Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
New Islamic-Peace-Buddhism
lobster
Crusty Veteran
My new street burkha is on order ...
As a plain clothes rather than uniformed Buddhist (Sangha) I am incognito.
Is there a Buddhist tribe? Are are we part of a community/tribe/sangha?
Is it time we relinquish divisive cultural/religious/ideological ties?
The question is one of alignment perhaps?
Down with Sari Sangha! Freedom for nuns! Cod is Great! etc ...
[more slogans by request]
2
Comments
What's your point, @lobster?
By definition, those adherent to a specific religion via singular chosen devotion, wear garb of the symbol of their dedication.
Islam requires that its womenfolk be modest and discreet in their apparel, but to suggest that the niqab or burka are pre-requisite and obligatory items to be worn as dictated by the Qu'ran is incorrect.
so what point are you making, please?
Do they have to? Is that tribal allegiance still skilful and helpful in a modern dharma ending age?
I consider myself a dedicated if unskilfull adherent to a specific religion, Buddhism.
... Maybe I can change my order for a skilfully balanced basket fashion statement? mmm ....
Well, nuns and monks have been wearing their chosen apparel for millennia, now, albeit with some changes and nods to practicality. I mean, even in @Jayantha's ordination video, you can tell one of the monks is wearing socks the 'soles' of which have rubber 'anti-slip' dots... So concessions are made, according to necessity.
While I was a pupil at the convent, Nuns had their habits and wimples 'updated' to meet the requirements and practicalities of the day. Many pupils were astonished to see they had hair. (We were subsequently advised that although hair was symbolically shaved during their ordination, they were permitted to grow it again to a short, practical length. Shaving the head was symbolic, not a permanently-required sign of obeisance and humility).
When their habits were shortened to ankle-length however, having previously hidden the legs completely, pupils were silently relieved to see feet rather than cloven hooves...
Convincing religious groups to give up their sartorial habits - in all senses of the word - would be both ineffective and contra-indicative.
A Uniform - of whichever kind - helps to maintain a specific mindset. it is an indicator and reminder, both to the wearer and the observer, of that person's daily practice.
It has even been said on this forum that wearing specific clothes for meditation or meditative practice (Yoga, Tai Chi) helps 'set the mood, and support the concentration'.
However, wearing anything indicating a subservient, inferior or second-class identity in my mind, should not be acceptable.
Apart from the individual angle, uniforms of a sort remove some of the separateness of people. When my son was young, he attended a charter school that had uniforms. Very basic, khaki pants and one of 3 colors of polo shirts. I didn't like the idea of first, but it worked really well for the kids. The concentration was on the tasks and the person and not the outfit. It helps with a removal of some of the material worship that we tend to participate in and judgement of people based on what they wear. The degree to which that happens is pretty astounding. Even if we don't verbalize it, we compare what we wear to someone else, and we judge people on their clothing pretty often. And rarely can we keep the judgement to our opinion of the clothing but we then make assumptions about the person wearing it. "I don't like those boots." turns into "What kind of person wears those boots??" and it is one of many ways we segregate people into groups we disapprove of. "Why do black men sag their pants?" "Why do Middle Eastern men wear towels on their heads?" Those small differences alone are enough to justify our poor thoughts about people and entire groups of people just because they do something different than us.
I can see how that aspect as well would be helpful in a religious aspect. Everyone is the same, and recognized apart from what they are wearing. Their ideas and words are judged on their merit and not their clothing.
Uniform is a great leveller.
I used to attend a school where everyone - even those in the top classes - wore uniform.
Look at the word itself - Uni - form. it denotes 'single identity'.
We all came from the same school.
We all identified with one single Mission Statement and education charter.
And rich, poor, haves and have-nots all personified the same values and integral morals.
There was no bias, no differentiation, no division, no 'us and them'.
we were all '1 family'.
A bit like attending a naturist club, actually.....
This is where I diverge from most of you. As I have stated before, while there is great benefit in the abolishment of ego, that is a much different thing than not recognizing the self. In my belief, one may, and should, have a sense of self, without any pride or sense of entitlement that come from it.
