VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS AND USEFUL LESSONS II
Myittha
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS VINAYA RULES/ WEE NEE …
59. Associate with the virtuous, and when you have learned their law you can come to no harm…… but cling to the virtuous.
83. It is unfortunate to be in contact with …… but to be near those who are ungrateful is to be more unfortunate still.
145. When priests and kings become dissatisfied (meaning demanding and unappreciative), there is no chance for them (no hope or redemption), they are lost….
Meatphar’s 1/22/08 posting pointed out a famous saying “Ta loke sar bhuu thu kyae zhuu.”[Be grateful for even a mouthful (of someone’s food.)]” He was referring to the monk’s ingratitude for ignoring many Temple lenders and guarantors. Link below:
https://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=1012 (defunct old web)
40 comments
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:26
MEATPHAR’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE (old one)
A year ago, an Azusa Temple’s flyer carried a very interesting item. It stated that Azusa Temple, meaning the lead monk and trustees, had borrowed money from some people. It was to jack up the bank amounts in sponsorship papers.
It was inviting three high ranking monks from Burma for the Dhamma Hall opening. For inflating the bank balances, the flyer lauded some people (possibly Azusa people themselves) as “Narr lare,” knowledgeable or clever. It also took pains to dutifully thank the lenders of the moneys.
LESSONS: Let us examine this flyer’s news item carefully. Many religious organizations and trustees can obtain many valuable lessons from this.
Questions: Would you applaud this flyer and the action taken? Would you or won’t you? Your reasons please!! They can give us many important lessons too.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Continuation
Questions: Was the action taken legal or illegal? Did the lead monk know that this action was illegal? If not, why didn’t he know? Why did he announce this illegal act to the whole world?
Why brag about it? Why act like a know-all? Why hurt the kind lenders and some obedient trustees who helped him carry out this illegal action?
Why is it illegal you ask? Even a man in the street knew it’s illegal. At least, he knew he had to keep quiet about it if he happened to do it. It’s outright illegal because: Clearly, this act was intended to deceive a U S official, no less.
U S laws were there to ensure that people coming to U S won’t become public charges. The U S official was only ensuring compliance. Doctoring the sponsorship amounts interfered with his lawful duties and obstructed justice. This illegal act could carry severe penalties for the lead monk and his accessories.
How could he be so naïve? Naïve even to the point of bragging about it to the whole world!! Our very apt Burmese saying comes to mind, “phongyi yuu naet hlay luu.” It’s about a mad monk rocking the boat!! The saying was in effect advising people “Be careful, otherwise the boat will capsize and people can drown. Watch out for that crazy
man!!!”
TO BE CONTINUED – SEE “AZUSA FLYER”
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Kyaemon
Posted on: 2008/4/2 23:28
MEATPHAR’S POSTING IN MDY GAZETTE (old one)
CONTINUED FROM “AZUSA FLYER”
I have much pity for the accessories, the helpers. They lent the moneys and they obediently carried out the lead monk’s bidding. They were dragged into it unwittingly or unwillingly.
Maybe they think the monk will protect them with supernormal powers. So unfortunate! The laws would definitely treat them as accomplices for breaking or circumventing U S laws should the papers go before the U S official.
On the other hand, did they think that the lead monk is above U S laws, simply by donning monks’ robes and supposedly following Buddha’s Laws?
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Continuation
Did a situation go from bad to worse? It probably went from unnecessarily inviting 3 high ranking monks at first. Then it naturally went on to the next step of doctoring the sponsorship papers. Could someone please explain the details?
We need to prevent an egotistic but really naïve lead monk from further entangling the Temple with U S laws in the future.
Those who hurt the temple already with illegal acts, even unwittingly, would have to take responsibility for their naïve and irresponsible actions. They have to take the consequences of their illegal actions.
Fact: Ignorance of laws is no defense in any country!!!
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:53 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/4/10 12:51
Shweyo’s posting in myanmargazette.net (old one)
Looking at Ko Meatphar’s and other postings, one thing stands out clearly. Naïve monks like the lead monk in question should stick to their Dhamma talk. They should not interfere in management matters of which they are really ignorant. They do more harm than good.
They are really ignorant in these laymen’s secular matters. Lord Buddha did not allow monks to dabble in mundane matters and he wanted them give up their clingings or attachments. He wanted them to just focus on the Dhamma. Very simple! Study Dhamma and preach Dhamma!
