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 5:28 pm
Continuation
Making an unfounded charge to a bhikkhu — or getting someone else to make the charge to him — that he is guilty of a sa”nghaadisesa offence is a paacittiya offence. [Paac.76]
Tale-bearing among bhikkhus, in hopes of winning favor or causing a rift, is a paacittiya offence. [Paac.3]
An insult made with malicious intent to another bhikkhu is a paacittiya offence. [Paac.2]
If a Community official is innocent of prejudice, criticizing him within earshot of another bhikkhu is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 13]
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2008/1/13 16:46
We have also listened to the “Burmese Classic” audio. In the interview, Sayadaw U Ayethaka said “Previous directors had invited Thant Gyi Toung Sayadaw. To do religious works, (they) had entrusted (him)” The first part “to do religious works” is okay. The second part on entrusting is unclear. HE DID NOT SPECIFY “WHAT EXACTLY” WAS ENTRUSTED.
Ask an ordinary person and most likely he will tell you that the Temple itself (with ensuing ownership rights) had been entrusted. This inference or implication would be totally WRONG. Probably, that was the INTENDED implied effect. ACTUALLY, ONLY “RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES” WERE HANDED OVER. “POSSESSORY (OWNERSHIP)” AND “MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS” WERE NOT.
Why? U S laws won’t allow an ownership handover. It would be ILLEGAL. Those people giving away a public property to a private party would be committing a crime. It’s misuse or stealing public funds. The receiver of a public property for private ownership would also be committing a crime. The monk would be receiving stolen property. There are penalties & jail terms for both givers and receiver.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Continuation
Actually, Sayadaw U Ayethaka SHOULD NOT just say “to do religious works, (blank) was entrusted.” He SHOULD say “to do religious works, the (religious responsibilities) were entrusted” [Thar tanar pyu bho (BAR THAR YAE THAR WUN KO ARTT NAN TAE.)]
Thus, the Sayadaw’s answer was INCOMPLETE or AMBIGUOUS. To us, the incompleteness seems to be NEGLIGENT. Why? He knew ALL ALONG what Thant Gyi Toung Sayadaw had admitted to the U S Consul. It’s that he didn’t own the temple & that the ownership hadn’t been handed over to him. Also, community leaders had written several letters to PBA on this issue before the 7/22/07 Hall dedication. See links below.
What if the Sayadaw had said the Temple had been handed over to Thant Gyi Toung Sayadaw? He would be guilty of lying. What if he had said the Temple’s religious responsibilities or duties were handed over? He would be telling the truth.
For some reason, he won’t say WHAT really was handed over or won’t make it clear. Did he feel less impressive to an audio audience when saying the complete truth about the handover? Who knows? Buddha didn’t encourage “clingings” to property or fame. Didn’t monks take poverty vows? We wonder. Worse, did he still think that monks should own this temple, despite the 7/22/07 SASANA dedication? We wonder. Who knows?
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Continuation
Maybe, that’s why he still won’t OFFICIALLY distribute the SASANA dedication declarations to the community. Maybe, that’s why he won’t put the SASANA resolution on the PBA board meeting minutes. See Thissa’s 11/8/07 C2M posting:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1023&forum=12#forumpost2568
OUR POINT & REQUEST: Burmese Classic should ask him to clarify what was really handed over and add a postscript note or a sequel. PIOUS Burmese Classic audience has a RIGHT TO KNOW the truth. They SHOULD NOT be left IN SUSPENSE or be MISLED unintentionally. The same applies to PBA in putting up this audio to its web audience.
For more info on the Temple “responsibilities” handover issue, see our (FSOFPBA)’s 8/12/07 C2M postings below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
SOME EXTRACTS:
May 4, 2007 AFFIDAVIT & letter to PBA… Re: Clarifying “Than Geek Kar” Rumors
2. …. we handed over ONLY the RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS to Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw. We did not hand over the non religious management functions to him. Also, we DID NOT hand over the possessory (ownership) function to him.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Continuation
July 3, 2007 letter to PBA…. Re: Correction & Dhamma Hall Libation Ceremony
….we have learned that the Ven Sayadaw has admitted already to the U S Consular that he DOES NOT OWN the Temple (see enclosed)….
July 16, 2007 letter to PBA…. Re: Your 7/8/07 Clarification
….We handed to him and he accepted only the RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS….it may be similar to a Viharadipathi (Temple Caretaker/Manager) & a gihisanthaka (lay people or community owned) property situation (Stmt B)….
July 18, 2007 letter to PBA…. Re: Dhamma Hall Libation Ceremony
We STRONGLY OBJECT to such a ceremony to convert the Dhamma Hall from public ownership to monks’ ownership. Some major objections are listed on Statement I.
Statement I: 1. It is ILLEGAL in United States TO GIVE AWAY “PUBLIC PROPERTY” to a “private group” of people including monks.
3. We will LOSE the Temple. IRS will charge the Temple $ 600,000 for 20 years’ BACK TAXES….
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Taungpyone
Posted on: 2008/1/13 19:13
Registered Member
I listened to the interview of Sayadaw U Ayethaka and discovered the discrepancy to what has truly happened and what he said in the interview. I wonder if he is intentionally misleading the public.
