Why Didn’t the Monk Return My Greeting?

Have you ever visited a Buddhist temple in Thailand or Sri Lanka, seen a monk approaching, and greeted him with joined palms, expecting him to return the gesture—only to have him walk past with a smile or a nod?

To someone unfamiliar with Buddhist customs, that can seem rather unfriendly. In fact, one day my mother complained to me:

“The Tibetan lamas are much friendlier. At least they return my greeting!”

Her comment made me realise that many Buddhists are unaware that different traditions understand the gesture of joining palms differently.

Let us explore how these differences came about.

Who Should a Monastic Not Bow To?

After teaching the monks to respect seniority within the monastic community, the Buddha laid down rules concerning the offering of homage. A monastic should not bow to:

• A junior monastic.
• A layperson.
• A senior monk from another monastic community who teaches views contrary to the Dhamma.
• A woman.
• A eunuch (paṇḍaka).
• A monastic undergoing disciplinary probation.
• A monastic who has been required to restart his disciplinary probation.
• A monastic who has completed probation but not yet begun penance.
• A monastic currently undergoing penance.
• A monastic awaiting formal reinstatement.

In short, a monastic should not pay formal homage to those who are junior, lay householders, monastics who teach false doctrine, or those who are not in good standing with the Saṅgha because of disciplinary procedures.

Why Don’t Some Monks Return the Gesture?

In countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, the act of joining one’s palms (añjali) is more than a simple greeting. The same gesture is also used when paying respect to Buddha images, senior monks, and sacred objects. Therefore, it carries the meaning of reverence and homage.

In light of the Vinaya rule that monks should not pay homage to laypeople, some monastics choose not to return the gesture. Instead, they may simply smile, nod, or verbally greet the person.

When I attended a Dharma Youth Camp decades ago, the monks took great pains to explain this custom to us so that we would not mistake them for being aloof or unfriendly. Interestingly, the camp was held in a Chinese Mahāyāna temple, and the Chinese monks there observed the same rule.

A Different Interpretation

Not all monks interpret the rule in the same way.

Some understand “paying homage” to refer specifically to kneeling and prostration, or at the very least, bowing from the waist, similar to the Japanese style of bowing. From this perspective, joining one’s palms is merely an ordinary greeting. Consequently, they have no difficulty returning the gesture, although they would not kneel and prostrate before a layperson.

This explains why one may encounter different practices even within the same Buddhist tradition.

The Lotus Sūtra and a Different Ideal

Later Buddhist literature seems to broaden the understanding of respect or homage.

In the Lotus Sutra, the bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta Bodhisattva pays homage to everyone he meets, declaring:

“I do not despise you, because you will all become Buddhas.”

At first glance, this appears to be very different from the earlier Vinaya rules. If taken literally and without context, one might even think the Buddha was contradicting himself.

However, another way of understanding this difference is to see it as a development in Buddhist thought. The story of Never-Despising Bodhisattva shifts the focus from monastic hierarchy to universal Buddha-nature and the spiritual potential of all beings.

Did Social Circumstances Play a Role?

We cannot know for certain, but it is possible that changing social circumstances influenced how Buddhists understood etiquette and respect.

As Buddhism spread beyond India into new cultures, situations may have arisen in which refusing to return a greeting appeared discourteous or even insulting. Just as my mother felt slighted by the Thai monks, ancient kings, nobles, and patrons may also have found such behaviour difficult to understand.

The story of Never-Despising Bodhisattva may therefore have resonated deeply with communities that wished to emphasise humility, inclusiveness, and mutual respect.

Of course, there is no historical record that explicitly says this was the reason. All Mahāyāna sūtras present themselves as authentic teachings of the Buddha, and believers accept them on that basis.

The point here is not to decide who is right or wrong, nor to suggest that the Buddha contradicted himself. Rather, these differences remind us that Buddhist etiquette has never been entirely static. Like language and culture, it has evolved and adapted to different times and places, even different thoughts and perspectives.

After all, the simple act of joining our palms can mean different things to different people. To one person, it is a formal act of reverence. To another, it is merely a warm and respectful greeting.

So why did the Buddha teach the monks not to pay homage to lay people?

The Principle Behind These Rules

Within the Buddhist community, the monastic life came to represent an ideal of renunciation. A monk voluntarily gives up property, family obligations, and worldly ambitions in order to devote himself to the pursuit of liberation. For this reason, the Buddhist community regarded the very act of renunciation as something noble and worthy of honour.

This does not necessarily mean that every monk is more spiritually accomplished than every layperson. Rather, Buddhism celebrates the courage and sacrifice involved in leaving behind the household life to pursue the path of awakening.

This attitude can already be seen in the Buddha’s own life. Prince Siddhattha’s Great Renunciation—leaving behind his palace, wealth, and royal future in search of liberation—became one of the defining ideals of Buddhism.

In the early Buddhist community, renunciation was held in such high regard that even the Śākya nobles were said to have felt obliged to offer their sons to the Saṅgha. To have a son become a monk was considered an honour and a contribution to the Buddha’s dispensation.