As such, uniformity (or conformity if you wish) is more a detractor than anything. Any particular set of clothing should not be enforced. The body is a body. We all have them. There is no need to cover anything at all. I mean that literally. Rather, it is societies pre-occupation with mating that needs to be addressed. The body is self. Modesty of the body is ego.
I could shave my head and wear robes. But I do not. Would that make me more of a Buddhist? Not at all. Even though they aren't required, people who follow a doctrine of any kind, have a tendency to go "all in" and leave no quarter, or doubt, as to their devotion. I am devoted to nothing. I learn new things all the time. My views change rather consistently.
@Metaphasic there's a difference between non-monastic devotion and ordination.
Ordination requires certain ceremonial rituals to be performed as a public symbolic show of a dedication of one's self to a specific path and/or role.
There's a difference between that, and being compelled through false religious excuse, to don certain clothes under the guise of it being a scriptural requirement, whereas in fact, it is merely a method of separation, subjugation and control.
@federica I humbly beg your pardon, but can you lay that down a bit? I didn't quite understand what you wrote. Thanks!
A monk does it because it's a sign he's committed.
A Muslim woman wears a veil because she is obliged to do so by misguided instruction and compunction.
Thanks. The question really is then, as I tried to point out (but failed at), was why clothes should be considered as a sign of commitment at all?
I can wear clothes of any type, and have slogans or branding on them, but that doesn't mean I support those slogans or brands. Why would robes mean the monk is more dedicated than another?
If you ask me, removal of society's quirks regarding sexuality and nudity would be a better option, then just let people wear what they chose, or nothing at all. Who cares really? It is all just wool or polyester dyed in different colors. What has that got to do with who I am or what I believe in?
If It is true that there should be no compulsion (debatable), then if anybody feels such, based on religion or social hints, even if it is not strictly required, it is still a compulsion, just for the sake of compulsion. And that is wrong and empty.
Note: these are just my thoughts on the matter.
@Metaphasic sas, "If you ask me, removal of society's quirks regarding sexuality and nudity would be a better option, then just let people wear what they chose, or nothing at all. Who cares really? It is all just wool or polyester dyed in different colors. What has that got to do with who I am or what I believe in?"
I hope you don't mean that literally and yeah, I realize these are your thoughts and opinions.
I know (hope) you can see the practical reason for clothing.
Exactly.
Islamic modesty and Buddhist nuns not required to wear high heels and make up is a pious choice. Just as I choose not to concern myself with clothing but adhere to the conventions of my culture which allows:
I am not allowed to wear
Decisions. Decisions.
@Metaphasic, because clothing always has, and always will have. It is what it is. It's symbolic, protective, and is an indication of a person's standing and place in society.
This is always as it has been. It's a means of identification. It's a means of presentation and making a position visible.
If you're in a bar, spouting off how all police officers are pigs, and biased, prejudiced bullies, you're less likely to do so if a police officer is standing next to you wearing his uniform.
Aren't you?
(Aren't you....?)
@Metaphasic I'd argue that you are indeed supporting those brands whose logos you wear because you just spent money to be allowed permission to advertise for them, basically, lol. Then we realize that company whose shoes we just bought for $100 have horrible practices with child labor. Then perhaps we no longer want to wear those shoes. You wouldn't wear a shirt with an ISIS logo on it because you liked the color and then declare the logo didn't mean anything and you weren't supporting them. (extreme example, yes, sorry). Our clothing is a walking billboard of exactly who we do support.
In my comment above about the "uniform" for my son's charter school it had great benefits. The kids didn't know each other by class, and it was wonderful! It was a school that had both the poorest of kids, and some from the richest part of town. But none of the kids knew the different and treated each other accordingly. Which in my sons current school, there is no uniform and the segregation by clothing worn begins very early and affects greatly how the kids treat each other. When I was a kid, the idea of a uniform was horrifying. Clothing was how I expressed myself! It was one thing I had a little control over! But what I've learned since then is that it was a false way of expressing myself and I would have been better off with fewer barriers between myself and others, and learning how to express myself via conversation, music, art, and other avenues more so than by what I was wearing.
