VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS AND USEFUL LESSONS
Myittha
Following are prior postings saved from abandoned Burmese websites. They are reproduced at viewers’ requests. Opportune time, too. Buddha, himself, set up Vinaya monks’ rules. They protect and prolong the Sasana from wrongdoers. Bad priests breaking the Vinaya rules can destroy the Sasana. They smear other noble priests. They also scare away lay people.
================
Myittha
Posted on: 2007/12/11 21:47
VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS & USEFUL LESSONS
I FOUND THESE VINAYA RULES ON THE INTERNET. THEY ARE SIMPLE, COMPREHENSIVE, AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
CLICK BELOW:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html
The Bhikkhus’ Rules
A Guide for Laypeople
The Theravadin Buddhist Monk’s Rules
compiled and explained by
Bhikkhu Ariyesako
ADVANTAGES OF VINAYA RULES:
“Discipline is for the sake of restraint,
restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse,
freedom from remorse for the sake of joy,
joy for the sake of rapture,
rapture for the sake of tranquility,
tranquility for the sake of pleasure,
pleasure for the sake of concentration,
concentration for the sake of knowledge
and vision of things as they are,
knowledge and vision of things as they are
for the sake of disenchantment,
disenchantment for the sake of release,
release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release,
knowledge and vision of release
for the sake of total unbinding without clinging.”
(INTERPRETATION)
Vinaya rules are for maintaining discipline (and order). Though discipline involves restraint, it ensures a joyful and tranquil atmosphere necessary to freely pursue knowledge and wisdom ( or vision) in order to attain higher spiritual levels.
90 comments
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:21 am
YoYoLay
Posted on: 2007/12/13 14:29
Re: VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS & USEFUL LESSONS
Thank you Myittha for bringing up the subject. However, I like to add the following from what I was told by some of the temple-goers.
Lord Buddha did NOT allow fortune telling and palm reading. The Vinaya monks’ code of conduct PROHIBITS them.
However, for many years, a LOCAL monk has been doing “Bey Din,” (fortune telling or palmistry). Naturally, donations are forthcoming after the “Bey Din”sessions.
Since Bey Din is against the Vinaya, this monk takes people to his room, so others won’t see him doing it. I say there is “No GHON, No THAMADI” (prestige or pride) in acting like this, “Khoe gyaung khoe hwet” surreptitiously, like a THIEF.
Most times, the “clients” happen to be LADIES. He still takes them to his room, too!!! Probably, it’s more so to avoid prying eyes. Dokkha! Double Dokkha! Trouble! Double Trouble!
Now, ANOTHER Vinaya rule enters the picture. A monk is NOT allowed to take a lady to his SECLUDED ROOM and talk PRIVATELY unless there is a MAN chaperone present. Why take a lady or ladies to his room?
Like me, some people have already known or heard about this monk’s fortune telling and palm reading.
It’s unwholesome for a SUPPOSEDLY MORAL PERSON to act like this, “Khoe gyaung khoe hwet” like a thief. On top of that, there is his AUDACITY to BREAK SEVERAL Vinaya rules.
LORD BUDDHA himself formulated the Vinaya rules. They have been passed on for generations by REVERED MONK-SAGES, to keep the SASANA longer lasting and pure.
Otherwise, the SASANA becomes IMPURE. It will be STAINED by SELFISH MONKS OR BUSINESSMEN-MONKS and tarnish the GOOD NOBLE MONKS. It definitely is not good for the temple, not good for the trustees, and not good for the community & the SASANA.
I would advise this monk to STRICTLY follow the Vinaya rules from now on and to refrain from breaking them. Also, I would suggest to him to concentrate on “Ta yarr pya” teaching Dhamma.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:24 am
Yoyolay’s posting continuation.
Wrong Ways of Behavior
Bhikkhus are also prohibited from studying or speaking on ‘low animal-like knowledge’ (tiracchaana-vijjaa).
“The explanation of [low animal-like knowledge] seems to cover all general subjects which are not related to the Dhamma of bhikkhus. [These are:] knowledge of enchantments making men and women love each other; knowledge for making this or that person fall into disaster; knowledge for using spirits or showing various kinds of magic; knowledge of prediction, such as knowing beforehand lottery results; knowledge leading to self-delusion, such as transmuting mercury to gain the supernatural, as in the transmuting of silver and copper into gold.
“These knowledge are [‘low animal-like knowledge’] because they are knowledge of doubtful things which are deceptive or deluding, not being true knowledge. A teacher of this is a deceiver and a pupil is one who practices to deceive, or he is just a foolish, deluded person.”
Alone with a Woman
A bhikkhu not only has to be impeccable but also must be seen to be so. He sets an example for everyone and therefore must be beyond reproach. Any doubtful situations have to be clarified, which is how the next rules came about….
The Buddha therefore set this down:
º When a bhikkhu intentionally sits alone with a woman in a secluded or private place……. it can lead …. to… misunderstandings from unexpected onlookers. To preclude such problems a bhikkhu needs a companion or ‘chaperone.’
A ‘secluded place’ is ….for example, a private room or behind a wall or hedge….
A less secluded but still ‘private place’ (Aniyata 2) would be, for example, a bench in a deserted park…. In this case, the Commentary allows the chaperone to be either male or female but they must be someone who knows ‘what is and what is not lewd’ and they must be ‘within sight.’
However if the monk and woman talk together the chaperone must be male because of the relevant rule about that.
“Sitting … with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offence of Confession.]” “Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman it is [an offence of Confession.]”
Talking Privately
….Yet if one reflects on how things have regularly gone wrong with such private spiritual counseling, it is easier to see that being safe is better than sorry — for the sake of everyone involved. Even if their conduct is completely pure, it still may lead to rumor and criticism.
…As a result the Buddha eventually laid down that:
“Teaching more than six sentences [vaacaa] of Dhamma to a woman, except in response to a question, is [an offence of Confession] unless a knowledgeable man is present.”
Even if there are many women, but no other man, it is still considered an offence.
It should be done in a way that is completely open and above misinterpretation.
All monks should be able to follow these simple rules to be respectable and morally correct.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:27 am
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/12/16 16:26
Yoyolay, we thank you for sharing your valuable knowledge & research. We need people who really would make our SASANA strong. Not many people dare speak up. Unfortunately, most have been brainwashed with the “Nga yae gyi” threat. To some, this threat is always hanging over their heads … like the sword of Damocles. We have a Myanmar saying “A spoilt fish can spoil the whole boat (of fish).” Why let A FEW bad apples tarnish our MANY good & noble monks and our centuries old SASANA?
Yes, you were right. The Vinaya rules clearly DISALLOW fortune-telling and palmistry. Yes, it’s true. Lord Buddha HIMSELF had set up the Vinaya rules. For over 2500 years, various renowned WORLD BUDDHIST MONKS’ COUNCILS had reviewed & adopted these rules, AGAIN & AGAIN. They all saw their need & IMPORTANCE to purify and strengthen our SASANA.
