VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS AND USEFUL LESSONS III
Myittha
CONTINUED FROM VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE…II
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:
https://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. ….
25 comments
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Taungpyone
Posted on: 2008/7/26 19:36
Exactly, we agree.
Precepts?
The Vinaya rules are far stricter and nobler. However, the “Five Precepts.” are quite suitable. The “Five Precepts,” can be a good measure to answer the question.
“Was the lead monk correct in asking trustees to change U S laws for him and other monks?
Monks have always asked us to keep our “Five Precepts.” One Precept is: Do not lie. Let’s see if there was lying and deceit here.
The lead monk knew that the trustees could not legally change U S laws for him. They were not elected representatives and they lacked the authority. Yet, he asked them to do it anyway. That meant he was really asking them to break the laws for him. Since he knowingly did it, he was practicing deceit.
Being deceitful and telling something, which he himself believed was legally impossible, amounted to telling a lie. This is breaking the precept of “LYING.” Was he practicing what he preached?
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Continuation
Metta Sutra?
Besides the Five Precepts, the monks’ “Metta Sutra” is also a good guide.
A monk is supposed to send loving kindness to all beings every waking moment. The monk in question was not sending loving kindness to the trustees when he allegedly said what he said.
He was allegedly causing them potential harm or trouble with the laws. Since he was allegedly pressurizing them, he was causing discomfort and unhappiness to them already.
That would not be what a real monk would do with his loving kindness. That allegedly would be what a plain greedy man hiding under a monk’s robe (a fake monk) would do.
Lugyi Wut/Elders‘ Duties?
Under the Myanmar lugyi wut, the elders have to look after or protect their charges or younger ones. “Saunk Shiowk.”
Allegedly asking juniors to bend or break laws was definitely not looking after their welfare. It would be getting the juniors into trouble with U S laws. It would be an alleged abuse of a position of trust. It allegedly would be quite malicious unbecoming of a monk.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:45 pm
kyintwoot
Posted on: 2008/7/27 16:21
Some people would really want to know more. Was the lead monk’s alleged demand appropriate under Vinaya monk rules? Would such a monk be breaking his own monk’s rules?
Clingings
[size=small]The lead monk’s alleged demand to change U S laws could be traced to “clingings.” Buddha’s teachings say a monk shouldn’t have “clingings”. Having clingings, whether for power, fame, or wealth, was breaking the Vinaya. This was clearly stated in a monk’s six unskillful traits.
Hence, the lead monk’s alleged demand broke the Vinaya ALREADY just by having clingings to power, etc. The clingings are CLEARLY EVIDENT behind his demand.
Allegedly asking people to change laws indicated an enormously greedy monk with those clingings. Allegedly, one thing would lead to another. He would act like a despot and misuse his position of trust. He would lord over and manipulate lay people to commit illegal acts for him out of pure greed.
“Changing laws” vs Vinaya monks’ Rules
Furthermore, Vinaya monk rules won’t allow a monk to demand a change in U S laws. Why?
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Continuation
Buddha didn’t ask people to change or break any country laws. Buddha never said his laws overrode local country laws. He even asked kings to OBEY PEOPLE’S WISHES. (Remember, people’s wishes would include U S laws made by people’s representatives).
Lord Buddha never asked people to start religious wars. Buddhist monks and Buddhists were and always have non violent, peaceful, and non confrontational in nature. Buddhist monks would rather meditate in the forests like what Buddha did.
Rather than asking people to change laws, Lord Buddha asked monks to lead simple and contented lives. He asked them to renounce wealth and family life to concentrate on the Dhamma. He asked them to meditate under a tree and not bother the villagers for larger and larger monasteries. Buddhist monks had to take vows of poverty and celibacy.
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Continuation
Breaking Vinaya monks’ rules
Relating to his alleged demand, the lead monk broke the Vinaya, pure and simple. This was a SECOND offence. He was not going to OBEY the “people’s wishes.’ The FIRST was having clingings to power, fame, and wealth inherent in the demand.
The monk could not change laws nor ask people to do so. That’s not his area of expertise. That’s not his duty or concern or his focus. That’s a mundane matter, an area that he had renounced. As stated, his area was Dhamma study and Dhamma teaching.
In sum, breaking US laws or asking other people to break them for him, were definitely against the Vinaya. They all broke Vinaya monk rules.
