statment does not say everything that is needed to be said about what "cultivating xinxing" is. But then again, it is part of a summary statement and guess what, that's how summaries work in encylopedias...they don't tell you everything you need to know. But they do provide the general idea. And for Wikipedia, it's easy to provide a link for any term or concept we use so that the reader will always be just one click away from getting a more thorough explanation of the key conepts. --Tomananda 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gautama Buddha himself said religions wont save people during the Dharma Ending peoriod.." Where? Do you have a citation for that statement? Do you have an indisputable, verifiable quote sourced from Gautama Buddha himself that says that he said that? That Li says Buddha said that isn't enough, I'm afraid. Anyway, dropping that term entirely (it isn't in the latest proposal above, you'll notice) for a drier description of how Li improbably claims superiority over every other system of thought known to man (while providing no evidence whatsoever of that superiority) will do the job of showing what he is up to quite well, I'd say. --Fire Star 火星 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find a quote. But I would like to give an example first, I lived close to a famous temple in China years ago. Monks there do business, work in the temple stores in the day. The leader monks have cell phones which were quite fancy years ago. I don't think that is the way belonging to that discipline. A lot of things are modified. Fnhddzs 03:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: What we need is clear and concise summary statements about Li's teachings. In the case of Buddhist monks, Li has quite clearly said their Fa can no longer save people. Their Fa came from a simpler time, as did Jesus's, so now we need the Dafa. As Li has said, he is teaching the gods his Dafa. It really doesn't matter whether those monks in China have cell phones or not. The only thing that matters is do they have a Fa which can save people now? According to Li, they don't. --Tomananda 06:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to find a quote of Sakyamuni's words for Firestar. According to my understanding of what I learned from Falun Gong, Jesus is a great God and the Christianity is an orthodox religion. Fnhddzs 19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The only generally accepted quotes from Gautama Buddha that we have are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. They are what every Buddhist sect and almost every academic accept as actual teachings of the Buddha. Other sutras may be, but these are the only ones that everyone agrees were passed almost unchanged from his time to ours. That is why I was being somewhat ironic when I asked for a quote. Li Hongzhi was misattributing a tenet of Pure Land Buddhism that Pure Land followers say comes from Amitabha Buddha (阿彌陀佛), not Gautama. --Fire Star 火星 03:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. I think Li clearly said Amitabha Buddha is different from Gautama. "So it’s become a Buddhism that worships multiple Buddhas, like Buddha Amitabha, Bhaishajyaguru, Buddha Vairochana, and so on, and then there are a lot of Great Bodhisattvas, too. So all of Buddhism is totally different now from what Shakyamuni originally founded back in his day."[19]Fnhddzs 03:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the topic. Of course, I like the 2nd version above better :-) --Fire Star 火星 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No preference I support both. --Yenchin 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When Li uses the word "God", according to my understanding, he talkes about beings that has enlightened to the Fa at different levels. So an Arhat, Boddhisattva, Tathagatha Buddha, Dao are all Gods that have enligthtened to the Fa at different levels. You can understand why we say that "God" in Falun Gong is not the same as in other religions, especially christianity, judaism and islam. This could create a missunderstanding among western people who reads this article, because they associate the word "God" with their Lord in Christianity/Judaism who is almighty and created the whole universe. When Master Li says that Falun Gong practitioners become "Gods", this means that they have reached enlightement and become a Arhat, Boddhisattva, Buddha, Dao or any other Great Enlightened Being which name is not known to human beings. In that case, the goal of cultivation in any cultivation school like Zenbuddhism, Tantrism, Christianity, Pure Land and other cultivation methods have always had the goal of reaching enlightement and becoming "Gods", this is an absolute truth. People reading article should understand these things so that they won't understand things in the wrong way. Omido 16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido:

Your interpretation of what Li means when he says that practitioners will become "gods" or my interpretation, although interesting, does not justify the exclusion of this language in our summary. Li clearly uses these words in important ways, and therefore they should be reported. You seem to be saying that because there are different meanings for the term "gods" we can't use it in the introduction. That doesn't make any sense. If there are definitional problems with any terms Li uses, those definitional problems can and should be explored in detail in he teachings section.

