Chapter 3: Kesa Materials
From ancient times, the kesa has been described as having three aspects: tai (体), shiki (色), and ryō (量).
Tai, put simply, refers to which materials are used in making the kesa. The most important thing about kesa materials is that they be pure.
Incidentally, there are some who speak of the “purity of robe materials” and insist we should only use cotton or linen to make kesa, never silk. This idea originates with the Vinaya master Daoxuan (596–667) 1 . He came to the opinion that because silk fabric was made by taking the lives of silkworms, we shouldn’t use it for kesa. Rather, from the perspective of purity of materials, we should use fabrics made from plant fibers, such as cotton and linen, or wool.
As the founder of the Vinaya School in China and a person of overwhelming influence, Daoxuan’s remarks [on silk] created significant problems. They were based on the following sentence in the Vinaya (from “Precept on Making Kesa with Silk Fabric” in the Dharmagputaka Vinaya): “It is a nissaggiya offense [offense entailing forfeiture of the object] 2 to make new robes with silk.” In short—according to this sentence in the Vinaya—making new robes with silk is forbidden.
At this point it becomes necessary for us to understand what the Vinaya is. The Vinaya outlines both individual and group conduct among Shakyamuni’s disciples. When someone behaved in a way unbecoming of a disciple, the Buddha would either directly admonish them or establish a penalty; the Vinaya is a detailed account of those rules. In other words, it is an accurate record of the day-to-day lifestyle of Shakyamuni Buddha and his disciples. There are five kinds of vinaya that were translated into Chinese, called the Five Great Vinayas: Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya), Mahisasaka Vinaya (Five-Part Vinaya), Sabbatthavada Vinaya (Ten-Reciting Vinaya), Mahasanghika Vinaya, and Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. There are also the Pali Vinaya and a translation of the vinaya in Tibetan. The first four vinayas are called the “old translations”; the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, translated by Yijing (602–664), is called the “new translation.” 3 As these five vinayas were compiled by various factions after the Buddha’s death, we can see differences in their styles and contents.
Usually, the Tripitaka (or “Three Baskets”) is thought of as being separated into sutra, vinaya, and the treatises/commentaries. However, even if we do see the treatises as separate, the sutras and vinaya, from the beginning, should not have been treated as distinct from one another. The Buddha’s original discourses were not given in two separate categories. From the first Buddhist Council, however, the teachings in general were compiled as sutras, while the teachings about the discipline of daily life were separated out into the vinaya.
The precepts existed from the time of the Buddha, but they were fragmentary and unsystematized. Only in later years were they sorted out and compiled in the way we find them in the vinaya texts today.
Of the Five Great Vinayas, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is the best organized. It has undergone considerable study since ancient times, and there are many published commentaries on it; as a result, we can say it works as a representative vinaya. Now, let us see what kinds of robe materials are permitted in these vinaya texts.
In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there are ten kinds of permitted robe materials:
In Kokuyaku Issai-kyō (Comprehensive Japanese Translation of Sutras), translated by Koyo Sakaino, it is written, “In summary, though there are various opinions, it would seem that these ten kinds of fabrics were the ones used in India in the time of the Buddha.” It is thought that these ten (or seven) kinds of robe materials reflect every kind of fabric that was used for making clothing at the time of the Buddha in India.
Meanwhile, the following robes were not permitted:
As you can see, none of these materials are anything we would consider ordinary. We can conclude, then, that the kesa is something used as a practical item, not an ornament or a luxury item.
Here we arrive at the problem of silk: while it’s permitted to use silk for kesa, making a new kesa with silk from a wild silkworm was prohibited. The difficulty is that while it was permitted to use silk for kesa, it was also prohibited to make a new kesa with silk.
How could that be? If we look at the origins of “the precept of not asking for silk to make a new kesa” the situation becomes clear.
