How to distinguish between a cult and an acceptable but different practice?

Greetings, fellow readers.

I had made a similar post but it was locked due to my violation of Rule16 where I had included specific details which were prohibited. This is my revised version.

Not long ago, I came across a number of video clips depicting the founder-master of a ‘Buddhist’ movement/organisation giving ‘totem enquiries’ on stage before a sizeable crowd. According to their website, the founder-master “is able to examine one’s Totem in heaven according to the birth year, Chinese zodiac sign, and gender provided by the inquirer. By referencing the Totem, all information about one’s past, present and future lives can be collected.”

The website also says: “Following the (founder-master’s) Dharma teachings, we can repay our karmic debts by performing recitations. Combined with making Great Vows and performing Life Liberation including releasing fish, we can recover from illnesses and overcome difficulties in life.” The founder-master is also “regarded as a manifestation of Guan Yin Bodhisattva”.

My concerns with the video clips are two-fold: the attitude of the founder-master and the substantive claims made by him. Regarding the former, I find him to be very arrogant. When a lady was talking about her family member’s illness, he struck her down by saying, “don’t bother telling me”, in reference to his predictive capabilities and that he doesn’t need a full story to form the diagnosis. When he gets any guesses right, he would literally ask the spectators to clap for him. He also likes to, what seems to me, fuel people’s fears, by saying “this is very serious, this is troubling, etc”. He’s also unrestrained in his criticisms of the patients’ (or their family members’) bad deeds, e.g., being a fishmonger, running a restaurant which serves animals, running a chicken farm, etc.

On this point, I stumbled upon a blog post of a lady (“the blogger”) claiming to be “a long time Theravada practitioner” and she notes that this particular founder-master’s style of teaching is similar to other “enlightened Masters” that she had met, where they would be “direct and not hesitate to reprimand because they can read our thoughts”.

Regarding the substantive claims, he attributes any and all illnesses and disabilities (autism, epilepsy, cancer, cerebral palsy, etc) to one’s own or other family members’ karma and the presence of spirits in their body. The blogger opines that the founder-master’s reprimandations on the patients in front of a crowd, and the patients remose appeases the spirits, make them feel vindicated and would be more willing to leave the patients. This, she says, is an act of compassion from the founder-master, and also serves as a lesson to other spectators.

The founder-master’s go-to cure for all illnesses is his signature ‘Little Houses’ which is a combination of Great Compassion Mantra, Heart Sutra, Amitabha Pure Land Rebirth Mantra and Sapta Atitabuddha Karasaniya Dharani, to ‘clear off karmic debts’ by ‘transferring merits to his/her karmic creditors’. There are also strict rules governing his methods which I shall not elaborate so as not to waste time.

The blogger says that the organisation continues to grow “because he solved people’s woes and problems” and “if his methods are bogus or fake, he would not have lasted for so many years”. She also addresses the claim that the teachings are a deviation from orthodox Buddhist teachings by saying that different teacher practices different teaching methods. Regarding the ‘Little Houses’, she finds no problem in that because many Buddhist practices today are not written in the scriptures; “when the Buddha was alive, he never allowed to have any statues of him build or carvings of his face done.” “There is no doubt that many established Buddhist rituals, even though they only exist after Buddha’s time, does generate huge merits.”

I wish I could provide the link to the blog because there are many posts written in defence of founder-master and relates to religious topics commonly discussed among South East Asian Chinese (of which I am a member) but that might be in contravention of the rules.

In the premises, I would appreciate it if anyone can clarify my following doubts :-

