VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE – MONKS’ RULES OF CONDUCT/ CONFLICTING BEHAVIORS AND USEFUL LESSONS IV
Myittha
CONTINUED FROM VINAYA RULES/WEE NEE…III
Posted on: 2008/8/9 23:31
On 12/2/07, Kyawhtin1 had commented about “Azusa Temple’s “PBA” SECRETARY” in link below:
https://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:
https://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=330&forum=20&post_id=1961
https://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
62 comments
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:38 am
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
“More Patthan Photographs”
http://pbadd.blogspot.com/2007/11/blog-post.html
Starting from 11/13/07, the photo description still says (“PBA” secretary U Kyaw Hlaing announces …)
The chairman director cum lead monk and some directors would seem to be still breaking U S laws. They seem to still not heed community warnings. At least, the lead monk, as a responsible Chairman and director should give a reply to clear up the matter.
In summary:
U S laws would be broken:
1. When there is an ILLEGAL “PBA” secretary without first amending Bylaws.
U S laws would be broken:
2. When IRS tax permit and other permits had not yet been RE SUBMITTED and APPROVED, even if Bylaws were later amended.
Among others, this SAD situation also points to the lead monk Chairman director’s ignorance about U S laws and secular matters. (There already is an EC Secretary)
It also highlights his refusal, for over 8 months now, to respond to legitimate community concerns for the Temple.
It also exposes his lack of responsibility as a Chairman and director to safeguard donors’ “tax deductible” benefits and to safeguard Temple’s tax exemption permit.
Some wayward monks think that they need not listen to community members’ concerns. Some thought their status as monks are on a higher level than community members or even the community as a whole.
Paradox: These wayward monks would greedily grasp for themselves all the “lowly” steward-directors’ POWERS. Yet, they won’t fulfill the “lowly” steward-directors’ DUTIES to the community. Why?
Because, suddenly in their minds, they would revert back to their original “high and mighty” “royal” monks‘ status. (Actually, Lord Buddha and the Vinaya rules prohibited these wayward monks from being “high handed” with the community. Buddha was very careful about community relations.)
Therefore, I would say monks should NOT be directors, acting like stewards or kappiya and managing (or mismanaging?) secular lay stewardship matters.
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:39 am
kyintwoot
Posted on: 2008/8/11 19:58
By the way, for over a year now, Azusa Board hasn’t yet OFFICIALLY distributed to our community, a FLYER announcing the “Dhamma Hall DEDICATION TO SASANA.”
However, it READILY and SPEEDILY distributed those flyers asking for donations.
Secondly, it still hasn’t indicated that it had passed a BOARD RESOLUTION confirming such a “Dhamma Hall Sasana dedication.”
Concerned people have been asking for it since over a year ago.
These OMISSIONS seem to indicate that the lead monk who is the chairman director has not been forthcoming or straightforward with the community.
Did the lead monk Chairman director really know his duties as a director or a Chairman?
Did he know that a director must represent the community interests and must fulfill community’s needs and concerns such as the above two items?
Did he know that he has a fiduciary duty to respond to community and its members?
Also, did he know that the directors (including himself) must place the community above themselves?
Did he know that they must protect the donors and uphold the country’s laws even above the monks‘ personal interests?
Did he know that the directors (including himself) cannot place a lead monk or a few monks’ interests above the community’s interests nor above the country’s laws?
Did he know that no one is above U S law, not even the US President?
Did he conveniently forget that Buddha had also required monks to respect the laws of the land?
Furthermore, the community had sacrificed much for the Azusa Temple and monks. For many years, from its sweat and toil, the community had made huge huge donations.
Did he know that he should be forever grateful to such a magnificent community? Ven Mt. Tant Gyi Sayadaw had exhorted the same thing.
TO BE CONTINUED
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:40 am
CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POSTING
Despite the community’s fabulous support, the lead monk actions seem strange to community members.
As a chairman and director, he should be responding to the above community’s concerns.
He DIDN‘T, for over a year, now.
Judging from these OMISSIONS, it seems that he REPRESENTS ONLY HIMSELF and not the community.
He seems to think that the community must serve him and not the other way around?
That would be a DERELICTION OF DUTIES as a DIRECTOR and a CHAIRMAN and thus, could be held LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE for such negligence.
Would passing such a Board RESOLUTION and sending out the “OFFICIAL SASANA” dedication flyer run COUNTER to the lead monk’s interests?
Most likely. His non-response for OVER A YEAR attests to this.
If so, why take on a lay directorship or stewardship role? Was it JUST TO MISUSE the powers and to REFUSE a director’s responsibility?
There seems to be a CONFLICT OF INTERESTS already.
There seems to be also a refusal to take responsibility to safeguard community interests as a chairman director above his personal interests as a lead monk.
Further, as ANATA said, monks should not handle mundane affairs, like LOCAL LAWS.
They should stick to their DHAMMA.
This is an excellent example of why MONKS SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTORS (OR STEWARDS).
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:42 am
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/8/13 9:07
SHWEYO’S POSTING IN myanmargazette.net: (old web)
———————————————————-
Pyupin and all, thanks. You‘ve correctly identified the problem. A monk SHOULDN’T be a board director. He shouldn’t be doing a director’s mundane matters at all. He should be doing Dhamma. This dual role had already caused many problems.
Case in Point: More than a year ago, on 4/18/07, Azusa Temple lead monk and others circulated a misleading flyer to our community. On 5/3/07, a concerned person wrote the Temple a reply. See link below (see FSOFPBA’s 8/12/07 C2M posting as an enclosure):
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
The 5/3/07 reply clearly exposed the Azusa Temple flyer’s lies, distortions, and malicious intention.
Quote from this reply: “….It (Azusa flyer) says the Parking lot costs $ 78,035. It further says that since the original prospective donor is not donating for the parking lot, there is an urgent need for parking lot donations. ….”
The Azusa flyer had put down (degraded) a major donor. The flyer had alleged that the donor had reneged on a parking lot pledge.
Not so, the reply asserted. The reply said that the major donor had already donated $ 50,000 and another $ 5,000 for the gate (actually over $ 70,000 already at the time).
The reply further stated, “The initial donation request was only for $ 10,000 to $ 20,000. The pledge was only for a potential shortfall in funds for the parking lot. There was no such funds shortfall.” (See 5/3/07 reply’s Statements V to X on C2M).
Certainly! The reply was correct! The Azusa flyer was wrong in this (and many other aspects). Even Buddha didn’t intervene in a lay person’s donation decision. Vinaya prohibits monks from degrading or pressing people for donations. Vinaya prohibits monks from influencing a donation decision IN ANY WAY. They have to be purely voluntary to obtain merits for everybody concerned.
Lesson: Pyupin and all are exactly right. A lead monk taking up a directorship would automatically create a “monk-king” situation. Especially for a greedy monk with huge clingings to power and fame and wealth, what would happen? To me, his taking this directorship would be like letting a FOX into the CHICKEN COOP!!!
Myittha
June 9, 2010 at 2:44 am
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/8/13 9:10
SHWEYO’S POSTING IN myanmargazette.net (old web)
———————————————————–
FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
This “royal” situation would enable a wayward lead monk director to feel powerful. In fact, so powerful as to write such a malicious flyer without any misgivings whatsoever. We heard that the lead monk admitted to writing the flyer. He knew the “obedient” lay directors and junior monk directors would have no other choice but to support him.
MONK GONE WILD!
This flyer is another fine example. Goodness gracious!! Who knows how many more such “royal situations”??? This Azusa flyer, selectively denigrating a major donor (who already had in fact donated over $ 70,000), clearly demonstrates the ABUSE committed by an INSATIABLE lead MONK GONE WILD, taking on a double role of a director.
Isn’t this “monarch situation” unethical, harmful, and unfair to lay directors and the Temple?
Isn’t it also HARMFUL to DONORS, community, the Sasana, and the lead monk himself?
POWER CORRUPTS! Do you agree? How about a CONCENTRATION OF POWERS? Definitely, Monks should NOT be directors who really are stewards.
Did Buddha and the Vinaya allow monks to be both monks and stewards? Conversely, did Buddha and the Vinaya allow stewards to act like monks? The answer is NO!
—————————————————————————————————
FOOTNOTE:
PS: A monk gone wild! How could it be, you say?
In Buddha’s time, there already were similar instances of some monks gone wild.
Example: Some monks kept pestering the poor villagers for larger and larger monasteries, saying give me this! give me that! The villagers had to HIDE whenever they saw a monk coming.
Lord Buddha passed a Vinaya rule putting a stop to these pesterings by some selfish monks. He told them to practice Dhamma under a Tree.
Furthermore, Lord Buddha curtailed the monks’ clingings to power and wealth etc. He had the stewards handle the mundane matters, like handling moneys. Note: the monks were barred from doing so.
Additionally, he prohibited monks from pestering the stewards … Example: For robes, etc, the monks could ask the stewards only 3 times or stand in front of the stewards only six times. This came about because of monk “Upanda” pressurizing his own steward for a robe.
Lord Buddha won’t allow monks to be also stewards, thereby, cutting some wayward monks’ powers, temptations, and their inclinations (if any) to be “wild“.
For more, read the Internet Buddhist texts using search word “Vinaya,” or read this Topic’s previous threads.
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 6:48 am
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/8/20 23:25
I remember seeing a list in the links below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=1195
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=30
It really was a list of “WILD ACTIONS” by A MONK(s)GONE WILD. See below:
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.
I wonder. Could a DUAL directorship (stewardship) (& MONK) role cause a
MONK OR MONKS TO GO WILD and commit these WILD ACTIONS?
