Buddha addresses this directly in the Dhammapada. He states explicitly that a person does not deserve veneration simply because they wear the monastic robe. Instead, worth and veneration belong strictly to the character, virtue, and inner purity of the person wearing it. The Buddha makes this distinction clear across several specific verses:
1. The Twin Verses (Verses 9 and 10)
In the very first chapter of the Dhammapada (Yamaka Vagga), the Buddha uses a clever Pali play on words (kasava means the saffron robe, while kilesa or kasava also refers to mental stains/impurities) to draw the line between empty symbolism and genuine virtue:
Verse 9: “Whoever, not free from impurity, lacking self-restraint and truth, puts on the yellow robe, he is not worthy of the yellow robe.”
Verse 10: “Whoever is free from impurity, firmly established in the moral precepts, possessed of self-restraint and truth, he is worthy of the yellow robe.”
2. The Hell Chapter (Verse 307)
Later in the text, the Buddha delivers a stark warning to those who rely on the robe to extract unearned veneration or material offerings from lay followers:
Verse 307: “Many who wear the yellow robe are unrestrained in evil things; these evil ones by evil deeds, in hell do they arise.”
The Buddha warns that the robe itself possesses no magical protective quality. If a person uses the garment as a disguise to hide an immoral lifestyle, the spiritual consequences of their deceit are severe.
With this backdrop, individuals should consider very seriously their stance on the robe and the character of the person wearing it. As stated earlier, if they choose to ignore the character of the individual wearing the robe, even a murderer or a rapist who is actually a lay person masquerading as a Monk, should be worshipped irrespective of the crime. Where does this end? For instance, if a lay person masquerading as a Monk was responsible for planting a bomb and killing hundreds of people during the Easter attack, should that person be venerated because he was wearing a robe?
The Core Principle: A Symbolic “Field of Merit”
Looking at the direct words of the Buddha in the Dhammapada, he firmly rejects the idea that a piece of cloth commands automatic spiritual authority. The robe is an external reflection of an internal reality. If the inner reality—restraint, truthfulness, and virtue—is missing, the robe becomes a mere costume. The original monastic robes were fashioned from discarded, tattered rags (from fire, mice, or corpses) or scraps of cloth dyed in neutral earth tones. The Buddha noted that once a monk experiences the true joy of meditation, even a garment made of rags feels as splendid as fine-coloured apparel. The patchwork geometry of the robe was patterned after the neat, divided layout of a rice field. This symbolizes that the monastic life is a “Field of Benefaction” or “Field of Merit”—a place where spiritual practice and awakening are cultivated.
The historical reality of rag robes
In the early days of the Buddhist monastic community (Sangha), monks and nuns did not accept cloth donations from laypeople. Instead, they practiced the ascetic ideal of wearing pāmsūda or pāmsūla civara (literally translated as “dust-heap cloth” or “rag-robes”). It is said that about 20 years into his teaching career, the Buddha relaxed this rule after his physician, Jivaka, requested that monks be allowed to accept robes cleanly woven and donated by laypeople, though the patchwork design survived as a symbol of humility.
In texts like the Theragatha (Verses of the Elder Monks) and various sections of the Pali Canon, early enlightened disciples frequently describe how the inner bliss of Jhana (deep meditative absorption) completely eclipses material luxury. To an enlightened mind, a fine silk robe offers no more spiritual comfort than a patchwork of cemetery rags. The Buddha emphasized that the highest form of luxury is the mental peace born of renunciation, rendering the physical quality of one’s clothing entirely irrelevant.
