Monks' Habits

[Xangsamhua]

(This is probably covered in another thread, but I couldn't find it in the first three pages searched.)

I'm confused over the one-shoulder/both shoulders rules for Thai monks.

I had the idea that Mahanikai monks wore their robes with one shoulder bare, but Dhammayutika monks covered both shoulders.

Now I'm not sure, as it seems that Mahanikai monks cover both shoulders sometimes. If so, is this when they're outside the temple grounds?

I also thought Dhammayutika clergy wore a darker, browner habit than the bright orange (saffron) robes of the Mahanikai. Is this correct?

[ableguy]

thank goodnes your not talking about their bad habits could set a record for length of post.

[Xangsamhua]

thank goodnes your not talking about their bad habits could set a record for length of post.

[GarryP]

Many years ago when I was in the monkhood, Dhammayutika, there were two ways to wear your robes, jivorn. When around the temple one shoulder would be bare. However, if there were lay people visiting the temple then you would cover up both shoulders. You would also cover up when outside the temple including during bintabart (alms collection). That's how I remember it. I have no idea if it is different with Mahanikai.

[Xangsamhua]

Many years ago when I was in the monkhood, Dhammayutika, there were two ways to wear your robes, jivorn. When around the temple one shoulder would be bare. However, if there were lay people visiting the temple then you would cover up both shoulders. You would also cover up when outside the temple including during bintabart (alms collection). That's how I remember it. I have no idea if it is different with Mahanikai.

Thank you, GarryP. Do Dhammayutika monks wear the darker robes?

[GarryP]

Many years ago when I was in the monkhood, Dhammayutika, there were two ways to wear your robes, jivorn. When around the temple one shoulder would be bare. However, if there were lay people visiting the temple then you would cover up both shoulders. You would also cover up when outside the temple including during bintabart (alms collection). That's how I remember it. I have no idea if it is different with Mahanikai.

Thank you, GarryP. Do Dhammayutika monks wear the darker robes?

Yes. More brownish than orange. Also only one meal per day as opposed to two for Mahanikai.

[Xangsamhua]

Many years ago when I was in the monkhood, Dhammayutika, there were two ways to wear your robes, jivorn. When around the temple one shoulder would be bare. However, if there were lay people visiting the temple then you would cover up both shoulders. You would also cover up when outside the temple including during bintabart (alms collection). That's how I remember it. I have no idea if it is different with Mahanikai.

Thank you, GarryP. Do Dhammayutika monks wear the darker robes?

Yes. More brownish than orange. Also only one meal per day as opposed to two for Mahanikai.

Thank you again.

[Brucenkhamen]

There is no difference in robe colour between Mahanikaya and Dhammayut monks as far as I know, the difference is between forest monks and village monks. Forest monks usually make and die their own robes, village monk robes are usually mass produced. As Dhammayut has a higher proportion of forest monks that would account for what you've observed, as Ajahn Chah Mahanikaya monks are forest monks for example they dress much the same.

Covering both shoulders is for when travelling outside the monastery as far as I've observed.

[Xangsamhua]

There is no difference in robe colour between Mahanikaya and Dhammayut monks as far as I know, the difference is between forest monks and village monks. Forest monks usually make and die their own robes, village monk robes are usually mass produced. As Dhammayut has a higher proportion of forest monks that would account for what you've observed, as Ajahn Chah Mahanikaya monks are forest monks for example they dress much the same.

Covering both shoulders is for when travelling outside the monastery as far as I've observed.

Thank you Bruce.

[sabaijai]

The Vinaya says fully ordained monks may bare the right shoulder inside the monastery walls, but outside must wear the outer robe and cover both shoulders.

Ten-precept novice monks are not required to cover both shoulders when outside the monastery.

As far as I know it's the same for both Mahanikai and Thammayut monks.

[endure]

The Vinaya says fully ordained monks may bare the right shoulder inside the monastery walls, but outside must wear the outer robe and cover both shoulders.

Ten-precept novice monks are not required to cover both shoulders when outside the monastery.

As far as I know it's the same for both Mahanikai and Thammayut monks.

Is there a reason for this rule? Just curious to know.

[sabaijai]

I assume there once was a reason - modesty perhaps? Like quite a few of the 227 precepts (eg the precept not to urinate while standing), it seems a bit arcane to us nowadays

[rockyysdt]

I assume there once was a reason - modesty perhaps? Like quite a few of the 227 precepts (eg the precept not to urinate while standing), it seems a bit arcane to us nowadays

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

[GarryP]

When wearing a monk's robes it is quite difficult to pee standing up and remain totally dry. It made sense to me to squat.

