By: Zixian Deng, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science
Shi-min Fang, Ph.D. in Biochemistry
Revised May 31, 2000
An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Annual Conference of The American Family Foundation (April 28-29, 2000) in Seattle, WA
Equal authors listed in alphabetical order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our research problem originates from the two contradicting tales of Falun Gong. Each claims to be the only appropriate understanding of Li Hongzhi's theory and the followers' behaviors, thus generating serious debates since 1999. Controversies have been following Falun Gong ever since 1996 when the Guangming Daily published a critical review of Zhuan Falun. By that time, it had been four years since Li Hongzhi first appeared in the Victory Park (Shengli Gongyuan) in the city of Changchun on May 8, 1992 and announced his discovery. When it drew critical reviews in 1996, Falun Gong had already attracted hundreds of thousands, and probably over a million followers, including some in the law enforcement departments of the central government (such as Mr. Ye Hao, now the leader of the Falun Gong's Minghui Net in Canada, then a ranking officer in the Ministry of Public Security) and several scholars in prominent educational institutions. Using their number mass, strategic acumen, and effective organization, Falun Gong successfully outmaneuvered its critics from the civil society for three more years.
The contending perspectives diverge in the methods to approach Falun Gong. They subsequently differ in the understanding of Falun Gong's theological implications, social consequences, and problems of the members' personal integrity. Many social and religious critics evaluate Falun Gong as a cult or sect of self-destructive behaviors leading to public harms, while the practitioners call it the enlightenment of the heart (提高心性cultivation of Xinxing) unexpectedly benefiting humanity. Medical professionals find that Falun Gong does not merit any health claims but may lead to missed treatment opportunities or even mental disorders (Zhao 2000); however, Li Hongzhi and his scientist disciples, such as Dr. Lili Feng proclaims the contrary miracles are within reach only without medicine (JJYZ E, 25; Feng 2000). Political scientists and sociologists observe the organizational traits of a theocratic society working toward a political domination that would force its theological doctrines on the public, yet its leader have emphatically denied any such things - even the existence of an organization. The Chinese government bans Falun Gong, and the human rights activists take it up as a rights abuse issue. And finally, the Master himself epitomizes the most telling two-tale with fundamental contradictions about his status in the universe (Zhuan Falun [1992] 1996 C, 29; E [2000], 42, 44, 79; see also Li's 1998 Switzerland Lectures, 56; cf. an interview with the journalists in May 1999 and an interview with Spaeth of the Time Magazine ), about the discrepancies in health claims (see Li's self-defense on July 23, 1999), and about his involvements and responsibility in the cultivation of his disciples. Despite Li and his disciples protest of the limitation of human language and the detest of human knowledge, should we believe that communication is possible across paradigms, that objective knowledge is possible across different beliefs, and that logic also applies to Falun Gong, the above two-tales must be resolved. We propose approach these problems with an analysis of Falun Gong's social theories and the activities. We do not intend to evaluate Falun Gong according to its theological values - though they are related to our subject, it is nevertheless the task for the Buddhists, philosophers or the theological scholars. Instead we criticize it in respect of its social doctrines - about the relations between humans, between individuals and societies, and the relations inside the group and those outside the group. In other words, we are not so much troubled by its unique interpretation of other religions and traditional beliefs (some Buddhists and Daoists have already responded to that effect, see Zhao, C. 1998a-b, Beizhi 1999a-c), but we should be alarmed by the consequences that such misinterpretations have achieved close-mindedness, authoritarianism and totalitarian methods, miscommunications, and self-destructive behaviors. We believe that an open society should allow different ideas to exist and people should be able to freely converse their ideas across cultures and beliefs. However, that does not mean each idea has equal values or theocratic authoritarianism be shielded from criticism. Our criticism is partly an attempt to sort out, from a theoretical and logical point of view, the contradictions that we have pointed out.
