Academic views on Falun Gong
5045880
226169121
2008-07-17T03:34:16Z
PCPP
1638802
{{sprotected}}
{{limited}}
{{quotefarm}}
{{Falun Gong}}
[[Falun Gong]] has received a range of scholarly attention from western academics from perspectives such as its relationship to other beliefs, the role of [[Li Hongzhi]] in Falun Gong, Falun Gong’s relationship to wider society, the question of finance in Falun Gong both before and after it was transmitted directly by Li Hongzhi in [[Mainland China]] before the crackdown, as well as scholarship on the modern American anti-cult movement and its members' views on Falun Gong, along with counter-criticisms.
==Falun Gong and Buddhism==
China scholar Benjamin Penny's 2005 publication ''The Falun Gong, Buddhism and "Buddhist qigong"'' point out that after the crackdown, the Chinese Buddhist Association, the official representative of Buddhism in China, was eagar to denounce Falun Gong, and other Buddhist groups followed suit in fear of criticisms <ref name="Penny2005">Penny, Benjamin, “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’”, ''Asian Studies Review'' (March 2005) Vol 29, pp.35-46.</ref> He also points out that the Buddhist community's response to Falun Gong could also have been due in part to Falun Gong's rapid growth in China.<ref name=“Penny2005”>p 36</ref>
Chen Xingqiao has criticised of the doctrines of Falun Gong as compared with Buddhism. In his article “'Dharma Wheel Gongfu', Chen refers to Falun Gong as heretical with the characteristics of folk religions and flaunting the banner of Buddhism, and criticizes Li Hongzhi's use of Chinese terms which have traditionally been associated with Buddhism. He also disagrees with some of Li Hongzhi's teachings on the nature of Buddhahood, in which there are different levels of enlightenment.”<ref name=“Penny2005”>p 38</ref> Chen argues that while there are many different Buddhas, there is only one enlightenment, and all Buddhas are equal<ref name=“Penny2005”>p 38</ref> Penny gives a final contextualisation for Chen's critique, stating that Buddhists were confused with Falun Gong's nature, and over the questions on whether Falun Gong is a Buddhist practice.<ref name="Penny2005">p 39</ref>
Stephen Chan, writing in the International Relations journal ''Global Society'', suggests that in providing a metaphysical system which relates the life of man with the greater cosmos, Falun Gong presents a philosophy which in a sense bypasses the state. He suggests that this in part may have lead to the decision of ban made by the Chinese authorities. Chan writes that Falun Gong poses no political threat to the Chinese government, and there is no deliberate political agenda within the Falun doctrine. He concluded that Falun Gong is banned not because of the doctrines itself, but simply because Falun Gong is outside of the communist apparatus.<ref name=”Chan2003”>p 195</ref>
Chan draws parallels between Falun Gong and Buddhism, in saying that the two share a central doctrine on goodness and unconditional compassion towards others. <ref name="Chan2003">Chan, Stephen, "A New Triptych for International Relations in the 21st Century: Beyond Waltz and Beyond Lacan's Antigone, with a Note on the Falun Gong of China," ''Global Society'', 2003, 17:2, 187 - 208</ref> Chan also provides a point of differentiation between Falun Gong and Buddhism <ref name="Chan2003">p 203</ref> Penny writes that another one of Li Hongzhi's critiques of Buddhism is that the original form of Buddhism, Sakyamuni's Buddhism, was somehow pure, it has declined over the centuries through the intervention of a degenerate priesthood, thus distorting the Buddhist Dharma.<ref name=“Penny2005”>p 42</ref> Falun Gong teaches the essential elevation of good as a governing norm, where good creates the society, although in a conservative way.<ref name="Chan2003">p 203</ref>
Penny notes that Li Hongzhi makes a distinction between ''fojia'', the school of Buddha, and ''fojiao'', the teachings of Buddha <ref name=“Penny2005”>p 39</ref> According to Li in ''Zhuan Falun'', although Falun Gong is part of the Buddha school, it has nothing to do with the original Buddhism. <ref name=”Zhuan2000”> Hongzhi, Li [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/doc/zflus.doc Zhuan Falun, Third Translation Edition (Updated March, 2000) USA Internet Version] retrieved June 14, 2006 </ref> Thus Li Hongzhi understands Falun Gong to be fundamentally different from the Buddhist religion, though maintains that it is a part of the Buddha School, which is "constituted cosmically", according to Li.<ref name=“Penny2005”>p 39</ref> Li tells that the features of the Buddha school includes the cultivation of Buddhahood and the belief in predestined relationships, which are included in the teachings of Falun Gong. <ref name=“Penny2005”>p 40</ref>
==Falun Gong and finance==
James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralised administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate.<ref> James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636</ref> Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was."<ref>Tong 2002, p 638 </ref> He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and that "Although the regime had detained the top leadership, interrogated many more of its cadres and scrutinized its internal documents, it had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."<ref>Tong 2002, p 657</ref>
Noah Porter in his thesis took up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."<ref>Porter 2003, p 197</ref>
Li Hongzhi stipulated that transmitting the teaching could never be done for fame and money, and that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their "voluntarily teaching the practice." According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization.