On top of it, some narrow minded monks do have large egos and pretend to be know-alls. Phone Ta go Gyi! Supernormal (like Superman)! They would like to impose their strong wills on the obedient lay trustees. I heard that these obliging trustees thought they could obtain kuthos/merits by just following monks, naïve or not.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Continuation
Then, there are other blinded trustees with extreme views. I heard that they would shut up other fellow trustees from further discussions in the meetings. They would say things like “The head monk had ordered or instructed already…. we need not discuss further but just carry out his orders.”
Or, fearing the monk would become upset, these extreme people would say things like “We should make the monks comfortable… Buddha’s laws override other laws” (Actually, just the opposite, Buddha asked people to comply with the local laws). Some people would just give it a good spin.
Do you honestly think the monks are knowledgeable in U S laws or management matters? Secular matters should best be left to the lay trustees for open and frank discussions.
Only then would a well thought out decision result. Only then would broad participation and support for the temple result. That’s democracy. The secular management decisions should not be held hostage to any person’s whims and fancies. That’s dictatorship!
Regarding the lead monk in question, do you think his close adviser & confidant is knowledgeable with the laws? Would you follow those people who really are naïve and also entangle yourself with the laws? Would you follow people who would not give careful thought to a country’s laws? Would you follow people who didn’t really care about any country’s laws?
Would doctoring the amounts break Wee Nee Vinaya rules? Anyway, why did the sponsorship papers need large bank amounts? Any comments, anyone?
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:56 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/4/10 12:54
I can explain. I heard something about the sponsorships.
I heard that the sponsorships were for inviting Sangha Council of Grand Abbots of Burma’s high ranking Chairman, Secretary, and a Council member from Burma. These 3 pro Burmese military junta high level monks were invited to the Azusa Dhamma Hall opening Ceremony. They were in addition to sponsoring Ven Mt. Tant Kyi Sayadaw and attendant Ko Thi Ha. It totaled 5 persons. That’s why large amounts are needed.
Probably, the intention was to promote a possible “Sanghika” (monks’ ownership) dedication ceremony (Sanghika is illegal in US). The high ranking and older monks could possibly impress or persuade our modest and obliging Myanmar community into accepting a controversial Sanghika monks’ ownership.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Continuation
Otherwise, why go to such sponsorship trouble and expense? First class roundtrip airfare at about $ 4000 a piece for at least 3 to 5 persons would come to $ 12000 or $ 20000, a huge expense indeed! All are good hard earned money from our community donors for other noble purposes.
Some say, fortunately, the Burmese military junta won’t allow the three high ranking guest monks to visit U S. Only the lead monk would know the real reason.
As mentioned in prior postings, Azusa Temple flyer admitted to borrowing large moneys to strengthen the sponsorships. It admitted to inviting 3 pro Military Junta high ranking monks. What for and why and at what costs? Just for doing an illegal Sanghika (monks’ ownership) ceremony? Much ado about nothing! Much spending and energy wasted. Much disharmony in the community too.
Contrast: Penang Sayadaw dedicated all his Temples to Sasana (owned by the community which includes monks). Simple and inexpensive!
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 7:59 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/4/12 12:14
Found this interesting posting by Ko Tun Kyi in myanmargazette.net (old one)
Some months ago, I heard a RUMOR about a lead monk. He allegedly complained that former trustees didn’t finish the kitchen of a Hall. I heard that up to this point what he said was correct. The kitchen wasn’t finished as yet at the time.
The lead monk allegedly went further and told some people that the kitchen was left unfinished on purpose and out of malice. “Yoke dar!!” From others, I heard that this later part of the allegation was really untrue. I heard that this extra allegation was an OUTRIGHT LIE and a COMPLETE FABRICATION .
Did the lead monk say those words as alleged? Was it just a rumor? Let’s examine the real reason behind this kitchen matter.
I heard that the real reason was: there simply weren’t enough funds to do the kitchen.
I heard also that even if there were enough funds , doing the kitchen would involve Health and Fire Department inspections. I heard that these would delay the original Building Occupancy inspection well past the deadline date . This would cause the Temple to lose its very important Temple Permit . Moreover, I heard that the kitchen completion was really optional and NOT compulsory and could be done later on, after obtaining more funds.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Continuation
Additionally, I heard that these issues were already discussed in several ongoing meetings. I heard that all trustees, including the monk who alleged this, also knew about it. I heard that lacking funds, they had UNANIMOUSLY agreed to defer the kitchen at the time.
