Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

In many countries, head scarves (mainly islamic) are a big issue. My opinion is, that at home and in the street, everybody should wear what he/she wants, but public services should be free of any religious symbols. I wonder if anyone has an idea, what the Buddha would have said about this issue? Do we have texts that can shine a light on this issue?

Buddhists are not required to wear any form of identifying clothing (unless they're monks, of course), but I don't think that the Buddha would have looked down on such practices or declared them to be unwholesome.

The Buddhist teachings are flexible and allow any type of clothing for whatever is pertinent to the specific culture. Lay people are often described as "clothed in white" as opposed to the brighter colors of the monastics.

There is actually one mention of head scarves in the Suttas. The brahmin lady Verahaccaani invites Ven. Udaayii to a meal. She was wearing sandals and covering her head and asked Ven. Udaayii to instruct her in Dhamma. He refused since she was wearing sandals and covering her head. The next day she prepares him a meal and uncovers her head and this time Ven. Udaayii instructs her in the Dhamma.
(SN 35.133)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently at this time period on the Indian sub-continent, it was considered disrespectful to cover your head around others, especially teachers.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if men of the same religion were also required to cover their heads to the same degree, because only women are required to do so it's an oppression of women issue.

I don't think the Buddha would have found that wholesome.

Thinking on how he took care to protect woman form his disiples which are not free of greed, I would not think that he would have seen such things as unwholesome.

I guess it is more that modern man does not like apparence of virtue and moral protection as well as modern men often does not understand how defilments are acting if there is a good soil for ripping. Wired world today.

David N. Snyder wrote:Apparently at this time period on the Indian sub-continent, it was considered disrespectful to cover your head around others, especially teachers.

I guess that might mis that at this time there have been less woman being disiples. I would wonder if woman generally haven't covered as most as possible as well as it has been seen as a sign of respect.

To cover ones head is still a sign of disrespect all over the world in sphares of virtue people but it is still a thing that touches more the male side. Such things as a hat have differing meanings (actually mostly a sign to lift one self) to something that is a cover to cause no shame.

Among monks of "old school" it is still usuall to cover the lower part of the face with parts of the robe while speaking with somebody for example.

The rules not to teach somebody Dhamma if wearing a hat/turban or having covered the head (face?) has to do with the need of lowering one self before being able to get the Dhamma not as an additional weapon and should saveguard the respect regarding Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. One might also see clearly to whom one is teaching.

Approaching a Bhikkhu and cover what ever can cause shame seems to me rather an very wholesome and respectful act. Cover on self in public to cause no shame is how ever a virtuose act, even today the tendency is very contrary.

How ever, enforced vitures are not conducive as well as inspirations of letting go of cultural heritage and virtue, especial if one is not aware of common defilments of "different" people.

David N. Snyder wrote:Apparently at this time period on the Indian sub-continent, it was considered disrespectful to cover your head around others, especially teachers.

I understand this (from the rules of training) to be about humbling oneself to the Dhamma. remember the young novice sitting on King Asokas thrown to teach the Dhamma?