AZUSA TEMPLE
Myittha
The following postings are from Click2Myanmar old and abandoned website. They are reproduced for the benefit of religious organizations, trustees and lay people setting up overseas, in US and elsewhere.
They might learn something about the legal and tax issues involved and avoid potential dangers and pitfalls.
There were two topics on this same Azusa Temple issue. They are now merged in date order. These two topics were among the top three topics that scored the largest number of hits (in FIVE FIGURES).
——————————————————-
Short story
The group led by Lin Htoo fired the first salvo on Click2Myanmar website. This group was a pro Monk group. It was smearing another group. This second group was opposing the Monk’s “Sanghika” promotion.
Sanghika is a dedication ceremony in which the Temple property is quit claimed to the monks as a whole. The dedication ceremony was approaching soon, at the time.
The second group was pointing out the Sanghika dedication’s illegality and dangers in US.
Did the postings reveal the enormous greed and arrogance of people in positions of trust? Did they also reveal the grave ignorance of and disdain for the laws of the land?
Are the opposing group’s efforts to be commended?
Did their merit worthy efforts prevent a Sanghika dedication ceremony from taking place?
What was the outcome? Did it comply with US laws?
=========================
kogeorge
Posted on: 2007/7/16 14:13
Webmaster
Joined: 2004/3/20
From: Los Angeles, U.S.
Posts: 496
July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
This was a flyer from Azusa Temple in Burmese. Not readable now.
————————————-
Ko George
Love & Peace!
=======================
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/18 23:58
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
I need to comment on the flyers that were passed around in the past week in Los Angeles regarding Azusa monastery. These smear propaganda were issued by several former board members, it seems they are disgruntled. We need to find out what is their true motive behind these negative campaigns. The flyers were passed out during the fund raising event and at another monastery. These statements issued by them suggested either they are ignorant or think the rest of the Burmese community is naive.
First of all, if they actually want to convey their thanks to the head monk, why send a message? They can get an audience with TanKyi Taung Sayadaw, while he is visiting US in Azusa.
Secondly, as they suggested in their letters, one in which they wrote in a very childish way of “ playwright” conversation among the spiritual deities: “ That if an individual verbalize the ownership of a property, then the ownership will change and will be subject to property tax”. As I had stated above they must be really ignorant. An individual’s verbalization of ownership does not constitute a transfer of title or the deed of property.
If anyone of you had purchased a real estate property in the US, then they would know that after extensive paperwork to verify the property and clear of any lien, at the actual time of closing, signing multiple copies of contract by buyer, seller, their representing lawyers and at least two banks that are issuing mortgage must be present to actually carry out the transaction. And when the mortgage is paid off then the title of property is issued to the individual or the organization. Just because someone verbally claim to own property doesn’t mean they actually own it. Oh, by the way, I have a beautiful bridge for sale! It’s called “ The Golden Gate Bridge” anyone of you guys interested?
As former board members, those individuals were at one time in the past served on board. However, once their term is over or resigned from the board, they have nothing to do with the board anymore or the organization for that matter. They are now ordinary citizens.
There are numerous other former board members who are still supporting the current board and enjoy and practice the Buddhism we are accustom to. If these four individuals do not wish to support, they just should go on their marry way and practice whatever religion they so desire, But should not smear against the current board and brainwash the rest of the Burmese community with their ignorant statements. Instead of just reading their propaganda and confused by their claims, we all should question their motive.
What are they going after? This monastery? Why? Is it because it is mortgage free and got the proper permit to carry out the teaching of Theravada Buddhism? These individuals were not there when this monastery becomes successful. They were only there for the very beginning few months, if not years. Why all of a sudden interested in this? Perhaps on your next letters to public you guys should explain your true motives behind all those smear. Or better yet, people should start calling them and demand an answer from them! Or apology to the community!
As evidence by the success of the last NaiBanZay, there are many supporters of this monastery, and it will continue to grow, thanks to the Sayadaw and the Monks that reside there.
The Burmese community is supporting this monastery because it’s under the leadership of these fine monks. As true Buddhists who believe in “ Triple Gems”, it is very sinful to disrespect them.
Azuza Supporter
============================
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/20 19:32
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
If we don’t know what really going on inside, we cannot judge from outside. Are there any issues between previous board members with our monks? Why 80% of the last board members resigned including the accountant? Why accountant? Is there some mis-handling donations? Spending fund improper way? Is there something else cause last 80% of the board members to resign?
Let’s look at why we resigned? We don’t like our jobs. We don’t like to work with the people that we working with or we don’t like our boss. Too much work and too stressfull or not worth it and etc……… So, we resigned.
My point is we need to know both inside and out to make a judgement. Do we want to find out what really going on inside between the monks, the current board members and all previous board member? Do we want to call all in a meeting and setup a date for this hearing? So, we know what is going on.
As a second thought. Do we really want to know the inside?
True Supporter
63 comments
Myittha
June 29, 2010 at 10:10 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/20 23:54
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Well…like you had said if you don’t know both side of the story why make a judgment or worst, insinuate thru propaganda. Where did you get the idea of mishandling the funds? If there are any inappropriate handling of donated funds, then how come the construction is finished and mortgage is paid off in a short time.
This is strong evidence that the current board and monks are managing the donated funds very well. But this accountant that quit does not even have work ethic, when he retain the confidential financial paperwork’s and not turning over to the organization where they belong. This is highly unethical and truly unprofessional conduct!!!
One can only wonder how he can earn his living with this unprofessional work ethic. He along with the other board members resigned abruptly because they can no longer manipulate the rest of the board and the monks!
The board is made up of volunteers who contribute their time and talent to support the monks who are here to teach Buddhism and spread Buddhism abroad. The word volunteer comes from “ volition”, the will to do by choice. If these volunteers have the same common goal and the will to help the monks and spread Buddhism then there would be no conflicts.
These few members who quit apparently have ulterior motives and can no longer control the board’s decisions and quit abruptly. Now they are bad mouthing the current board from out side. How low can they get?
The true supporters of Azusa Monastery and loyal deciphers of U Thundra would never say or do or act in anyway to harm this monastery. Those few former members who are spreading the false rumors apparently do not understand how their setana will affect their karma in life.
—————————
anatagaba
Posted on: 2007/7/21 12:07
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/19
From:
Posts: 6
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
LINHTOO,
MAY I ASK YOU, ARE YOU ONE OF THE CURRENT AZUSA TEMPLE’S BOARD MEMBER?
————————–
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/21 21:38
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Why?
I am just a devout Buddhist…avidly supporting the monastery.
——————————
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/22 11:33
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Why all donations and spending are confidential financial paper works? This makes me wonder are there some mishandling funds hiding to the public. Do all board members know all the income and spending as details as the accountant?
The total construction on the hill side and some others area are not finished and the constructor has also resigned from the board. Why?
Are resigned board members may have something that they don’t like what is going on inside? We are not seeing mostly all of them coming to the temple like before. If their terms have served completely as normal, there is no reason not to visit the temple. We used to see them supporting and working hard at the temple activities.
Guiding cars to park under the sun and dust when the parking lot was not ready, putting and collecting chairs and tables (This is hard labor. I can’t do it), full moon day chanting, etc ….. Why aren’t they showing up at the temple these days?
I think, we need to have public hearing to clear all rumors going around for Azusa Temple with public, monks, current board members and all previous board members before Tant Kyi Sayardaw left L.A. I said, PUBLIC must be in the hearing. We need to know because we are giving donations.
I heard a lot bad news about the Azusa Temple. I don’t want to post it. I wish all I heard is not true and I like to clear it in the public hearing. So, I know that I’m supporting a good respectful temple and getting a good karma.
Myittha
June 30, 2010 at 3:34 am
kktt
Posted on: 2007/7/22 15:44
Registered Member
Joined: 2005/1/16
From:
Posts: 23
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Please stop talking about Azusa temple.
They are doing well and everything is fine.
No need for public hearing.
Please change the topic!
(I’m not a new board member nor resigned board member.)
Thank you.
——————————–
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/22 19:58
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
If they are doing well, why the current board members issued a news letter to us saying “The previous donor will not donate the cost of parking lot, etc…etc… ”.
They can say “There are some available parking spaces now and anyone can sign up and donate for the available parking space”.
It is the same thing and why they want to hurt someone feeling without saying the original donor name.
Don’t they have metta, ga-yu-nar and ko-gyin-sar thayar. They are working for Buddhist Association and seems like they don’t care and they don’t forgive or understand the other side. If they are writing to me like this I will be so piss.
Do you think the current board members issued this news letter appropriately? I think this is totally wrong.
They must all agree to send this news letter out to us with no ko-gyin-sar thayar. The person who came up with this suggestion/idea should not be served in the current board member.
He or she has no feeling, understanding and metta.
The volunteer who contribute their time and talent should have a good heart, kindness and understanding. This is what the Buddha teaches us to have loving kindness, give metta and say-ta-nar.
Sorry, I need to voice what I think is right. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
————————————
NandaLynn
Posted on: 2007/7/23 1:12
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/6/26
From:
Posts: 3
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Hee Hee…
Am I seeing one good example of the Saying “The Burmese never work well in group” ?
My personal opinion is…. A Public Hearing should be held to hear both sides of the story and Clear the Air.
Be Well,
Nanda
Myittha
June 30, 2010 at 6:52 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/23 10:03
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
There was a great turn out of people at the Azuza Monestary Opening Ceremony. All who attended enjoyed wonderful Burmese food and rejoiced at the job well done and Thank to all those who were involved with bringing the Monestary to where it is today.
It’s good to see this monestary is supported by devout and enthusiast felow Burmese community.
Let’s all look forward and bring positive image and good deeds to this Thundra Yama, Azuza Buddhis Vihara.
—————————————–
kktt
Posted on: 2007/7/23 13:09
Registered Member
Joined: 2005/1/16
From:
Posts: 23
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
It’s true!
I was there and it was a great day for Azusa Temple.
Myittha
June 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/23 16:20
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Subject: A friendly advice
Importance: High
Ko Aye Ngwe,
I just want to give you a good advice to forget about the happenings at the Azusa Temple and all the letters that you were sending within the last few months. It’s getting to be very disturbing. As a fellow MD, your effort are being wasted, for a petty issue that doesn’t make sense at all. Let the people at the Monastery do whatever they see fit.
I am sure that the BOD will be accountable for their actions. We all know that in the past you were also, involved in the Azusa temple’s operations. Which I was surprised to find out many years ago, that a person of your caliber to be involved with the religious affairs. As far as I can remember, I have listened to several derogatory statements made by you over the years.
I only thing that I’m upset about is the you are giving us a bad name, in the eyes of the public, here in the US and in Myanmar.
I think enough is said about the temple. Let bygones be bygones.
You are not getting anything out of it. We are all getting old and you should devote you yourself to the betterment of mankind.
It seems like you have been misguided by someone who has ulterior motives to promote his or her own agenda.
I am now CC’ing this letter to some of the people I know,( some who may be able to influence you), the Myanmar Embassy, Directorate of Religious Affairs in Myanmar, and the US State Department.
Bear in mind that for the past 7 years, during the construction of the temple, you did not utter one word about you preferences. It seems like you have a change of heart only now.
As far as I know, the current BOD is doing their best to fill the void created by abrupt resignation of the three BOD. ( the president, financial person and the one other.)
