Dear Editor of The New York Times: 

It should have been an act of great imagination, if not great naivety, for 
anyone to paint Falungong as science-friendly, which is what its Creator, Li 
Hongzhi, had never intended to accomplish. However, we have found such in 
Prof. Ownby's revisionist article (China's War Against Itself, February 15, 
2001) when he asserted that Falungong was "bringing together science, 
spirituality and Chinese nationalism." We believe his assessments were based 
upon two false assumptions and his conclusion followed erroneously through 
an inappropriate method. The two false assumptions are the following. 
 
First, Ownby started with the assessment of Falungong from a word frequency 
count and an inappropriate comparison: "Quarks and neutrinos figure in Mr. 
Li's writings as frequently as Buddhas and bodhisattvas." Following Prof. 
Ownby's example, we may find the anti-evolutionists evolution-friendly; 
after all, the name Darwin and the word "evolution" appear as frequently as 
the words God or Creator in many anti-evolutionary tracts. It is not very 
analytical to evaluate a Jingwen (or Scripture) by noting the words instead 
of their relations to the message. In fact, Li declared that science 
has brought largest disasters to the human being, should be blamed for all the 
immorality and horrors in human society (see Li's Frankfurt lecture, May 
30-31, 1998), and was an Alien creation to possess and ultimatly destroy 
the human world (see Li s Switzerland Lectures, August 4-5, 1998). Li's 
anti-science position could be best summarized with his own answer 
to a journalist: "The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and 
airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people 
believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. 
Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their 
inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, 
they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science." ("Interview 
with Li Hongzhi", Time Magazine Asia, May 10, 1999) In addition, we have 
yet to see any claims of even the slightest contribution from the 
scientist-disciples using Li's new definitions of light-year as 
measurement of time, grand theory of the universe, or any alien-tracking 
devise to prepare for an alien invasion. Nothing can be further from the 
truth than that Falungong is ever intended to be science. Moreover, Li's 
scripture is not about Buddha, but about his own Falun. Buddhas (Fo, Dao, 
Shen) were his lesser concern, and in fact, lower levels than his own 
according to him. 
 
The second point is: by categorizing it together with other schools of 
Qigong thus assuming to be part of the Chinese tradition (however it is 
defined), Ownby leveled down the theological foundation of Falungong into 
something that would embarrass its owner, Li Hongzhi. Qigong was a gateway 
to attract the massive base and Li never hid this intention. Li also 
declared that Falungong was not Qigong per se but something he created and 
archived in pre-historic time ( "I am teaching things at the higher levels 
of Qigong, it is therefore not the ordinary Qigong." See Li's Sydney 
Lectures). Is it legitimate to level down Falungong to such so as to 
establish a link to the Chinese culture? We are afraid that despite 
Ownby's charitable intent, the followers of Falungong may take it as an 
insult under ordinary (i.e., non-Fa-Rectification) circumstances. 
 
On a broader note, an evolving culture embodying a coherent set of beliefs 
and social norms probably describes better the state of every culture and 
subculture. Cultures are changing through communications with other 
cultures throughout our histories. The advantage of an open society is to 
allow this process to speed up, to let errors be eliminated quickly through 
critical thinking. A study of history is useful when such is taken 
critically and focused on the problem solving process. What problem did 
Falungong purport to solve? Those disciples interviewed by Ownby obviously 
found the lack of spirituality in the contemporary life as Li had defined 
it: degenerating through time and approaching a total collapse of human 
society, plus alien infiltration. While Ownby drawing from his interviews 
collaborated such a view of lacking among the Chinese, Li provided the 
solution by returning to the prehistoric mental state through cultivating 
to his Falun Paradise. This is a solution by, at least, disillusion. It 
will not enlighten us to any challenges of contemporary life. Recent 
self-immolations in Beijing have shown such effects. 
 
Modern society thrives on openness. After careful perusal of Li's works, 
we have yet to find an indication of open-mindedness. Isn't it true that 
people should reject inferior cultures once the supreme Falun Law is 
established? Did we not hear the shout that Falun Dafa is above the State 
Law at their experience-sharing conferences last weekend? If the 
spirituality Ownby seemed to approve was based upon an exclusive belief 
system, shall we approve other forms of faith-based superiority? 
 
Even worse, his survey method supporting his claims had every element in 
the not-to-do list for an introductory survey class. By surveying 
experience-sharing conference attendees, Ownby alleged that they were 
representative of the average followers, ignoring the self-selection 
bias. Could anyone imagine these conference attendees not being 
"spiritual" (if not fervent) at that moment? The uncritical acceptance of 
extraordinary claims often yields erroneous conclusions. 
 
If the author had read Li's works over and over, as advised by earnest 
disciples, he may have discovered a different Falungong and we may be 
better off without this quantum-leap spinning. Otherwise, whenever 
revisions of Falungong is called for, it should be done by the living 
Master himself, not by a professor who is apparently not familiar with Li's 
teachings. 

Regards,

Shi-min Fang
President of
New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, Inc. (http://www.xys.org)
P.O. Box 26194
San Diego, CA 92196-0194

Zixian Deng
Graduate Student of
Department of Political Science
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203