Hi Gena,
What's being referred to here are not really 'robes' (as such)...anything 'white' (or even close) is seen everywhere/anywhere (at least here in Thailand)...white 'jeans' and a white T-shirt basically serve the desired purpose...anything (white/close to white) really...
Be well...
ps...(If I were asked, I would say) save your dough and don't go for the high end (or even close to) stuff offered online...
white robes
- appicchato
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
- Location: Bridge on the River Kwae
Re: white robes
This is true of what is worn here as well, by males and females - white or near white. The females may wear slacks or a white skirt - but nothing they couldn't wear elsewhere.Bhante said: white 'jeans' and a white T-shirt
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: white robes
cooran wrote:This is true of what is worn here as well, by males and females - white or near white. The females may wear slacks or a white skirt - but nothing they couldn't wear elsewhere.Bhante said: white 'jeans' and a white T-shirt
with metta
Chris
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: white robes
That was certainly the case, so that explains itCittasanto wrote:it is actually discouraged for lay guests at some monasteries particularly if they have Anagarikas, as it can give the wrong image if they do something an anagarika isn't suppose to, or talk to a visitor where they can appear to be talking for the resident sangha with what is being said.Ytrog wrote:While I was a guest in a monastery none of the guests wore white (me included) while we followed the eight precepts and it didn't seem to be a problem.
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: white robes
I know some actually found it offensive, personally i only found it odd once, the guy had a shaved head, wearing all white... if it was one or the other no problem as far as I was concerned, but both could definitely give visitors the wrong idea, and if they had been staying for a while more so. but on Uposattha days there were some who did wear white, but they tended to be visitors.
But as for wearing robes???? a white top & trousers is best, and cost effective.
But as for wearing robes???? a white top & trousers is best, and cost effective.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: white robes
Those Western Ajahn Chah monasteries (which I presume you're referring to) are, I think, a particular case. They are rather different in that respect from regular Thai, Sri Lankan, Burmese, etc, monasteries, where it seems to be the norm for meditators or serious Uposatha observers to wear white.Ytrog wrote:Cittasanto wrote:it is actually discouraged for lay guests at some monasteries particularly if they have Anagarikas, as it can give the wrong image if they do something an anagarika isn't suppose to, or talk to a visitor where they can appear to be talking for the resident sangha with what is being said.Ytrog wrote:While I was a guest in a monastery none of the guests wore white (me included) while we followed the eight precepts and it didn't seem to be a problem.
As far as I can tell, this very formal Anagarika thing is also rather specific to those monasteries.
Anyway, to end this rather rambling post, as in all such cases, I think that the key is to figure out what the local protocol is rather than make assumptions based on the conventions of other places.
Mike
Re: white robes
From an old post by Ven Dhammanando -
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 455#p10508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 455#p10508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: white robes
From that post:Sylvester wrote:From an old post by Ven Dhammanando -
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 455#p10508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think actually odātavasana conveys a certain commitment to Buddhism:"Clothed in white" (odātavasana) is an idiom that means being dressed in householders' clothes.
The clarification that Sandhāna is not simply a householder who supports Gotama, but one who is among those who are odātavasana (of whom it can be said that they praise quiet, which tends usually to describe monastics) suggests to me that the white-clad approach is a particular bracket of Dhamma adherence, and not the average lay practice of the day. A householder who wore white while herding cattle would not actually be wearing white for very long, therefore white as a standard 'householder color' seems quite improbable.DN 25 wrote:Then Nigrodha saw Sandhāna approaching from a distance, and he called his followers to order, saying: 'Be quiet, gentlemen, don't make a noise, gentlemen! The householder Sandhāna, a follower of the ascetic Gotama, is approaching. He is one of the number of white-robed householder followers of the ascetic Gotama in Rājagaha. And these good folk are fond of quiet, they are taught to be quiet and speak in praise of quiet.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: white robes
It could be that "white robes" = "plainclothes"... as in "plainclothes detective". These people are in plainclothes... that's why Nigrodha had to point it out. Maybe this is the reason why Ven Dhammanando said that it was an idiom.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: white robes
Hi Daverupa,daverupa wrote:DN 25 wrote:Then Nigrodha saw Sandhāna approaching from a distance, and he called his followers to order, saying: 'Be quiet, gentlemen, don't make a noise, gentlemen! The householder Sandhāna, a follower of the ascetic Gotama, is approaching. He is one of the number of white-robed householder followers of the ascetic Gotama in Rājagaha. And these good folk are fond of quiet, they are taught to be quiet and speak in praise of quiet.