  1. Are there ‘true’ Buddhist teachings?
  2. If No.1 exists, will there ever be situations where the deviation is acceptable?
  3. Are different interpretations regarded as deviations?
  4. Is cultural assimilation a form of deviation? E.g., mixing Buddhism with Taoism and practising the product of the mixture.
  5. Is there transmigration on the effects of karma? E.g. effect of the ancestors’ killing spree on his/her descendants.
  6. Can a teacher’s behaviour/attitude be judged in the absence of scrutinising his teachings? Would this be an ‘ad hominem’ fallacy? E.g., not wanting to explore the teacher’s teachings based on his arrogant behaviour.
  7. Are there Buddhist masters who are able to see the unseen? E.g., a person’s past, present & future, reading minds, spirits, etc.
  8. Are all claims of being a manifestation/reincarnation of any Bodhisattva/Budha bogus?
  9. Is it possible to divert one’s merits to another?
  10. Will the deliberate act of doing good deeds rid one of one’s illnesses? (A pretty popular piece of advice by Mahayana practitioners in my country whenever one faces any illness or hardship is to generate more merit by doing good deeds).
  11. Can we be certain that any hardship/illness that befalls us is due to bad karma?
  12. Does chanting mantras generate merit if one doesn’t know the meaning of the mantra and if one knows?
  13. If someone does good deeds because he wants to reap good results, does it make him insincere and thus would not garner merits?
  14. Is the constant self-reminder to do good deeds a form of attachment?
  15. Are there specific situations when mantras are not to be chanted? (That founder-master says that certain mantras cannot be chanted at specific hours and weather conditions).
  16. Is there an easy way to verify Buddhist claims made by Buddhists from various schools without having to pore through voluminous suttas, lectures and/or books on a specific topic that might be hard to find? Is there a (comprehensive) list of FAQs?

As my previous post was locked, Bhante Sujato had PM-ed me with his input which I am grateful. Any further information regarding this topic is greatly appreciated!

Many thanks in advance. May you have a great day ahead :smiley:

1 Like

Hi, I will try to answer some of those questions.

  1. Yes, and they would be contained in early Buddhist texts (but the reverse inclusion does not appear to be true).

  2. If you look at the Vinaya, that would be a hard NO. But, since the original teaching has been considered at least partly lost since around year 0 CE and since it has become tricky to figure out even in the Pali scriptures which teachings are original teachings of the Buddha and which are later fabrications (some undoubtedly are, like a good portion of MN 117, which might have been a commentary accidentally considered part of the sutta at some point), we do have to apply a minimum of tolerance otherwise there can’t be any unity in the Sangha.

  3. It depends what interpretation of what. There doesn’t seem to be a one sided answer to this question.

  4. I would normally say yes, but again there would be the a possibility to practice only those elements of Taoism which are compatible with Buddhism, and it seems this is what the Buddha did. See for example MN 1.

  5. Not directly but the descendant’s karma would be linked to the ancestor’s by means of rebirth. Meaning someone with good karma should be able to choose a birth without problematic ancestors. Once the birth has been chosen, the actions of the ancestor can affect the person’s life in a good or bad way, through the regular, unhidden, chains of causes and consequences

  6. Nobody should force you to explore anyone’s teaching, so if you don’t like their personality you should just skip them and find someone more inspiring. In the Vinaya and also in some suttas one is to judge another by observing their behavior, for example for choosing a suitable preceptor. Myself I would never follow anyone who isn’t inspiring.

  7. Yes I do think so. But the only examples I know come from people with very high meditation skills, people who are true renunciates.

  8. I would be tempted to say yes, but allow for 0.00001% chance that it might actually be true.

  9. I don’t believe that, but this seems to be a common belief even in Theravada so I am also curious what others will have to say on this one.

  10. Maybe, in some very rare cases. But I don’t think this should be the go-to solution. Investigating the real causes of illness and then eradicated these causes should be the go-to solution.

  11. I am not sure about this one, so I will pass

  12. That would depend what the mantra is and how one chants it. The Buddha did recommend Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha anussatis, which can be and sometimes are chanted a mantras.

  13. There’s a sutta about the intention for making merit. It’s not insincere but that sutta says it produces merit for the lower heavens.

  14. Yes it is. But attachment is to be used to get rid of attachment. Attachment to Buddha Dhamma Sangha until one becomes an arahant is good. Obviously not all attachments are good, only the temporarily useful ones, the ones the Buddha recommended. If we couldn’t use attachment to get rid of attachment there would be no liberation from suffering.

  15. For Buddhanussati and so forth, I don’t see any restrictions, unless it prevents one from performing a very important action in that moment, like saving someone’s life.