Please don’t start anything that you may regret later. I can vouch for the majority of the Burmese residing here in Southern California are solidly behind the current BOD.
With Metta,
Zaw Thein
—————————————————-
Dear U Zaw Thein,
Thank you very much for speaking out on this matter. I know you have to risk your fellowship to take this step.
I am a proud Burmese, devoted Buddhist, follower of Azusa Monastery for many years. I’ve known the previous departed Sayadaw since the day he founded the monastery.
All the people I know here and in Burma are very pleased to watch our modest monastery expanding little by little for years and becoming elegant compound today.
We all appreciate every one of previous and current board members, for their time, their effort and all the donations.
It is also sad to see and hear what is happening currently regarding the monastery. Most followers including I, don’t know much or detail about those issues. But whatever it is we don’t want to hear it.
Most people don’t know what actually originated the break up and who caused it.
However, I am sure most of us don’t want to hear derogatory comments about our monastery and honorable monks.
We don’t stop people for leaving the monastery for their own belief, but please don’t attack the monastery after they left.
Whoever said and done such negative acts to our monastery, he or she will become villain in our eyes. No matter who or what the person is.
I have been wondering for months that someone should remind the person/people who is opposing good deeds in Azusa Monastery.
It is awful shame for our community as well.
Again, thank you for stepping up on the firm ground.
We all appreciate your courage.
Oh, and one more thing. If you don’t mind, I would like to correct the last sentence in your mail.
I can vouch for the majority of the Burmese residing here in Southern California are solidly behind the current BOD.
I can vouch for the majority of the Burmese residing here in Southern California are solidly behind the Azusa Monastery.
As we all knew, we have been passed thru all the oppositions from previous neighbors and all the legal problems for this monastery.
We have come a long way, and now everything is getting in place as we anticipated.
We, all the followers won’t let anybody or anything damage to our monastery and its image.
We don’t know who is against Azusa or who is sabotaging Azusa. We don’t need to know.
Now we know, you are the one who dare to stand up and speak.
Congratulations!
Regards,
Kathy Maw
——————————————————–
Dear U Zaw Thein,
I would like to THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of the Burmese Buddhists who sincerely have been supporting not only with money but also with our labor at Azusa Monastery.
We are Buddhists and parents who are teaching / guiding our children (who were born and raised here) about Buddhism and Burmese culture. These happenings at Azusa Monastery, make us so ashame and so discourage to discuss with the children.
We are very very grateful to all the honorable residing monks, all the board members (starting to present), all the supporters for this Monastery. Everyone had done a wonderful job and we all appreciate it very much. If not for their long years of effort and devotions, this monastery can never happen. They are in our prayers and receiving our myitta every day.
After receiving all these letters and gossips, I really, truely hope every one just drop the subjects and try their best only positive and good things for the Monastery, we are so proud of. Be the Burmese Buddhist community filled with Mingalar Kyet Theyay at Azusa Monastery.
Thank you again for speaking what many of us have in our mind.
with lots of thanks and myitta,
Yee Yee Htay
Myittha
June 30, 2010 at 7:07 pm
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/23 19:22
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
I’m so happy to see the ceremony has successfully completed. Tant Kyi Sayardaw gave a wonderful speech. It took so many years to get this far and I believe, everyone wants to see a happy day successful ceremony.
I found out the previous board member accountant was a long timer accountant for the temple and he should not be treated like what LinHtoo said.
He must have some reasons, holding it. Have understanding, communicate well and work out all the problems if any, control both sides anger will get a peaceful, successful result.
We all supporting Azusa Temple and we need to be united. We are minority here and we need to work it out if we have problems. Put away all the angers, hates. Listen, explain well so the other side can understand and adjust or correct where it is needed.
We all came from Burma and no need to separate Chinese, Burmese, Calar, Mon or Kayin.
We all pitch in and helping out to get this far and we need to be together, do it correctly, under the laws, under the guide lines and fair to all the supporters and donors with understanding, forgiveness, with metta, saytanar and gayunar.
May everyone found Peace and Happiness
Myittha
June 30, 2010 at 7:19 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/24 6:07
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Thank you for seeing positive side of this monestary.
As for the accountant, there were numerous contacts made by the current board to return the financial doccuments that belong to the organization, to no avail. There is NO EXCUSE WHAT SO EVER, to keep holding on to these doccuments when he is no longer associated with this organization. The current board is nice enough not to pursue in a legal court of law, which could result in jeopardizing his license to conduct business as a certified public accountant.
Regardles of how long he was working for the organization once he resigned he MUST turn over these doccuments to the organization where it belongs.
———————————————————-
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/24 8:44
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
I think the accountant must resign from the board with dawtha. Someone made him really really mad. If we have dawtha inside, we normally, intentionally put things delay. Give the other side hard time. If the other side keeps poking to our dawtha, we will make it worse. This is our human nature.
Instead of keep poking him. Let him cool down and understand the situation on his own. When we have dawtha inside, we can not think, speak or do thing correctly.
Without those financial documents, will the organization run for the worse case up to 3 to 6 months and continue keeping all new income and expense with new accountant.
After 3 to 6 months are up and he still did not turn over, then it becomes his fault and he will get what he deserve.
Give him a chance to cool down and understand the situation. Why the organization keeps asking numerous times for this financial document? This makes us suspicious and keeps poking his dawtha alive? If they can continue function for 3 to 6 months without it, why worry, wait and see what he deserves.
———————————————————–
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/7/24 9:23
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
I agree with you. That is why we need to learn to keep personal and professional issues separate. If we mixed these issues then we will make bad decisions that affect our lives.
Let’s all hope for the best to resolve this situation soon and move forward and be united in supporting the monestary.
Thank You.
———————————————————-
Look4Truth
Posted on: 2007/7/24 16:08
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/23
From: Miami, FL
Posts: 8
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Looks like all of these are getting a little messy now. Why don’t all parties involved cool down and think of something positive like, how to improve the Temple and the relations among Burmese community and not pointing fingers.
The relations among all monks need to be improved also because they are making ven. TantKyi Taung Sayadaw Gyi uncomfortable.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 3:54 am
fremonteer
Posted on: 2007/7/24 16:34
Registered Member
Joined: 2006/12/1
From:
Posts: 18
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
What a shame ! !
I feel really bad everytime I see that kind of arguments in this website. Don’t they have other place to talk about other than in this website ???? What if, C2M website does not exist ’til today ???????
I think C2M is just for infromations whithin Burmese Community. I don’t think no one wants to see all kinds of craps in C2M.
Cheers,
———————————————————
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/25 9:34
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
It is a shame. I feel really bad about this too. If we knew each other, I don’t want to do this on C2M to hurt the temple. I’m no body and I just want to help both for the best.
Azusa Temple is Burmese Community temple. The community should know about our Temple information whether bad news or good news or some people might call it craps.
But the Burmese Community needs to know the information.
If it is the bad news we can help, give suggestion to the people who think what they do is right for the temple may not be right for the public. We can voice our concern, advice and let them know before it is too late. If it is the good news we are happy and we will support more to make it better for our community.
We all came from Burma and should be united and support each other instead of calling it craps.
———————————————————
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/7/30 10:02
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
The sad thing is all long time supporters who were board members before, who helped, maintained, worked hard for the temple to get this far and left from the board right at the last minutes.
Why?
Are they all seeing something is not right inside? What is that thing?
Who is causing it? Should we need to correct it?
I don’t want to know who is really causing this to happen. If one or more persons are causing this to happen, they need to look at themselves and ask these questions.
Am I really helping the temple and the Buddhist community?
Do I really volunteer for the Buddhist temple benefit and for the community or for my own benefit, credits and fame?
Am I a trouble maker inside and causing all the bad news and hurting the temple?
Will I be fair and understand to all supporters and donors?
Can I accept the original temple guide lines and keep it the way it has been progressing this far?
Will I get along with all new members and understand the right way to help and support the temple?
Are we running the organization correctly and fairly to our community?
Will I be working hard like previous members to support, maintain the temple and keep everything right under the original guide lines and under the law?
Now, the community knows more about the temple inside issues and we all become more cautious in the future.
Whoever running the organization will need to be more careful, fair to the community, speak and issue news letters with metta, saythanar and gayunar.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 4:23 am
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/8/3 20:48
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/3
From:
Posts: 506
Azusa Temple
Why does LinHtoo (LH) think the flyers are smear propaganda? Why does he say former directors are disgruntled, naïve or ignorant?
We got the flyers. We like the messages. They don’t smear anybody. No propaganda and no brainwashing.
Would we allow anyone to brainwash us?
Of course not! Not even by LH.
We are not stupid. We know what the messages are saying.
LH hides the messages. He does not want readers to know.
The 1st flyer thanks the monk for admitting that he is not the true Temple’s owner. It also corrects the monk’s error in (his) saying that PBA board owns it. It says PBA board doesn’t own it either.
It correctly and courageously points out that our community owns it and PBA board just manages it.
It’s the simple truth. No brainwash and no smear here.
Why should LH be upset with this simple truth? Saying the truth is an important Buddhist precept.
Is LH one of those “blind” persons who keep on saying that the monk owns it? Does he have proofs that the monk owns it or should own it?
The other flyer is on the Nats’(Angels’) Discussion. On this issue, we got 2 flyers. One is distributed by a monks group calling for a Sanghika (Monks-owned) dedication ceremony (using a Azusa Nat as a spokesman). The other is a rebuttal by several Nats.
We find the rebuttal to be very enlightening. Why should LH only call this rebuttal childish & not the other one? (Both are Nats speaking!)
This rebuttal contains many valid objections to a Sanghika dedication of the Dhamma Hall.
———————————————————-
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/3 21:55
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Zaw Thein
Your letter contains wild accusations with no substance. Not a word of the issues that U Aye Ngwe (UAN) raised. You cover them up.
Why can’t you speak about issues and say which ones you dislike and why? Bring them out for readers to judge for themselves.
Please read his booklet & letters carefully. He states in his affidavit as a responsible person. He lets our community know the simple truth. Being Temple’s co-founders and fundraisers, they have a responsibility to donors and community when the temple is endangered. Don’t cover up or belittle the danger.
An irresponsible current PBA board member alleges that departed Ven. U Thondra had designated the Temple as “Than Geeka” (Monks-owned) or “Sanghika”. This board member alleges that the monk had accepted it because it was a Than Geeka temple. The monk also alleges that UAN had handed over the Temple to the monk.
U Aye Ngwe states that these are all untrue.
In noble eightfold paths, Lord Buddha taught us to tell the truth. What’s wrong with saying the truth?
Why should his saying this truth give our community a bad name?
Why are you afraid of the truth? In America, our community has every right to speak out for the Temple at any time.
These have legal consequences. It’s not a petty matter. If the Temple was given away, the givers & the accepting monk would all have committed crimes.
In US, you cannot give away a public property to a private person (including a monk). It has jail terms for all.
Search “Sanghika Case Law” under google or yahoo. You will find many cases where monks fight each other right up to the Supreme Court.
“Sanghika” or “Than Geeka” ceremony is not a petty matter. A Sanghika ceremony can decide temple’s ownership or stewardship. However, it would also breach U S laws as a misuse of public funds.