This paper is organized in three parts. The first part (WHAT LI TEACHES) deals with the doctrines and the functions of different members in Falun Gong. It is important, from a sociological point of view, to understand the structures of a group in order to understand their intra and inter-relationships. This is achievable only through a detail analysis of Li's own articles, or scripture as the Li and his followers prefer. Relying on his spokesman or even the finest disciples (supposedly with a nod from Li) for elaboration and clarification, as past experiences have shown, has proved to be a minefield to researchers. Disciples are simply not the Master himself and are never representatives the Master in any doctrinal explanations (Li declares Nobody can represent me, JJYZ E, 56), in case they turn out to be unfavorable to Li. Any identified or identifiable flaws would be the respondent's but not the Master's. Moreover, there should be absolutely no association between flaws and the Master. All flaws are tests to the disciples, to see how far they would go contrary to common sense. The disciples would provide any cover for the Master if necessary, or they can be involuntarily sacrificed as Zhan Jingyi was dumped from the pinnacle of discipleship to excommunication (this case is discussed below). Therefore, we have to decipher the Falun Gong doctrines according to Li's own words. The length of this type of social doctrinal analysis is cumbersome but necessary. Li and his disciples have always avoided discussing the scripture consistently by turning to the slogan-like label to fend off all theoretical and theological challenges. To Li, his refusal to address a question is even a means to express tolerance, benevolence, and truth, according to himself (Switzerland, 9) and repeated by the followers. We hope our analysis would also provide a research foundation for further studies and provide a textual interpretation of Zhuan Falun to the English readers. Should other researchers happen to share our interpretations, they do not have to repeat this painstaking process so that they can directly address their particular concerns; should they disagree, this lengthy process would also lay out the basis to identify any differences. For this latter reason, we have noted every message of Li's with the appropriate reference. In fact, for those readers who only want to discuss the appropriate policies in dealing with cults considering the freedom of beliefs and expression, they may wish to skip to the last part, Section 7, Discussion of this paper.
After laying down the principal doctrines of Falun Gong, we then recall the disciples' past and current behaviors, including the medical neglects (The Cases of Self-Destructive Behaviors and The Miracles Cause and Effect), and the politically motivated activities embedded in its latest development (The Role of the disciples Defending Fa and Completion of Cultivation, The Process of Purification The lack of process and the dependence on intervention, and Collective Cultivating). Finally, in our DISCUSSION (Section 7), we present our views of this group and attempt to suggest a framework to understand their behaviors, cautioning the possible consequences. Throughout this text, we use the term cult to describe an organization with a set of salvation beliefs through or centering on a self-appointed savior. In most cases, this savior is also the living founderinterpreter. Members believe that they are a chosen group and others are destined for eternal damnation. The organization also provides mechanisms of mind control (Singer 1996, 7). Further, this belief system should also lead to members' mental distress or physical self-destruction, or cause physical harms to others, and result in the disintegration of the family in the asymmetric conversion (see for example Switzerland C, 41 where Li encourages his disciples to break away from opposing family members). In this discussion, what qualifies to be a cult follows that of Singer, and Rosedale and Langone's (1998) but with slight modifications. The modification restricts the scope by identifying self-destructive physical behaviors in conjunction with the psychological trauma. The latter alone is often challenged by various anti- anti-cult movements.
Cults or sects are often offshoots of existing religions. W. R. Martin in his seminal work The Kingdom of the Cults to defend orthodoxy provides an analysis of the behavioral traits of Christian cults. One typical characteristic is that the cults tend to assign drastically different meanings to the terms that it borrows (Martin 1997, 33). The purpose, we suggest, is two folds commitment through confusion. The confusion is intended by the miscommunication, by projecting an object in the reader's mind that share some characteristics of preconceived notions only to be replaced with a completely different object intended. Such miscommunication separates the meaning intending from its environment. That is, it uses the shells of a particular and attractive term to express different contents while such a term was not intended to represent this new idea in a prescribed usage environment. By missing the intended object, it leads to a hidden object. When it is done on purpose, it is simply dishonesty. However, an analyst must be able to distinguish errors from frauds, the latter places the burden of proof on us. This is a difficult process, but unfortunately, as many emerging cult would establish its own identity through this identity migration process, we have to be decipher Li's words. Our method differs from the alternative method is in our application of rational criticism, matching words with behaviors.
The study of the brand name illustrates our point. The name Falun Gong contains a familiar Buddhist label Falun, meaning the wheel of the Buddhist Dharma. However, the Falun in Li's scripture is intended to a mystical material that spins inside a human body or in the even more mystic Falun world. The new meaning of Falun, according to Li, is not that the Buddha has passed along some teachings through generations of teachers but a material object rotating in the abdomen of a disciple after being planted by Li's Fashen. The clockwise rotation absorbs energy from the universe (ZFL E, 42-3, 184).