[GarryP]

I was in a forest temple. We did not make and dye our own robes. They were all donated and were brownish in colour. After having given the matter more thought though, I recall a number of Thammayut temples where the monks wear an assortment of shades, from orange to brown. So as one earlier poster mentioned, perhaps there is no hard and fast rule.

[sabaijai]

I assume there once was a reason - modesty perhaps? Like quite a few of the 227 precepts (eg the precept not to urinate while standing), it seems a bit arcane to us nowadays

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

As far as I know, the Vinaya Pitaka does not contain reasons for any of the 227 precepts.

As far as Buddhism unravelling due to having too many rules, I would offer the same advice I offered to Christiaan: Participate, reform.

Or stay with what you believe to be "true" Buddhism and let the chips fall where they may. As you are not a monk, thinking about the rules isn't really of much use, is it?

[Xangsamhua]

I assume there once was a reason - modesty perhaps? Like quite a few of the 227 precepts (eg the precept not to urinate while standing), it seems a bit arcane to us nowadays

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

As far as I know, the Vinaya Pitaka does not contain reasons for any of the 227 precepts.

As far as Buddhism unravelling due to having too many rules, I would offer the same advice I offered to Christiaan: Participate, reform.

Or stay with what you believe to be "true" Buddhism and let the chips fall where they may. As you are not a monk, thinking about the rules isn't really of much use, is it?

Sabaijai, is there much substantial reform occurring in the Thai Sangha? I know there are some cutting-edge monastics in the teaching and pastoral fields, but is there much happening in terms of reviewing the vinaya? Or do abbots and monastics make their own adjustments individually and independently?

[sabaijai]

I assume there once was a reason - modesty perhaps? Like quite a few of the 227 precepts (eg the precept not to urinate while standing), it seems a bit arcane to us nowadays

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

As far as I know, the Vinaya Pitaka does not contain reasons for any of the 227 precepts.

As far as Buddhism unravelling due to having too many rules, I would offer the same advice I offered to Christiaan: Participate, reform.

Or stay with what you believe to be "true" Buddhism and let the chips fall where they may. As you are not a monk, thinking about the rules isn't really of much use, is it?

Sabaijai, is there much substantial reform occurring in the Thai Sangha? I know there are some cutting-edge monastics in the teaching and pastoral fields, but is there much happening in terms of reviewing the vinaya? Or do abbots and monastics make their own adjustments individually and independently?

As far as I know there is no movement to reform the Vinaya. That would be very difficult, but not impossible. In fact the latter is more the case, in my observation.

Among monks I have known whom I respect, their response to the arcane nature of the precepts was to point out that keeping the 227 precepts promoted mindfulness, and thus in the end they were more freeing than constraining.

[Xangsamhua]

Sabaijai, is there much substantial reform occurring in the Thai Sangha? I know there are some cutting-edge monastics in the teaching and pastoral fields, but is there much happening in terms of reviewing the vinaya? Or do abbots and monastics make their own adjustments individually and independently?

As far as I know there is no movement to reform the Vinaya. That would be very difficult, but not impossible. In fact the latter is more the case, in my observation.

Among monks I have known whom I respect, their response to the arcane nature of the precepts was to point out that keeping the 227 precepts promoted mindfulness, and thus in the end they were more freeing than constraining.

Thank you. Interesting response from the monks. At the risk of being discourteous, it sounds like a rationalization - making a virtue of necessity. But I may be way off beam, and it's not my business anyway.

[rockyysdt]

As far as Buddhism unravelling due to having too many rules, I would offer the same advice I offered to Christiaan: Participate, reform.

Or stay with what you believe to be "true" Buddhism and let the chips fall where they may. As you are not a monk, thinking about the rules isn't really of much use, is it?

Not too many rules SJ but apparent superficial or silly rules.

In terms of reform, if the Buddha directed such a precept I have no place to challenge it.

My place is whether to accept Buddhism as my path in life or not.

lt's not a deal breaker for me but "not urinating whilst standing" doesn't really make sense coming from an enlightened being.

Edited October 25, 2010 by rockyysdt

[GarryP]

Just a thought. If you squat to pee you are much less likely to kill any unsuspecting creatures than if you pee on them from what relative to them is a great height.

[camerata]

lt's not a deal breaker for me but "not urinating whilst standing" doesn't really make sense coming from an enlightened being.

The Buddha was an enlightened being but he didn't have a magic wand to make worldly problems disappear. Many of the Vinaya rules had to do with propriety and having a higher standard of conduct than the laity. My guess is if monks were allowed to hitch up their robes almost to the waist to urinate they would be more likely to unwittingly expose themselves to a passerby. In any case, according to the Vinaya Commentary they can urinate standing up if health reasons demand it, which can mean if they can't hold it any longer.