As Yoyolay mentioned, in doing palmistry, a monk has to read palms or tell fortunes in a PRIVATE room. He doesn’t want everybody to know his breaking the Vinaya. For ladies, a monk may do the SAME and talk to them in PRIVATE.
I MIGHT ADD ONE MORE: In palm reading, a monk may even TOUCH the ladies’ hands also in a private setting. More & more trouble! A SINKING FEELING! Why?? Monks are NOT allowed to touch a lady’s hand. Click below:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#touching
WOW!! GOLLY!! In this case, as much as four Vinaya rules may be broken. One: doing forbidden fortune telling & palmistry. Two: having a lady or ladies in a private room without a man chaperone. Three: talking to ladies in a private room in a similar setting. Four: touching a lady’s hand.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:31 am
Kyawhtin1’s posting continuation
In passing, I have another example: A MONK MAY EVEN TALK BIG ABOUT GOING ON A FOREIGN MISSION TO SPREAD BUDDHISM. “Thartanar PYANT PWARR AUNG, naing ngan charr thwarr, thartanar pyut.” Why not just thartanar pyut?
Myanmar people, at home and abroad, THINK HIGHLY OF SUCH A MISSION AND SUCH A MONK. To them, he must have high ideals. He might encounter great difficulties and make great sacrifices. He must be dealing with strangers in a strange land. He must be trying mighty hard to teach foreign unbelievers in their native tongue. It looks like the Military government should grant such a monk, a GRAND title.
REALITY OR FANTASY, you can be the JUDGE? Not spreading Buddhism to foreign unbelievers, as one has declared, is really breaching a Vinaya rule of LYING. On top of that, if such a monk is telling fortunes on the side, what happens? Simple! It adds up to 5 breaches. INCREDIBLE!!!
Thus, a monk would be breaking multiple Vinaya rules with his fortune telling. Acting more like a businessman rather than like a noble monk or missionary? Where are the NOBLE IDEALS? TEACHING DHAMMA or teaching fortunes? GONE! GONE!!
Going to Yoyolay’s example, many people already knew that this monk is telling fortunes. In fact, it appears that he has A FORTUNE TELLER FRIEND advising him.
It appears that this friend may have HELPED this local monk with BREAKING THE VINAYA RULE on fortune telling.
Even though he is a fortune teller himself, he should have REFUSED TO HELP THE MONK in this or he should have ADVISED THE MONK AGAINST CONTINUING. He should have REMINDED THE MONK THAT IT’S AGAINST BUDDHA’S LAWS. In NOT doing so, how could this friend claim to be a RELIGIOUS BUDDHIST himself? How could he claim that ALL monks (without exception) are observing BUDDHA’S LAWS for thousands of years or would continue to do so? Especially, when he knew that his monk friend may not or had been doing differently? Would this friend be a CREDIBLE Buddhist, in this regard???
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:32 am
Anyway, I would advise such a fortune telling monk: ONE, to become proficient in English, TWO, to go out to the non Buddhist Americans, and THREE, to really propagate Buddhism among these Americans – a goal that he may have often and boldly declared.
Otherwise, I would advise a fortune telling monk to please stop doing fortune telling and, if applicable, to also please stop misleading other people with his trumpeting about going overseas to SPREAD Buddhism.
The TRUTH: Generally speaking, it’s not SPREADING religion at all. It’s more or less maintaining the STATUS QUO with Myanmar Buddhist expatriates’ religion. Most Myanmar expatriates are already Buddhists. How do you again spread Buddhism to them or again convert them? Generally, teaching Buddhism to other non Buddhists, is more difficult & is the one that merit more praise.
If you are this fortune telling & boastful monk, we would say, why break another Vinaya, a FIFTH one, by deluding yourself and by deceiving others, too?? If you call yourself a “Payar thar daw,” a son of Buddha or a Buddha’s disciple, why not strictly abide by his Vinaya Rules and teachings? We don’t understand, do we? No LAWBA, No MORHA please.
(EXCERPTS) Intimacy — Touching
…If a bhikkhu touches a woman in a sexual way, he commits A VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE requiring formal meetings of the Community and probation (Sa”nghaadisesa). The scrupulous bhikkhu wants to remain above suspicion so, if he can, he will avoid all physical contact. (Hence his attitude to shaking hands. This also explains why in Thailand a receiving cloth is used to receive offerings from women…) (See EN 85)
The rule was first SET DOWN BY THE BUDDHA…
“Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or IN HOLDING HER HAND, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.”(Sa”ngh. 2; BMC p.100) ….
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:35 am
Thissa
Posted on: 2007/12/18 21:43
****I AGREE. VINAYA RULES DON’T ALLOW FORTUNE TELLING ****
The following are taken from an article on “Wrong Livelihood” by a monk scholar.
VINAYA
Wrong Livelihood
What-Buddha-Taught.net
By Ajahn Brahmavamso
…examples of wrong livelihood…includes such “priestcraft” as: palmistry, fortune-telling, interpreting dreams, determining propitious dates or sites,…foretelling a person’s remaining lifespan,… casting astrological charts and so on.
…A CORRUPT MONK WHO TELLS FORTUNES for money, gives talks in exchange for gifts or practises any similar form of wrong livelihood has a special name in Buddhism — he is called ALLAJJI (rhymes with Apache), meaning “SHAMELESS”.
Good monks are advised to shun shameless ones and if a group of allajji monks congregate in a neighbourhood the good monks are to go there and send them away (as in Sanghadisesa 13).
To emphasise the SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE OF WRONG LIVELIHOOD there is a well known quote from the Suttas…
” Rain clouds … snow clouds … smoke and dust … and an eclipse. Even so, monks, there are these FOUR STAINS because of which monks and nuns glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Drinking alcohol … indulging in sexual intercourse … accepting the use of gold or money … and obtaining gifts through the WRONG LIVELIHOOD.”
It is clear, then, what the Buddha thought of allajji monks who predict lottery numbers, give astrology readings and so on, for personal gain. They are grouped along with a monk who gets drunk, has sexual intercourse or keeps money.
MONKS WHO PRACTISE WRONG LIVELIHOOD ARE A STAIN ON THE SANGHA AND SHOULD BE KNOWN AS SUCH BY THE LAYPEOPLE.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut032.htm
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:37 am
meatphar
Posted on: 2007/12/19 9:51
Myittha, Yoyolay, Kyawhtin1 and Thissa, thank you all for your COURAGEOUS comments about Vinaya/Wee Nee. The giving of COURAGE is a form of DANA and IS the “GIVING OF PROTECTION” to the COMMUNITY.
For details, see Ko Kyaw Htin’s previous posting on courageous acts below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1028&forum=12
“…what Buddhism has to say…
….The giving of fearlessness is the GIVING OF PROTECTION to beings when they have become frightened on account of kings, thieves, fire, water, enemies, lions, tigers, other wild beasts, dragons, ogres, demons, goblins, etc….