LESSONS TO LEARN : I hope this rumor wasn’t true and the monk didn’t say those words. On the other hand, if the monk did in fact tell people that the kitchen was left unfinished on purpose and out of malice by former trustees, the monk would be breaking his Wee Nee Vinaya. He would be guilty of LYING.
Quote from noble monk Ma Soe Yein Sayadaw:
“Enlightened countries have no dictators. That is why politicians and nation leaders must always enlighten and educate the people.”
Thank you for reading. I welcome comment on either side of the story.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:03 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/4/12 18:41
We have read Ko Tun Kyi’s posting (see above).
True! We have also heard about this lead monk’s alleged kitchen RUMOR. It alleged that the Kitchen was purposely left unfinished out of malice. It’s a serious allegation indeed. It was designed to upset and inflame the community.
IF the lead monk did allege like that in the RUMOR, then it would be nitpicking and bad mouthing. Bad mouthing was breaking the Wee Nee. He was supposed to spread Metta loving kindness every minute, not bad thoughts.
Moreover, everybody, including me, could clearly see the larger picture. A beautiful building and a parking lot and huge loans paid off. We couldn’t do better than that, ourselves. If these former trustees had any bad intentions as alleged, they wouldn’t have done all these wonderful projects for so many years, in the first place. They are all volunteers doing work gratis free of charge and of their own free will & cetana. There was no contractual obligation at all.
If the false rumors were spread purposely, it also shows the enormous GREED and INGRATITUDE, which a wayward lead monk could entertain. It would mean that he was not happy or contented with the enormous contributions already made by noble people. Greed and Ingratitude are bad traits in a lead monk or any monk and are against the Vinaya also. Or if the rumor is true, it also meant that he had a enormous grudge too, for saying bad and untruthful things behind their backs.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Continuation
Most importantly, if as alleged, the monk did say those things (SMEARS), he would be breaking several other WeeNee’s Vinaya rules with his untruths. The Wee Nee Vinaya rules involved are: lying and creating disharmony in the community. Buddha’s Vinaya rules forbid monks to create disharmony or harm to the community.
We welcome people to say what they have heard about this RUMOR, one way or the other, so that our community would know the complete truth.
The following relevant Vinaya extracts are worth noting.
IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING VINAYA – MONKS’ DISCIPLINE
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html
…..it is thanks to the unbroken lineage of monastics who have consistently upheld and protected the rules of the Vinaya for almost 2,600 years that we find ourselves today with the luxury of receiving the priceless teachings of Dhamma. Were it not for the Vinaya, and for those who continue to keep it alive to this day, there would be no Buddhism…..
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:05 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/4/12 21:52
We like Ko Tun Kyi and Ko Jinthote’s postings on the Kitchen issue. If the lead monk did spread all the false rumors, he would then become a real RUMOR MONGER, himself. How shameful!! How unfortunate!!
Why unfortunate? Let’s put under the microscope, the potential impacts of this alleged rumor mongering.
From a higher level, he would then sink to a level well below that of the regular lay people. There is also a special “R wee zi” hellhole reserved for him.
Not only these. People won’t believe his sermons anymore. We don’t care how knowledgeable the lead monk could be with his Dhamma. People would become unbelievers and waverers (doubters). It affected the lay people. (See Lord Buddha’s reprimand in Extracts below). He would lose his credibility. His credibility would be shattered by his own alleged Rumor Mongering.
Reason: Lay people won’t know when he was speaking the truth or when he was spreading a rumor or a lie. The lay people couldn’t differentiate between the two situations. So they would reject his words out of hand. It’s like the boy who cried wolf too often. This boy also lost his credibility.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Continuation
Also, the lead monk in question would pose a bad risk to other good noble monks. He would give these other good noble monks a bad name too. Why is that?
Lay people might suspect that other monks might somehow be allowed a free license to spread false rumors or lies, as they please, like this lead monk with the alleged rumor mongering.
Moreover, some potentially wayward monks might or might not be emboldened. They might feel that they, too, could get away with rumor mongering and lies without fear of a censure by fellow monks or by the community. Like our Burmese saying “A rotten fish could spoil the whole boat (of fish).” About the same as “A rotten apple would spoil the whole basket of apples.”
Please comment on this alleged rumor. Our community needs to know the truth. If true, then the parties concerned would be motivated to change their wayward ways.