  16. I would stay away from people who are used to making claims, that’s a bad sign. So making a claim in itself is cause enough for suspicion in my book.

I hope you can distance yourself from such troublesome figures.

1 Like

I know who you refer to. In my personal opinion, please stay away from them.

One common trick of the cult is to make “a show” where the charismatic leader heal/ solve / answer in public, maybe in large congregation.
For example, a very common and visible miracle is when a (supposedly) disabled can stand from wheelchair. (They wont invite a cancer patient)
Another one is a spectator converting on the spot, after they got great answer from the speaker. (Later this person also converting again in another meeting at another town)

If we look at his method, gathering masses etc, I am deeply suspicious.

Again, let’s look at their goal. They want to eliminate karmic debt, and in turn eliminate all hardships in this life, including sickness. They also mentioned about getting rich.
Is this buddhist practice?

All mainstream buddhist sect has Nirvana/ Nibbana/ Enlightenment as their goal. To be free from samsara forever. Maybe a certain sect choose to delay enlightenment to bring others along, but the ultimate goal is the same.
Try to look at this cult. Do they mention enlightenment?

Buddhism is kinda not appealing to common people because, well you know, to be enlightened we must abandon desire, lust, hatred etc.
Of course, there is method/ mantra to be healthy, to get wealth, to eliminate obstacles, to get rid of evil ghosts etc, especially in Mahayana. But they are still in the perspective of taking care of the temporal needs - as a tool to reach the ultimate goal.

Try to compare to this cult. They advertise all benefits as the goal itself. No wonder they are popular. Who doesn’t want to be healthy and rich? The organization continue to grow because worldly people are greedy.

Does the method work? I believe so.
No thanks to the so called master.

Because what the believers chanted are genuine buddhist scriptures. If they got benefit, is that because of that person? No. Without following his method of making this little house etc, it will still work.
So why bother following him?

Anyway, the fact that the blogger need to defend this cult, means that some people already accuse this cult. Try to search for their arguments. I think there have been a joint statement from mainstream buddhist organizations.

3 Likes

A good book on the topic is “Saints and Psychopaths”

4 Likes
  • Are there ‘true’ Buddhist teachings?

Yes, most basic and reliable is the 4 Noble truths. Most Buddhist cults might not have emphasis or even teaches this that’s one way to judge. Also, read the suttas to get more.

  • If No.1 exists, will there ever be situations where the deviation is acceptable?

In situations where the current prominent teachers might still be debating about certain interpretations of the suttas. Eg. Is deep Jhanas required for arahanthood or stream winning, or dry insight is enough? Basics like if some people claim that rebirth is not literal at all is not acceptable.

  • Are different interpretations regarded as deviations?

Highly context dependent.

  • Is cultural assimilation a form of deviation? E.g., mixing Buddhism with Taoism and practising the product of the mixture.

Depends, say Buddhism is the core, and they just have lots of decorations of the yin-yang symbol or some of the members believe in feng shui it’s still sort of ok. But if the main core teachings of that organisation is basically seeking for happiness in this life and the next, with no teachings on how to attain to Nibbana, or to emphasize on how to live until super old instead of exiting samsara. Or to deal with gods, ghosts and the like without emphasising on the morality which leads to good rebirth, or meditation which leads to Brahma realms beyond these, then no, they are using Buddhism as decoration, but their core is not Buddhism.

  • Is there transmigration on the effects of karma? E.g. effect of the ancestors’ killing spree on his/her descendants.

Kamma is personal.

  • Can a teacher’s behaviour/attitude be judged in the absence of scrutinising his teachings? Would this be an ‘ad hominem’ fallacy? E.g., not wanting to explore the teacher’s teachings based on his arrogant behaviour.

Depends. It’s easy enough to speak on the Dhamma which is correct, but not that easy to behave in accordance to the Dhamma. Which is more inspiring? A person who can only speak good Dhamma or a person who can speak good Dhamma and behave in an inspiring manner, in accordance to the Dhamma? No need to speak about those who’s teachings are not in accordance to the Dhamma.