It is saying that giving of heroic acts (fearlessness) to PROTECT OTHERS is also a form of “Dana” (Donation giving) and will earn high merits.”
Moreover, Irrawaddy.org carried an article about the banning of 2 popular Myanmar VCD’s. They contained critical sermons by two well known Myanmar monks. In one VCD, a monk criticized people guided by “numerology and astrology.” VCD’s title was “The Way of Dumb People” alluding to General Than Shwe (who is such a person).
Good monks dared to stand up against the oppressing Military rulers. It’s a classic example of selfless and noble monks working COURAGEOUSLY for the good of the Myanmar people.
The good monks were exposing fortune telling’s negative influences on people by making them INDECISIVE, DEFEATIST & RESIGNED, AND UNDULY DEPENDENT on fortune tellers (whether intended or not).
QUOTE FROM IRRAWADDY.ORG
Dhamma VCDs by Two Well-known Monks Banned in Burma
By Wai Moe
November 16, 2007
“…(A) senior monk, U Nyanithara , also known as Thitagu Sayardaw, spoke before laypeople in Myingyan in central Burma. In his VCD, titled “The Way of Dumb People,” he criticized people who are guided by numerology and astrology. One layperson said the story was critical of Snr-Gen Than Shwe, who is famous for basing important decisions on his astrologer’s advice. A second VCD is titled “The Ending of the King.”
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:38 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/12/19 21:59
An official 7/16/07 letter to Azusa Board already mentioned Vinaya rules’ observance. It’s posted on 8/12/07 on C2M. Click below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
“….Property and Funds Management
Instead of just announcing your good intentions; to maintain public trust, we suggest that you send your periodical management and financial reports regularly to the devotees. Also, per your announcements, to give the monks and temple a good name; trustees also need to see that the VINAYA RULES ARE OBSERVED AND NOT BROKEN. Example: Lord Buddha forbade monks from TELLING FORTUNES or promoting charms or talismans…”
Vinaya rules are good for our SASANA and for our noble monks.
Bhikkhu Visuddhacara, A renowned scholar monk who had lived in Myanmar and Thailand for many years wrote in “GIVING (DANA):
“…The Buddha also forbade monks to tell fortunes, sell charms and talismans that are all considered as wrong livelihood (miccha ajava) for monks. In Buddhist countries such as Myanmar and Thailand there is a Sangka council
which has government backing and authority to check errant monks.
In Thailand the Sangharaja (head of the Sangha Council) had been cracking down on certain errant monks and had them disrobed. In Malaysia, there is no such Sangharaja council (that) can act against “rogue” monks. Devotees would thus
have to be even more discerning and have some understanding of monks’ rules…”
A fortune telling monk should stop his wrong action. He is breaking an important Vinaya rule. Once one rule is broken, it becomes easy to break other Vinaya rules as well. Other monks may follow his bad example and break other Vinaya rules, as they please.
From a management angle, if this person is a HEAD MONK, it’s real BAD!! Other junior monks may follow his bad example of LAWBA AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Also, junior monks would not respect him and he would lose authority over them. All these would give a Temple, other good monks, and our SASANA a bad name.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:40 am
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2007/12/19 23:08
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE FORTUNE TELLING MONK WHO TOOK LADIES TO HIS ROOM. Why do you want to be wealthy or famous? You have taken VOWS of POVERTY and celibacy. The community has taken care of your “pyit sea lay par or pa yeik ka yar shiet par,” the monk’s 4 requisites and 8 accessories. It’s more than enough for you already. Why do fortune telling?
In passing, I notice Dmoran555’s 12/4/07 posting had mentioned that Azusa Board may give salary to monks. See below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=951&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
“I would like to confirm the news that Azusa Temple’s board members are planning to start giving monthly salary to the monks residing at the Azusa Temple….”
If true, this would be in addition to the Nawakama (personal) donations and the house visits’ honorariums. I also notice that Azusa monks already live rent free, have free health insurance, free car, free gasoline, free utilities, & generally free food.
Now, when we talk about a fortune telling monk as in above, are we talking about a monk from some where? Or does it include a monk from Azusa?
If it happens to include a monk from Azusa telling fortunes, then it would be really awful!! In this scenario, the incomes would then add up…from fortune telling, salary, house visits, and Nawakama plus free lodging, health insurance, utilities, car gas, and so on…WHAT A GREAT COMBO!! Pretty soon many people would queue up to apply for you know what?? A position as an Azusa “businessman” monk!!
Whichever monk it may be from, there is no need to increase a monk’s Lawba (Greed) and enhance a monk’s ego. Lord Buddha wanted SIMPLE LIVES for monks and for monks to FOCUS ON TEACHING DHAMMA to laypeople.
Does a fortune telling monk believe what he himself is preaching?
Lord Buddha prohibited monks from asking for more than the 4 necessities. Therefore, monks should observe this Vinaya rule and NOT practice fortune telling.
The Four Requisites:
The Buddha said that there were four necessities of life — clothing, food, lodging and medicine — and that they have to be treated properly:
Clothing, food, shelter and medicine are necessary whether one is a lay person or a bhikkhu. The bhikkhu, however, should take a completely balanced stance towards these fundamentals…he should be solely concerned with simplicity and lack of attachment towards things.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:42 am
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/12/20 14:49
The Vinaya Rules are really COMPHRENSIVE. There are even rules in place already relating to monks asking for LODGINGS (monasteries) or more LUXURIOUS LODGINGS.
Lord Buddha told monks not to “say again and again” to (ask repeatedly or bother) the community for lodgings (monasteries) or for improving (expanding) monasteries.
He told the monks to PRACTICE DHAMMA UNDER A TREE. He himself had practiced and attained enlightenment under a Bodhi Tree. Example: Even putting plaster or building a larger hut would require COMMUNITY’S APPROVAL AND SPONSORS.
Lord Buddha emphasized on monks “Teaching Dhamma.” He didn’t allow the monks to lead luxurious lives. It’s really to lead simple lives and to renounce worldly attachments.
Let’s take Azusa Dhamma Hall dedication ceremony as an example. Doing a Sanghika (monks’ owned) dedication ceremony in USA for a non profit religious organization, would definitely be BREAKING this Vinaya rule. Why?
The idea is the COMMUNITY at large (the country or U S laws) won’t allow a Sanghika dedication. Without COMMUNITY (USA)’s approval, don’t do it! IT’S THAT SIMPLE!! Even other religious denominations (Christians, Muslims, et al) have to obey U S laws. Why shouldn’t we??? Or, why couldn’t we???
Should we listen to SANGHIKA talk by a director(s) who tell(s) fortunes, a calling which Lord Buddha didn’t like and had prohibited his monks? Lord Buddha described this knowledge as “low animal like knowledge” and as “deluding, doubtful, and deceiving.”
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:43 am
Some KNOWLEDGEABLE people tried to mislead our Myanmar community with proposing a possible SANGHIKA dedication as the BEST merit-worthy choice. Actually, there were other “PROBLEM-FREE” & “BETTER” merit-worthy choices like SASANA dedication donation. They knew them or should have known about them. Such DECEPTION and CAUSING DISHARMONY in our community would all be BREAKING Vinaya rules. They tried to take advantage of our very generous, giving, and obliging community.