A current principal Falun Gong website states on their 'Learning Falun Dafa' page, in asterisks, that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"<ref>Learning the Practice, [http://www.falundafa.org/], accessed 21 July 2007</ref>
In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, Li revealed his poor financial status in the following statement: "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars." <ref>Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, [http://www.falundafa.ca/library/english/sydney/xini_e.html], accessed 21 July 2007</ref>
Although Li Hongzhi has not financially benefited from his teachings according to Falun Gong,<ref name="Clearwisdom"> Falun Gong Q & A web page: "He is not accorded special treatment, nor does he accept money or donations from students of Falun Gong" [http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2004/9/1/52070.html Clearwisom.net], retrieved June 14, 2006 </ref> his [Li's] wife, Li Rui, was reported in the Wall Street Journal as buying a Queens residence for $293 500 in June 1998, and another house costing $580 000 in May 1999."<ref name="WSJ"> Smith, Craig S. [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/45948085.html?dids=45948085:45948085&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+1%2C+1999&author=By+Craig+S.+Smith&type=91_1996&desc=American+Dream+Finds+Chinese+Spiritual+Leader+---+Large+U.S.+Home+Bought+For+Wife+of+Founder+Of+Besieged+Discipline "American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader--Large US Home Bought for Wife of Founder of Besieged Disciple" ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', November 1, 1999], retrieved June 14, 2006 </ref> Until Li began transmitting Falun Dafa in 1992, he and his wife each earned less than $500 a year at a state-owned grain company in Jilin, China. After the Wall Street Journal article, a practitioner, John Sun, published a rebuttal letter on a Falun Gong website asserting that he bought the New Jersey house for Li's family, but the gift was firmly refused by Li.<ref>John Sun, "For Joy and Fulfillment, Not Money", [http://clearwisdom.net/eng/clarification/letter_to_wsjournal.html], accessed 21 July 2007</ref>
==Falun Gong and the Anti-Cult Movement==
Some members of the American [[anti-cult movement]], including [[Rick Ross (consultant)|Rick Ross]], [[Margaret Singer]] and [[Steven Hassan]], have criticised and attacked Falun Gong, suggesting that it is, or shares some characteristics of "a cult." They point to certain remarks made by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, and claim that he meets their definition of a "manipulative cult leader." Academics and institutions in the west have rejected these claims, and as with the ACM as a whole, the theories which underlie these views have also been criticised as "pseudoscience." Singer and Hassan base their criticism on textual analysis of Falun Gong, and have not engaged in any ethnographic contact. Several North American researchers such as Susan Palmer, David Ownby and Noah Porter have engaged in both ethnographic and textual studies of Falun Gong, and published findings which are contrary to the Anti-Cult Movement, indicating that Falun Gong is not a cult, has no formal organisation, no obligations of any kind, and that practitioners live normal lives and "participate in Falun Gong as much or as little as they like."