  • Are there Buddhist masters who are able to see the unseen? E.g., a person’s past, present & future, reading minds, spirits, etc.

Yes, it’s part of the 10 mundane right views. Not just Buddhists masters. "There are no mother and father?" "There is nothing given?" A suggestion - #4 by NgXinZhao

  • Are all claims of being a manifestation/reincarnation of any Bodhisattva/Budha bogus?

Bodhisattva is more acceptable theoretically, Buddhas cannot be reborn anymore. Anyway, those who are daring enough to make such claims might have hidden agendas of greed for followers, money etc, it’s not easy to discern. Better to follow a humble teacher. If a teacher really wishes to practise Bodhisattva path, can just make aspiration to become a Buddha in the future. To hop onto the fame of existing Mahayana great Bodhisattvas seems like hogging their fame for one’s own (selfish) benefit. Also need to see if the claim is made by them or imposed on them by others. Like Dalai Lama’s case is imposed on him.

  • Is it possible to divert one’s merits to another?

No. Dedication of merit is the term. It’s to invite others to rejoice, and in rejoicing that is the merit itself. It’s a mudita practice. Only able to be effective towards the hungry ghost realms.

  • Will the deliberate act of doing good deeds rid one of one’s illnesses? (A pretty popular piece of advice by Mahayana practitioners in my country whenever one faces any illness or hardship is to generate more merit by doing good deeds).

MN135 speaks of past kamma:

Take some woman or man who habitually hurts living creatures with a fist, stone, rod, or sword. Because of undertaking such deeds, after death they’re reborn in a place of loss … or if they return to the human realm, they’re sickly …

But take some woman or man who does not habitually hurt living creatures with a fist, stone, rod, or sword. Because of undertaking such deeds, after death they’re reborn in a heavenly realm … or if they return to the human realm, they’re healthy …

SN36.21

Some feelings stem from phlegm disorders … wind disorders … their conjunction … change in weather … not taking care of yourself … overexertion … Some feelings are the result of past deeds

Not all illness is due to kamma, seek medical advice, don’t be superstitious, dogmatic. The exact workings of kamma is not conceivable.

  • Can we be certain that any hardship/illness that befalls us is due to bad karma?

AN4.77

“Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?

The results of deeds …
As mentioned above, exact working out of kamma is unthinkable.

  • Does chanting mantras generate merit if one doesn’t know the meaning of the mantra and if one knows?

Best is to know what one chants. Or else I feel it’s like meaningless. Chant of metta generates loving kindness, chant of triple gem gives confidence, joy, serenity. It’s part of reflection when chanting. To chant blindly, not knowing the meaning, believing that it results in merits is akin to being superstitious.

  • If someone does good deeds because he wants to reap good results, does it make him insincere and thus would not garner merits?

Better to do good out of selfish reasons first, then gradually purify even the motivations, intentions to become for the sake of Nibbana. Rather than trying to wait until intentions are purified before doing merits, then no merit might be done. Merits are still there even with expectations of rewards. Just suffering comes with expectations as well.

  • Is the constant self-reminder to do good deeds a form of attachment?

Good attachment. Don’t abandon the raft before crossing over the flood of samsara.

  • Are there specific situations when mantras are not to be chanted? (That founder-master says that certain mantras cannot be chanted at specific hours and weather conditions).

Superstitious nonsense, that teaching of him there about this is one of the very obvious clue to most educated Buddhist that that Master L is a cult leader. Ok, fine, don’t chant mantra in library, where one is supposed to be silent, or in a silent meditation retreat outside of the group chanting period.

  • Is there an easy way to verify Buddhist claims made by Buddhists from various schools without having to pore through voluminous suttas, lectures and/or books on a specific topic that might be hard to find? Is there a (comprehensive) list of FAQs?

https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda.htm
Suttas are a bit high level for beginners, you can start from the website above, go though the basic Buddhism, self study guide and so on. BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: E-Learning Buddhism

Took me many years to be able to be very comfortable with reading the suttas, mostly due to the desire to wish to see the original after so many years of second or third hand information.