The audio below carries an interview by “Burmese Classic” with Sayadaw U Ayethaka. It’s being there for a number of months. Link below:
http://burmeseclassic.com/display.php?title_str=Pa Ya Hi Ta&asxfile=asx/azuzar.asx
The Sayadaw’s interview replies have several MISLEADING and AMBIGUOUS statements. It’s against the Vinaya to spread untruths, lies, and half truths. A FEW examples:
1. The Sayadaw says that the Temple had purchased a 5 acres property in Yorba Linda for over $ 300,000.00. This statement is totally false. He then says that the 5 doctors had applied for a permit. The Temple NEVER did purchase the property. It was purchased by the four doctors. There were no five doctors involved. The temple did not have such moneys or such credit. The trustees took good care of the funds and they would not risk them in an uncertain purchase even if there were such funds.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:41 pm
The Sayadaw says that this permit had been rejected at the COUNTY level. This statement is also untrue. It was rejected at the City Council level. Before announcing to the public, a responsible person should make some research or qualify his statement. Also, for any mistakes later found, he should go and revise them instead of letting it be for quite some time.
2. The Sayadaw says that the Temple had purchased a 3 acres property in Chino and had applied for a permit. This statement is also false. The temple first applied for a permit and the purchase was contingent to winning the permit. Again, the trustees took good care of funds and did not risk an uncertain purchase. The Temple had never purchased any property in Yorba Linda or Chino. He knows it and should not say like that purposely.
3. The Sayadaw says that before the Dhamma Hall construction, the Temple had only $ 20,000.00. Note that this was after Yorba Linda and Chino rejections. What happened to these properties or proceeds, if the temple had purchased them before? The foregoing and later statements are contradictory and illogical. They are all untrue and irresponsible.
4. The Sayadaw says that after Venerable U Thondra passed away, the Temple was sealed for one year before the then trustees found Venerable Mt Tantkyi Sayadaw. This is completely untrue. The temple was never officially sealed at all. In between there were several functions or sermons at the temple.
The above matters may sound trivial. But it brings out the true character of a person.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/1/17 21:17
Thank you Taungpyone. I, too, wonder whether the Sayadaw is intentionally misleading the public. Yes, some may sound trivial and they all show the true character of a person. To me, when all add up, one thing stands out. It’s treating the major donors as inconsequential or unimportant especially when it’s untrue. It’s really unnecessary and unjust. It’s breaking the monks’ Vinaya rules. This unfair treatment should be corrected. Why?
We understand that it’s impossible to mention all donors. They were too numerous. However, for SOME major donors, they should not be conveniently FORGOTTEN OR BELITTLED. Their individual sacrifices per EXTENDED FAMILY were as worthy of mention as a Nibban Zay in TOTAL. At times, they were even WORTHIER than a Nibban Zay itself. Generally, on a per capita or per family basis, INDIVIDUAL major donors had already sacrificed MORE than Nibban Zay’s INDIVIDUAL donors.
Anyway, as Dawgyansen had correctly observed, Nibban Zays couldn’t be the TRUE major resource for the Dhamma Hall’s construction. See 1/10/08 Dawgyansen’s posting:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=949&forum=6&jump=1&start=10
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Continuation
Also, I remember that financial statements covering period Jan 1999 to October 2006, had been mailed to the community. Charts and detailed statements had been posted on Temple’s bulletin board. It’s very wrong and unjust for Sayadaw U Aye Thaka to say what he said in the Burmese Classic audio. He had omitted and demeaned many worthy major donors. He would have hurt their feelings. Examples??
A major donor family had donated over $ 75,000.00. It’s mainly for the Hall’s costly steel beam structure, granite hallway, 2 halls, etc.
Former President Raymond Ngaw aka U Khin Zaw’s extended family & connections had donated over $ 100,000.00. He was instrumental in bringing in a complete stranger, a Singaporean donor, with $ 30,000 donations and Steve Thai with another $ 30,000.
Former Vice President Dennis Chen aka U Kyin San had donated over 7 years’ of valuable construction expertise, time, and efforts. These services were worth over $ 150,000 or even more.
For your comparison, an average Nibban Zay’s proceeds would be around a low to mid 20, 000’s. (It was $ 21,900 in year 2001).
Were these few examples not worthy of at least some honorable mention by Sayadaw U Aye Thaka? I would think so. Wouldn’t you? How could he forget them?
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Continuation
Then, there are other major donors too. Though incomplete, offhand, here are some, to name a few:
There was an anonymous donor who donated $ 18,000 for Hall’s foundation, Alice Ho’s $ 25,000 for roof and Hall, Dr Minn Soe’s $ 26,000 for Hall, flooring, and air conditioner, Ko You Chwan’s $ 20,000, and Daw Kyu Kyu Lwin’s $ 20,000. Moreover, there were many loan LENDERS of up to $ 10,000 each; some of whom later converted their loans to donations.
Were these donors not worthy of mention also? Should these individual donations be relegated to oblivion? Were they in any way inferior to a Nibban Zay collection? Why did he omit them?
How about the GUARANTORS for two huge Temple loans amounting to $ 350,000.00? Without these guarantors the adjacent property COULDN’T HAVE BEEN BOUGHT. This, in turn, would mean that the Conditional Use Temple Permit of 130 persons, 72 parking spaces, plus the DHAMMA HALL, as mentioned in the audio, WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN PERMITTED.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Continuation
Moreover, not everybody WOULD or COULD guarantee Temple loans. Some have weak incomes. Some just avoided doing so, at crunch time, with excuses or ruses. Why? Temple’s incomes had been fluctuating and future incomes would be highly uncertain. Also, the Temple had a low income track record. Guarantors might get hurt. They had every right to think that way and not help.