In this alleged case, the monk was being RECKLESS. His demand was ILLEGAL AND OBNOXIOUS. Reckless, because he would expose the Temple to unnecessary legal risks and CRIPPLING damages. All because of his greed and clingings.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:51 pm
pyupyin
Posted on: 2008/7/29 21:22
In my opinion, the said monk was breaking the Vinaya.
The Vinaya does not allow monks to do secular or mundane matters such as FINANCIAL, MANAGEMENT, AND LEGAL matters.
They can do ONLY DHAMMA as someone had already pointed out.
Therefore, a monk sitting on the Board of Directors of a California non profit charitable religious organization and doing secular matters such as FINANCIAL, MANAGEMENT, AND LEGAL MATTERS, was really breaking the Vinaya rules.
A Few Examples:
a. The Vinaya prohibits monks from handling money. (Stewards handle those matters)
b. The Vinaya prohibits monks from asking for donations. (Lay people did the donations on their own free will, no influencing here.)
Contd
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Continuation
c. The Vinaya prohibits monks from asking for monasteries or monastery’s improvements. (same as b, again, no influencing allowed)
d. The Vinaya prohibits monks from talking freely with lay women. A monk can answer a lay woman’s question only when asked. The question has to be a religious question. His answer is limited to a certain number of words. They must be in front of a knowledgeable man chaperone.
e. The Vinaya prohibits monks from small talks, chit chats, or gossips with lay people. They are not allowed to socialize. They must maintain a position of an admired teacher of Dhamma.
These Vinaya laws were set up by the Buddha himself. They have been confirmed by several Worldwide Buddhist Monks’ Conferences or Synods for over 2500 years.
In Buddha’s time, mundane matters like financial, management, and legal matters were handled by lay people known as STEWARDS.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Continuation
Buddha didn’t sit on the King’s Council nor act as a King’s Court Advisor in managing the country’s affairs. He renounced his princely status and powers. Same thing, monks should not sit on Board and do lay people’s mundane and secular affairs.
Why break basic Buddhist monks’ laws and call oneself a Buddhist monk? Monks are not allowed to meddle in such mundane matters.
As they would be breaking the Vinaya by dealing with mundane Board matters, monks should not be on the Board of Directors. As mentioned, they are not allowed to decide secular and mundane matters.
In Board meetings, would the monk directors and lay directors be there ONLY to study Dhamma or to preach Dhamma, as Buddha directed? The answer is a RESOUNDING
NO!!!
They would be discussing donations, building maintenance, holding festivals, legal and accounting matters, and management and public relations, having small talks, talking with women directors, or women helpers, etc.
Per Vinaya, the monks should not handle these mundane things. They detract and divert the monks from their duties on the Dhamma. As already mentioned, they had STEWARDS in Buddha’s time to handle these mundane and secular matters.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:57 pm
CONTINUATION
For the monks’ religious needs, the lay directors could have a LIAISON PERSON. This liaison would interact with the monks, OUTSIDE THE BOARD. He would act as a go-between between the Board and monks. In a sense, Boards would be substitutes for STEWARDS.
That was the case in the Azusa monastery for a long time, some years ago.
Alternatively, if monks would insist on staying in the Board, they could disrobe and stay on as lay directors.
In democracies, generals retire before competing for elections. Without retiring, the Burmese military Junta would be misusing their power as generals. Same goes for the monks who didn’t disrobe but would stay on the Board.
Under the Vinaya, they would be guilty of misusing their powers as monks, like the Burmese generals. They would be using their station or status as monks to illegally exercise UNDUE INFLUENCE and COERCION on the lay directors. The lay directors would be HELD HOSTAGE by a dishonest lead monk director.
Without monks on the Board, conflicts of interests with an unscrupulous monk could then be easily prevented. His shameful “clingings” and illegal demands would be stopped automatically.
Temple’s HIGH EXPOSURE to legal risks would be greatly reduced and COSTLY LAWSUITS avoided.
Myittha
June 8, 2010 at 11:58 pm
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/8/6 12:05
Copied from Mandalay Gazette. Tainthein’s posting. (old website)
——————————————————-
A monk allegedly demanding Board members change U S laws!!! How absurd!!
Thanks everybody. The comments all are very good for our Sasana.
Could you ever imagine such a greedy MONK DIRECTOR? Had anyone really thought about the repercussions?
Note: We are NOT talking about a monk in a privately owned Temple. We are talking about an alleged monk in a PUBLICLY OWNED Temple registered under California Non Profit Religious Laws.
We understand that a monk with clingings to power, wealth, and fame is NOT noble. We realize that a monk controlling mundane matters on the Board of Directors is NOT noble EITHER. (Per Vinaya, he should be studying and preaching Dhamma instead).