What do you say?
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 6:52 am
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/8/23 14:07
TadinHtauk’s posting in myanmargazette.net (old)
The following news item is important to our Burmese Buddhist community overseas. See internet link below:
http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=2802
Baltimore Buddhist Temple Members File Legal Complaint against Resident Monk
Jul 24, 2002
The Daily Record
On July 24, 2002 The Daily Record reported that “two active members of a Baltimore-area Buddhist temple have secured a restraining order against its resident monk, on allegations that he amended corporate documents to allow him to seize power and property for himself and other monks of his choosing… Sangha U. Kissayana, the resident monk… allegedly drafted and adopted new bylaws… [with] provisions that grant monks property ownership [which] could endanger the organization’s tax-exempt status, according to the complaint…
The MyanmarBuddhist Meditation Society was founded in 1992 by the late Ven. Ashin Kelatha of Silver Spring,” Maryland.�
http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=2802
MY COMMENTS
What do you make of this news? What can we learn from this? How does this affect us?
I know Buddhist and other Organizations registered under various U S State laws, as non profit religious charitable organizations, are all PUBLICLY OWNED.
To convert them to PRIVATE OWNERSHIP owned by monks, would be against U S laws. It would be like stealing public or governmental property.The organizations would then unnecessarily incur HUGE BACK TAXES which would in turn result in our communities losing valuable Temple properties and moneys earned through our sweat and toil.
Would you consider such (property ownerships) conversions or their attempts as WILD ACTIONS (stealing) by MONKS GONE HAYWIRE?
Please comment.
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:03 am
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/8/23 20:03
Registered Member
Thank you, TadinHtauk, for finding this valuable news item on “Legal action against resident monk.” (see prior posting). Thanks to ThanGyat for posting it on C2M. I would consider the alleged conversion to monk’s private ownership or its attempts to be really RASH and WILD.
Quote: “he (the alleged resident monk U Kissayana) amended corporate documents to allow him to seize power and property for himself and other monks of his choosing… “ End Quote.
It certainly is important to always let our community know. Ma Soe Yein Sayadaw said it best when he said “An enlightened nation needs no dictators” We need an enlightened community against a few unscrupulous people.
With an enlightened community, we can prevent wild actions by a few selfish monks. Wild actions can cause costly mistakes here in U S, like losing our Temple to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for back taxes. Wild actions can also cause disharmony in the community.
Yes, these public organizations, if converted to monks ownership, would then be treated by IRS as “BUSINESSES” and would be taxed as such.
All IRS tax exempt letters are CONDITIONAL. They are NOT given OUTRIGHT & FOREVER. If original conditions and intentions stated in the applications were not honored or were varied, the organization’s exempt status would be REVOKED automatically and immediately, as if it never was granted at all. It would become NULL and VOID for all the years in question.
All IRS exempt letters, without exception, SPECIFICALLY have this standard proviso. IRS doesn’t have to come round and check first and play a cat and mouse game and then later, void the approval.
It’s already SELF-REVOKED instantaneously by one’s own selfish actions. The IRS has this built in feature all the time. This certainly would result in the “converted“ “BUSINESSES” being BACK TAXED heavily with crippling penalties and interest, compounded over several years.
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:08 am
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/8/23 21:43
Thank you, TadinHtauk and Kyawhtin1. I would also like to add something. I am referring to “Legal Action against Resident Monk” in the prior postings. The resident monk was allegedly amending documents and seizing power and property.
My question: What would happen to the DONORS and their donations? We should think about our wonderful DONORS, too.
My comment: I am sorry to say that the IRS would NOT treat DONORS’ donations as “donations” anymore. IRS would treat them as “ORDINARY PAYMENTS” to non recognized “BUSINESSES” and thus, would be NON DEDUCTIBLE.
Therefore, for these “disallowed” private payments, DONORS could be BACK TAXED with penalties and compounded interest. This would cause innocent DONORS great pain and anger. Did the alleged monk know that or he just didn‘t care?
My question: How about the MONKS concerned?
It’s sad, but I would say the selfish monk concerned would be sued for breach of trust. He had been self serving with community public funds. His amending the articles and all his resolutions would be VOIDED as ILLEGAL and NULL and VOID.
They all would run counter to good public policy and welfare. There were undue influence, coercion, and conflicts of interests abound, all exercised under the color of his office (or robe).
Even if the monk(s) concerned could “BUY” the properties, he himself and all his associates would also be AUDITED by the IRS for UNREPORTED INCOMES and taxed for arrears over the years.
Really? Sure?
Sure! Very simple!
The IRS would just ask the monk(s) concerned: Where did all the money come from? How much taxes had the monk(s) paid over the years? The selfish monk(s) concerned would then be in for some RUDE AWAKENINGS. A selfish monk(s) might have wrongly assumed that all his “donation incomes” had been and would still be tax free. What a terrible miscalculation.
Not in USA!
Some selfish monks were just NAÏVE and were blinded by their GREED for power, wealth, and fame. Such actions could only be considered RASH and WILD.
Again, did the alleged monk know about these or he just didn’t care?
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/8/24 14:00
Registered Member meatphar
Posted on: 2008/8/24 13:54
Thank you all for posting in “Legal Action against Resident Monk.”
Can be Worse
I’d say some situations can be even worse. I heard that, usually but not always, selfish monks might be egged on by lay EXTREMIST ADVISERS. I heard that often, these advisers also were ignorant of U S laws and would dismiss U S laws, as if they were back in the old country. I heard that they thought they know Buddhism more than others.
There you have it! A blind adviser leading a blind monk relating to important U S laws.
What a combo!!!
Of course, you know what will happen when given such a combo of EXTREMISTS, BLINDSIDED “YES MEN,” and a GREEDY monk(s). They certainly would do great harm to the TEMPLE and COMMUNITY and also to themselves, whenever they go above U S laws with their arrogance and disdain.
I heard that some of these people might think they are well ABOVE U S LAWS just by wearing monks’ robes or by their version of Buddhism, invariably geared toward their own personal gain or clingings to power and property.
Moreover, to further their enormous greed and to shut up any honest dissent, I heard that they would create CONFUSION and DISHARMONY in the COMMUNITY.
How? Give us some examples.
A Few Examples: I heard that usually, they would cry wolf! Remember the boy shepherd who cried wolf! I heard they would spread FALSE rumors saying that some people were ill treating the monks. I heard they would even accuse that somebody was going to change the Temple from Thervada to Mahayana Buddhism. What a scare!!! How clever!
(Sounds like the RC Church!)
Imagine! Some gullible lay people would believe these rumors hook, line, and sinker and be misled. I heard that, in this way, they would set off lay people against one another and cause disharmony. I heard that they would be using their positions of trust to mislead people.
Well, what did the Vinaya monk rules say? Let’s apply them to this alleged case.
CONTINUED BELOW
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm
CONTINUED FROM PRIOR
The Vinaya
The Vinaya says monks should abolish their clingings to power, wealth, and fame. Also, the Vinaya requires monks to comply with the laws of the land. Just look up Buddha’s “Ten Rules for Kings.”
By their alleged WILD actions, some of these selfish (but naïve) monks would be breaking the Vinaya monk rules. Moreover, they would be giving other good and noble monks a bad name and would be inflicting great damage to the SASANA.
What would good noble monks do?
The above mentioned legal action alleged a monk was seizing power and property. As contrast, I heard that noble Ven Penang Sayadaw had dedicated all his Temples to SASANA (which also covers the monks). I heard he did not dedicate it for himself or any monk or monks.
I would say that his dedication of many temples, and his overseas mission for many decades now, all testify to the fact that monks who practice Dhamma need not feel insecure and try to seize power and property. The communities love them all the more for practicing the Dhamma and being truly selfless.
What does the Burmese Civics Niti Kyan have to say?
In passing, Burmese Civics Niti Kyan Extracts from Kyemon’s 4/2/08 posting of Thissa1’s article are listed below. These gems contain Burmese wisdom passed down over many generations.
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=30 (old, expired web)
17. The wealth of priests, moral precepts.
[My note: That means it’s NOT power and property. Monks themselves say they are illusory and impermanent things.]
34. Every scented tree is not a santagoo tree.
[My note: Not every person including monk is noble. Conversely, not every individual is bad]
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….
[My note: A few bad priests and kings can do great harm. BEWARE!].
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:41 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/8/26 15:37
The following extracts are from a prior posting on “Legal Complaint against (a) Resident Monk (in Baltimore, U S),”
“…He (resident monk U Kissayana) amended corporate documents to allow him to seize power and property for himself and other monks of his choosing… “
“…[which] could endanger the organization’s tax-exempt status,
according to the complaint.….. The Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society was founded in 1992 by the late Ven. Ashin Kelatha of Silver Spring,” Maryland.�..”
It is indeed rare for lay Buddhists overseas or in Burma to take a monk to Court. Obviously, all avenues must have failed. Not only that, the harm to the Temple must be potentially great and irrevocable. Hence, it’s news indeed.
Our community needs to know the underlying cause or causes.
First of all, what was wrong with the original corporate documents?
It seemed there was nothing wrong with the papers. Why amend only now after ten long years or so? There was no problem during the ten years or so before. In fact, the IRS had screened the papers at inception and basing on them. had even granted a tax exemption letter. A clean bill of health! There was no question that the documents were perfect. The founding monk U Kelatha did what’s best for the Temple and the Baltimore Burmese community. U Kelatha had seen fit to observe U S laws. It was a wise and a sound judgment.
