Superstitious or real?

[48vows]

Generally, with a thread like this, I still think that posting the video is a good idea.

The paraphrase is necessary too, but if others are going to shed light on it, it’s easier if they can see the whole context.

[mjaviem]

...
Lust is always unwholesome, which is why it forces one to act to remove it temporarily via sex. If lust was wholesome, you would want to always remain lustful, therefore you would never have sex to mitigate (reduce) your lust.

The above said, a householder can engage in sex with their partner, but that does not mean lust is "wholesome".

...
Sex & lust does not "satisfy". Instead, sex removes/mitigates the suffering of lust. That is why when you feel satisfied, after sex, you stop having sex. If sex itself satisfied, you would always have sex. Yet those who always have sex are said to not be satisfied.

Also, there is no such thing as sex without attachment. The scriptures say attachment includes sensual attachment. The scriptures say: "delight in pleasant feelings is attachment" (MN 38).

...
Yes, as i suggested above, sex is about "releasing" lust. It must be released because it is suffering rather than pleasurable.

You seem to be confusing the arising of lust with the releasing of lust. Having lust is suffering. Releasing lust is satisfying.

...
Marriage as a means to manage sexual desires is skillful. But marriage requires much metta. Marriage without metta (friendship) based on lust won't last long. What maintains a marriage is friendship. Those who only engage in sex with lust, without friendship, become hungry ghosts, searching for partner after partner after partner.

...

[SteRo]

My question is are his teachings legit?

What makes teachings legit? What measures are appropriate to conclude "legit" or "non-legit"? What drives people to teach [whatever they teach] at all?
I would be suspicious of anyone and anyone's teaching who teaches what is not substantiated by science.

[mjaviem]

...
I would be suspicious of anyone and anyone's teaching who teaches what is not substantiated by science.

What? Are you saying that the Buddha's teachings are science or that you are suspicious of them?

[SteRo]

...
I would be suspicious of anyone and anyone's teaching who teaches what is not substantiated by science.

What? Are you saying that the Buddha's teachings are science or that you are suspicious of them?

[mjaviem]

[Aloka]

[cappuccino]

I would be suspicious of anyone and anyone's teaching who teaches what is not substantiated by science.

science is secular religion

[SteRo]

I would be suspicious of anyone and anyone's teaching who teaches what is not substantiated by science.

science is secular religion

No, science cannot be equated with religion. Why? Because science can modify materiality and bring about new materiality while the sphere of religion is merely illusory mentality. Just consider all material phenomena in your life that have been brought about by science and you are making use of continuously.

[cappuccino]

No, science cannot be equated with religion.

re·li·gion
noun
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

[cappuccino]

religion is merely illusory mentality.

No…

[Mudita1]

The master is from China and his teachings are a mixed of Mahayana and Traditional Chinese Teachings (such as Confucian and Chinese Traditions).

As Buddhist, we follow Buddha's teaching, and Buddha's teaching for layperson is 5 Nikaya, Sutta.
Footnote: There are some Confucian and Chinese Traditions contradicted with Buddha's teaching.

He said he was given a gift by an entity that i can only understand as a Deva when he was a kid. Because of this he has the ability to "see" a person's problem just like that. One example was he said he met a woman whose young son has a non-stop head-shaking habit. He "sees" and say this is due to the woman watching pornography when she was pregnant with him causing the kid to feel "excited" from there and this was brought down as a habit after he was born.

To be safe, in my opinion this should be treated as hear say. Buddha discouraged his disciples to disclose any super-normal power to attract attention of anyone. Also, above super-normal power has no way to be examined/verified - remember Buddha teaches us to examine/verify whatever we listen before we believe in it.

What really left me uneasy was in general he attribute a person's "luck" or rather ups and downs in life to either (1) not respecting elders / honoring the departed ancestors (2) Sexual Misconduct.

Buddha only teaches us to keep 5 precepts. A person's ups and downs depends on his/her past life kamma and current life kamma. We are too late to work on past life, we can definitely work on present life.

For (1) respecting of elders / honoring the departed ancestors, he was saying how we are all connected to our ancestors and by not honoring them (praying, visiting graves) or simply by not being a filial Son/Daughter we are incurring bad karma and will never succeed in life.

Praying to ancestors and visiting graves is not Buddha teaching, Buddhist respect elderly/parents by providing them care and support while they are alive (not after they are death). Buddhist perform dana and transfer merit to all being (our ancestors included).

Secondly regarding Sexual Misconduct, from his point of view "one should not even have lust for any other person except your own wife". That having lust in our mind is wrong, masturbation is wrong and any intercourse with anyone except your legal wife is wrong. I find that this to be so much stricter than what we commonly understood from Buddhism as "no affairs and adultery".

Please refer to 5 precepts.

My question is are his teachings legit?

Per your illustration, I found his teaching is a mixed.
Thus better to refer to 5 precepts, to find out more.

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

[MervT]

Generally, with a thread like this, I still think that posting the video is a good idea.

The paraphrase is necessary too, but if others are going to shed light on it, it’s easier if they can see the whole context.

Thank you all for the constructive answers that followed my last post.

I will not post the video because i don't think it will be something good to expose the teaching moreover it is in mandarin with no translation.