# Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 8, 2010)

I understand one of the reasons we are not supposed to cut/trim our hair is because we want to keep the 'roop' given to us by God intact.

But even the nails were given to us by God. Why is it ok to cut them regularly and not hair?

Both nails and hair are made up of dead tissue and hygiene aspect applies to both equally.

Last time I asked this question on a forum, someone told me that this is because our Gurus told us to do so. 
But I am looking to find out why we were told to do so. How does this actually bring us close to God spiritually?


----------



## Admin (Sep 8, 2010)

It is surprising when people argue that there is no mention in Gurbani about cutting or not cutting your bodily hair.   In Japji Sahib, it is clearly stated to live our life in accordance to the Hukum (The Laws of Nature). This statement _*encompasses*_ every trivial argument we make like justifying of _*Cutting/shaving/plucking of Hair from any part of the body*_.

Kesh or Bodily Hair grow as per the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the Almighty. Cutting edges of hair or plucking or shaving eyebrows/facial hair or shaving hair from any part of your body is a clear defiance of the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the Almighty. 

Now, about people who seek justification for cutting bodily hair, in cutting nails, i would request them to immediately stop cutting their nails and see what happens next? Doing your day to day chores, the nails will break-off automatically, even if you take utmost care to prevent them from breaking. This means Breaking-off of nails is perfectly in accordance of with the Hukum (The Laws of the Nature). 

For me this fake argument of Nails v/s Hair ends right here! End of the Story!

The Hukum by the tenth Master to Keep Kesh is simply a reminder to follow this important Hukum ie. The Laws of Nature as ordained by the almighty.

But as Tejwant ji stated earlier in this discussion itself, a person who is  hell bent upon to defy the word of the Guru or the Hukum, will eventually find a way to justify his/her acts. 

Gurfateh!


----------



## Archived_Member16 (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

*Why don't Sikhs cut their hair?*

The unshorn hair (Kesh) is part of nature and God's system. Sikhs maintains long unshorn hair (‘Kesh’) as an act of acceptance of God's Will and living as nature intended, sustaining the individual in higher consciousness. The unshorn hair is regarded with the highest importance in the Sikh religion and is one of the basic requirements for a Sikh. Dishonouring one’s hair is one of the four Bajjar Kurehats (cardinal sins), which the Guru has told a Sikh never to commit. A Sikh doesn’t disfigure their hair from head to toe because of the Guru's order to maintain the sanctity of the Kesh. Nothing else matters. A Sikh does what their Guru tells them to do.

ਮਾਈ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਾਧਾ ॥
ਬਚਨੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੋ ਪੂਰੈ ਕਹਿਓ ਮੈ ਛੀਕਿ ਗਾਂਠਰੀ ਬਾਧਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
“O mother, True, True True is the Lord, and True, True, True is the Guru.
The Word, which the Perfect Guru has spoken, I have tied to my robe. ||1||Pause||”
(Ang 1204)

The Kesh act as the identity for a Sikh as well being a spiritual and practical tool that helps the body. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, the founder of the Sikh Path, followed the ancient practice of the sages, prophets, and holy mystics of keeping the hair unshorn because keeping it in a natural state is regarded as living in harmony with the Will of Vaheguru.

*The biological functions and benefits of human body hair are for example:*

* The hair on our head protects the skull and brain
* The hair on our body acts an insulator and is linked to our nervous system
* Our eyebrows prevent water going into your eyes
* Facial hair absorb ether energy
* The hair under our armpits prevent friction and irritation when we move our arms

*----- KESH REHAT - GURBANI UPDESH -----*

There is a principle (vidhaan) of maintaining Kesh.
ਸੋਹਣੇ ਨਕ ਜਿਨ ਲੰਮੜੇ ਵਾਲਾ ॥
"Beautiful is Your nose and long hair."
(Ang 567)

Meaning, those who have beautiful nose and beautiful Kesh, they too are your nose and Kesh. Thus, a Sikh should keep full appearance (i.e. maintain unshorn hair and not pierce the nose), crowned with a turban on the head.

ਮਾਠਿ ਗੁੰਦਾਈਂ ਪਟੀਆ ਭਰੀਐ ਮਾਗ ਸੰਧੂਰੇ ॥ ਅਗੈ ਗਈ ਨ ਮੰਨੀਆ ਮਰਉ ਵਿਸੂਰਿ ਵਿਸੂਰੇ ॥
"I have woven my hair into lovely braids, plaits, and marked the centre parting with red colouring (Sandhoor); but in the presence of You, I am still not accepted, and (because of this) I am dying suffering in anguish."
(Ang 559 )

Meaning, braids, plaits, making partings with the hair and adding colour to the hair etc is prohibited for the Sikh of the Guru. Such people do not get accepted the Court of the Lord.

Any form of intended disfigurement or mutilation of the body is prohibited in Gurmat, including shaving, plucking, tattooing, circumcision, piercing, colouring etc. Guru Ji says:

ਨਾਪਾਕ ਪਾਕੁ ਕਰਿ ਹਦੂਰਿ ਹਦੀਸਾ ਸਾਬਤ ਸੂਰਤਿ ਦਸਤਾਰ ਸਿਰਾ ॥ 12 ॥
"O person of God! Purify the mind what is impure (with bad thoughts) “this is the religious tradition through which you can experience the Lord's Presence. (Abandoning circumcision, mutilation and deferment of the body etc) preserve a complete appearance with a turban on your head" this becomes the way to maintain respect and honour. ||12||"
(Ang 1084)

There is one Salokh of Bhagat Kabeer Ji which is often misquoted by mischievous people trying to justify the un-Godly act of shaving or trimming their hair. 

ਕਬੀਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਇਕ ਸਿਉ ਕੀਏ ਆਨ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਭਾਵੈ ਲਾਂਬੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਰੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਘਰਰਿ ਮੁਡਾਇ ॥੨੫॥
"O Kabeer! When you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart. You may have long matted hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||"
(Ang 1365)

These lines criticize both those who have long matted hair or shave their head completely in order to achieve union with God. In these lines, the question of keeping or not keeping Kesh is not the case. Similarly Guru Ji says:

ਕਬੀਰ ਮਨੁ ਮੂੰਡਿਆ ਨਹੀ ਕੇਸ ਮੁੰਡਾਏ ਕਾਂਇ ॥ ਜੋ ਕਿਛੁ ਕੀਆ ਸੋ ਮਨ ਕੀਆ ਮੂੰਡਾ ਮੂੰਡੁ ਅਜਾਂਇ ॥੧੦੧॥
"O Kabeer! You have not shaved your mind, so why do you shave your head? Whatever is done, is done by the mind; it is useless to shave your head. ||101||"
(Ang 1369)

This salok (couplet) clarifies the above salok.

As well as having biological functions and benefits, the hair is sacred due to the fact that spiritual energy abides within each and every pore of hair on the body. The hairs are like electrical wires, which preserve, carry and vibrate energy. When one chants & meditates the Divine- Name (Naam), each hair vibrates. Sikhs do not forcibly or intentionally remove any hair from the body but maintain clean hair with proper washing; tying and keeping them covered are requirements for a Sikh.

Gurbaani (the Divine Word) says:

ਰੋਮ ਰੋਮ ਮਹਿ ਬਸਹਿ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ॥
“On each and every hair, the Lord abides.”
(Ang 344)

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਰੋਮਿ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
“The Gurmukh meditates on the Lord with every hair of his body.”
(Ang 941)

*----- KESH REHAT - REHATNAMAS & PURAATAN GRANTH -----*

ਜਬ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਸਬ ਸਿ੍ਰਸਿਟ ਉਪਾਈ । ਤਬ ਹੀ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹਿ ਬਨਾਈ ।
ਤਨ ਇਸ ਕੇ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਜੁ ਦੀਨੋ । ਸੋ ਇਹ ਤਨ ਸ਼ਿੰਗਾਰਿਹ ਕੀਨੋ ।
ਦਾੜ੍ਹਾ ਮੁੱਛ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਬਨਾਈ । ਹੈ ਇਹ ਦਿ੍ੜ ਜਿਹ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਰਜ਼ਾਈ ।
ਮੇਟ ਰਜ਼ਾਇ ਜੁ ਸੀਸ ਮੁੰਡਾਵੈ । ਕਹੁ ਤੇ ਜਗ ਕੈਸੇ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਵੈ ।
“God created the whole universe and then he fashioned the human body. He gave man a beard, moustaches and hair on the head. He who submits to His Will steadfastly adheres to them. They who deny His Will how will they find God in this world?”

(Bhai Desa Singh Rehatnama)
ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਛਾਪ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਕੀ ਪਾਹੁਲ, ਦੇਇ ਉਤਾਰ ਸੋ ਬੇਮੁਖ ਜਾਨਹੁ।
ਬੇਟੇ ਕੋ ਬੰਧੁ ਕੋ ਛਾਪ ਮੁੰਡਾਵਤ, ਜਮ ਦੁਖ ਭੋਗ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਤ ਪਛਾਨਹੁ।
"The Guru's stamp is Kesh and (Khandi di) Pahul, one who removes (their Kesh) is known as an apostate (bemukh). One who shaves the stamp (of the Guru) of their child (i.e. cut their children's hair), realise that person will suffer a terrible death and known as a ghost."

(Bhai Sahib Singh Rehatnama)
ਸਾਬਤ ਸੂਰਤ ਰੱਬ ਦੀ, ਭੰਨੇ ਬੇਈਮਾਨ । ਦਰਗਹਿ ਢੋਈ ਨਾ ਮਿਲੇ, ਕਾਫ਼ਰ, ਕੁੱਤਾ, ਸ਼ੈਤਾਨ ।
"God has made the human perfect, but the dishonourable destroy it.
They will find no place in the Court of God, like the unbeliever, dog and Satanist."

(Guru Nanak Janam Sakhi)
ਨਾਈ ਦਾ ਹਥ ਸੀਸ ਚਿਹਰੇ ਨ ਲਗਣਾ ਪਾਵੈ । ਕੇਸਾਧਾਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਦਾ ਪੰਥ ਕਹਾਵੈ ।
"The head (of a Sikh) should never have to pass through the hands of a barber. The Guru's Panth (community) calls itself Keshdhari (those with unshorn hair)."

(Bansaavaleenama, Bhai Kesar Singh Chhibar)
ਇਹੈ ਮੋਰ ਆਗਯਾ ਸੁਨੋ ਲੈ ਪਿਆਰੇ ।
ਬਿਨਾ ਤੇਗ, ਕੇਸੰ ਦਿਵੋ ਨ ਦਿਦਾਰੇ ।
"Listen O beloved ones: It (the Kesh) is my stamp. Without (wearing) a weapon and keeping Kesh, I will not give my audience."
(Gurbilaas Paatshaahee 10 - Bhai Sukha Singh)

ਕੇਸਨ ਕੀ ਕੀਜਹੁ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲ । ਨ ਉਸਤਰਨ ਸੇ ਕਟਯੋ ਬਾਲ ।੧੮।
"Maintain and look after your Kesh. Do not remove or cut any hair."
(Gur Panth Prakaash - Rattan Singh Bhangu)

*----- NAILS & HAIR -----*

Someone could argue why do Sikhs cut their nails when they don't cut their hair. Firstly, nails and the importance of hair cannot be compared. The hair is sacred that have a spiritual importance whereas the nails merely have biological function. Secondly, nails naturally remain short as they are brittle and rigid as a result of which they break off easily. A Sikh is required to do seva (selfless service) with his or her hands. When a individual uses their hands to do selfless service of washing up dirty dishes, cleaning shoes, sweeping the floor, cooking and serving food then there is no possibility for nails to remain long. 

*----- BHAI TARU SINGH JI - SCALPED ALIVE -----*

A Sikh lives in the grace and glory of God. The Kesh are magnificent. Biologically, physically and spiritually they do so much for us. Looking at the Kesh of a Sikh one sees the Sikh principle of "Living in the Will (Bhaanaa) of the Almighty." The Kesh is a symbol of Sikhism and what the fundamental belief of Sikhs. Bhai Taru Singh jee is a Shaheed (martyr) who is a living reminder of what the Kesh means to the Khalsa. When asked to give up his faith and denounce Sikhi, he preferred to have his scalp removed than cut and disfigure his Sacred Kesh.

source: 
http://www.sikhism101.com/node/148


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Soul Jyot Ji,
Thanks for your attempt at answering my question. But this doesn't really satisfy my curiosity.