Why not propose a PROBLEM FREE SASANA dedication in the FIRST PLACE? Sasana dedication is WITHIN U S laws. Why not issue a CLEAR CUT RESPONSE to COMMUNITY’S OFFICIAL LETTERS OF CONCERNS? Why relent and do a SASANA dedication only at the last minute due to external community pressure?
Why not announce and do Sasana dedications like SELFLESS & NOBLE Venerable Penang Sayadaw in the first place? He did Sasana dedications for all his temples all over the world.
For more details, see below:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#lodgings
“Luxurious Lodgings
…Originally the ku.ti or lodging may not have been much more than a HUT WITH A PLASTER OR EARTHERN FLOOR. Rules were formulated as to their SIZE and LUXURY. For example, the sixth Sa”nghaadisesa Rule — remember that this is the SECOND MOST SERIOUS category of rules requiring a formal meeting of the Community — arose when bhikkhus were having EXTRAVAGANT huts built for themselves.
They had no sponsors and were therefore begging materials from lay people, “saying, again and again, ‘Give me this, give me that…'” The people became BURDENED by all this begging and WHEN THEY SAW THE BHIKKUS, ANY BHIKKUS, COMING THEY WOULD RUN AWAY AND HIDE.
“Building a plastered hut — or having it built — without a SPONSOR, destined for one’s own use, without having obtained the COMMUNITY’S APPROVAL, is a [SERIOUS OFFENCE entailing meetings of the Sangha.] Building a plastered hut — or having it built — without a sponsor, destined for one’s own use, exceeding the standard measurements, is also a [SERIOUS OFFENCE entailing meetings of the Sangha.] (Summary Sa”ngh. 6; BMC p.128)
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:46 am
Myittha
Posted on: 2007/12/20 20:05
There is a Vinaya rule on HANDLING OF MONEYS. Monks and lay people need to know this to properly manage money and to properly interact with one another.
Lord Buddha PROHIBITED monks from handling moneys. One Vinaya rule says if monks need something, to (then) ask from the ‘Kapiya’ monk’s helper or STEWARD. Even this request to the steward CANNOT EXCEED 3 TIMES. Note: The Steward was not required to furnish any reason.
(Here, we are talking about Nawakama, monks’ personal use money entrusted with the monk’s steward. It’s not about a nonprofit organization’s Temple funds).
Many people and I already knew about an Azusa monk telling many other people that the (former) trustees were “Ngwe win pyee yin, ma htwet” (money going in but not coming out or tightwads). He was very upset and was complaining in effect that trustees were not allowing him to spend temple moneys or that they were overly RESTRICTIVE on him.
Let’s look at the Vinaya again. The said monk complained to most everybody that the trustees won’t give out TEMPLE’s moneys per his wishes, was this monk’s behavior correct?
No, the monk was breaking a Vinaya rule. It’s not Nawakama personal money either. Even so, the monk could ask only 3 times to his steward (if any). He could not complain to any other people. This was irrespective of whether the trustees’ action was correct or not. The trustees did not even have to furnish a reason.
Naturally, I understand that the trustees might have a justification for it.
Buddha’s laws provide for a high moral and ethical monks’ behavior. They are required to observe, and are held accountable to, a higher standard of moral conduct which would make the monk worthy of esteem and emulation.
A Bhikkhu’s Steward
This is a rule which explains more about the relationship between the bhikkhu and the steward who is taking care of funds for him.
In the original story, Ven. Upananda’s steward had received some money from a chief minister so that when Ven. Upananda needed a robe he could be supplied with one….Ven. Upananda refused to wait and forced the steward to get the robe immediately so that the steward came late to the meeting and suffered a penalty fine. Everyone there agreed that, ‘these monks are IMPATIENT AND DIFFICULT to serve.’
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:47 am
Continuation
Therefore the Buddha set down this rule:
“If someone sends money (valuables) for the purpose of buying a robe for a bhikkhu and he …. (gives) to the bhikkhu’s attendant (veyyaavaccakara), and if then later that bhikkhu should go and find the attendant, he may tell him: “I need a robe.” If he does not get it, he may ask up to THREE TIMES IN ALL.
If he still does not get the robe he may go and stand where the attendant can see him, up to six times. If he does not get it and he asks more than three times or stands more than six times, and then gets it, it is [an OFFENCE of Confession with Forfeiture.] [NOTE: IT’S ABOUT NAWAKAMA]
…….Or in Summary:
“When a fund has been set up with a steward indicated by a bhikkhu: Obtaining an article from the fund as a result of having prompted the steward MORE THAN THE ALLOWABLE number of times is [an OFFENCE of Confession with Forfeiture.]” (Nis. Paac. 10; BMC p.206)
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:49 am
YoYoLay
Posted on: 2007/12/20 20:15
I want to add one more thing. The same LOCAL monk visited a lady when she fell sick. This lady sometimes helped with cooking in temple’s festivals. For a lay person visiting another lay person, it didn’t seem out of the ordinary. It’s just a social visit.
However, for a monk, there are other factors to consider. This monk never visited any trustee who fell sick. He was not required to. Just a phone call (if any) would do. The lucky lady who received the personal visit was not even a trustee. Morally fair for a monk?- I doubt it!
There is another factor. VERY IMPORTANT! This monk paid the visit AFTER DUSK. Was it an appropriate behavior?? Was it a suitable time?? Do you think so?
Vinaya rules do not allow monks to visit ladies at certain times in certain situations. Even for visits to MALE followers AFTER NOON TO DUSK, the Vinaya rules are strict on them.
A bhikkhu can teach in many ways, not just by speech…. When a bhikkhu goes into a public place, he stands out because of the robes he wears. Whatever he does is noticed and reflects back on his community and the Sangha in general.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:51 am
Continuation
“The bhikkhu lifestyle is for the sole purpose of realizing Nibbana. In striving towards this end, it was recognized that certain kinds of behavior are detrimental, distracting or simply unhelpful, and are also unsuitable for an alms-mendicant. Many kinds of improper behavior are not actually immoral, but rather put energy in the wrong direction or are expressions of a careless attitude. Some kinds of behavior can lead to lay people’s loss of faith, some are immature or childish, some bad or ugly, and some, quite malicious or nasty.” Therefore, there are a number of training rules to remind the bhikkhu about correct deportment. The first twenty-six Sekhiya Training rules cover proper behavior in public places
“When in inhabited areas, I will… wear the under and upper robe properly; be properly covered; go well restrained as to my movements; keep my eyes looking down; sit with little sound [of voice].”….
