Thursday, December 2, 2010

could i also be a rich MONK?

MIN YIN or goh kah heng is in the limelight again and all for the wrong kind of news :(

#1 Today, 02:04 PM
Alfrescian Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 664
My Reputation:Points: 174 / Power: 3

Ming Yi under fire again for $200,000 gala dinner


By Kai Fong – December 2nd, 2010
Email Facebook Twitter Print
Venerable Ming Yi

Barely three months after his release from prison, Reverend Ming Yi is embroiled in a fresh controversy, this time regarding a ceremonial dinner reported to have cost $200,000.

Organised by the Foo Hai Chan Monastery in Geylang, the $1,000-a-table dinner at the Pan Pacific Hotel was held on Nov 21 to mark Venerable Ming Yi’s 20 years of service as abbot of the temple.

The gala dinner has sparked off an emotional debate among Buddhists, reported The Straits Times.

Devotees of the said monastery called the celebration a sheng zuo dian li, or “rise to the power ceremony”; they said they wanted to celebrate Ven Ming Yi’s return to the temple.

But detractors asked if it was appropriate for the monk to turn the spotlight on himself — and so soon after his release from prison in September.

In addition, monastery records show that the 48-year-old monk’s 20th year of service comes about only in 2012.

Mr Lim Bock Guan, head of the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, told the same paper he had never heard of a monk being honoured for his service with a $1,000-a-table dinner in a top hotel.

The dinner was attended by monks from Malaysia and Hong Kong, but senior Buddhists in Singapore were noticeably absent although they had been invited.

The Buddhist Federation, the top Buddhist authority in Singapore, now wants Ming Yi to step forward and be judged by his fellow monks for crimes that landed him in jail earlier this year. Last October, the former head of Ren Ci was convicted of charges that included falsifying accounts and misappropriating funds.

For this to happen, though, Ming Yi has to step up voluntarily.

If he does, a disciplinary committee will be set up. It will be the first time that the Buddhist community here will have a panel of monks in a position to demote or defrock one of their own.

When asked for thoughts of the federation’s move, the chief disciple of Ven Wu Feng, the monk who had presided over Ming Yi’s ordination in 1984, said it was unlikely that Ming Yi would turn himself in, although “it is what he should do.”

“He’s climbed too far up, and now he has a long way to fall,” said the nun who declined to be named.

knn,$200K,can feed a lot of those patient at Ren Ci Hospital for quite awhile.
not fit to be a monk.

from another forum 3in1 kopitiam:

From: bratsalive 3:11 am
To: Sikodolauka unread (5 of 14)

41767.5 in reply to 41767.3

isn't it sad that the money was lavished and wasted in such a redundant ceremony when it could have been used more constructively?

according to the press, only by 2012 would min yi have served 20yrs. to celebrate his 20 yrs anniversary is already an exaggeration. yet as a monk, he proceeded instead of humbly disagreed to it. why?

according to the buddhist order, min yi has already breached all the 4 GRAVE OFFENCES: taking of life, theft, lust and falsehood.

taking of life: wastage of the money which could have used to save lives as in charitable purposes.

theft: how could a monk be owning so many condos, credit cars, cars and etc. what happened to his vow of denoucement of materialism?

lust: his obssession with raymond yeung and others remain dubious which had sowed the suffering to his present predicament.

falsehood: abet all that had happened, reported and convicted, he is now back into the limelight instead of doing much soul searching and repentance.

dynamic of buddhism is to reap what one sows. whatever min yi was and is sowing is really detrimental to his own effect and also others' perception and faith in buddhism and hence created a bad name for it if nothing is being done to correct this rogue.

people might in the end shun buddhism or be adversely disappointed by it if their belief and faith in buddhism is not firm or correct.

for this, the following applies:


No comments: