On February 28, the CCTV program "Interview on Focus" made a special analysis of the Tiananmen self-immolation incident and accusations of mind-control by Falun Gong. I have some friends who practice Falun Gong. I was very confused after watching this program: How could those gentle and peaceful friends of mine practice such a kind of Qigong? Thus, I have carried on some deep thinking. I do not believe in any Qigong exercises, but I have a good understanding of history. I am also a firm liberalist. Here I would like to provide my independent opinions, according to my understanding of the truth.

I feel there are some facts and understanding that needs to be clarified:

1. Are those people who set themselves on fire Falun Gong practitioners?

2. Is there any causal relationship between Falun Gong's teachings and these people's decision to set themselves on fire?

3. Did the people who set themselves on fire have mental obstacles or serious misunderstandings?

4. What is "mind-control"?

The first question mainly has to do with discovering the facts. This incident has caused a lot of disputes and is indeed surrounded by many doubtful points. It should be openly investigated by an independent organization to determine whether or not these people are Falun Gong practitioners. We won't discuss it any further here.

Regarding the second question: according to the self-immolators, they have said that they were enlightened to the idea of self-immolation through "studying the Fa." At the same time, though, they also mentioned that Falun Gong's teachings forbid suicide or any kind of killing. Then, how could they have become "enlightened" to the idea of self-immolation? Isn't the behavior of self-immolation against Falun Gong's teachings, which forbids the suicide? This is a key point here, and we are very unclear about what was truly happening.

Speaking from a point of law: There has to be cause and effect between the criminal behavior and the criminal outcome of an offense. It needs to be proven that there is indeed a detrimental, damaging effect on society at large, caused by the perpetrator(s) of the unlawful action. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that Falun Gong would be responsible for the incident ONLY if the behavior of the self-immolators were caused by the teachings of Falun Gong.

From history we all know that there occurred a lot of divisions among the Christian churches after the Reformation in the 16^th century. Different groups often criticized other groups and labeled each other as heterodoxy [note: not on a righteous or orthodox path of teaching]. During that part of European history, they also carried on cruel religious persecutions. I do not think that Jesus and the teachings of the original Christianity that advocate love should be held responsible for these persecutions that were carried out.

Here I am not saying the "enlightenment" of the self-immolators is definitely not related to Falun Gong's teachings. I don't have enough knowledge to render judgment on this issue. I just want to call attention that there is an important point to heed when pointing blame or pronouncing judgment on who is responsible for a specific incident. Historically, Zen Buddhism focused on "enlightenment." Throughout that history, there were many and various kinds of "enlightenment" proclaimed by different people. It was unclear and hard to judge whether one's own "enlightenment" had deviated from Zen Buddhism or how far one had deviated from the real teaching. At least, it is hard for a layman like me to judge.

About the third question: if the self-immolators had a mental illness, then it would be unreasonable to claim that their behaviors were related to Falun Gong's teaching. This is Falun Gong practitioners' best point. However, from watching the TV program's reporters interviewing these people, it was not at all clear whether or not they had a mental illness. However, another possibility should not be neglected. Did the self-immolators have serious misunderstandings in their "enlightenment" to the teaching of Falun Gong? If the misunderstandings are serious, then it is unreasonable to blame Falun Gong for their decisions. This also is related to the second question, above, that we have just discussed.

Nowadays, the academia begins to judge Hong Xiuquan and his "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" [a rebellion in China in the 19^th century] more objectively. Hong Xiuquan killed people arbitrarily. He utilized the management system of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom to immorally associate with women without restraint. However, he claimed that he was Jesus' "younger brother." Considering Hong Xiuquan's historical past which was full of misdeeds, the Christian religion will never admit that he is related or has anything to do with Christianity. Although Hong Xiuquan utilized the religious doctrine of Christianity from beginning to end, Jesus would definitely never admit that he had a younger brother like him. Nevertheless, Hong Xiuquan did not have a mental illness and yet he said he was "enlightened" to the religious doctrines of Christianity and "enlightened" to everything he needed to organize the rebels and cause destruction. After Karl Marx found out about Hong Xiuquan's notorious record, he called Hong Xiuquan "the devil of China." That is to say, from an upright religion, Hong Xiuquan "enlightened" to everything that a devil would need. Will you say the wrongdoings of the so-called "younger brother of Jesus" have something to do with Christianity? Of course, the [party name omitted] Party of China has always highly praised Hong Xiuquan and the "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom," because Hong Xiuquan was a peasant rebelling against the established government at the time.

The Chinese official statement focused on Falun Gong being good at "mind control." I think, "mind control" is a very fuzzy term, which implies the existence of committing a spiritual crime. It does not make a person, a criminal, just because of his thoughts, or if that person conducts "mind control." So, the idea of "mind control" does not agree with the spirits of the legal system.

What is "mind control"? Aren't the following also considered "mind control"?

• Confucius promoted the traditional virtues of benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, and honesty.