The Buddha had to make sure his teaching on nibbana wouldn't disappear from the world, which meant the Sangha had to flourish. He couldn't afford to attract disapproval from rulers (hence the rule that an ordinant must not be liable to military service), parents (hence the rule against ordaining a child without parents' consent) or the general public. He took a huge risk in ordaining Untouchables, a serial killer, and eventually women, but there are a number of minor rules aimed at keeping lay villagers happy and deflecting criticism that his followers weren't as pious as the Jains or other sects.

It ain't easy being a Buddha!

[camerata]

There are some situations where a monk really can't squat...

[phetaroi]

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

This is something increasingly bothering me about Buddhism. Why is all this crapola even important? When I was young and a Catholic, I remember a big controversy over whether a woman should wear something on her head, or not, when attending mass. Or my grandmother who was appalled when they ended masses in Latin...even though she couldn't understand a word of the Latin mass.

I look at monks' clothing and I have often wondered what value people see in having a man wear a costume (and that's exactly what it is) that dates back hundreds and hundreds of years, while those same people give little thought to the substance of the religion. And in fact, if Buddhism were really a philosophy, would anyone care whether a monk's clothing covered one or both shoulders?

[Xangsamhua]

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

This is something increasingly bothering me about Buddhism. Why is all this crapola even important? When I was young and a Catholic, I remember a big controversy over whether a woman should wear something on her head, or not, when attending mass. Or my grandmother who was appalled when they ended masses in Latin...even though she couldn't understand a word of the Latin mass.

I look at monks' clothing and I have often wondered what value people see in having a man wear a costume (and that's exactly what it is) that dates back hundreds and hundreds of years, while those same people give little thought to the substance of the religion. And in fact, if Buddhism were really a philosophy, would anyone care whether a monk's clothing covered one or both shoulders?

Yes, I have a little concern about rules that may have been introduced to assuage people's perceptions that the Buddha's disciples were not as strict as e.g. the Jains. From my reading of the Nikayas I understand the Buddha to have spoken against that and other kinds of strictness (extremism).

Special clerical dress is a feature of all institutionalized religion, isn't it? It sets the professed religious apart from the lay followers, and people seem to like that; hence the fuss (still continuing) in Catholic circles over the modification or abandonment of nun's habits and the increasing non-use of the clerical collar.

I was interested to note that Charlotte Joko Beck, the 93 year-old US Zen master, no longer shaves her head or wears any distinctive robes (and hasn't for a long time, I think). She appears here in casual clothes: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqVKb-WABQA

[fabianfred]

I would add that to pee standing up might require the robes be hitched up...enough to expose oneself....

I would imagine that one who has progressed from Phutuchon to Ariyachon might keep whatever rules he considered good and relax the ones he knew were unnecessary, knowing that he couldn't do anything which would cause himself to take rebirth in the lower realms.

[phetaroi]

I would add that to pee standing up might require the robes be hitched up...enough to expose oneself....

I would imagine that one who has progressed from Phutuchon to Ariyachon might keep whatever rules he considered good and relax the ones he knew were unnecessary, knowing that he couldn't do anything which would cause himself to take rebirth in the lower realms.

Huh? Exactly what percentage of monks piss in public? And why are they pissing in public? Even the most remote temples I've been to have had private privys.

[bina]

It's a bit concerning to learn of such rules.

For me, Christianity unraveled due to the content and detail of its scripture.

To me Buddhism was/is beyond reproach as "the path".

Reading such things as "not to urinate while standing" begins to add doubts in my mind.

Did the Buddha actually specify this?

It seems by your post, he didn't give a reason for including it as a precept.

This is something increasingly bothering me about Buddhism. Why is all this crapola even important? When I was young and a Catholic, I remember a big controversy over whether a woman should wear something on her head, or not, when attending mass. Or my grandmother who was appalled when they ended masses in Latin...even though she couldn't understand a word of the Latin mass.

I look at monks' clothing and I have often wondered what value people see in having a man wear a costume (and that's exactly what it is) that dates back hundreds and hundreds of years, while those same people give little thought to the substance of the religion. And in fact, if Buddhism were really a philosophy, would anyone care whether a monk's clothing covered one or both shoulders?

Yes, I have a little concern about rules that may have been introduced to assuage people's perceptions that the Buddha's disciples were not as strict as e.g. the Jains. From my reading of the Nikayas I understand the Buddha to have spoken against that and other kinds of strictness (extremism).