However, the following guarantors should be commended for taking HUGE PERSONAL RISKS at the time: They were Dr Minn Soe, Raymond Ngaw, Dennis Chen, Edwin Kay, Dr Zaw Tun Maung, U Maung Maung Gyi, Dr Aye Aye Cho, and Professor Don Wadley. They should not be easily forgotten. Why should the monk dismiss them SO SOON???
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:47 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/1/18 13:59
I agree. What about the many other LENDERS?
I heard that there was a big anonymous lender of $ 100,000.00. This lender was there when the Temple needed the money. No collateral was required. The bank was rigorously screening the jumbo $ 350,000 loan applications. It was a critical moment. I heard that the going was tough and arduous. All banks were leery of church commercial loans. This $ 100,000.00 loan ensured the $ 350,000 loans approval.
I heard that there were several other tight situations. Donation moneys could not keep up with construction needs. I heard that Dr Minn Soe was ALWAYS there for the Temple when and as needed, up to completion. His several floating loans ranging up to about $ 50,000.00 were quick and easy. He did not require any collateral either. I learned that he donated back all the interests. Dennis Chen, who did the construction, had high praise for him. I have never heard of such solid support either. Just super!!!
My questions: Weren’t these GRACIOUS PEOPLE & TRUE FRIENDS IN TIMES OF NEED? Or, were they just NEGLIGIBLE people? Why did Sayadaw U Aye Thaka omit so many of them? What were his motives? Did he really understand and follow our Myanmar Lor ka niti civics code? “Ta loke sar bhuu thu kyae zhuu” talk about Gratitude. As someone pointed out, was he free from a monk’s six unskillful traits? Like harboring grudges, being jealous & possessive. Did he want all the credit for himself? Did he really believe in flattery such as “ Sayadaw phone ta go gyi lo”?
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:49 pm
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2008/1/26 12:53
In the Burmese Classic audio, Sayadaw U Ayethaka stated that the temple was formed on 1/1/1987. This was utterly FALSE. It was formed on 12/13/1985, over a YEAR earlier. The Azusa property was bought in late 1986. From Monterey Park, it moved to Azusa on 1/1/87. He didn’t look up the papers he already had. Also, he could’ve easily verified with trustees.
Moreover, he was wrong to say that the Lamagyi invited Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw. How could a Lama in faraway Tibet do that? Actually, a well connected Tibetan Dakar lay person met the Sayadaw in Bagan airport and started a conversation with him through an English translator. This Dakar invited the Sayadaw to Berkeley, America. When the Sayadaw first declined citing a language problem, he assured him that there would be translators. U Ayethaka DIDN’T KNOW what he was saying. He was RECKLESS with what he said. When talking to public, he should’ve done some preparations.
He should’ve stuck to his Dhamma talk. He shouldn’t have dabbled in management functions for which he was so ERROR PRONE. On the other hand, could it be that he did it on purpose? Why did he skip the Temple’s crucial early history? Wasn’t the question about the Temple’s origins? Everyone knows setting up ANY organization involves great hardships and sacrifices. People learn from and rejoice in these experiences. “Lann pyin ma khet. Lann htwin khet ei”, “REPAIRING a road is not difficult. BUILDING a road is (difficult)!” See Boston’s Ashin Ah Baya’s 9/5/07 article below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=965&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Continuation
Initially, there were legal procedures, various permits to obtain, City’s public hearings, banking, giving sermons, establishing a number of dayarkars, operating a viable temple, searching for a suitable Temple site, etc. They all are numerous and painstaking. They all demand immediate attention, team work, and community support.
Many people made huge donations and many sacrifices. Purchasing this Azusa property in JUST A YEAR and obtaining a difficult church loan, were quite outstanding. The original property also stands as silent tribute and testimony to many founders’ and past trustees’ enormous sacrifices.
As a Burmese saying goes “When we DRINK a drop of water, we should REMEMBER those earlier who had dug up the well for us.” Did the monk LOSE touch with our good Myanmar CULTURE? Without these predecessors’ FORESIGHT and HARD WORK also, our Temple wouldn’t be able to evolve to what it is now today. How could he forget or skip the Temple’s important earlier ORIGINS? Why?
Vinaya rules do not allow monks to say FALSE or even CARELESS things. They impact on many people.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:51 pm
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2008/1/26 14:22
In Burmese Classic’s audio, the Sayadaw also said that the temple was SEALED FOR A YEAR. Note that a YEAR was quite a long stretch of time. It’s FALSE again. As Taungyone said, the temple was NEVER officially sealed by authorities. Many festivals & sermons were conducted then. Monks were conducting ceremonies.
Why did he say that it’s sealed for a year? He knew or should’ve known it wasn’t true? Was he trying to mislead the public again? Was he conjuring up a false image to an unknowing audience? Was he implying that the temple was a HOPELESS “basket case”? Was the temple already abandoned, barren, desolate, deserted, overgrown with brushes and weeds, and lacking followers? The REVERSE was true! Was he OVERDOING it with a lie, STRETCHING it to a FULL year?
Why mislead people? Why put down prior trustees, even if unintentional? As we had mentioned before, the MANAGEMENT and OWNERSHIP functions were NOT given to Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw. ONLY RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS were given to the Sayadaw.
Click below to our 8/12/07 letter to PBA:
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Continuation
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0
(Website is no more)
“….2. As co-founders and directors who were present at the handover, we handed over ONLY the religious functions to Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw. We did not hand over the non religious MANAGEMENT functions to him. Also, we DID NOT hand over the POSSESSORY (ownership) function to him….”