In the Dharmagputaka Vinaya, it is written:
"The Buddha was in a field near the border, and there also was a group of six monks who wanted to make a new kesa with silk. They looked for various kinds of fabrics: fabric only made into floss silk (silk balls), fabric dyed and not yet dyed, new and used. They went to the house of a silk maker and said, “We are seeking silk fabric.” The silk maker replied, “Wait for a while—you should come back when the cocoons are ready.” So the six monks stayed nearby the silk maker’s house and waited. When the silk maker boiled the cocoons, the pupae of the silkworms cried out. All the lay Buddhists who saw the event repudiated it, saying, “Those monks have no shame. They say they practice true dharma while they are harming sentient beings. There is no true dharma when they desire for silkworm cocoons to make new kesa.”
This is how “the precept of not asking for silk to make a new kesa” was established. In the act of waiting for the silkworms to be boiled in order to acquire silk for a kesa—and also in their attitude, unfitting of Buddha’s disciples—we can understand the meaning behind the monks’ admonishment and how this precept came to be established. If you only look at the language of this precept, you might think silk itself is the problem. However, if you closely examine the precept’s origins, you see the problem was not the specific kind of fabric but rather the monks’ attitude. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the Chinese word referring to silk actually includes a character for “miscellanea,” meaning it includes other fabrics such as wool, cotton, and linen. Ultimately, we can observe that this precept is an admonishment of an attitude that is unsuitable, regardless of what kind of fabric we use for kesa.
It is clear from this example that in considering the issue of material for kesa, we shouldn’t be too attached to the fabric itself. More important is the attitude by which we interpret the precept and our internal frame of mind.
In his “Proper Dharma Attire,” 4 Mokushitsu Zenji wrote, "All hinayana teachers, in speaking of the pureness of the material, say that you should use wool fabric, because silk fabric is made by harming the silkworm. What they don’t know is that even wool fabric can be impure if you don’t cut off your attachment."
He is pointing out that the problem is the impurity of our mind, our attachment to our preference for particular robe materials—not the silk fabric itself.
This issue—the purity of the robe material itself versus the purity of the mind—comes to be a significant question. Our life as disciples of the Buddha is fundamentally supported by takuhatsu 5 , the practice of alms-begging. The Buddha’s disciples, following the example of the Buddha himself, practiced it as the most correct approach and accepted it as a way of life. Living by takuhatsu means you must completely rely on others—your own preferences are not condoned in the least. To accept with joy whatever is given is the mental attitude of a disciple of the Buddha; it is also the correct attitude toward the donor.
For the Buddha’s disciple, in any aspect of life—food, clothing, or shelter—this should be the basic attitude. Even today, thousands of years after the Buddha’s death, we should never neglect this frame of mind. No matter the kind of fabric, if it is usable as robe material, we should accept it as it is, not judging its quality as good or bad.
There are many precepts related to this issue of how to receive something. For example, in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there is the precept of not making a new kesa within six years unless there is a special circumstance. There is also the precept of not asking for anything extra when you receive a donation of robe material after natural or man-made disasters. These precepts are about possessing extra robes. In the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, we find this: “You will gain peace for yourself and increase virtue for others when you know how much is enough.” We should maintain this fundamental spirit—in other words, an attitude of humility.
Such a mental attitude should be applied in modern times as well, not only when you receive the dana of robe material from laypeople but also when you buy robe material by yourself. For example, when it’s possible, choose robe material that is inexpensive and easy to acquire. We do not need expensive material. From the start, the kesa is something we wear for the sake of practice, not something intended for display.
In Shōbōgenzō Kesakudoku (“The Merit of the Kesa”), Dogen Zenji wrote:
"For making kesa, the basic material is coarse cotton. When coarse cotton is not available, we use fine cotton. When we have neither coarse nor fine cotton cloth, we use plain silk. When we have neither plain silk nor cotton, we use twill cloth or thin silk. These are all permitted by the Tathagata. In countries where no silk, cotton, twill cloth, thin silk, or any other cloth is available, the Tathagata also permitted leather kesa."
Even though the religious forms have changed over time, it goes without saying that it remains unacceptable to acquire material through actions unfitting of a Buddha’s disciple.