———————————————————
Thissa
Posted on: 2007/8/4 10:21
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/4
From:
Posts: 13
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
We agree with Dmoran’s questions. Why judge from outside? We need to know more.
Why so many board members resigning? We hear only from one side.
LinHtoo says current board and monks are managing donated funds very well. The construction is finished and loans paid off. But LinHtoo has given this credit to the current board.
What a brazen lie!
Past PBA flyers & PBA bulletin say these loans were paid off well before 2006 by the outgoing board. Most have resigned already.
The current board is only about 9 months old.
Even Mt Tantkyi Sayadaw gives this credit to the outgoing board members.
LinHtoo says construction is finished & loans paid off in a short time.
Again, this is a lie.
No wonder people resigned. It took several years to build and to pay off loans.
Does he know what he is talking about?
We see PBA flyers constantly asking for Parking Lot donations when we see that it’s already done.
We see highly “inflated” & “emergency” donation needs sent out by PBA.
Where is the credibility?
We want to know the truth. All donors need to know the truth.
Monks’ sermons always say to speak the truth as in “thissa & thamadi”. Something terrible had happened then.
We are donors. We need to know and we have a right to know.
———————————————————
llmaung
Posted on: 2007/8/4 12:24
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/4
From: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 1
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Hmmm!!!! LinHtoo is very upset about the so called smear propaganda.
What the other party is saying is very simple. There is a danger of losing the Temple to the IRS when there is a change of ownership from a public one to a private one owned by the monks.
The IRS will back tax for many years since it would become a private ownership by monks.
Especially, thanks to the other party, we know that it is illegal to do such a property conversion in U S.
It’s pure misuse of public funds. It’s criminal and may put somebody in jail including whoever to cover it up.
Maybe, that is the reason why LinHtoo is very upset & wants to cover it up. We don’t want his lies.
When Anatagaba ask him whether he is a current board member, he gives an evasive answer. We don’t like evasive answers. He doesn’t answer the question.
He can be a devout Buddhist and an avid Temple supporter. So can we be.
But he does not deny the question that he can be a current board member. If he is one, how can he say that he is unbiased?
The flyers just warn the PBA Board not to do a Sanghika dedication. Doing it is a crime in U S. The flyers say PBA Board has no authority to do this.
Board of Directors doesn’t own the Temple. PBA Board is just a manager or trustee for this Community.
We don’t see any smear or propaganda.
US laws say any Board of Directors (for non-profit organization) must serve the public interest.
Hey guys, when you dealing with IRS, think you are dealing with Fire. My brotherly advice is “don’t mess with them” and “don’t mislead to the public”.
You’ll be regret big time.
Then it will be too late.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 10:19 pm
anatagaba
Posted on: 2007/8/5 15:18
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/19
From:
Posts: 6
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
At the Dhamma Hall Opening Ceremony, most outgoing directors are not to be seen anywhere. Everybody is asking? How come? Something is dreadfully wrong. All of them have served many years and are major players in constructing the temple and buying the adjacent property. The Sayadaw had high praise for them.
About a “Mission Accomplished”, I do not see an “inclusive” group of most past directors and especially the recent outgoing directors in the Dhamma Hall ceremony. I must say that the mission has failed miserably.
I heard that the outgoing accountant has already sent the Board 8 years of books.
In contrast, why hasn’t PBA issued a simple Nibban Zay’s (Food Fair) Income & Expenses statement? That’s nearly a month ago. There are many rumors flying around. What happened???.
———————————————————–
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/8/5 16:52
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/3
From:
Posts: 506
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
In America, Lin Htoo can state his views. Others have constitutional rights to state theirs also. It’s not a smear just because they differ from his and he doesn’t like them. Let our community decide who is telling the truth?
LinHtoo refuses to discuss the points raised in the flyers & to say where he disagrees and why.
He says that mere “verbalization” will not change property ownership. He is referring to the Dhamma Hall’s Sanghika (monks-ownership)dedication ceremony. He means to say that it’s nothing at all. No harm, just accept this dedication???
LinHtoo is TOTALLY WRONG!!!
Pretend that it’s “mere verbalization” & is really nothing as he says. If Sanghika dedication is nothing at all, then why do we have to do it?
What’s the point?
Why go to such trouble to invite 3 old & frail foreign high ranking monks, as mentioned in PBA flyers?
Why spend first class round trip fares around $ 3800 each and why borrow money for their sponsorships…ALL FOR NOTHING???
Are you kidding???
Actually, this “Sanghika” (monks-ownership) dedication ceremony is VERY VERY IMPORTANT. It’s a CRUCIAL ownership change from a public to a private property to be owned by monks.
In accepted global legal usage, Sanghika ceremony is DECISIVE in judging temple property cases.
What LinHtoo says is totally false and MISLEADING.
Thanks to FSOFPBA, I saw many Sanghika cases on the internet. In Buddhist Laws, monks can claim ownership of property, once there is this dedication ceremony.
It’s equivalent to a “QUITCLAIM” of property rights in U S Real Estate.
As for LinHtoo & Zaw Thein, I must say their little knowledge is a very DANGEROUS thing for our community.
They delude themselves and mislead others and open our Temple to unnecessary risks. If they are current directors, I don’t have a high opinion of them. They don’t do their homework.
Are they really serving our community or other interests? I really wonder with a heavy heart!!!
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 10:28 pm
YoYoLay
Posted on: 2007/8/6 7:25
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/5
From: Kyaukse
Posts: 5
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Why does kktt want to stop talking about Azusa temple when there is talk about a Public hearing?
He says that they (current board members) are doing well and that everything is fine. Why should there be no need for a public hearing and to please change the topic?
He may not be a new board member or one who resigned. That means he may be a current member but a left over from the old board members. If so, he is biased.
Why should he be afraid of the Community? Why prevent the community from hearing from both sides?
He has let LinHtoo have his full say without any comments. Now that he sees the exposure coming, he wants to cover it up.
That’s not being responsible or fair to the Community. Is he really serving the community or working against the community’s interests? Probably, he knows why many old members have resigned.
Probably, he also knows about PBA flyers’ inflated donation needs and untruths and unfair treatment on a major donor. Like NandaLynn, we want to hear both sides.
If he does nothing wrong, why fear the community?
LinHtoo keeps bragging about a solid community behind the current board. So do Zaw Thein and Kathy Maw. Why then, does kktt have to fear?
If this is true, it is the other people like Dr. Aye Ngwe, the accountant, and past directors who have to fear the community.
Let us have a Public hearing of past and current directors. Let’s see the current and past board & EC meeting minutes covering recent years.
I know one thing. If the accountant from the company I invested in suddenly resigns without giving any reasons, I will sell all my stocks from that company.
By the way since Zaw Thein CC’s his smears of Dr. Aye Ngwe to the Myanmar Embassy, Directorate of Religious Affairs in Myanmar, and the US State Department, I just think it will be fair for these departments to know both sides of the stories. I will send copies of all the rebuttals for them to review once all the replies are in.
One more thing. Only when we have the public hearing we can meet each other and know who each one of us is. Are you afraid?
———————————————————-
kktt
Posted on: 2007/8/6 20:05
Registered Member
Joined: 2005/1/16
From:
Posts: 23
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
(He withdrew his posting)
——————————————————–
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 10:55 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/8/7 9:01
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
After reading all of your comments which came from the same angle, I still have one simple question: What is your real motive behind these letters?
If you really want to support then get behind and make this a success, not from opposite bickering and slandering! And prevent others from supporting the monastery.
It doesn’t seem like any of you who commented, heard the sermon given by Ven Mount Tant Kyi Taung Sayadaw on the ceremony day.
Nor, have read, at the beginning of this subject link, the PBA Statement issued on July 8th, 3rd statement, you will be clear as to what “ Than Gi Ka” means.
No One claimed the ownership!!!
Donating public is the true owner. The board is managing the organization on behalf of the public. And the venerable monks residing here are doing their job, teaching Buddhism to the community.
Everyone who was responsible for making this happens, PAST and present board members were thanked! A few by their names by Sayadaw although they were not there, when they were duly invited (see the first page invitation, the last paragraph). If they chose not to attend, that’s their business. We can’t drag them out of their houses or explain their reasons. You will have to address that concern to them.
The public is supporting this monastery which they are very proud of for achieving their goal and its accomplishment. The evidence of overwhelming support can’t be denied if you look at the success of Nibbanzay and the turn out at the opening ceremony.
If any donor or a supporter is concern about his or her donation they can simply pick up the phone and call directly to the monastery or speak to one of the current board members, who will be glad to explain and speak the truth about this organization. After all they are legally elected, official representatives of this organization, registered with Secretary of State of California as a non-profit Religious Organization.
Enough time and energy had already spent on bickering. Can we now move forward and practice Buddhism as lord Buddha had taught us?
To live ones life with Ah-Lawba, Ah-Dawtha, and Ah-Mawha.
I am!!!
P.S. I am not a current Board member nor have ever served in the past.
———————————————————-
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/8/7 18:51
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/3
From:
Posts: 506
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
LinHtoo & Zaw Thein say “verbalization” of Sanghika building donation does not transfer property rights & U Aye Ngwe’s issue is just being petty. Both minimize Dhamma Hall’s Sanghika dedication ceremony as NOTHING OR HARMLESS.
LinHtoo’s 8/7/07 posting refers to PBA’s 7/08/07 statement that says “Sanghika” is just “relating to monks” and “monks cannot claim ownership.”
Who are they kidding???
Up to now, they insist on saying a Sanghika dedication is quite okay. How blind & misleading can they be!
WE REPEAT: Sanghika dedication is NOT OKAY in U S for a nonprofit religious corporation!!!
It transfers PUBLIC property to monks who are NON PUBLIC.
It’s a “QUITCLAIM” CEREMONY.
It involves jail terms for BOTH the giving & receiving parties.
Thanks to timely warnings by Dr Aye Ngwe & past directors, this Sanghika ceremony has not come to pass.
I call on LinHtoo to check out Sanghika cases on http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_laws. Also, check Sanghika cases in yahoo or google.
Please don’t confuse yourself and other people!
H N T Thero and another v Weerapura Court of Appeal CA # 560/83 May 1991
… a dedication ceremony … was held on D Poya day in Jan 1966, the property becomes Sanghika.
A CLAIM … CANNOT PREVAIL ONCE THE PROPERTY BECOMES SANGHIKA…
—————
O D Thero v R Peiris & others Supreme Court Appeal # 41/1999 April 2003
The District Judge DISMISSED the action on the ground that the land in suit was not sangika property i.e. gifted after a ceremony according to Vinaya.
————-
Thabrew v Rev K Mangala 7 others Court of Appeal CA 557/84 June, 2000
…ORDINANCE APPLIES … ONLY to Sangika property which has been DEDICATED to the priesthood as a whole with all the CEREMONIES …necessary to effect dedication.
————–
C Thero v K S Thero Supreme Court SC 69/84 CA 7/77/F March 1986
Once a temple is made Sanghika … it belongs to the entire…priesthood and any priest…
—————
Sanghika ceremony is IMPORTANT like a QUITCLAIM of property ownership.
BOARD DIRECTORS & OUR COMMUNITY WILL DEFINITELY LOSE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE & OWNERSHIP RIGHTS.
IT BREAKS U S & California laws.
LinHtoo’s saying that the monks won’t claim the ownership is all wrong. If Sanghika ceremony is nothing, why do it?