SUCCESSIVE TRUSTEES HAD ALWAYS MAINTAINED AND MANAGED THE TEMPLE QUITE WELL. This was for many years, over a year before and long after Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw’s arrival. They all should be given fair credit also for their parts of the good works. Was there a need to grab other peoples’ credit by hiding or degrading their works?
Misleading the community with falsehoods was also breaking the Vinaya.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:53 pm
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2008/1/26 14:53
U Aye Thaka said in Burmese Classic audio that there were 3 rooms “ONLY.” This comment was totally WRONG. There were 4 rooms. In U S, a house with 4 rooms is considered quite bigger than most. Most Burmese temples in U S were not larger than this. Some might even be smaller. Most started small. The “3 rooms only,” “thon khan BARE shee tare” DISPARAGING remark revealed a sense of discontent. Instead of focusing on Dhamma, he was focusing on grandeur and material attachments or “clingings.” This needed a CORRECTION.
Lord Buddha put a stop to some monks’ GREED FOR LARGER & LARGER MONASTERIES. See below for Ko Kyawhtin1’s 12/20/07 posting:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0
“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…
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.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Continuation
In this case, U Ayethaka was focusing on the “number of rooms.” He was not happy with 3 rooms “only.” Was he again painting a GLOOMY picture to an UNSUSPECTING audience? Was the temple TINY AND CRAMPED before? Probably, he wished to imply that he or later trustees had made it much grander. Did he have to resort to disparaging the original building yet SOME MORE?
This comment was UNFAIR to the founders and past trustees. As pointed out the 4 rooms were not miniscule. The rooms had FAITHFULLY served our monks and our community for over 12 years. Nobody and no monk had brought funds from the old country to buy this property. It was with community’s funds earned by their own SWEAT AND TOIL.
To be fair, why did he not also mention the 83200 sq ft HUMONGOUS lot? This huge lot served as a large dining place and a park complete with shady trees and beautiful mountain scenery. It’s more than DOUBLE in size to that of the later acquired 34800 sq ft adjacent property. If this second property was bought for about $ 452,000, can you imagine that this original property would be worth about $ 900,000 at the time? Remember, California property values are based on sq ft. This valuable property is NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT!!
The monk’s disparaging assessment focusing on just a section of the original property was totally UNFAIR & INCORRECT. Moreover, it exposed GLARINGLY HIS DANGEROUS IGNORANCE on real estate values and lack of business acumen. It brought out his unappreciative nature relating to past sacrifices by community and past trustees, and probably his THIRST FOR FAME.
Vinaya rules do not allow monks to distort truths or facts. The rules prohibit hurting other people or greed in whatever forms or “clingings” for fame. The rules are for contentment and righteous conduct. The monk should observe these rules and not break them so many times already.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:55 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/1/26 16:42
About the Burmese Classic audio interview, I like to fill a partial vacuum on how & why Azusa Temple had grown into a huge & fabulous temple for our Myanmar community.
Why were former Treasurer Susan Lim and former Accountant Edwin Kay not mentioned? They each had served the Temple for about 18 LONG years. Former President Raymond Ngaw aka U Khin Zaw had served 8 years and former Vice President Dennis Chen aka U Kyin San had served 7 years. LONG, DISTINGUISHED and OUTSTANDING services indeed!
Susan organized the ANNUAL RASU alumni festival and raised huge Temple funds. She ran a popular Nibban Zay stall ANNUALLY for 8 years raising large funds. Her family converted a $ 10,000 loan to donation and made innumerable other big donations. For over a DECADE before her retirement, she dutifully changed the flowers at the altars WEEKLY at her own expense. When former treasurer Daw Tin Tin Myint retired after 2 or 3 years service, she took over as Treasurer. She got some help from her close friend Daw Amy Ohn and also from Edwin. The volume of donations these two former treasurers and helpers handled was in millions of dollars and every penny was accounted for. A tribute to their HONESTY & INTEGRITY, DEDICATION & HARD WORK!!!
Edwin kept the books for the temple for 18 years. Like the others, he didn’t charge the temple for his accounting services. Just keeping books ALONE might otherwise cost the temple $ 44,000 or more. He obtained over $ 55,000 property tax rebates for the temple. With guarantors’ help, he was instrumental in obtaining critical bank loans of $ 350,000.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Continuation
Raymond and Dennis had advocated a “go slow and steady” approach which the Board accepted. This wise policy resulted in ALL $ 510,000 loans (including bank loans of $ 350,000) being FULLY paid off. Who could have asked for anything more?? Contrast this with a temple having a cash flow problem with its monthly mortgage payment and a huge $ 900,000 loan balance at temple completion. This wise “go slow and steady” policy enabled nearby developments to pass ahead of us. Consequently, we had shorter sewer connections to these new neighbors’ sewers. This saved us over $ 100,000. At almost every festival, Raymond and Dennis could be seen ushering in cars in the hot burning sun. This prevented parkings at neighbors’ frontages and avoided temple permit revocation problems. Raymond was very dutiful and conscientious to the point that every week he sacrificed his family time for his children. He gave precedence to Temple’s needs instead.
Dr Minn Soe was a great help with his wise experiences from helping Myanmar temples at Chicago, Indiana, and others for many years. His management knowledge from working many years at various major U S hospitals was also much valuable. As pointed out elsewhere, his financial support was indispensable in temple construction. His donations were generous. In writing meeting minutes, Dr Minn Soe, Raymond, and Edwin played important roles. As mentioned somewhere, Dr Minn Soe, Raymond, Dennis, and Edwin had also taken huge risks as bank loans guarantors for the Temple.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Continuation
A nearby big property, a beautiful Dhamma Hall, a spacious parking lot, huge loans paid off during their charge, and long term dedicated services. They also were in the 8 Nibban Zays too. Weren’t these people worth some honorable mention or a few words? How could the monk forget them? HOW COULD HE???