I mentioned at the beginning that the most important point when considering robe material is that it has to be pure. What, then, is meant by “pure?” In the end, that purity is nothing but “abandoning fame and fortune.” It isn’t easy, but for us, as Buddha’s disciples, this is the great question of our life.
The problem of the robe material is the problem of how to let go of worldly concerns; the study of the kesa is the study of how human beings can achieve that same end.
Tai, put simply, refers to which materials are used in making the kesa. The most important thing about kesa materials is that they be pure.
Incidentally, there are some who speak of the “purity of robe materials” and insist we should only use cotton or linen to make kesa, never silk. This idea originates with the Vinaya master Daoxuan (596–667) 1 . He came to the opinion that because silk fabric was made by taking the lives of silkworms, we shouldn’t use it for kesa. Rather, from the perspective of purity of materials, we should use fabrics made from plant fibers, such as cotton and linen, or wool.
As the founder of the Vinaya School in China and a person of overwhelming influence, Daoxuan’s remarks [on silk] created significant problems. They were based on the following sentence in the Vinaya (from “Precept on Making Kesa with Silk Fabric” in the Dharmagputaka Vinaya): “It is a nissaggiya offense [offense entailing forfeiture of the object] 2 to make new robes with silk.” In short—according to this sentence in the Vinaya—making new robes with silk is forbidden.
At this point it becomes necessary for us to understand what the Vinaya is. The Vinaya outlines both individual and group conduct among Shakyamuni’s disciples. When someone behaved in a way unbecoming of a disciple, the Buddha would either directly admonish them or establish a penalty; the Vinaya is a detailed account of those rules. In other words, it is an accurate record of the day-to-day lifestyle of Shakyamuni Buddha and his disciples. There are five kinds of vinaya that were translated into Chinese, called the Five Great Vinayas: Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya), Mahisasaka Vinaya (Five-Part Vinaya), Sabbatthavada Vinaya (Ten-Reciting Vinaya), Mahasanghika Vinaya, and Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. There are also the Pali Vinaya and a translation of the vinaya in Tibetan. The first four vinayas are called the “old translations”; the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, translated by Yijing (602–664), is called the “new translation.” 3 As these five vinayas were compiled by various factions after the Buddha’s death, we can see differences in their styles and contents.
Usually, the Tripitaka (or “Three Baskets”) is thought of as being separated into sutra, vinaya, and the treatises/commentaries. However, even if we do see the treatises as separate, the sutras and vinaya, from the beginning, should not have been treated as distinct from one another. The Buddha’s original discourses were not given in two separate categories. From the first Buddhist Council, however, the teachings in general were compiled as sutras, while the teachings about the discipline of daily life were separated out into the vinaya.
The precepts existed from the time of the Buddha, but they were fragmentary and unsystematized. Only in later years were they sorted out and compiled in the way we find them in the vinaya texts today.
Of the Five Great Vinayas, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya is the best organized. It has undergone considerable study since ancient times, and there are many published commentaries on it; as a result, we can say it works as a representative vinaya. Now, let us see what kinds of robe materials are permitted in these vinaya texts.
In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there are ten kinds of permitted robe materials:
- Shi-e (silk)
- Gōbai-e (cotton)
- Kinbara-e (wool)
- Sūma-e (linen, ramie, or hemp)
- Shinma-e (same as sūma-e)
- Senna-e (wool from white sheep or coarse fabric)
- Shiira-e (bird feather or unknown)
- Kuira-e (wool from red sheep or thin silk)
- Shinrahan-e (wool from mixed color sheep or leaf)
- Ma-e (linen, ramie, or hemp)
In Kokuyaku Issai-kyō (Comprehensive Japanese Translation of Sutras), translated by Koyo Sakaino, it is written, “In summary, though there are various opinions, it would seem that these ten kinds of fabrics were the ones used in India in the time of the Buddha.” It is thought that these ten (or seven) kinds of robe materials reflect every kind of fabric that was used for making clothing at the time of the Buddha in India.