EXTRACTS: The Buddha’s standard reprimand was itself a powerful corrective:
It is not fit, foolish man, it is not becoming, it is not proper, it is unworthy of a recluse, it is not lawful, it ought not to be done. How could you, foolish man, having gone forth under this Dhamma and Discipline which are well-taught, [commit such and such offense]?… It is not, foolish man, for the benefit of un-believers, nor for the increase in the number of believers, but, foolish man, it is to the detriment of both unbelievers and believers, and it causes wavering in some…
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Thissa
Posted on: 2008/4/17 21:06
Under Wee Nee topic, there were many postings on this issue: “ILLEGAL INFLATING OF SPONSORSHIP BANK BALANCES BY AZUSA LEAD MONK AND TRUSTEES.”
These illegal actions, and bragging about them by supposedly religious people, gave our law abiding Myanmar community a bad name.
We thank those who had commented on this issue (see earlier postings). Their comments were wise and informative. We would like to add our comments also.
Question: Why should a lead monk attempt to do Sanghika dedication, knowing full well all the time that it could be illegal? Why not announce early that a Sasana dedication would be forthcoming in response to the many prior letters of concern. These letters already were pointing out Sanghika’s illegality in U S.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO CONVERT A PUBLIC PROPERTY TO A PRIVATE ONE.
Question: Also as someone mentioned, the doctoring of sponsorship amounts was totally illegal because this act was intended to obstruct justice and was against public policy. This illegal act could carry severe penalties for the reckless lead monk and the unthinking & blinded accessories. These accessories included those who lent the moneys and those who helped carry out the lead monk’s bidding.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Continuation
Even Cardinals and Bishops of other faiths are not above U S laws.
Clearly, these would serve as excellent lessons for “blind” people who unthinkingly would carry out a naïve monk’s or an extremist director’s illegal biddings. Instead of reaping “kuthos”/merits, it’s reaping “ah kuthos.” There are other legal ways of obtaining merits or kuthos. People don’t have to listen to illegal things or to respect those who asked you to do illegal acts. We have our own families to look after.
Anyway, from the religious angle also, a possible attempt at Sanghika dedication would break the Wee Nee/Vinaya monks’ rules. The doctoring and inflating of the sponsoring amounts would also break the Wee Nee. See Reasons below:
Reasons:
1. The Wee Nee or Vinaya would NOT allow monks to break local laws.
2. It also would not allow any act which would harm the unwitting lenders, the trustees concerned, and most importantly, the Temple. Doctoring the sponsorships and other illegal acts or illegal attempts would all [v]INFLICT GREAT HARM AND INJURIES ON THEM. [v/]
The above doctoring of sponsorships and Sanghika dedication attempt all indicate a behavior pattern. It’s one of reckless disregard and arrogant disdain for a country’s laws.
Remember noble and learned Penang Sayadaw’s advice? He spoke from experience. He advised temples to follow the laws of the land. He said not to base decisions on just friendship as in the old country, for they are fraught with troubles.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/5/24 14:01
On 1/10/08 and 1/13/08, Phwasein, FSOFPBA, Taungpyone, and others had all commented on U Aye Thaka’s video interview with Burmese Classic.com. Two months earlier, the video interview was taped for public consumption on the internet and for wider circulation.
They all were commenting on his mostly false info in the video. They were saying that the info were utterly without basis, misleading, reckless, and self serving.
Omissions, half truths, untruths, are all lies. It’s breaking the Wee Nee monks’ rules or Vinaya to mislead the community.
Click below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
For almost 5 months now, I don’t see the monk issuing a rebuttal, a correction statement, or a correction video to retract his misleading info to the public. He has never apologized nor admitted his errors. No contrition nor Than way gar?
Why???
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Continuation
PS: Not admitting errors, hiding them, not correcting them… are all against the Vinaya. It also is against the monks’ traits or behavior or conduct and against Myanmar Loka Niti Kyan
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:16 pm
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/7/11 12:24
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
First of all, let me say the intentions are good and honorable. Like most other easterners, we generally harmonize.
The words “Anti social writings“, “Creating topics on respectable monks“, “harassing messages mainly to our monks” … all convey a serious message indeed!
The solemn message: “BAD people are insulting GOOD RESPECTABLE monks.”
WOW! This really stirs up our curiosity. We need to get to the bottom of it!
MY THOUGHTS:
To me, this message seems a little bit strange, if I may say so. I really don’t understand. That is why I am called “Tone Tone” (Dullard). Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.
