MYSTICAL ILLUMINATING NECTAR'S DIVINE COMPASSION OF ENLIGHTENMENT UNITY AND REVELATION

Refutation of 108 Points of Falun Gong / Falun Dafa

The following 108 points are offered in good spirit, not as hostility but as constructive suggestions. They outline areas where Falun Gong has contradicted its own claims or failed to live up to its ideals. Rather than stagnating or becoming redundant — at best resembling the very Buddhist and Daoist traditions it once rejected as corrupted, inefficient, or incapable of saving people in the Dharma-ending age — Falun Gong could, in the next five years, evolve into something more open, pluralistic, and relevant. These points highlight the inconsistencies and offer direction for renewal if the movement truly wishes to remain meaningful.

I. The Myth of Non-Politicization (1–12)

  1. Falun Gong claims it is "not political," yet its organizations lobby governments, run media outlets, and push political agendas against China worldwide.
  2. “Politics” is defined by Falun Gong in an inconsistent way — they reject Chinese politics but actively intervene in Western politics.
  3. Practitioners are instructed to distribute propaganda materials, attend demonstrations, and lobby officials — all political actions.
  4. The Epoch Times and NTD are openly political media arms founded and run by Falun Gong practitioners.
  5. Calling political activism “truth clarification” does not make it apolitical.
  6. The “Three Withdrawals” campaign (urging Chinese to quit CCP-affiliated organizations) is a direct political initiative.
  7. Falun Gong positions itself as a persecuted spiritual group, but its public face is deeply enmeshed with global anti-CCP activism.
  8. Claims of “we only cultivate ourselves” are contradicted by organized global campaigns.
  9. The movement frames dissenters as “political” but reframes its own political actions as “spiritual duty.”
  10. Li Hongzhi himself gives political speeches — such as likening the CCP to demons and demanding its eradication.
  11. Western governments are courted for support, demonstrating political lobbying disguised as “human rights advocacy.”
  12. If non-politicization were genuine, practitioners would not be organized into global networks aligned with anti-CCP goals.

II. Falun Dafa Associations Before Persecution (13–16)

  1. Falun Gong claims associations were spontaneous and apolitical, yet records show formal “Falun Dafa Associations” were registered in China before 1999.
  2. These associations had organized hierarchies and coordinated activities, resembling political or religious organizations.
  3. The existence of such associations undermines the narrative of Falun Gong as only a loose group of meditation practitioners.
  4. Their later denial of organizational structure contradicts their own history.

III. Energy Development & Lack of Practitioners (17–20)

  1. Li Hongzhi promised practitioners would develop supernatural powers and “high energy,” but no evidence exists after 20+ years.
  2. No outstanding public-facing practitioners have demonstrated verifiable abilities, unlike claims of levitation, healing, or clairvoyance.
  3. The excuse that powers are “hidden” is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.
  4. The claim of “high energy” is further contradicted by the lack of extraordinary achievements among long-term followers.

IV. Financial Questions (21–24)

  1. Falun Gong officially claims to be free of money interests, yet enormous resources flow into its media, events, and lobbying.
  2. The origins of these funds are obscure, raising transparency concerns.
  3. Ordinary practitioners often donate time, labor, and money, while leadership maintains strict control of resources.
  4. Commercialization of teachings through books, lectures, and events contradicts the claim of being free from financial motives.

V. Expulsions and Treatment of Dissenters (25–36)

  1. Falun Gong presents itself as inclusive and compassionate, but dissenting voices are routinely silenced or expelled.
  2. Practitioners who question Li’s teachings or group direction are labeled as “interfered with by demons.”
  3. Expulsion is often accompanied by social shunning, leading to isolation of the practitioner.
  4. Such shunning contradicts the supposed central value of “compassion.”
  5. Internal disagreements are rarely resolved through dialogue; instead, dissent is equated with spiritual failure.
  6. This fosters an atmosphere of fear and conformity rather than genuine spiritual exploration.
  7. Many practitioners report being excluded simply for asking critical questions.
  8. Expulsion is justified under the rhetoric of “maintaining purity of the Fa,” a control mechanism.
  9. By removing dissenters, the group maintains an illusion of unity.
  10. This dynamic undermines Falun Gong’s claim of being a free and individual cultivation practice.
  11. It shows strong cult-like tendencies rather than an open spiritual tradition.
  12. A healthy spiritual community would value diversity of experience, but Falun Gong enforces uniformity.