Edelman and Richardson writing in the Journal of Church and State, state that despite a lack of "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," the doctrines and theories behind the ACM have strongly influenced, and been largely adopted by the China Anti Cult Association (CACA), and employed specifically to assist in the persecution of Falun Gong in China.<ref name=edelman2>Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson, "Imposed limitations of Freedom of Religion in China: A Legal Analysis of the Crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "Evil Cults," ''Journal of Church and State'' (Vol. 47, Issue 2), pp. 243-268</ref> Edelman and Richardson see the "cult" label in this context as no more than a "convenient political tool" for the Chinese Communist Party to repress Falun Gong under false pretences. David Kilgour and David Matas have come to similar conclusions in their report, and see the "cult" label as a means of attempting to make the [[Persecution of Falun Gong|persecution]] appear legitimate.<ref name=bh>[http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ BLOODY HARVEST: Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China], retrieved May 21, 2007</ref>
Porter writes that "Most who have written about Falun Gong have simply relied upon the writings of Li Hongzhi, the websites, and newspaper articles for their information about Falun Gong, and then applied the theoretical perspective of their discipline and their personal perspective in analyzing it."<ref name="Porter"> Noah Porter, (Masters Thesis for the University of South Florida) July 18, 2003, [http://www.lib.usf.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-06122003-113105/unrestricted/FalunGongInTheUS-NoahPorter-Thesis.pdf "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study"], retrieved June 14, 2006 </ref>Porter writes that he has hoped to "bridge" this communications gap with an anthropological study of Falun Gong, "to promote a broader understanding." He also expresses a general strong disagreement with other critics who based their work solely on textual analysis,<ref name="Porter"/> and states in his thesis several times that "…practitioners do not isolate themselves from non-practitioners"<ref name="Porter"/> and are always exposed to different "identity streams," which he defines as "different forms of media, people, and ideas."
Ian Johnson writes that the Communist Party's claim that Falun Gong was a "cult" gave the western anti-cult movement a new cause.<ref name=wildgrass>p. 227</ref> People external to the events in China would spend their time "debating obscure definitions of Master Li's works, trying to prove that the group was potentially dangerous." He says that one western academic published a paper which pleaded for an understanding of the Party's response to Falun Gong over concerns related to its teachings, and that there was a "legitimate right to fear the group."<ref name=wildgrass /> "This, even though the government had only interested itself in Falun Gong because of its demonstration in downtown Beijing, not because of its teachings." Most fundamentally, he contends, "what was often forgotten in the learned discourse was that the government, not Falun Gong, was killing people."<ref name=wildgrass />
===The "thought control" theory===
The late psychologist [[Margaret Singer]] shared her thoughts about Falun Gong in a New York Times article, opining that while others will say that Falun Gong is not a cult, it "looks like a cult" to her. She claims that her criteria is "a self-appointed person with secret knowledge to share," and who subsequently manages to "get his followers convinced" that he is the "pipeline to eternal good life." She suggests that this description "sound[s] like Master Li..."<ref name="New Times">Engardio, Joel: "Spiritual Cultivation" [http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun169.html ''New Times, Los Angeles'' (March 23-29, 2000)] retrieved on June 14, 2006</ref> In her book ''Cults in our Midst'', Singer talks about how "cults" are supposed to relate to their "followers"; "they tend to view the outside world with increasing hostility and distrust."<ref name="Singer">Margaret Singer: Cults In Our Midst, Revised & Updated Edition, 2003, page 352.</ref> Later in the book she claims that Li Hongzhi "promises" that his disciples will "achieve a state of grace," but that he has "contempt and indifference" for everyone one else. She claims that Li said, referring to a non-practitioner 'no matter how he does damage to his body, we do not care.'<ref name=Singer/> Later in her book, she describes herself as having "no doubt" that Falun Gong has many features of a "true cult," which is said to include "utter obedience to a charismatic leader, coercive thought control, financial exploitation of its followers, a doomsday prediction that promises salvation only through total obedience and subservience to the cult leader, zero tolerance for dissent, and a very strict organization from which it is difficult to escape."<ref name="Singer" />
David Ownby, Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal and a specialist in modern Chinese history, comes to very different conclusions from Singer, Hassan and Rahn. Ownby concludes as part of his key fieldwork-based findings, that Falun Gong is "by no means a cult," and that Falun Gong practitioners in North America are well-educated and tend to live in nuclear families. "Many work with computers or in finance; some are engineers." It is further contended that practitioners do not have "financial obligations to their faith community," and that they do not "live in isolation" and are "law-abiding."<ref>David Kilgour, notes for address At a conference of the International Society for Human Rights, Konigstein (near Frankfurt), Germany, 30 March 2007</ref>
[[David Kilgour]] suggests that Ownby's conclusion is similar to that of many independent observers, including that of himself and [[David Matas]], co-author of the [http://organharvestinvestigation.net organ harvesting report]. Kilgour says that in their experience, practitioners appear to be "…good citizens and exemplary members of their respective civil societies." Kilgour and Matas further opine that Falun Gong shares none of the characteristics of a cult, having no membership, offices or officials. They again draw on Ownby's research, and say that there is no penalty for leaving Falun Gong, "since there is nothing to leave." Practitioners are said to be free to engage in Falun Gong practice "as little or as much as they see fit. They can start and stop at any time. They can engage in their exercises in groups or singly." Li Hongzhi is referred to as the "author of the books which inspired Falun Gong practitioners," and is "not worshipped," nor receives money from practitioners. "He is a private person who meets rarely with practitioners," and transmits his "advice to practitioners" in the form of "conference lectures" and "published books"--which is "publicly available information."