Continued
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:00 am
Continuation
Combine these two: A monk with unabashed clingings AND controlling mundane matters on the Board, is just plain TERRIBLE.
Others had written about it already. We agree. A lead monk doing mundane lay people’s affairs on the Board, is downright wrong per the Vinaya.
MANAGEMENT VIEW: WRONG CONCEPT
From a management point of view, it is also STRUCTURALLY wrong. Did anyone think about this?
The concept itself, is already wrong. This is because having monks on the board and deciding mundane affairs would create unnecessary conflicts of interests among monk directors and lay directors.
INTERNAL CONFLICTS
The lay directors would always be faced with a conflict or a dilemma:
Contd.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:02 am
Continuation
Should there be open discussions, wide ranging and in depth? Or,
Should the lay directors just pay respects and kowtow to the monk and do whatever he says?
Even junior monks in the board would have to kowtow to the lead monk and adopt a low and obedient profile.
If a lay director or a junior monk director expresses an honest view, the lead monk might take it as an affront or disrespect “Sorr carr.“ The monk would like to pretend to be a know-all when he wasn‘t. This restrictive “royal” scenario would GRAVELY damage a decision making process.
There might be OTHER conflicts of interests. The monks’ interests might CONFLICT with U S laws or the greater interests of Sasana or the greater interests of the community at large.
Example: Do we dedicate (donate) a Hall to a specific monk? or monks in general (Sanghika)? or to the religion (Sasana)? What would it be? A monk’s or monks’ undue influence is built in there already.
TO BE CONTINUED
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:04 am
Copied from Mandalay Gazette. Tainthein’s posting. (Old web, continued)
——————————————————–
CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POSTING
This “royal” scenario would discourage or stymie active participation and diverse and in depth views. It would NOT produce a well thought out decision. This would GRIEVOUSLY hurt the Temple‘s and community’s interests.
A lead monk with allegedly large clingings and a large ego but who really was an ignoramus in mundane affairs, would further compound the damage. That’s an explosive mixture, a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off anytime.
A previous posting was indicating that this thing had allegedly happened. A lead monk had allegedly demanded that lay directors change U S laws for him or other monks.
Naturally, in a “monk-king” scenario, the lead “monk-king” could have the audacity to make such illegal demands as changing U S laws for him. He would not have any qualm doing it.
Moreover, the fact that he could brazenly make this alleged demand clearly indicated something. That something was the existence of a “subservient” environment favoring the “monk-king.” It also indicated his misguided and unwholesome “expectation” of such a subservient environment.
What do you think of such “royal” situations where monk directors were on the Board? Especially with an allegedly greedy and clinging lead “monk-king“?
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:05 am
Continuation
DISSENSIONS & DISHARMONY
With a lead monk cum director’s alleged illegal demands, won’t they cause :
1. Dissensions and cliques among directors,
2. Similar (“reflected” or “passed through”) disharmony in the community, and
3. Disharmony among monks?
Certainly!
4. They also would cause good, honest, and hard working directors to leave the Temple, not wishing to visit the Temple again.
MONKS CUM DIRECTORS CONTROLLING MUNDANE MATTERS
We wholeheartedly agree with Pyupin.
Whether from Vinaya, or Management principles, or legal ethics and morals, we say that:
In a publicly owned California Non profit Religious and Charitable organization, monks SHOULD NOT be Board directors.
They SHOULD NOT have dual and conflicting roles of “Buddhist monks” and “directors handling mundane secular affairs.”
Continued
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:07 am
Continuation
A monk with unabashed clingings and SIMULTANEOUSLY controlling mundane matters on the Board would simply be TERRIBLE for our community and everyone, including himself.
Remember his audacity in allegedly demanding that lay directors change US laws for him and the monks would certainly invite serious legal exposures, detrimental to the Temple, the lay directors, other monks, and himself.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Thus, monks holding dual roles as directors and are being involved in mundane matters should reconsider. To avoid dissensions and disharmony
among lay directors or stewards, or
among monks themselves, or
among the community;
they should voluntarily withdraw from these lay directors’ or stewards’ roles. They should consider cleaning themselves of “clingings” and work toward a wholesome and harmonious environment for everybody and the Temple.
Thanks for reading.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:10 am
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/8/6 20:15
Thanks, Ko Pyupin and Tainthein.
Elders told me that Lord Buddha wanted monks to lead simple and contented lives. According to Vinaya, the monks’ needs are very simple.