Your concern about a reader assuming a monotheistic interpretation for Li’s term “gods” is not really justified given that:

• Li clearly speaks in the plural when talking about “gods” and that, by itself, differentiates Li’s term from the monotheistic idea of “God” found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam
• As Fire Star reminded us in this discussion, when we report the word gods in describing Li’s teachings, we should not capitalize the first letter.

I don’t agree with your assertion that Li’s use of the words gods or buddhas is identical to what we think of when we talk about “reaching enlightenment”. Li uses terms like gods in different ways depending on the context. And the term consummation seems to have different meanings depending on context as well. In some teachings, consumation can mean enlightenment in this world, while in other teachings it clearly means ascension beyond this world to another realm.

In “What is enlightenment” (September 26, 1996) in the Essentials we find language similar to what you use in your post:

Upon awakening, what state will an enlightened being then be in? One who has succeeded in cultivating Buddhahood will become a Buddha; one who has succeeded in cultivating Bodhisattvahood will become a Bodhisattva; one who has succeeded in cultivating Arhatship will become an Arhat; one who cultivates the Tao will attain the Tao; and one who has succeeded in cultivating Godhood will already be a God.

However, in other teachings Li clearly speaks of consummation as ascension to another realm. In "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples", Li distinguishes between ordinary consummation and what he calls “true and final consummation.” I’ve already quoted Li’s definition of cultivation:

Cultivation is the process that enables a human being to ascend to heaven and become a god, so how could it not be hard?" “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

And in item # 8 of Essentials II, Li’s idea of consummation seems to parallel the Christian idea of the Rapture (meaning one particular point in time when a collective ascension into heaven will take place for the worthy)

When the day of Consummation arrives,

The great disclosure of the truth will leave the world in amazement.

As editors, we need to reach agreement on language which summarizes Li’s teachings, including his references to gods, Buddhas, etc., while also creating more detailed edits for the Teachings page. I already said above that I am willing to delete the claim that Li Hongzhi is thought of as a god or living Buddha by his disciples. Even though I think that is totally true, at this point it can be considered original research. But sooner or later we need to agree to the wording for this introduction, and I wish you would propose specific changes to the edits, rather than writing blanket dismissals. --Tomananda 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's suggestion

The following version has combined the elements suggested by most editors. Can we vote on this? --Samuel Luo 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and moral teachings. [20] According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi describes Falun Dafa this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc (also translated the kalpa's end), I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [21] Li also teaches that mankind has become so corrupt that the gods have abandoned them: "no religion is being watched over by the gods, because gods see that humankind is too depraved and so they no longer regard human beings as human beings." (North America speech,1998) Because of this moral corruption, the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” [22], a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. As part of this process, the Falun Dafa judges and "weeds out" people who are not worthy of being saved.

Accept I think this is a reasonable compromise. --Tomananda 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reject Mankind is not corrupt. That's a fatalistic attitude. Also, there was lots of people who are not "judged" by FLG. Cj cawley 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris: Wikipedia is not saying mankind is or is not corrupt. The article merely reports what Li teaches. You should be in favor of this edit! --Tomananda 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spurious reasoning may be factored out when determining consensus. CovenantD 02:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I am so worried about being weeded out by the Dafa, is there a way that I can be saved, practitioners? --Yueyuen 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I don't see any problem with this version. --Yenchin 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Accurate and neutral. Not too much detail to impair readability. --Fire Star 火星 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Yes, It is accurate and neutral. --Kent8888 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reject. I strongly reject this. Fa -REctifiction is not the process of weeding out "bad" things.. Whatever, by its inherent nature, doesnot assimialte to the requirements of the Dharma at a level would drop down to a lower level.. Thats what the Hindu and the Buddhist and The Gnostic traditiions say too.. But Fa -Rectification is not something so simple that it can be introduced in a simple sentence.. Dilip rajeev 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have read enough statements of Li to know that the concept of Fa-rectification is not complicated. Your rejection will not be counted as it appears to be a total disregard of truth and serves no purpose in improving the article. --Kent8888 09:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why does Li himself use the term "weeding out" to describe it? And of course it can be introduced in a simple sentence. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Weeding out" does not refer to "people"!.. and Fa- Rectification didnt happen because people's morals are degenerate.. It has something to do with the entire Cosmic Firmament. Dilip rajeev 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reject. I have clearly stated that I want the new translation to be used, because it is the newest one, which mean it is the most accurate one. Why are you still using the old translation? Omido 13:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better. But still the same problem with the way of interpreting Fa-rectification exists. How about consider

