One Response to Zhu Yunchuan:“An Analysis of Lifechanyuan, from its Founding to its Closure”

Taiji

June 27, 2017

From Zhu Yunchuan’s closing statement in his article, we can see that his purpose was well-meant. Lifechanyuan is an open system, so we absorb and adopt what is correct and discard what is incorrect. Billions of gallons, the sea does hold; for greatness is measured by content.

Zhu said that “the closures were in fact related to the current domestic ideological transformation”. This is correct, but his arguments are somewhat irrelevant. It might be that he has never read our Chanyuan Corpus or Xuefeng Corpus comprehensively or that he barely knows that Chanyuan values are fully based upon the thoughts of Jesus, Shakyamuni, and Laozi. For example, the chapters on Celestial Cultivation, the attainment of Buddhahood, and Self Improvement and Cultivation to list just a few, are unlikely to appear in the Christian community. The content of Celestial Cultivation is always the main line of our theory because as Chanyuan celestials, we strive to climb to the highest states of Life and life.

Speaking of the highest state of life, we are to live the goal of happy, joyous and free ones. Zhu said that Lifechanyuan advocates sexual freedom and the dissolution of families, but this argument does not hold to the facts. Sexual proliferation and family crises are social phenomena that have existed throughout history and have caused many human tragedies. As rational people, we should face these phenomena properly and seek fair, reasonable, and natural solutions so that everyone can live happy, joyous and free lives without hurting each other, and this solution is exactly what the New Oasis for Life’s new life mode as created by Lifechanyuan’s guide Xuefeng does. Traditional societies, which Zhu holds fast to, include imprisonment, suppression, dominance, and the moral bondage of sex, as well hot and cold wars and domestic violence that occur in traditional families. Are these not the root causes of countless tragic incidents? So, is this traditional model in line with the long-term development of human society, or is the model below more in line with the long-term development of human society? People live freely - including sexually; they do not possess each other, bind or harm each other, small families grow into large ones, people get along with each other harmoniously, and women are respected first and foremost.

We can understand Zhu’s hatred of religion, and Lifechanyuan also advocates that human ideology should exist apart from religion, so no religious ceremonies or the like are held in Lifechanyuan and we resolutely oppose and fight against the concepts of spirits and deities. We only believe in the Greatest Creator who created the universe, and incorporate the teachings of gods, Buddha, and celestials in our actual production and life mode. Regarding the secular regime, we hold an attitude of respect and equality in the Chanyuan values and it is written clearly that Lifechanyuan exists harmoniously with the secular government. Lifechanyuan is only a platform from which mankind can open their thinking toward the spiritual realm. In material world affairs, the secular government has its meaning and value of existence. When the government did something against us because they did not understand us temporarily, we neither resisted nor complained, but just conformed to nature and followed nature as Laozi taught us to. There is no such thing as a “shift from the oppression of a secular regime to that of a theocracy”, as Zhu said. Logically speaking, this does not conform to our outlook on the world, or the life and values that we pursue.

From Zhu’s fourth argument, it is clear that he confuses Marx and Engel’s communism with Xuefeng-style communism. I will not say too much regarding the phenomena that emerged from the practice and implementation of those earlier systems. About Zhu’s point of view, “allowing what belongs to society to return to society and returning what belongs to individuals to individuals”, I want to ask, what belongs to society and what belongs to individuals? Lifechanyuan pursues life values in which no one possesses anything but can use everything that they need. This is neither private ownership nor public ownership, but non-ownership. I want to ask again, are today’s world crises not the products of private and public ownership? There are traces of Laozi’s thoughts in Zhu’s interpretation of common creed. If Zhu wants to analyze more objectively and rationally, he should afford himself an opportunity to visit Lifechanyuan and experience our lifestyle personally. Perhaps he would find that Chanyuan celestials are just living lives of interconnectedness! It can be found that when people cast their paranoia aside, they can still get the same result by different routes!

About Zhu’s comments on our deviating from the four great ways, it was also a novel summary. We will correct any mistakes that we might have made and guard against them if we have not done so. Honestly, Lifechanyuan is not an organization, has no authority, and everyone is equal with the right to speak up and protest. The truth of the authority of guide Xuefeng comes from Chanyuan values, but all are welcome to challenge it. You are welcome to refute the views in Chanyuan Corpus and Xuefeng Corpus, then you can break down what you think is the truth of authority.

Zhu, I will end this with a sentence from our 800 Values for New Era Human Being: “Those who contemplate new solutions with traditional values are reactionaries resting on their laurels”.