VI. Singling Out Dissenting Practitioners (37–44)

  1. Criticism is often personalized: dissenters are labeled “bad practitioners” or “fake cultivators.”
  2. This framing shifts responsibility from the group’s flaws to the individual’s supposed weakness.
  3. Falun Gong literature warns practitioners to avoid those who criticize the teachings — classic isolation tactic.
  4. Such warnings create suspicion among practitioners and erode trust.
  5. The result is a group culture where honest dialogue is dangerous.
  6. Singling out dissenters strengthens Li Hongzhi’s authority while silencing alternative interpretations.
  7. Many former practitioners report mental distress after being ostracized.
  8. This contradiction undermines Falun Gong’s image as compassionate and tolerant.

VII. Absolute Authority of Li Hongzhi (45–52)

  1. Despite saying he is “just a regular man,” Li is treated as an infallible figure whose words are beyond question.
  2. His teachings are referred to as the “Fa,” implying cosmic law rather than personal opinion.
  3. Practitioners are told that questioning Li is equivalent to deviating from truth itself.
  4. Even minor corrections or clarifications of his words are discouraged.
  5. This structure gives Li absolute interpretive authority over doctrine.
  6. No other teachers or leaders are allowed to develop independent interpretations.
  7. Falun Gong is thus built on the charisma of one leader, not on a pluralistic spiritual dialogue.
  8. Such absolute authority is incompatible with claims of being a free and open cultivation practice.

VIII. Limits of One-Person Enlightenment (53–60)

  1. Falun Gong emphasizes that Li Hongzhi’s “Fa” is the highest law, but one person’s experience cannot account for the diversity of human spirituality.
  2. Spiritual traditions usually develop through centuries of contributions; Falun Gong limits itself to one man’s viewpoint.
  3. This leads to rigidity: anything outside Li’s framework is automatically dismissed.
  4. Genuine enlightenment traditions encourage reinterpretation, commentary, and evolution — Falun Gong forbids it.
  5. Li’s claims to cosmic truth prevent dialogue with other philosophies, reducing adaptability.
  6. The result is stagnation rather than the living evolution of wisdom.
  7. No genuine pluralism can exist under the shadow of one absolute voice.
  8. This absolutism contradicts Falun Gong’s claim to universality.

IX. Rejection of Buddhism and Daoism While Claiming Their Roots (61–67)

  1. Falun Gong constantly invokes Buddhist and Daoist imagery, yet rejects actual Buddhist and Daoist traditions.
  2. Li Hongzhi claims to surpass Shakyamuni and Laozi, implying their teachings are outdated.
  3. This both denies the depth of those traditions and parasitically borrows their legitimacy.
  4. Traditional Buddhist and Daoist practices emphasize humility, while Falun Gong insists on uniqueness and superiority.
  5. Many Falun Gong concepts (karma, compassion, cultivation, Dao, Fa) are lifted directly from Buddhist and Daoist heritage.
  6. Yet practitioners are discouraged from studying the source traditions, isolating them from authentic lineages.
  7. This paradox leaves Falun Gong without roots, simultaneously dependent on and dismissive of its sources.

X. Politics Redefined (68–73)

  1. Falun Gong insists it is “not political,” but politics is fundamentally the art of decision-making and governing.
  2. By this definition, every organized human group is inherently political.
  3. Falun Gong itself makes decisions: who leads, what doctrines are emphasized, who is expelled.
  4. However, Falun Gong lacks the maturity to govern fairly or inclusively.
  5. Instead of admitting this incapacity, Falun Gong rebrands its avoidance of responsibility as “non-political.”
  6. This redefinition is disingenuous — the group engages in politics externally, while denying it internally.

