I. On Falun Gong’s Allegedly Causing “1,400 Deaths”

While there is no accusation by the Chinese Government more haunting than that Falun Gong leads to health problems, mental illness, suicide and death, there is also no claim more deceptive and imaginative. Falun Gong has shown itself to have great healing efficacy, earning even the praise and endorsement of many of Beijing’s elite scientists and medical professionals. (see Attachment A5) Several health surveys have found that Falun Gong practice is effective in healing disease over 90% of the time (with a “cure rate” near 60%), and greatly improves mental health and overall quality of life. (see Attachments A3-5) Falun Gong’s enormous, quickly-developed popularity has in fact been in large part due to its unprecedented health benefits. In fact, this is what led the Chinese Government to patronize the practice for its first four years, before political winds shifted unfavorably. Despite the Chinese Government’s recent, frightening claims, however, there is simply no supporting evidence that Falun Gong can prove injurious. What “evidence” the Government has provided is highly suspect, as the several cases of so-called “Falun Gong-induced deaths” that have been independently investigated have proven fictitious. (see Attachments A1, A2)

What’s more, the alleged “causal” explanation for purported Falun Gong side-effects is grounded in either in one of two fictitious claims. First is the suggestion of some hidden causal link between Falun Gong practice and psychosis or suicidal tendencies. This is a claim for which there is no known medical or legal basis, however, and none has been offered by Chinese officials. Were such a causal connection to be established, it would quickly grace the covers of medical journals east and west. A variety of stories have been crafted to “illustrate” the deadly effects of Falun Gong. But when they are examined in the light of Mr. Li’s teachings and careful analysis, they prove highly imaginative and deceptive. A statistical comparison of mortality rates owing to suicide in the general population as compared with among Falun Gong practitioners (as claimed by the Chinese Government) reveals that Falun Gong most likely saves some 10,000 practitioners from suicide each year.

Second is the pivotal Chinese Government claim that Mr. Li Hongzhi prohibits Falun Gong practitioners from taking medicine, putting them at risk. Examining Mr. Li’s teachings reveals that this is an utter fabrication, as he never has prevented--nor could he prevent--practitioners from seeking medical treatment. In banning Falun Gong, the Chinese Government is thus “protecting” the Chinese people from something that does not exist. When the Chinese Government’s much-paraded statistic “1,400 deaths due to Falun Gong” is analyzed here on its own terms, it again unravels, proving the exact opposite of what the Government intended. Using China’s mortality rate for 1998, we could expect Falun Gong’s 70 million practitioners to lose roughly 455,000 people to death. The Chinese government states that no practitioner is allowed to take medicine. Any Falun Gong practitioner who dies is therefore included in the “1,400 deaths due to psychosis, suicide, and refused medical treatment,” as he or she would supposedly refuse medical treatment even while dying; the Government here asserts a causal link. According to the Chinese Government’s official statistics then, Falun Gong most likely saved around 454,000 lives in 1999 alone! Since some surveys have found that up to 68% of practitioners are 50 or more years old, one could expect the mortality rate among practitioners to be even higher than that of the general population, let alone if these poor “cult victims” forgo much-needed medicine.

Were the stakes of the Chinese Government’s accusations not so high, they might even prove amusing for their fanciful, illogical qualities. Since these claims, however wrong, have found their way into the Western media and been the topic of several English-language Chinese Government publications, we offer here clarifi-cation.
  1. Falun Gong’s Teachings on Medicine and Medical Treatment

Falun Gong is most accurately called a “cultivation practice” (xiu lian) (much akin to “self-cultivation” in the West), though it is more generically a form of qigong practice as it has five sets of gentle qigong exercises. As a cultivation practice, the emphasis in Falun Gong practice is on the improvement of one’s xinxing (moral character, or “heart/mind nature”). Cultivation of xinxing is mainly a matter of assimilating to the essential nature of the universe: truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. Such assimilation is the goal of cultivation practice, in turn enabling the practitioner to develop his or her wisdom and reach “enlightenment”--an aspiration basic to Eastern spiritual practices, such as Taoism, Buddhism, etc. The goal of Falun Gong is thus not health and fitness, as in conventional qigong practices. Nevertheless, healing often occurs as a product of cultivating xinxing in Falun Gong practice. Hence, many people have been attracted to Falun Gong by its healing capacities.

Mr. Li Hongzhi, the teacher in Falun Gong, has made clear on countless occasions that the goal of Falun Gong practice is not to heal one’s ailments. He has been explicit on this matter in both his writings and lectures, and refused to admit critically-ill patients to his lectures or classes. In the most widely-read Falun Gong book, Zhuan Falun, Mr. Li states, “I do not talk about healing illness here, and neither will we heal illness here”(p.3). He continues later: “Some people come here just to have illnesses healed. As to seriously ill patients, we do not let them attend the classes since they cannot give up the attachment to having illnesses cured or the idea of being ill... This person is unable to practice cultivation”(p.41).

Similarly, Mr. Li has stated that patients with severe mental illness (psychosis) are forbidden from attending his classes or practicing Falun Gong. As their minds are not correct or balanced, they are unable to control themselves. One strict requirement for practicing Falun Gong (and not dissimilar from qigong in general) is that one must have self-control, both mental and physical. There must be mental alertness, and one must be cognizant of where one is and what one is doing at all times. If one cannot meet these requirements, one obviously cannot conduct oneself according to a practitioner’s standard, following the higher principle of truthfulness, compassion, forbearance. Enlightening requires self-improvement and the development of wisdom, two things impossible without self-control. Mr. Li has been firm: people suffering from psychosis and the likes must seek help elsewhere. Nevertheless, people with minor mental illnesses consistently benefit from Falun Gong practice. (see Attachments A3-5)

A second issue needing clarification is the relation-ship between Falun Gong practice and taking medicine. The Chinese Government has repeatedly claimed that Mr. Li forbids all Falun Gong practitioners from taking medicine, thereby putting them at great risk and even incurring tragic deaths. In the heat of its crackdown on Falun Gong, the Chinese Government-run English newspaper, China Daily, ran four entire articles disparaging Falun Gong and Mr. Li. It went so far as to “report” that: “By spreading these fallacious ideas Li has actually signed a life-and-death contract with his followers, who have to obey all his instructions and depend on him for everything. He forbids them to read other books or learn other theories and deprives them of the ability to choose between right and wrong... Li forces his practitioners to follow his fallacious ideas.”1 And for the anti-Falun Gong campaign, forcing “followers” to not take medicine is apparently the biggest crime. Such reporting completely confuses the issue, however, suggesting cult-like dependency and suspension of personal choice. Never mind that it wantonly distorts what Mr. Li has taught and how practitioners have regarded his teachings.

Consider Mr. Li’s own words on the issue of taking medicine, as stated in China Falun Gong (the introductory, first book). In response to the question, “Do we still need to take medicine while cultivating?” Mr. Li replied, “On this issue, you should think and decide for your-self”(p.138). Also, in a 1997 New York City lecture that has since been read by most every practitioner, Mr. Li stated: “An everyday person needs to take medicine when he gets ill. Now you are a cultivator, but I am not forcing you not to take medicine.” He continued in his lecture, adding: “Some people want to damage [Falun Gong], and on the issue of taking medicine they say ‘we’re not allowed to take medicine once we start practicing this system.’ I do not, as a matter of fact, forbid you to take medicine.”2 Unfortunately, the Chinese Government and media have somehow felt empowered to translate such teachings to mean the exact opposite.

Confusion over this matter stems from the fact that so many Falun Gong practitioners choose not to take medicine anymore after beginning cultivation practice. The key term here is “choose.” As in every other facet of Falun Gong practice, how one handles one’s health is a free choice. Since most every Falun Gong practitioner becomes or is healthy, they just choose not to take medicine. It is that simple: why would one want to take medicine if one feels healthy or doesn’t consider one’s body to have any illness? Several major health surveys done in China support such behavior, as the findings suggest that regular practice of Falun Gong is itself “good medicine.”(see Attachments A3-5)

Suffice to say, on the issue of taking medicine a practitioner of Falun Gong is totally free to decide for himself or herself--making right decisions is at the heart of cultivation practice. Should a non-practitioner family member or young child become sick, a practitioner would not hesitate for a second to take him or her for proper medical treatment. To think that Mr. Li could possibly “control” the daily decisions of practitioner in China when, in fact, Mr. Li has not given a public lecture in China since 1994, is simply absurd. Additionally, doing so would undermine the practice he has taught students. The Chinese Government says that Mr. Li fancies himself almighty, yet, ironically, it is the Government which bestows upon him the most mighty super-human powers.

With a little background on Falun Gong and the issue of medicine, one is ready to critically engage the Chinese Government’s claim that Falun Gong causes mental illness, suicide, and death to its practitioners.

2. Examining the Alleged “1,400 Deaths” and Harm Caused by Falun Gong

According to Chinese Government sources and official, state-run media, the official number of deaths attributed to Falun Gong has been recently set at an even 1,400. Despite repeated requests for further information about this statistic, Chinese sources have not been able to offer sources or methods used in producing this number. The number has a somewhat elastic and mysterious feel to it for those who have been following the crackdown, as the first statistic given by the Chinese Government was almost half this number, 743.3 At the beginning of the crackdown, a Ministry of Public Security spokesperson stated that “superstition” and “witchery” spread by Li and Falun Gong were to blame for the deaths of these 743 “followers” who had refused medical treatment, committed murder, or committed suicide.4 Yet more strange is that in Falun Gong’s seven years prior to the persecution, never were any of these alleged 743 or 1,400 cases reported. The number just appeared, mysteriously, along with many other indictments. One should recall from Part III, Sec. 1, that Falun Gong was promoted by the government for several years on account of its profound health benefits. Could it really be that Falun Gong practice suddenly went devious across the country in its latter three or four years? Going on the Chinese Government’s numbers and explanations, a number of issues beg consideration and analysis.

a. the claim that Falun Gong induces psychosis and suicide

First, we can consider the claim that Falun Gong “caused” severe mental illness, resulting even in irrational behavior, suicide and death. According to the Chinese Government, “Since beginning the practice of Falun Gong, many people have lost their appetites, some appeared to be disorganized in words and behavior, and some became paranoid. Still others found themselves suffering from hallucinations. A number of people jumped into rivers or off buildings, or killed themselves in other ways. Some even cruelly injured or killed relatives and friends.”5

This dramatic claim is more frightening propaganda than reality. The first key term is “caused.” The reasons for mental illness are very complex. Modern medical science refuses, in fact, to speak in simplistic, reductionist language in handling the etiology of mental illness; the Chinese Government apparently assumes the general public is too ignorant to notice its pseudo-medical speak. To employ the wild language of mental illness to attack Falun Gong does not conform with basic medical knowledge and finds no legal basis whatsoever. The Government is offering rhetoric, not scientific knowledge. If there is any connection between qigong practice and mental illness, it exists in the pages of Chinese folklore and not medical literature. To posit, then, that Falun Gong practice works mechanistically to somehow induce psychosis is irresponsible and deceptive. Were the Chinese Government’s remarks about Falun Gong’s alleged, unpleasant mental side-effects true, one might wonder if millions of people would continue with or begin this practice--particularly when there are many alternative qigong and taiji to choose from.

There is no question that mental illness is a serious problem facing China today: over 16 million mentally-ill patients are distributed in all occupations and social groups of Chinese society.6 The bigger question, however, lies in attributing mental illness to Falun Gong. Can it be expected that none of these 16 million people have decided to practice Falun Gong, regardless of Mr. Li’s admonition for mentally-ill persons not to? Given that all Falun Gong materials were for years available for inexpensive purchase, that all materials are available for free viewing or download on the internet, and that nobody will stop you from practicing (as there is no organization, leadership, or membership), it is very likely that some of these persons would take up the practice of Falun Gong. These people, as Mr. Li has stated, are not suited for practicing. Unable to grasp the principles of Falun Gong and live according to them, the mentally-ill person will not receive health benefits characteristic to Falun Gong. Neither will their mental problems find relief. Sadly, they are bound to suffer the same symptoms and challenges of before, as they are certainly not genuine, self-aware, Falun Gong practitioners. When they commit bad deeds or harm themselves, can this be blamed on Falun Gong? Should they attend church, should their behaviors be blamed on Christianity? Simply, one cannot assert causality when at best there might exist affiliation.

The Chinese Government has also erred with its wild rhetoric in asserting that some of those alleged “1,400 deaths” are Falun Gong-induced suicides. First, it can be said that where there is suicide there is mental disturbance; most likely there is some form of mental illness, be it common (as in depression) or severe (as in psychosis). Now if there is no known medical basis for asserting that Falun Gong could induce mental illness, how can one go so far as to suggest that it incurs suicide? Even the Chinese Government has not tried to assert that Falun Gong is a self-destructive practice, as every page of Mr. Li Hongzhi’s teachings tell otherwise.7 At a very minimum one can say that suicide has a very complex variety of triggers, not easily isolated. One is thus again left to assume that there is some causal mechanism being posited by Chinese officials. Such a claim is even more imaginative and not worth pursuing any further.