A dullard’s question:
1. Why would people say a bad thing, if a monk is really GOOD and RESPECTABLE?
A dullard’s answer:
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Continuation
Though dumb myself, wiser people had told me about a well known Myanmar saying. It was passed down for generations. “If somebody say something against a monk, then that monk must have done something wrong.” At first, to me it seemed unfair to a monk. But there is pure Myanmar wisdom in it.
Wiser people explained to me what the saying meant. “Generally, people won’t do that sort of thing for fear of “big hell,” unless the particular monk is really, really wrong!”
Next question:
2. I think to myself. Say for example, “BAD” people want to do such a bad thing. What bad things can they possibly say against a GOOD and RESPECTABLE monk?
A simple man’s answer:
Forgive me if I am dim witted. I think the “Bad” people can search and search. They would find practically NOTHING “bad” to say against a GOOD & RESPECTABLE monk. The accusers would just look foolish. They can’t do anything except to praise a GOOD and RESPECTABLE monk.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Continuation
It slowly dawned on a simpleton like me. There really is no need to stop anything and be concerned for a GOOD and RESPECTABLE monk. What a relief!!! Much worry for nothing!!!
CONTINUATION
My question:
3. Again, I forced my dull brain to work. What if ‘BAD” people made it up and said a bad thing against a GOOD and RESPECTABLE monk?
A layman’s answer:
Look what I found after a long while. For that, won’t or couldn’t the GOOD monk or his followers respond? The monk or his followers can deny it anytime. It is so easy. Nobody is preventing them from doing so.
However, if the bad things are true, it’s only fair that the erring monk change his ways. Even a dumb person like me knows that.
I remember an example. I might be slow but I have a good memory.
Once, a senior monk said foul language in his sermon. People, especially ladies, got turned off. A listener told the monk about the foul language later. The senior monk thanked this listener and didn’t say foul words again. It’s good for the monk and the audience. Everybody is happy. Just need the cetana and the courage to speak up.
NOTE: The senior monk was even thankful to people who brought it to his attention and allowed him to change his ways.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Continuation
Here, we can readily see that not speaking up is wrong. It allows a situation to deteriorate. This is just the reverse (of harmonizing). Dictators like Than Shwe, take advantage of humble people trying very hard to harmonize and keep the peace.
Next question:
4. Are these so called “BAD” people saying “bad” things against ALL MONKS, irrespective of whether they are GOOD or BAD monks?
An ordinary man’s answer:
I can see that it is not against ALL monks, nor is it against GOOD monks. I see high praises for noble Ven Penang Sayadaw and Ven Ma Soe Yein Sayadaw for their wise actions and advice. They follow the Vinaya and local laws. Check the writings in the posts.
CONTINUED
Next question:
5. I ask myself, what really are the “BAD” things that the “BAD” people say?
My simple observations:
Again, I can see the postings. Check them out for yourselves. You be the Judge. You will find several outrageous behaviors prohibited by the Vinaya monk rules or local laws. You will find them quite interesting and illuminating.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Continuation
My question:
6. I have a crazy idea, I must investigate this angle. About the “BAD” things that the “Bad” people say, are they really “BAD” for the “GOOD” monks? or are they only “BAD” for the BAD monk?
My stupid findings:
I found that the so called “BAD” things are “BAD” only for the “BAD” monk. The alleged ‘BAD” things are always compared to VINAYA (monks’ rules). These rules were laid down by Lord Buddha himself. The yardstick or criterion is there.
They are, at times, referenced to Myanmar Niti Kyan (Civics Code), the monks’ TRAITS, or U S & LOCAL LAWS. Sometimes, for good guidance, they are even contrasted with Ven Penang Sayadaw’s and Ven Ma Soe Yein Sayadaw’s noble actions and advice.
People often say for the “bad” things to really hurt, often they must be true. I think he just need to own up and correct them like the senior monk. Stopping others and covering up won’t solve anything.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Continuation
Next Question:
7. I was delighted to discover Buddha’s standard reprimand among the postings. See below:
“….It is not fit, foolish man, it is not becoming, it is not proper, it is unworthy of a recluse, it is not lawful, it ought not to be done. How could you, foolish man, having gone forth under this Dhamma and Discipline which are well-taught, [commit such and such offense]?… It is not, foolish man, for the benefit of un-believers, nor for the increase in the number of believers, but, foolish man, it is to the detriment of both unbelievers and believers, and it causes wavering in some….”