To recap, the corporate documents were properly set up by U Kelatha most probably in 1992. The papers had lasted ten years or so and had passed IRS’ scrutiny. There really was NO NEED for resident monk U Kissayana to later amend what his predecessor senior monk had painstakingly established.
What if there should some honest mistakes in the papers?
Even if there should be some mistakes, why didn’t U Kissayana advise or amend right away when the founding monk U Kelatha was alive either at the outset or during the whole ten years? He didn’t!!! Even if there were some mistakes, U Kissayana had accepted the situation for ten long years or so. “Kyaung ma shi, kywat thoung kyan” “Rats go wild when the cat is gone.”
Wasn’t the complaint more credible?
Allegedly, the resident monk U Kissaya was being selfish and was seizing power and property for himself after ten years when the founding monk U Kelatha was no more. To me, it seemed rather sneaky. Apparently, his behavior in biding his time for ten long years to do a correction, didn’t show him up as what a reasonable man would do during those ten long years. U Kissayana didn’t seem too straightforward or consistent or upfront. His actions not only seemed unreasonable and abnormal, it’s also totally illegal.
CONTINUED BELOW
Myittha
June 10, 2010 at 7:55 pm
***[NOTE: PREVIOUSLY, THIS VINAYA/WEE NEE TOPIC HAD APPEARED IN BOTH MANDALAY GAZETTE AND CLICK2MYANMAR “OLD” WEBSITES.
IT SCORED THE HIGHEST “HITS” IN MDY GAZETTE. IT WAS ONE OF THE TOP HITS IN CLICK2MYANMAR, AS WELL.] ***
=====================================
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Why should U Kissayana want to seize power and property, as alleged in the complaint?
Probably, because of clingings to power and wealth.
The founding monk U Kelatha didn’t have these clingings to power and property. Unlike U Kissayana, he didn’t have the need to seize power and property or flaunt them. He was secure in his moral precepts for many many years.
Indeed, because of founder U Kelatha’s wise judgment, it can be said that the temple had grown in harmony and peace for ten years from 1992 up to 2002. This long period of ten harmonious years proved that there was no need at all to seize power or property. There was continuous community support throughout for a noble and selfless monk.
What did Buddha do or would do?
Did Buddha have to seize power and property and choose monks? The answer is “No.” Did Buddha insist on “power and property” for monks as a MONK‘S REQUISITE? Again, the answer is “No.”
Buddha and almost all Buddhist monks practice and spread the Dhamma without having to seize (or cling to) power or property. As a matter of fact, Buddha renounced his princely wealth and power. He again declined a Kingdom offered later by his father, the King.
What about Monks?
Monks also renounce wealth and power when they take on vows of poverty and celibacy. Why go back on those sacred vows of poverty? If a few monks want to go back on their vows of poverty and seek “power and property” isn’t there a proper way? Yes, the PROPER way is to disrobe and be a lay person again and work hard like everybody else for those “property or power.” Nobody is preventing any such monk from doing so.
Yes, why be a “materialistic” monk and wish for these power and property and feel frustrated and “trapped” within spiritual confines and constraints? It’s also not fair to “materialistic” monks themselves. They should look into the mirror, be honest with themselves, and go forth into a material world where they can put their “talents” to good use.
Why did the monk U Kissayana have to allegedly seize power and property?
What he did was a contradiction! It’s breaking the Vinaya monk rules. It went against what Buddhist monks would do or should do. Only the monk concerned knows for sure why he did so. For outsiders, it seemed the legal complaint was correct. The complaint alleged that the monk wanted to seize power and property. This would imply that he must have been a selfish and naïve monk and have clingings as stated above.
CONTINUED BELOW
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 1:55 am
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/8/26 16:39
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Insecure Monks – a good excuse or just a wild and selfish action?
Monks teach people not to have such clingings to power and wealth. They know that, they themselves, should not have them or should minimize them. It’s prescribed in the “Six Unskillful Traits of Monks.” However, in practice, a few selfish monks would just give lip service to Buddha‘s teachings. These few monks’ REAL actions may be quite different from what they teach. A few monks may feel insecure and may think otherwise, thinking erroneously that they should have clingings to power and property, in spite of the prohibition.
These mistaken monks would then switch direction and focus their selfish energy on achieving their clingings to power and property. They do that very subtly and slyly under cover of their robes and sermons. For all practical intentions and purposes, these few monks would then act and think EXACTLY like ordinary lay people. They keep on demanding respect, donations, power, and property. The demands were never ending and were quite insatiable. “Lu R lo, Nat ma like naing.” Angels cannot cater to human’s needs or greed!
Sometimes, these few monks even try to split the community and cultivate a blindsided group of followers. This group also tries to demand respect and canvass donations, power, and so on for these few self centered monks. Some wayward and selfish monks do these all the time. Instead of practicing the Dhamma and spreading true Dhamma, these few monks get sidetracked and degrade themselves by their wild actions and in essence, become “business-men monks.“
Like lay people, these few monks revel in material things as in better cars and larger monasteries and vie with one another, acting like the Jones. They even try to petition the Burmese Government for high sounding titles, inflating what they do overseas. When a greedy monk doesn’t receive such a fancy title, he might even blame it on some innocent trustees for snitching to the Burmese Government. “R chowk tike” Unwarranted! He assumed the Burmese Government didn’t know his bluff and he just needed some convenient face saving scapegoats.
Lay people look down on them and shun or deny them like the KOSAMBI villagers or offer them less alms, once they know about their wild actions. That effect was quite the opposite of what they have intended to achieve. As President Lincoln said “You can fool some people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.”
Some lay people feel bad “R nah.” The lay people don’t say it, but they do know.
Noble monks’ Actions? Compare!
People admire monks who concentrate on Dhamma and really practice it. They see these monks as truly noble. Lay people respect these monks and provide and protect them even without the monks asking for respect and power and property. These noble monks never demand respect or power. They don‘t need to. They teach people by their noble actions. In the above Baltimore case, a good example would be U Kelatha, the selfless and noble founding monk who didn’t go for power and property.
An earlier posting has a Myanmar Niti teaching which says “ The wealth of priests …(is). Moral precepts” It means that if a monk observe the moral precepts, the respect and provisions for the monk will come from lay people, automatically. The focus should be on moral precepts not on gaining power and property (again, like U Kelatha, the selfless founder and unlike U Kissayana’s alleged seizure of power and property).
CONTINUED BELOW
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 1:58 am
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Strange Analogy
Strange analogy but true! If you chase your own shadow, you can never catch it. If you go on your own way, your shadow follows you CLOSELY, ALWAYS. Same thing with “Respect” and “Power and Property” for monks.
Monk chased power… – what happened?
Some wayward monks act like “lay people” instead of acting as “monks.” They demand “Respect” and they “seize power and property.“ However, their actions would boomerang on them. These selfish monks won’t get the respect and power and property, they crave. It’s like chasing a shadow.
The cause? It’s because they are acting against Vinaya monk rules and Buddhist tenets. These are the very things which Buddhist monks should observe. They thought they could get the respect and power, but they would not get them. Acting out of bounds of the Vinaya rules loses lay people’s respect for them. Lay people see the wayward monks as not worthy of respect.
What better example? Witness the Baltimore legal action. The allegedly greedy monk lost people’s respect. Not only that, he even got a lawsuit instead. For wayward monks breaking the Vinaya and the Six Unskillful Traits for Monks, what a good lesson!
For ten years Monk didn’t chase power … – what happened? A Comparison.
On the other hand, for noble monks REALLY doing their Dhamma and practicing it and acting nobly within Vinaya monk rules, the lay people would adore them and follow them like a shadow. They would offer respect and provisions voluntarily and eagerly. Noble and good monks do not have to fear the community. Witness the years 1992 to 2002, ten years of harmony mentioned above in the Baltimore case, when no such WILD illegal actions took place. (For later viewers, the wild actions were the monk’s alleged amending of documents and seizing of power and property).
Fortunately, Azusa lead monk and so on came to their senses. They backed down from an ILLEGAL Sanghika (monks’ ownership) conversion dedication ceremony. Thanks to our valiant community members who were able to “dissuade” them. No thanks to those “blindsided” followers who were parroting the Sanghika line. In spite of remonstrations, they just buried their heads in the sands like ostriches.
But, for over a year now, the Azusa lead monk is still refusing to circulate to our community an OFFICIAL declaration that the Dhamma Hall and parking lot have been dedicated to SASANA and confirming this declaration in the Board’S meeting minutes.
A “Baltimore- like” ILLEGAL “seizure of property” attempt had been “dissuaded” at the last minute in Azusa.
See other similar topics on “Azusa Temple, Photos of Azusa Kyaung Nibban Zay, Statues of Than way Za ni ya 4 Htarna, etc” in myanmargazette.net and Click2Myanmar.com.
Generally speaking, watch out for a few materialistic monks! Follow the noble monks!
Let us hear from you.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 2:01 am
pyupyin
Posted on: 2008/9/21 17:25
We heard that for many years, a local Los Angeles area Temple had generally conducted monthly ‘Pa htaan” Buddhist recitals on full moon days. The purpose was to ward of dangers to the Temple and monks.
Not only monthly recitals, we heard that for many years, this Temple had also conducted annual continuous “Pa htaan” recitals.
By having these numerous recitals, one would only conclude then, that there possibly couldn’t be any harm to the Temple and monks.
Yet, in spite of these monthly and annual “Pa htaan” recitals, we heard that some unsafe incidents happened. One example would be the Gopher incidents.