Our profound thanks go to Dr Aye Ngwe and past directors for safeguarding Community property & their timely warnings.
———————————————————-
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:23 pm
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/8/7 20:30
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Lin Htoo. Why all good board members who supported and worked hard for the temple left from the board? I think, we need to have some changes from inside. If we don’t, we will keep loosing good board members who will support and work hard for the temple will leave one after another in the future when they found out the handling inside are not the proper way under the original guide lines and the law.
The person who causing this, needs to step aside or someone needs to step up or leave from the board for not to happen the same things again. I think, the real BAD manipulator is still inside and causing these problems. This may be why all the good board members left from the board and not even want to visit the temple.
If we did not fix what causing it, we will still see more good supporters will be going away from the Azusa Temple and bad news will keep coming out. How does someone become a board member? Did he or she ask or apply for it? Or Does someone from inside bring them in? Some of these need to be changed too.
Nibbanzay: I don’t think we went there thinking to support the temple. We went there for all the good Burmese foods that we are missing and to see all the friends, have fun, listen the music and relax for the temple to get benefit.
Now we are seeing all others temples are doing Nibbanzay to get their benefits too. If we sell junk foods, no singer, no music and no prizes, will we still get all supporters coming out and support the temple. This is like running business to generate more income.
I’m not trying to prevent others from supporting the temple. But, I like to know what I am supporting. I also want the community to know and understand what they are supporting too.
For example – Give donation to full Thila and Thamardi person will get you to the Nibban, if you wish for it. It is hard to fine one, but we are hoping who we have are good enough for us to have some good karma.
So, we need to know what we are supporting and giving donations.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/8/8 12:45
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
555 that is a very good question. As I had mentioned before, see below:
“The board is made up of volunteers who contribute their time and talent to support the monks who are here to teach Buddhism and spread Buddhism abroad. The word volunteer comes from “volition”, the will to do by choice. If these volunteers have the same common goal and the will to help the monks and spread Buddhism then there would be no conflicts.”
First and foremost you have to respect and show respect to the venerable monks that are residing there.
Don’t forget, it is because of these venerable monks people are coming to the temple and donating their time and money for the past (nearly) two decades. NOT because of the board members that are there. Although the Board members past and present did tremendous job building it up to where we are today.
Secondly, come to the monastery, volunteer yourself whether you are a carpenter, constructor or architect. Or even help with putting up the tent or attend the parking lot, anything you can think of to help out.
Thirdly, you have to have common interest in helping out this temple. After all, this is a Theravada Buddhist Vihara, which the supporting Burmese community practices. This is what this monastery is all about. To carry on the teaching of Theravada Buddhism, to maintain, to grow its practitioners, and to progress. ( Thar-tha nar ti tant, pyant pwar, and toe tat)
And that someone who actually practice true Buddhism.
I don’t think one individual control the board; it has always been unanimous decision by majority.
Keeping these goals in mind, we all can strive to better serve the Burmese community to come to the monastery to learn and practice Buddhism.
This is NOT a place to come and play POLITICS, or bring about PERSONAL AGENDA, or to ATTACK others that are there to help the monastery. If you don’t agree with the common goals of this temple then you will be wasting your time and energy.
You may agree to disagree on certain ways of reaching the goal but if everyone that are involve focus on the common goal, then there will not be any conflict of interest.
We all have enough stress and troubles in our daily live, we don’t need to bring them to the place of worship.
We all go to the monastery to learn the teaching of Buddha, to socialize with our countrymen, enjoy the food and ultimately to practice and live the way of the teaching of Buddhism. Do not loose sight of that!
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Look4Truth
Posted on: 2007/8/8 14:41
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/23
From: Miami, FL
Posts: 8
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Dear Yoyolay,
I have read through most of the articles on this matter. I feel that it is all right to discuss and express one’s opinions. It is healthy to get them off your chests. Let the matter remain in the community and not to drag government agencies into it. It can get really hairy and will not benefit anyone here including the monks.
Zaw Thein started out sending copies of his letter discrediting Dr. Aye Ngwe to various departments of both US and Burmese governments.
I just don’t know why.
Maybe he thinks he is protecting the monks and the temple. In fact he just opened up a bag of worms. It may end up having exactly opposite effects of what he intended for. It may have hurt the monks and temple more than it helps.
Everyone agrees Mount Tant Kyi Sayadaw Gyi is the ultimate Sayadaw for Azusa temple. He is the only one who can solve its problems and keep the temple running smoothly.
Don’t forget that his residence is in Burma and has to apply for the visa each time he wants to come here. By airing out the dirty laundry to the agencies, it may place Sayadaw for unwanted scrutiny by US Embassy and Burmese government.
My suggestion and request is for you not to send copies of all the articles to the departments that you mentioned. Please consider this whole thing as arguments between siblings. It eventually will boil over. All parties can then join hands in working together towards the benefit of the temple and to make the temple proud again like it once was.
With Metta
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Thissa
Posted on: 2007/8/8 15:17
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/4
From:
Posts: 13
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
LinHtoo says others are just “bickering” and “slandering”. Actually, he is the one slandering other people.
Example: He calls the outgoing accountant and past directors “MANIPULATORS”.
However, Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw had praised & thanked these good people by name. They each gave 7 or more years of service.
Surprise!!!
It seems anything which he disagrees with, are just “bickering and slandering”. He cannot give any reasons for his accusations.
According to him, he is MR RIGHT and everybody has to SHUT UP. He is not receptive to other people’s views.
Example: He has already pre-judged Dr Aye Ngwe & past directors as IGNORANT.
Dr Aye Ngwe & past directors are warning about Sanghika dedication ceremony’s grave dangers.
Maybe he thinks that he is the ENLIGHTENED ONE! Maybe he OWNS the Temple himself.
He doesn’t realize that, ALWAYS, all community members have a right to speak up on a COMMUNITY-OWNED Temple’s issues.
Very Strange!!!
Only now, when YoYoLay talks about a “public hearing” or a “CC’ing to U S State Department,” does he come down from his pedestal a little bit.
He now grudgingly admits that the “donating PUBLIC” is the TRUE OWNER.
Why didn’t he admit this before?
Why did he keep silent on this important point? Why relent only now?
He & Zaw Thein had just wanted to let the monks and current directors do whatever they want, even if they might go wrong & GRIEVOUSLY HARM our Temple & community.
In U S, we have to observe U S laws. Otherwise, we will end up with huge back taxes (over $ 600,000) resulting in losing our valuable Temple.
Not only that, the monks’ will also lose their place to live, their health insurance, and their malpractice insurance.
LinHtoo thinks everybody should get behind him or some monks. Otherwise, they may be charged with “treason” or “opposition” or “slander”.
Is he in DEMOCRATIC America, enjoying its blessings or in some dictatorship country?
He sounds like a dictator telling people to line up behind somebody or else.
Democratic countries ENCOURAGE differing opinions and a LIVELY OPPOSITION to check extremes like rampant corruption, misuse of power, governmental mistakes or just to seek better solutions.
Lord Buddha told the “Kalamas” not to accept all teachings blindly and even to question Buddha’s teachings. He DID NOT demand BLIND obedience, which is what LinHtoo is doing now.
LinHtoo needs to tone down on his “Morha, Lorba, & Dawtha” a bit before lording over other people who are safeguarding community & temple’s interests.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:43 pm
ThaMbayang
Posted on: 2007/8/8 20:40
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/5/22
From:
Posts: 12
Re: July 22, 2007 – Azusa Temple
Wait a minute, wait a minute,
What’s going on with the “AZUSA MONASTRY”?
Are old Burmese guys fighting each other for their personal causes rather than the common cause of MONASTRY and community?
I’m not old enough to discuss these things among these fighting oldies. But as a Buddhist Burmese, I believe I have the right to ask and to say what I see. Anybody against this right is against the United State’s first amendment, I swear.
I wanna ask very simple questions, and the questions are:
(1) To which direction of Buddhism AZUSA MONASTERY was established to go since day one?, “Therawara” i.e. “HTAYRA BUDDHISM” or “MAHAYANA”? and who’s gonna declare which way ASUZA MONASTERY is going?
(2) Why were the outgoing board members so sensitive and so serious about “THANGIKA” things?
(3) Who or what kind of people did disturbances to TantkyiTaung Sayardaw’s coming to US this time, and why did those people do that? Why and why?
Ordinary Burmese people has the right to know these questions. Any downplay of these questions will be nothing but “Dishonesty”.
So please answer whoever knew it, please.
———————————————————
fremonteer
Posted on: 2007/8/8 21:48
Registered Member
Joined: 2006/12/1
From:
Posts: 18
Re: What the world need now is “LOVE” and “PEACE”
WAHT IS GOING ON WITH YOU PEOPLE.
I KNOW YOU PEOPLE ARE OLD ENOUGH TO THINK.
BESIDES, YOU ARE PEOPLE BUDDHISTS.
SOMETIMES, I WONNDER YOU PEOPLE ARE REAL BUDDHISTS OR NOT.
WHEN YOU CALL YOURSELF BUDDHIST, AND DONT PRACTICE THE DHARMA, YOU ARE HYPOCRITES.
IF YOU PEOPLE ARE REAL BUDDHISTS, WHERE ARE LOVING KINDNESS AND COMPASSION ?????
I DONT KNOW WAHT IS GOING ON BETWEEN YOU PEOPLE, BUT ALL I KNOW IS YOU PEOPLE SHOULD HELP EACH OTHER AND LOVE EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF BLAMEING AND POINTING FINGERS ON EACH OTHER.
THINK WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE DOING TO YOUR KARMA.
YOU ARE CAUSING SUFERING TO YOURSELF AND OTHER THROUGH YOUR GREED, SELF-CENTEREDNESS.
WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS REALLY SHAMEFUL……….
THEREFORE, WHY DONT YOU PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHER AND HELP EACH OTHER FOR OUR BURMESE COMMUNIY.
May you all love each other and support each other…..
CHEERS.
p.s: Ko George, i am sorry if i said something wrong. i am really sick and tired of this kind of case in C2M. i believe C2M is for fun, information and knowledge for burmese community. Not for fighting each other.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:47 pm
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/8/9 9:20
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: What the world need now is “LOVE” and “PEACE”
THANGIKA issue is in the past and the temple never got converted it to THANGIKA. No need to bring this up any more. No more arguments on this issue. The only time we need to bring this up is to learn that is not fit to use it in the US because of the US Government law.
We need to go forward together how to keep it running under the guide lines and the law and how to explain to all the supporters to understand why we have previous members keep going away after a long term or a few years supporting and working hard for the temple and left. And never comes back again. Why?
Who caused it and what caused it? We need to fix or correct these first. So, we will not hear any more of the bad news coming out from the temple inside issues and their handling things (I don’t want to bring up all the bad things that I heard).
The organization needs to be more careful mailing out the news letters to supporters not hurting anyone feeling. No side flyers in anywhere without all the board members approved. If you don’t start the fire, no one is going to shoot you back.
I hope the person who caused all these issues came and read our posted messages and understood his caused of all these mess. I think THANGIKA was the main issue, but there may be more others inside issues that the other party is going after to correct it for all the supporters.