Also feel free to search the forum, not just this forum, but also r/Buddhism, etc. Ask in the forums as well.

And there’s lots of good Buddhist societies in Malaysia. Which state are you in? Just google the state name plus buddhist society to get one. Buddhist Gem Fellowship, Fo Guang Shan Malaysia are two of the ones I would recommend off the top of my mind. Go join those Buddhist societies and learn orthodox Buddhism.

5 Likes

I’m just going to give general advice which is applicable to any ideology or philosophy.

Whether it’s a purely intellectual philosophy like Kierkegaard’s non-duality / no-self and all the modern philosophies that sprouted from it, or more superstitious and abstract like Mahayana or Taoism, or more logical like stoicism, or if it’s just plain old religion:

if you can’t see how to apply it to your day to day activities to improve the quality of your life and are only following it because it sounds good, it’s expected of you because of societal/family pressure, it’s trendy, or the leader is charismatic, then you’re probably in a cult.

To quote some useful suttas:

When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

That’s basically all there is to it, if the idea/view is good, it will be a wholesome improvement in your quality of life. Imho, not killing, not stealing, not cheating, not decieving, not taking drugs, etc… all have a direct improvement on your mental wellbeing, regardless if it’s a God, a philosopher or a charismatic leader telling you to not do unwholesome things.

In other words, the instructions/beliefs should stand on their own and be verifiable on their own, regardless of who is saying it.

Faith is required to a degree and at a certain time in development, no different than having faith in someone teaching you to ride a bike, but once you can independently pedal, then faith is no longer required and neither is the instructor. A cult, on the other hand, wants you to remain dependent on them, preferably forever.

As for the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome’: You may categorically hold, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’"

These qualities along with the 5 precepts result in less dukkha, and that makes you feel better mentally, and you can test it out for yourself without relying on some authority or spiritual charismatic leader to tell you so.

As a rule of thumb: something that is easy to get into, but hard to leave, is usually a bad sign, and there’s quite a few religions that will easily convert you but destroy your life if you try to leave.

Something that is hard to get into, but easy to leave, is usually a good thing. For example medical school, hard to get into, easy to fail.

4 Likes

I cannot go into this deeper currently, but a link to a blog, where with some irony the owner (a monk in tibetan tradition) titled it about “diffi:cult issues in…” See Overview – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues (Tenzin Peljor) originated basically from his own personal struggle with the escape from his “cultic-like” involvement before.

1 Like

Case study, example of a cult:

1 Like

Thank you for your reply!

  • On No.4

I have, upon reading your reply, read MN1. However, I couldn’t see how it relates to your point. :sweat_smile:

  • On No.5

If I understand your explanations correctly, a person with bad karma in his/her past life might be reborn into a family with problematic ancestors. Imagine if his/her ancestor is the head of a local gang, he/she would not have a peaceful life. In that way, the ancestor’s actions affects his/her descendants. However, what if a descendant was born into a family whose grandparents were butchers? Would the act of his/her grandparents killing animals bring upon misfortune in his life?

  • On No.7

Would such people divulge/boast their abilities to the public?

Please excuse my lateness in reply. I have matters to attend to. Thanks again for your response :smiley:

That’s because I made a mistake :sweat_smile:

What I had in mind was SN 35.28 but I mistakenly thought that was MN 1 and neglected to check :sweat_smile:

Possibly, but as I understand it, that circles back to past karma anyway. Because if the person didn’t have bad past karma they would not be reborn in such a family.

Perhaps this is what the Buddha meant by ‘karma whose result is to be experienced in subsequent future lives’ . If someone has done merit, however without enough wisdom, they may get reborn in a rich but corrupt family (e.g. Ivanka Trump or Chelsea Clinton), where they would be pushed to generate much bad karma to be experienced after death, in another subsequent life.

I don’t know of anyone whom I think they have mind reading abilities and who also boast about it in public. However they might be prone to, wittingly or not, give hints. They can also accidentally admit to it.

1 Like

Thank you for your response!