Fa Rectification is described as the process by which the entire universe is being renewed and reconstructed. It is said that due to the principle of formation-stasis-degeneration-destruction the universe has, over time, degenerated and deviated from its original form. Therefore, the universe’s beings are no longer pure. "All of the cosmos’ beings have strayed from the Fa, so they have to be rectified with Fa. "Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Switzerland (September 4–5, 1998, Geneva) In the process of Fa-Rectification all beings are being repositioned according to their levels and their attitudes toward Fa-Rectification. Unlike the concept of an apocalypse or end of days, after Fa-Rectification Li claims that the earth and human beings will still exist and that they will be blessed.

Also could you please show me real quick why the cultivation taking priority was removed? The xinxing cultivation seems still vague. I'd like to see more citations on "corrupt". It looks not familiar to me. Fnhddzs 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fnhddzs, the xinxing cultivation is not vague at all; I gave it a full sentence. I took out this phrase “cultivation taking priority over the exercises” because anyone with common sense would understand that moral teachings are far more important and universal than meditation. I try to incorporate your suggestions as much as possible but this idea of your’s is not accurate-- After Fa-Rectification Li claims that the earth and human beings will still exist and that they will be blessed. What Li stresses over and over again is that when practitioners reach consummation they will leave this world and return to the higher levels, those left behind will be weeded out. The statement below is one of his many statements that explain this concept. This statement also makes clear that Li believes today’s humankind to be corrupt. --Samuel Luo 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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. [23]

Thanks Samuel for explaining to me on removing that phrase. If you think it is a common sense, well, maybe it is ok. As to your understanding of "those left behind will be weeded out", it is not correct. In my understanding, The three realms (including Earth) will keep existing. The cosmos (including the humans) are renewed. I will try to find quotes. Fnhddzs 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding to the quotes above from The Vows of Gods are Being Fulfilled published on May 13, 2001. I believe the dregs of humanity refers to those persecuting Falun Gong. In the earlier paragraph of that writing,

Man always thinks that when a God or Buddha appears it will be earth-shaking, that when he saves people his Buddha-image will grandly manifest, and that with a wave of his hand he will destroy the evil ones who undermine the salvation of people. If that were the case, wouldn’t it be better if the Buddha took people up directly from the heavens?

So I think the context was to answer why Falun gong practitioners could be persecuted? why the devine manifestation did not stop this? As to who are dregs mentioned there, I believe they refered to those persecutors who did very bad things (killed, tortured ....). I will try to find more quotes about what are dregs. Fnhddzs 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• ok. here is a quote mentioning clearly who are dregs referred to. Teaching the Fa at the 2004 Western U.S. Fa Conference, February 28, 2004, in Los Angeles

This persecution has gone on for years. But, when it comes to those evil beings, their habitat and chances of survival are getting smaller and smaller, and life is becoming more and more difficult for those bad people who orchestrated the persecution in this world. In terms of the Fa-rectification’s overall situation, right now when it comes to this persecution that the 'dregs' of humanity and the scum orchestrated, the people of the world are becoming clearer and clearer on it, and the people in Mainland China, in particular, are waking up to it—people have seen the evilness of the persecution and have come to know the reasons behind the persecution.

So, I believe the dregs referred here are those doing persecution. I hope this could clear our confusion and possible misunderstandings. Cheers, Fnhddzs 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

folks. I am sorry I am not sensitive to English wording. In my understanding, I don't think the wording of "moral teachings" are quite correct. Falun Dafa claims it is not about "preaching or idealism". You know what I mean? It claims it is about Budda Fa or Budda Law Preface of Zhuan Falun.