Hopefully, the person who caused all these mess understood, learned the mistakes and changed in the future to be a good loving kindness person with AH-LAWBA, ah-dawtha, and ah-mawha.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:52 pm
kyawhtin1
Posted on: 2007/8/9 15:37
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/3
From:
Posts: 506
Re: Azusa Temple
LinHtoo has slandered past directors unfairly. In his 8/8/07 recent reply to Dmoran555, he writes …
“I don’t think one individual control the board; it has always been unanimous decision by majority.”…
COMPARE this with what he has been slandering others in his EARLIER C2M 7/20/07 posting.
In it, he says the accountant and other board members were MANIPULATING the board and monks. He says they quit because they have ulterior motives and can no longer control the board’s decisions. He has very bad remarks on the accountant also, as unprofessional & no work ethic, etc.
Our QUESTION to LinHtoo is:
“WHICH of your 2 versions is TRUE?”
We find that you are INCREDIBLE. You have changed your story in a matter of 2 weeks, and so GLARINGLY in an open PUBLIC FORUM.
At least, you should respect your C2M readers!!!
If the accountant & past directors are really MANIPULATORS, why should LinHtoo LAMENT their so called “ABRUPT” decision to quit the board?
Isn’t it better for LinHtoo & party that these so called manipulators leave as soon as possible?
Probably, in his heart, he knows that they really shoulder the bulk of the Temple’s work and he wants them to continue these works. He cannot find some good people like them and is in trouble.
Otherwise, why find fault with people leaving? He even explains that people just volunteer “on their own volition” in the temple or they will be wasting their time & energy.
It seems LinHtoo is the one “bad mouthing” these other directors.
He forgets to treat volunteers with love, compassion & the dignity that they deserve for their sacrifices. No wonder they left. Lord Buddha said those who say positive things about others are noble & those who say negative things are ignoble.
By the way, it makes me wonder how come Mt Tantkyi Sayadaw is praising the accountant and the past directors at the water pouring ceremony. The Sayadaw even asks the audience to ALWAYS remember them with GRATITUDE.
LinHtoo seems to be very ungrateful with his sour grapes.
It’s very obvious.
If it is MANIPULATION and our community has this beautiful Dhamma Hall, parking lot, & a big adjacent property with huge loans all paid off; we are all for this so called MANIPULATION by these “Manipulators”.
Moreover, LinHtoo accuses more past directors of bad mouthing or attacking the current board. He doesn’t say which specific item they so called “bad mouthed”.
In fact, these directors just state the truth every time. It’s about the religious functions handover and about Sanghika property ownership transfer’s dangers. This transfer is illegal and would cause the IRS to takeover the temple for back taxes.
To the community that’s serious indeed. For us, it’s not bad mouthing at all. It’s good solid advice.
Myittha
July 1, 2010 at 11:59 pm
ThaMbayang
Posted on: 2007/8/10 7:35
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/5/22
From:
Posts: 12
Re: Azusa Temple
All Burmese Gentlemen,
Please stop fightings. Buddhism has nothing to do with personal fights. I believe those kinds of personal fightings are nothing but undesirable interruptions to the community’s common cause and I’ll say that’s against Buddhism. Everybody’s getting older and older. We don’t have too much time left to love each other and to write the roadmap for our younger generations.
You say you are a Buddhist and you practice Buddhism. If you guys are fighting each other with angers (“DAWTHA”) in your heart, I’m afraid you guys will lose the benifit from what you did alot of good things in the past.
That’s pretty simple. How do you do MEDITATION with the angers in your heart? You’ll never get it.
We the ordinary Buddhist Burmese people appreciate both previous and current board members of AZUSA MONASTERY for what you guys did and doing.
So, I think it’s time to stop fights. Please gentlemen, please.
Enough is enough.
With “MITTA”
———————————————————-
LinHtoo
Posted on: 2007/8/10 9:55
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/18
From:
Posts: 10
Re: What the world need now is “LOVE” and “PEACE”
Well, if you are a true supporter and genuine practitioner of Buddhism, you would want to come to the monastery to volunteer and get to know the people that are helping out.
Then you will see how everything works and how wonderful time people have. You can learn more about Buddhism from classes that are offering every Friday evenings, more classes are schedule for future. Everyone is welcome.
Please contact the Azusa Monastery for more detail class schedule and for any inquiry. And also encourage to attend the sermons given by various Sayadaw that frequent Azusa monastery to preach.
We only want what is good for the monastery, and we will do everything we can to make it a strong and welcoming place to practice Buddhism.
As for one of your question regarding what kind of Buddhism this is going to. We all came from Burma, a Southeast Asia country, where we grew up practicing Theravada Buddhism. Ranging from Burma, Thailand, Laos, to Sri Lanka.
Ever since Shin AraHan brought Buddhism to Pagan and convert the whole country to Buddhism. The venerable Mount TantKyi Taung Sayadaw is a Theravada Buddhist monk, so are all the monks that came from Burma and residing at Azusa Temple and all over the United States. So was the founder of Azusa Temple, venerable Sayadaw U Thundra. So in my opinion this monastery is in everyway a Theravada Buddhist Temple.
It is just a waste of time and energy to argue over who said what to whom. Let us all get over it and move on!
May you all find peace and happiness in your life.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:05 am
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/8/10 10:14
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: Azusa Temple
Let say all the fighting and argument are stop. How do we know the temple inside problems will not cause to all good supporters and members to keep going away little by little from supporting. Why the good supporters and good hard working board members are leaving and not even want to visit the temple. Are they loosing TRUST and RESPECT? Does public know everything detail inside issues?
People will come and server for a few years. Found out later some handlings are not under the guide lines and the law and don’t want to take the responsibility for the future audits (or) thinking that the handling things are not right and don’t want to be part of it (or) can not get all the others board members to agree to fix the problem because the other board members don’t want to against someone.
So, he or she leave the board again and never say good things about the organization and never visit the temple again. Are these a good sign to keep forward like this for the temple?
We need to fix or correct the problem. Who caused it and what caused it? If we do not fix or correct the problem, we will still see and hear some bad news keeps coming out from the organization and all the good supporters will be going away from the temple.
The person don’t know much and the blind sided person will fight for the temple and the other side will argue and spread the bad news to the public to be aware and warn the organization to run it under the guide lines and the law to stay on the right track.
I think, WE HAVE TO FIX AND CORRECT THE INSIDE PROBLEM FIRST.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:08 am
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/8/10 10:19
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: What the world need now is “LOVE” and “PEACE”
Let say all the fighting and argument are stop. How do we know the temple inside problems will not cause to all good supporters and members to keep going away little by little from supporting.
Why the good supporters and good hard working board members are leaving and not even want to visit the temple.
Are they loosing TRUST and RESPECT? Does public know everything detail inside issues?
People will come and server for a few years. Found out later some handlings are not under the guide lines and the law and don’t want to take the responsibility for the future audits (or) thinking that the handling things are not right and don’t want to be part of it (or) can not get all the others board members to agree to fix the problem because the other board members don’t want to against someone.
So, he or she leave the board again and never say good things about the organization and never visit the temple again.
Are these a good sign to keep forward like this for the temple?
We need to fix or correct the problem. Who caused it and what caused it?
If we do not fix or correct the problem, we will still see and hear some bad news keeps coming out from the organization and all the good supporters will be going away from the temple.
The person don’t know much and the blind sided person will fight for the temple and the other side will argue and spread the bad news to the public to be aware and warn the organization to run it under the guide lines and the law to stay on the right track.
I think, WE HAVE TO FIX AND CORRECT THE INSIDE PROBLEM FIRST.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:14 am
BurmaBug
Posted on: 2007/8/10 10:32
Registered Member
Joined: 2006/6/18
From:
Posts: 124
Re: Azusa Temple
Dear all Netters:
It has been well said and briefing about the controversial issues here. I think it’s time to look the brighter sides.
Azusa Monstery was founded on the basis of Budhist Mission, to spread Budhism among all walks of life. It still hold the mission.
I hope all religious organizations have its own politics, let say Church politics that you may have experience. So lets keept it this way that this issue is not strange.
We have to realize is that America is founded on the basis of religion, Christianity. And still hold and practise the seperation between Church and State.
Christians don’t really go to Church this days but their donation do, Thithe (1/10 of income donation) so does Taxation as well.
You may say don’t let the left hand knows when the right hand is giving donation.
BUT Still, Please do some accounting clearance in proper and legal ways before Uncle Sam step into the monstery, as far as Azusa is registered Religious Organization like Churches in America do.
Thanks
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:17 am
ThaMbayang
Posted on: 2007/8/10 20:53
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/5/22
From:
Posts: 12
Re: Azusa Temple
All CL2M Browsers
I see that nobody answered my questions. Well, I’ll repeat. These questions are very simple yet as important as our lives.
(1) Which way of BUDDHISM was and is AZUSA MONASTERY going, HTAYRA BUDDHISM or MAHAYANA BUDDHISM (I’ll use the word MONASTERY instead of TEMPLE. BUDDHISM never has the word TEMPLE. The word TEMPLE refers only to other religions). Please somebody answer.
(2) What’s wrong with THANGIKA thing? As far as I have my knowledge, THANGIKA is nothing but the dedication to BUDDHISM (Dedication to THANGA’S who were practicing BUDDHISM to teach people BUDDHISM). That’s the way of BUDDHISTS’ dedication to BUDDHISM and nothing more nothing less. Why were some people so upset with THANGIKA? Is a group of people of any side trying to manipulate BUDDHISM? Is any group of people going to rule the BUDDHIST BURMESE people’s common cause and MONKS by saying the words of board members? Do board members rule BUDDHISM? No way, man. Nobody has the right to rule BUDDHISM. If you think you are above the MONKS, why do you go to the monks and learn BUDDHISM from them? Why you don’t establish your own religion of any kind you like on the other side of BUDDHISM if you think you are above the MONKS. We the ordinary BURMESE better trust in MONKS who don’t have any sexual relationships, any family ties, or any preference to a group of people or any individual, rather than those people fighting for their personal directions and causes to gain the control over MONASTERY at the time AZUSA MONASTERY was established so big by general public’s donations.
(3) What kind of people tried to block the way of TANTKYITAUNG SAYARDAW’s way to U.S this time by sending letters to U.S. embassy in Myanmar and officials here in U.S., and for what reason did they do that? Can somebody name those people? Come on, man. This is internet. You can say what you know.
Wake up BURMESE people. It’s time to call for our common cause. We all BURMESE have the right to know and right to say.
BUDDHISM has nothing to do with politics or 10% things.
Beware. Anybody can thug among us.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:21 am
dmoran555
Posted on: 2007/8/12 9:13
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/17
From:
Posts: 43
Re: Azusa Temple
(1)Azusa Monastery is teaching Htayra Buddhism. But we have Quanyin statue in the monastery for Chinese supporters from the founder of Azusa Temple, venerable Sayadaw U Thundra.
It has been there since the monastery was established. Are you going to start another war again to remove the Quanyin statue from the monastery because it belongs to Mahayana Buddhism?
(2)Thangika thing is not okay to announce and use it in US. The US government law is not allowed. Because of the legal consequences, we don’t want this to happen and loose the monastery for all the back taxes that organization will need to pay.
Search on the internet about Thangika issues and find out what happen to those temples.
(3)It took so many years to get the monastery this far and by announcing it will lose the monastery in the future, is not worth it.