Such drastic departure from the original intension of the terms receives no direct mention in Li's core scripture Zhuan Falun (To Rotate the Wheel of Dharma). Instead, it insists that
Falun Gong belongs to one of the traditional Buddhist school, albeit not revealed before (ZFL E. 38, Li's First Lecture). The new concept is gradually introduced to the follower in the later texts (94, 99 in Li's Third Lecture. see especially page 100 for a discussion of Falun's exclusiveness; also in Li's first book Falun Gong, there is no mention of any difference between the traditional concept and his own discovery), expecting the previous introduction has shifted the initiates perception in his favor. By that time the attracted reader would have been immunized from or suspended critical thinking and immerses in a process of transvaluation according to the converted principle. Such miscommunication in this particular case is clearly intended to mislead through confusion.
The commitment hypothesis is related to miscommunication. Through adoption of confusing terminologies, followers are led into miscommitting - believing they are practicing Qigong or qigong of the Buddhist school (Fojia Gong, it is also Li's invention to include it as part of Buddhism). Built upon this technique, Li was able (we believe to a lesser extent he still has this capacity) to use the socially acceptable terms to create an impression of conformity but retains the ability to claim supernormality. The problem for Falun Gong is to introduce such self-proclaimed extraordinariness without arousing the suspicion of abnormality; instead it must provoke trust built on the traditional labels. In Li's words, the practices (such as the hand and body movements, what can be seen from outward) must confirm to the norm to the utmost extent (ZFL E, 70, 145). Li finds the solution in the Buddhist and Daoist terms that inherited complex historical and metaphysical definitions. It is also noteworthy that after Li moves to the United States, his proclamations adopt some usages common in Christianity.
Though the creation and misapplication of the traditional terms with new meanings Li is able to promote Falun Gong without a radical appearance. By confusing the readers, Li makes them commit to what they believe as a new traditional school of Buddhism or a form of qigong. The inconsistence between the message and the intended object creates the disparity to some students well versed in traditional studies. It was this kind of terminology dispute that prompted the earlier and insightful criticism of Falun Gong from the religious circle. The Buddhists are among the first who took notice of the deceptions Li presents in his work (see Chen Xingqiao 1998a-b; Zhao, C. 1999; Bei Zhi 1999, 2000a-c). Likewise, other critics include scientists on Falun Gong's creation of pseudo-science (see Fang 1999a-j), social scientists (Deng 1999a, 1999k) and social observers (Zhong Yu 1999) on its irresponsible behaviors and infringement on other's property rights and freedom. Since the flaws were so obvious, we imagined - one year ago - a rational discourse would have persuaded the audience and some supporters that Falun Gong is fundamentally defective in its theory and practice, its claim of health benefits unsubstantiated, and the deep trance and hallucinations are dangerous.
It has been one year since Falun Gong drew attention to itself in Beijing. Despite the Chinese government's extraordinary claim of a 98% attrition from Falun Gong in the past one year, the remaining hardcore members would still amounted to 40,000 (given 2% of 2 millions, a number the Chinese government gave in April, 2000), larger than many infamous cults in the world. An examination of the existing network activities of Falun Gong showed that it was largely intact it still maintains a rapid communication system reaching into major cities in China, and Li's (or his proxy's) instructions are still carried out despite the enormous risks in such undertaking. Our estimation based on personal contacts is also less optimistic, both in the attrition rates and the size of the original membership, though we can definitely dismiss the claim of 70-100 millions membership. The most recent example was the sporadic gatherings of about 300-500 of Li's disciples in Tiananmen on April 25, 2000. It showed that the remaining number of disciples who were willing to expose themselves at such a sensitive time was still about 2-3% of those gathered last year when there was no threat of punishment but with years of unprecedented tolerance. On the other hand, according to Falun Gong sources, it had attracted in 1999 alone four times more disciples than the total recruits in the United States in the seven years before. It claims to have over 10,000 followers in the United States and plans to shifts its recruitment to medium and small size towns where prejudice would not be as serious and reporters are more friendly. There are probably two reasons of the persistent existence. One can be attributed to the persecution psychology that holds the core members together when they feel a hostile environment to their beliefs. Such a threat is deemed to be greater than their ability to extricate themselves from the predicament. The other reason is related to the previous condition but it is also political. Falun Gong has successfully portrayed itself as the ultimate victims of political persecution in China and the sole carrier of virtues. This strengthens the perception of the persecution psychology. We suppose that the political support for Falun Gong outside China is due to the successful communication by the charismatic communicator combined with the misunderstanding by some observers, plus successful political campaigns by the Falun Gong organization now represented by Erping Zhang (who was Li's spokesman in 1999) and Gail Rachlin, a publicist disciple of New York .