This is the problem. Now, of course, protection from elements, or personal choice, is one thing (and valid). But it is the tradition and protocol we must examine, whether here or in all life's paths. Adhering to a tradition or protocol, simply because "that is the way it has always been" hinders progress and the removal unnecessary practices. At worst, they can even foster hatred. And that, is my underlying concern. To be mindful of WHY you do something, more so than WHAT you are doing.
But I've given you the 'whys'.
I told you what they do and - why.
Simply because you do not see the sense and believe it to be unnecessary, cannot and will not change thousands of years' worth of dedicated tradition...
We are all products of our cultures be we 'conformists' or 'rebels' or somewhere in between. For example, if you try to put a burka on a Muslim woman from Turkey or Singapore, you might have a fight on your hands.
By tradition, men wear pants in western societies and women generally wear dresses or skirts. The Scots and some Irish wear Kilts - call 'em dresses and you may very well die ion the spot.
CULTURE 
Both @lobster and @fedrica have put forth extensive and valid points. I enjoyed reading the back and forth - educational and entertaining.
Thank you.
Peace to all
@federica
I am not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I did not see value in your points. Wearing clothes or adornments...
1) For protection (from elements or environment).
2) For identification (as an officer or monk).
3) For enjoyment (visually or comfort).
...are all valid. In fact, it is these specific types of validation I support. Doing so "just because" though, is where you run into trouble. I think it is important for people to understand why they do things, as much as what they are doing. In the example of male's wearing pants, and women wearing dresses, the reasons become less important, although they can be traced to logical reasoning. Therefore, something such as that might need to be looked at again. In the past, men worked more than women, and needed more leg protection. Today, this is no longer the case. Women can wear pants if the wish. But if they still wore only dresses, just because that's the way it is, then they have become blinded by the tradition rather than understanding it.
That's all I'm saying. Be aware of why and not just what. Blindly doing something can be dangerous.
I think we're saying the same thing then, aren't we?
Yes, one that doesn't murder innocent people in the name of some twisted Islamic ideology.
It is important to question whether you are tribe bound or tribe less.
Mixing up views of Sangha and tribalism is easy to do.
The Buddha's Party are those Buddhists who have confabulated a tribal membership, with the Buddha's path towards sufferings cessation. In this party, worldly attachments have just been given a comforting spiritual makeover.
The Buddhist Sangha are those Buddhists who prioritize their progression towards suffering's cessation over any of suffering's causes.
Here, tribes which are just lines of separation drawn between self and others, dissipate.
Not a convincing distinction.
Yes, one that doesn't murder innocent people in the name of some twisted Islamic ideology.
I would not be so quick to anoint the innocence of Buddhism's representatives.
Try googling Buddhism and it's own religious persecutions.
These are all just people, acting out their karmic proclivities in whatever religious dress happens to be available.
I far better trust the person, who because they can see their own potential to harm others, is thereby on guard to not allow it to dominate
than
the person denying such a potential exists and is unaware of their susceptibility until it's too late to turn back the inertia of it's force.
What is compassion or empathy or sympathy or tenderness or love or benevolence or harmlessness actually mean when our own bloodlust is present.
Not Islam as such but Salafist interpretation of Quran and Hadith which is real problem ..It dehumanises the followers of other Faiths...Someone once told me that Quran can only be correctly understood in reference to it's context and as such interpretation matter very much ...
Excuses.
Indeed.
I feel a need to lashout at some Buddhist terrorists ...mmm ... who to choose?
I wonder if these charmers have a nice costume for me to wear?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
No? How about something a little more moderate ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka_and_state_terrorism
... oh I feel cleansed and just a little holy justification ...
More excuses. Why do apologists always blame somebody else?
Maybe if I get a false beard I can cast the first and last stone.