A gopher was said to suddenly drop down from a tree. It supposedly bit the lead monk while he was sitting in meditation and surprise, surprise, it quickly vanished. Strange to say, we heard that this wasn’t the only time. We heard that there was yet another time before when he was bitten by a gopher. Again, it was while he was sitting in meditation.
Whether true or not, let us examine what we have heard.
First: For decades, we have never heard of people seeing a gopher in the Temple grounds. Another thing, we don’t understand. Gophers didn’t live on trees. They lived in the ground, digging holes underneath. Why should a gopher suddenly drop down from a tree? Incredible! Mysterious!
Second: When gophers saw people, they just scattered. They, themselves, were afraid of people. And then, the lead monk was in a sitting position, non threatening to the gopher. There was no reason for a gopher to bite a monk who was in a non threatening sitting position on the ground. Very strange, indeed! Paranormal?
Third: Also strange, why wasn’t any other people ever been bitten even once by the gopher or gophers in more than 20 years? Why was only this lead monk bitten, not once, but TWICE!
Fourth: From the jakatas (Buddha’s life stories in prior existences) and other Buddhist teachings, we’ve heard that even when monks or people were sending metta loving kindness, these metta had a kind and beneficial effect on animals and beings. The animals responded to the loving kindness and would pose no harm. We really don’t understand.
We can only wonder. Was there something wrong while conducting the “Pa Htaan” recitals? Were there really pure metta, no Lawba (greed), no Daw Tha (anger and grudge) in the recitals?
Ask any Buddhist, and he or she will tell you that the “Pa Htaan” recitals are supposed to work or would work, if you have pure metta, no greed, no anger, and so on.
Otherwise, no effect.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 2:10 am
****NOTE TO NEW VIEWERS: THIS TOPIC HAD THE HIGHEST HITS IN THE OLD MANDALAY GAZETTE WEBSITE. IT’S ALSO ONE OF THE TOP FIVE HITS IN THE OLD CLICK2MYANMAR WEBSITE.****
======================================
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/9/22 10:30
Thank you Pyupin for your “Gophers” posting.
We also heard about the Gophers. We heard that because of the Gopher bites, the lead monk had to go for several courses of injections with strong doses. We heard that they were needed, just in case, for rabies. Since the many injections were strong and painful, the lead monk grew thin and haggard. Anyway, that’s what we’ve heard.
Another incredible thing was said to have happened. A secondary rumor grew up from this “thin and haggard situation.” This second rumor said the outgoing trustees had made the monk sad and depressed. Consequently, he was thin and haggard. Did you see the twist in this rumor? Suddenly, a switch!
Yes, blame it, yet again, on the former trustees. How clever!!!
Since many rumors were floating around, we need to discuss about them to clear up some misunderstandings.
The outgoing trustees had completed a beautiful hall and had paid off huge loans. This should be a cause for joy and not anger or grudge. They had advised the monk against doing an ILLEGAL Sanghika ceremony which would convert the Temple to monks’ ownership and control. Not to his liking, but good solid advice for community and monks. Nothing to get upset about.
There really was no substance in this “secondary” rumor. It was pure “bad mouthing” and was quite malicious towards the former trustees.
Of course, the second rumor was untrue. However, should the lead monk really become thin and haggard because of former trustees’ opposing advice, that would be the monk’s own problem. He would have created his own problem. For creating one’s own problem, would a person really deserve sympathy?
The monk’s problem was his attempt to convert publicly owned Temple property to de facto non public monk ownership and control. This was and is ILLEGAL. In U S, it’s equivalent to stealing public funds or property.
Vinaya rules say you have to obey the laws of the land. After all, it’s just greed or “lawba” which a monk shouldn’t have.
Moreover, it would cause the Temple to lose its tax exempt status. It would also cause the loss of the Temple to the IRS for huge back taxes of over $ 600,000, if and when converting to monks’ nonpublic ownership.
Let us assume that it was true that the lead monk grew thin and haggard because he got upset with the outgoing trustees who were against such an illegal ownership conversion.
For this, we would only suggest that the lead monk should curb his own lawba or greed in the first place. He should not attempt an illegal Sanghika property conversion at all.
The problem laid with his greed and not with the former trustees.
Definitely, greed, bad intentions, and impure thoughts (if any) won’t work in ANY “Pa Htan” recital.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 6:50 am
anatagaba
Thanks for the posting about Pa Htan recitals.
We are just curious. For example:
What if somebody broke or attempted to break a country‘s laws? Would his later or earlier Pa Htan recitals help him from the long arm of the law?
Some people thought that they would be protected by reciting Pa Htan even if they broke the law. What do you think?
Some thought that just reciting those verses would create supernormal powers for them and their cronies. They thought they could impart magical powers on the water and stones to use as talismans such as “Pa Htan yea (water).”
For us, we would honestly say that reciting the Pa Htan several times won’t help these people. Why?, you ask. Simply, the Pa Htan recitals were not done with a pure heart.
Breaking the laws or attempting to do so, indicate that they were done with greed and malice. They were just deluding themselves and their followers. Just a waste of efforts, time, and money.
Naturally, Pa Htan recitals done with metta, without greed or malice, and observance of local laws might work. You don’t have to be a monk to know this. Just plain COMMON SENSE!!
Anyway, Buddha wasn’t emphasizing on how to obtain supernormal or magical powers for oneself (say through recitals) and be entrenched as powerful and wealthy people or supernatural beings, in the many cycles of rebirth.
He was simply showing the way to Nirvana by breaking the cycle of rebirth.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 6:54 am
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/9/23 11:35
Ko Pyupin and others, thank you all for your postings.
I admire people who took the trouble to enlighten us. I strongly believe their sharing of knowledge has many kuthos. Dullard that I am – people call me Tone Tone (Mr Dull) – I slowly learn from people like them and become less dull. To make up for my deficiencies, I try harder. I read all the postings including those recent ones on the importance of cultivating a pure mind and attitude for Pa Htan recitals.
Like others, I am curious to learn. So, here are my questions. I do hope someone can kindly elucidate me on these.
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
1. The July 2007 Nibban Zay Food fair report, requested by some over a year ago, is still not yet sent out to the community?
I see that there were rumors of lavish first class round trip air fares at nearly $ 4,000 each and a probable huge diversion of $ 7,000 to Nawakama. I understand that the lead monk had asked people to help in the food fair, solely to raise construction funds. He did not tell them that he would indulge in these other extravaganzas.
My question: There seem to be a reckless disregard and a lack of forthrightness with the community and food fair helpers for over a year. Would these attitudes and lack of accountability by Azusa lead monk and associates be conducive to such noble and solemn recitals, non-stop or otherwise?
Some references: See Shwemeat and Dawgyansen’s 9/10 & 9/12/07 postings below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=949&forum=6&post_id=3200#forumpost3200
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=949&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 6:56 am
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
2. The board DECLARATION – stating that the Dhamma Hall and parking lot have been dedicated to SASANA – has still not yet been OFFICIALLY circulated to the community?
Would a Pa Htan recital be effective if there is still no such OFFICIAL board RESOLUTION and its recording in meeting minutes?
I see that they were over a year ago. Surely to me, there must be a hidden agenda in this purposely prolonged and drawn out refusal.
My question: Would hidden agendas (if any) and refusal to do the right thing by lead monk and associates be fully compatible with noble Pa Htan recitals?
Reference below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1023&forum=12#forumpost2526
———————————————————————————————
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
3. If the illegal “PBA Board Secretary” position is not resolved and reported back to the community?
I see that this is also nearly a year now. I learned that this illegality can void the Temple’s tax exempt permit. To me, the lead monk and associates seem to be flaunting the local laws, as in this “ILLEGAL Board Secretary” position.
I also see naïve bragging about ILLEGAL “doctoring the sponsorship bank balances.” I can see that stubbornly keeping this ILLEGAL PBA Board Secretary position is harming the Temple’s interests.
My dumb question: Would harming the Temple with above ILLEGAL actions be fully compatible with, or be good for, noble Pa Htan recitals?
References below:
Link on PBA Secretary:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1059&forum=6#forumpost2626
Links on Sponsorship:
See Kyaemon’s 4/2/08 posting at page 4 bottom
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=30
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=1295#forumpost1295
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 6:57 am
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
4. Donations for the same Than Way Zaniya statues appeared to be solicited multiple times?
I have read that donations for all these statues had already been received in full. But solicitation flyers were again sent out asking for donations for these same statues. I see that clarification requests on whether they were really for their foundations or for the statues themselves have been ignored for over a year up to now.
A person pointed out that misleading solicitations and multiple requests on the same items are fraudulent akin to selling the same car to 2 or 3 persons.
My question: Would an unresponsive attitude on by lead monk and associates be deemed beneficial to solemn and noble Pa Htan recitals?
References below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=951&forum=6&jump=1&start=0
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=951&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10
———————————————————————————————-
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
5. The trilingual Temple signboard is still not yet approved and installed by the lead monk and board?
I heard that Mt. Tant Kyi Sayadaw had approved it already. I see that, again, it’s over a year ago. The purposeful delay by lead monk and associates in approving and installing this signboard seem to point to some unwholesome intentions and gross negligence.
My question: Would these what seem to be “imperfect” behaviors, be suitable to noble Pa Htan recitals?
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 6:59 am
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
6. For about a year now, nothing was reported to the community about the whereabouts of monk’s aide U Thi Ha?
I learned that the Temple had sponsored him to come to US as a monk’s aide for an accompanying trip only. He was supposed to return to Burma, a year ago. There are persistent rumors that he had “jumped ship” and that the lead monk and associates are covering it up and ignoring this problem.