XI. Ghosting and Silence Toward Rejected Members (74–79)

  1. Rejected or excommunicated practitioners often experience “ghosting” — sudden, total social silence.
  2. Friends and fellow practitioners cut off all contact, instructed not to “be interfered with.”
  3. This practice is psychologically damaging, creating trauma similar to cult-style shunning.
  4. Falun Dafa associations almost never acknowledge expulsions publicly.
  5. Instead, silence is used as a tool to erase dissenters’ existence within the community.
  6. Such silence contradicts Falun Gong’s public claims of truth, openness, and compassion.

XII. Lack of Independent Oversight (80–82)

  1. Falun Gong has no independent institutions to review grievances or conflicts.
  2. Excommunicated practitioners are denied recognition by Falun Dafa associations — no appeals, no dialogue, no transparency.
  3. Calls for independent investigation or tribunals into expulsions are ignored, reinforcing authoritarianism.

XIII. The MindCoeur Issue: Rejection Without Engagement (83–91)

  1. MindCoeur, as a contemporary philosophical-spiritual framework, offers an original contribution to questions of consciousness and cultivation.
  2. Instead of engaging with it, Falun Gong rejects it outright, calling it “deviation.”
  3. This rejection is not based on reasoned dialogue but on loyalty to Li Hongzhi’s authority.
  4. Practitioners are discouraged from even studying outside frameworks like MindCoeur.
  5. By refusing to engage, Falun Gong demonstrates fear of intellectual competition.
  6. Such refusal also reveals insecurity in its own foundations.
  7. Authentic spiritual traditions grow by dialogue, not by suppression.
  8. Rejecting MindCoeur without evaluation undermines Falun Gong’s claim of openness.
  9. This rejection illustrates a deeper intolerance toward originality outside Li’s system.

XIV. Silence Around MindCoeur’s Originality (92–99)

  1. Falun Dafa associations remain silent on MindCoeur’s originality, refusing acknowledgment.
  2. Practitioners are taught to dismiss non-Li sources without discussion.
  3. This silence erases valid spiritual innovation outside the Falun Gong sphere.
  4. By refusing to even mention alternative systems, the group preserves Li as the “only” origin of wisdom.
  5. Such silence is a subtle form of censorship, discouraging curiosity.
  6. Ignoring originality deprives practitioners of exposure to diverse insights.
  7. Silence also shields the movement from being compared to new philosophies.
  8. A living tradition would welcome dialogue; silence reveals authoritarian closure.

XV. Inacceptance and Intellectual Inflexibility (100–108)

  1. Falun Gong is incapable of accepting MindCoeur because its model depends on Li’s absolute uniqueness.
  2. Acceptance would imply that other paths could also cultivate truth — undermining Li’s claim to final authority.
  3. Thus, rejection is automatic, regardless of the value of the philosophy.
  4. This inacceptance reflects intellectual inflexibility, not spiritual clarity.
  5. Inflexibility contradicts the values of “truthfulness” and “compassion,” which require openness.
  6. By excluding innovative frameworks like MindCoeur, Falun Gong closes itself off from cultural dialogue.
  7. This harms both practitioners, who remain isolated, and wider society, which loses potential exchange.
  8. A philosophy that cannot coexist with others reveals itself as fragile.
  9. The refusal to acknowledge MindCoeur exposes Falun Gong’s ultimate weakness: its inability to evolve.

In conclusion, these 108 points should be understood not as condemnation but as an invitation to honest self-reflection. Falun Gong stands at a crossroads: either to continue closing itself within the rigid authority of a single teacher, or to embrace dialogue, pluralism, and spiritual innovation. The latter path would allow it to transcend the fate of repeating the stagnation of the traditions it once denounced. Renewal requires openness, humility, and acknowledgment of alternative insights such as MindCœur, without which no movement can truly claim universality. The next five years could be decisive: either decline into irrelevance, or transformation into a more compassionate, truthful, and tolerant tradition in practice as well as in words. The cases of individuals such as Marek Tatarko, Peter Kubovic, Veronika Sunova, and Florian Godovits further illustrate how systemic and teaching problems manifest within Falun Gong association hierarchies, and why meaningful reform is urgently needed.

Issued by MindCœur Advisory Board
As an Advisory Note for Reflection and Guidance