But for the sake of argument we can pretend--only to illustrate the absurdity of the “1,400” number--that a good number of 100 of those alleged deaths were indeed by suicide. Leaving aside the question of causality, we can consider the matter of suicide in China from a broader perspective: that of population statistics. For the year 1999 in China, some 200,000 people committed suicide.8 As the population of China in 1998 was 1.25 billion,9 this means that the death-by-suicide mortality rate in China is
0.16 (that is, 16 people out of 100 thousand would die of suicide). This means that if one were to take a random sampling of the population, 16 of 100 thousand people could be expected to die in a given year from suicide. We can assert that Falun Gong had 70 million practitioners as of early 1999.10 (Note: 70 million is likely a conservative estimate, as the Chinese Government itself figured by way of an early 1999 census that the number of practitioners was between 70-100 million.) If this group of practitioners did not practice Falun Gong and were members of the general population, we could project that 11,200 would have died by suicide in 1999. According to what is supposed to be the Chinese Government’s incriminating “facts,” however, perhaps a mere 100 or so practitioners died by way of suicide in seven years (note: the 1,400 number is for alleged deaths in Falun Gong’s 7 year history). Were all of these alleged deaths to have come in the year 1999 alone, we could still say that Falun Gong had saved around 11,100 lives. So to have some number of deaths out of 1,400 in 7 years be allegedly by suicide in a population of 70 million persons (practitioners) is remarkable, as one would expect over 11,000 deaths in just one year alone. Falun Gong could be said to be astoundingly effective in preventing suicide when examined in this light. Several health surveys done on Falun Gong practitioners in China confirm that Falun Gong is exceptionally beneficial to mental health. (see Attachments A3-5)

All numbers aside, murder and suicide--or even simply harming others intentionally--are acts absolutely incongruous with the principles of Falun Gong. With truthfulness, compassion and forbearance guiding cultivation, acts that harm others are totally unacceptable. This is why there has yet to be a case of a Falun Gong practitioner fighting back when abused during the past year’s persecution; it is why the Zhongnanhai incident (see part 2, below) was perhaps the most peaceful protest gathering of 10,000 in history; this is why practitioners do not commit acts of violence--towards oneself or others. Mr. Li has been explicit on this topic, indicating that one is better off not even swatting a mosquito; even this is an act of violence to a Falun Gong practitioner. Should a “practitioner” commit suicide or murder, there is something seriously wrong with this person and he or she is anything but a Falun Gong practitioner. Most likely, this person was one of those psychotic persons who wrongfully tried to practice Falun Gong. But this does not mean there is any connection between the two, let alone a causal connection.

If one violates the rules of an organization, religion, or club one might no longer be considered a member of that group. If one violates a serious rule of society, one is imprisoned for it and no longer considered to be a member of that society. Falun Gong, as a serious practice, has some serious principles that one pays attention to. Even these, however, are up to the individual person to decide to follow. But if a person should decide not to, how can he or she be considered a practitioner of Falun Dafa? Understanding the principles is an essential aspect of Falun Gong. People who violate its principles are not considered practitioners, and those unfortunate people with psychosis were never considered practitioners.

When people are free to make individual choices, some irresponsible people might make irresponsible choices. But when the choices are completely opposite to what cultivation practice teaches, the cultivation cannot be blamed. If a teacher teaches something and the student chooses to do the opposite, does one then point one’s finger at the teacher or the student? This should be easy to see.

This has not stopped the Chinese Government from employing twisted logic. If the Chinese government can medically demonstrate the mechanisms by which Falun Gong supposedly induces psychotic behavior in previously healthy people, they will be ushering in a new frontier in psychiatry. Such findings would undoubtedly be quickly found in prestigious medical journals. But until now, they have only been found buried amidst venomous propaganda churned out by China’s state-run media. Such claims cannot be taken seriously. Sure enough, alleged “cases” that have been subjected to independent investigation have been revealed as falsification. (see Attachments A1, A2) Until that unlikely day, people are better off going on the statistics of the several major medical studies which found Falun Gong practice very beneficial to mental well-being. (see Attachments A4, A5)

b. the claim that Falun Gong causes death through abstention from medicine

As already shown in part 1 (“Falun Gong’s teachings on medicine and medical treatment”), Mr. Li and his Falun Gong have always, unequivocally stated that people must make their own decisions on pursuing medical treatment; one can also peruse Mr. Li’s writings, lectures, and interview Falun Gong practitioners to easily confirm this for oneself. What’s more, as indicated, the validity of alleged “cases” in this regard are also questionable. (again, see Attachments A1, A2) In this part what we would like to do is take the argument a step further, and consider the issues of medical treatment, medical complications, and death in statistical relief by way of population data. In this light, the picture is the same: the Chinese Government is manipulating numbers to serve its political agenda.

So here we will consider the Chinese Government’s case on its own terms, examining the feasibility of its numbers. First, for the sake of argument we will imagine that 1,400 practitioners of Falun Gong died as a result of forgoing medical treatment, and that these deaths all somehow occurred in 1999 (though this is actual a seven-year total); we will generously allow that the initial 743 number was some sort of miscalculation. Along with this we will suppose that all Falun Gong practitioners cannot take medicine, as claimed by the Chinese Government; the vast majority opt not to take it anyway, so it is very fair to say that any practitioner’s death in 1999 should have been included in this “1,400” figure. The next supposition is that 70 million people practiced Falun Gong in China at the time of the ban. Notably, the vast majority of Falun Gong practitioners came to the practice with some degree of illness, often seeking relief from their symptoms through cultivation; many were affected with chronic illness that had resisted efforts by conventional medical treatment. Also significant is that the bulk of practitioners were retired, elderly persons; death and illness, of course, are much nearer for this segment of the population. Some surprising things can be determined from these suppositions.

Consider the following analysis on the issue of abstinence from medicine for the year of 1999 alone. What we ask here is: What would have happened had these practitioners sought medical treatment while practicing Falun Gong, rather than abstaining from it? Of the 70 million Falun Gong practitioners who each, allegedly, abstained from medical treatment, 1,400 passed away. This means that a miniscule 0.02 Falun Gong practitioners died for every 1000 that practice (0.02 mortality rate). Now consider that in the United States some 140,000 people die in a given year as a result of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR), while another 98,000 die from medical error;11 this puts total deaths due to medical treatment at 238,000 per year. In a population of 268 million,12 this equates to 0.89 persons dying for every 1000 (0.89 mortality rate). To be generous, we will assume that medicine in China is as advanced as in the United States, enjoying numerous quality controls and checks, regulatory agencies, etc. Thus, we will figure that the same risks are involved in China in going to the hospital for medical treatment. So if this population of 70 million were to experience the same mortality rate by way of medical error and ADR as does the United States population (0.89), we could expect a whopping 62,300 deaths! That means that simply by virtue of abstaining from medicine and practicing their exercises, Falun Gong practitioners changed their projected annual death toll (due to medical complications) by 60,900. In other words, it would appear that Falun Gong is not so much murderous as miraculous.

Now let’s compare Falun Gong practitioners’ mortality rate for 1999 (0.02) to that of the general, overall Chinese population. Here we ask: What would have happened to these persons were they not practitioners; i.e., were they subject to the same statistical averages as the general population. The age-adjusted mortality rate for China in 1998 was 6.50 (650 deaths per 100,000 people). ¹³ So if this mortality rate were to be assumed for those 70 million persons who practiced Falun Gong in 1999, one would anticipate an astounding 455,000 deaths! That is, this many people would have died according to the laws of averages if they were not practicing Falun Gong and were members of the general population. Apparently Falun Gong practice has a bigger positive impact than previously imagined. And this statistic is taking the aggregate number of 1,400 deaths and putting them into one year alone, no less. This means that Falun Gong practice--which “forced” practitioners to abstain from medicine, recall, according to the Chinese Government--saved the lives of 453,600 persons in 1999. Not bad for an practice that supposedly causes “dire consequences” to people’s health, according to Chinese Government literature. Even compared with the age-adjusted mortality rate for the US in 1999, 4.87, the number 1,400 is nothing.14 Had those practitioners lived in the US, one would still anticipate 340,900 deaths, and this with medicine, no less!

Even if we were to take the Chinese Government’s recent, politically-tailored figure of 2 million to represent the number of Falun Gong practitioners in 1999, then we could still expect that 13000 practitioners would die in a given year (with China’s 6.5 mortality rate) if they were members of the general population. But with only 1,400 supposed cases being scrounged up, this means that Falun Gong practice has still saved about 11600 practitioners’ lives. And again, this is supposing that all alleged deaths occurred in just one year, no less. The scaffolding behind the “1,400 cases” is all-too-easily revealed.

Finally, take into account all of the other factors involved: that the majority of practitioners are elderly; that they often come to the practice ailing; that the alleged 1,400 deaths occurred in fact over 7 years; and that China’s medical situation is not on par with that of the US. Obviously, even the most basic, conservative of statistical analysis demonstrates the absurdity of the Chinese Government’s accusation that Falun Gong practice is dangerous. With these other factors taken into consideration, the claim that Falun Gong adherents’ abstaining from medical treatment is dangerous is not only groundless, but completely out of touch with reality. The facts say just the opposite, and do so resoundingly. And all of this comes simply from engaging the Chinese Government’s claims on their own terms. One should not forget, either, the previously stated matters: that Falun Gong does not require avoidance of medicine; that the Chinese Government blatantly lied about Mr. Li’s teachings and Falun Gong’s principles; that there is no legal or medical evidence that Falun Gong could possibly induce psychosis or suicidal behavior; and that the alleged “1,400 deaths” have neither held up under investigation nor been properly documented. Ultimately, the “1,400 deaths” are in fact evidence that Falun Gong embodies remarkable healing capacities: the mortality rate is incredibly lower than that due to medical error or that of the general population--a population privileged to medical treatment, unlike the poor, “victimized” Falun Gong “followers.”

The irony in all of this, of course, is that Falun Gong’s popularity owes greatly to its profound healing effects-- effects that deeply improve both the mind and body of the practitioner. These have been repeatedly documented and investigated. An enormous number of individual cases of radical healing exist, including many persons rescued from terminal and chronic illnesses. Were Falun Gong dangerous in a manner remotely similar to that portrayed by Chinese officials, would the practice have spread to over 70 million people by word of mouth in a mere 7 years? Would these health seeking, aging persons not have opted for less high-risk systems, such as the government sanctioned taiji and qigong forms? Clearly, people found not risk but benefit in the practice of Falun Gong. And people continue to today, as Falun Gong is now practiced in over 30 countries; its health benefits appear hardly bound by culture.

We find the Chinese Government’s venomous “medical facts” to instead be fabrications and distortions both morally repugnant and indefensible. Worse yet, they have been the foundation for a brutal campaign of persecution and violence directed at Falun Gong practitioners. We would invite the World Health Organization to conduct an independent, fair investigation of this matter. Please, dear reader, consider helping to facilitate such an investigation. We feel it would serve the world well to have the truth of this matter confirmed by an authoritative third party.

II. The Zhongnanhai Gathering: The Facts and Their Meaning

On April 25, 1999, over 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners gathered in neat order at Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Government lead-ership compound in Beijing. In a very peaceful manner, they pleaded with the government to provide an open environment for practicing Falun Gong. This request was precipitated by several incidents of harassment and persecution in weeks prior to April 25. Because this took place at Zhongnanhai, people refer to it as “the Zhongnanhai incident.” This incident became an instant focal point for the whole world because it happened at the most sensitive place in China, and because of the unusually calm and peaceful manner the Falun Gong practitioners consistently maintained. Since the time of the incident and during the current large-scale crack-down, Chinese authorities have utilized this incident to justify their harsh treatment of Falun Gong. As Falun Gong practitioners, we feel it is important to present the truth of the entire incident, so that people will not be misled by the propaganda campaign launched by the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government has referred to this incident as supposed “evidence” that Falun Gong has political aspirations, is a threat to the government, and disrupts the social order. These claims have been repeatedly pronounced by Chinese media both in China and abroad, compounding popular misunderstanding of the event. An honest investigation into the event provides a remarkably different picture, however, and we feel this is long overdue. Such an inquiry leads to several conclusions radically unlike those drawn by the Chinese Government.

1. Sequence of Events

The Falun Gong practitioners went to Zhongnanhai because the Public Security Bureau (PSB) in the city of Tianjin had recently and unlawfully detained 45 Falun Gong practitioners. Since Falun Gong helps people to improve their physical and mental health, the number of its practitioners had increased rapidly in Mainland China, approaching tens of millions in number. According to a government census done in early 1999, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was anywhere between 70 million and 100 million. This caused the Chinese government to consider it a potential political threat, despite its having no political aspirations. Some government officials took advantage of this situation by creating problems in order to gain political credit. Thus, news agencies controlled by the government have been constantly publishing untrue stories and articles that attack Falun Gong.

The Zhongnanhai incident was triggered by the Tianjin event, where He Zuoxiu, from the Chinese Science Academy, published an article titled “I do not agree with adolescents practicing qigong” in Science and Technology for Youth (published by Tianjin Education College). In the article, he fabricated stories about Falun Gong leading to mental illness, and implied that Falun Gong could become an organization similar to the Boxers’, who led a rebellion in the 19th century that destroyed the nation. Many Falun Gong practitioners were disturbed by this spreading of untruths. With no alternative, some practitioners used the governmentapproved approach of appealing to related organizations to correct the false accusations. On April 18, they went to Tianjin Education College and other related offices to report the facts about Falun Gong. This article will explain later why there was no other way to report such accusations.

It was an utter shock when the Tianjin PSB showed up to harass practitioners. They refused to communicate with practitioners appropriately. Instead, they sent people to beat some of the practitioners. On April 23, they started to disperse people and detain them, which eventually blocked the only channel Falun Gong practitioners had for reporting the truth to the government. Practitioners turned to Beijing on April 25 to plead to a higher authority. They asked for the release of the innocent people, for an open and legal environment in which to exercise, and for the easing of the pressure that the government had put on Falun Gong practitioners for a long time.

Initially, practitioners gathered around Zhongnanhai. Later, several policemen told them that one place was not safe, and that another place was off limits. Following these rules, the practitioners divided into two groups that circled Zhongnanhai. Later, He Zuoxiu arrived, trying to disturb the practitioners; but no one responded to him.

According to a witness, on the evening of April 24, some practitioners working in the public security department had already submitted their name cards to Zhongnanhai, asking for a chance to report the situation. There was no response. At 9 p.m., practitioners started to gather on Fuyou Street near Zhongnanhai, some with luggage, some with meditation mats. Most of them were from cities outside of Beijing.

At 6 a.m. on April 25, a witness went to the north entrance of Fuyou Street, and discovered that policemen were blocking the way to Zhongnanhai. None of the practitioners attempted to force their way through, but they witnessed an astonishing scene. Police first led the practitioners from the east side of the street to the west side, and then directed them to walk south towards Zhongnanhai. Meanwhile, another group came from the opposite direction, also led by police, and both groups met right outside the main entrance of Zhongnanhai. According to the media, there were over 10,000 practitioners gathered outside Zhongnanhai.

Soon there were practitioners approaching from all directions. They filled all the sidewalks outside of Zhongnanhai. But the traffic was not blocked at all; even the route for the handicapped people remained clear. There were 70-year-old and 80-year-old men and women, pregnant women who were near the end of their term, and mothers holding their newborn babies. Many of them hardly ate any food or drank any water to reduce the time needed for using the restroom. No one knew where others came from. They “came from nowhere, disappeared to nowhere.”15

Practitioners did not wander on the streets, did not have any slogans or signs, and did not start any fights. In China, appealing to the government does not require a permit from the PSB. Each practitioner went to represent only his or her own views. They came to report the mistreatment that they and their friends had been experiencing, and did not violate any laws or regulations. Since practitioners thought that they had achieved the goal of expressing their concerns and seeking understanding and support from the government, they quietly dispersed at 11:30 p.m. (4/26, Central Daily).

2. Causes of the Incident

On the surface, the Zhongnanhai incident seemed to be triggered by the Tianjin incident and an anti-Falun Gong article from He Zuoxiu. In fact, the original reason for such incidents stemmed from the central authorities’ anxiety about the unprecedented popularity of Falun Gong. Seven years after Mr. Li’s first public lecture in 1992, there were about 70 to 80 million practitioners in Mainland China. This is to say that understanding the incident is very complex, as it had both long term and short term causes, and was related to political struggles inside the Communist Party.

a. long-term and short-term causes

The long-term cause of the Zhongnanhai incident was the ongoing suppression of Falun Gong. With the rapid spreading of Falun Gong, the central authority was afraid of losing its control over the people. The government had therefore been attempting to undermine Falun Gong through the media, by banning books, by conducting underground investigations, and by disrupting practice sites in recent years. The government had already been attempting to destroy the practitioners’ environment for practicing Falun Gong. There was no other way to express the facts about the incidents and the practice than to appeal to central authorities. The April 25 gathering at Zhongnanhai aimed at doing just this.

The central authorities began their criticism of Falun Gong on June 17, 1996. On that day, the Guangming Daily (the official voice of the State Council, articles that reflect only the opinions of government officials) published an article criticizing Falun Gong as an “anti-science” and “superstitious” practice, and labeled its practitioners as “stupid” people.

On July 24, 1996, the Chinese News Publishing Office issued a notice about “immediately confiscating five books, including China Falun Gong” nationwide. Following that, dozens of newspapers and magazines started to join the campaign against Falun Gong. Some official scholars such as He Zuoxiu were also active in the campaign. They used their being considered “scientists” to slander Falun Gong. The Central Office of National Publication and Central Propaganda Ministry also ordered all publishing companies not to publish books related to Falun Gong.

Some official departments started investigating Falun Gong at the beginning of 1997. The Public Security Ministry deployed a nationwide investigation of Falun Gong, using the rationale that Falun Gong fit into the category of so-called illegal religious activities. Since Falun Gong practice contains no such activities, this investigation found nothing to prosecute. Related official departments then formed a team to monitor Falun Gong. Meanwhile, they ordered all Physical Education departments to investigate Falun Gong activities. Although all responses from PE departments were positive, and although their reports indicated that Falun Gong is an activity that improves health, cures illnesses, and has no illegal religious elements, the Public Security Ministry nonetheless insisted that a close monitoring of Falun Gong activities was necessary.

On July 21, 1998, some official departments again issued a “Notice for conducting investigation against Falun Gong”, insisting that Mr. Li was spreading an evil cult and that Falun Gong key members were conducting criminal activities. The notice also ordered all local public security and political protection departments to investigate the internal activities of these people and to look for evidence of any crimes within Falun Gong. It is apparent that the public security departments had labeled Falun Gong as engaging in criminal activities, without any evidence. This was, in other words, an incident of conviction before investigation.

After this document was issued, many local PSB’s announced that Falun Gong activities were considered illegal assemblies. They dispersed group practices, confiscated the private property of practitioners, and detained, arrested, beat, and verbally abused Falun Gong practitioners. In some areas, practitioners were fined, and Falun-Gong related books were banned. Practitioners tried many times to appeal through normal channels, but were not successful.

In Mainland China there is only one official voice, so many articles have been published that have criticized, cursed, and slandered Falun Gong in the past four years. No articles defending Falun Gong were able to be published. Under these conditions where no other options were available, Falun Gong practitioners went to Zhongnanhai, asking the government to give them an unrestricted environment in which to practice. In short, the Zhongnanhai appeal was caused by the long-term slandering that Falun Gong had suffered at the hands of the government. In addition, practitioners had no other venue for reporting the facts in Mainland China--there is no other way to practice freedom of speech.

The other, short-term reason for appealing to Zhongnanhai, as mentioned above, was to ask for the release of the practitioners arrested in the Tianjin incident. The attempt to report that incident to authorities in Tianjin backfired and the Tianjin PSB detained 45 practitioners. In Mainland China, an appeal is not only a legally protected right, but also the only channel that practitioners can use to report the facts. The practitioners’ gathering in Beijing was a legal appeal, the only anomaly was that the number of people that attended was so large.

b. political causes

The government’s suppression, which led to the Zhongnanhai incident, was likely related to political struggles among high-level officials. Different groups within the central government held a variety of views on Falun Gong. Among them, a few tried to capitalize on destroying Falun Gong in order to advance their political careers. According to a report from the Central News Agency (5/4 from Taipei), the government’s political scheme behind the April 25 incident could be described as a “release before capturing” and a “ruse of suffering [by the government] before charging [against Falun Gong]”. The purpose was to make Zhongnanhai appear to feel pressure, and then to outlaw Falun Gong, allowing the government to demonstrate its might in demolishing this so-called threat.

As early as 1996, the rapid development of Falun Gong was noticed by some departments in the central government. Luo Gan, Secretary General of the State Council at the time, ordered the Public Security Ministry to conduct a secret investigation. Personnel in the public security system participated undercover in various Falun Gong activities, but no evidence of criminal conduct was seen.

Even with the lack of evidence, there were still two opinions inside the government about how to deal with Falun Gong. One side thought that Falun Gong was a public security issue and not a political problem. Therefore, it should not be banned. The other side worried about the increasing popularity and influence of Falun Gong, which could potentially be a force opposing the Communist Party regime. They insisted on banning it. Luo Gan, Secretary of the Central Committee of Political and Legal Affairs in early 1998, actively advocated the banning of Falun Gong. Prime Minister Zhu Rongji rejected the idea, and President Jiang Zemin did not express an opinion.

Luo Gan is a relative of He Zuoxiu of the Chinese Science Academy. Zuoxiu had used the media to openly slander Falun Gong, and tried to create conflict between Falun Gong and the central government. His purpose was to create incidents that would lead all groups in the Communist Party to agree that outlawing Falun Gong was correct and necessary. After the April 25 incident, Luo Gan reported that Falun Gong had tens of millions of followers, possessed a religious and superstitious nature, and that Mr. Li, who currently lives in New York, was suspected of having a complex network of international connections. He reported that Falun Gong was, therefore, a potential threat to social stability. These opinions were even widely distributed to Hong Kong and the international media, intending to exaggerate the potential “threat” of Falun Gong. How could those practitioners, without having an organization, appear to be “well organized and directed”? Could this be why public security officers pretended to be practitioners? Three days before the Zhongnanhai appeal, the public security departments had already received information of the appeal and had started to monitor the situation closely. They did not report this information at the time before the incident, but preferred to take the blame afterwards. Wasn’t this a “ruse of suffering before charging”?

Other evidence showed that the April 25 incident was a trap set up by the public security personnel, and innocent Falun Gong practitioners stepped into the trap before they knew it. The next part will analyze this topic.

3. Some Clarifications

a. surrounding Zhongnanhai was the Chinese Security Department’s trick

It is claimed that Falun Gong practitioners “surrounded” Zhongnanhai because they formed a circle around the area. In fact, this arrangement was set up by the Security Department. In the first part, we shared an eyewitness description of the events. He stated that the Falun Gong practitioners were led by police to take two routes that converged at the front entrance of Zhongnanhai and formed a circle. Even as that witness was telling us the facts, he did not notice that the police had tricked the people. He simply stated what he had seen. Many people, including Falun Gong practitioners, were not aware of the situation after reading his description. It wasn’t until June 24 that some practitioners pointed out this plot in an article they published on the Internet.

It was mentioned in part 2 that three days before the April 25 incident, the Security Department had received information and was closely monitoring the situation. They chose not to report the information and to rather take the criticism afterwards. It was also reported that when He Zuoxiu was asked to comment on the incident, he said, “For the time being, I will not comment because I do not want to mess up the whole arrangement.”16 Did certain people in some government departments plan the April 25 incident? Might the articles of He Zuoxiu and the arrest of Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin Security Bureau all have been small traps that were part of one master plan?

b. Falun Gong practitioners went to Beijing only to make an appeal

As stated in part 2, practitioners went to Beijing and Tianjin because there was no other way to report the truth. The approach they took is called “appealing,” which is a right protected by Chinese law. According to Item 41 in the “People’s Republic of China Constitution,” citizens have the right to submit criticism of and suggestions for any national institutions and staff. Citizens have the right to appeal to, file suit, or speak up to national institutions regarding any conduct of institutions or staff that violates the law or fails to fulfill responsibilities. It is stated in the 10th Code of the Chinese “Appealing Codes” that issues in the appealing process should be submitted to related executive departments, or to one level higher, as these departments have the legal right to make decisions.

The gatherings of Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin and Zhongnanhai should not be considered demonstrations. After the Tianjin PSB arrested practitioners on April 23, some practitioners gathered at the Office of Appeals of the Tianjin City government just to appeal and present the facts. The appeal was not well received, however. Instead, about 40 more people were arrested. As a result, Falun Gong practitioners had to appeal to the level above the Tianjin City government, which is the central government in Beijing. Practitioners didn’t wander around the streets, so it can’t be called a parade. They didn’t have banners or signs, so it can’t be called a demonstration. In China, appealing does not require application to the PSB. Each practitioner just represents himself, reporting the unjust treatment he or his friends and relatives have experienced. The appeals in Tianjin and Beijing did not violate any regulations.

Mr. Li has always taught Falun Gong practitioners that they must not violate the law. Anyone genuine practitioner would abide by this teaching, one of the principles of Falun Gong, and would not violate the law. Therefore, throughout the incidents, practitioners have always maintained peaceful and kind conduct. They were orderly and cooperated with the arrangements and directions of the police. They stood where the personnel from the Office of Appeals and the traffic police told them to, waiting to be received by officials. The whole process did not involve any signs or slogans, nor did it block the traffic. Practitioners even picked up all the trash on the ground in the area. Such details were reported by international media.

c. the Zhongnanhai incident was not planned by Mr. Li or any genuine Falun Gong practitioner

In the ten thousand-word report prepared by the Chinese PSB, Mr. Li was accused of being in Beijing the day before April 25, supposedly orchestrating the whole incident behind the scenes. In fact, Mr. Li passed through Beijing on his way to Australia to attend a Falun Gong conference, but was not in Beijing on that day. To reduce the cost of his airline ticket , he had layovers in Beijing and Hong Kong. He stayed for 48 hours in Beijing during the transfer and left Beijing on April 24 for Hong Kong. The Chinese government claims that this was not an accident and that Mr. Li was planning things while using the excuse of transferring airplanes.