How simple?
There are only four simple requisites and eight accessories.*
Unselfish monks really doing Dhamma. Great! How noble! How pristine! How selfless!!
Now, what do I hear? Did I hear wrong? Surprise! Surprise!
A monk was allegedly asking Board members to change a country’s laws for him and the monks!
How could it be? Credible? How does this sound to you? Sounds complicated to me.
Whoa!! My slow brain is in a whirl! Not simple anymore.
Not in my wildest imaginations, would I’ve thought that a monk would allegedly make this illegal demand? Even a bumpkin like me knows it’s illegal. What would his insistence on “changing a country’s laws” mean to you and me?
Would his alleged demand become a brand new “FIFTH” REQUISITE for monks?
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:11 am
Continuation
Was I taught wrong all this time? Or, was the monk allegedly turning us upside down? Would he be allegedly turning Buddhism upside down, too? and creating a new religion in the bargain? What’s next?
I am getting confused and upset. Upset, because my innocent vision of all monks as selfless and noble souls was shattered? What do you think?
Like Pyupin and Tainthein, I suspect that the alleged monk’s dabbling in mundane matters as a director had gone to his head. Imagine him taking on Uncle Sam! What folly! And what Greed!
A monk should not also be a director or steward doing mundane duties.
============================================================
*The 8 accessories are: three main robes; alms bowl; waistband; needle and thread; razor and water filter. Bare necessities. Simple and selfless. 4 requisites are: Food, Clothing, lodging, and medicine.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:14 am
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/8/6 21:01
I like the postings by Pyupin, TainThein, and ToneTone.
Azusa Temple flyers were supposedly issued by GawPaKa? Do we know what GawPaKa means?
GawPaka in Burmese, refers to lay trustees or stewards helping with the mundane affairs of the Temple. Burmese people and other Buddhists don’t include or commingle the monks in the GawPaKa. You tell a person that a monk is also a GawPaKa or steward, he will have a hard time understanding you. Most likely, he will say that you had your wires crossed.
Monks are monks and are not GawPaKa. The two are quite distinct categories. Their duties are quite different and are clearly delineated. They have their own specialties. Monks do the Dhamma only. The lay people assist with the Temple stewardships. The stewards are not monks. They don’t overlap each other.
Monks are restricted to the Temples after the morning alms round. They cannot go round and gossip or socialize or work in the village like the lay trustees or stewards or GawPaKa.
They cannot travel in certain months, unlike the lay stewards. They have to concentrate on Dhamma study and preaching, again unlike the trustees or stewards. Stewards or GawPaKa do not have to do those Dhamma duties. Monks take vows of celibacy and poverty, while GawPaKa do not.
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:16 am
Continuation
Example: When robe funds had been donated and entrusted with a Steward, a monk can ask from the Steward up to 3 times or stand in front of him 6 times, when the monk needs the robe.
The monk is not allowed to intervene or say that he is a GawPaKa or Kappiya or Steward himself and then forcibly use the funds to obtain the robe. That will be breaking the Vinaya monk rules.
A monk does not have to be a GawPaKa. Nor should he be a GawPaKa and meddle in mundane affairs.
Did we see Lord Buddha acting like a steward or a GawPaKa or a helper???
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:17 am
Continuation
Did Buddha go around meddling in the meritorious works of donors like the famed “R Nar Tha Bain”??? No!!! This was in spite of the fact that Buddha was all seeing.
Moreover, from what I have heard, a lead monk should not monopolize the Temple flyers and then pass off as if the flyers are issued by the GawPaKa. The community knows that he isn’t a GawPaKa. It’s just misrepresenting to the public.
In fact, the lay directors should write and issue the flyers.
Therefore, by tradition and by distinct segregated functions, monks should not and could not be also Temple’s board directors or stewards or GawPaKa.
Monks are prohibited by Vinaya monk rules from taking on the roles of trustees or stewards or helpers, since they can only study and preach Dhamma.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:20 am
anatagaba
Posted on: 2008/8/9 9:15
Yes, Pyupyin and Tainthein, I agree.
Like other people, I remember seeing an Azusa Temple flyer. The flyer was boasting about an illegal action.
It praised “knowledgeable” people for inflating sponsorship bank amounts. These amounts were needed to sponsor the high and mighty “MILITARY JUNTA’S” Abbots from Burma. The flyer was also thanking people for furnishing the moneys to run the scheme. For more, see other prior postings under this Vinaya topic.
Moreover, I also heard that the lead monk was also the chairman director of the board and was the one usually writing the flyers.
