Why should one not address a venerable as friend?

Here is a quote from [MN 26](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html) : > One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.' > > So I said to them, > > > 'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. I can understand why the Tathagata might not be addressed by name; but why not as "friend"? Perhaps similarly, from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: > And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend (āvuso)', let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir (āyasmā)' or 'your reverence (bhante)'. What's the need for, what's the benefit of, the "reverent" form of address? Or what's the harm, if any, in the "friendly" mode of address? If you can, I'd appreciate answers: - From canonical sources (e.g. suttas or commentary) - From post-canonical sources (e.g. later, or modern, articles or dhamma talks) - From personal experience - and/or which apply to lay people (when addressing monks, or teachers or other venerables) --- Edit: I think that [ruben202's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25219/254) is ample evidence that it *is* so, in the culture and in the suttas and other scriptures. I'm not sure I understand *why*, though. For example: - A venerable *is* a friend -- or are they not? - Is the behaviour (or mode of address) *mere* ritual? - Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind or karma, or even for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another benefit is that it might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing); is another *obedience* for some good reason? The whole question seems to me a bit associated with some identity-view and so thicket-of-views. The only answer I can think of is a reference to the sutta (reference required) where the Buddha said that people need some teacher or leader, and he (having none) would take the Dhamma as his -- but that's speculation, whereas I'm asking for answers based on references or experience.