Meanwhile, the following robes were not permitted:
- New robes made with silk
- Robes with embroidery
- Robes made with grass
- Robes made with tree bark
- Robes made with tree leaves
- Robes with jewels
- Robes made with animal skin
- Robes made with human hair
- Robes made with eagle feathers
- Robes made with horse hair
- Robes made by fabric pounded with a wooden hammer to make it shiny
- Robes made with straw
- Robes made with colorful fabric
- Robes made with pleated fabric
- Robes ornamented with feathers
- Robes made with camel hair
- Robes made with cow hair
- Robes made with thick, coarse fabric
- Robes made with thin, soft fabric
- Robes made with wooden panels
- Robes made with fabric from a graveyard (that is, unsanitary fabric)
As you can see, none of these materials are anything we would consider ordinary. We can conclude, then, that the kesa is something used as a practical item, not an ornament or a luxury item.
Here we arrive at the problem of silk: while it’s permitted to use silk for kesa, making a new kesa with silk from a wild silkworm was prohibited. The difficulty is that while it was permitted to use silk for kesa, it was also prohibited to make a new kesa with silk.
How could that be? If we look at the origins of “the precept of not asking for silk to make a new kesa” the situation becomes clear.
In the Dharmagputaka Vinaya, it is written:
"The Buddha was in a field near the border, and there also was a group of six monks who wanted to make a new kesa with silk. They looked for various kinds of fabrics: fabric only made into floss silk (silk balls), fabric dyed and not yet dyed, new and used. They went to the house of a silk maker and said, “We are seeking silk fabric.” The silk maker replied, “Wait for a while—you should come back when the cocoons are ready.” So the six monks stayed nearby the silk maker’s house and waited. When the silk maker boiled the cocoons, the pupae of the silkworms cried out. All the lay Buddhists who saw the event repudiated it, saying, “Those monks have no shame. They say they practice true dharma while they are harming sentient beings. There is no true dharma when they desire for silkworm cocoons to make new kesa.”
This is how “the precept of not asking for silk to make a new kesa” was established. In the act of waiting for the silkworms to be boiled in order to acquire silk for a kesa—and also in their attitude, unfitting of Buddha’s disciples—we can understand the meaning behind the monks’ admonishment and how this precept came to be established. If you only look at the language of this precept, you might think silk itself is the problem. However, if you closely examine the precept’s origins, you see the problem was not the specific kind of fabric but rather the monks’ attitude. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the Chinese word referring to silk actually includes a character for “miscellanea,” meaning it includes other fabrics such as wool, cotton, and linen. Ultimately, we can observe that this precept is an admonishment of an attitude that is unsuitable, regardless of what kind of fabric we use for kesa.
It is clear from this example that in considering the issue of material for kesa, we shouldn’t be too attached to the fabric itself. More important is the attitude by which we interpret the precept and our internal frame of mind.
In his “Proper Dharma Attire,” 4 Mokushitsu Zenji wrote, "All hinayana teachers, in speaking of the pureness of the material, say that you should use wool fabric, because silk fabric is made by harming the silkworm. What they don’t know is that even wool fabric can be impure if you don’t cut off your attachment."
He is pointing out that the problem is the impurity of our mind, our attachment to our preference for particular robe materials—not the silk fabric itself.
This issue—the purity of the robe material itself versus the purity of the mind—comes to be a significant question. Our life as disciples of the Buddha is fundamentally supported by takuhatsu 5 , the practice of alms-begging. The Buddha’s disciples, following the example of the Buddha himself, practiced it as the most correct approach and accepted it as a way of life. Living by takuhatsu means you must completely rely on others—your own preferences are not condoned in the least. To accept with joy whatever is given is the mental attitude of a disciple of the Buddha; it is also the correct attitude toward the donor.
For the Buddha’s disciple, in any aspect of life—food, clothing, or shelter—this should be the basic attitude. Even today, thousands of years after the Buddha’s death, we should never neglect this frame of mind. No matter the kind of fabric, if it is usable as robe material, we should accept it as it is, not judging its quality as good or bad.
