Rulaizong
controversial religious organization originating in Taiwan
Rulaizong (simplified Chinese: 佛教如来宗; traditional Chinese: 佛教如來宗; pinyin: Fójiào Rúláizōng; Zhuyin Fuhao: ㄈㄛˊ ㄐㄧㄠˋ ㄖㄨˊ ㄌㄞˊ ㄗㄨㄥ; literally, The Tathāgata Sect of Buddhism) is a cult originating in Taiwan which was established by Miaochan. It claims itself as a sect of Buddhism. According to the official website of Rulaizong, in 2015, the organization had more than 90,000 followers.
History
Miaochan, whose birth name was Liu Chin-lung (Chinese: 劉錦隆; pinyin: Líu Jǐnlóng), was a stuntman during his youth. He learned qigong during that time and could sit on a bed of nails. Liu married three times and had three children. Peng, his third wife, had the Buddhist name "Miaodianlian" (miao means wonderful, dian means palace, lian means lotus). In 1990, Liu and his wife practiced through Master Wujue Miaotian (real name Huang Ming-liang). Miaotian gave Liu a Buddhist name, "Miaodianming" (ming means understanding).
Liu was involved in a series of lawsuits with Miaotian in the late 1990s.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Rulaizong” as controversial religious organization originating in Taiwan. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as controversial religious organization originating in Taiwan. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q22101430. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2015 and 1990.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rulaizong”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rulaizong primary sources, Rulaizong archive and Rulaizong research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rulaizong”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rulaizong” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.