• Carl Marx advocated arming the mind of workers with scientific socialism.

• China propagandized the spirits of moral exemplar, Lei Feng.

• The international companies spend a great amount of money advertising.

• Scholars wrote books to promote their own thought.

During the ruling period of Mao Zedong, everyone had his books and everyone was dancing the "dance of loyalty to Mao." Jiang Zemin's policy of "three advocacies" is actually a very serious mind control. In fact, all civilizations attempt to influence others and it is normal to have this kind of influence on one's mind. So, I think that the phenomenon of "mind control" is omni-present and it is not appropriate to adopt such a fuzzy term and criteria to characterize Falun Gong.

The term "mind control" ignores the initiation and responsibility of each individual and makes the "controller" take all the responsibility. Everyone has the freedom to choose and judge an ideology. The interchange and propagation of ideologies is an interactive process, not a one-way relation, between propagators and receivers. The life span of an ideology depends upon whether the public accepts it, and absolutely not dependent upon how hard the advocator promotes it. That is to say, even if the fact of "mind control" is true, it still cannot have any dominating or leading role in deciding if an ideology is accepted, nor can it prevent the ideology from dying. Furthermore, how the receiver develops his understanding of an ideology is not necessarily in the control of "the mind controller."

For example, during the last period of the Ancient Roman Empire, the ideology of hedonism [or pleasure-seeking] was very popular and the civilization was quite corrupted. Christianity was like a fresh and cool breeze, which was unnoticeably growing on the land of the Roman Empire. This was recognized as "deeply rooted in people's heart," instead of "mind control." During the late Middle Ages, many priests led a corrupt life and pursued worldly fame and self-interest, which seriously damaged the reputation of Christianity. Under that situation, although Christianity was in an overpowering position and had many ways to practice "mind control," no one could prevent it from declining and collapsing. In my view, the influence and effect of "mind control" should not be exaggerated.

The term "mind control" also carries a strong flavor of obscurantism. No one is so foolish that one's mind can be easily controlled. Isn't each individual the best person to judge the problems one has faced? It is very difficult to distinguish "mind control" from "deeply rooted in people's heart", when there is no freedom of speech and the atmosphere is hostile and horrifying.

In a modern and diverse society, it is normal to have many ideologies and no one can force others to believe in one or another. Before liberation in China, the Communists incessantly stepped forward to save the country. That was not a result of "mind control", nor could it be stopped by the killing policy of the Kuomintang [which was the governing party in China before 1949]. Nowadays, the failure of practicing socialism demonstrates that no ideology is the absolute truth and is only, now, putting on a show of being an absolute truth. People's freedoms, human rights, and well-being are the criteria to measure an ideology and a principle, and the measuring is done by the process of natural realization and evolution. The times that one ideology has the absolute power to judge whether others' are right or wrong, have passed. The unification of ideologies should not be the prerequisite to maintain the stability of a society, rather it should allow diversity to rationally and harmoniously interact with each other.

Please be aware: I am not in a position to favor Falun Gong. I am just pointing out a way and mentality to look at the problems. How come Falun Gong has such a great ability of "mind control"? If it is a lie, it will not go on for too long. If it is indeed outstanding, science experts should conduct serious studies on the mechanism of "mind control". China has educated its party members to be righteous officers for so many years, and why are there so many corrupt high officers whom cannot be stopped by regulations. In fact, the important thing about an ideology is whether it can be in line with people's heart, rather than its ability at "mind control". How strict was the "mind control" in the Soviet Union? It collapsed in the end. If an ideology or a party does not pay enough attention to the needs of the people, its ability to unify the public will decline. The party is still the same party and the ideology is the same ideology, but the misconduct of each party member will greatly damage the attracting and unifying ability of its ideology. If Falun Gong believers all become enlightened to conduct "self-immolation", and if the principles of Falun Gong indeed have some problems, there is no need to suppress Falun Gong because it will die out before long. Isn't the internal factor the determinant? Of course, I don't feel that I am smarter than others, I believe that everyone will be able to rationally judge and evaluate the problems one has.

The history of China has taught us: Don't use violence and critics to resolve the conflicts among ideologies; although it was very controversial, at the time, the answers would soon become clear, afterwards. In order to maintain stability in a society, one should allow the differences among ideologies to co-exist and not criticize them. One should resolve the social conflicts with guidance, rather than further stirring up the conflict or resolving the conflicts by force. One should not only maintain social stability, but should also maintain the looseness and unification of a society.

In any case, the self-immolators and their family are unfortunate. Our society should have a mechanism to resolve the conflicts in a society to prevent this kind of tragedies from re-occurring. We should hold an open discussion to resolve the conflicts and should avoid using measures to worsen the conflicts. In the history of China, there have been many political movements and many conflicts between the government and the people. We should learn to rationally deal with these conflicts.

While facing critical ideological differences in a society, time and the nature of human mind are the most reliable criteria to judge right from wrong.

March 2, 2001