Soul_jyot said:


> A Sikh does what their Guru tells them to do.



I don't mean any offense but I have received this response many times before and that's why I had specifically requested not to tell me that Gurus had said so and tell me more about 'Why'?

Majority of your post tries to establish that our hair are sacred but I don't find a convincing arguement as to 'Why' are they sacred and not our other body parts which were also created by God?

Also some of the arguements that you do make don't really seem true. For example:-



Soul_jyot said:


> <cite>One who shaves the stamp (of the Guru) of their  child (i.e. cut their children's hair), realise that person will suffer  a terrible death and known as a ghost."</cite>



Except us Sikhs, everyone else cuts hair. I don't see them suffering terrible deaths. Even the people who are born in Sikh families and later cut their hair seem to live fulfilling and happy lives. If this quote is not true how can I be sure that everything else being said on this topic is not false?



Soul_jyot said:


> Firstly, nails and the importance of hair cannot be  compared. The hair is sacred that have a spiritual importance whereas  the nails merely have biological function.


Again, why are hair more sacred then nails. Both were created by God..weren't they? Why did God even create the nails if they were not important.



Soul_jyot said:


> Secondly, nails naturally remain short as they are brittle and rigid as a result of which they break off easily.



But, so do hair. I have seen my uncles who don't cut their hair but all their hair have fallen off. They can't even tie their hair into a bun. Since hair also fall off on their own, why aren't we allowed to cut them anyways?



Soul_jyot said:


> When a individual uses their hands to do selfless  service of washing up dirty dishes, cleaning shoes, sweeping the floor,  cooking and serving food then there is no possibility for nails to  remain long.



In this quote you are referencing practicality as to why we need to cut our nails. By same principle, it should be fine to cut hair, since in many jobs it is impractical to have long hair. For eg. working with machines or working with food. Your hairs can fall into the food, or the food particles can get entangled in your free beard


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

I usually eschew long copy/pastes, but this says it much better and in more detail than I can.  From


Hail *Hair* !
               by Dr. Birendra Kaur




> *1.3          Hair vs Nails* It is often argued          that *hair* and *nails* are similar, and a question frequently asked : "If          we should not cut our *hair*, then why do we cut our *nails* ?" But even          a superficial study of the two shows them to be extremely different from          each other. Whereas the *hair* grows from a tubular pit (*hair* follicle),          formed by sinking in of the most actively dividing layer of the *skin* (stratum          germinativum) into the lower dermis, the *nails* are only modifications          of the upper dead layers of the *skin*  (stratum corneum). Further, the base          of every follicle bulges  out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood          capillaries  for nourishment and nerve fibres to make the *hair* sensitive.          An oil gland, known as sebaceous gland, opens into every *hair* follicle,          the secretion of which lubricates the *hair*. A muscle is also attached          to the base of every *hair* for bringing about movement. Pigments are added          to the shaft of the *hair* as it grows. None of these features is associated          with the *nails*.
> Structurally also,          *hair* is extremely strong, and resists breaking due to its elasticity and          flexibility. Strength of *hair* can be estimated from the following facts          : a *human* *hair* laid on a bar of steel and then passed through a cold rolling          mill would leave an imprint on the face of the steel; a *hair*  of a man's          beard is about as strong as a copper wire of the  same dimensions; if a          rope were made out of strands of long *hair*, it would be strong enough          to lift an automobile. *Nails*, on the other hand, are very brittle and          rigid, breaking off easily. *Hair* are countless (upto 1,25,000 on head          region alone), thereby increasing the *surface* area, as if to meet a specific          requirement. *Nails* number only twenty in an individual.
> The differences          between the two do not end with the structural features. Even the *body*'s          response towards the two is totally different. Our *body*, throughout life,          tries to maintain a particular *length* of *hair*. And if the *hair* is cut          anywhere, the *body* responds by growing it again to the specific *length*.          It clearly indicates the link of the *body* with the *hair* all along its          *length*. The *body* shows no such response to the *nails*,  which grow from          birth to death at the same rate, irrespective  of whether cut or not. It          follows, thus, that cutting of *nails* does not tell on the *body* at all,          whereas, as mentioned earlier, cutting of *hair* means extra load on the          *body*.
> Practically also,          *hair* does not interfere in any daily activity, whereas it is impossible          to work with long *nails*. And even if not cut, *nails* generally break off          on their own; rather it takes great effort to maintain them, even upto          a short *length*.
> ...