I think this over. Should we treat ALL writings about a bad monk as anti social? If so, how would we treat the above Buddha’s reprimand? It was also scolding bad monks. Would you regard Buddha’s reprimand as social or anti social?
My dumb answer:
We need to look at the issue first. We need to look at what happened. We need to keep an open mind and hear ALL sides.
Lord Buddha even told the Kalamas villagers to question his teachings. Thus, there is no need to cover up some wrong actions. They only need to be corrected or prevented.
I slowly realize that there is no need to treat all writings about a bad monk as anti social. In fact, as in the senior monk’s example, scolding him has high social values.
In Burmese, we have a saying that there is no such thing as an unerring attorney, an immortal physician, … Even a dumb person like me can come to this conclusion.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:24 pm
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/7/11 12:34
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
CONTINUATION
Next Question:
8. I ask myself. What were the wrong actions? Examples? Are they serious? Are they anti social or anti Sasana?
Layman’s answer:
I went over the postings slowly and carefully under this “Vinaya” topic. I found some vivid examples among many: By any measure, I could find nothing GOOD nor RESPECTABLE in a monk’s actions.
a. A monk allegedly ill treated his own kappiya, an old Myanmar person. He threw an object at him. This action is anti US law and anti Sasana. This had serious legal consequences for the Temple and the monk. Huge compensatory damages, jail terms, and bad reputations.
b. Despite wise counsel, a monk boycotted his assistant monk’s honoring ceremony allegedly out of jealousy and neglected his Dhamma class duties for quite a while.
c. For an important Temple permit’s public hearing, with several senior multifaith monks coming to help from afar, a lead monk went sightseeing, out of state, despite repeated entreaties.
d. In an invitation circular, a lead monk and some trustees trumpeted an illegal act. It was about illegally jacking up sponsorship bank balances.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:25 pm
CONTINUATION
e. Breaking the Vinaya, a monk allegedly did Bay Din fortune telling and took ladies to his room.
f. A monk allegedly misled people saying that trustees had, out of malice, snitched and caused the red tagging on a Hall being constructed. This was untrue and malicious.
g. Breaking the Vinaya, a monk allegedly told people that the former trustees were tight wads. Actually, the funds were for constructing a Hall to meet an important Temple permit deadline.
h. Again breaking the Vinaya, a monk allegedly and knowingly lied to people that outgoing trustees had, purposely and out of malice, left the kitchen unfinished. From various meetings, the monk already knew there were insufficient funds.
i. A monk or monks allegedly attempted to illegally convert a publicly owned Temple, registered under the California Laws into a private one with a Sanghika (monks ownership transfer) dedication ceremony. This would have huge tax consequences resulting in the loss of the Temple to the IRS.
Moreover, this would open the temple to monk-spies from Myanmar Sangha Grand Council of Abbots, a puppet of Than Shwe Junta. Ven Penang Sayadaw dedicated all Temples to Sasana (religion).
THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES. SEE OTHER POSTINGS IN THIS “VINAYA MONK RULES” TOPIC.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:26 pm
CONTINUATION
Final Questions:
9. I wonder to myself. About the writings encouraging a monk or monks to observe the Vinaya, U S and local laws, Niti Kyan, a monk’s Traits,…would or should they all be considered anti social and anti Sasana?
Rather, “Would a bad monk’s breaking the Vinaya monk’s rules, be considered anti social and anti Sasana?
Many questions stampede through my muddled head. Should we feel sorry for a bad monk? or Should we allow ourselves to be misled by a bad monk? Should we harmonize at all costs? Should we ignore and accept a bad monk‘s breaking the Vinaya rules?
SHOULD THE SASANA BE STOPPED OR BE DAMAGED IN FAVOR OF A BAD MONK? OR, SHOULD A BAD MONK BE STOPPED FROM BREAKING THE VINAYA RULES AGAIN AND AGAIN?
A Dullard’s answer:
You be the Judge. I am sure you can answer these questions better than I do.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/7/13 23:37
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
Hi Tone Tone
I like your postings very much. Thank you.
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/7/17 12:25
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
We heard that at a local Temple’s board meeting, a lead monk allegedly demanded:
(In essence)…..Even ‘Thee Ho Naing Gan‘ (Sri Lanka) had to amend its national laws to support the Buddhist religion. You (trustees) should also change the laws (meaning US laws) to support the monks….