While the miscommunication is intended, as we outline below, the misunderstanding also comes from the barriers imbedded in the doctrines of Falun Gong. The evasive presentation through borrowed terms and the subsequently more evasive interpretation of the doctrines lead people to believe Li to be less radical than he has already claimed to be. Recently, Zhang informed us that Falun Gong embodied traditional Chinese virtues and conserved classic Chinese values including the family values, and opposing Falun Gong would be opposing everything Chinese (BBC interview, April 24, 2000). To us, this was an extraordinary claim since Falun Gong had already replaced values (traditional, religious, or otherwise) with materials in their theology. We have to wonder what material (values) Zhang was referring to However, Zhang's words did not receive further pursue in the media, as usual (perhaps the only exception was the 1999 ABC Nightline interview where Zhang had to admit that he would not go to a hospital under any circumstances).
Most critics of Falun Gong theories and practices thus far - often written in Chinese - assume some shared characteristics of the readers familiarity with the basic scientific principles , background knowledge of Qigong, understanding of Eastern religions and philosophy, exposure to the basic doctrines of Falun Gong, and most of all certain level of open-mindedness and critical thinking. In response, Falun Gong disciples resort to the Truthfulness, Benevolence, and Forbearance slogan to defend its existence. Since few would dismiss such virtues or morality, the disciples successfully avoid the theoretical and theological contents of Li's teaching, much less the practices by some of his disciples. This presents additional difficulty to those having secondary access to the original texts or tapes. In fact, while the disciples have devoted great efforts to promoting Li's scriptures in other languages, including editing, revising and retranslating Zhuan Falun three times as of March 2000, two aggressive (anti-gay, anti-human, and racist) scriptures have not been in English yet the Frankfurt (1998) and Geneva (1998) Lectures - we doubt they would ever be. There are probably good reasons for not putting them into other languages as we analyze some texts taken from them.
To accurately describe Falun Gong, our first task is to present a systematic interpretation of Zhuan Falun. We attempt to make it consistent from a theoretically evolutionary perspective through examining its development.
The second part of this paper deals with facts and activities. According to reports from the Chinese community, there were deaths of the disciples who were led into believing that medical treatments were worse than the diseases, and some committed self-destructive behaviors in deep trance. Most of the deaths were the results of intaking cultivation in lieu of medication for treatment of disease (see Table 1 for the numbers of casualties as reported by the Chinese authority). Though some Falun Gong-related medical cases were reported long before 1999, there were disputes over this matter in the past year and they were politicized. The first disputes involve the numbers and the facts. Though the cases presented are about medical treatment or the refusal of such, and some had been independently reported and confirmed before the Chinese government started the campaign against cults; Falun Gong members have managed to cast political doubts over the numbers being exaggerated, and the victims associations with Falun Gong, thus portraying themselves as political victims.
Further, Li and his followers trumpet that even such a number reflects a lower than national average rate of natural or accidental death (see Minghui.org or any Falun Gong sites for detailed arguments and the statistical methods used, the most recent one anonymously authored My Personal Views in Response to the Mainland Articles on Falun Gong appeared on April 24, 2000), ignoring that vital statistics should be based on cohorts. The second dispute comes from the causes, direct or indirect, of these causalities. Li insists on a disclaimer-like indemnity cultivators should be responsible for their own results, and those suffering any ill effect should be disqualified as his disciples (cf. FLG E, 67, You will never go deviant when the disciple follows only the movements of hand gestures). However, evidences used by the critics - including medical professionals - have identified connections of some cases of death and mental disorder with Falun Gong (Zhao 1996, 2000). The patients have been treated as Qigong-related psychological (hallucination) disorders. The effects of Falun Gong were more pronounced due to its vast membership. On the other hand, outside supporters of Falun Gong start their assessment from various political, religious rights and civil liberty perspectives. They question the Chinese government's policies but neglect to give a careful consideration of the doctrines of the group being ostracized. As a result, the media often choose to dismiss any evidences from the Chinese media except those from Lu Siqing (most active from October 1999 to February 2000 over the Internet and via the Taiwan-based China Central News Agency) of the Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Watch, an organization not registered in Hong Kong at the time of our writing this paper. Lu's information was based on telephone conversations; accuracy was often sacrificed for speed (Rahn, 2000), if not for Lu's political motivation.