"Nothing is as profound as BUDDHA LAW. Of all teachings in the world it is the most wondrous and highest science. .... So just what exactly is BUDDHA LAW, then? Is it religion? Is it philosophy? That is just how the "cutting edge" scholars of Buddhism see it. ... The truth is, BUDDHA LAW is not limited to the little portion in scriptures, which is only BUDDHA LAW’s initial-level Law. Instead, there is nothing that BUDDHA LAW cannot explain—it thoroughly unravels all mysteries, from those of particles and molecules to those of the universe, from small things to great things. It is a different discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure—at different levels, what Daoists call "the Dao," or what Buddhists call "the Law." "

"The Buddha Fa can save mankind, but it is not for the salvation of human beings that the Buddha Fa came into existence. The Buddha Fa can unravel the mysteries of the universe, life, and science. It enables mankind to resume the correct path in science, but it is not for the guidance of mankind’s science that the Buddha Fa has been brought forth."[24]

I hope this idea could be included in our article's introduction. We can say this is claimed by Falun Gong. But if you say "moral teachings", I would disagree at the current time at my English level and understanding. Thanks. Fnhddzs 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Li's statement suggest that he regards his teachings to be higher than any (religious, science….) teachings. Would that satisfy you if this notion is added to the paragraph? --Samuel Luo 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By moral teachings most English speakers will know that we are talking about Li's teachings on what he believes are the moral implications of things like homosexuality and race, especially if we provide examples. They will be covered in the article. --Fire Star 火星 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, but these homosexuality and race issues are quite minute parts to me. And you know homosexuality is considered not good in some religions too. Regarding the disadvantages of race mixing, I've seen it appeared in the Chapter 14 of the prophecy "The Centuries" of French prophet (Michel de Nostredame) published in 1555 [25][26]. These are not that remarkable of Falun Gong teachings at all. I would like the word "teachings" only Or how about "spiritual teachings"? Fnhddzs 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I diagree with your interpetation of the Fa-Rectification. Master Li has many times said that those who does not oppose the Fa-Rectification will be saved. And those who have interfered with the Fa-Rectification (such as CCP's persecution of Falun Gong) will be weeded out. Master Li has said that in the future billions of people will cultivate Dafa, and that the world will be saved in the future because Dafa was being spread here. When Master Li says that the "dregs of humanity" will be weeded out, according to my understanding he means the beings that have interfered with Fa-Rectification and have done bad things against Dafa during the Fa-Rectification. Also, I can show you quotes when Master Li says that all the sins people have done during their whole existence will be forgiven and they will be saved as long as they don't have any bad thoughts against their own future (which is Fa-Rectification).

Also, I really AGREE with Fhndz interpetation of the Fa-Rectification, in my opinion this was a really neutral and accurate description:

"Rectification is described as the process by which the entire universe is being renewed and reconstructed. It is said that due to the principle of formation-stasis-degeneration-destruction the universe has, over time, degenerated and deviated from its original form. Therefore, the universe’s beings are no longer pure. "All of the cosmos’ beings have strayed from the Fa, so they have to be rectified with Fa. "Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Switzerland (September 4–5, 1998, Geneva) In the process of Fa-Rectification all beings are being repositioned according to their levels and their attitudes toward Fa-Rectification. Unlike the concept of an apocalypse or end of days, after Fa-Rectification Li claims that the earth and human beings will still exist and that they will be blessed."

This is in my opinion a really good description of the Fa-Rectification, so this one should be used in the introduction. Also, the old translation of Zhuan Falun should not be used when quoting Master Li, because the newest translation is the best one because all things that had been wrongly translated are now translated in the right way. Omido 13:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam's is better. As long as FLG followers load their prose with weasel words and terms like "In the process of Fa-Rectification all beings are being repositioned according to their levels and their attitudes toward Fa-Rectification" you guys are going to be contested. That isn't a report, it is a claim. --Fire Star 火星 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, Im sorry but I really don't understand how you are thinking and reasoning, how is that a claim? Please tell me why it is a claim. It is not a claim, it is what Falun Gong believes in. Falun Gong believes that "all beings are being repositioned according to their levels and their attitudes toward Fa-Rectification", how is this a claim? N This is only reporting on what the Fa-Rectification is about, if people want to believe in it or not is up to them. Nobody is forcing anything on other. Why do you think that anything that is neutral is advertising? Just as Tomananda who thinks that everything that is not negative is advertisement. This is an extremely chaotic way of thinking, it would be the same if I said, "Anything that is not positive is negative". We want to create a factual and neutral article free from POV. When we present the concept of the Fa-Rectification, you call it a "claim" and "advertisement". Is it better if we reconstruced the sentence so it would be like this?:

"It is believed that in the process of Fa-Rectification all beings are being repositioned according to their levels and their attitudes toward Fa-Rectification"

Notice that I just put three words infront of the sentence: "It is believed". Is it still a claim? Omido 15:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems self-referencial. CovenantD 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. The example I provided wasn't qualified clearly. It proceeds from the assumption that "Fa rectification" is a real process that somehow puts people somewhere they weren't before. Whether it really does (or not) is demonstrably unproven, so Wikipedia cannot say something like that. The general promotional tone of most pro-FLG editors is (more or less) subtly geared towards polishing Li Hongzhi's turds, pardon my French. Again, please read the weasel words policy for a structural examination of what I am talking about. --Fire Star 火星 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the version of saying weeding out humans are not a summary of Fa-recfication. Wiki can report that that is said by the editors A, B, C, ..... But that is not claimed by Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions to resolve "Reject" votes

Omido: Other than the translation, what do you think of Samuel's version?
Dilip: Fa-rectification is, by consensus, going to be in the lead section. In a NPOV way, how would you change what Samuel has suggested?
- CovenantD 15:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is the teachings are not "moral teachings". Fa- Rectification is not something that be explained in a line. Fa-Rectification can be mentioned in the introduction. The concept of Fa- Rectification ahs been described, in detail, in many Falun Buddha Fa lectures. Pulling out two quotes which dont explain much and presenting it as Fa-Rectification is what I dont agree with. I'll reply in greater detail.. Dilip rajeev 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the teachings are "moral" or if you prefer "ethical." Comments of the sort we have been experiencing above from practitioners are digressions from the task of writing an introduction. I'm especially bothered by the comments about Fa-rectification above. It is not appropriate to add an explanation of how Fa-rectification works in the introduction--that is something that belongs in the daughter page. We just need to say, as simply and briefly as possible, what it is. In the present formulation, we don't even attempt to specify what categories of people will be "weeded out"---we just say those who are considered "unworthy" (to be saved). Here's a suggestion on how to proceed: let's just focus on the two paragraphs that are presently under review, with the understanding that many more details about Fa-rectification can be presented on the daughter page. There are many models for this approach in Wikipedia and there is no justification for us to violate the established standard here. --Tomananda 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The teachigns mention morality but are not at all about morals or ethics. Kindly go through the lecture videoshere. The Lunyu of Zhuan Falun States:

"“The Buddha Fa” is an insight into all mysteries. It encompasses everything and leaves out nothing—from particles and molecules to the universe, from the even smaller to the even greater. It is an exposition of the characteristic of the universe, “Zhen-Shan- Ren,” expressed at different levels with different layers of meaning. It is also what the Tao School calls the “Tao,” or what the Buddha School calls the “Fa.” "

-Zhuan Falun, Lunyu

Dilip rajeev 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• If this is to be the lead section of the article, then some mention of the controversy with which it is held in China has to be noted. A lead should summarise all pertinent points, and that is one. Hiding Talk 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right...that is what makes the FG notable in Wikispeak. Do you think we can cover that aspect in the third paragraph of the introduction? If we start discussing how to word that, I'm afraid we'll loose momentum for what we're doing now. --Tomananda 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fair play, keep going as you are then, I'll try and keep an eye on this. Although, whilst I'm here, I'll throw into the mix that another question which will need to be addressed at some stage is the guidance at Wikipedia:Content forking. If you settle on an agreed version and need an admin to edit the page to add it, or need an admin for any other reason, don't hesitate to ask. I want to commend you all for working together and overcoming your differences. Hiding Talk 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, would this cover it?

“ Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation mainly by western human rights groups and politicians. ”

- CovenantD 19:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yikes, I can't play god and say what's right and wrong. Hammer it out through consensus. It's a good starting position, though. Although I think somewhere in the manual of style it directs that we avoid linking just a date, and references and the like should be introduced in the article, not the lead, per WP:LEAD. But yes, if that summarises the main points, then that's the sort of thing you'd be looking at. Hiding Talk 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase that. "Hiding, this is the sort of thing you're looking for? This is what we've agreed to by consensus and is currently in place as the second paragraph of the lead section. I ask because you may not have noticed that it's already in the article." CovenantD 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, colour me confused then. I wasn't sure it would be kept during this discussion. I'll go back to keeping an eye. Apologies. Hiding Talk 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

i strongly disagree with samuel's suggestion its too complicated to put up as an introduction, there are many things that need explanation from that paragraph, anyone who reads it will interpret it wrongly, for a non practitioner, its not adequate. For example: "Li also teaches that mankind has become so corrupt that the gods have abandoned them: "no religion is being watched over by the gods, because gods see that humankind is too depraved and so they no longer regard human beings as human beings." (North America speech,1998)" This type of quote requires a long explanation to be understood, its again taking quotes out of context and making something up. Its not appropriate for an introduccion and people will misunderstand it thinking you are atacking their religious beliefs and saying "falun gong is the best there is, all other religions arent worth anything", they will also subjectively think that falun gong is also a religion which is not true and you will make the reader believe Li is also attacking them personally saying they are "corrupt beings" and that gods think they arent worth to be saved. This is an attack to falun gong and its using a quote unappropriately. This is suppossed to be a neutral statement, i clearly see your point, but i dont think our part of the argument is also exposed in this paragraph. Another example is: "Because of this moral corruption, the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” [27], a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. As part of this process, the Falun Dafa judges and "weeds out" people who are not worthy of being saved. Falun Dafa judges and "Weeds out" people not worthy of salvation? excuse me if i sound rude but this is another attack to falun gong!, please bring up neutral comments or else you might be spending your time in vain coming up with these ideas and then being naturally rejected by the practitioners... Falun Dafa is not judging living beings, the term "Dafa" does not necessarilly reffers to falun gong, i can see you conveniently used the name "Falun Dafa" to accomodate this statement and make it sound just the way you want it, i dont think we will be going anywhere with this "suggestion". --Andres18 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Convenant, yes, I disagree with Samuel's version exactly because of the reasons Andres mentioned here above. Andres is very correct, and the way he described the problems in Samuel's introduction is exactly what I also think. I also think that it should be written that Xinxing cultivation is a process in which a practitioner assimilates to Truth-Compassion-Forbearence by letting go of desires and attachments such as lust, jealousy, competitive mentality, selfishness etc. Letting go of attachments, cultivating Xinxing and assimilating to Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is the most fundamental and central in Falun Gong. The whole book Zhuan Falun basiclly speaks about letting go of attachments and cultivating Xinxing, and Master Li has also said that the main book and the most important book is Zhuan Falun. So why are the anti-FLG editors such as Tomananda and Samuel focusing on presenting things in Falun Gong such as "weeding out corrupt people", "salvation for humankind" and such things? Yes, Fa-Rectification and Fa-Rectification Cultivation is part of Falun Gong and it is an important part, but it is still not central! How can one assist Master Li in the Fa-Rectification and offer Salvation to all sentient beings if one is not cultivating Xinxing and following the standards of Dafa? Why are Tomananda and Samuel forgetting that Xinxing cultivation is the most important thing? Why are they trying to use their own understanding (Falun Gong is a cult) to present things to the public? Don't ask me why, ask them. Whatever happens, I won't allow anybody to just take a sentence out of context and use their own understanding to present things. Omido 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres's Suggestion for the introduction

Please add the links to the quotes again! i accidentally erased them and dont have time to fix it.