A similar sentiment survived in many Buddhist societies. In Thailand, for example, it was traditionally considered desirable for a man to spend some time as a monk, and a person’s character was sometimes judged by whether he had ever entered the monastic life.

From this perspective, the rule that monks do not offer formal homage to laypeople is not meant to belittle the laity. Rather, it reflects a social ideal: those who renounce the household life for the sake of the Dhamma are accorded a special place of honour within the Buddhist community, and the lay community expresses its appreciation through acts of respect and support.

Are Women and Paṇḍakas Being Discriminated Against?

At first glance, the fourth and fifth points may be unsettling to modern readers. Why are women and paṇḍakas (often translated as “eunuchs”) specifically mentioned?

Many scholars suggest that these rules should be understood as matters of Vinaya protocol rather than statements about a person’s spiritual worth. The Vinaya distinguishes between ordinary respect and the formal act of paying homage, which served to preserve the hierarchy and discipline of the monastic community.

The mention of “woman” in this context should not be read as a declaration that women are spiritually inferior. Rather, it must be understood within the historical framework of the early Buddhist Saṅgha.

The Buddha first established the order of monks and only later permitted the ordination of women. As a result, the Vinaya treats the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha as two distinct institutions with separate rules and different lines of seniority.

When a nun met a monk, both were not merely acting as private individuals; they also represented their respective communities. The rule requiring nuns to pay homage to monks, while monks do not pay homage to nuns, may therefore be understood as expressing the institutional precedence of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, which was established first.

In the ancient world, people were often seen not only as individuals but also as representatives of a family, clan, tribe, caste, or institution. In this sense, the nun symbolically represented a historical fact: the order of nuns came after the order of monks and was therefore accorded a junior status within the Vinaya framework.

Whether one agrees with this arrangement or not, it is important to distinguish between institutional seniority and spiritual potential. Elsewhere, the Buddhist scriptures praise many women as enlightened arahants and affirm that women are fully capable of attaining liberation.

What About Paṇḍakas?

The mention of paṇḍakas is perhaps the most difficult part of this passage to understand. The term is often translated as “eunuch,” but most modern scholars believe it refers to a broader category of individuals who did not fit ordinary male social expectations. To understand what pandaka means, here is an extract from a scriptural event.

At one time a certain paṇḍaka had gone forth as a monk. He went to the young monks and said, “Come, venerables, have sex with me.” The monks dismissed him, “Go away, paṇḍaka. We don’t want you.” He went to the big and fat novices, said the same thing, and got the same response. He then went to the elephant keepers and the horse keepers and once again said the same thing. And they had sex with him. (Then) They complained and criticized him, “These Sakyan monastics are paṇḍakas. And those who are not, have sex with them. None of them is celibate.” The monks heard their complaints and told the Buddha. “A paṇḍaka shouldn’t be given the full ordination. If it has been given, he should be expelled.” – https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd1/en/brahmali?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Within the context of this story, the issue is not same-sex attraction itself, but sexual conduct that is incompatible with the celibate life of a Buddhist śramaṇa and that brought disrepute upon the Saṅgha. Since the monastic community depended entirely on the faith and generosity of lay supporters, any scandal that damaged its reputation could jeopardise its very survival.

The Vinaya itself does not explain why paṇḍakas are specifically mentioned here. Since non-monastics have already been excluded in the preceding rule, some have suggested that the reference may have had particular relevance to individuals who occupied an unusual or ambiguous position in relation to the monastic community. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and any explanation remains speculative. What can be said with certainty is that this rule should be understood as part of the Vinaya’s concern with monastic protocol and institutional boundaries, rather than as a statement about a person’s spiritual worth or capacity for liberation.

Who Should Be Honoured?

The Buddha then listed three types of individuals who are worthy of veneration.

1. A senior monastic. Those ordained later should pay respect to those ordained before them.
2. A senior monastic from another community who teaches the true Dhamma. Even if he belongs to a different monastic lineage or community, he deserves respect if he teaches in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings.
3. The Buddha. Above all, the Buddha—the Perfectly Self-Awakened One—is worthy of homage from all beings, whether humans, devas, or Brahmās.

Note: the community in point 2 likely refers to monks from another monastic community. At that time, there were no different schools of Buddhism. But there are definitely monks from different areas travelling around. And as shared in earlier articles, there were a lot of monks and not everyone of them was teaching the dharma.

May all beings be well and happy.

Points for Discussion

1. Bowing is About the Dhamma, Not the Person

One of the most striking features of the passage is that homage is not based on charisma, wealth, or popularity. A senior monastic who teaches false Dhamma does not deserve homage, while a senior monastic from another community who teaches the true Dhamma does.

Discussion: Respect in Buddhism is ultimately directed towards the Dhamma embodied by a person, not merely the individual.

2. Seniority Has Limits

Ordination seniority is important, but it is not absolute. The Buddha did not say, “Always bow to the eldest monk.” Instead, he qualified the rule by requiring that the senior monastic also be faithful to the Dhamma and in good standing.

Discussion: Authority in Buddhism is balanced by ethical conduct.