There was a news report to the community of his arrival. There was his interview with the U S Consul and a guarantee. There should be a responsible follow up report to the community also. This accountability is lacking for about a year now.
There appears to be a misuse of Temple’s good reputation. There seem to be no action to safeguard it. There seem to be a reckless disregard, a non action, and an avoidance of responsibility here. All these attitudes wouldn’t seem to be right and proper for people doing religious affairs.
My question: Would anyone say that bad attitudes, intentions, and bad actions would strengthen Pa Htan recitals? Of course not! Just the opposite. Would this, what appears to be a misuse of the Temple’s sponsorship and a lack of accountability and transparency to our community, weaken and even negate the noble Pa Htan recitals?
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm
ToneTone
Posted on: 2008/9/23 12:30
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
7. There might be breaking of Vinaya monk rules SIMILAR to one or more of the following examples?
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.
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
References below: (old abandoned websites)
My listings on 7/11/08 (about the middle of page 6)
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=50
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=2725
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=2726
My dumb question: Would doing Pa Htan recitals NON-STOP for many days with many monks in RELAYS and/or doing such recitals EVERY month be more effective? OR, Would CLEANSING one’s minds of GREED, POWER, FAME, or BAD WILL and other IMPURE THOUGHTS more effective?
What do you say? Please do!
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/9/25 17:03
Thank you Tone Tone for your postings. Your questions are not dull nor dumb. For true Buddhists, they are pertinent and important. I might similarly add:
Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be effective if a monk breaks Vinaya rules as in the following example?
Example: A lead monk allegedly asked trustees to “CHANGE” U S laws for him and other monks. Click postings below:
(Referenced links are to old defunct websites)
Meatphar’s 7/17/08 posting
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=50
Quote…..You (trustees) should also change the laws (meaning US laws) to support the monks…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?
Taungpyone’s 7/26/08 posting
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=60
Quote: …..The lead monk knew that the trustees could not LEGALLY CHANGE U S laws for him…. 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 (on) “LYING.” Was he practicing what he preached? ….
Kyintwoot’s 7/27/08 posting
(Same link as above, just after Taungpyone’s)
Quote:…..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…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 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm
kyintwoot
Posted on: 2008/10/1 10:55
I like the Dmoran555’s 9/9/08 posting below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=951&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10 (old web)
Dmoran555 was reminding a monk to practice what he preached. A monk shouldn’t preach something and do something else, himself. Excellent advice and reminder!
Furthermore, Dmoran555 brought out a very special distinction. Not everyone knew about this CONCEPT. It‘s about a “Thangan Taranan Gissarme” Sangha monk (“Gissarme” monk, for short).
People assume that a person wearing a monk’s robe would be a monk. People assume that he would be virtuous. People think that we need to pay respect to whoever is wearing a monk’s robe.
However, this “Gissarme” concept disagrees. Donning a monk’s robe does not automatically qualify a person to be a “Gissarme” Sangha monk. He still has to work hard to become one. He still has a long way to go. The number of years wearing a monk’s attire does not count. Only the virtuous actions count.
That means TRUE (Gissame) Sangha monks do virtuous works and observe the Vinaya. They deserve respect. On the other hand, IMPERFECT, IMPURE, OR FAKE “monks break Vinaya monk rules. Their actions are not virtuous. Sometimes, their actions might even be well below the level of a lay person. Do we still need to respect them?
Applying this important distinction, impure or fake “monks” are not virtuous Sangha (Gissame) monks as yet. They still have to practice. Some monks are not what they make themselves out to be.
Examples: Impure or fake “monks” (breaking Vinaya rules) do not deserve respect (as REAL monks as yet). They need NOT be treated as REAL (virtuous) monks, at all.
This CONCEPT says that some are not yet “Gissame” monks. Some are still NOVICES with a long way to go, in spite of the years, or worse, FAKES.
Let’s support the true “Gissarme” monks and not the ones who continue to break the Vinaya. They give the “Gissarme” monks and SASANA a bad name.
Thissa
Posted on: 2008/10/9 22:41
Tone Tone had raised a question # 6 in his 9/23/08 posting below: (old web’s)
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?
topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=90
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=341&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=90
QUOTE: “Would a “Non Stop Pa Htan” recital be really effective if:
6. For about a year now, nothing was reported to the community about the whereabouts of monk’s aide U Thi Ha?
I learned that the Temple had sponsored him to come to US as a monk’s aide for an accompanying trip only. He was supposed to return to Burma, a year ago. There are persistent rumors that he had “jumped ship” and that the lead monk and associates are covering it up and ignoring this problem.
There was a news report to the community of his arrival. There was his interview with the U S Consul and a guarantee. There should be a responsible follow up report to the community also. This accountability is lacking for about a year now.
There appears to be a misuse of Temple’s good reputation. There seem to be no action to safeguard it. There seem to be a reckless disregard, a non action, and an avoidance of responsibility here. All these attitudes wouldn’t seem to be right and proper for people doing religious affairs.
My question: Would anyone say that bad attitudes, intentions, and bad actions would strengthen Pa Htan recitals? Of course not! Just the opposite. Would this, what appears to be a misuse of the Temple’s sponsorship and a lack of accountability and transparency to our community, weaken and even negate the noble Pa Htan recitals?”
END QUOTE.
OUR QUESTION:
WE ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN THIS POSSIBLE MISUSE OF THE TEMPLE’S
SPONSORSHIP. WE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. WE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ACTIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE LEAD MONK AND ASSOCIATES?
UP TO NOW, THERE IS NO REPORT ON THIS FOR OVER A YEAR.
MOREOVER, THERE IS NO NIBBAN ZAY REPORT FOR OVER A YEAR. THERE ARE PERSISTENT RUMORS OF LAVISH EXTRAVAGANZAS ON NAWA KAMA $ 7000 AND FIRST CLASS AIR FARES OF $ 4000 EACH. (SEE PRIOR POSTINGS).
WHAT’S GOING ON?
WOULD DOING A LOT OF NON STOP PA HTAN RECITALS HELP? WE DOUBT IT.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm
kaetinshin
Posted on: 2008/10/10 10:46
You want to know what really happened,
every time you say about Temple or the monks from United State,
The DOGS from the Hell are smiling,they want to have you, I am very sure.
————————————————————————-
Thissa
Posted on: 2008/10/10 22:00
Kaetinshin, sir
You mention “You want to know what really happened.” But then, you left it hanging. You act as if you know.
If you knew already, why won’t you tell what happened? Why do you want to cover up? Do you have something to hide?
On the other hand, you might not know anything.
If you don’t know, why mention about it and act as if you know. Anyway, what’s wrong with people wanting to know? You talk as if the community and donors don’t have a right to know. You talk as if the Temple is not publicly owned but owned by you or the monks.
Are you really in America, where freedom of expression is allowed?
Again, if you don’t know, why are you acting like a know all and a “Kae tin shin” Savior. How can you be a Savior, if you don’t know anything?
Further, if you don‘t know, don’t you want to know? Why don’t you want to know? If you are a trustee, why don’t you know? You are supposed to know.
Whether you know or not, you seem to say nobody needs to know. Nobody has a right to know. Is that the way you deal with a magnificent community which has donated much money and labor?
Did Buddha say nobody should need to know or should want to know or nobody should ask a question? Are you higher than Buddha? What Vinaya rule did you based on when you tell people they don’t need or have no right to ask questions and threaten them with dogs from hell?
Do you know by threatening people with dogs from hell and shutting people up from discussing public issues, you are denying people’s constitutional rights? Do you know that this is illegal in U S?
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/10/10 23:09
Sayagyi Kaetinshin.
You seem to know the dogs from hell. You seem to see them smiling. You seem to be very sure that the dogs are smiling and wanting to pounce on someone. Are you really sure?
How do you know all that? How come you are familiar with them? How come you have this doggie knowledge?
You must have been in HELL, right? There, you met the hellish dogs? right? How do you know that the dogs want somebody and not somebody else? Have you talked to the dogs? Did the dogs tell you so? Which dog or dogs?
How come the dogs can read who is writing what? How do you happen to learn the doggie language? The dogs might even be smiling at you, how do you know?
How can you be a Kaetinshin (Savior), if you have to go to HELL? How long have you been there? Quite a while, I suppose, to be able to learn the doggie language over there?
How is it going over there, Sayagyi? Was it warm enough for you? You must feel like visiting your doggie friends in Hell again, sometimes?
Are you a so called “Baydin Saya” fortune teller? Or a so called “Seer” or just pretending to be one?
If so, how come you couldn’t even predict the SASANA dedication of Azusa Dhamma Hall? Remember, those people vouching for illegal Sanghikha dedication?
If you are a so called “Seer” or Bay Din Saya, can you foretell the future of the possibly illegal Azusa Board Secretary position?
By the way, you know very well that Buddha said “Fortune telling” and “Seer knowledge,” are all low animal-like knowledge. They were prohibited by Buddha and still are prohibited by the Vinaya, as a stain to monks.
RATHER THAN “KAETIN” SAVE OTHERS, DON’T YOU NEED TO “KAETIN” YOURSELF, FIRST, SAYAGYI!!??
You need to stop threatening people with your hell hounds for exercising their rights of free speech to correct possible Azusa Temple lead monk’s and associates’ errors. They all are our community’s or public issues.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm
pyupyin
Posted on: 2008/10/11 22:35
Hi Kaetinshin.
Please don’t confuse other people. Just look at the REAL issues.
Why hide a particular monk’s wrong actions? The REAL issues have nothing to do with other noble monks in the U S. The REAL issues have nothing to do with your “smiling dogs from hell.”