How could he have done all these by himself? Dennis commented that it’s rather hard to again have such dedicated specialists with expertise in their own fields. He said that the Temple was very fortunate in this regard. Even Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw thanked some of these individuals by name. He didn’t exaggerate on the role of Nibban Zays. U Aye Thaka’s approach was COMPLETELY different from his boss & head monk. How? He probably forgot that all are volunteers and are sacrificing their precious time for the Temple and the community. He must’ve taken them for granted. He preferred to ignore them, as in the Burmese Classic audio.
U Aye Thaka always said that “thu har ne thu, pbyit lar mare,” it would happen by itself. Maybe, he believed that Thagyar min, the King of Nats (Angels) had sent these unwitting slaves to him!!! To a retiring person who had given good service for some years, he even said “lok maet lu dwe, ah myar gyi shii,” “There are many others who will do it.” He hurt that person’s feelings. How UNAPPRECIATIVE, How CRUDE and RUDE!!!
Contd.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Continuation
Lord Buddha was very careful with community relations. He always controlled wayward monks like the ‘group of six’ or Ven Upananda and not let them hurt the community.
Vinaya rules do not allow a monk to say hurtful things or omit truths.
U Aye Thaka’s wrongful statements and omissions in the Burmese Classic audio & other actions mentioned, all broke the monks’ rules. He should correct them.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/1/31 21:54
Actually, there was one more kappiya, monk’s aide, rumor. I couldn’t find it mentioned anywhere. In the rumor, A MONK allegedly was UNKIND to his own old Myanmar helper. True or untrue, someone please say something. Our community would like to know the truth. Even if untrue, trustees and monks doing RELIGIOUS work overseas should be aware of & learn from this potential problem. They should PREVENT it from ever happening.
To us Myanmar expatriates, it may not mean much. We may dismiss it as trivial. We don’t really think about it. We really are humble and obliging people. We may even bear with injustices, big or small. We are used to it. We never complain. However, in a MODERN or a WESTERN world, this matter is quite SERIOUS & UNACCEPTABLE, even if we are willing to bear with it. Indeed, this alleged treatment would be considered ILLEGAL. Do you really want to hear more about this rumor?
Well, here it goes. It was rumored that a City inspector found a kappiya, living in a detached car garage. What about it? So what!! You say. The inspector allegedly came because of a neighbor’s complaint on an unrelated matter. He allegedly said it’s ILLEGAL and gave IMMEDIATE notice to VACATE and to REMOVE all personal effects. Allegedly, he returned in a few days to check if his order was obeyed. Did you notice the IMPORTANCE & SERIOUSNESS placed here in U S? The monk allegedly had to make suitable accommodation for the kappiya. What an EMBARRASSMENT for a religious place!! It allegedly went into City’s OFFICIAL RECORDS!!
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Continuation
Questions on this rumor: Why would a monk allegedly DISCRIMINATE against a kappiya? Wasn’t he a fellow human being or a fellow Myanmar? Would Lord Buddha allow this? A garage had flammable liquids and car exhaust. A fire hazard & a health hazard, it had no privacy. It’s hot and cold with no cooler or heater unlike the main building. Why allegedly weren’t suitable arrangements done before for this old man? It’s illegal to DISCRIMINATE in U S for whatever reason.
Regarding this rumor, it’s clearly bad or poor MANAGEMENT of human resources. Wasn’t the kappiya a human resource?
Myanmar’s famous “LU GYI WUT,” “ELDER’S DUTIES” included “looking after” your charges or juniors. This “looking after” duty as alleged here, seemed to be quite below par. One elder’s duty was “tha narr,” having mercy or pity. Was there allegedly much pity or mercy for the poor old Myanmar kappiya? NOT MUCH!!
In METTA SUTTA, a monk should send “metta, loving kindness” EVERY WAKING MOMENT. Metta was allegedly sorely MISSING here.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Continuation
If alleged accommodations COULD NOT be made, why “import” many people to America in the first place? On the other hand, if alleged accommodation COULD be made EARLIER (or later), or possible for other GUEST MONKS OR NOVICES, why allegedly couldn’t it be done EARLIER or be possible for a Kappiya also? I don’t understand.
If, as alleged, the monk knew that it would be illegal to have the kappiya living in the garage and he allegedly had him live there anyway, then the monk would be BREAKING the WEE NEE. The Wee Nee won’t allow a monk to do anything ILLEGAL or cause some HARM OR HAZARD to the old Myanmar kappiya.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/2/2 17:41
In Burma, we honor writers with writers’ day every year. Why? These learned sages give good counsel and guidance to our community. They act as light beacons shining pathways “pyinnya ah linn pya” to avoid tragedies & hardships and to give us progress. Therefore, on our community’s behalf, I deeply appreciate all our “Wee Nee” writers for their researches and wise guidance in purifying and prolonging our SASANA.
Certainly, the rumored Kappiya steward was an excellent case study. We LEARNED many lessons. I do have another rumor. This time it allegedly involved another MONK. Are you surprised? I hope we can draw just as many lessons. This rumor involved a MONK’S UNKIND TREATMENT ON A FELLOW MONK. It alleged that a local Myanmar monk graduated his AA with honors from a local American college. Allegedly, our Myanmar community and trustees were immensely proud of his success. They’d like to celebrate and recognize his achievements with an honoring ceremony.