I tried looking at their website and could only find their “3 Golden Practices” are: Performing Recitations, Making Great Vows and Life Liberation. There really isn’t any mention of enlightenment! haha

I’m actually not bothered with him but I saw an Instagram Influencer with (243,000 followers)posting about the master and the organisation. I’m worried that there will be others who are influenced (no pun intended). The influencer has since deleted those posts.

Thank you. I will have a look!

1 Like

Thanks for your response!

Thanks for the correction. On a related note, what happens to Buddhas upon death? Do they still exist in some way? Or do they cease to exist completely?

I don’t quite understand this. So, dedication of merit is the deliberate act of someone inviting others to be happy; and the happiness that others’ get is a meritorious deed? But only applies to hungry ghosts?

If that is so, why is it that I have come across a lot of Buddhist books and cartoons where they say something like “Why in this life do you have cars and various transport facilities? Because you had repaired bridges and paved roads to benefit others in your previous life”, etc?

I am in Penang. I don’t know if the ones that I stumbled upon would actually be like Master L’s or not :joy: Which state are you from ya? On a curious note, seeing as how you’re also a Malaysian (and I might relate to your story should it contain Malaysian nuances), I was wondering about the reasons leading to your decision to be a monk if you’re ok with sharing. Thanks a lot for your replies which have cleared much of my doubts! :smiley:

SN16.12

“How is it, friend Kassapa, does the Tathagata exist after death?”

“The Blessed One, friend, has not declared this: ‘The Tathagata exists after death.’”

“Then, friend, does the Tathagata not exist after death?”

“The Blessed One, friend, has not declared this either: ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death.’”

“How is it then, friend, does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?”

“The Blessed One, friend, has not declared this: ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.’”

“Then, friend, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“The Blessed One, friend, has not declared this either: ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

“Why hasn’t the Blessed One declared this, friend?”

“Because this is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore the Blessed One has not declared this.”

“And what, friend, has the Blessed One declared?”

“The Blessed One, friend, has declared: ‘This is suffering,’ and ‘This is the origin of suffering,’ and ‘This is the cessation of suffering, ’ and ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”

Yes, only hungry ghost can benefit. Rejoicing in other’s merits is a meritorious deed itself. As a larger level, it’s a part of appreciative joy (mudita) practise, which can benefit everyone. So next time you see people doing good, you rejoice, you get free good kamma for rejoicing.

Kp7 SuttaCentral

AN10.177

With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the realms of the hungry shades. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him. This is the possible place for that gift to accrue to one staying there.

MN135 and others are some of the general examples and principles.
Then AN3.100 has this:

“Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience it the same way.’ This being so, the spiritual life could not be lived, and there’d be no chance of making a complete end of suffering.

Suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience the result as it should be experienced.’ This being so, the spiritual life can be lived, and there is a chance of making a complete end of suffering.

Take the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, let alone a lot.

Which means that while the general principle is taught, the exact cases are cannot be easily traced.

Analogy to physics could be that the general laws of dynamics is known, and theoretically rain-falling should follow the laws of aerodynamics, and other related laws. Yet to tell exactly which spot of the rain comes from which molecule of water evaporated by which photon of light by the sun and condensed by which dust particle in the clouds is not something which is useful to think about, can lead to madness. So the exact working out of the results of kamma, oh this happened, must be exactly because of that in a previous life or earlier in this life may not be accurate or useful to think about.

Short version. Brainwashed (in a good sense) by Buddha due to reading a lot of Dhamma in gullible, impressionable teenage years.

Medium version. I enjoyed fame due to being intelligent in exams, first or top few in class. Until form 3 then I got into the first class of one of the best school in Melaka, then I got the middle position. Then I started to ask the meaning of life. Started reading from my own religion, got hooked. Reflecting on the sufferings of married life (quarrels, complains etc) having not have hormones activated lust yet, I vowed to become a monk for the sake of enlightenment, either at form 3 or form 4. I got “persuaded” to finish up my university first before renunciation. End up have to finish paying loans to Singapore. Worked and unemployed for many years, before finally (higher) ordained last year, age 32.

