This was what I was thinking of, actually from the Mahasanghika bhikkhuni vibhanga (oops) re: gaṇḍapraṭicchādana SuttaCentralgaṇḍa-praticchādana-pratisaṁyuktaṁ, bhikṣuṇi-prakīrṇaka 24. Thullananda walks up and down wearing her sankacchika, and has wardrobe issues, and is accused of running a “fruitshop” (y’all can work out the precise details for yourself…janena uccagghāyati paśyatha bhaṇe śramaṇikā alābu-tumbakena viya nadīṁ taratīti ). A rule is laid down requiring a gaṇḍa-praticchādana.Gaṇḍa seems to mean a “swelling” i.e. nipple here.
OK just checked- this doesn’t seem to be in the Mahasanghika bhikkhu vinaya. kaṇḍu-praticchādana is as we would expect in the bhikkhu version. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Maybe this is just Mahasanghika decay.
Images of bhikkhunis from Gandhara feature a late form of double-shouldered sankacchika (called vegacchi in Jain Sauraseni) or Scythian style blouse. You can see this a lot in images of Uppalavanna. The Chinese travelogues (Xuanzang, Yijing, etc) describe something like in the video for bhikkhunis (and also apparently for bhikkhus). How to Drape a Sari - No. 81 Dhokna Jalpaiguri Drape, West Bengal The knot thing will only work if the fabric is thin. There is also a two or three piece version of this one with a stanapatta that is described in the Mahasanghika vinaya and is closer to what is worn as women’s Chakri clothing (sabai/phabiang +pha rad than) in Thailand.
It’s fascinating that some terms for sankacchika, e.g. a sweat-cloth (Like Tibetan rngul gzan in the Mahavyutpatti) seem to come from the word gamucha. I didn’t know that!
Just in brief, as it strays a little off topic, there is a common interpretation that bhikkhunis disrobe (quit) simply by wearing lay clothing. The tradition is based on the Buddha’s instruction to not accept a bhikkhuni’s melodramatic (and later-regretted) declarations of quitting monastic life when angry. Unlike male monastics, the females get to stay in robes no matter how strongly they angrily declared themselves out, but do have to face Sanghadisesa penalties for the drama. It’s when a bhikkhuni shows that she really has quit - by taking up lay life & lay clothing - that she’s no longer ordained. Very compassionate, yet later misconstrued; the Buddha’s effort to keep more females in the holy life has, ironically, been turned against them as a false argument against women being able to re-ordain.
About novices disrobing by wearing lay clothing - there are standards in the Vinaya stating immoral behaviors that would end the career of a novice, but of course they don’t include considerations of clothing.
But on a similar vein, I recall there were a couple of stories by Bhante G of attempting to leave novice life by deliberately getting separated from his robes, while making it look like an accident. (One time he let his robes slip away while bathing in a stream.) No one accepted the “disrobing” outcome, so it seems that while quitting through even a brief separation from robes was a known tradition in Sri Lanka in those days (early 1940’s), it wasn’t adhered to strongly. I thought these accounts were in his autobiography but was unable to find them just now.
There are instructions on how the three robes should be sewn, especially in the Kathina-kkhandhaka. These instructions may imply - but it is far from unambiguous - that the robes should be rectangular. But even if this is the case, there is no offence laid down for not following these guidelines. In other words, it is not a serious matter. Moreover, these rules refer specifically to the three robes, not to any other garment one might require. In countries that are not tropical, and especially those that are not even sub-tropical, it is virtually impossible to restrict one’s robes to the original three. I think we need to be reasonably liberal with these rules, so as to make it possible for Buddhism to spread to all corners of the world. But it’s a fine balance. I don’t think we should not discard the “banner” of monasticism too casually.
This is not Canonical Vinaya. It is possible, however, that such a regulation is found in the commentaries, perhaps based on the way bhikkhunīs disrobe. If a bhikkhunī puts on lay clothes, and she intends to disrobe, then she is no longer a bhikkhunī. She does not need to inform anyone, as do the monks. The important point here is that she needs to intend to disrobe. I would say the same thing should apply to sāmaṇeras.
I’ve heard you say this before, but so far as I can see, there is nothing in Mahakkhandhaka about walking on water. The Buddha is said to have parted the water and then walked on dry land. Here is my current translation:
Soon afterwards an unseasonal storm poured down, producing a great flood. The place where the Buddha was staying was inundated. The Buddha thought,
“Let me drive back the water on all sides and walk on the dry ground in the middle.”
I just did a brief check of sources, and it seems that in the obvious Sanskrit texts—Mulasarvastivada Skandhakas, Mahavastu, Catusparisat Sutra—this passage is not found. Hmm. I wonder if we can find any parallels?
This topic is somewhat old now, but I thought I’d point out that Ajahn Cha was at first resistant to the monks who founded the branch monastery in England wearing things like sweaters. After he went to England for the first time, and experience standing in cold, rainy, 5 degree Celsius weather for the first time ever in his life, he changed his mind.
As has been mentioned by someone else, I think it’s dangerous to read too much into the role the Buddha’s “omniscience” played in setting up the patimokkha. Ajahn Cha was considered an arahant, and was considered to posses the Divine Eye, etc. Yet he still couldn’t imagine what a British winter was like without having experienced it for himself.
Maybe this is just Mahasanghika decay.