My question: Isn’t this one good lesson for us to note?
The Azusa flyer clearly highlights how the lead monk cum chairman director could be messing up with U S laws and mundane secular matters for which he was GRIEVOUSLY ignorant.
We agree. MONKS SHOULDN’T BE DIRECTORS HANDLING MUNDANE AFFAIRS, like this boastful but NAÏVE AZUSA TEMPLE FLYER.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:22 am
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/8/9 23:31
Thanks for the previous postings. I will like to add something.
On 12/2/07, Kyawhtin1 had commented about “Azusa Temple’s “PBA” SECRETARY” in link below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=853
He was warning Azusa Temple about “PBA” SECRETARY position’s ILLEGALITY under its Bylaws. The Bylaws provided for an “EC” Secretary NOT another “PBA” Secretary.
He pointed out that even changing Bylaws later to create a PBA SECRETARY position would involve extra compliance works. For example, they would involve IRS Tax exempt permit re-submissions and potential IRS rejection. These could hurt donors and Temple. He pointed out that it’s just ILLEGAL and that it’s exposing the TEMPLE and DONORS to unnecessary RISKS.
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:24 am
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/8/9 23:31
Thanks for the previous postings. I will like to add something.
On 12/2/07, Kyawhtin1 had commented about “Azusa Temple’s “PBA” SECRETARY” in link below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=853
He was warning Azusa Temple about “PBA” SECRETARY position’s ILLEGALITY under its Bylaws. The Bylaws provided for an “EC” Secretary NOT another “PBA” Secretary.
He pointed out that even changing Bylaws later to create a PBA SECRETARY position would involve extra compliance works. For example, they would involve IRS Tax exempt permit re-submissions and potential IRS rejection. These could hurt donors and Temple. He pointed out that it’s just ILLEGAL and that it’s exposing the TEMPLE and DONORS to unnecessary RISKS.
“BOARD SECRETARY” Extract:
“Mandalay Gazette newspaper, November issue, page 2, carried an article on the Azusa Temple “Pa Htan” recital. Near the end, it mentioned that a….. BOARD SECRETARY expressed thanks to attendees.”
Contd
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 12:30 am
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/8/9 23:31
Thanks for the previous postings. I will like to add something.
On 12/2/07, Kyawhtin1 had commented about “Azusa Temple’s “PBA” SECRETARY” in link below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=853
He was warning Azusa Temple about “PBA” SECRETARY position’s ILLEGALITY under its Bylaws. The Bylaws provided for an “EC” Secretary NOT another “PBA” Secretary.
He pointed out that even changing Bylaws later to create a PBA SECRETARY position would involve extra compliance works. For example, they would involve IRS Tax exempt permit re-submissions and potential IRS rejection. These could hurt donors and Temple. He pointed out that it’s just ILLEGAL and that it’s exposing the TEMPLE and DONORS to unnecessary RISKS.
“BOARD SECRETARY” Extract:
“Mandalay Gazette newspaper, November issue, page 2, carried an article on the Azusa Temple “Pa Htan” recital. Near the end, it mentioned that a….. BOARD SECRETARY expressed thanks to attendees.”
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:30 am
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/8/9 23:31
Thanks for the previous postings. I will like to add something.
On 12/2/07, Kyawhtin1 had commented about “Azusa Temple’s “PBA” SECRETARY” in link below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=853
He was warning Azusa Temple about “PBA” SECRETARY position’s ILLEGALITY under its Bylaws. The Bylaws provided for an “EC” Secretary NOT another “PBA” Secretary.
He pointed out that even changing Bylaws later to create a PBA SECRETARY position would involve extra compliance works. For example, they would involve IRS Tax exempt permit re-submissions and potential IRS rejection. These could hurt donors and Temple. He pointed out that it’s just ILLEGAL and that it’s exposing the TEMPLE and DONORS to unnecessary RISKS.
“BOARD SECRETARY” Extract:
“Mandalay Gazette newspaper, November issue, page 2, carried an article on the Azusa Temple “Pa Htan” recital. Near the end, it mentioned that a….. BOARD SECRETARY expressed thanks to attendees.”
About 6 months later, Myittha and Kyawhtin1 reminded Azusa Temple again in their 5/23 and 5/24/08 postings below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=1961
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=1980
Furthermore, for 8 months up to now Azusa website azusapba.org still carries the following “PBA” SECRETARY photo. It was posted since 11/13/07 and is still misleading the public, click below:
CONTINUED BELOW