Special clerical dress is a feature of all institutionalized religion, isn't it? It sets the professed religious apart from the lay followers, and people seem to like that; hence the fuss (still continuing) in Catholic circles over the modification or abandonment of nun's habits and the increasing non-use of the clerical collar.

I was interested to note that Charlotte Joko Beck, the 93 year-old US Zen master, no longer shaves her head or wears any distinctive robes (and hasn't for a long time, I think). She appears here in casual clothes: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqVKb-WABQA

could be that monks clothes were meant to be sort of like any other uniform i.e. everyone wears the same thing therefore no one is richer or poorer or higher or lower then an other; also hides identity i.e. ego , the 'i' becomes similar to everyoneelse, there is no individualism, no purple red or green, jewellery, , everyone looks more or less the same; also, those robes conceal any kind of sexual identification i.e. cant really see the shape of the body, old, young, well hung, etc....

also, didnt monks take clothing from dead people or thrown out, since theyd idnt buy them? and in general, back when monks started (india etc) men did wear pakanu, salongs not pants and shirts; and the poor basically just wore a loin clothe... so the dress fits.

and the colour and style would also be to warn non monks that here was a monk so a woman wouldnt inadvertatnly touch him, or expose herself to him, same as men...

look, here we also have varoious styles and types of clothing that allow us to know who the person is (google for info i wont go in to details here, but basic colours/styles are allowed according to sect, the idea of modesty, a way to id what group u belong too, a way of erasing physically sexual forms, much more then just the hat/no hat/collar/no collar of clergy)....

just guessing, actually a good question....

could be also that rightful employment would mean that monks couldnt wear something that might have been made from stolen goods, leather from a an animal that was killed , mining for metals that cost poeople their lives... sort of a monks' politically correct code (since there is that code, righful living, working etc)

agiain guesses.

bina

israel

[fabianfred]

I would add that to pee standing up might require the robes be hitched up...enough to expose oneself....

I would imagine that one who has progressed from Phutuchon to Ariyachon might keep whatever rules he considered good and relax the ones he knew were unnecessary, knowing that he couldn't do anything which would cause himself to take rebirth in the lower realms.

Huh? Exactly what percentage of monks piss in public? And why are they pissing in public? Even the most remote temples I've been to have had private privys.

I though that many monks at one time were forest dwellers, and although being in remote areas does not count as in public, they would act as if in view of somebody.

Monks also have to wear a bathing cloth outdoors to let people know they are not just lay people.

[rockyysdt]

This is something increasingly bothering me about Buddhism. Why is all this crapola even important? When I was young and a Catholic, I remember a big controversy over whether a woman should wear something on her head, or not, when attending mass. Or my grandmother who was appalled when they ended masses in Latin...even though she couldn't understand a word of the Latin mass.

I look at monks' clothing and I have often wondered what value people see in having a man wear a costume (and that's exactly what it is) that dates back hundreds and hundreds of years, while those same people give little thought to the substance of the religion. And in fact, if Buddhism were really a philosophy, would anyone care whether a monk's clothing covered one or both shoulders?

could be that monks clothes were meant to be sort of like any other uniform i.e. everyone wears the same thing therefore no one is richer or poorer or higher or lower then an other; also hides identity i.e. ego , the 'i' becomes similar to everyoneelse, there is no individualism, no purple red or green, jewellery, , everyone looks more or less the same; also, those robes conceal any kind of sexual identification i.e. cant really see the shape of the body, old, young, well hung, etc....

also, didnt monks take clothing from dead people or thrown out, since theyd idnt buy them? and in general, back when monks started (india etc) men did wear pakanu, salongs not pants and shirts; and the poor basically just wore a loin clothe... so the dress fits.

and the colour and style would also be to warn non monks that here was a monk so a woman wouldnt inadvertatnly touch him, or expose herself to him, same as men...

look, here we also have varoious styles and types of clothing that allow us to know who the person is (google for info i wont go in to details here, but basic colours/styles are allowed according to sect, the idea of modesty, a way to id what group u belong too, a way of erasing physically sexual forms, much more then just the hat/no hat/collar/no collar of clergy)....

just guessing, actually a good question....

could be also that rightful employment would mean that monks couldnt wear something that might have been made from stolen goods, leather from a an animal that was killed , mining for metals that cost poeople their lives... sort of a monks' politically correct code (since there is that code, righful living, working etc)

agiain guesses.

bina

israel

Excellent reply Bina.

I think your points are correct.

Imagine a Sangha of people dressed in all manner of fashion, which places their personalty, ego, status, & wealth on display.

It's possible by consensus to design a modern replacement of the orange/brown robes but why change something which works very well and is of minimal cost?

Edited October 29, 2010 by rockyysdt