As stated in Part 2, however, there are also people wondering whether the Zhongnanhai incident was planned by a few people from the public security departments. We do not know for certain, neither do we want to speculate about who planned the Zhongnanhai incident. We would simply like to question the false accusation that Mr. Li arranged it.

The Chinese government wondered how, without any organization, so many people arrived at Zhongnanhai at the same time. In fact, it was largely due to practitioners’ personal networking and exercise environment. The spread of Falun Gong is mostly done by individual practitioners who, after personally benefiting from it, tell their friends and families. Many people practice in parks with groups. Without having an organization, and without anyone official to plan it, any activities would still have been known by many people in a short period of time through this type of personal network.

d. how 10,000 can gather without being “organized” ¹⁷

Disbelief surrounding the gathering of 10,000 in the absence of an organization stems from a lack of under-standing Falun Gong itself. One needs to begin by under-standing that practitioners work on their self-cultivation practice daily. They strive to improve themselves, performing the exercises and working on personal conduct. They find this practice to be extraordinarily good, and typically experience great mental and physical benefits. Their hearts are touched in a profound way, so they enjoy sharing these benefits with others in need. So when practitioners found Falun Gong being viciously slandered and misrepresented by the media, they wanted to see it corrected. They wanted to give their perspective, allowing readers to know the truth.

One can easily imagine a person in this situation thinking, “I can’t appear on TV, get a news article published, or get anyone to tell my side of the story. I feel very strongly about it, so I’ll just go express my opinion.” If we can imagine one person feeling this way, can we imagine two? Why not three individuals thinking this way?

Where those who are genuinely perplexed by the Zhongnanhai gathering get tripped up is with the number 10,000. It is easy to imagine one, two, or three people deciding to go appeal. But 10,000--that seems necessarily coordinated and planned. But why so? We are really talking about individuals making individual decisions. Yes, there were a lot of individuals at Zhongnanhai, yet there are a lot of individuals who practice Falun Gong, quite a lot. Most did not go. If those who practice Falun Gong had leaders that were coordinating them to make a grand statement, would we expect only 10,000? Consider that there were then between 70-100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. We have seen in the oppression that followed Zhongnanhai (and that continues now) that practitioners have been willing to subject themselves to detention, arrest, beatings, and physical abuse in order to let the facts be known. They have demonstrated willingness to lose their jobs, opportunity for education, social standing, and economic security in order to uphold their belief in the principles of Falun Gong. With such tenacious dedication to Falun Gong, if they had leaders orchestrating a grand movement--a big, politically-bold one--would we expect to see a mere .01% of this determined “membership” turn out? Wouldn’t an orchestrated movement allow time for countless non-locals to arrive for the event? Having .01% turn out to make a statement for something that so upset those people indicates that the Zhongnanhai incident was certainly not an orchestrated campaign.

Still, people have trouble imagining so many people going to Zhongnanhai on their own. Could they really have made that decision independently? One need only recall that in 1980, spontaneous gatherings in Europe cropped up all over the country and in many other parts of the world to rally for the slain John Lennon. People appeared with banners, drawings, candles, music and memorabilia. Who organized this? What committee dispatched them? Who distributed the photos and records they carried? We know, of course, that these were people spontaneously following their hearts. Such was the case at Zhongnanhai.

Some remark, “Well, the discipline at Zhongnanhai was described as being higher than that of the official police on the scene. This takes training.” Yes, it would take extensive training to get a large crowd to be that disciplined. But what if each individual had been disciplining him or herself every day for years--learning principles and improving him or herself until impulsive emotional responses were gone, learning to consider others first, and training to be a better and better person in every regard? Falun Gong is a serious practice. Every one of those people at Zhongnanhai was simply manifesting what they had learned in Falun Gong, following the principles that had spiritually improved, moved, and elevated them. This is the standard of behavior they try to maintain every day--in their homes, workplaces, schools, and so on. Why should their behavior at Zhongnanhai be any different? If one examines it carefully, it is not so hard to understand. It is much easier for an individual to be disciplined than a crowd. This was a crowd of disciplined individuals. No traffic was disrupted, no slogans chanted, no banners or signs waved, and nobody harassed or intimidated. The Falun Gong practitioners not only picked up their own litter, they picked up the cigarette butts flicked by police officers. This was clearly no political protest.

4. Summary: Who has Actually “Disrupted Social Stability”?

The Zhongnanhai incident originated from a legal attempt to appeal to a government agency. Why was there such a tragic result? It was surely not expected by those well-intentioned and peaceful Falun Gong practitioners who went to the appealing offices. If we had not read through so much information and tried to find clues, we would not have been able to identify the causes of the incident. The Zhongnanhai incident was not planned by Mr. Li Hongzhi or by any other genuine Falun Dafa practitioner. Since the central authority has been worried about the large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners, and since they have refused to believe that Falun Gong would not cause any political problems, they obviously sought a way to eliminate Falun Gong. It was an opportunity for the central authority to suppress and prosecute Falun Gong. The Zhongnanhai incident created the perfect situation for execution of their plans.

One CCTV program alleged that, after beginning to practice Falun Gong, one man turned his back on his family and relatives, and instead got obsessed with doing the exercises day and night. In so doing, this man, in fact, had already deviated far from a basic principle of Falun Gong practice, which is to be a normal family member and worker, without ever going to extremes in one’s practice. Mr. Li has, in many of his lectures, repeatedly reminded practitioners of the importance of the relationships between self-cultivation and work, and between self-cultivation and family life, asking that all practitioners accord their practice of Falun Gong to the activities of normal, everyday life. For example, Mr. Li states in Zhuan Falun, “Of course, during cultivation in the society of common people, we should respect parents, guide our children, and try to be good and kind towards others under all circumstances, not to mention our relatives. We should treat everyone the same, be nice to both parents and children, and be considerate toward others in everything we do. Such a heart will be unselfish, kind and benevolent.” The above so-called Falun Gong practitioner is not a genuine practitioner, because he actually did not comply with the standards of Falun Gong whatsoever.

Practitioners of Falun Gong are known for being exemplary citizens. In the workplace, they are diligent, committed, and honest workers, are not concerned with personal gains or losses, are strict with themselves, and kind and considerate toward others. Many Falun Gong practitioners have been well known as the best workers in their work units. In the city of Changchun, there was a saying that circulated among employers who were hiring, “We will hire whoever is practicing Falun Gong, because we wish our minds to be at ease.” At home, practitioners are good husbands, good wives, and good children, always working to ensure a peaceful and harmonious family life. These qualities do not disrupt social order, but ensure it.

Mr. Li has clearly stated, “All Falun Gong cultivators have to strictly obey the laws of various countries. Any behaviors that violate the policies and laws of a country are prohibited by the virtues of Falun Gong.” Emphasis on compassion, harmony and serenity ensure a society that runs smoothly, matching well the Chinese Government’s desire to have “Stability above all else.” No matter whether they are on the street, at work, or with their families, all Falun Gong practitioners try their best to help others and be a positive part of society. Rather than praising and embracing Falun Gong’s positive impact on society, the government has instead chased millions and millions of good people to the opposite side of the government and has stirred up strife, causing great social unrest. Parents have been hauled off to jails or sent to labor camps, leaving their kids behind, sometimes even unattended. Families and communities have been physically ripped apart by the Chinese Government’s persecution. Mother’s have been made to slander their daughters, sons to turn in their fathers, and neighbors to police and report on one another. Literally, nobody has been allowed to remain neutral. Countless students have been kicked out of school for practicing Falun Gong. Numerous adults have been dismissed from work and heavily fined for not renouncing their practice. Who then, we ask the Chinese Government, has disrupted social stability? If Falun Gong had, somehow, in some minor way disrupted social stability (and this has yet to be shown at all), then the Chinese Government has clear-ly, objectively outdone the practice one-hundred fold.

III. Is Falun Gong a Cult, Religion, or Organization?

1. Is Falun Gong a Cult?

It is understandable why this question is raised in the West: It comes from not knowing. Confused by a barrage of persuasive, dramatized accusations rippling forth daily from the Chinese Government’s propaganda machine, Westerner’s often learn to associate the terms “cult” or “religion” with Falun Gong. These characterizations are, however, grossly misleading. They tell more about Chinese Officials’ political agenda than about Falun Gong. Due to the problematic connotations of the derogatory label “cult,” we think a response to this accusatory term is due. Falun Gong is most comfortable being subjected to fair scrutiny.

Most simply, Falun Gong is not a cult. Cults dominate all aspects of their member’s lives, negatively controlling their minds and bodies. Members surrender all material goods, both to enrich the cult itself and to render the cultists completely dependent. Cults typically live communally, with members being deprived of sleep and food, all the while being brainwashed with the cult’s doctrine. All Falun Gong activities are free and entirely voluntary, as practitioners are never asked for money or donations. They live normal lives, with their own families, and hold ordinary jobs of all kinds. Whether they practice or not simply depends on whether they believe it to be a good thing, for there is no supervision or compulsion of any kind.

The first issue usually connected with cults is that of money. Cult members are pressured to bring in money by raising funds and from their own homesteads. The results are typically catastrophic for their families and friends. Falun Gong is not involved in any such activities. No one is asked to donate anything, no one raises any funds, and money is not exchanged. Our practice is very simple and does not require any material resources. If we attend an experience sharing conference out of town, we will often travel together and share hotels. At the end of a trip, travel and lodging expenses are often paid on one account for convenience. Great care is taken that everyone pays only his or her own share and that no one has finished with any profit. If someone overpays it is not accepted and the difference is returned. It is done the way you would expect when traveling with friends you greatly trust.

Some materials are often used in Falun Gong that may be purchased by practitioners should they wish. They are ordinary and actually quite optional when it comes to purchasing them. The most important of these are the books. There has been a lot of criticism of Mr. Li because of the sale of books. This is ridiculous--Stephen King is never criticized for selling books, regardless of their content. Nor are spiritual figures, such as the Dalai Lama or Tich Nhat Hahn--both of whom have published dozens of books--or other Buddhist masters. Everybody understands and fully expects someone to make money if they publish a successful book. But if Mr. Li has created Falun Gong in order to trick people and is doing it for the purpose of making money, then he is doing so in an extremely inefficient and foolish manner.

The books of Falun Gong are China Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun, with Zhuan Falun being the primary text. Every practitioner should read Zhuan Falun for a firm understanding of the practice, but it’s not necessary a practitioner to buy it. A beginner approaching the practice site is welcome to borrow a copy. If he becomes interested in practicing Falun Gong, he probably will not be asked for its return (although this would be up to the person who loaned it--it’s just that practitioners are usually very generous and are happy to see someone’s interest develop; the question of property of the book isn’t an issue). If the new person decides he is not interested in Falun Gong, he might be asked to return the book. It is never necessary for him to buy a copy in order to find out if he is or is not interested. This would never happen in a cult, or even in most ordinary organizations. The interested borrower usually returns it anyway. He then may buy his own copy, borrow one from a library, or even download a free copy from the Internet. It is not necessary to buy one at all. If one has no Internet access, someone will download and print a copy for that person, taking no money for it.

The price usually charged for martial arts books, taiji quan books or meditation books are usually higher than “regular” books--often much higher. Yet as of Fall, 1999, one could get the books of Falun Gong for as little as $6 to $12 each. This is at least half of the fair market value of “regular” books and easily one third of what one would expect to buy martial arts books for. Zhuan Falun is more than 390 pages long and most copies are imported from Hong Kong. These people obviously are not after our money. With production, publication, import, all of the various people that have to be paid percentages, etc., when a book is published and distributed, what large profits is Mr. Li taking? He surely could take more and it would be completely reasonable, simply on the business level. He has chosen otherwise, however, making the practice accessible to all economic classes.

There is an exercise video available. The copies some people have are dubbed duplicates. They are copied at the suggestion of practitioners who loan them. Should one buy it, one could get it for a mere $9-$12. It comes in a professional plastic case with a color insert. One might wonder how they clear the material expenses, as there is obviously no profit in it. Have you ever priced a kung fu or taiji instruction video? Kung fu videos are often even as high as sixty dollars or more; twenty at least. And what does it cost to learn Tae Bo? All instruction in Falun Gong throughout the world is free. No one is persuaded to buy anything and the materials are available for free. If you decided to take up Falun Gong and don’t wish to spend a penny on it, this is completely possible. No practice site in the world collects any money, as no fees or donations are accepted. This is a lousy way to run a business, but a great way to run an upright self-cultivation practice.