I agree although there is a better sutta (almost spelt that stuua?? reference where the Buddha says to someone (I think Mahanamma??) that "within this assembly there are Bhikkhus, bhikkhunis..... who are streamwinners..." and I believe it separated white clad from householders in the list but I can not find the reference at the moment to check and post. it is the basis for my comments earlier on this thread.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: white robes
it is highly doubtful, why would a layperson be wearing plain cloths and it needed pointed out? it is more likely referencing what kind of follower they were, if they were simply a follower, householder would of surficed, as it is used on its own, and the type of clothing would of been irrelevant, unless it was incontrast to others who also wore white yet were not followers of the Buddha.beeblebrox wrote:It could be that "white robes" = "plainclothes"... as in "plainclothes detective". These people are in plainclothes... that's why Nigrodha had to point it out. Maybe this is the reason why Ven Dhammanando said that it was an idiom.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: white robes
I think you misunnderstood... Ven Dhammanando's point was that a white-robed person would be someone who is adhered to the precepts, but still wearing ordinary clothings.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: white robes
it still begs the question why clothes would need pointed out if they were just 'plain' as in your example? and do note the cloths of a police officer are mentioned there as it describes a facet of their work unusual for police officers, so saying they were a follower of the Buddha would of been adequate alone as is seen elsewhere.
although I did find the reference I mention above, it is MN73 (quoted earlier in the other thread by Ajahn Dhammanandho linked to above,) although I did have a misreading of it possibly due to how it is worded in places, and it does mention both lives of celibacy and enjoying sensual pleasures, however it mentions the holy life is complete in this respect, in regard to them being accomplished in this Dhamma. which leads to the question what exactly is meant by clothed in white, the Dhammika sutta of the sutta nipata may be a clue here, as it is the only place I know of where the precept of celibacy can be changed for the sensual misconduct version within the 8 precept framework for Uposatha days. although here it only uses the lay follower as a designation is used.
although I did find the reference I mention above, it is MN73 (quoted earlier in the other thread by Ajahn Dhammanandho linked to above,) although I did have a misreading of it possibly due to how it is worded in places, and it does mention both lives of celibacy and enjoying sensual pleasures, however it mentions the holy life is complete in this respect, in regard to them being accomplished in this Dhamma. which leads to the question what exactly is meant by clothed in white, the Dhammika sutta of the sutta nipata may be a clue here, as it is the only place I know of where the precept of celibacy can be changed for the sensual misconduct version within the 8 precept framework for Uposatha days. although here it only uses the lay follower as a designation is used.
it maybe safer to say that the mentioning of clothes colour is due to the practice of wearing white on an uposatha day as is currently done today, and the occasions for this reference would be an uposatha day. but living lives of celibacy could indicate they acted as a steward for monastics and wore white to indicate this but this would just be guess work, and possibly reading to much into the texts."A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: white robes
Nigrodha wasn't pointing out the clothes... he was pointing out the follower of the precepts. It's as if you're pointing out the policeman to someone by saying that he's "plainclothes."
Re: white robes
White-robed Jain householders are attested in DN 29. It's likely that white robes were a sign that such a one was an upāsaka/upāsikā (lay follower), having chosen to adhere to one particular Order, giving dāna only thereto and so forth. This was a different behavior than that of giving dāna broadly, without preference to the particular tenets of this or that group. So, this additional commitment ("May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower...") differentiates the laity from the generic householder. Indeed, many householders would not wear white at all and give dāna to Buddhists as well as Jains, and others.beeblebrox wrote:I think you misunnderstood... Ven Dhammanando's point was that a white-robed person would be someone who is adhered to the precepts, but still wearing ordinary clothings.
AN 8.25 seems to suggest that white-clad lay Buddhist householders would follow five precepts and furthermore encourage certain other behaviors. MN 143 suggests that they were not taught certain other aspects of the Dhamma.
Earlier I said that being white-clad was not the average lay practice of the day; I should have said that it was not the average householder practice of the day. Nevertheless, the phrase "Clothed in white" (odātavasana) is an idiom that means being dressed in householders' clothes" still seems incorrect.
Related: Where is "anagarika" attested in the Suttas as an 8- or 10-precept lay follower? Or isn't it?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]