SuttaCentral
… a novice is a monk and represents the Bhikkhu Sangha?
Well what’s the effect of full ordination?
What a burden on novices tho, to have to represent the Sangha to laity, and to non Buddhists too.
Venerables, i find this somewhat confusing and distracting; if you have time, please teach us on these questions.
Unless they happen to have been sent on an errand (say, to deliver a message) by a bhikkhu, it can’t be said that sāmaṇeras in any sense represent the bhikkhusaṅgha.
Generally rishis, sadhus, paribbajakas are also considered monks. There is not a Patimokkha for them to observe. They are said to have Brahmacariya or Ajiva atthamaka sila like silas only. Even the Bodhisattas has became hermits. Generally permanent renunciation is considered the monkhood. In that sense a Samanera is categorically a monk.
Here are some examples:
When mara asking the Blessed One to Parinibbana, he said that he will not become Parinibbana until his bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upasakas, upasikas (The four clans) become rich in Dhamma. In this four clan samaneras are included as Bhikkhus.
‘na tāvāhaṃ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi, yāva me bhikkhū na sāvakā bhavissanti viyattā vinītā visāradā…
‘na tāvāhaṃ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi, yāva me bhikkhuniyo na sāvikā bhavissanti viyattā vinītā visāradā
‘na tāvāhaṃ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi, yāva me upāsakā na sāvakā bhavissanti viyattā vinītā visāradā
‘na tāvāhaṃ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi, yāva me upāsikā na sāvikā bhavissanti viyattā vinītā visāradā SuttaCentral
In the categorization of the four clans, a samanera is a Bhikkhu.
(Do you think he is a upasaka? )
Again in the Etadagga Pali the Buddha nominates best disciples of the four clans. Here Ven. Cullapanthaka, Revat and Rahula were samaneras.
“Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, mama sāvakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ
manomayaṃ kāyaṃ abhinimminantānaṃ yadidaṃ cūḷapanthako.
… Cetovivaṭṭakusalānaṃ yadidaṃ cūḷapanthako.
… Āraññakānaṃ yadidaṃ revato khadiravaniyo.
… Sikkhākāmānaṃ yadidaṃ rāhulo SuttaCentral
If a best disciple monk cannot represent the Bhikkhu sangha, then what will they represent?
Generally samaneras are considered (in all the Buddhist coutries) a part of Bhikkhu sangha to the laity, though they are not allowed to participate in formal vinaya karmas. (as taught, as heard and as practiced by many)
Actully samanerahood is not a permanent rank but a transit to become a Bhikkhu. He is considered the son of the Bhikkhu.
Again in the following incident in Vinaya implies that samaneras are part of Bhikkhu sangha. (in many peoples’ opinion including me)
“Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannena sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya pācittiyan”ti.
Evañcidaṃ bhagavatā bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ hoti.
Atha kho bhagavā āḷaviyaṃ yathābhirantaṃ viharitvā yena kosambī tena cārikaṃ pakkāmi. Anupubbena cārikaṃ caramāno yena kosambī tadavasari. Tatra sudaṃ bhagavā kosambiyaṃ viharati badarikārāme.
Bhikkhū āyasmantaṃ rāhulaṃ etadavocuṃ—“bhagavatā, āvuso rāhula, sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ—‘na anupasampannena sahaseyyā kappetabbā’ti. Seyyaṃ, āvuso rāhula, jānāhī”ti. Atha kho āyasmā rāhulo seyyaṃ alabhamāno vaccakuṭiyā seyyaṃ kappesi.
Atha kho bhagavā rattiyā paccūsasamayaṃ paccuṭṭhāya yena vaccakuṭi tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā ukkāsi. Āyasmāpi rāhulo ukkāsi.
“Ko etthā”ti?
“Ahaṃ, bhagavā, rāhulo”ti.
“Kissa tvaṃ, rāhula, idha nisinnosī”ti?
Atha kho āyasmā rāhulo bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesi. Atha kho bhagavā etasmiṃ nidāne etasmiṃ pakaraṇe dhammiṃ kathaṃ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi—“anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anupasampannena dirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappetuṃ.
And Bhikkhus give their robes and bowls, food, accomodation, medicine to samaneras which is prohibited to give to lay people. This also implies.
Otherwise even Arahant samaneras like Ven. Rahula will not receive any of four requisites.
And practically/conventionally when lay people invite a certain number of Bhikkhu sangha for an alms offering in a house, that number is filled with all Bhikkhus or all samaneras or both.
hmmm. But before the Buddha had monks and nuns, he taught lay people? So are they “first priority”, first among the 4 fold sangha? … it is the insistence on precedence or priority or rank of disciple renunciates, which seems absurd or tainted to me. But yes, there are different roles, and senority was adopted as a organizational technique for each independent monastic community, and it seems this technique of senority is extrapolated to a profoundness which seems odd, disturbing, distracting, even harmful as a mental habit to me.
However, i am just a laywoman, at this time, and not a scholar either nor a vinaya lawyer (if those exist). It has little relevance to my life at this time, but is a little off putting… but perhaps no more than cosmology as literal fact or the accretion of non Buddhist taboos, rites, and superstitions into buddhist communities over time.
May you and i and all be happy, peaceful, freed of defilements, ultimately freed from suffering and rebirth. 
Okasa khamata me Bhante, I skipped mentioning you on above post because it is akusala to argue with a bhikkhu, but still hope you’ll kindly answer. Nothing becomes successful without bhikkhus’ advices.
Bhante,
(From the perspective of a stream-winner) would “observation” such as whether a nun must bow to or prostrate in front of a monk, regardless of age difference or “seniority” or wisdom, be considered an example of the third lower fetter (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) - a wrong view and grasping of precepts, observations and rules?
Only if one believed that correct observance in this matter would result in liberation from dukkha.