The lead monk was alleged to be not too happy about it. He was VERY JEALOUS! He allegedly boycotted the ceremony ALTOGETHER by going out of state, SIGHTSEEING. “Ma kyeet chin.” I thought monks boycott only bad people like the Burmese generals. They do that for SOLID reasons. A MONK BOYCOTTING ANOTHER MONK!
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Continuation
Really!!! Anyway, a responsible senior trustee reasoned with him before his trip. He allegedly counseled the lead monk that the trip would look UGLY for himself. He also allegedly told him that we should be proud that our Temple had produced a scholar monk. The monk allegedly won’t listen to this counsel. The monk’s jealousy allegedly GOT THE BETTER OF HIM. Was jealousy a good reason for boycotting?? You be the judge. You don’t have to be a monk to know. It looked rather childish too.
Even if the rumor might be untrue, what LESSONS could we have? Many!!!
Let’s use Ko Thangyat’s simple yardsticks. MYANMAR LU GYI KYINT WUT, Elders’ duties: Instead of being jealous of our juniors or children, elders should offer “Pay kaam chee myint” encouragement, praise, reward, and honor their achievements. Elders should have “Kyin nar Tha narr thee khan,” love, sympathy, patience and forbearance. In this case study, jealousy didn’t add anything to both monks. It DETRACTED from both of them.
METTA SUTTA: Monks should be mindful of (cultivate) loving kindness in every waking minute…. Monks should cultivate a boundless heart (love) towards all beings… Jealousy definitely was not love. Thus, we should NOT act like the lead monk as rumored. We should CORRECT this BAD BEHAVIOR.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Continuation
VINAYA monk’s rules: The monks’ rules prohibit jealousy. As mentioned by someone, out of 6 monk’s unskillful traits, jealousy is one of them. For a lead monk, it’s MOST SHAMEFUL!
In this rumored case, there are many unanswered questions: Why should a knowledgeable Myanmar lead monk boycott or snub another Myanmar monk? This unkind act was BLUNT, BRAZEN, & WITHOUT REMORSE. This Wee Nee breaking was BLATANT, BRUTAL, & WITHOUT A CARE OR REGARD for public censure from our Myanmar community or from our other Myanmar brother monks. Why should he be UNKIND to his own assistant monk? This reminds me of the despotic monk who allegedly ill treated his own old Kappiya. This person again was a fellow Myanmar. Why was it alleged that a lay trustee had to teach manners to a supposedly knowledgeable senior monk? Looks VERY FOOLISH. As alleged, was this monk “OUT OF CONTROL” moe ma myin, lay ma myin, out chay luoot???
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:04
Copied from Mandalay Gazette (old expired one)
TUN KYI’S POSTING
After reading the article by Jin Thote, I like to add the following:
BOYCOTT & SNUB! OUCH!! OUCH!! HOW AWFUL!!!
It’s strange that in the rumor, a lead monk would boycott his own assistant monk. Why shouldn’t we rejoice when a fellow Myanmar do well in America? Why should a monk be jealous of another monk? They should set a fine example for us to follow. HOW COME? If that much jealous, why won’t he study hard like his assistant?
Sounds similar to the monk who didn’t practice what he preached in his “Kamma” audio. This other monk mistreated helpers & got mad when they won’t help him. Was he the same monk?
As elders, we rejoice in our younger generation attaining new heights in America. We are not jealous of our kids at all. Perhaps, we might feel a tinge of envy. We wish that we were in their shoes. It’s only wishful thinking but we wish them well.
I, too, had heard about this rumor. It went a step further. This rumor alleged that the lead monk had exacted his sweet revenge. Very UGLY indeed!! He allegedly gave the former President the cold silent treatment from that day on. (The whole matter actually was discussed with one of the present active trustees, and this trustee was the one who conducted the honoring ceremony).
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Continuation
This unlucky victim (ex-President) just happened to be one of several honoring well wishers. It ADVERSELY AFFECTED Temple operations. Also, the lead monk allegedly stopped his Buddhism classes abruptly. He allegedly told listeners that since they admired the monk who knew English, they should ask him (honoree) to conduct the classes. This allegedly affected even MORE lay people. It looked UGLY & CHILDISH.
Talk about spreading Buddhism overseas and then getting JEALOUS of anyone who tried harder to learn English. CONTRADICTION!!
Afterwards, a Myanmar lady who helped in many festivals allegedly spoke to the lead monk to smooth out relations. Accentuating positives, she allegedly told him that the temple should be proud a Myanmar monk achieved this level. He ANGRILY cut her off by saying “Dar dwe, kyoke lar ma pyaw ne. Dar dwe, Ngar ma kyaar chin bhuu,” “Don’t come and speak to me about these, I don’t want to hear these!” WHAT A MONK!!!
Lessons: Like lay people, some monks might make mistakes. All of us including some wayward monks should look themselves in the mirror and hopefully control our jealousy and temper. The above actions BROKE THE VINAYA rules.
The jealous monk in this rumored case should change his ways. Otherwise nobody would respect him either. People would avoid a wayward monk.