The REAL issues here are very simple:
1. WHAT HAPPENED TO MONK’S AIDE U THI HA? WAS THE TEMPLE’S SPONSORSHIP MISUSED?
2. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NIBBAN ZAY MONEYS?
The community and donors have every right to ask for an answer. Why blow them up as if they are about all the other NOBLE monks in United States? Not all monks in U S would allow or ignore such sponsorship or Nibban Zay alleged misuses, as in Azusa. Why drag in other NOBLE monks?
Do you know that IT IS REALLY Nga yae gyi to drag in other noble monks into the mud – like what you are doing now? The other noble monks ARE NOT involved in these possible misuses at all. Are you trying to use them as a cover for these issues? Are you avoiding the issues? Are you trying to shut people up? Are you threatening people?
You sound like the Burmese military Junta that uses the gun to shut people up. Likewise, you are threatening people with “the DOGS from Hell” (Hell hounds) and Nga Yae Gyi Big hell. You want to shut people up. You sound like you are or had been one of the hell dogs yourself or their owner.
You hide the fact that Buddha asked the KALAMA villagers to question him and to critique his teachings. He even asked them not to just blindly believe him. Even in his death bed, Buddha asked his disciples to question him.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 5:32 pm
*****THIS VINAYA/WEE NEE HAD THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF HITS IN THE OLD MANDALAY GAZETTE WEB. POPULAR ALSO IN ANOTHER WEB*****
———————————————————————–
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/10/12 11:50
U “Kaetinshin,” khin byarr.
Why do you sidestep the questions? Why should we believe a person who sidesteps simple questions? Why do you drag in other noble monks who have nothing to do with the questions? Please read the questions again.
What happened to Azusa Nibban Zay moneys? What happened to U Thi Ha? These are not related to other noble monks. These are specific to Azusa lead monk and associates.
Anybody can call himself a Kaetinshin Savior? Just a high sounding and pompous but really empty “Thingyan ah Myauk” cannon, with no substance.
You seem to say that people would be Nga Yae Gyi (big hell) when they question a monk’s possible wrong actions or breaking the Vinaya. On the other hand, how is it that people could question an even higher authority than a monk, for example: Buddha and Buddha’s teachings, without being Nga Yae Gyi? Is the Azusa lead monk higher than Buddha?
Are you demanding complete and unquestioning obedience? Sounds like dictator Than Shwe or Hitler to me. Why do you want to be obnoxious and oblivious to the community and donors who feed and look after you?
Questioning about Buddha was allowed and encouraged by Buddha himself and has been allowed by the Vinaya. This means questioning or writing about a monk,who is at a lower level than Buddha, would be allowed. Why then, should you threaten people with your hellish dogs, every time he or she questions or writes about a monk’s actions or a Temple?
Note the questions are not ordinary. They especially relate to a monk’s possible actions which appear very likely to have broken the Vinaya; and are possibly anti U S laws, anti Temple, anti Sasana, and anti community. And, therefore, very important that these possible infractions be corrected.
Are you saying that ONLY lay people could go to hell, nga yae gyi? How about the your good buddy, the Azusa lead monk? Won’t he be nga yae gyi, if he possibly broke the Vinaya monk rules? Is he exempted or are you exempted? You know more than I do that a monk breaking the Vinaya would sink into a yet deeper “R wee zi” hell hole.
CONTINUED
—————————————————————————–
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POSTING
If you are his TRUE buddy, you should talk to him and persuade him from possibly breaking the Vinaya monk rules. You should save him from a deeper R wee zi, instead of getting upset with other people.
Than Shwe fills the jails with political prisoners. Like him, are you threatening to fill many people in HELL? Than Shwe sets loose the “Swann R Shin” thugs. Are you threatening to let loose your hell hounds or dogs into our community in U S?
By the way, you sound very much like Saya “Thambayang.” Is he your twin brother? He was introducing “Thuggery” into Buddhism by threatening people with “thugs,” too.
See below for Thambayang’s 8/10/08 posting:
“….BUDDHISM has nothing to do with politics or 10% things.
Beware. Anybody can thug among us…..”
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=946&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0 (old web)
What a Shame for so called “religious” people! Religious people don’t break Vinaya. They don’t encourage or protect monks who broke Vinaya. They don’t pick on others who point out the possible Vinaya breakages. Religious people send out loving kindness or metta, not threats.
Are you scared of the truth? Are you hiding something? Are you covering up for somebody?
Like Thambayang, you LOVE to drag other innocent people or monks in. You LOVE to mislead and confuse and divide our community.
You could have easily answered the questions instead of “myat hlai pya,” (doing illusionary magic tricks) and raising hell, literally and figuratively.
MY ADVICE: Just issue the Nibban Zay money report. Just say what happened to U Thi Ha and the Temple’s sponsorship. Be upfront and honest with our wonderful community and donors. No need to hide. The more you hide, the worse it is.
Some mistakes or some breaking of Vinaya rules? Then pay back the Temple moneys. Say what you gonna do to correct possible past mistakes and breakings of Vinaya. Say how you gonna prevent future ones.
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 10:41 pm
anatagaba
Posted on: 2008/10/14 20:05
Saya Kaetinshin
Your high and mighty name kaetinshin suggests that you like to kaetin people?
You put on this Kaetinshin title to save people. Save people from what?
Are you “kaetin” the Temple? Are you safeguarding our community interests and U S laws? Or, are you possibly colluding with your cronies and hurting the Temple‘s interests?
If you are an Azusa Board director, do you know that you could possibly be held negligent for not safeguarding the Temple and community interests?
By the way, Dmoran555 was asking about the reasons for an annual Maha Pa Htan recital.
——————————————————————-
Dawgyansen
Posted on: 2008/10/15 23:05
1 year gone. Still no Thi Ha report.
Somebody ask report. Then monk buddy Kae tin shin get mad. He say shut up! If no shut up, he say his hell dogs eat you. What this mean?
That mean He and monk want cover up. No report coming. That mean Thi Ha and Azusa big monk. They break sponsor paper. No control. They hurt Temple. They run wild. No shame. No duty no respect for ludu da kar.
That mean he or big monk want do again for sure in future. More times. They no afraid. Everybody knows Big Market for Temple sponsor paper. Easy way come to America.
First time only? This time only? No! Some say same misuse before. Is there really no Law Ba inside?
Monk buddy Kae tin shin say No ask Thi Ha report. No ask monk anything. 100% obey. Let Azusa big monk run wild? Hurt temple?
He right or wrong?
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 10:45 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/10/21 19:07
Dawgyansen, good question.
Of course, Kaetinshin is utterly wrong!
Under this same Vinaya topic, there are postings about a Legal Complaint against a Resident Monk, See my 8/23/08 posting (of TadinHtauk’s posting) on Page 9 onwards. Link below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=80 (old)
I have found some more details.
Comments:
Basically, two Myanmar laypersons were safeguarding the Temple against Baltimore monk U Kissayana‘s alleged illegal actions. In America ( & elsewhere), monks have to obey laws. U Kissayana’s alleged illegal (wild) actions hurt the Temple. They caused the two pious Myanmar sponsors to stop him by legal means.
Note: The two lay people were highly educated Myanmar professionals and were active major donors.
People might jump to the conclusion that these two were ill treating a harmless monk. Also, I wonder what U Kissayana and his buddies would say about the two plaintiffs. Would they also say the two were ill treating the monk?
Not true! To me, the two really were NOT ill treating U Kissayana at all. Rather, by going against U S laws, U Kissayana’s alleged Greed was “ill treating” (hurting) the Temple and also “ill treating” himself.
FULL DETAILS:
“Members of Buddhist temple files suit against resident monk”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20020724/ai_n10052894
“Two active members of a Baltimore-area Buddhist temple have secured a restraining order against its resident monk, on allegations that he amended corporate documents to allow him to seize power and property for himself and other monks of his choosing.
Defendant Sangha U. Kissayana claimed in the questioned corporate documents that his actions were in compliance with the bequest that established the temple about five years ago.
Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Vicki Ballou-Watts last week named Dr. Khin Nwe Win as temporary receiver to manage the assets of the Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society Inc. until the issues in the case are resolved.
CONTINUED
—————————————————————————-
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
” Win and her husband, Dr. Mehm Thein Thaung, are “life members” of the society and sought the temporary restraining order against it and resident monk Sangha U. Kissayana.
At issue in the case are the society’s temple on Old Court Road in Gwynn Oak, purchased in 1997 for more than $187,000, according to court documents, and a building fund that contains more than $220,000.
The plaintiffs claim they contributed much of the building fund, and “fear that if the substantial funds of the Society … in the building fund are not protected and safeguarded for their intended purpose, Defendants … may invade those fund which were donated for a specific purpose and spend them on other purposes.”
The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until July 29, but may be extended until Aug. 8 if the plaintiffs petition the court.
Thaung and Win have been “life members” in the Meditation Society since about 1997, according to court papers. They claim to have contributed more than $180,000 to the Meditation Society’s operations.
Thaung declined to discuss the case except in the presence of his lawyer, attorney Michael P. Tanczyn, who was on vacation.
Thaung and Win’s verified complaint alleges they were, respectively, vice president and treasurer of the society, and served on its board of trustees until Kissayana allegedly violated corporate bylaws by unilaterally terminating current officers in May.
“Sangha U. Kissayana, the resident monk, who is not a United States citizen,” according to the complaint, “is operating the Defendant religious corporation as his alter ego (as his own) and has frequently stated his belief that all property of the Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society, Inc. belongs to the monks and that the monks must control the Society and own its property.”