Some people didn’t do their home work and do what they want is not good for the community and for our Buddhist Society.
The internet is good. But, IF it is going to hurt your dad, mom or your monk, should it be posted on the internet. I SAID, “IF”. Don’t get angry.
Here is my questions. Why the good supporters and good hard working board members are leaving and not even want to visit the monastery? Are they loosing TRUST and RESPECT?
Does public know everything detail inside issues? Why are we pushing all the good supporters and members to go away little by little from supporting?
People will come and serve for a few years at the monastery. Found out later some handlings are not under the guide lines and the law and don’t want to take the responsibility for the future audits (or) thinking that the handling things are not right and don’t want to be part of it
(or) cannot get all the others board members to agree to fix the problem because the other board members don’t want to against someone or want to please some one.
So, he or she leave the board again and never say good things about the organization and never visit the monastery again. Are these a good sign to keep forward like this for the monastery?
We need to fix or correct these problems. Who caused it and what caused it? If we do not fix or correct the problem, we will still see and hear some bad news keeps coming out from the organization and all the good supporters will be going away from the monastery.
The person don’t know much and the blind sided person will fight for the monastery and the other side will argue and spread the bad news to the public to be aware and warn the organization to run it under the guide lines and the law to stay on the right track.
I think, WE HAVE TO FIX AND CORRECT THE INSIDE PROBLEMS FIRST.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:48 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 14:56
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
Many readers and interested persons wanted to know the full story from the beginning. Due to these inquiries, we are posting serially, the following OFFICIAL LETTERS already sent at various times to PBA.
Its responses have been either none or slow, or confusing or vague.
Even now, ThaMbayang is trying to confuse “Than Gika” or “Sanghika” issue again. He is trying to say Sanghika is the same as “Buddhism”. Starting from this confused PLATFORM, he launches his wrong LECTURES & ACCUSATIONS and is instigating other people.
The following are: a letter to Devotees and an Affidavit sent on 5/24/07. They stated the simple truth. There were no known PBA responses.
———–
TO ALL DEVOTEES OF AZUSA TEMPLE
I had been a co-founder and a past chairman of Progressive Buddhist Association (PBA). My name had been mentioned in a monk’s public speech. In this speech, it was alleged that “the then PBA board and I had agreed to give away the temple to be owned by the monk”.
To set the record straight, I am stating clearly and in no uncertain terms, that this is completely untrue.
PBA bylaws were well established and clearly defined. They all had stated that the temple was not to be owned by any individual or individuals.
Not then, not now, nor in the future.
Set up long time ago, the rationale behind this had been: a “payar Juang” (temple) owned by many (the community at large), is nobler than one owned by any individual or group of individuals.
I do hope we devotees will all follow our true conscience and practice what Buddha had really taught. Practicing without greed, anger, and hate will help us achieve wisdom.
—————
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned, Eng W. Moy, do solemnly swear:
1. That I had been the chairman of the board of directors of Progressive Buddhist Association when the board accepted Ven Mt. Thant Gyee Toung as chief monk.
2. That the Azusa temple had followed a strictly vegetarian policy.
3. That Ven Mt. Thant Gyee Toung had been selected because he was a vegetarian.
4. That the Azusa temple was owned by Progressive Buddhist Association on behalf of the community.
5. That above Association’s bylaws had provided that no individual or group of individuals owned or should own the temple, be they lay persons or monks.
6. That these facts had been duly presented in no uncertain terms to Ven Mt Thant Gyee Toung at the time.
7. That the said monk agreed to these terms and conditions at the time.
8. That was the reason that the board had accepted the said monk to help with the temple’s religious functions.
Of my own free will, and to present the true and correct facts, I set my signature below:
Eng W Moy MD
Co-founder and Past Chairman
of Progressive Buddhist Assn.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 12:56 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 15:10
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
—————————
May 4, 2007
U Tin Myint
President
Progressive Buddhist Association
1790-1830 Ranch Road
Azusa, CA 91702
Re: Clarifying “Than Geek Kar” Rumors
Dear U Tin Myint, Executive Committee members, & Board Members:
We are the co-founders and past directors of Progressive Buddhist Association.
We have heard RUMORS floating around that the late Ven U Thondra had designated this Temple as “Than Geek Kar” (Monks owned). We have also heard RUMORS that when we handed over this Temple’s religious functions to Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw, he had accepted them only because it was a “Than Geek Kar” Temple.
THE ABOVE RUMORS ARE ALL FALSE and without any basis or merit.
We are the co-founders and the directors who were present at the time of handover. We also are the ones who had PERSONALLY PERFORMED & WITNESSED the handover.
1.We state that the late Ven U Thondra had NOT designated this Temple as “Than Geek Kar” (monks owned) AT ANY TIME.
The Temple HAD ALWAYS BEEN PUBLICLY OWNED from the beginning. Ven U Thondra COULD NOT DESIGNATE the temple as “Than Geek Kar” (monks owned) as he did not own it.
HE DID NOT DESIGNATE IT AS “Than Geek Kar” under any circumstances, either. Nor did he ever intend to. Besides, he did not even take on any role in the executive committee and the Board. His main duty was spiritual teaching to the followers. He did not take any money from the association.
His signature on the property’s QUITCLAIM further proved that he did not own nor did he intend to own the property. If he did not own it, how could he designate anything?
2. As co-founders and directors who were present at the handover, we handed over ONLY the religious functions to Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw. We did not hand over the non religious management functions to him. Also, we DID NOT hand over the possessory (ownership) function to him.
In the handover of religious functions to Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw, we DID NOT hand over the Temple as a “Than Geek Kar” Temple either. Also, Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw DID NOT accept this Temple as a “Than Geek Kar” Temple. For non religious management functions, we continued to manage with our Board of Directors as before.
The possessory (ownership) rights CONTINUED to belong to the Progressive Buddhist Association’s Board of Directors ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY. Also, by United States laws, we COULD NOT hand over the possessory rights.
This was because Progressive Buddhist Association was and still is a PUBLICLY OWNED Charitable Religious Association from the start. You are prohibited from giving away a publicly owned charity AS YOU PLEASE.
Since there was no transfer of possessory (ownership) rights and nor could it happen because of the prohibition, the “Than Geek Kar” (monks’ ownership) transfer issue never arose.
From inception, this Association had been formed as PUBLICLY OWNED with the Secretary of State of California. All governmental permits had been obtained (GRANTED) because of this public ownership. Always, the intention had been and continues to be: to keep it as publicly owned.
We think it is our responsibility to let the board and the executive committee know the true facts, so that whenever a Government investigation occurs in the future, the board and executive committee can show FULL COMPLIANCE.
That is, they have responsibly performed their duties and responsibilities as clearly indicated in the bylaws.
The IRS and the State agencies, all have a copy of our bylaws. We hope that you all will perform your duties honorably and serve the community for which you really represent.
We also hope that as U S citizens and lawful residents, you all will observe and comply fully with the laws of the land in which you live and have SWORN to uphold; and not land yourselves into trouble by breaking the laws of the United States of America.
With Metta
Eng W Moy MD John Ho U Thein Hlaing Oscar Lee
Co-founder & Past Director Past Director Past Director
Past Chairman
of the Board
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:01 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 15:28
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
After the 5/4/07 letters and affidavit had been sent,(See separate postings on C2M), this OFFICIAL LETTER was again sent to PBA as there was no response. It was also distributed to distributed to Dhamma friends at the 7/8/07 PBA Food Fair.
The Official Letter states the truth and a simple request.
——————
July 3, 2007
U Tin Myint
President
Progressive Buddhist Association (PBA)
1790-1830 Ranch Road
Azusa, CA 91702
Re: Correction & Dhamma Hall Libation Ceremony
Dear U Tin Myint, Executive Committee members, & Board Members.
Ven Mt Tant Kyi Sayadaw’s Admission
We are PBA’s co-founders and past directors. From PBA flyers, we have learned that the Ven Sayadaw has admitted already to the U S Consular that he does not own the Temple (see enclosed). We are very happy to learn about his admission. Please convey our heartfelt thanks to the Sayadaw.
In this same admission, he has also mentioned that “PBA Board owns the Temple”. We will like to draw your attention to this important correction:
“PBA BOARD DOES NOT OWN THE TEMPLE. OUR COMMUNITY OWNS IT.
PBA BOARD MANAGES THE TEMPLE ON OUR COMMUNITY’S BEHALF”.
Lose our Temple
As per Sayadaw’s admission, during the coming July 22, 2007 Dhamma Hall Libation Ceremony,
PLEASE DO NOT DECLARE THAT THE DHAMMA HALL BUILDING, DONATED BY MANY, AS “THAN GEEKA” (MONKS-OWNED).
If you do that, we would lose our Temple and all our permits. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would charge over $ 600,000 in taxes & penalties for 20 years back.
PBA would no longer be publicly owned but would become privately owned by monks. IRS would treat this as a “business” and would revoke the tax exemptions for all back years.
Nibban Zay Operating Income Statements
We would like to suggest issuing a 7/8/07 Nibban Zay Food Fair Operating income & expenses statement to all the devotees. It’s also important.
.
With Metta
Eng W Moy MD John Ho U Thein Hlaing Oscar Lee
Co-Founder & Past Director Past Director Past Director
Past Board Chairman
Encls: Consular Interview
Cc: Dhamma friends
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:03 am
YoYoLay
Posted on: 2007/8/12 15:48
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/8/5
From: Kyaukse
Posts: 5
Re: Azusa Temple
Look to me like ThaMbayang is a confused person. He tries to show that he cares about Azusa Temple. He thinks he knows about Buddhism and also the situation in Azusa Temple. The fact is he end up confusing more people who do not know the whole story.
I have only one thing to say. Anyone who practices Buddhism has to adhere to the 5 precepts at a minimum. Of course monks have to more.
If you intentionally tell lies to split up the community, to make people mistrust each other to your own benefits, then it is a lie.
It does not matter who you are – a lay person or a monk – there is a place in HELL reserved for you. If you are higher up who people place trust in you and you tell lie, you will go to the deeper layer in HELL. It is also a lie if you use someone’s name without permission.
I am not accusing anybody. It is just a statement.
Let me know if this statement is wrong.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:12 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 16:08
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
This is another OFFICIAL LETTER sent to PBA. The 7/22/07 water pouring (libation) & dedication ceremony was fast approaching. Because of our 7/3/07 letter (see separate C2M posting) and distribution to Dhamma Friends on 7/8/07 at Food Fair, PBA FINALLY issued a response dated 7/8/07. However, it’s confusing & was MINIMIZING the “Than Gika” meaning to just “relating to monks” and “not claiming ownership”.
However,this Than Gika issue was a SERIOUS matter. It would convert public ownership to non public monks ownership. It would be illegal in U S to give away a public property. It would trigger IRS back taxes for 20 years amounting to $ 600,000 and cause the IRS to take over our Temple. Thus, the following July 16, 07 letter was sent to clarify & REMEDY the situation.
—————-
July 16, 2007
U Tin Myint
President
Progressive Buddhist Association (PBA)
1790-1830 Ranch Road
Azusa, CA 91702
Re: Your 7/8/07 Clarification
Dear U Tin Myint, Executive Committee members, & Board Members.
We welcome your clarifying some community concerns. You had not been as responsive before.