PEOPLE WON’T RESPECT THOSE STILL RESPECTING HIM. Why? They knew the monk is wrong or immoral & yet WERE UNABLE TO CHANGE his wrongful ways. They would be viewed as “accessories” encouraging him to continue more wrong or immoral acts, as he pleases.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:06
SHWEYO’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE
We thank Ko Jinthote & Ko Tun Kyi and others for safeguarding our Sasana. I especially like their wise comments in the rumored “Boycotting snobbish monk” case study (see prior postings). From these, I found some PRECIOUS lessons:
1. Allegedly going out of state, SIGHTSEEING was BREAKING the Vinaya. Unlike lay people, monks’ travels like sightseeing are restricted. There are certain months and even certain times of the day, when they cannot travel outside, except for emergencies and certain reasons. Their lives are focused on studying and teaching Dhamma. Monks’ conduct had to be beyond reproach and be worthy of esteem and emulation.
Extracts:“…’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. Going outside the monastery (other than on the morning alms round) was therefore regulated with this rule:…”
2. Allegedly STOPPING the classes for a long long time was really BREAKING the Vinaya rules. The monk would be allegedly neglecting his duties of teaching the Dhamma. He would be like a rich man’s son doing no work and enjoying life for FREE. Not only that, he would be causing HARM, UNHAPPINESS, AND PAIN to the pious class attendees.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Continuation
Extracts: …“Such a bhikkhu lives without deference or respect for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha; does not complete the training. When he causes a dispute in the Community, it comes to be for the harm, the unhappiness, the detriment of many people, for the pain and harm of human and divine beings…
3. For this allegedly “OUT OF CONTROL” wayward monk, there is an EFFECTIVE way to make him take notice and behave. He allegedly overrode the senior trustee who advised him against the boycott. He allegedly brushed off angrily a good hearted fence mender. He was VENGEFUL and exacted his revenges. For these WRONGFUL actions, community and donors can temporarily WITHDRAW SUPPORT from him until he changes. It’s nothing new, but is very EFFECTIVE. At Buddha’s time, the Kosambi lay people did just that.
Extracts: …The lay people of Kosambi blamed the quarreling bhikkhus for causing the Buddha to go away and in consequence they agreed together NOT TO PAY RESPECT to those bhikkhus. When the bhikkhus came to their houses, they would NOT GIVE ALMS, food, desiring them to ‘go away, disrobe, or else return to the way of practice pleasing to the Lord Buddha.’ After this treatment, both groups of bhikkhus CAME TO THEIR SENSES and agreed to see the Lord Buddha where the dispute was properly resolved. (See EV,III,p.129)….
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:07
ANATA’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE (old defunct website)
Regarding the VENGEFUL MONK BEING UNKIND TO A FELLOW MONK, let me add another rumor that I heard. It went like this: The lead monk’s shower piece allegedly leaked and dripped and for some time the problem was not attended to. After a while, the floor allegedly became soggy and water poured down to the assistant monk’s room and basement room below.
The assistant room’s carpets allegedly became wet and smelly. The wooden floors warped and rippled & the basement room was flooded. Imagine the trouble for other monks baling out water and hauling out carpets and damaged materials.
The plumbing was allegedly fixed. When it came to repairs for uneven and warped floors, a story unfolded. The lead monk allegedly asked the carpenter to repair his floor first but not the assistant monk’s floor as yet. He allegedly told him that it could wait. The alleged wait became somewhat of an eternity.
Now, take this rumor as a case study, even if it was just a rumor. Let’s apply some rules.
If you are a lu gyi, elder monk what would you do? Would you do both floors together, whether early or later, but together? Would you do the assistant’s floor first? Or, would you do your floor first? Even if you do your floor first, would you keep in mind to do the assistant’s floor in the near future? Let’s use some yardsticks like Ko Thangyat:
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Continuation
Lu Gyi Wut/Elders’ Duties
According to “Pay Kaam chee myint,” “encourage, reward, or be charitable” rule, the assistant’s floor should be done first. At the least, both floors could be done together when there were funds. The carpenter saved a trip and could lower his price for doing 2 jobs together.
Management Angle
The lead monk’s leaking problem started it and caused water damage and extra work to other monks. He should feel contrite and sorry, instead of placing his repair problem ahead and fixing his floor first.
Metta Sutta
In cultivating mindfulness for loving kindness to all beings in every waking minute, he should place assistant’s repairs first, if the funds are not enough. If funds are enough, he should do 2 repairs together. (I heard a rumor that the Myanmar born carpenter’s bill wasn’t big. Also, the rumor alleged the carpenter donated back an amount as Nawa Kama to the lead monk.)
Wasn’t it a mark of leaders to be considerate to their followers or to look after them, even placing their welfare ahead of the leaders’ own personal interests? Why should a Myanmar monk allegedly be unkind to a fellow Myanmar monk? I don’t understand.
Is it JEALOUSY OR GRUDGE OR BOTH???
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:09
TADINHTAUK’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE (old defunct website)
Whatever happened to all the RUMORS? Very interesting and illuminating, they were quite strange and unique. We definitely would like to know more. I am listing them down as follows:
**************************************************************
1. The lead monk ill treated his own helper Kappiya, an old man.
2. The lead monk discriminated against his Kappiya.
3. The lead monk was jealous & unkind to his assistant fellow monk.
4. The lead monk went sightseeing and neglected his Dhamma duties.
5. The lead monk was jealous about his assistant monk becoming more successful
in learning English.
6. The lead monk stopped Dhamma classes for a long time.
7. The lead monk flooded rooms and was discriminatory about repairs. Jealous?
Grudge?
8. The lead monk went out in the evening on a social visit.
9. The lead monk did BAY DIN fortune telling.
10. The lead monk took ladies to his room for fortune telling.
11. The lead monk told many lay people that trustees snitched and caused the Red
Tagging on a Hall under construction. Unfounded and malicious! Tale Bearing.