Another feature evident in cults is the preoccupation with recruitment and isolation of its new members. Practitioners of Falun Gong are very interested in getting the word out about our practice. What does this mean? Simply, they want to let people know there is such a cultivation practice known as Falun Gong, or “Falun Dafa.” Why? We find the benefits simply too good to keep to ourselves, for many of us have enjoyed remarkable improvements in health, mind, and spirit. Practitioners will mention to others that there is a book called Zhuan Falun by Li Hongzhi, and that it teaches good things. They have found the practice to be exceptionally good and leading them to a higher understanding; the positive results manifest in a variety of ways. So they wish to share it and get the word out. But getting the word out does not include coercion or even persuasion. A book to read, exercises to learn--the rest of Falun Gong is up to you. Practice with a group, fine. Practice at home, fine. Read with the group, read at home--all the same. We think it is very good for beginners to at least be in contact with an experienced practitioner, as there is often interference when someone begins a serious self-cultivation practice. But it’s up to the beginner to establish this contact--asking questions, etc. If you’ve borrowed a book from someone and they haven’t heard from you, they may call to ask if you’re finished with it; please return it if you’re not interested in reading it. But you will never find a practitioner showing up at your door, your workplace, calling you on the phone, etc., telling you why you should be interested. Self-cultivation is up to you--no one can do it for you and no one can persuade or convince you into enlightenment. It is nothing so cheap! If you can do it, great. You will find there is support. If you cannot, how can someone push you to do it? In fact, it would be detrimental to one’s own progress in cultivation if someone were to push a person to do something he or she didn’t want to do or to drag someone to a site he or she didn’t want to go to. As a simple example, how could anyone meditate if they didn’t want to? Wouldn’t it be impossible? It is up to you to decide to do it. Falun Gong is also like that.

No practitioner is under any pressure, guidance, encouragement or reward to bring in or recruit other people. We would never do that. You can “hear” the Fa (law or principle of the universe) or you can opt not to-- that is your own business. We certainly want people to know that it is available to them, but that is all we can do. Also, practitioners are not isolated in any way. We do not leave our normal environment or undergo an “indoctri-nation.” When we are introduced to Falun Gong and as we progress in cultivation, we do not leave our families, our schools, or our workplaces. What would be the purpose? For an upright system, there is none. Everything in Falun Gong is in the open. Our principles are described in the book. Our practice sites are open. There is nothing hidden. The openness is most remarkable.

We can promise that if you are approached for money or pressured to do or say something against your will for the sake of Falun Gong, it is not a genuine Falun Gong site or that person is not a true practitioner. We simply do not behave this way. If you tried to pay a practitioner he or she would not come close to accepting it. This is the case the world over.

One further feature of cults that the Chinese Government has tried to attribute to Falun Gong is apocalyptic prophecy. According to the numerous state-run publications in China, Mr. Li Hongzhi has prophesized the end of the world, claiming that only he can prevent its complete annihilation; if people do not “follow” him, they are said to be in grave danger. China’s Civil Affairs Ministry has claimed that: “The evil ideas and fallacies that Li Hongzhi has preached are diametrically against modern science and civilization and contrary to moral standards... He has predicted the end of the world and that the Earth will blow up. He has styled himself as the only savior of the world and alleged that disasters and sufferings can be avoided only by practicing Falun Gong.”18 And according to China’s official state press, “Because of his doomsday prediction, Li ordered his followers to concentrate on Falun Gong and forbid them to hold any other human belief.”19 The same article continues, “Li’s doomsday idea denies the truth of the existing world and it has created strong anti-government and anti-social sentiments. Its true purpose is to win public support for his wicked political ambitions.” (Note: somehow this is officially-sanctioned “news” in China.) As with the matter of the alleged “1,400 deaths,” were such zealous rhetoric not so consequential it would prove almost laughable.

In actuality, these are outright lies which clearly intend to deceive their reader. Mr. Li has been explicit about the “doomsday” topic on a number of occasions, as from Falun Gong’s early days certain spiteful individuals have circulated this rumor. Consider Mr. Li’s own words:

There are some crooked religions that are spreading. All of them teach about the end of the world--they all talk about these things. Of course, I have said that catastrophes do exist. Buddhism also believes in them, and Christianity, Catholicism, and Taoism share the same viewpoint as well. This is the law of the universe’s evolution, but it is absolutely not like what those wicked religions have professed... I can proclaim here to everyone in all earnestness that all of those alleged catastrophes on earth, the doom of the universe, and things of this sort in the year 1999, are absolutely non-existent. Why would there be catastrophes?20

Nowhere in any of Mr. Li’s writings has he stated anything to contradict this statement, and neither has he uttered otherwise in any lecture. The Chinese Government has put words in his mouth which suit its violent agenda: to totally eliminate Falun Gong from the face of China, if not the world. If the Chinese officials have so clearly distorted the truth on this matter, we can hardly find reason to seriously engage its claims that Falun Gong and Mr. Li have produced anti-government or anti-social sentiments, that they harbor any political ambitions, or other such imaginings; such claims are built upon complete fabrications, as just shown. It is the Chinese Government that forbids any other belief, not Mr. Li or Falun Gong. It would seem that the accuser is projecting its guilty conscience on the accused.

So it is understandable why someone who knows nothing about Falun Gong or who knows of it only through the news may think it could be a cult. Anyone who looks closely at what we believe, how we behave, or what Mr. Li has taught will not reach such a conclusion. There has been a lot of propaganda and lies spread about Falun Gong recently by the Chinese government. We appeal to everyone to investigate before accepting these misrepresentations. One will quickly find no correspondence between the Chinese Government’s claims and what one experiences for oneself.

18 "Million reasons for fear", South China Morning Post, Analysis section, 7/24/99.
19 "Hard truth reveals Li's fallacies", The People's Daily, 7/24/99, p. 4.
20 From Mr. Li Hongzhi's March 29, 1998, lecture at the first conference in North America, held at the Jacob Javit Convention Center, New York City. This lecture, transcribed in its original language, Chinese, and printed as a book, was widely circulated and read by practitioners in China. The passage would have been just as available to Chinese Government authorities as Mr. Li's other works.

Of course a church is not a requirement for a religion. But religions do have ritual, worship or devotional practices, special observances, sacraments, etc. The only thing resembling ritual in Falun Gong is the exercises we do, and that no more qualifies as ritual than the stretches one does before aerobics. Believe it or not, one will find more ritual at a baseball game than in Falun Gong.

There is no deity offered for worship in Falun Gong-- not even a personality to follow. This probably surprises a lot of people who will point out that Li Hongzhi is entitled “Master,” suggesting that he servers such a role. Mr. Li, however, tells us that he is not a figure to be worshipped, and neither does he present any deity for us to follow. Instead, we “follow” the Fa (Way or Principles) of Nature. “Master” is a respectful title for one’s teacher used in Asia. Throughout Asia, one of the most respected members of society is the teacher, irrespective of the subject. Mr. Li is indeed a profound teacher and is high-ly respected and revered, but he is not worshipped. It is the teachings and their principles that teach us how to elevate ourselves to higher levels. Progress is made by the practitioner according to how well he or she practices self-cultivation. Falun Gong simply shows people how they can cultivate themselves to higher levels of wisdom, understanding, and health.

In martial arts, it is typical to bow to the portrait of the master when entering the practice area or school. No one considers Aikido, for example, to be a religion, though its founder is revered in such a manner. Falun Gong does not even have this minor formality of bowing to the teacher. It is completely formless. Mr. Li has repeatedly deflected and shunned misguided attempts to honor him as a religious figure. It is the practitioner’s heart and conduct that count in Falun Gong, not one’s reverence and devotion towards the teacher.

Neither will one find in Falun Gong some form of initiation ritual or consecration that delineates “member-ship” or “profession of faith.” The boundary between a true practitioner, an on-and-off practitioner, and your average person on the street is not a matter of formal designation, allegiance, or membership. That is, you will not find anything like baptism, first communion, confirmation, taking of vows, donning of particular garments (such as the Buddhist robe or the Nun’s habit), barmitzva, or the likes. If you want to practice Falun Gong, fine. You can practice the exercises with a group or at home, just as you can study Mr. Li’s book on your own or with a group. You can do these on and off or all the time. You can call yourself a “practitioner” or not. These things are the external trappings, the forms our inner self-cultivation takes. But performance of these does not mean one is or is not a practitioner; we don’t even bother to consider such things, as they are not what matters. We just each pay attention to how we must each improve ourselves. It is the heart that matters, and no practitioner can or would want to judge another person’s heart. There is obviously no such thing as membership, then.

Some people remark, “It looks strange, all of you carrying around the same books.” This sight should not seem strange. We are students. The same thing happens in every college classroom in the country; those textbooks cost more, too. Religious texts teach people how to devotionally honor a deity, pay respects, pray for inter-cession, etc. Zhuan Falun, however, teaches us how to improve ourselves. It is centered on the practitioner, not on a distant god or on receiving divine assistance. It does teach us high level principles and answer questions so many people have never found the answers to anywhere else--including in religions. One often finds a tendency in religion to “resolve” the sticky issues by appealing to faith. Faith is an important component in religion, so this is not necessarily a criticism. Yet Zhuan Falun gives a concrete guide to cultivation and does not ask the reader to take up cultivation practice out of “faith.” The book is very rational, systematic, and even scientific. Many Ph.D. scientists and Medical Doctors practice Falun Gong. Were Falun Gong interwoven with superstition, pseudo-science, New Age mysticism, or appeals to faith, these discerning professionals would most likely stay far away from the practice, even shunning it. The reason we read Zhuan Falun regularly is because it is a subtle and profound book. As we reach higher levels of understanding, the book reveals higher principles. It has been compared to a ladder, and reading the book each time is like climbing up another rung of understanding.

We have no temple in Falun Gong, no priests, no objects of worship, no ritual, and no consecration. Mr. Li’s texts simply outline the principles of self-cultivation. Each person follows them or not according to his or her understanding and aspiration. There is respect for the teacher, naturally, but it is the principles for improving ourselves that we follow and look to. Embracing empathy and compassion for others, putting our self-interests behind others’, improving our morality, getting rid of bad habits and interests--these principles have helped us, enriched us, elevated us and even liberated us from what we were. Thus, we continue practice Falun Gong enthusiastically.

3. Is Falun Gong an Organization?

A lot of misunderstanding comes from the basic problem of looking at Falun Gong practitioners in the collective and trying to interpret what they do on the basis of organizations (such as religions) that exist for other people or purposes. Those organizations are familiar and easy to understand. Yet Falun Gong is done on an even more simple basis--the individual.
Start by considering the following: How does one begin the cultivation system known as Falun Gong? A person might for whatever reason (curiosity, health seeking, mention from family/friends) attend a lecture, join a practice session in the park, attend an experience sharing conference, read a book, explore a website--there are countless avenues into Falun Gong. He or she finds the things he encounters to be good and interesting. Many people feel as if “this is something I’ve been searching for all my life”.

With their interest sparked, they naturally try to find others for more information. Perhaps they find a local practice site and learn the exercises or borrow, buy, or download a video for the same reason. They are taught the exercises and are told that they should read the book Zhuan Falun thoroughly (this is no easy book to grasp) to understand the principles. As their understanding increases, questions are asked and responded to. Practitioners give each other encouragement to get through the difficulties that are involved in improving oneself. The real “organization” of Falun Gong, however, remains at the individual level--it is all dependent on one’s relation to and understanding of the teachings and on one’s own cultivation experience. This is a critical issue to grasp when trying to understand many of the questions that are asked.
Some people persist, “But surely, practice sites are structured, maintained and organized.” Not really. Frankly, an aerobics practice site is more strictly organized than a Falun Gong practice site. Aerobics has a teacher who is in charge of everything--including the organization of the session--and who teaches the movements and leads the practice. In my experience, there is no one like this at the Falun Gong practice site. A practice site is simply wherever practitioners decide to gather to practice together. There is no leader and no position of instructor. If you must root out a leader, who are your candidates? The person who established the site? Who is he or she?
 

Someone said “How about _____ park?” and others agreed. In the case of one local “group,” we found it convenient to use the porch of a local community center. Someone volunteered to contact the center to get the permission and to schedule a time. So he “established the site,” you could say. Is he the leader? Hardly--anyone could have done it. The skeptic continues, however: “Well, then, candidate #2- who supplies the music? How about the mats you sit on?” Someone got a hold of some carpet remnants and thought they would be good to use as mats and so cut them up. One person lived close to the center and said he would bring them to the site each week; he lives closest and simply carries them. Because he needed to be counted on to attend most days (since he was to bring the mats), his wife said she would bring a tape player for the practice music. Are these the leaders? Anyone can do these things. They were simply the ones who volunteered--it was convenient. Perhaps one asks, “Well surely the person who greets newcomers and teaches them the exercises and lends a book is important.” Why so? Actually, different people do this at different times. Normally, a practitioner is eager to share Falun Gong with someone who approaches him or her. We do these exercises every day, and they are quite simple. Who would be unable to teach them? Usually there are extra books, so anybody can pass one on. If not, the newcomer can borrow a practitioner’s.