‘Going out on the town’ is not appropriate for bhikkhus and is covered in several rules. The eighty-fifth Confession Rule, describes how the ‘group-of-six’ monks went to the village in the afternoon and sat around gossiping, so that lay people compared them to householders. (In today’s term, placing phone calls to spread rumors or telling outright lies to his own benefits.) Going outside the monastery (other than on the morning alms round) was therefore regulated with this rule:
“Entering a village, town, or city during the period AFTER NOON UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAWN, without having taken leave of an available bhikkhu — unless there is an emergency — is [an
offence of Confession.]
The very serious Sa”nghaadisesa Rule (requiring formal meetings of the Community) of ‘corrupting families’ concerns the proper relationship that bhikkhus should develop with lay followers.
“…A bhikkhu who is complete in good conduct does not lower himself to become the intimate of a family in the same way as a lay man may do. He is not aggressive or destructive but shows a heart of loving-kindness and conducts himself in a moderate way, thus causing good faith and reverence to arise in them towards himself. He is then called kulapasaadako (one in whom families have faith). He is the splendor of the [Teaching]…
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 4:55 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/12/20 22:36
Myittha, about the monk’s complaint on the money handling, I can fill you in with the background info and the justification for it.
Background Info
I know what the monk was complaining about. It was about using $ 500 from Azusa temple funds. It’s to donate to Venerable U Silananda who was sick. He was the Abbot of another temple in Half Moon Bay near San Francisco. He had medical coverage. Azusa Temple had no responsibility whatsoever, only Half Moon Bay temple had responsibility. Moreover, it’s not asking help from other temples.
However, out of respect and sympathy for this scholar monk, L A monks had been collecting donations from among MONKS themselves. They were doing this on their own initiatives for a Senior fellow monk. They were donating purely out of cetana, FROM THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL NAWAKAMA, personal moneys.
Anyway, it’s true. The said Azusa monk was complaining to almost everybody that the trustees won’t give out $ 500 donation from Azusa TEMPLE’s funds, per his wishes. In doing so, the monk was really BREAKING a Vinaya rule on Money Stewardship.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Continuation
This monk had his own separate Nawakama moneys already like other monks. Also, he could have paid, like other temples’ monks, the $ 500 from his own Nawakama personal moneys, if he had the cetana. After all, apart from having his own Nawakama personal moneys and house visits’ honorariums, he didn’t have to pay for house rent, car, gas, utilities and health insurance and so on. The Temple paid for these expenses already from Temple funds. Other temples’ monks might not be that fortunate.
Justification
Donors’ donations for COSTLY construction projects were being collected to carry out the donors’ noble wishes & intentions. These moneys were needed to finish the Dhamma Hall & parking lot constructions in time per City’s June 30 deadline. These donations were NOT for Nawakama nor were they for SOME MORE monks’ pocket money or spending money.
As mentioned, Monks had their own SEPARATE Nawakama already. It’s CLEAR that this monk didn’t want to spend from his own Nawakama, like what other good monks from other temples did.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Continuation
The good trustees suffered and bore with the above monk’s unfair criticisms and pressures. Despite the criticisms, the trustees donated $ 500 from their OWN POCKETS for Half Moon Bay Sayadaw. There never was an outright rejection of the monk’s wish, even though the rejection could be fully justified.
There already was implemented an alternate and diplomatic way of achieving the same objective. Some trustees had to sacrifice from their own funds though. Despite this alternate or substitute arrangement to conserve the Temple funds for pressing constructions, the complaining just went on & on. The complaining monk and a complaining trustee never did donate A PENNY for this $500 which they were so passionate about. It’s just Lawba, no Cetana, and BAD MOUTHING.
For a monk to do that, it’s bad faith (no cetana) and breaking SEVERAL Vinaya rules. These Vinaya rules BROKEN relate to the following: a) money stewardship, b) telling lies, c) INSTIGATING OTHER PEOPLE, and d) creating disharmony in the community.
Both above mentioned complaining persons knew that construction moneys were not enough. They knew that trustees had to finish the Hall by June 30, 2006 or the Temple permit would be REVOKED.
Contd..
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Continuation
They wished to spend moneys from Temple funds which were being conserved for huge and pressing construction projects. Yet, they also wanted the constructions completed in time. Spending moneys unwisely from Temple funds impeded construction works. Here, the risk from permit revocation took PRECEDENCE. They complained about the frugality to many people and they turned around and complained YET AGAIN about the construction’s pace. “Lu ah lo nat ma like naing.” A spiritual being cannot cater to a human being’s greed.
Lord Buddha clearly prohibited this form of “bothering for money” “say again and again” (nagging or pestering) in his Vinaya rules on Money Stewardship. One would expect a monk to be noble, understanding, and not self serving.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/1/7 18:00
Have you heard about this rumor? It was some years ago. People were saying a monk had ill treated his kappiya (aide/steward). The monk’s aide was telling people about the monk’s bad treatment that he had suffered. The rumor alleged that the monk had somehow exploded and had thrown a table object on the floor in the aide’s direction. The aide then offered his head for the monk to hit, saying that he won’t take offence even if the monk would hit him. What a story! Incredible!
True or not, how do I handle this problem? Remember, I am a rather dumb person and a real coward at that. My reaction would be: I don’t believe this. It’s just a tall tale. It’s fantasy. It couldn’t have happened! The monk in question looked soft spoken and not a violent person. Why would a soft spoken monk suddenly become violent? Why would he do such a thing to his own helper? Why would he do such a thing to an old man? Why would a knowledgeable Myanmar monk ill treat a gentle Myanmar helper? I don’t understand. The rumor must be false. But then, why would the helper start this rumor? He looked gentle and honest too.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Continuation
Even if the rumor is true, I would just keep it to myself. Truth is stranger than fiction, I say to myself. I just hope the incident would go away. Time would heal everything. I say just harmonize, cool down, forgive, and certainly don’t say anything. Like anybody, I am afraid of big hell “nga ye gyi mae”. I am afraid that this news, if leaked out, would hurt the monk and my beautiful Temple.
I ask myself what would happen if the Temple has no monk. I am afraid of losing a monk, even a bad bad one. Again, I say just cover up or ignore it. I might even blame the Kappiya. Probably, he must have made the monk mad. After all, Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha were put at a higher level above us. We might end up in hell for saying anything against the monk. I won’t risk it. I would just do my own thing, donate and obtain kuthos (merits), lots and lots of them, no matter what. Let them or others sort it out. I don’t care.
In fact, I justify to myself. I rationalize. In case it’s true, I would say most people would react like me. I am not ashamed of myself. Why should I? Would this same thing happen again? I hope not. I really don’t care and more importantly, I have no control over them. Even if the rumor is true, who am I to tell the monk what not to do? After all, those “blind” followers will jump at me. The monk may or may not say nasty nasty rumors to his “extremist” supporters about me. I heard that a wayward monk could do that with impunity, under cover of his mighty robe. He may or may not take pot shots from under his robe. The “blind” followers may all get very upset and pester me. You see, I am just a nice guy and a complete coward at heart and I try very hard to please everybody. As I said, I harmonize. I don’t antagonize. That’s not me.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Again, even if the rumor is true, everybody seems to kowtow to this monk and to treat him royally like a king. To him, they all say repeatedly “maan bar payar,” “maan hla barr, payar” Yes Sir, Yes Sir your majesty, your godliness, or holiness, you are so most correct! They flatter him with “Ah Shin payar phone gyi lo” Dear living god because you are so supernormal and so powerful! They praised him to high heavens already. If they spoiled him that way and he became a despot, why blame me for not asking the monk to go easy on his own steward? Don’t look at me, my friend. Look at them!!!