If I have time I’ll reply later today.
Excellent. This means Bhikkhunis today, especially in Western Society, need not worry about observing this rule - and they might as well disregard it - as long as they understand that its strict observance is not the path to liberation but a fetter. They just need to treat everyone equally with kindness.
Indeed bhante.
I am always puzzled by the view held by some that adhering to formalities related to the maintaining a minimum level of respect, reverence and harmony among the members of a spiritual community corresponds directly and necessarily to the fetter of precepts and rituals.
I am confident that in real life, when there is friendliness, reverence and respect among members of the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni sanghas, while all related parties are glad to adhere to formal protocols they are aware that those protocols are just that, an expected formality that is there just to remind people of the minimum decorum between communities and only followed by mutual agreement.
No one, from either side is to see those formalities as factors of awakening, but indeed factors of a respectful relationship.
In turn, this minimum level of respect has the potential to lead to the most valuable spiritual friendship we know was said by the Buddha to be the whole of the path.
I am sure that when bhikkhunis from Dhammasara monastery here in WA pay a visit to the bhikkhus of Bodhinyana monastery they will only follow the protocols they are comfortable with following and they know are expected from them by the spiritual friends the bhikkhus are and should be.
And if in that process they break a minor rule of patimokkha that is easily addressed by the usual “minor offences washup” done before the periodical patimokkha recitations.
Another important aspect of the whole governance framework involving bhikkhus and bhikkhunis is that give the uncentralised model of spiritual community established by the Buddha, specific bhikkhu and bhikkhuni sanghas are free to only deal and interact with the specific bhikkhu and bhikkhuni sanghas they feel comfortable to interact and deal with.
This means that no specific bhikkhu sangha is able or expected for example to show without notice to a given bhikkhuni Sangha and enforce on them the adherence and observance of a very strict protocol such as getting bhikkhunis to bow to whoever they think these individuals should.
Last but not least, I am sure that other non-monastic like me, have often found themselves having to adhere to a minimum respect and gentleness decorum in workspace. This means saying good morning and asking how are you sometimes to colleagues at work one may dislike. The fact we adhere to such protocols keeps the harmony and professionalism to a bare minimum!
I don’t think that follows at all.
Sīlabbataparāmāsa is the belief: “By this habitual or vowed observance there will be purity for me.” If a monastic holds that abstaining from the four defeating offences is a sufficient cause for purity, then s/he will be falling into sīlabbataparāmāsa. It doesn’t follow from this that it’s okay to go ahead and break one of them!
As a contemporary lay woman, it would be distressing, distracting, and in some ways repellent to see senior bhikkhunis saluting novice monks by deep bows. I would see it as harm to the novice monastics, for example.
Perhaps fortunately i no longer get out much!
I share your discomfort. It is one barrier to going forth.
It helps me to think of the bowing thing as an issue of logistic scaling that arises in any organization. With the Buddha bowing to no one and everybody bowing to the Buddha, the pesky issue of “precedence” arises out of the simple consideration of choosing and acknowledging a teacher. As a lay student myself, I just bow to everybody. It makes my life very simple. The Buddha in me bows to the Buddha in you. Always.
Why is it a barrier to going forth? And what do you refer to? The fact that there is hierarchy at all, or the fact that you don’t agree with how the hierarchy is constructed?
My doubts are a personal barrier to my going forth. I have read things in the suttas that really do not sit well with me and the bowing rules wander a bit into that area. As an engineer, I am used to verifying and adopting working technology. As an engineer I put aside technology that doesn’t solve any problem I have at hand. And I do the same with problematic or gender-asymmetric suttas–they go on the shelf for future evaluation. As it is, I only look at a handful of suttas right now. And yet these few suttas are indeed transformational. I also look at the Vinaya and follow it as I can. Most of the Vinaya is relevant and useful. The rest goes on the shelf for future evaluation. Interestingly, most of the times I ask about a specific rule, the answers given make total sense. Like the rules on relinquishing extra unused robes to discourage hoarding. However, the gender asymmetric rules are so emotionally charged I just treat them like dynamite and steer clear. They go on that shelf.
to me the question of who should bow to whom and of hierarchy is quite incompatible with the idea of metta and developing the heart. I see more and more in the Theravada Sangha (and perhaps in the Sangha according to EBT) a kind of cuddly, teddy-bear-hugging attitude emanating love towards all beings (think of some videos of Ajahn Brahm meditation classes), coexisting side by side with a lot of legalistic issues, with questions of power and of prestige and of hierarchy.
To me the two attitude cannot coexist in the same system, (universal love is not compatible with strict rules of hierarchy, such as on who should bow to whom) so there is something strange going on there that I do not understand.
The manifestations of Buddhism are many. This happens with the Buddhist emphasis on personal inquiry. The path is gradual and our personal truths evolve over time, evolve in ways that contradict our former individual or group behavior. I allow this in myself and therefore must accord monks and orders that same allowance of change.
Perhaps what is more important here is our own development of inner truth. You mistrust the cuddly. And all that means is that there is an inner heart that expects to give otherwise. Develop and share that inner heart. Tell us what unfolds and what sutta brings that heart to life.
You should definitely not trust me. I hug people. 
sorry, I think I did not express myself clearly. I do like the cuddly. But you cannot be at the same time cuddly and have an army-like hierarchy where you bow to your superior and you should definitely not salute the person who is below you, because it’s up to them to salute you. That hierarchical structure that becomes apparent in topics such as the one in this Discussion, is the part I do not like and which cannot be consistent with the cuddly, a far as I understand.
It’s sort of like Japanese honorifics. You have a certain title for someone elder to you, for someone junior, for someone above you in a company, for new hires.
They don’t think it’s a bad thing. It’s just a ubiquitous feature of the language.