We enjoy practicing together, and generally find it easier to do in a group. After all, why do aerobics people gather together? Once they learn the routines, isn’t it easier to do it at home without travel? Well, no: the group inspires you. Aerobics is surely easier to do in a group. It is not so different for Falun Gong, although plenty of people elect to do the exercises at home anyway. What is the difference? There are no “requirements” to come to an exercise site. The only requirements are the requirements of cultivation, and those are all internal: striving to be a better person, getting rid of bad habits and attachments to unhealthy things. If you can do it, you are a practitioner. If not, all the studying and group exercise you do will be minimally effective. Yes, we do have to agree on a time if we wish to practice together. But this is no more than is involved in meeting for lunch. We have to be organized enough to show up at the same place at the same time. Does that make us an organization?

The fact remains the same: all activities are completely free, open to the public, and run totally by volunteers. There are only volunteers in Falun Gong, actually, as nobody is given ranks or positions, such as in the martial arts or some other qigongs. Rankings and positions usually reflect levels of initiation or investments of time and energy; they provide sort of a tangible reward or recognition or one’s efforts. Obviously, this is antithetical to the nature of Falun Gong: we just practice self-cultivation--something unconditional--and support one another in this endeavor. Hierarchy would be of no benefit to our practice. What is more, there is no keeping of money, desire for material profit, or accepting of donations involved at any level; an organization can hardly sustain itself without some form of charity or donation. It is hard to have an “organization” without organization, such as rank, duty and position. As Falun Gong has none of these, it can hardly be considered an organization.

The Chinese Government has alleged that Falun Gong is highly organized and a menace to social stability. The Government has tried to substantiate such imaginative claims by a variety of means. Most notable of these is its supposed exposure of Falun Gong’s “organizational structure,” something said to consist in China of tightly-knit, multi-leveled branches.21 Such incriminations are based on distortion and misrepresentation, rather than fact. Yes, in China there were a number of “assistance centers” set-up by Falun Gong practitioners. Yet these were completely voluntary ventures, much like those in the Western world, consisting of individual practitioners seeking to share this beneficial practice with others. In China, the demand for teaching Falun Gong to newcomers was exponentially higher than elsewhere, as in just 7 years over 70 million people came to learn this practice. Simply, the most efficient and sound way to teach newcomers in this situation is to have some people volunteer to do so; at the same time, veteran practitioners would have a place to gather to read and discuss. This was done by way of setting up “centers.” These centers, however, are not like the institutions we in the West might imagine them to be. Rather, a “center” might be an office in some one’s workplace, an extra room in somebody’s apartment, or a local sports center’s unoccupied space. They are not so much property purchased for the purpose of Falun Gong activities as they are spaces occupied by people wanting to learn or improve in their Falun Gong practice. These centers do not accept donations, and neither do they keep money.

So what of the long-since defunct Falun Gong Research Society, one might ask? This was the closest thing to an “organization” that Falun Gong has had in its brief history, but it was nothing like one might expect. This was simply the name under which Mr. Li first registered himself and his several assistants in 1992 when he sought to introduce Falun Gong to the general public. In China, one best not dare go on a lecturing tour without some sort of official recognition--one must be fully “legal,” and this means registered. Thus, the Research Society was born. How “organized” was this fledgling institution? Apparently not much, as all of its activities (which lasted from 1992-1994) were run by a Chinese Government organization, the China Qigong Science and Research Society (CQSRS). The Research Society merely handled expenses involved in the lectures and travel costs. The one other institutional function it assumed was also mandated by Chinese law, and this involved efforts to coordinate the publication of Mr. Li’s two books. Some of the publishing was even done through a Government-run organization, ironically, and only guided by the Research Society. When Mr. Li would give a lecture, it would be orchestrated by the CQSRS and local hosting organizations. Come 1994, when Mr. Li finished his public teaching, the “organization” no longer was needed, and he soon filed for withdrawal from the CQSRS. There is little issue of Falun Gong acting in China as an “organization” (in the negative sense) as we in the West might imagine.

Perhaps some people are misled by larger-scale Falun Gong activities, such as “experience sharing” conferences. Indeed, such conferences take a bit more organizing than practice sites, but it is really just the same thing on a larger scale. Someone volunteers to book a room. Someone volunteers to get the word out “where and when.” Perhaps one would like to share some of his or her experiences in practicing cultivation--it may help others. Many people thus do so, while many more never do. Who attends? Whoever wants to. Transportation and hotels are arranged individually--just as you would do it. The conferences are funded, as needed, completely out of individuals’ pockets and individual contributions. They are absolutely free and open to the public, as nobody is excluded and no profit is made or sought.

Falun Gong’s teacher, Li Hongzhi, is usually invited to attend these conferences. Sometimes he is able to make it, sometimes he is not. We all look forward to listening to his lectures and anytime he attends and agrees to lecture he is definitely the keynote speaker. But it actually is not his conference--it is the practitioners’ gathering, as they began it and it is for their self-cultivation. Many practitioners will speak and usually the things they have to say are very moving and powerful. We find ourselves much benefited through such sharing, and so enjoy organizing and pulling off such conferences. Many regions and practice groups like to host these, and their size can be anywhere from a 20 person rendezvous to 1998’s gathering of over 3,000 in New York City. 

21 according to the South China Morning Post (“Million reasons for official fear”, Analysis section, 7/24/99), the Chinese Government’s “police investigation” determined Falun Gong to have “39 branches nationwide, with 1,900 sub-units and 23,000 assembly places.” 

IV. Has Mr. Li or Falun Gong Amassed Wealth?

The Chinese Government has been using all kinds of means to persecute and defame Falun Gong. One of its more recent accusations is the groundless claim that Falun Gong has accumulated wealth using “illegal” and “unfair” means. Chinese authorities have been trying hard to find fault with Falun Gong in its financial aspects, but they simply cannot find any incriminating evidence. Its accusations without support, the Chinese Government has proceeded to take liberty with words and events, reshaping them to fit its agenda.

TimesNewRoman, times new roman" SIZE="3">It would seem that for the Government’s indictment of Falun Gong to be complete, it must identify a chief culprit, a ringleader per se. With such a villain conjured, the whole story of the supposedly dangerous Falun Gong practice becomes more recognizable, more familiar. When the story assumes the form of familiar narratives, it is all the more easily grasped by the public. The unwitting consumer is given something he or she can easily, passively swallow: it was all about money and power. So goes the Chinese Government’s story of Mr. Li Hongzhi and his Falun Gong.

1. Lecture Sessions

One of the bigger distortions surrounds Mr. Li’s lecturing sessions, conducted over two and a half years (1992-1994). Not too long ago the Beijing Bureau of Public Security established a special committee in order to find evidence for the Government’s accusation that Falun Gong made 2 million Yuan (about US$250,000) in 13 teaching sessions. But the result was that they could not find any supporting facts for this purpose. For instance, they investigated the Second Institute of the Ministry of Aviation, which had sponsored two Falun Gong teaching sessions in Beijing. The former working staff who had handled the financial activities handed in a clear account: each teaching session lasted for 9 days, the total number of students attending the two teaching sessions was no more than 3000. Among these 3000 people, 75% percent were veteran students (i.e., those who had attended previous teaching sessions). The fee for veteran students was 20 Yuan (US$2.50), and the fee for new students was 40 Yuan (US$5). Some of the income was used to pay for the space’s rental, and some was paid to the China Qigong Science Research Society (CQSRS, hereafter abbreviated to “Qigong Research Society”)--a government sponsored organization for administrating qigong activities in China; Falun Gong Research Society was under its supervision before 1996. The remaining money, which was no more than 20,000 Yuan (US$2,500) was taken by the Falun Gong research society. The Falun Gong research society had to pay for the expenses of its own working staff, the teaching materials handed out in teaching sessions, and transportation. The remaining sheer income was rather miniscule. In fact, the two teaching sessions held in the Second Institute of the Ministry of Aviation were rather large ones among the 13 teaching sessions held in Beijing. So the scales of the income from the other teaching sessions are fairly easy to imagine; they would be significantly lower. Thanks to fact that the working staff of the Second Institute of the Ministry of Aviation has kept its original accounts, a strong rejection of the Government’s false charges still exists.

When Falun Gong started its teaching in 1992, the teaching sessions were all held directly by Qigong Research Society. All the income was administrated by Qigong Research Society. It would regularly pay for various expenses from the total income, and then it would give a limited amount to the Falun Gong Research Society according to the contract. For each session (which lasted about 9 days), the Falun Gong Research Society would receive about 4000 to 5000 Yuan (US$500 to $625). Then the Falun Gong Research Society would have to pay for its internal expenses from this amount. At that early time, there were about 250 students in the first teaching session, and 350 students in the second teaching session. Many of them were veteran students (the charge for them was 20 Yuan, about US$2.50). In total, there were 1500 students in the first 4 teaching sessions; 850 of them were new students. The money that the Falun Gong research society received from these 4 teaching sessions was about 20,000 Yuan (US$2,500). At that time, the Falun Gong practitioners who assisted with the teaching sessions all felt that it was very difficult to make ends meet with this small income.

The facts are very clear. There were 13 teaching sessions held in Beijing. In total, about 13,000 students attended them. More than half of them were veteran students. The total raw income was no more than 300,000 Yuan (US$37,500). Part of it was used to pay various expenses, part of it was handed over to Qigong Research Society, and the rest went to the Falun Gong Research Society, which had to pay for its internal expenses. According to a regulation set up by Mr. Li, all income from classes was to be used in theoretical research on cultivation principles, scientific experiments, establishing centers for practicing, etc. No such income was to go to Mr. Li, himself, and no individuals were to use this income. All financial records were to be kept by local chapters. So it is obvious how much Falun Gong Research Society could have made. It is rather unfortu-nate that the original accounts were not kept except for the two sessions in the Second Institute of the Ministry of Aviation, as the exact amount is hard to obtain. But many people who took part in these teaching sessions can still remember how large the auditoriums were, how many seats there were in these auditoriums, and what was the rough numbers of students. They can serve as witnesses. So it is really a ridiculous accusation that the Falun Gong research society made 2 million Yuan off of these teaching sessions.

One should be reminded that the fees charged by the Falun Gong teaching sessions were the lowest in China. The amount charged to each student by Falun Gong was only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the amount charged by other qigong teaching sessions. Because Falun Gong charged so little, other Qigong masters repeatedly asked Qigong Research Society to intervene and require Falun Gong to increase its charges. If Mr. Li Hongzhi had wanted to make more money, this would have been a good opportunity to increase do so. But Mr. Li insisted on the lowest fees in order not to bring financial burden to students. His goal was to make Falun Gong available to people from all walks of life, excluding nobody by virtue of income or economic background. In fact, Mr. Li only cared about teaching Falun Gong principles to his students to make them better and healthier people. That is why Mr. Li earned the hearts of so many people.

2. Pocketing Revenues?

Certain “files” crafted by the Chinese Government also allege that Mr. Li pocketed all the money from his teaching sessions, and that revenues were never donated to others. The facts say just the opposite. Mr. Li has lived up to the strict requirements for handling funds that he set for himself and his students early on. Consider the following case of donation, for each of which there are still receipts and certificates of proof.

On December 27, 1993, Mr. Li made a technical presentation on qigong at the ‘93 Oriental Health Exposition in Beijing. The total income for that was 4,000 Yuan. All of it was donated to the China Foundation of Heroes and Justice.

On May 14 and 15, 1994, the China Foundation of Heroes and Justice invited Mr. Li to lecture twice on scientific qigong research in the auditorium of Beijing Police University. The total income was nearly 60,000 Yuan, and it was entirely donated back to the Foundation. Meanwhile, Mr. Li gave 1000 copies of his book China Falun Gong to the Foundation as gifts for libraries. The total cost of the books was 6,600 Yuan. Deeply moved by the principles of Mr. Li’s practice, two people from his Beijing Police University class also made donations. They anonymously donated 100,000 Yuan and 1,500 Yuan, respectively.

On August 27, 1994, Mr. Li held a class in Yanbian Korean Autonomous Region. The total income for that class was 70,00 Yuan, and it was donated in its entirety to the Region’s Red Cross.

Mr. Li not only donated many times to China Foundation of Heroes and Justice--he also paid his respects to the heroes who fight for justice in other ways. In August 1993, the Central Propaganda Department and the Ministry of Police jointly organized the Third National Convention for heroes fighting for justice. The Foundation invited Mr. Li to provide health consulting for these heroes. This invitation received great support from leaders of Qigong Research Society, including its General Secretary, Zhang Jian, Deputy Secretary, Guan Qian, and the Director of the Cultivation Methods Committee, Fei Quande. On August 31, Mr. Li took some students to treat these hundred heroes. The Ministry of Police sent a letter of appreciation to the Qigong Research Society, citing that out of the hundred heroes, other than the one who did not have any serious injury, all others showed various degrees of obvious improvements in their health.