Regarding this hypothetical situation, are my reactions okay? Yes, I think so. Would the monk become a despot like Bulldog Than Shwe? Would it happen again? Don’t I have some teeny weeny pity for the poor suffering old steward? I am a simple guy. Don’t ask me. These questions will surely give me a big headache. I readily admit that I have no solutions. To the monk’s aide, I say “Tough Luck!” you are on your own! I cannot waste my pity on anyone but myself. It’s a scarce commodity, you know. To my friends, I say, if you have solutions, I will follow you. If not, I won’t lose my sleep over it. Not my problem. I can go to another monastery any time. Let someone look up the Vinaya monks’ rules. I don’t have time.
If I am wrong, please tell me. If I am right, please applaud me. Thank you for your applause.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/1/7 21:57
Dear Ko Phopyoncho, I applaud you, but not because I agree with you. I just enjoyed your posting. But, I agree to disagree with you. As you mentioned, I have looked up the Monks’ Vinaya rules.
About the monk ill treating his kappiya helper, I had also heard some rumors. The rumors went like this: The temple was constructing a Hall with solar tubes (glass skylights). Like some other donors, this helper or aide had donated his savings for one solar tube. However, the donors listing came out without his name. When he told the monk about this, the monk put the helper’s name on the donors listing. The helper saw his Myanmar name but it was misspelled. He told the monk again to have a correction. He must have been very proud of his good deed. That’s when the monk exploded and threw a tantrum. As you mentioned, the helper then offered his head for the monk to hit.
I know you are rather timid. I would suggest looking at this issue objectively even if this would be just hypothetical or a non issue. There are good lessons to learn as a case study even before it really happens. It’s like tuning up a car before it really breaks down. I propose to use one yardstick. It’s our very ENDURING VINAYA, the monks’ rules as you suggested. Fair enough??
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Continuation
VINAYA/WEE NEE (monks’ rules): According to the monks’ rules established by Lord Buddha himself, the monk in this hypothetical case, could not throw a tantrum by throwing the object in the direction of the helper (steward). He should have a control over his thoughts and actions. He should exude metta (loving kindness) to his aide and fellow creatures and all living beings. He should have some understanding or consideration for a donor who had sacrificed his meager savings, even if he appeared to be a “lowly’ helper to some.
In this hypothetical case, why look down on a helper or aide? He had scrimped and saved and had donated his savings. His cetana is even many times more than that of some wealthier people. In this sense, a monk in his right mind would & should appreciate this helper’s donation even more. This Myanmar helper had sacrificed what little he had saved.
The Wee Nee prohibits a monk from even raising a hand or uttering a threat to a fellow monk. See below:
….Making a threatening gesture against another bhikkhu when motivated by anger is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 75]
Saying to another bhikkhu that he may have broken a rule unknowingly, simply for the purpose of causing him anxiety, is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 77]….
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm
The Wee Nee prohibits a monk from asking more than three times from a monk’s helper (steward). He couldn’t even threaten him for it, let alone throw an object in the helper’s or steward’s direction in anger. See below:
….Therefore the Buddha set down this rule:
…..” then later that bhikkhu should go and find the attendant, he may tell him: “I need a robe.” If he does not get it, he may ask up to three times in all. If he still does not get the robe he may go and stand where the attendant can see him, up to six times. If he does not get it and he asks more than three times or stands more than six times, and then gets it, it is [an offence of Confession with Forfeiture.]….
The Wee Nee definitely would not allow a monk to beat up or threaten a monk’s helper (steward).
….RULES
DISPUTES
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2/bmc2.ch12.html
A list is inserted giving six unskillful traits:] a bhikkhu who is
• 1) EASILY ANGERED & BEARS A GRUDGE;
• 2) mean & spiteful;
• 3) jealous & possessive;
• 4) scheming & deceitful;
• 5) has evil desires & wrong views;
• 6) attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go….
Naturally for this hypothetical case study, there are quite a few more Vinaya rules but these might suffice. I know there are more if you can research the internet Buddhist texts under key word: VINAYA.
CLEARLY & WITHOUT QUESTION, VINAYA RULES WOULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN IN THIS RUMORED CASE, EVEN IF IT WAS UNTRUE.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/1/8 12:00
Ko PHOPYONCHO, I like your HILARIOUS and CANDID views in this hypothetical situation. I laugh so much that they gave me a stomach ache. I like Myittha’s Vinaya presentation too. However, like Myittha, I have to differ with you. We cannot just run away from a problem. We should face and solve it. Solving it would really benefit our Temple. Not solving it would hurt our temple. Sorry, I cannot applaud you because you won’t face the problem and this would hurt our temple.
Myittha had mentioned about Buddha’s rules already. So, I will just talk about local laws. Even as a hypothetical case study, ORGANIZATIONS AND TRUSTEES would gain many valuable lessons. With that understanding, let’s proceed.
U S LAWS
A monk is not above the law. Even the President is not above U S laws.
Throwing an object in the aide’s direction in anger, in this hypothetical situation, would mean that a PSYCHOLOGICAL OR MENTAL pain or distress or injury had already been inflicted on the aide. It also meant that a threat of PHYSICAL OR BODILY harm or injury had already been committed. It did not matter whether the aide was hit or not. What would be the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES in this hypothetical case study?
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Continuation
For this, the MONK would be CRIMINALLY liable. THE TEMPLE could be sued for HUGE compensatory damages. It’s JAIL TIME OR A HEFTY FINE for the monk. The Temple would have to pay CRIPPLYING DAMAGES AND LAWYERS’ FEES. Do you know that a slight incident like this would BANKRUPT the Temple?
Don’t listen to the extremist director who said that we should make the monks comfortable by “bending” the laws for them. He won’t bend it himself. He is just telling other directors to “bend” them for the monks. In that way, he could avoid the punishment coming for “bending” the laws.
What to do in this hypothetical case study? Just cry or pray for the best? Of course not! HOW TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING? To prevent this, the Temple had to put the monks on notice EVEN BEFORE (PREFERRED) and also after such things happened that it would not allow such high handed behaviors, unbecoming of a monk and also INDICATE the consequences of such an action (including DISMISSAL). It should be put in writing and signed and properly witnessed and notarized.