Allegedly, he didn’t specify which particular laws that Sri Lanka had amended. Nor did he specify which US laws should be changed. Also, he did not specify in what way, US laws hindered Buddhist monks…..
Allegedly, knowledgeable trustees were flabbergasted. “Blindsided” trustees were “obediently” silent.
What would you do in this alleged situation?
Weren’t you supposed to obey the monk? Would you “go to hell” if you say anything opposing his edict? If so, would you be disrespecting or “sorr karr” the monk in front of everybody?
On the other hand, if you kept quiet, would you be accepting his word? “Silence is consent,” remember.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Continuation
Later on, when the laws catch up with you, what would the monk say? Would he turn around and say why didn’t you object before… you accepted it then, therefore, you are responsible? Would you be left holding the baby, while he wriggles free?
What would you do? Feel free to comment.
I remember a joke about a workplace sign. The sign goes like this:
Rule # 1, the boss is always right.
Rule # 2, if the boss is wrong, see Rule # 1.
In this alleged situation, wasn’t the monk bossy? Wasn’t he acting like a warlord, like Than Shwe? Wasn’t his finding fault with U S laws, quite bold and brazen? Wasn’t he creating a lame excuse to grab power? Was there really a need to change U S laws for him or the monks?
You be the judge. Have your say.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:31 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/7/17 17:47
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
Thanks Meatphar. About a monk’s alleged demand (see prior post), let me say this. This is for those who don’t know the U S legislative process.
As American people’s elected representatives, U S Congress and Senate debate issues with people’s welfare in mind. They then vote on draft laws called bills. U S President then either vetoes these bills or signs them into laws.
Temple trustees have no such rights nor such powers to change U S laws.
From the alleged rumor, we can see that:
The lead monk was utterly ridiculous and blatant in his alleged demand. It’s ludicrous!
He was power hungry and ‘out of this world’ with his GENERALIZED demand.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Continuation
He would be using this ‘blank check’ or ‘magic wand’ to do whatever he wants. He was acting like a despot.
In effect, he was allegedly pressuring people to break U S laws for his own selfish ends.
He should have directed his demand to Than Shwe? How’s that? The nerve!!! Nitpicking on U S laws!
Freedom of religion is enshrined and is protected in U S laws. They are fair and just to all religions. What would you think of a monk who allegedly picked on trustees to change US laws for him? Doesn’t this speak volumes of this wayward monk?
I wonder. What would the Vinaya say?
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm
anatagaba
Posted on: 2008/7/18 10:32
Thank you all for your postings about a monk and U S laws.
From a Buddhist angle, there are many lessons, here.
Generally speaking, monks should not interfere in secular matters. Lord Buddha wanted monks to concentrate on studying Dhamma and on preaching Dhamma to lay people. Lord Buddha renounced his wealth and power as a prince to become a monk.
Why should a monk allegedly lust for kingly powers by allegedly asking US secular laws be changed for him?
Sounds similar to Than Shwe robbing people’s power with a gun and setting himself up as a King.
Most monks were ignorant of U S laws. A dishonest monk would want trustees to break a country’s laws for him. Not only that, he would want them to be the fall guy for him. He allegedly would lust for power, fame and wealth.
An allegedly dishonest monk knew how to ram through his demands. He would use his robe or office on the trustees and lay people. It’s similar to the Junta ramming the referendum through. It used its guns and threats on a “cowed” populace.
Clearly, a monk seizing kingly powers would misuse his office (monk’s robe) to make illegal demands on lay trustees and trusting lay people all under the guise of religion.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/7/22 21:14
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
Tone Tone, I like your inquiring mind. In your question #6 about “anti social” writings*, you have found that
‘The “Bad” things (“scoldings”) are “Bad” only for the “Bad” monk.’
What you found is essentially correct.
*(For new viewers, the thread is just before this current one discussing a monk’s alleged demand to change laws)
However, I will like to add a few things to this finding. Here are my additions:
1. The “bad” things might even turn out to be “Good” for the “Bad” monk, after all.
As in your senior monk’s example, a bad monk might come to his senses. He might have “than way gar” (repent). It will then be good for him, trustees, community, and Sasana.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Continuation
2. As you mentioned, certainly, the “bad” things won’t be “bad” for the “good” monks. Those “bad” things were not directed at them. No adverse effect on them either. No relevance. They were already good monks.
However, on second thoughts, I would say that the “bad” things said against a “bad” monk might even be “Good” for the already “good” monks. They are beneficial to the “good” monks in an indirect manner.