On September 21, 1993, People’s Police published a photo of Mr. Li, taken by the Deputy Chief of the Beijing Police Department, Li Xiaojing. With the photo was a quote from Mr. Li, saying, “All heroes who have been verified by the China Foundation of Heroes and Justice are qualified to receive free consulting from this practice.” On May 16, 1994, China Laws Daily quoted the General Secretary of the China Foundation of Heroes and Justice, Mr. Zhou Shishang, stating that “the virtue promoted in China Falun Gong by Mr. Li Hongzhi agrees with the fundamental principles of our Foundation.” It is not hard to see that Mr. Li is supportive to people that fight for justice, and neither is it hard to see that his support was done in an honest and upright manner. This, of course, should come as no surprise, as Mr. Li consistently conducts himself according to the principles of “truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance.” Every upright person can draw a just conclusion about this issue of Mr. Li’s allegedly pocketing all funds from his lectures.

3. Tax Evasion?

Another groundless accusation has also surfaced and holds that Falun Gong evaded taxation. The Falun Gong teaching sessions in different parts of China were all held by Qigong Research Society and other related, official organizations. Falun Gong Research Society only took care of teaching. There were clear contracts, and these stated that the organizations holding the teaching sessions were responsible for paying all the various taxes and related expenses. Therefore, the organizations would take 40% of the total income. Other qigong masters would typically only relinquish 10-20% of the total income. Therefore, Falun Gong was highly welcomed by related organizations to hold teaching sessions, and these groups were very cooperative. These hosting organizations were always responsible for handling tax matters. The income of the Falun Gong Research Society was the income after taxation.

Mr. Li Hongzhi stopped holding teaching sessions after the publication of his major work, Zhuan Falun, at the beginning of 1995. The number of Falun Gong practitioners then increased at an astonishing rate, to the extent that Mr. Li was not able to meet in person with practitioners in China because they numbered so many. In the past several years, Mr. Li has taught only outside of China, giving numerous public lectures in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. His lectures have usually lasted 4-6 hours, and each is attended by anywhere from 500-3500 people. There was absolutely no admission fee for anybody in any of these lectures. But practitioners all recognized the profundity and preciousness of his teaching. There is a qigong master who charges US$1000 for a lecture in the West, and many charge from US$400 on up for a onetime six-hour class. If Mr. Li had really wanted to make money, he could have become a millionaire with just one lecture. Doing so, however, would be antithetical to Mr. Li’s principles as well as those of Falun Gong.

4. Selling Books and Audio/Video Tapes

The accusation that Falun Gong accumulated wealth from selling books and audio and videotapes is also untenable. The first edition of the Falun Gong exercise-teaching videotapes was recorded and sold by the Qigong Science Research. Falun Gong Research Society was not even involved in this undertaking. The second edition was made and sold by the Publishing House for Physical Education. Again, Falun Gong Research Society was not even involved. At that time, there was a flexible verbal agreement: when there was income, the Publishing House for Physical Education would give an appropriate amount to Falun Gong Research Society. Later, a higher quality, newer edition was made and sold by Beijing TV Art Center. It was a legal publication that went through all formal procedures. The contract stated that the publishing house was to give some of the income to the Research Society as royalties. It was also decided that Falun Gong Research Society was allowed to sell the videotape among practitioners when there was a need for the teaching sessions. The retail price of the videotape was the lowest among the genre. It was only about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of other qigong videotapes. The videotape sold at 55 Yuan (US$7).

During the Falun Gong teaching sessions in different places, many local students volunteered to help. Sometimes, because of students’ demands, local manufacturers had to be asked to make some exercise-teaching videotapes; these were then sold to students without any profit.

Falun Gong books were published in order to make it easier for more people to learn Falun Gong. In order to publish the first book, China Falun Gong, Mr. Li Hongzhi, himself, had to borrow 40,000 Yuan from an individual to pay the publishing house. The debt was paid off only after the books were sold. Then the Falun Gong Research Society had to find money to publish the second edition of China Falun Gong. It was not like some treasury existed for the Society or Mr. Li to draw upon. In 1995, when the Falun Gong Research Society tried to get the book Zhuan Falun published, many publishing houses dared not to publish it for fear that it might not sell well. At that time, the Chinese Broadcasting Publishing House had been in financial difficulties for a long time, and they took a big risk, deciding to publish Zhuan Falun. Because the books sales were excellent, it enabled the Chinese Broadcasting publishing house to overcome its financial difficulty. The books of Falun Gong were all published by following official regulations. The publishing house would pay the author royalties, and this was usually stated in the contracts. At some Falun Gong assistance centers, many contact people were enthusiastic about helping new practitioners obtain books. So they bought some books and then sold them at the exact same price. They did it voluntarily, and they did not make any profit from it whatsoever. Doing so would have been antithetical to the principles of Falun Gong.

It was the publishing house’s own business as to how much it sold the books for to book distributors. The Falun Gong Research Society and assistance centers did not get involved in these matters. In July 1996, Chinese authorities prohibited the publication of Falun Gong books. The Chinese Broadcasting Publishing House thus stopped printing the books, and the contract was terminated. Yet Falun Gong books were still in great demand. Pirate versions consequently appeared in many places. These publishers had nothing to do with Falun Gong, as they violated the law--something antithetical to Falun Gong practice. Mr. Li has told his students on several occasions to destroy any pirated versions they have obtained; illegal books undermine society. Some companies in Shandong and Wuhan had signed contracts with Falun Gong Research Society for publishing Falun Gong audio/video tapes and books. It was also a normal publishing affair, just like the relationship with the Chinese Broadcasting Publishing House. These companies published Falun Gong books according to normal procedures and it was their own, normal business. They had nothing to do with Falun Gong, save for an agreement to print some of its books. The contents of the contracts always conformed to state policies and laws. As to the books’ circulation, that was the business of those companies.

5. Luxury Homes and the Good Life?

Some people have contrived the story that Mr. Li Hongzhi owns three luxurious houses. More imaginative Chinese media took pictures of a Manhattan skyscraper and reported in China’s news that this was but part of the real estate Mr. Li had amassed abroad. One learns also from Chinese media that Mr. Li has accumulated sports cars, enjoys fine wine and frequents brothels. Various scandalous stories have been engineered, all seeking to viciously defame Mr. Li. Their source repeatedly turns out to be none other than the twisted imagination of Mr. Li’s persecutors. We can set the record straight here: each we have seen is completely nonsense, just like the other “news” stories. This is obvious to anybody who knows Mr. Li or who takes the time to investigate things for himself.

Mr. Li had a simple dormitory during the decades he lived and worked in Changchun (northeastern China). How could Chinese people have their own houses during the 1970’s, 80’s, and early 90’s? Later, because of construction, Mr. Li could no longer live in his dorm, and so he had to find another dwelling place. Those veteran practitioners who had been to his home all know that it was a place without lit stairways and with water only available at certain times. Slandering someone who lived in such a place is simply mocking his modest life.

It has also been alleged that Mr. Li had a luxurious house in Beijing. This, too, is rather far-fetched, as there he only lived intermittently, and in a common two-bedroom apartment. Mr. Li prefers to live a simple life, in keeping with his teachings. He currently resides in New York, with his wife and daughter.

We can imagine plenty of other elaborate homes and indulgent lifestyles the Chinese media would like to attribute to him. While these might evoke the ire of some uncritical readers in China, they have no business being disguised as “news,” much less being spread around the world. Their intent, just as with the other depictions of Mr. Li gushing from China, are clearly vengeful and politically laced. One need only recall Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s giving US President Bill Clinton a copy of the book, Li Hongzhi: The Man and His Evil Deeds, to know how deeply invested China’s leadership is in this campaign. There representations of Mr. Li could not be further from the truth. But then again, truth seems to carry no weight for the Chinese Government in this affair.

V. The True Reasons Behind the Suppression of Falun Gong

According to statements in the July 27, 1999, edition of The People’s Daily and quotes from many officials, the conflict between Falun Gong and Communism is seen by Party leaders as a struggle between theism and atheism, superstition and science, and idealism and materialism. These dichotomies are in fact grossly inaccurate. Regardless, these ideological issues are not the true reasons for banning Falun Gong. Falun Gong does not talk about superstitions or idealism, and it is by no means against Communism. Were Falun Gong “against” communism or the Government, this would mean that millions of practitioners were “against” themselves: millions of practitioners were Chinese Communist Party members before the ban, and this includes many high-ranking officials. This whole matter has been thoroughly explained in practitioners’ “Ten Thousand-Word letter” to the Central Government. We offer here several reasons behind the central authority’s suppression of Falun Gong.

1. Historical Issues

Classifying Falun Gong as a “cult” was simply an excuse to try to eliminate it. Many relatives of senior officials in the Communist Party are Falun Gong practitioners. Mr. Li conducted public teaching for several years, and the public has seen that Falun Gong has impacted society very positively. The Public Security Department has investigated Falun Gong for years. Members of the Department have clearly stated in their duty reports that they see no dangers or violations in Falun Gong. (see Attachment A6) Some have even decided to begin the practice upon learning through their investigations just how upstanding practitioners are. How could the Department and other offices not know that Falun Gong is an upright practice? How could they not know that Mr. Li has always taught people to be good citizens with higher morals? How could they forget that Mr. Li has repeatedly told practitioners not to interfere with national politics or to violate any laws? Officials’ collective amnesia, it seems, is highly strategic.

The fundamental reason for the suppression of Falun Gong is that the Communist Party does not trust Falun Gong practitioners since they are such a large group. There is a historical precedent for fear of large groups in China, so perhaps one could imagine an awareness of history factoring in. Chinese, as a people, are very aware of their history. And these people need think back no further than the last few centuries to recall that two of Chinese history’s bloodiest rebellions, the Boxer Rebellion and the Taiping Rebellion, each began with a charismatic religious figure. Traditional thinking, which posits that history repeats itself in predictable cycles, still holds sway in the minds of many Chinese. Many auspicious dates have come and passed in Falun Gong’s brief history, and each such event has made the practice’s detractors anxious. The past 100 years have been a bloody, unstable century for China, and ruthless competition for power (primarily internal, no less) has left many historically-conscious citizens skeptical of groups claiming benevolent intent.

Yet any knowledge of Falun Gong’s principles and behavior should render such historical thinking irrelevant. If Falun Gong is examined outside of socio-historical contexts, one sees that this popular practice is quite unlike both its predecessors and kin. This can be said of not only its practitioners, but also of its teacher and his teachings. Falun Gong has, however, become guilty of one intolerable offense in Mainland China: as of early 1999, the number of Falun Gong practitioners happened to exceed the number of Communist Party members. It was estimated by a Government sponsored census that the number of Falun Gong practitioners was 70-100 million, while the Communist Party’s membership totaled only 60 million. Falun Gong practitioners typically gather every day in the park for two or more hours to practice their qigong together. Meanwhile, a typical Party member might attend a total of one Party meeting, lasting maybe two hours, in an entire month; his or her membership might be a mere formality that affords certain social privileges. Were Falun Gong a political entity, some apprehensions by Chinese Government officials would be understandable. During its numerous investigations, China’s Public Security Department found that many practitioners were both party members and government officials. As a result, the Chinese Communist Party believed that Falun Gong had been “taking people away” from them. Bound by historical thinking, officials could not imagine a group this size having anything but political aspirations.

Although the population practicing Falun Gong has become large, most practitioners are outstanding citizens with high moral standards. They form a strong force that upholds social stability, if any social influence exists. Falun Gong’s teacher, Mr. Li Hongzhi, has been explicit that practitioners are not to involve Falun Gong in political matters whatsoever. Falun Gong is about benefiting others through an individual’s self-cultivation practice, not through political means. Why should the Communist Party be against it? It is because they cannot believe that there are people in the world who would not interfere with politics or seek power. Despite Mr. Li’s repeatedly explaining to the Government that Falun Gong will not interfere with politics now or in the future, the Government has tenaciously clung to the belief that if the practice is allowed to continue, it will form a strong force against the government.

2. Social Issues

In terms of China’s current social predicament, the country is currently experiencing incredible changes in every aspect of society. Nothing short of a “crisis in values” is unfolding, as foreign values indigenous to capitalist markets and radically different societies pour into Chinese culture daily. Little is in place to check this influx of values and ideas. As the dying embers of deep-seated traditional culture--culture that even weathered the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), to some extent-- go out, all sorts of problems novel to China emerge. Discontent and dis-ease with current conditions are common to many. While such issues are far beyond the scope of this essay, suffice to say that political leadership in China is very uncertain over how to handle these things.

Falun Gong finds itself amidst some of these tensions, and certain self-seeking Chinese Communist Party officials have exploited this. Most notably, Falun Gong finds itself at the intersection of traditional Chinese cultivation arts (such as qigong and taiji) and modern Western science and biomedicine. For thousands of years, the Chinese have enjoyed traditional healing arts such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, and qigong. More importantly, these aspects of traditional culture provide deep understanding of human life, nature, the universe, and the relationships among them. During the Cultural Revolution, these arts were slapped with the labels of “superstition,” “fraud,” “backwards,” “unscientific,” and even “embarrassing,” amongst others.