12. The lead monk told many people that trustees were “money in but not money
out” (overly tight with money). Unfair criticism! No cetana goodwill. Pestering.
13. The monk boasted about going overseas and SPREADING Buddhism.
14. The monk said insensitive & hurtful things to a retiring trustee.
*****************************************************************
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Continuation
(For background details, please look up this Wee Nee Topic’s earlier postings).
NOTE:
A wayward monk’s Wee Nee breaking actions could hurt our Sasana and our many other noble Myanmar monks. Do we want that? Of course not!!! To safeguard our Sasana and our good monks,
***Please write what you know or heard about the RUMORS and possibly give some constructive suggestions. ***
In passing, don’t be afraid of “nga yae gyi” big hell business. It’s just a scarecrow to muzzle people. The Burmese generals don’t allow freedom of expression or dissent. However, Lord Buddha did encourage discussions and freedom of expression.
Example: Lord Buddha told the Kalamas villagers not to accept blindly what other people had said, including what he (Lord Buddha) had told them. He told them to critique carefully before accepting any teachings and then to put them into practice.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:12
KYAWHTIN1’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE (old defunct web)
I’ve read all Burmeseclassic.com interview postings. All the comments are great. Also, in the video interview, I don’t hear the monk giving proper credit to another outstanding Myanmar. Not even a word!!! He also had done much for Azusa Temple & our community on several occasions. It was even when later he was no longer a trustee.
Wasn’t the question to give a historical account of the Temple & its stupendous growth? Won’t it be from its humble origins to its current successful development? Won’t it be to include its trials and tribulations? Shouldn’t the interview satisfy our community’s natural curiosity and a sense of achievement? Shouldn’t it touch on pitfalls to avoid and offer lessons for others to learn?
UNTOLD STORY
That is why omitting this outstanding person’s efforts won’t do justice to the question. It didn’t fulfill its purposes and its aspirations. This person is none other than our able & hardworking, courageous & well loved Ko Tin Htoon. I won’t be able to recount in detail all that he did. I would just mention only a few.
He is an architect and he drew all the spectacular and unique designs for the public hearings. These were very laborious. It’s a feat in itself.
He also explained the plans to planners and meticulously demonstrated them at various public hearings with slides and laser pointers. Very impressive & a tremendous work!
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Continuation
He arranged several meetings with news editors, and government officials, and interfaith and Buddhist association leaders. Very tedious and time consuming, they involved great organizational and social skills and cetana. I would say no other Myanmar could do that much.
He and another person gathered hundreds of petitions mostly from residents. A County official was very impressed. She said she’d never seen so many petitions favoring a project.
He was able to organize a 70 year old Sri Lankan monk, the Chairman of the All America Buddhist Organizations, his assistant monk, and interfaith leading priests to travel 50 miles to San Bernardino and other places and make worthy speeches for us at the public hearings.
The public hearings were numerous, too. In my opinion, there were at least 3 in Azusa, 3 in Yorba Linda, 2 in San Bernardino (for Chino). The last one had many more postponed hearings where you have to attend to be in readiness. You won’t know whether they would decide there and then or postpone yet again. Each one involved great preparations, travel, and much sacrifices.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Continuation
Despite Ko Tin Htoon’s hurculean efforts, Madame Fortune didn’t smile on him. In fact, he was sad about the unfavorable final outcomes.
TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT POSTING – SEE UNTOLD STORY.
——————–
UNTOLD STORY – CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POSTING
NEIGHBORS’ OPPOSITIONS
Lesson: It was mainly due to the prospective neighbors’ stiff oppositions.
Seeking a conditional use permit in a residential area was almost impossible. Most had a “not in my backyard” mentality.
Later trustees after him were more successful with the adjacent property purchase and building the Dhamma Hall and parking lot. They were able to pay all the loans off. They brought honor and pride to our Myanmar community. Their efforts were fabulous and very honorable.
A trustee among them paid tribute to Ko Tin Htoon for his efforts. He said his contributions were incomparable to the Ko Tin Htoon’s. He said they were only a fraction of Ko Tin Htoon’s. He comforted him as a friend, saying it was the neighbors’ opposition.
HARD WORK & SACRIFICES
Lesson: It’s not luck or fortune either. It’s nothing to do with ‘phone ta go gyi’or ‘supernormal’ powers. If somebody tells you that so and so is ‘phone ta go gyi,’ he is just living in a fantasy world or is trying to monopolize all the credit for somebody. He is just ignoring all the hardworking trustees and our magnificent community & major donors
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Continuation
They ignore people who gave much of themselves, in good times and bad.
In fact, Venerable Penang Sayadaw defined Success as a series of smaller successes (or hard work). We learnt a really hard lesson from the neighbors.
OTHER WEE NEE COMMENTS:
What about the Wee Nee? Well, it’s a matter of being just & fair to people, and saying the complete truth. Omitting the truth about Ko Tin Htoon’s hard work would be considered as being totally negligent, unjust, and a distortion. A misrepresentation of the situation would be equivalent to a lie. Wee Nee is against lying.
Very strange!! Before, when there were failures, people didn’t say ‘phone naint’ ‘less powerful or below normal powers’. They rushed in with ‘phone ta go gyi’ talk when there were some later successes.
The Wee Nee Vinaya specifically forbids monks from claiming supernormal powers. Some might not know this. It’s breaking the Wee Nee to do so. Some blinded trustees would like to encourage this trend of thinking for the monk. They could then conveniently ignore sacrifices from modest people like Ko Tin Htoon.