Modern day context
Over time, especially after the period of Kandyan royalty, the role of Buddhist Monks has undergone changes and involvement in politics and other civil society activities have gradually increased. One could argue that this has changed the direction of the original intent of becoming a Monk and leading a monastic life to pursue the path towards ending of samsara. The dichotomy seen here is a challenge to the lay persons as well as the Monks, as a vast majority of Monks today are treading the path of social activism, including engaging in politics rather than choosing a monastic life. The institutionalisation that began after the Kandyan period, with the advent of the Nikaya (caste) based system has divided the Monks order, and in general, all orders have changed their focus to strengthen the institution in the guise of safeguarding Buddhism and working with the lay community to do this. Questions do arise as to what is being protected, meaning, is it the doctrine as a practice, or the institution. Some may say that one cannot do without the other although during Buddha’s time and for as many as 300 years after him till King Dharmasoka began linking royalty and the ruling class with Buddhism, the doctrine was propagated as a practice amongst very ordinary people by Buddha and thereafter by Buddhist Monks who were not institutionalised and who had little or nothing to do with Royal patronage. Even after King Dharmasoka, for many centuries, until the Kandyan period, there were no institutions as such to propagate Buddhism, but Buddhism survived.
The vast majority of Sri Lanka’s 42,122 registered monks belong to the Grāmavāsī (village-dwelling) tradition. They live in community temples, run schools, engage in social service (samaja sevaya), and some frequently become influential figures in national politics. By contrast, the monks leading the secluded, meditative lifestyle belong to the Vanavāsī (forest-dwelling) tradition. Their numbers are indeed much lower, and while no statistics are available, it is estimated that possibly a maximum of 10 percent of the Sangha belong to the latter category.
The Buddhist institution in a vortex of conflict
To an impartial onlooker who is more a believer and someone trying to be a practitioner of the doctrine, the activities of the Buddhist clergy, generally speaking, and the institutions themselves appear to be in a vortex of conflict. While Buddha’s doctrine is held as what guides the institution and individual Buddhist Monks, they see a ever widening gap between the fundamentals of the doctrine and what is being practiced. It is no doubt a major challenge for many Buddhist monks as well since the overall institutionalised practice appears to be what sustains many Buddhist Monks. Many members of the lay followers appear to be willing participants in the fostering and growth of institutions. Some makes us of this to pursue their own objectives, particularly in the political arena. The dilemma for a number of well-meaning Buddhist Monks could be about the world they live in, surrounded by technology, materialism and worldly human desires, and the world they are supposed to live in according to Buddha’s doctrine, and to travel the path towards ending the Samsara journey.
The code of conduct for Buddhist Monks is governed by the Vinaya Pitakaya, at least on paper. Unlike the doctrine itself which is contained in the Sutra Pitakaya and the Abhi Dhamma Pitakaya as guiding principles and practices which are entirely voluntary to any individual, the Vinaya Pitakaya is a code of conduct where Monks are not offered a choice as such. It is not voluntary and if you join the Sangha, the practice as per the Vinaya Pitakaya is not voluntary, but compulsory. However, the extent to which this happens in practice is debateable. as much as whether the practice is enforced within the sangha community and what is done about violators.
The robe, Vinaya Pitakaya and the law of the country.
While the recent happenings in the country concerning the attire of a Buddhist Monk has caused disquiet amongst sections of the society, it is very likely a symptom of many causes including the issues outlined earlier in the article. It does raise the question about the robe and the character of a person wearing it, who one should worship, whether it is the robe or the person wearing it, the significance of the robe to Buddhism as explained by Buddha, the purpose in becoming a Buddhist Monk as explained by Buddha, the role of Buddhis monks in today’s society, the relevance of the Vinaya Pitakaya to contemporary times and finally, the position of the law of the land and what is contained in the Vinaya Pitakaya as far as applicability to Buddhist Monks is concerned.
While the decisions taken by the government on issues related to the recent conflict has to go through the process outlined and hopefully a satisfactory outcome eventuates, it will not address many of the other issues raised here. In fact most of these issues are for the Maha Sangha and the lay followers to address and resolve. The Maha Sangha should be clear about their purpose and their role. Lay followers must become critical thinkers and decide whether they wish to be followers of what Buddha taught or followers of what is presented today as what Buddha taught. They need to be more discerning and be able to show better judgement, insight and be able to recognise the difference between their interests and those of the Buddhist institution. It is clear that the Vinaya Pitakaya has to be updated, and while keeping it within the fundamental principles outlined by Buddha, it should reflect and address the challenges of contemporary times, including the role of the Sangha.
