[Buddha-l] Nakedness

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Eric,

>Don't believe everything you read.

I have to, at least during the time of the reading. Otherwise it would be no fun.

>I think it's not very likely that all  
>bhiksus were always naked.

It didn't have to be total frontal nudity, loincloths were allowed. But I always thought the Buddhist bhiksus were overdressed for Indian standards. Why did one of the shoulders and therefore the torso have to be covered?

>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the  
>Dharmasutra prescriptive and not descriptive?The split up of the Jains  
>in Digamabaras and Swetambaras was no accident. 

No, and as Richard mentions, it was a topic within the Buddhist community too. I guess that as Buddhism spread already within the regions of India, it must have encountered different people with different customs. It must have encountered resistance to nakedness *if* it were allowed in the beginnings of Buddhism. The missionary aspect of Buddhism  is perhaps one of the reasons (semi-)nakedness of Buddhist bhiksus must have disappeared. 

>Besides you cannot  
>wander in the Himalayas just naked, we cannot all be like the Dutch  
>iceman (who came to his abilities through rage and despair of seeing his  
>wife being crunched by an avalanche).

I didn't know that. That does explain a lot, doesn't it?

>I think these bhiksus were a  
>fairly irregulair bunch like today. But clothes come in handy if you  
>have to wander through towns begging for food. 
>I doubt if the succes of Buddhism is due to fashonable dresses, perhaps  
>Schopenhauer and Blavatsky had more influence. 

No, but if the Buddhists were dressed or rather undressed like sadhus etc., like savages in the eyes of most Europeans of those days, I am not sure it would have known the same interest. Look at how tantrism including tantric buddhism and their representations were received.

Joy