Rumors
You say that you are clarifying rumors. All our letters to you are not rumors. They are factual events or actual concerns, including even an affidavit.
Accepted the Azusa Monastery
You state that in April 88, the Sayadaw had accepted the Azusa Monastery. This statement is false. You are misleading the public into thinking that we had given away the temple’s ownership to him and that he had accepted it.
We handed to him and he accepted only the religious functions. Though it may differ in some ways, it may be similar to a Viharadipathi & a gihisanthaka property situation (Statement B).
Because of serious legal ramifications & huge tax consequences leading to a loss of the temple to IRS, we suggest that you refrain from using this misleading phrase in the future. (More details in Statement A)
Than Gi Ka
Your dictionary translated “Than Gi Ka” as “relating to all monks” and you expanded on this. In Statement B, you can see that this translation is incomplete & thus is in serious error. It is vastly different in the real world.
Than Gi Ka or Sanghika, really means “Owned by Sangha as a whole” or “Owned by all monks”. Thus, your assertions are all wrong or irrelevant and misleading. It’s not just “relating to all monks” at all.
You emphasized on “relationship” and stated that “ownership” is quite different and monks “cannot claim ownership”. Unlike what you have stated, Ownership rights ARE INVOLVED and are very IMPORTANT factors, even if the monks cannot sell it.
Moreover, the PBA board would lose all rights to administer the temple affairs. This is totally against U S laws & PBA bylaws. It amounts to breaking U S laws if we follow & declare a Sanghika donation.
Doing such a donation can lose the Temple to the IRS. Also, Lord Buddha had said not to force (INFLUENCE, in any way) a temple donation if there was any objection. (See details in Statement C).
Water pouring (Libation) ceremony
A Libation ceremony (Your Statement # 4) with a “Than Gi Ka” declaration or other ownership transfers would conflict with U S laws. A ceremony without such ownership transfers would not. Public ownership should remain the same.
Anyway, this Dhamma Hall is an Assembly Hall or Meditation Center or a Worship place (A Payar Juang) and is not a Monks’ living quarters or residence (Phongyi Kyaung). No need to do a “Than Gi Ka” donation declaration on a Place of worship.
Property and Funds Management
Instead of just announcing your good intentions; to maintain public trust, we suggest that you send your periodical management and financial reports regularly to the devotees. Also, per your announcements, to give the monks and temple a good name; trustees also need to see that the Vinaya rules are observed & not broken. Example: Lord Buddha forbade monks from telling fortunes or promoting charms or talismans.
You have also mentioned that Donors have donated buildings and other assets with Buddha, Sasana, and Sangha in mind or have that intention. We do not have any problem with the everyday ordinary usage or just a common salutation or a catch all phrase.
However, we would like to mention that actually, the buildings, improvements, land and other assets have never been donated with the Sangha or individual monks in mind.
Nor have the assets ever been dedicated to the Sangha as a whole or individually. Again, we refer you to the U S laws and our association’s articles and bylaws which prohibit such donations. These donations never took place. (Details in Statement D).
With Metta
Eng W Moy MD John Ho U Thein Hlaing Oscar Lee
Co-Founder & Past Director Past Director Past Director
Past Board Chairman
Cc: Dhamma friends
Contd.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:14 am
Statement A
Accepted the Azusa Monastery
Your Statement #1 has stated that in April 88, the Sayadaw had accepted the Azusa Monastery. This statement is false. You are misleading the public into thinking that we had given away the temple’s ownership to him and that he had accepted it.
You have been using this word on many occasions. Our community members are mostly educated, hardworking, and upright people. They dislike being misled by inaccurate word usage. If you have documentary proofs of such an alleged acceptance of the Temple, you are welcome to furnish it.
Our 5/4/07 letter to you had already mentioned that by U S laws, we could not and did not transfer the temple’s ownership to him. How then could he have accepted the temple’s ownership? We handed to him and he accepted only the religious functions.
We would like to make this clear because we do not want to be accused of breaking U S laws. In this case, it’s giving away public property (in which Uncle Sam also has a share) to a private person. Accepting a public property for private ownership also is a serious breach of U S laws.
Because of these serious legal ramifications as well as huge tax consequences leading to a loss of the temple to the IRS, we suggest that your Board refrain from using this term in the future.
Contd.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:16 am
Statement B
In K J Thero vs P P Thero S C 172/69 – D. C. Ratnapura 7121, decided by 3 judges in 1977.
There is an appointment of a “Viharadipathi” of a temple “…the dayakayas invited D Thero to reside in the said temple and administer to the religious needs of the people and (he) functioned as Viharadipathi…” (page 2/15, 5th paragraph)
(Sanghika property is not just relating to monks). (For this,)The Sangha is entitled to possess (own) the property from a certain time when water is poured into the hands of the donee or his representative. (pages 4/15 & 5/15, 1st 2 lines)
…Accordingly, we find that the expert evidence is to the effect that until a dedication takes place the temple remains gihisanthaka (lay property)… (page 4/15, mid 3rd paragraph)
Once it is sanghika property, the dayakayas have NO right to … administer the affairs of the temple (page 8/15 1st 3 lines)
Source: http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/nlr/common/html/NLR80V273.htm
In Giving (Dana) by Bhikkhu Visuddhacara; Contents # 11
Sanghika Dana is a dana intended for the Sangha, the Order of monks (page 14 last line). It says … what is important is that the donor has intended the offering for the Order as whole. Thus, it is the intention, or the state of mind, that counts.(page 18, 3rd paragraph).
As such those monks who are earnestly trying to keep the vinaya rules get a bad name and get looked down upon through no fault of their own (page 12/19 1st paragraph)
…The Buddha also forbade monks to tell fortunes, sell charms and talismans that are all considered as wrong livelihood (miccha ajava) for monks. In Buddhist countries such as Myanmar and Thailand there is a Sangka council which has government backing and authority to check errant monks… and had them disrobed. (pages 12 & 13/19, 1st 2 paragraphs)
Source: http://www.purifymind.com/Givings.htm
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:22 am
Statement C
Than Gi Ka
Your Statement # 3 has cited an unknown Myanmar – English dictionary as an authoritative source in translating the word “Than Gi Ka”. You have expanded on its translation of “relating to all monks” to mean that monks cannot claim ownership. You have stressed the distinction between ownership, relationship, and guardianship.
You try to imply that Than Gi Ka does not mean ownership at all. Just a relationship & is quite different from a possessory ownership. In that sense, you mean to say everybody should readily accept a Dhamma Hall “Than Gi Ka” donation declaration.
In Statement B, you can see that your above dictionary’s general translation would not be acceptable & in error in the real world. It would be overwhelmed or superseded by a more appropriate term in Monk’s lawful usage.
The real meaning of Than Gi Ka or Sanghika is “Owned by Sangha as a whole” or “Owned by all monks”. Thus, your assumptions and later discussions are all wrong or irrelevant and misleading. It’s not just relating to all monks at all. Unlike what you stated, there is Ownership involved even if they cannot sell it.
Anyway, we would like to reiterate that we have to follow U S laws. We again refer you to our prior 5/4/07 & 7/3/07 letters on this issue. As mentioned, your Board cannot give away a publicly owned California religious corporation’s assets to yourselves or to any or all monks.
You would be breaking U S laws and would be held liable for it. Even malpractice insurance would not cover such an illegal act.
As pointed out to you before, with back taxes for 20 years, we will lose the Temple to the IRS.
Lord Buddha had said not to force (influence) a temple donation if there is any objection by a donor. Since it is illegal by U S laws to give away publicly owned property, this in itself is an objection already to it being declared a Than Gi Ka donation.
Uncle Sam has allowed tax exemptions and deductions of > $ 600,000, and is really a part owner already. He would never consent to such a give away of U S public property or privileges.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:24 am
Statement D
Property and Funds Management
In your Statement # 5, you have mentioned that PBA board would properly manage the property and funds without any misuse or giving away any of its assets to anyone.
Your assertion “without giving away any assets”, also means that you cannot declare a Than Gi Ka donation.
This donation involves a giving away of PBA’s public assets to “all” monks. They are considered non public & separate parties. Whether they can or would dispose of the assets or not; or how they are going to use them does not matter.
Moreover, just announcing your intentions or assertions would not be enough. They do not mean much. To maintain public confidence and trust, we suggest that you send your periodical management and financial reports regularly to the devotees.
Also, per your announcements, to give the monks and temple a good name; trustees also need to see that the Vinaya rules are observed & not broken. Example: Lord Buddha forbade monks from telling fortunes or promoting charms or talismans.
You have also mentioned that Dhamma friends and Donors have donated the buildings and other assets with Buddha, Sasana, and Sangha in mind or have that intention. We do not have any problem with the everyday ordinary usage. Just as a common salutation or catch all phrase.
However, we would like to draw your attention to some actual facts. The buildings, improvements, and land and other assets have never been donated with the Sangha or individual monks in mind.
Nor have the assets ever been dedicated for the Sangha as a whole or individually. Again, we refer you to the U S laws and our association’s articles and bylaws which prohibit such donations. These donations never happened.
Moreover, your Statement # 5 really conflicts with your Statement # 3. Donating with Sangha in mind will create a Than Gi Ka property owned by all monks (Statement 5).
Whereas, in Statement 3, you are minimizing “Than Gi Ka” property by saying that it does not mean an ownership but just a relationship and that they are entirely different.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:28 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 16:50
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
This is another OFFICIAL LETTER issued to PBA. This letter was issued only a few days before the 7/22/07 water pouring dedication ceremony.
It had most of the major objections to a Than Gika or Sanghika (monks ownership) Dhamma Hall dedication Ceremony.
—————
July 18, 2007
U Tin Myint
President, Executive Committee
Board of Directors
Progressive Buddhist Association (PBA)
1790-1830 Ranch Road
Azusa, CA 91702
Re: Dhamma Hall Libation Ceremony
Dear U Tin Myint, Executive Committee members, & Board Members:
Major Objections
We are PBA’s co-founders and past directors. There are some indications that at the coming 7/22/07 Libation ceremony, you might be performing a “Than Geeka” (monks’ owned) building dedication for the Dhamma Hall.
Up to now, your Board has not yet issued a DEFINITIVE declaration on our concerns. We had expressed them in our prior 5/4/07 letter & other letters to you.
We STRONGLY OBJECT to such a ceremony to convert the Dhamma Hall from public ownership to monks’ ownership. Some major objections are listed on Statement I.
Consequences
In spite of our requests, should, somehow, the Dhamma Hall be declared as a “Than Geeka” (monks-owned) donation, you would all be held responsible for any resulting damages to the Temple. Each and every director would be personally held accountable for any back taxes, for losing any of its permits or exemptions, or for losing the Temple to the tax authorities.
You would also be held liable for damages for losing the monks’ medical and malpractice insurances and surgery costs and differentials.
Dereliction & Reckless disregard of duty
Disregarding community’s interests or subjugating community’s interests in favor of other interests will be regarded as a dereliction of duty or a reckless disregard of duty.
With Metta
Eng W Moy MD John Ho U Thein Hlaing Oscar Lee
Co-Founder & Past Director Past Director Past Director
Past Chairman
of the Board
Contd.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:29 am
Statement I
MAJOR OBJECTIONS
to treating the Dhamma Hall as a “Than Geeka” (Monks’ owned) donation
1. It is illegal in United States to give away “public” property to a “private group” of people including monks.
2. Authorities will dissolve Progressive Buddhist Association and convict wrongdoers.
The authorities will prosecute and convict responsible persons (including monks). They will “seize” the Temple’s assets.