Otherwise, the temple would be ALSO LIABLE (CULPABLE) for lack of supervision, cover up, or for encouraging and ignoring these problems. Isn’t it too harsh or drastic? Let’s face it. We don’t want to LOSE A GOOD TEMPLE, do we? Good noble monks don’t have anything to fear. They know it’s safeguarding the temple. But potentially wayward monks would think twice and behave. The Temple would be free from litigation.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Continuation
Remember CARDINAL MAHONY of Los Angeles? It’s a very good example. We learn from others, even if it would seem to be far fetched. Better safe than sorry. You would think a CARDINAL is UNTOUCHABLE. After all, a Cardinal is next in rank to a POPE and would have high connections, ample resources, and a huge huge following as compared to us. Anyway EVEN this high ranking Cardinal was going to be SUED for CRIMINAL negligence for covering up for some wayward priests. He had shuffled these wayward priests around and HAD NOT FIRED THEM. Probably, he was just being KIND to these erring priests. Luckily, the Cardinal escaped this litigation but consider the costs. The Catholic Diocese settled for over 400 millions dollars a second time around. First time was over 220 millions. Lessons: KINDNESS TO WRONGDOERS CAN BE COSTLY!!! INACTION ON WRONGDOERS CAN BE COSTLY TOO!!!
Think about it. Our Myanmar community would rather not be in Cardinal Mahony’s shoes. JUST BEING KIND would NOT be the answer. If necessary and just in case, we need to tell our monks (even if they are noble already) to practice LOVING KINDNESS more and NOT TO EXPLODE as in this alleged rumor. We would rather not have a DEVASTATING lawsuit on our hands.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Continuation
For the trustees, we have to say DON’T JUST FLATTER a monk TOO MUCH. We don’t need Than Shwe wannabes who would cost us a temple with a tantrum. Nobody can “bend” laws for the wayward monks in any decent country. In this case study, we should have some human decency and pity the poor Myanmar helper. After all, he did nothing wrong or blame worthy. He was well within his rights as a donor to ask for a simple and easy correction.
As Myittha had pointed out in this case study, the Myanmar monk would have broken several Vinaya rules unbecoming of a real monk. To this same study, I add, the monk would have broken U S laws too. Let’s forget about a Myanmar monk or a Myanmar helper or “nga yae gyi” big hell for the time being. Let’s look carefully at this hypothetical situation again. Would we respect a Myanmar who would ill treat or look down on another fellow Myanmar overseas or anywhere? I really really doubt it.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Thissa
Posted on: 2008/1/8 16:11
I appreciate all the prior postings, whether right or wrong. VERY INTERESTING AND KNOWLEDGEABLE. ALSO, VERY USEFUL. They all open our eyes, one way or the other. They are NOBLE contributions that would earn great merits. Every religion and every society would have some erring people. We need to watch out for them and possibly take preventive or remedial measures for the good of many.
I, too, had heard about the kappiya helper’s rumors. It was floating around for some time. Nobody cared. Even if they were untrue, they offered many lessons, as Ko Myittha and Ko Kyawhtin1 say.
In this hypothetical situation, I could visualize the PUBLICITY generated. I could imagine the American and the world media coming out with headlines as: “Buddhist monk hits helper” or “Buddhist monk found guilty” or “Buddhist monk being sued” or “Buddhist monk jailed.” Any of these would repulse the Americans and would cast a slur on our many other noble monks from Myanmar. It would be a far cry from “spreading Buddhist teachings all over the world” as some would like to brag about. It would also be a great setback for Buddhism and our many good and noble monks. We would lose our credibility as a peaceful and non violent religion and people.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Continuation
Buddhist monks and lay people are supposed to be non violent. What a surprise? What happened? Where were the Myit tha, the Cetana, the Gar yu nar, and the Ko Gyin Sar (loving kindness, charity, Sympathy, and the empathy)?
In this hypothetical situation, the old traditional thinking would not or could not work here in U S. Indeed, it would be a gun powder keg waiting to explode. In a way, it’s a clash of cultures, and we might need to adapt and modify a bit. What old traditional thinking, you say? This thinking goes like this: “We own the temple or we should own the temple. We have many supporters. We are solid. We are powerful “phone ta go gyi”. We can even own the people. We can ask anybody to serve us at any time. We are far nobler than lay people….Like being in the old country, we can “spank” the “dumb” village boys….
Here, in U S, you cannot even “spank” your own children!!! Dumb or not! Monks are not above the law. Nor do they enjoy special legal favors. “Blind” directors and a few “mistaken” or “wayward” monks need to wake up to avoid trouble with the laws. Some might forget to practice kindness, generosity, and understanding and treat helpers and trustees and donors with dignity.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Continuation
Remember Rodney King’s case. For beating wrongdoer Rodney “too much”, the policemen involved were punished and the City had to pay him 24 million dollars.
Instead of getting to the bottom of a problem, as in this rumored case, and “educating” some erring monks, we people tend to ignore the incidents. History has a way of repeating itself.
Also, would a “Sanghika” dedication, (making a building to be owned by monks), be helpful in this hypothetical situation? Of course not! It would further reinforce the old line of thinking into, for example, “I am the owner and I am powerful. I can punish my helper in whatever manner I please, I can remove or change any trustee I please.…”
I welcome other views, the more the better. As Venerable Ma Soe Yein Sayadaw so wisely said, enlightened countries have no dictators and nation leaders need to enlighten and educate people.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:18 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/1/9 19:13
I have listened to Burmese Classic’s interview with Sayadaw U Aye Thaka. Link below:
http://www.burmeseclassic.com/display.php?title_str=Pa%20Ra%20Hi%20Ta&asxfile=asx/azuzar.asx
There are several untruths and exaggerations. A responsible monk should not mislead the public. I like to point out a GLARING LIE. IT IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THE REAL DONORS.
In the audio, the Sayadaw said the Temple had invited 49 monks from all U S states and from all over the world for reciting Patthana. He read out these countries one by one, to drive home the point. He said they were from Canada, England, France, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, & Burma. He said because of this attendance, the festival was a huge success.
To a lesser degree, the statement was true. To a larger degree, it’s untrue. That’s why it was a blatant exaggeration. I will explain why. The Temple’s own flyers had indicated only a few donors sponsoring a few monks’ travel expenses. It’s just a handful. How come?? A few monks and 49 monks were vastly different.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Continuation
The ORIGINAL AND REAL MAJOR sponsors were Marie Tan and her family. They had ORIGINALLY INVITED and had FOOTED the travel expenses for 51 monks. It was to celebrate Venerable Penang Sayadaw’s 80th birthday. It was also to honor this Sayadaw’s 50 years of world missionary service. See below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=965&forum=6&jump=1&start=10
QUOTE
“…..Sponsor Daw Marie Tan donated ALL travel expenses and Nawa kama (personal moneys) FOR ALL monks. During this ceremony, the sponsoring family donated $ 10,000.00 to honoree Venerable Penang Sayadaw and another $ 10,000.00 as financial support for Myanmar monks in Burma….