Kissayana allegedly drafted and adopted new bylaws and articles of incorporation for the Meditation Society, and provisions that grant monks property ownership could endanger the organization’s tax- exempt status, according to the complaint.
A reporter’s calls to the Meditation Society and Kissayana were answered by people who did not speak English.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 10:50 pm
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/10/21 19:20
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
The Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society was founded in 1992 by the late Ven. Ashin Kelatha of Silver Spring, according to the contested corporate documents that Kissayna allegedly prepared. “Myanmar” is an ancient term for “Burma.”
Kelatha died in 1997 and his last will and testament stated, according to the corporate documents, that monks were to oversee all Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society property.
“I request that the Representative Sanghas (monks) endeavor to preserve the properties owned by MBMS and maintain the properties according to the rules relating to Sanghas,” Kelatha’s will allegedly stated. “I truly believe that only the Sanghas will maintain the MBMS properties as required per the Sanghas Rules and thus, I bequeath [various properties] to the Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society.”
The plaintiffs must post a $10,000 bond this week under the temporary restraining order. A staff member in Tanczyn’s office said they were processing the paperwork yesterday.
Copyright 2002 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20020724/ai_n10052894
Comments
Note: U Kelatha bequeathed NOTHING to “pupil monks” like U Kissayana. Per U Kelatha, they can only MAINTAIN the Temple.
Moreover, U Kelatha cannot bequeath a PUBLICLY owned property. The Reason:
The property was purchased with PUBLIC donations (building funds) donated to MBMS. The property was NOT purchased with U Kelatha’s PRIVATE moneys or Nawa Kama. It NEVER was U Kelatha’s property in the first place.
Therefore, U Kelatha could not bequeath what was NOT his. How can he give to MBMS what already belonged to MBMS?
NOR could he bequeath to anyone else.
Also, since it’s a publicly owned property, Uncle Sam has a STAKE OR INTEREST in it already. This is because Uncle Sam had already allowed TAX DEDUCTIONS on the donations.
—————————————————————————————-
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/10/25 12:17
Thank you, ThanGyat, for more details on the Baltimore Myanmar Temple legal complaint. See his 10/21/08 postings in prior threads above. They give a full picture.
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1067&forum=6&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=110 (old)
Our Myanmar communities overseas need to avoid similar problems. We do not need people causing divisions and disharmony. From the details, let’s discuss each aspect carefully to obtain some lessons.
First, let us put the Baltimore Temple plaintiffs’ complaint under the microscope. Was it correct? What was their motive? Was it justified?
The complaint said that:
a. U Kissayana terminated current officers in May.
b. U Kissayana amended corporate bylaws to provide for Monk’s ownership..
c. U Kissayana frequently stated that all property of MBMS belongs to the monks…
We know that these actions were illegal. Let us look at the reasons:
1. MBMS was and has been registered as a U S religious PUBLIC corporation in Maryland and has been recognized by IRS. Therefore, NON PUBLIC monk ownership was out of the question and illegal.
2. By U S Federal and State laws, MBMS MUST be managed by a Board of Directors. Management by just one person or monk(s) was also out of the question and illegal.
3. Such Non public ownership and management and behind the scenes manipulations were all illegal and against public policy and welfare and were circumventing U S laws.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 10:56 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/10/25 12:32
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
Therefore, NOBODY, including U Kissayana, could unilaterally fire current officers. These officers, whether board directors or duly appointed EC members, were actually representing the Myanmar community at large.
In fact, they could be said to represent Uncle Sam (USA). They couldn’t be coerced or unduly influenced to look after U Kissayana or other monks’ narrow interests ALONE. The officers were not ordinary Kappiya or monk’s helpers, as some people would like to think. Such coercion or undue influence are void and illegal.
The terminations were illegal and void. In the eyes of the law, the current officers “terminated” were still officers, as before.
Also, behind the scenes manipulations to further a monk’s greedy interests over community’s interests were all against public welfare and public policy. They were, in fact, breaches of fiduciary trusts and dereliction of duties as board officers for not looking after the community interests FIRST AND FOREMOST. Officers and directors are responsible ONLY to the community at large and NOT to the monks’ narrow interests alone.
If a monk was on the Board of Directors, he MUST also represent the community interest FIRST AND FOREMOST. He cannot represent just his own or other monks’ narrow interests. When his personal interest conflicted with the community interests, he could not vote. If he voted, his vote was illegal and void. The community’s interests ALWAYS took precedence.
Therefore, amending bylaws to provide for monks’ ownership, was also illegal and void.
All of U Kissayana’s actions ran counter to interests of a PUBLIC religious corporation registered in U S. His actions would cause the IRS permit to be voided automatically. Thus, the plaintiffs’ motive was sound and JUSTIFIED for safeguarding the Temple’s interests.
MOREOVER, The property could never be owned by a private person or a monk or even monks as a group. They simply are all NON PUBLIC.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 11, 2010 at 10:58 pm
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/10/25 12:38
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
To obtain some more lessons, let us examine U Kissayana’s Claim.
He said that he was acting on deceased U Kelatha’s bequest (below):
“…Defendant Sangha U. Kissayana claimed in the questioned corporate documents that his actions were in compliance with the bequest that established the temple about five years ago…”
REALLY?? Was it true? Was he just acting on the bequest?
This brings us to examine U Kelatha’s bequest itself (below): What did it really say??
“… I request that the Representative Sanghas (monks) endeavor to preserve the properties owned by MBMS and maintain the properties according to the rules relating to Sanghas,”
Kelatha’s will allegedly stated. “I truly believe that only the Sanghas will maintain the MBMS properties as required per the Sanghas Rules and thus, I bequeath [various properties] to the Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society….”
Findings:
The bequest said:
a. U Kelatha bequeathed the property to MBMS.
(Note: NOT to U Kissayana or to any other monk),
b. U Kelatha “requested” the monks (in general, not specifically U Kissayana), to MAINTAIN the property. He “truly believed” that they would do so.
A “request” and a “belief” did not equate to a “giving away of property” to the monk or monks, at all.
They were not the same. To say so, was stretching the imagination to breaking point.
CONTINUED
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 6:44 am
Posted on: 2008/10/25 12:41
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
Now, let’s go back and look at U Kissayana’s words.
“Sangha U. Kissayana…..has frequently stated his belief that all property of the Myanmar Buddhist Meditation Society, Inc. belongs to the monks and that the monks must control the Society and own its property.”
Findings:
His above words contradicted with what deceased monk U Kelatha had said. The bequest didn’t say that the property was to be given to the monks. The bequest didn’t say that the monks must control the Society. The bequest didn’t mention that the monks must own the property.
NONE of what U Kissayana said was true. It appears that U Kissayana was making them all up.
U Kissayana was just stating his personal BELIEF. His belief happened to be wrong. It seemed to be a lie and was also illegal. It had no legal weight. Just empty air.
However, he was advancing his greedy agenda. It seems that he was purposely misleading and confusing a non confrontational and very religious Myanmar community. It seems that he was browbeating the community into submission. Hitler’s propaganda chief said if you say something enough number of times, people will believe you.
It seems he was lying from ear to ear. The bequest stated clearly that the late monk bequeathed the property to MBMS and not to any monk or monks.
CONTINUED
—————————————————————————————————-
meatphar
Posted on: 2008/10/25 12:47
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
Let’s look at U Kissayana’s actions:
His terminating the current officers in May and his amending corporate bylaws were not in line with the bequest.
The bequest didn’t give him the right to terminate people nor to change bylaws. He was not given ownership rights in the bequest. The right of ownership was given to MBMS in the bequest and not to U Kissayana or the monks. The amending rights and terminating rights belonged to MBMS, the owner, not to anyone else.
Per Bequest, the monks could only maintain the property. Maintaining was not the same as owning. Maintaining did not make him the owner. In case of conflicts or overlapping of duties, the owner overrides the maintenance person. Only MBMS board, the owner, could decide on the bylaws.
Example: The plumber or electrician couldn’t override the house owner.
Even for owner MBMS, terminating officers could be a delicate issue.
CONTINUED
———————————————————————————————-
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
FROM A U S LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
U Kelatha bequeathed the property’s ownership to MBMS. U Kelatha’s bequest was useful in a way in that it indicated U Kelatha’s wishes or will.
However, this bequest had not much legal weight in U S Court. As ThanGyat pointed out, the property already belonged to MBMS. This was despite what U Kelatha did later.
Whether he made a bequest to MBMS or not, it didn’t really matter. The property already was owned by MBMS.
This MBMS ownership was irrefutable. It also was unchangeable despite what U Kissayana later did with his illegal amending of bylaws. He couldn’t change it.
Example: You have an ownership Grant Deed to your house. Nobody can come with some other papers claiming ownership on it.
Also, MBMS was not and is not a monks’ subsidiary corporation in which U Kissayana and his cronies owned shares. MBMS has been an independent nonprofit religious corporation registered in Maryland and is subjected to U S Federal and State laws.
No other individuals (like the monks) or other corporations can legally own or control it. MBMS has been a separate and independent legal entity by itself. It has always been owned by the Myanmar community at large (and USA). To say otherwise is totally illegal. It would be just fantasy or wishful thinking on the part of a few erring monks and their cronies. They would be misusing their positions of trust.
Acting on wishful thinking would be fanatical and dangerous in that it divides our community and disturbs the peace and harmony. All because of a few erring monks’ greed.
A 4/2/08 C2M posting had this Niti Kyan’s saying about erring priests and kings.