3. We will lose the Temple.
IRS will charge the Temple $ 600,000 for 20 years’ back taxes.
4. Donors will also be back taxed for many years.
Donations to private groups are not deductible.
5. Property Tax Rebates of over $ 50,000 will have to be repaid to County.
6. We will lose the valuable Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from City of Azusa.
7. Monks and directors will be audited
8. The Dhamma Hall is a “Payar Juang” & is not a living quarters for monks. No reason for doing a “Than Geeka” dedication
Lord Buddha said not to go against people’s wishes. He also taught that people should not go ahead, if there is any objection to a temple building donation.
9. It will be open to unnecessary foreign governmental influence.
The Burmese Government’s appointed Greater Sangha Council will have much greater supervisory control over our monks.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:36 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 23:17
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
Having no response, the 5/4/07 letter to Devotees, Affidavit, & 5/4/07 OFFICIAL LETTER to PBA were distributed by mail to Dhamma friends on June 1st week.
Enclosed with them, were Edwin Kay’s 5/3/07 OFFICIAL LETTER to PBA which had been also ignored.
The following is a Consent letter for E Kay’s letter. His letter is separately posted on C2M.
—————-
6/3/07
From: Edwin Kay
To: Dr Eng W Moy
Re: Consent to use my May 3, 2007 email letter addressed to Progressive Buddhist Association Board Members
Dr Moy:
In defending our community & donors’ interests, it takes uncommon courage to express hard but honest truths relating to certain Temple events or issues. This is more so when these events had happened some twenty years ago.
At that time, you did play a very crucial role as Board Chairman in re-activating above Association’s Temple. Otherwise, it would have been abandoned and sold. Moreover, you had also played an important role in selecting a Buddhist monk to perform the religious functions.
Recently, for our community and Temple’s well being, you have been valiant in exposing and clarifying untruthful rumors. They would adversely affect the Temple and may completely change its course in the future.
Some community members are fairly recent and are really ignorant of what had happened many years ago. You have really provided us with a shining beacon in times of darkness with your refreshing honesty and forthrightness and above all selflessness and cetana.
In like manner, I have written a 5/3/07 email letter exposing untruths and unethical treatment of a major donor by some people conducting religious work. They all relate to above association’s recent April 18, 07 newsletter to the community.
In it, I have suggested passing a Board resolution. No response for a month now. Moreover, it has not taken any action to adopt or reject our 2/2/07 last meeting minutes, for 3 months now.
In your noble work of safeguarding our community, our Temple, and our Donors’ interests; you have been diligent and selfless in bringing forth the true and hard facts. Lord Buddha taught people to renounce Greed.
I agree with what you have been doing. Should you find my 5/3/07 letter in some way likewise beneficial and enlightening to our community, temple, and donors; I agree to your using it in any manner that you may see fit.
Sincerely,
Edwin Kay
Past Director of
Progressive Buddhist Association
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:43 am
FSOFPBA
Posted on: 2007/8/12 23:37
Registered Member
Joined: 2007/7/21
From:
Posts: 15
Re: Azusa Temple
There was no response to this OFFICIAL LETTER to PBA. It was distributed to Dhamma Friends along with other 5/4/07 OFFICIAL LETTERS to PBA.
————–
May 3, 2007
Harry Chin
Assistant Secretary
Executive Committee
Board Members and Executive Committee Members
Re: April 18, 2007 PBA newsletter on “Car Parking” Donations
Dear Harry, Executive Committee Members & Board Members
I have recently received the above PBA newsletter. In the Burmese section, PBA is requesting urgent parking lot donations. It is natural for a Temple to request for donations. That is what PBA has been doing all the time and will also be doing in the future.
Unique
However, this solicitation letter is unique in that it really paints a very gloomy picture indeed. It mentions about a “very urgent” need for parking lot donations. It also mentions that the $ 8,000 current cash balance is “extremely little”.
It really scares the wits out of everybody. Is the temple going to collapse? Who would like this temple to close down after so much trouble?
It says that moneys donated for other causes such as Kitchen, 108 Buddha statues, 4 noble places, etc., and moneys from loans have been used to complete the Parking lot. It 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. It further lists a host of projects to do such as 108 statues, kitchen, outside kitchen, guests’ patio, and eastern foothill walls without the cost details for each.
The implication is that there is a need to replenish or reinstate the funds raised for the original causes and/or to repay the loans taken out for the parking lot. Also, it implies that the reinstatement of funds is needed to do other projects as well and that there is an urgent need to do these projects.
Confusing
When I reflect carefully on the situation in a cool and calm manner, I am saddened to find that there are many untruths, half truths, omissions, and exaggerations designed to confuse & mislead the community and donors. (See Statements I to IV)
For comments on the Original Donor’s Backing out, see Statement V.
For Proper Treatment, Dwelling on Negatives, and Board members’ Rights & Powers; see Statements VI to VIII.
For Fairness, Good Policy & Uniform Policy, and Shameful; see Statements IX to XI.
For “Taan Geeka” and Behavior Patterns & Consequences; see Statements XII & XIII.
The directors SHOULD PASS a resolution that PBA is not a “Taan Geeka” temple and settle this issue once and for all. The board should apologize to the original donor concerned in a newsletter as soon as possible and allow her rebuttal space in that newsletter.
Conclusion
Lord Buddha had renounced his kingly wealth. Monks had renounced worldly possessions. As Buddhists, why not follow other people’s examples?
Sincerely
Edwin Kay
Encls:
Contd.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:46 am
Statement I
Untruth #1: Moneys from loans have been used to construct the parking lot. These loan moneys would of course need to be repaid. (That was the intended impact on the reader).
This is a complete fabrication and a misrepresentation of fact. East West Bank loans have been repaid by 2/10/04, a long time ago, even before the need to rush the parking lot completion in 2006. Loans have never been specifically taken out for the parking lot construction either. All board members including monks and most laymen knew about it.
In fact, at various board meetings in which the newsletter writer attended, as well as in our 1999 to October 2006 EC report to the community and in charts posted on the bulletin; we have already publicized the fact that there are no more loans to be repaid.
There were no loans taken out to do the parking lot. Naturally, it means that there is no need to repay these non existing “imaginary” loans. Nor is there a need for such “urgency”. Why scare donors and the community? A brazen distortion.
As honorable and responsible directors, you need only to be upfront and honest with your honorable and generous donors. You do not have to impose your will on these understanding people. They have been good to the Temple all along. Why risk your credibility and lose a good relationship for the long term? You need to control and counter check the zealots among your fellow directors and not let them run all over you.
Statement II
Untruth #2: Donation moneys raised for constructing the “Kitchen” (in the Dhamma Hall), have been used instead for constructing the parking lot. These diverted moneys must now be reinstated for Kitchen construction.
Again, this is a complete misrepresentation. Never ever before, has a campaign been even started to raise Kitchen construction donation moneys. At various board meetings attended by the newsletter writer, the Kitchen construction project had always been deferred and the reasons unanimously approved.
One reason: Doing the kitchen would incur obtaining health department permits and fire department permits. These inspections would delay the Building Occupancy permit and thus forfeit our all important Conditional Use Permit. We would not be able to meet the June 30, 2006 deadline. Moreover, for CUP purposes, the kitchen completion had not been a requirement at all.
Another reason: There was no money to do this at the time. There was a board consensus including that of the writer, to start this project later. The board, including the newsletter writer, has approved a go slow and steady approach. Donations have to be accumulated first to do the huge & multitudinous projects step by step. We, as immigrants, start life anew here mostly from scratch and donate our hard earned money through our sweat and tears. They don’t fall in lump sums from heaven in complete readiness for the projects.
Kitchen construction donation moneys did not exist at all at parking construction time. How can one say that “Kitchen” moneys had been diverted for parking lot construction, when there was none at all in the first place?
It’s just another imagination running wild to mislead the community and donors.
Would you as responsible directors help keep those wild imaginations in check for the sake of the community, the donors, and also for yourself?
Contd.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:49 am
Statement III
Untruth #3 Donation moneys raised for the 108 Buddha Statues; have been similarly used for the parking lot construction. These diverted moneys need also be reinstated for the 108 statues.
The 108 statues have all been donated free and clear by former Vice President Dennis Chen’s sister from Burma. They are miniature wooden statues of 4” each. Dennis Chen had transported them from Burma in a container cargo free of charge for the Temple. The Temple footed only $ 90 to clear the cargo.
Though already donated free for the Temple, Dennis had suggested soliciting extra donation funds for the Temple by inviting further donations per statue, over here. This further raised about $ 50,000 for the then construction usage including Dhamma Hall and parking construction.
There had never been any intention at all to have a permanent reserve fund for 108 statues per se (in & for itself). As mentioned above, they are all free and clear. No need to pay off large sums. The main purpose is to generate the extra funds for Temple’s construction usage then. The only expenses that might have to be incurred later would possibly be the wall shelves and some lighting for these miniature statues. These costs would not be significantly large and may only be a couple of thousand.
Thus, there is really no need to reserve back the $ 50,000 or so. That was not the purpose in raising the funds. It was not for other general use in the future. Nor was it for other later construction uses. The funds raised were solely for Dhamma Hall and parking lot construction required to meet the then pressing June 30, 2006 deadline.
Therefore, as has always been the case, later solicitations should be separately done for later construction projects, step by step. There is no need to reinstate the funds. What for? The funds have already accomplished their mission or purpose. Though final touch up work, as mentioned, may be continued; there really is no dire emergency as alleged.
It is just another stretch of imagination to confuse people.
There are other ways of soliciting rather than playing the blame game on a major donor. There is no real need to inflate the needs and play a game on the generous donors.
The reason: Honorable religious people and the Temple can lose the people’s esteem, trust, and confidence which are irreplaceable.
Myittha
July 2, 2010 at 1:52 am
Statement IV
Untruth #4 Donation moneys raised for the “4 Noble Places” project, have likewise been diverted for parking lot construction. They should be transferred back for its use.
The “4 Noble Places” statues have all been paid for by the Temple. Likewise, ocean freight and other costs have all been paid. Also, the costs of cranes’ lifting them uphill and so on have all been paid by 11/07/05. As far as I am aware, there are no more related expenses to be paid. If there should be some expenses, they would be minimal.
As in above “108 statues”, the Temple has obtained significant funds from these “4 Noble Places” statues. As in above, the extra funds raised (after paying off the costs), were intended solely for the construction works needed to meet the June 30, 2006 deadline. These construction works include the Dhamma Hall and the parking lot. Such constructions were imperative to maintain the CUP.
Those other construction works not necessary to meet this deadline had been deferred for lack of money and urgency.
The donation moneys were never intended to be set aside or “frozen” for later construction uses nor for any other general uses. It’s on a first come first served basis, depending on needs & funds available at certain times through certain requests on donors’ generosity from time to time.
Thus, there is no real need to “return” the funds for the “4 Noble Places” project. The extra funds had been used for the purpose intended
Again, this is a distortion of facts to fit in the newsletter writer(s) needs and motives.
Need to hold them in check or to correct them before they do any more damage.
Contd.