Dear Lennart,

I can only offer my understanding of the Theravadin stand on the matter.

Short answer: Yes. If he chooses to, he may be a samanera.

Long(-winded) answer:

The "sangha" in this context refers to the bhikkhusangha. In many Paatimokkha rules, we find that samaneras although having gone forth (pabbajjita) are defined as "anupasampanna" (unordained, or yet to have gone through upasampada, higher ordination, so to speak.) Also, when performing a sanghakamma (monastic formal act, only bhikkhus participate, not samaneras (except in the case of a samanera's upasampada). So, a samanera is technically not a sangha member in this sense.

When a bhikkhu commits a Parajika offence, even if he may still wear the robes, he immediately loses his bhikkhuhood. (No formal disrobing required.) As the conclusion of the Parajika recitation puts it:
Yathaa pure, tathaa pacchaa
Just as before, so it is afterwards.
Paaraajiko hoti asa.mvaaso.
He is defeated, not in communion.

This of course does not mean that if he was a samanera before he became a bhikkhu, he reverts to be a samanera. If a samanera breaks any of the first five of his ten precepts, he also loses his status and become a lay man. The parajika is a subset of the five precept.

Therefore, when a bhikkhu commits a Parajika offence, he becomes a lay man -- automatically, immediately, and is banned from being "in communion" with the bhikkhusangha for life. ("In communion" means doing sanghakamma together.)

When that happens, if he so wishes, he can asked to go forth again, as a samanera. This does happen but to my knowledge is rather uncommon. For one, it can be rather embarrassing if he were to be question as to why he is a samanera when he's old enough to be a bhikkhu. Secondly, it would be difficult to find a qualified bhikkhu would be willing to take him in.

Hope that answers your question, Lennart.

metta,
kumaara

At 02:47 AM 04-12-02, Lennart Lopin wrote:

>Hi @ all,
>
>Has anyone ever heard that a parajika bhikkhu is allowed to remain in the order as a samanera (as i was told recently)? Is there such a vinaya-interpretation? I thought he has to leave the sangha for good and cant rejoin (in whatever way...). Maybe one or the other of you has some better knowledge on vinaya related problems...
>
>mettaya,
>
>Lennart