Now in https://sasanarakkha.org/ if you ever wish to become a monk, this is the place.

Also, lots of good Theravada monasteries in Penang.

4 Likes

Thanks for your reply :smiley:

Thanks for the resource! :smiley:

So a hungry ghost’s merit is generated by its own act of rejoicing in the living’s act of kindness towards them but if the ghosts themselves do not rejoice, then there is no merit for them? Meaning, the living’s actions do not necessarily bring merit to the ghosts unless there is also some positive act on the ghosts’ part? So, in the scenario of a funeral for a relative, if the departed’s relatives, chant prayers for the departed, does it automatically benefit the departed or it depends on the appreciative act of the departed as well?

Interesting how you contemplated the meaning of life and vowed to be a monk within a year!
Did you explore any other religions?
Do you still keep yourself updated on your area of university studies now that you’re a monk?
Did you have any formal Buddhist studies (like a Degree in Buddhist Studies, etc) or was it like an apprenticeship after you renunciate?

I’ll refer to resources from that site thanks.

I think the suttas available quoted above on these is not that detailed. So unfortunately I cannot answer to 100% certainty. It’s just my opinion that the rejoicing should be done by the ghost in order to not have kammic merit transference issues going on. Dedication of merit as coming from the humans who perform good deeds and dedicate this merit to the departed relatives in the ghost realms, that would be good merits for us, and benefit the ghost realms. Try to read AN10.177 in detail and tease out the details there then. Perhaps when ghosts don’t do rejoicing, all they get is the things dedicated to them, not exactly get new good merits from doing good kamma.

There they survive feeding on the food of the beings in the ghost realm. Or else they survive feeding on what friends and colleagues, relatives and kin provide them with from here. The conditions there are right, so the gift aids the one who lives there.”

Ah I see, thanks. I think the confusion might had been because of some translation used as transference of merits, or sharing of merits. Whereas from the sutta it’s:

“We who are known as brahmins give gifts and perform memorial rites for the dead: ‘May this gift aid my departed relatives and family. May they partake of this gift.’ But does this gift really aid departed relatives and family? Do they actually partake of it?”

Didn’t seem to contain the word merit there. Merit is what one earns by doing good kamma. And given that kamma is personal, it doesn’t make sense for one person to do good, and another to reap the results of that good. It’s possible that a person is generous, won lottery, and share with family, we might posit that the family members got the result due to their own actions in some past life or their own generosity.

So the wordings of transference of merit or sharing of merits, gave us the illusion that merits from good deeds can be shared, whereas dedication of merit is the better term which respects the law of kamma, that the result of kamma is to be experienced by the individual who done the deed, not another individual.

Whereas from the suttas term, it seems that the act is

Thus those who are compassionate
give to their departed relatives,
at the right time, pure, excellent,
suitable drink and food.

Thinking: “May this go to our relatives,
may our relatives be happy!”
Those who have gathered,
the departed relatives who have assembled
around the food and drink,
respectfully offer their thanks:

saying: “ May our relatives live long!
Those to whom we owe this gain,
for we have been honoured,
those who give are not without reward!”

Literally food and drinks. And I had looked down upon ancestor worship. It’s actually part of suttas. Wow. Thanks for the learning opportunity.

Anyway since the suttas didn’t mention ghosts must do rejoicing in merit, you can know that that part is my own insertion because I thought it’s merits that the ghost gets, not actual ghost food. Turns out it’s actual ghost food. The rejoicing part might be part of 10 bases of wholesome deeds for the other human onlookers to rejoice in the donations of the donors who donate food to monks.

Just read other religions recently. As suspected, none of them can compare to Buddhism very well. I tried not to read other religions as a beginner so that my faith was settled in the Dhamma first. It can be confusing if one doesn’t have the wisdom to see through and judge religious theologies, philosophies etc.

A bit, my book project of Physics and Buddhism is put on hold for now.

In anticipation of me becoming a monk, I took bachelor of arts in Buddhism. Turns out one doesn’t need it as a monk. Anyway, useful for general knowledge and teaching and academic mindset.

1 Like