There are many precepts related to this issue of how to receive something. For example, in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there is the precept of not making a new kesa within six years unless there is a special circumstance. There is also the precept of not asking for anything extra when you receive a donation of robe material after natural or man-made disasters. These precepts are about possessing extra robes. In the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, we find this: “You will gain peace for yourself and increase virtue for others when you know how much is enough.” We should maintain this fundamental spirit—in other words, an attitude of humility.
Such a mental attitude should be applied in modern times as well, not only when you receive the dana of robe material from laypeople but also when you buy robe material by yourself. For example, when it’s possible, choose robe material that is inexpensive and easy to acquire. We do not need expensive material. From the start, the kesa is something we wear for the sake of practice, not something intended for display.
In Shōbōgenzō Kesakudoku (“The Merit of the Kesa”), Dogen Zenji wrote:
"For making kesa, the basic material is coarse cotton. When coarse cotton is not available, we use fine cotton. When we have neither coarse nor fine cotton cloth, we use plain silk. When we have neither plain silk nor cotton, we use twill cloth or thin silk. These are all permitted by the Tathagata. In countries where no silk, cotton, twill cloth, thin silk, or any other cloth is available, the Tathagata also permitted leather kesa."
Even though the religious forms have changed over time, it goes without saying that it remains unacceptable to acquire material through actions unfitting of a Buddha’s disciple.
I mentioned at the beginning that the most important point when considering robe material is that it has to be pure. What, then, is meant by “pure?” In the end, that purity is nothing but “abandoning fame and fortune.” It isn’t easy, but for us, as Buddha’s disciples, this is the great question of our life.
The problem of the robe material is the problem of how to let go of worldly concerns; the study of the kesa is the study of how human beings can achieve that same end.
1 (道宣,Dosen)
2 (三十捨堕法, sanjushadahou Jp.) "Thirty Rules for Offences of Expiation Involving Forfeiture"
3 (新訳) Xuanzang (玄奘) examined the older translation by Kumarajiva, which was elegant but contained more liberal interpretations. He revised it by bringing it closer to the meaning of the original Sanskrit and eliminating Taoist terminology.
4 (法服格正, Hōbukukakusho) Written in 1821 by Soto scholar–monk Mokushitsu Ryoyo (黙室良要,1775–1833. It is a study of the two kesa-focused fascicles of Shobogenzo, “Merit of the Kesa” and “Transmission of the Robe,” supplemented with extensive research on the vinayas to “emphasize the identity of the robe with the teaching of Buddhism” and uphold the teaching that “the Buddhist robe is one and the same as the Buddha's teaching.” (Diane Riggs, 2010).
5 (托鉢,pindapata Skt.) The Buddhist monastic alms round. In ancient India, offerings were mainly food to sustain the dharna body of monks and nuns, but in modern times in Japan, they are more often money or uncooked rice. For the laity, takuhatsu is an opportunity to accumulate merit by letting go of attachments and making offerings.
2 (三十捨堕法, sanjushadahou Jp.) "Thirty Rules for Offences of Expiation Involving Forfeiture"
3 (新訳) Xuanzang (玄奘) examined the older translation by Kumarajiva, which was elegant but contained more liberal interpretations. He revised it by bringing it closer to the meaning of the original Sanskrit and eliminating Taoist terminology.
4 (法服格正, Hōbukukakusho) Written in 1821 by Soto scholar–monk Mokushitsu Ryoyo (黙室良要,1775–1833. It is a study of the two kesa-focused fascicles of Shobogenzo, “Merit of the Kesa” and “Transmission of the Robe,” supplemented with extensive research on the vinayas to “emphasize the identity of the robe with the teaching of Buddhism” and uphold the teaching that “the Buddhist robe is one and the same as the Buddha's teaching.” (Diane Riggs, 2010).
5 (托鉢,pindapata Skt.) The Buddhist monastic alms round. In ancient India, offerings were mainly food to sustain the dharna body of monks and nuns, but in modern times in Japan, they are more often money or uncooked rice. For the laity, takuhatsu is an opportunity to accumulate merit by letting go of attachments and making offerings.