With blemishes and cracks dusted up, the “good” monks’ purity and reputation would be enhanced. The Sasana will shine brighter and will last longer. The faithful would not waver and fall.
3. In the writings, I found that there were still some other yardsticks used. Not just the Vinaya and those already mentioned. The other yardsticks found are:
“Elders’ responsibilities lu gyi wut,”
“Metta Sutra’s loving kindness,” and
Management principles.
At times, they were aptly used to measure a monk’s wrongful actions. Wow!
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:39 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/7/25 21:27
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
I am really surprised. Why did a lead monk allegedly ask trustees or directors to change U S laws? Kyawhtin1 wonders “What would the Vinaya say?”
My first comment
Right now, I am not too worried about what the Vinaya would say. My simple yardsticks are quite handy.
“Ordinary lay people” as a yardstick.
Ordinary lay people could comply with U S laws or a country’s laws. Why allegedly couldn’t a lead monk comply with U S laws?
Another simple yardstick. “Other religious faiths.”
Again, if other religious faiths could comply, why allegedly couldn’t this lead monk comply?
contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Continuation
Was he above U S laws? Must be “moe ma myin lay ma myin” flying high!!
My second comment
“Undertakings” or “Oaths” as a yardstick.
Did the lead monk have a green card or a U S citizenship? If so, he had already undertaken or sworn to obey and uphold U S laws. He had voluntarily chosen to be a green card holder or a U S citizen. He had chosen the country. The country hadn’t chosen him or hadn’t forced itself on him.
My question: If he had sworn to obey and uphold U S laws, why then, did he allegedly tell others to change or break U S laws for him? Won’t he be allegedly committing perjury? Wasn’t his alleged behavior deceitful or in bad faith?
TO BE CONTINUED
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Our community considers living in America a privilege and a blessing. Why then, should a lead monk allegedly whine and complain about U S laws? Why should he allegedly want to change them? Why should he allegedly make others change the laws for him? Power hungry? Greed?
My third comment
“Religious Extremism” “Blind Faith”
A few years ago, some Muslim extremists in Australia called for changes in Australian laws. There was a huge backlash against them. These extremists only gave themselves a black eye and a bad name. They were invited to find some other places elsewhere. Places, where they could practice their own extremist laws to their hearts‘ content.
Our Myanmar community in America are solid and upright citizens. We obey U S laws. We have no trouble obeying them. The laws are fair and just unlike those arbitrary and oppressive laws back home.
We don’t need a crazy lead monk to allegedly give our community a bad name. Do we? What do you say? Let’s hear from you.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/7/26 17:16
Monks have Vinaya monk rules. The Vinaya rules are to ensure the purity and longevity of the Sasana.
All postings here promoting Vinaya observances are beneficial to our Sasana and to our community. They act as beacons of light to avoid pitfalls and dangers. They are all informative, educational, and courageous.
We salute writers for their care and concern and also their research and valuable time. They earn high merits.
A joyous passage from an ancient Buddhist text Parivaara.XII.2 (BMC p.1) applauded the Vinaya. It appeared in Myittha’s 12/11/07 posting below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&post_id=3742#forumpost3742 (old web)
Its 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.
Continued
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Continued from Previous
Moreover, Kyawhtin1 commented on the heroic acts of Zaganar and Su Su Nway. While doing so, he found out what Buddhism said about heroic acts. These heroic acts were also considered to be giving Dana donations. They gave protection to the community against dangers and destructive elements.
Kyawhtin1’s 10/29/07 posting on “Zaganar Arrested Again” below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=292&forum=20&post_id=745#forumpost745
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html
by Acariya Dhammapala
From the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi …
“While discussing various DANA (GIVING DONATIONS), it says;
….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. ….
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:33 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/7/26 17:20
Re: HARMONY – AT WHAT PRICE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CASES?
Continued from Previous
Moreover, Kyawhtin1 commented on the heroic acts of Zaganar and Su Su Nway. While doing so, he found out what Buddhism said about heroic acts. These heroic acts were also considered to be giving Dana donations. They gave protection to the community against dangers and destructive elements.
Kyawhtin1’s 10/29/07 posting on “Zaganar Arrested Again” below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=292&forum=20&post_id=745#forumpost745
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html
by Acariya Dhammapala
From the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi …
“While discussing various DANA (GIVING DONATIONS), it says;
….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. ….