Additionally, Li Hongzhi emphasizes in his lectures the importance of maintaining normal relationships in society. In Zhuan Falun Li states "The majority of people in our school will practice cultivation in ordinary human society, so you should not distance yourself from ordinary human society and you must practice cultivation with a clear mind. The relationships among one another should remain normal."<ref name="Zealotry"> Hongzhi, Li [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture8.html#6 "Attachment to Zealotry" in ''Zhuan Falun'' Third Translation Edition (Updated March, 2000) USA Internet Version] retrieved June 14, 2006 </ref>
</blockquote>
===Falun Gong and the anti-cult movement===
''See further: [[Persecution of Falun Gong#The .22cult.22 label| the "cult" label of Falun Gong as used in state media]]''
The ACM's position on Falun Gong has been criticised by some and described as a being used as tool for marginalisation and repression. In 2000, the China Anti-Cult Association (CACA) was founded, based largely on the controversial theories of the ACM. Consisting of scholars, religious leaders and journalists, it was supposed to be a nonprofit organisation with no connection to the Party, and undertake the work of "educating the public" about the "threat posed by evil cults."<ref name=edelman2 /> The CACA was founded by He Zuoxiu, a physicist, and long standing and outspoken critic of Falun Gong. The authors, Edelman and Richardson, note that He Zuoxiu, like a large proportion of the academics listed as members of the CACA, have no relation with the study of religion or new social movements--they are often experts in fields such as aerodynamics, or hydroelectric engineering.<ref name=edelman2/> Some of the main publicised claims of the CACA about Falun Gong are that Li Hongzhi "dominates" and "controls" the minds of Falun Gong practitioners, and causes them to "threaten social stability."<ref name=edelman2/> It is "unsurprising" to them that no scientific evidence is put forth to support the idea that Li is able to control the minds of practitioners.
Another prong of the Party's attack on Falun Gong came about after September 11, 2001, with the accusation that Falun Gong was a "terrorist organisation," the corresponding story claiming that a letter laced with anthrax was sent to a government institution by Falun Gong.<ref name=edelman2/> The terrorist label is also supposed to be an appealing weapon to the Party. Edelman and Richardson write that if the international community were to accept Falun Gong as a terrorist organisation, they would assist the Chinese government by removing safe-havens for practitioners fleeing state-repression.
They conclude that because the Party has become more sensitive to international criticism over human rights issues, the ACM and its ideology have become tools for the party to "create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld" while committing crimes against Falun Gong practitioners. The goal is for Falun Gong to become a socially constructed "cultic threat" to Chinese society and the world. The definition of "cult" is lax, and the Chinese government is armed with weapons to attack "any religious, qigong, or sectarian movement its sees as a potential threat to its authority." By labelling the practice and representing practitioners as passive followers being controlled by a dangerous leader, the Party is allowed to "aggressively destroy the group," and at the same time claim to be protecting religious freedom. "In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance."<ref name=edelman2/>
Former Canadian Secretary of State [[David Kilgour]] and human rights lawyer [[David Matas]] also take up the issue of whether Falun Gong is a cult or not in their ''Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China.'' They also contend that the CCP's labelling of Falun Gong as an "evil cult" is defamation, incitement to hatred and dehumanization, and is merely a pretext for the government's repression of the practice. They state that "this labelling does not explain why that repression arose. The 'evil cult' label is a manufactured tool of repression, but not its cause."<ref name=bh />
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Falun Gong]]