The mixing of empirical and medical evidences and political motivations obscure the topic worthy of proper discussions. Few defenders of Falun Gong address the human consequences of its members. They would rather provide organizational legitimization through politicization. The crucial point here is distinguishing to what extent Li is responsible to the disciples and how he influences and commands their behaviors. On the one hand, Li always claims that he is totally responsible in every aspect of their life and afterlife as he promises at the opening page of Zhuan Falun (those genuinely learning the Fa would be my disciples). However, Li also has long effectually denied the prematurely dead, failed, or (deprogrammed) former disciples were ever disciples in any sense. The central empirical problem is to untangle these two contradicting claims and assign appropriate responsibility to the founder of Falun Gong. We would discuss this question in a moral sense in the discussion section and leave the legal aspect to the legal experts.
The divergent views of Falun Gong by outsiders also signal two asymmetric information systems in evaluating Falun Gong Those with access to the original materials and those from filtered channels, and those with a historical perspective and those examining only the immediate political aftermath. The causes of the different opinions are probably more of the quality of information used in forming a judgment rather than the religious, political, ideological positions. We believe that by presenting the doctrines and indoctrination methods of Falun Gong, it is possible to resolve some of these differences and establish a symmetric informational base for our conversation.
Notes:
1. See http://www.guangmingdaily.com.cn/gm/1999/08/19990809/gb/gm^18143^1^GM1-0911.htm and http://www.guangmingdaily.com.cn/gm/1999/11/19991104/gb/gm^18230^1^GM1-0401.htm for the detail report of this incident. The original review was published on June 17, 1996.
2. The texts references are based on the electronic version of Li's "scriptures" published by Falundafa.org.
3. See Li's interview with journalists in Australia, on May 02, 1999. < http://falundafa.org/FLFFbb/news990502.htm>.
4. Interview: Li Hongzhi "I am just a very ordinary man" by Anthony Spaeth ("Time Magazine", vol. 154, n. 4, August 2, 1999
5. We believe this is the most accurate literate translation of those three words, though the disciples prefer to do it otherwise.
6. The Hong Kong newspaper Chengpao reported a attrition rate of 50-60% in Hong Kong, down to 400-500 disciples from a thousand a year ago (April 26, 2000).
7. This is the first anniversary of a 15000 disciple gathering. Mingpao (http://www.mingpao.com/newspaper/20000425/caa1hr.htm) on the same day quoted indirect sources that Li had been personally involved on the arrangement of this event by issuing: "The Universe is watching this Earth. This Earth is Watching China. China is watching Beijing. Beijing is watching Tiananmen, and Tiananmen is watching Falun Gong." As usual, Minghui adamantly denied Li issued such a statement through an anonymous rebuttal to the report by this mainstream Hong Kong newspaper. However, regardless of its source and denial, the reported "scripture" has achieved the same effect: gatherings in Tiananmen. Almost a month later, Minghui issued a verse by Li stating the same principles as they previously denied. See The Methods of Indoctrination for a brief discussion of this verse.
8. Contrary to our assertion here, Danny Schechter suggested that the western media mistreated Falun Gong in his recent article Censored 2000. Instead of its self-proclaimed expansions in membership, Schechter told us that "Falun Gong remains isolated and alone in large part because of the poor job the media has done in explaining who they are and what China is doing to them" http://www.minghui.ca/eng/2000/Apr/07/IR_CM040700.html.
9. These critics include many scientists and several Buddhists. They started their criticism of Falun Gong before the Chinese government took any notice of this group. Despite Li's unflattering comments on the central figure of Christianity, we have yet to see any criticism from that perspective.
10. See, for example, a collection of critical articles "Anatomy of Falun Gong" by Fang Zhouzi, 1999. <http://www.xys.org/pages/falun.html>.
11. Such as works by Chen Xingqiao 1998. "Falun Gong: A Superstition in a Buddhist shell (1-2)." The Voice of Dharma, March 1999: 21-9, < http://www.buddhism.com.cn/fy/dharma/9803/g9803f06.htm> and April 1999: 15-22. http://www.buddhism.com.cn/fy/ dharma/9804/g9804f04.htm
(New Threads, Revised May 31, 2000)