145. When priests and kings become dissatisfied (meaning demanding and unappreciative), there is no chance for them (no hope or redemption), they are lost…
The Vinaya prohibits dividing the community. The Vinaya is against an erring monk’s greed for property or for yet a larger property. U Kissayana’s GREED BROKE SEVERAL WEE NEE.
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 6:50 am
ThanGyat
Posted on: 2008/11/5 16:02
COPIED JINTHOTE’S POSTING FROM myanmargazette.net
Others have asked about Azusa Temple’s Thi Ha case.
See Phopyoncho’s 10/11/08 posting of Thissa’s posting below:
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=341&forum=20&post_id=4019
I heard that U Ayethaka and associates had written and sent out the original sponsor papers for Thi Ha.
For Thi Ha’s return, I remembered that Mt Tantkyi Sayadaw gave a very strong personal guarantee to the U S Consul.
The Sayadaw wrote about Thi Ha’s consular interview and circulated it to the community. He mentioned that the Consul had asked Thi Ha about his returning to Burma. Thi Ha didn’t really reply to this question. Instead, the Sayadaw interrupted and answered the Consul for him. He told the Consul that Thi Ha would be returning with him. The Sayadaw was implying that he guaranteed Thi Ha’s Burma return. The Sayadaw even went on to say “We ‘Sons of Buddha’ (meaning Buddhist monks) never lie.”
To convince the Consul, he had invoked the good name of ALL noble Sangha monks. Was this necessary? Practical? Personally, I think he shouldn’t have done that. Other noble Myanmar Buddhist monks’ good name could be hurt. What would the Consul think of Buddhist monks in general if Thi Ha didn’t return?
For over a year, U Ayethaka has not given a Thi Ha report? He still refuses to quell rumors about Thi Ha’s jumping ship?
Given the situation, the questions are:
1. Knowing Mt Tantkyi Sayadaw’s ‘ironclad’ guarantee to the Consul, what DID U Ayethaka and associates DO or DID NOT DO to prevent Thi Ha jumping ship?
2. What actions has he taken to prevent Temple’s sponsorships from being misused again?
3. How many times had Temple’s sponsorships been misused already?
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 6:52 am
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2008/11/29 10:45
The following link has 3 important Vinaya rules which are relevant to this “Vinaya monk rules” topic. They are useful and interesting.
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1469&forum=5
In this link, Kyintwoot was reminding U Ayethaka about PhwaSein’s request. She and others had asked many times for reports on Nibban Zay income and expenses and on Thi Ha’s whereabouts. The reports were long overdue for over a year. U Ayethaka keeps on giving long donors listings and keeps on ignoring the requested reports.
Meatphar then points out that U Ayethaka’s actions are against the Vinaya monks’ rules as well. He extracts 3 relevant Vinaya rules. Very significant. One rule disallows a monk’s action in persistently keeping silent and concealing wrongdoings.
The above mentioned posters are very concerned about possible misuse of Temple’s sponsorships and Temple’s money. They are also concerned about what past and future actions have been or will be taken relating to Thi Ha and similar cases.
Their raising such questions are quite NATURAL AND HEALTHY. They remind people, including monks, to abide by U S laws or to make amends, and to safeguard the Temple and Sasana.
Rationalizing like a hermit, ‘Ya Thayt seik bhyay’, doing nothing, and declaring to oneself and to cronies that no harm is done, ‘R lon kaung bar tare khin bya’,” is really quite irresponsible. Such a person is not doing his fiduciary duty. He is being negligent and reckless. He is misusing his position of trust. He is not safeguarding the Temple, our community, and our Sasana.
Why hold on to such a position when one cannot faithfully safeguard these higher interests and really serve the community and Sasana? Why be used by others for their own selfish ends?
The interesting Vinaya rules extracted & discussed in the referenced link are reproduced below for your convenience:
“….1. PERSISTENTLY replying evasively or KEEPING SILENT when being questioned in a meeting of the Community in order TO CONCEAL ONE’S OWN OFFENCES — after a formal charge of evasiveness or uncooperativeness has been brought against one — is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 12]
2. NOT INFORMING OTHER BHIKKUS OF A SERIOUS OFFENCE THAT ONE KNOWS ANOTHER BHIKKHU HAS COMMITTED — either out of a desire to protect him from having to undergo the penalty, or to protect him from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus — is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 64]
3. REFUSING TO GIVE UP THE WRONG VIEW THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN INTENTIONALLY TRANSGRESSING THE BUDDHA’S ORDINANCES — after the third announcement of a formal rebuke in a meeting of the Community — is a paacittiya offence. [Paac….”
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1469&forum=5
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 6:56 am
*****THIS VINAYA TOPIC HAS THE HIGHEST HITS IN THE OLD DISCONTINUED MANDALAY GAZETTE WEBSITE. IT’S ALSO IN THE TOP 5 HITS IN THE OLD CLICK2MYANMAR WEBSITE*****
Phopyoncho
Posted on: 2008/11/29 11:48
I like Meatphar’s bringing out the Vinaya monk rules. Link below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1469&forum=5
One rule says a monk cannot remain persistently silent and conceal offences.
Meatphar also points out that another Vinaya rule says a monk cannot cover up for another monk’s wrongdoing. I quite agree. However, on careful reading of this Vinaya rule’s actual words, I think it’s even stricter and therefore nobler. Please read carefully:
“…# 2. NOT INFORMING OTHER BHIKKUS OF A SERIOUS OFFENCE THAT ONE KNOWS ANOTHER BHIKKHU HAS COMMITTED — either out of a desire to protect him from having to undergo the penalty, or to protect him from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus — is a paacittiya offence. [Paac. 64]”….
Example: When a monk comes to know of another monk’s offence, he may just pretend not to know. He may do nothing about it. He may like to remain neutral and may keep silent.
He may not ACTIVELY cover up for the erring monk. He doesn’t do anything at all.
Is he off the hook?
This particular Vinaya rule says “NOT SO!” “NOT SO FAST!”
It is an offence to remain quiet and not report this offence to other monks (even if he doesn’t actively cover it up).
In other words, with his knowledge of the wrongdoing, he can become an ACCESSORY.
He has to do something about it….REPORT THE OFFENCE TO OTHER MONKS.
Reasons: His non action would encourage the offences to be repeated (maybe with impunity next time).
He is willing to allow an erring monk’s bad thoughts and bad actions to “muddy” his spiritual mind already. He can’t even cleanse himself of bad thoughts and bad actions by others. He accepts defeat. He is defeated and subjugated by others’ bad thoughts and deeds.
Thus, it is against what Buddha was teaching in the Eightfold noble paths on cultivating right thoughts and actions and mindfulness.
In Layperson’s terms, it’s similar to being an accessory to a robbery or murder, even if that person doesn’t initiate or take part in it.
That person, also, has to REPORT THE CRIME to the authorities.
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Myittha
Posted on: 2008/11/29 13:29
Yes, VERY TRUE! Monks cannot turn a blind eye to another monk’s wrong actions. Indeed, the Vinaya is CRYSTAL CLEAR on this.
IT ENCOURAGES EXPOSING WRONGDOINGS!!!
Without exposure, there won’t be REPENTANCE or Than Way Ga. No Repentance means no CORRECTION.
In my opinion, this Vinaya rule’s purpose is to ensure the monks’ credibility and good reputation. They are required to preach to lay people. These qualities are needed for monks to maintain their positions as “Esteemed Preachers.”
This rule also safeguards the Sasana, noble monks, and the community so they can PRACTICE IN PEACE AND HARMONY for a long long time.
The Vinaya doesn’t want a “BAD” FISH in their midst to spoil the “WHOLE BOATFUL”(of fish).
A person can be knowledgeable in the scriptures. But if that person cannot obey Buddha’s Vinaya, would you still call him a “SON OF BUDDHA”?
Myittha
June 12, 2010 at 5:33 pm
JinThote
Posted on: 2008/11/29 14:44
I agree with Myittha.
Vinaya wants EXPOSURE of errors and wrongdoings.
Specifically, monks cannot pretend to be blind to another monk’s wrong action.
Same principle applies to lay people too. Lay people cannot cover up for an erring monk’s wrong actions.
(In fact, they earn less merit for knowingly donating to a “bad” monk. They could earn far more merit in donating to a “nobler” monk)
I have questions:
In case we have lingering doubts, for discussion’s sake, let’s argue on the opposite hypothesis. Let’s pose an absurd question.
Should monks be allowed to be blind to another monk’s wrongdoings?
Answer: Even lay people cannot pretend to be blind to another person’s wrongdoing or crime. How can monks do otherwise? Aren’t they supposed to be nobler? Their standard cannot sink below that of lay people’s standard. How could it be! It’s so obvious. It’s moot.
Next question: Do noble monks hold themselves up to a higher standard of conduct than lay people?
Answer: Yes, of course! Noble monks do have a higher standard of moral conduct. Noble monks adhere to this standard.
Next question: Could or should lay people create or allow an exception to the Vinaya for an erring monk‘s wrongdoing?
Answer: Lay People cannot modify the Vinaya or create an exception or excuse a monk‘s wrongdoing.
Other instances on cover up’s by other faiths: One stands out. Cardinal Mahony and the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Diocese had to settle for over $ 660 millions for cover up’s. The Pope had to apologize to victims.
A recent political scandal. No cover up and the important reason why, below:
http://www.click2myanmar.com/C2M/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1174&forum=12&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=70
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=552&forum=20&post_id=4983
http://myanmargazette.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=552&forum=20&post_id=4984
“….Legislator Shyu ….said Mr. Chen’s detention “is a CRUCIAL start for Taiwan to rebuild FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL VALUES.”