Although the Chinese Government has promoted these practices in the last two decades as a means to resolving a terribly-burdened health care system, these traditional arts have never fully recovered their nobility. Thus, when it serves certain persons’ political purposes, those labels are once again hauled out and thrown around to incriminate others. This is easily accomplished as anything grounded in Western science (such as Western bio-medicine) is seen as “modern” and “progressive” in contemporary China. It should come as little surprise, then, that the Chinese media ran numerous stories in the last couple years declaiming Falun Gong as “superstitious” and wreaking of “feudalism.”22 As many of its practitioners discontinue medical treatment (due to improved health, as discussed in Attachments A3-5), some people have suggested that Falun Gong is antagonistic to modern science and medicine. Ironically, at the same time, many hard-line Party members--some of whom are well-known scientists in China--continue to believe that Maoism and Marxist doctrine are “hard science,” meaning akin to physics and chemistry. As among Falun Gong practitioners there are many accomplished scientists, such rhetoric has not gone unnoticed or unchallenged.23 So even science has become a politically-charged entity in China today. Many supposed “scientists” have allied themselves with those in political power and attacked Falun Gong for personal gain. We thus witness the political campaign against Falun Gong being heralded as a “scientific achievement.”

While Chinese leaders like to describe 1999 as a year of “challenge and opportunity,” the “challenge” segment is what has largely prevailed for the Government. Economic growth has come to a grinding halt, worrying many leaders. Majority of the Government’s state owned enterprises are constantly losing money, and many now face bankruptcy. Unemployment is skyrocketing, while the gap between the rich and the poor has widened dramatically. Class tensions are emerging in a distinctly poignant, modern form, of which China has not seen the likes. Demonstrations by those who are unemployed take place across the country almost every day. As this develops into a nationwide problem, it grows ever more hard to control. All of this makes for novel, severe health care problems. Demoralization is perhaps the highest it has been in years. These matters lead into the issue of China’s political situation.

3. Political Issues

Politically, today’s China is focusing on economic and technological development. The political forum is set up for those who have expertise in the economy, technology, and management. Those who specialize in political propaganda and in fighting battles over ideology have lost their opportunities for political advancement. Yet many of these persons have had important roles in the history of the Communist Party. A stable, peaceful, and prosperous China, however, gives them very little chance to maintain the powerful positions they once enjoyed when political campaigning was the focus of the Party. To remain necessary components of the government, these people desperately need political unrest. Hence, they have in fact been working hard to create unrest. Falun Gong, they decided, was just what was needed.

These individuals began by having police officers harass Falun Gong practitioners at the local level. They next fabricated evidence to defame Falun Gong and its teacher, spreading negative publicity through govern-ment-run newspapers and television. Soon after, police were ordered to beat and arrest people who expressed their concerns to those newspaper editors, such as in the city of Tianjin incident. When practitioners went to the central government at Zhongnanhai to appeal for the release of those arrested (see article 2), they were channeled in a certain manner so as to create the appearance of assaulting the Chinese leadership compound. By the time of the Zhongnanhai incident, those self-seeking Party members had almost succeeded in creating a “crisis” to scare top Chinese officials into thinking they needed to call on these political experts for help. The peaceful resolution to the Zhongnanhai gathering (facilitated by Premier Zhu Ronji’s kind intervention) disappointed these political plotters. To China’s misfortune, however, President Jiang Zemin--who is also the Communist Party’s General Secretary--was convinced that his power was threatened by this large group of people. Those who plotted all of this once again enjoy center stage of the Chinese political arena, driving the anti-Falun Gong campaign at break-neck speed. They also find themselves enjoying an opportunity to harm their political rivals. Clearly, Falun Gong has been misinterpreted in every possible way to serve political purposes in China.

One important thing to note is that self-interest has been laced with a most potent thing throughout this matter: fear. Recall that in an editorial in The People’s Daily it was stated that the government believes Falun Gong is fighting with them for people, and that Falun Gong has penetrated into the Party and political institutions-- including key departments, attempting to develop a force against the Chinese Government. Wang Zhaoguo, Minister of the Chinese United Front Line, and Hu Jintao, Vice President of China, believe that the creation and alleged penetration of Falun Gong denotes a political struggle with the Communist Party for the its people.

Though often unassociated, a number of phenomena exist alongside Falun Gong that drive Party members’ paranoia. Being the year of the 10th anniversary of the student Democratic movement in Tiananmen Square, political dissidents were more active than before in 1999 and tried to organize an oppositional political party. The ethnic groups in Xingjian as well as Tibetans are struggling for independence. To the east just across the Taiwan straight, Taiwan is also voicing its independent status. Instead of addressing larger issues, the Chinese leadership has chosen to demonstrate its intolerance of any independent expression. A show of strength has been opted for over a show of concern. This has failed to resolve any of these issues, instead inducing larger conflicts. But conflict, it turns out, is the medicine chosen by many Party officials to recover the nation’s health and to vault personal standing.

Should anyone doubt that Party leaders are conscious and concerned by such things, he or she need look no further than to the accidental NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia and its aftermath. China’s state-run media seized the mishap as an occasion for whipping-up a strong sense of national identity and cohesion. Conspiracy theories and the claim that America did this “intentionally” and “viciously” were fed to a non-discerning public. Chinese officials relished the opportunity to scapegoat America (which it equated with NATO, somehow) and spur Chinese nationalism-- something not aroused anytime too recently.

To solidify this connection between Party officials’ anxiety and the crackdown on Falun Gong, one can recall that the same week Falun Gong was banned, President Jiang Zimen and other senior officials blasted Taiwan and its President Lee Teng-hui for its “separatist tactics.” Calling Lee “an evil man” and “a traitor to all Chinese people,” the Chinese propaganda machine did all it could to create a national spirit.

In the end, something Chinese was chosen as the grand scapegoat: Falun Gong. Every imaginable social, political and economic problem has been placed upon the back of the Falun Gong sacrificial lamb. In doing so, the Chinese Government has done all possible to make itself out as the hero, protecting the Chinese people from the immanent, dangerous presence within China--Falun Gong. In the name of “social order,” the Government has engineered and executed a ruthless persecution of Falun Gong. Nothing could be more ironic, as Falun Gong was perhaps the best answer to some of China’s deep social woes. In making the persecution of Falun Gong out to be a heroic, noble, necessary deed, the Party has manufactured every imaginable piece of “evidence” to justify its terrible actions. On the sly, the Government has also intensified its persecution of ethnic minorities, unofficial religious groups, and democracy advocates. Even the practice of other qigong schools is now outlawed in public places--a fact revealing that it is not Falun Gong that scares leaders, but anybody doing something out of their control.

All of this seems to reflect the Party’s having lost its ability to deal with critical issues. The Party does not feel secure with the existence of any social group that could possibly exert wide-ranging social influence. They find such a presence--no matter how benign or even beneficial--intolerable. This is no acceptable way to deal with insecurities or larger, unaddressed social, political, and economic issues.

VI. Some Thoughts of Mine (Li Hongzhi, June 2, 1999)

Recently it was reported in the news that Mainland China seeks a reduction of US$500 million worth of trade surplus (with the U.S.) in exchange for my extradition back to China. With regard to this issue, I would like to make some comments. I only teach people to be compassionate. At the same time, I unconditionally help people eliminate their illnesses, and I enable them to reach higher realms of mind. I do not accept any monetary or material reward. All of these have had a positive impact on society and mankind, bringing goodness to people’s hearts and dignity to human morality. Are those the reasons for which they seek my extradition? Do they intend to have me return to China to let more people obtain the Fa and cultivate their hearts? If that is the case, please do not let the country lose US$500 million to strike a deal. I can go back myself.

I have heard, however, that normally the people who are extradited are all war criminals, public enemies, or criminal offenders. If so, I do not know into which of the above categories I would be placed.

As a matter of fact, I keep teaching people to conduct themselves according to the guiding principles of Zhen-Shan-Ren (truthfulness, compassion, forbearance). So naturally I have also been setting an example. During the times when Falun Gong disciples and I, myself were being discredited for no reason and being treated unfairly, we always exhibited hearts of great compassion and tolerance so as to give the government sufficient time to understand us, and we endured all of it silently. Nevertheless, such endurance absolutely is not because Falun Gong practitioners and I fear anything. It should be known that once a person learns the truth and the genuine meaning of life’s existence, he will not regret giving up his life for that. Do not take our hearts of compassion and great tolerance as fear, so as to double the efforts [against us] recklessly. In fact, those are enlightened practitioners, and they are cultivators who have learned the genuine meaning of life. Also, do not label Falun Gong practitioners as people who engage in alleged “superstition.” There are so many things that mankind and science have not yet come to understand. As far as religions are concerned, don’t they also exist as a result of faith in God(s)? In reality, it is only the true religions and ancient beliefs in God(s) that have enabled the morality of human society to be maintained for several thousand years, making the existence of today’s mankind--which includes you, me, him, etc.--possible. If this were not the case, mankind would have committed sins long ago that led to disasters. Human ancestors probably would have become extinct long ago, and today’s events would never have occurred. Human morality is, in fact, extremely important. If people do not value virtue, they can commit all kinds of wrongdoing that are extremely dangerous to mankind. This is what I can tell people. Actually, I have no intention of doing anything for society, nor do I wish to get involved in issues of everyday people at all, let alone take power away from anybody. Not everyone considers power to be so important. Isn’t there a saying among mankind that “everyone has his own will”? I only wish to let those who can practice cultivation obtain the Fa, as well as teach them how to genuinely improve xinxing (moral character); that is, to elevate their moral standards. Furthermore, not everyone will come to learn Falun Gong. Also, what I am doing is bound to have no relationship with politics. Yet, for any country or nationality it is a good thing to have cultivators whose hearts have embraced benevolence and whose moral levels have been upgraded. How can it be labeled an evil religion for helping people to heal their sicknesses and keep fit, while raising human moral standards? Every Falun Gong practitioner is a member of society, and each has his own job and career. They simply go to the parks to practice Falun Gong exercises for half an hour or an hour every morning, then going off to work. There are no required religious regulations of any kind to observe, nor are there any temples, churches, or religious rituals. People can come to learn it or leave as they please--there is no binding membership. In what way does it have anything to do with religion? As to the label “evil,” how can it fall into the category of “evil” for teaching people to be benevolent, healing people’s sicknesses, and keeping them fit without accepting any money [from them]? Or should something be considered evil if it is outside the category of communist theories? Besides, I know, evil religion is just evil religion, and it is not up to a government to decide. Should an evil religion be called “upright” if it conforms to the views of some people in government? On the other hand, should an upright one be defined as evil if it does not conform to their views?

Actually, I know exactly why some people insist on opposing Falun Gong. Just as reported by the media, there are too many people practicing Falun Gong. A hundred million people is indeed no small number. Yet why should having too many good people be feared? Isn’t it true that the more good people there are, the better, while the fewer bad people there are, the better? I, Li Hongzhi, unconditionally help practitioners improve their moral quality and keep people healthy, and this in turn stabilizes society. Additionally, with their healthy bodies, people can better serve society. Isn’t this bringing good fortune to the people in power? In reality, this has indeed been achieved. Why, instead of recognizing this and showing me appreciation, do they want to estrange more than 100 million people from the government? What kind of government would be so inconceivable? Furthermore, among these 100 million people, who doesn’t have a family and children, relatives and friends? Is it merely an issue of 100 million people? So the number of the people they are going against could be even more. What has actually happened to “the leadership of my beloved country”? If I, with the life of Li Hongzhi, can dispel the fears towards these good people, I will go back at once and leave everything to their disposal. Why bother with “going against the will of the law under heaven,” wasting manpower and capital, and using politics and money to seek a deal that violates human rights? The United States, however, has been a leader in respecting human rights. Given this, how could the U.S. government be willing to betray human rights for such a deal? In addition, I am a U.S. permanent resident that lives under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.

I do not intend to condemn any particular person. It is just that I do not understand the way things are being handled. Why miss a good opportunity to appeal to the hearts of the people, instead placing more than 100 million people on the opposing side?

It was reported that many people went to Zhongnanhai and that some people were outraged by this. In fact, the number of people who went there was not large at all. Think about it, everyone: There are over 100 million people practicing Falun Gong, and only over ten thousand people showed up. How can that be considered a large number? There was no need to mobilize practitioners. Among 100 million practitioners, since you wanted to go and he wanted to go, in a short while, over ten thousand people would be there. They did not have any slogans or any signs, nor was there any improper conduct. Furthermore, they were not against the government. They merely wished to present the facts to the government. What was wrong with that? Please allow me to ask: Have there ever been such well-behaved demonstrators? Shouldn’t one be moved by such a sight? Why do some people keep trying to find fault with Falun Gong? Besides, the approach of resorting to any and all means in order to eliminate Falun Gong is really outdated. Falun Gong is not terrible, as some people might have imagined it to be. Instead, it is a great thing. Any society has everything to gain from it and nothing to lose. On the contrary, losing the hearts of people is the most formidable thing. To be frank, the practitioners of Falun Gong are also human beings who are in the process of practicing cultivation; so they still have human minds. As they are being treated unjustly, I am not sure how much longer they will be able to endure it. This is the issue about which I am most concerned.

Part III

Previous

Next