Dear Virupa, Gunnar and friends,

thanks for the discussion. Virupa, let me give a simple example. If
you still eat meat, you can't call yourself a vegetarian. If you
insist otherwise, it is an illusion and self-deception. The same
applies to a bhikkhu, he should at least keep the basic monastic
precepts to be regarded as one.

There are lay Tibetan Buddhists being given honorary titles, but they
are not bhikkhus. There are, however, a handful of Japanese lineages
which have priests who are married. Although they wear traditional
Japanese Buddhist robes in the day, they join their wives and children
in the night. In such cases, I guess (and I accept) that "priests" is
certainly more appropriate than "monks" for them.

I remember a quote: The worst crimes imaginable are committed with
good intention. However, the intention of having "married Buddhist
priests" in Japan was really due to historically political
considerations, which we can only accept as a historical reality, and
hard to judge if it was really a good or ill intention.

I think it is not an issue whether a lay person, an ordained monk/nun,
or a "priest" administer a Buddhist facility. During the Buddha's
time, monks did not operate temples, monasteries, forests or gardens.

This group is opened to all with the interest in studying the Pali
language and literature. It does not nominate any form of practice for
members, but general discussions on practices in the Theravada
tradition is fine as long as it is conducted in a wholesome and
peaceful manner.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, redlotustemple@... wrote:

Myself, I am married and many other lineages are as well, as all have
roles to play in the congreagtion, Sangha.