…..The Sayadaw’s ceremony had facilitated a successful monks’ meeting. Moreover, I was happy to observe that it had also facilitated many other religious functions…. They could and did conveniently invite these 51 monks to their other donating ceremonies, birthday ceremonies, and religious festivals…
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Continuation
For example: Because of the monks’ presence and arrival (for Ven Penang Sayadaw’s ceremony), the Thondra Rama Vihara Temple (at Azusa) was able to conduct the “SANGHA PAWARYANA FESTIVAL” WITH A LARGE GATHERING of many of these monks. Similarly, this AZUSA TEMPLE DID NOT NEED TO SPEND ON MUCH AIRFARES for these monks to also participate in its OTHER “ANNUAL NON STOP PA HTAN SCRIPTURES RECITAL.” With these many Myanmar monks from several foreign countries, THEIR PARTICIPATION MADE THE RECITAL ALL THE MORE SPECIAL. A wonderful and admirable occasion indeed!
We like to thank the ORIGINAL sponsors and donors U Chor Chai, Daw Marie Tan, and Gregory Tan for inviting these monks to America, taking responsibility for them, and for footing the costs….”
Qualifying the invitations as “inviting 49 monks, who were already in town from other states and foreign countries for another celebration,…” would be nearer to the truth. Taking away a huge chunk of some other people’s credit was uncalled for.
Vinaya rules do not allow exaggerations, half truths, and misleading statements. They are various forms of lies. A MONK MISLEADING THE PUBLIC WITH EXAGGERATIONS WOULD BE BREAKING THE VINAYA. IT IS REALLY SHAMEFUL!!!
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Phwasein
Posted on: 2008/1/10 11:58
Thank you, Meatphar for Bama Classic interview. Sayadaw say Nebban Zey give most money for build Dama Hall.
I have question for Sayadaw.
All know Ko Henry and Ma Noleen. Their big families worked hard 8 times 8 years for 8 big Nebban Zey’s. I hear Sayadaw no give them credit or lugyis positions. Sayadaw against them. Why?
He say Nebban Zey get big money for Hall. Why he against them for lu gyi jobs? They solid people help make Nebban Zey 8 times start to finish.
He know they big sacrifices 8 big Nebban Zey. More than that. He know they work hard 6 big Par than pwe. He against them nice solid people. He give other people. No consider their hard work 8 years. Fair? I don’t think so. Good for temple? I don’t think so. I know they great help in Southern California Myanmar Athin also. Very good people.
I hear Sayadaw gave bad excuse. He act like greedy boy. He say kyok achin marywe khawkhine loya. Why? He think they on call for him? He think they slaves to him? If really they already on call for him then also why he still not accept them and give lugyi positions? For on call helpers where you get those kind of people? It good reason to accept not reject. He wrong and not smart to reject very helpful & kind people like Ko Henry and Ma Noleen. He probably got grudges or jealous. See he no give credit to them for 8 Nebban Zey hard work. Wee Ne say no grudges no jealousy allowed.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Continuation
For sure, he against them. He no give lugyi job. But I hear he again ask Ko Henry help for 9th Zey later. No shame. Why?
They refused. Sayadaw get mad. Why?
I hear he then call other people bad and wickeed? Why?
Here free country, free talk, no slave to no one. Monk wrong, no say bad words. Break Wee Ne to say people wickeed.
HE BETTER LISTEN HIS OWN “KAMMA” AUDIO. He say people do bad action, people get bad reward. To just blame others? Picky to others? Look like spoiling child. Need blame himself.
Lord Buddha said no demand donations. No demand obedience. He no allow monks for blame others for no donation. He no allow monks for say bad words for no help.
Blame others. Say bad words. No correction himself. No fair treat others. Lawba. All break many Wee Ne. He big monk? Real Shameful!
I have lessons for us too. If we need good noble people for Temple. Then need treat people fair. Blame is no use. Blame others is against Wee Ne.
No talk about mistakes shut up also no good for Temple. Hiding mistakes also no good for Myanmar ludu commty.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/1/12 19:59
I like 1/10/08 Shwemeat’s entry. It also has something to do with Wee Nee:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=951&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
I also like Dawgyansen’s entry on the same day. It also concerns Wee Nee:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=949&forum=6&jump=1&start=10
I have heard another rumor. This rumor contained a bad lie.
BACKGROUND: A temple’s Hall had been red tagged by a City. It’s a notice not to use the Hall. For safety, the City did not permit Hall usage before completion and safety inspections.
This Temple was “unofficially” using the Hall a few times before full completion. One day, a City inspector happened to pass by. He saw people going in and out the Hall preparing things for a coming ceremony. He verbally warned people there to stop using the Hall. After a while, he passed by a second time to check. He noticed people still going in and out of the Hall. (Actually, this time, they were removing things brought in). He then put up red tags on all Hall’s doors.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Continuation
People were very shocked & upset at the time. They had never experienced such a red tagging. From experiences back home, they were alarmed by any governmental action.
RUMORS: In this highly volatile background, a rumor sprang up like this: In a sermon, using another building, a monk was alleged to have told his audience that the trustees must have reported it (the illicit Hall usage). He meant to say that the trustees who had inside info had snitched to the City, out of ill will. He was alleging that this caused the official to come out and red tag the Hall. The rumor alleged that he then told his listeners not to do anything to the alleged (“snitching”) trustees and that they would reap their own sins.
How clever! How broad minded & generous! Well, it’s just fake generosity. If people were to ask the alleged “snitching” trustees, what would they say? They would defend themselves and tell the truth. This would expose his lies and unfair rumors. Fearing exposure, he allegedly stopped them from confronting the trustees. Is there a method in the madness? This allegedly also made him look generous. If true, it’s misusing his “robe” to destroy other people in the back.
ACTUAL SITUATION: Actually, the City officials came by chance. Nobody reported the hall’s usage to the City. Anyway, from hindsight, the Temple shouldn’t have used the Hall in the first place. If caught, it had only to calmly accept the situation and the red tags. Grin and bear it! You got away with it a few times already. Be satisfied & be happy. No fine at all. Just some bruised egos. Continue with the construction.
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Continuation
Meanwhile, for just a few more months, use another smaller building. You knew the risks already before “unofficially” using it. You were willing to take the risks which would be just your bruised egos. There was no real need to find scapegoats and blame somebody. Why would trustees do such a thing? They would have done that much earlier with the other much earlier “unofficial” usages.
VINAYA: Why accuse people out of hand and without a shred of evidence? If true, he had a wild imagination and was holding some grudge. These would all be breaking the Vinaya. Let us see how many Vinaya rules had been broken. Quite a few: 1. Tell a lie or lies. 2. Mean and spiteful. 3. Hold a grudge. 4. Scheming & deceitful. 5. Instigate people. 6. Create disharmony in Community.
Lessons: If true, there are many lessons for other organizations and other trustees and our wonderful but trusting Myanmar community. Avoid holding grudges. Avoid making unfounded accusations. The Vinaya does not allow a monk to hold a grudge, to be mean and spiteful and to be scheming and deceitful.
If interested, there are Internet texts, as pointed out by others, that deal with Vinaya issues such as “unfounded charges,” “Tale bearing,” and “Malicious intent.”
Contd.