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and several teachings . Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (heart and mind nature or translated as character[28]), they can assimilate to the core principles of --Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance-- which are also referred to as the "cosmic characteristic" (here we could provide a link to a daughter page explaining what that means in a neutral way of course).

In Zhuan Falun, Falun Dafa is introduced by Li in this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."

Master Li, who is thought of as a person who has reached "enlightenment" or a "higher being" by many of his disciples, claims that his cultivation system is the most convenient source of salvation for mankind ever made public before. (Its not a final version but i think the "source of salvation" expression could be explained more in detail later on like on a daughter page or along the main article perhaps or maybe it could be changed, tell me what you think?)

I took one of the versions posted before and modified a few details, i think complicated topics can be mentioned but perhaps with a link to somewhere that can explain it more in detail. I was planning to elaborate another paragraph that can summarize the complicated concepts, when i finish it ill post it too. I think that if we are going to explain more in detail difficult terms like "The Last Havoc" or "Fa rectification" the critics must have their opportunity to express their oppinion just as we must have ours. I dont think this article is for promoting falun gong or anything, it must be neutral. Guys please tell me what you think! im sure we can come to a mutual understanding.--Andres18 02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres, I agree with you on most of the things, but there is a newer translation of Zhuan Falun which is more accurate and balanced, so instead of using: " “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc"

We should use:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."

This section is from the latest translation of Zhuan Falun, so it is the most accurate one. Also, this should be changed: "claims that his cultivation system is the most convenient source of salvation for mankind ever made public before."

to: "claims that his cultivation system is the most convenient source of salvation for mankind during the kalpa's end" Omido 12:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm i see, well i also agree with your suggestions, the newer translation is much more accurate and we should specify its convenient during this period of time, perhaps we can post a link to explain what kalpa's end or last havoc is later on right?--Andres18 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We should at least provide some kind of explanation such as a footnote to explain the special terms in cultivation community. Fnhddzs 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres, please include all of the references and links in your version above. If you have time to reply, you have time to include them. CovenantD 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix the references. It will turn out mixing with the previous references. But this won't be a problem in the final version. Fnhddzs 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Simon I would recommend that you read WP:Vandalism before you justify your reverts with that label, as you did here. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by editing like ASDFG's is a form of vandalism. I will not address your textwalls point by point so stop asking me to. The archives address all points raised by the FLG partizans. No amount of wikilawyering changes the fact that ASDFG is vandalizing this article. It's clear to everybody except you. Perhaps your massive conflict of interest is preventing you from seeing it.Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention this, Simonm223, but you yourself "subscribe to a Marxian interpretation of economics" and reside in China part of the time. You also deleted a comment here from someone with a conflicting conflict-of-interest, as it were. And the settled nature of the article edits does not seem obvious to a layman like myself. This deleted source clearly confirms part of the deleted text from Asdfg. Y'all seem to agree on using Benjamin Penny as a source. Meanwhile, the current article strongly implies that the Chinese government made certain claims during the time when Li first published Zhuan Falun, without obviously giving a source. I had to find this myself, and it dates from 1999 rather than 1994. (I disagree with Asdfg if he says that line in the article asserts their POV as fact, and I can't evaluate the Rahn issue now.) If you've addressed all this at length before, would you please point me to the place? Dan (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, it's attack #2 of the week on me for being a marxist I can't begin to tell you how much I love that. Dan, for the record, I am actually strongly opposed to many of the practices of the Chinese government. Furthermore, as somebody who has lived there, I can tell you China is not marxist. China is a capitalist authoritarian state. I'm not a big fan of the PRC government and am not editing to make the PRC look good. I am however filled with disgust at how the Falun Gong has manipulated popular perception by playing to western stereotypes of the "evil communists". My work on these pages is mostly to keep them truthful and not let them become yet another echo chamber of the FLG media machine.

The persistent vandalism of ASDFG, who routinely deletes any source that disagrees with him has led me to not always check carefully to see if he has added an allowable source at the same time as all his partisan mass-edits. His MO - drive-by mass reversion mixed with insertion of small quantities of new material - means occasionally, rather than spend hours picking through the dross, reverts of his vandalism will cull stuff that is viable for inclusion. I trust non-partizan editors here to catch those if I miss them and generally don't protest over their re-inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the first note you wrote in parentheses, "that line in the article asserts their POV as fact."--Asdfg12345 08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon, I've always simply asked for discussion about the changes. But you don't discuss things and instead dismiss my concerns and call me names. It leaves me at a bit of a loss.--Asdfg12345 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick note on the Johnson quote

The full quote is this:

"Over the next two years, Ms. Chen became an enthusiastic participant, rising at 4:30 a.m. to exercise for 90 minutes in a small dirt lot with half a dozen other practitioners. After a day running errands for her children and grandchildren, Ms. Chen spent evenings reading the works of Mr. Li, the group's founder, and discussing his ideas with fellow members. Those beliefs incorporate traditional morality – do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive – as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life and separate-but-equal heavens for people of different races." (emphasis added)

This was changed to:

Ian Johnson notes that Falun Gong beliefs "incorporate traditional morality... as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life" and segregated heavens for people of different races.

You'll notice that the quote stops at "extraterrestrial life." Then the word "segregation" is added, and linked to "racial segregation." I don't know why someone cut the quote short and re-interpreted Johnson's meaning. It's unclear why there should be a need for this character of change. Paraphrasing and so forth is fine, but we should be careful not to inadvertently give a meaning to the quote that the writer did not already provide. Unless Johnson said that he believes Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, then putting it in like this may give a misleading impression to the reader. I won't comment on whether that was deliberate on the part of the editor who made that change. It's highly problematic to adopt this style of editing. Let's put it down to inexperience rather than malice. About other changes to the "controversies section": this is actually a "criticism" section, in the end. It only has negative views. Shall we balance them with positive views, or just leave it? And the other point I wanted to make is that you can't just decide what is a "controversial" teaching and what isn't. That area would be a mile long if we did it that way. A secondary source needs to make that evaluation.--Asdfg12345 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see separate but equal. You may have also removed sources without explaining either why the article does not reflect the sources accurately or why we should not use those sources. But I can't look into all this in detail now. Dan (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only say that I'm doing my best to explain all my edits and thinking behind them, and citing relevant wikipedia policies or whatever. And if I fail to do that, and someone points it out, then of course I would seek to fix that up. In this case it would be original research to change "separate but equal" to "racial segregation." It's not clear that's what Johnson meant. Editors aren't supposed to make these sorts of interpretations about sources, as far as I understand. I thought we are supposed to let the reader decide. I think it's enough to just quote him. If some reliable source says that Falun Gong promotes real-world racial segregation, rather than Li merely discussing some metaphysical principle, then we can use that. --Asdfg12345 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate but equal is unambiguous in meaning. It is the exact language of racial segregation in the USA. It is not WP:OR to confirm that lapis lazuli is a blue stone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you stick with the source? If anyone would like further details for that there is the wikilink, right? Why do you insist so much in changing it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer Wikipedia not to use the language of oppressors in this case. As the racism of Li Hongzhi is as evident either way I use the value-neutral wording instead of the original.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness... you're too much, Simon. Whatever the case, those are Johnson's words. There's no need to break the quote and outlink to some other concept. It's misleading to the reader.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would go for the shorter text, but keeping the " do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive " to explain what is traditional morality. The stuff about exercicing, running errands, etc, is just fluff. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, the issue was whether the quote should be cut short and the words "separate but equal" changed to "segregate" with the wiki page on "racial segregation" linked. Please respond to whether you think that's appropriate or not. That's really what the dispute was about.--Asdfg12345 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been dead for five days. The point made was that by cutting the quote short, changing the words, and linking to "racial segregation," that this was a kind of source distortion and original research. Simon gave an off-the-wall response. Dan's note was noncommital, or at least explanatory. It's not clear whether he advocates the altered wording, or why. It's simply going to be unworkable if we wait for everybody to agree to something simple like this. This isn't meant to be over the top of me, I'm just trying to deal with this rationally. If there's a good reason why we should change the words of the source and link to racial segregation, I'm waiting to hear it. And if there is, that person can make the change and explain it. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)