In the end, though, however annoying it might be, I keep kesh because my Guru has told me to do this.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Harinder Kaur Ji,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my query. I  appreciate that you have tried to respond using logic and reason as I  was indeed looking for such an answer. After all logical and critical  thinking is what separates true path from blind superstitious beliefs.

Unfortunately, being an advanced science student myself, I had to  check the validity of the statements made in the article. And it seems  majority of the article you quoted is using false assumptions, some  blatant fallacies and cyclic reasoning.



Mai Harinder  Kaur said:


> Our body, throughout life, tries to  maintain a particular  length of hair. And if the hair is cut anywhere,  the body responds by  growing it again to the specific length.


False. Majority of men tend to loose their hair after certain age   irrespective of their religion. It's called male pattern baldness. Also,   all statements about hair needed for protection of skull seem false as   that would mean that older men don't need any protection of their  skull.



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> It clearly indicates the link of the body with the hair all along its length.


Again,  since the previous statements were false, this assumption  doesn't hold  true. Also, scientific research has shown that hairs are  devoid of any  neurons and if their is any damage to hair except at  follicles, their is  no feedback mechanism to communicate the damage to  our body.



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> In contrast to the long list of the   functions of hair, only one function can be attributed to nails


Not  true. Aesthetics aside, a healthy (finger)nail has the function of   protecting the distal phalanx, the fingertip, and the surrounding soft   tissues from injuries. It also serves to enhance precise delicate   movements of the distal digits through counter-pressure exerted on the   pulp of the finger. [1] The nail then acts as a counterforce when the   end of the finger touches an object, thereby enhancing the sensitivity   of the fingertip,[10] even though there are no nerve endings in the nail   itself. Finally, the nail functions as a tool, enabling for instance a   so called "extended precision grip" (e.g. pulling out a splinter in   one's finger).



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> a human hair laid on a bar of steel  and then passed through a cold rolling mill would leave an imprint on  the face of the steel; a hair of a man's beard is about as strong as a  copper wire of the same dimensions; if a rope were made out of strands  of long hair, it would be strong enough to lift an automobile. Nails, on  the other hand, are very brittle and rigid, breaking off easily.



This is a false statement in regard to nail's strength. Our nails  are as strong as hooves of a horse. You can read about it on 'new  scientist' site - http://tinyurl.com/2chv6aw
And even if for a moment we assume that hairs have more strength, how  does that prove them to be superior to nails. It's like saying since our  'Cardiac muscle tissue' is not as strong as hair so it's not as  important!



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> Hair are countless (upto 1,25,000 on  head region alone), thereby increasing the surface area, as if to meet a  specific requirement. Nails number only twenty in an  individual.



In my opinion this is all the more reason why we need to save nails  instead of Hairs. We are supposed to conserve things which are scarce as  compared to things which are abundant.





Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> Practically also, hair does not  interfere in any daily activity, whereas it is impossible to work with  long nails.


Let us not even go there. Long hair are not more  practical. Try making microscopic slides with long free flowing beard.  Try working with semi-conductor wafers with long beard. Try working in a  cafeteria with long beard and long hair or try working with heavy  machinery in a factory. I am not saying it can't be done just that you  have to be extra cautious with long hair while doing these activities.  At the end of the post, you yourself said that it can be a bit annoying  at times.

And in the beginning of article their was a statement about how hair  and nails originate from different layers of skins. Fact is both hair  and nails are made up of protein called 'keratin'. Both are devoid of  any nerves or blood vessels and both are considered dead tissue or  appendages to skin. So the article just tries to confuse and doesn't  really answer anything.



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> In the end, though, however annoying  it might be, I keep kesh because my Guru has told me to do this.


I respect your belief. But the problem that our community is  facing now days is that youngsters are not ready to blindly follow. We need to know why our Gurus chose a way of life, what is its spiritual significance and why does that bring us closer to God. And this generation can't be blamed for just seeking answers.

As I said before, logical and critical thought is what separates a true path from blind superstition. 

I hope someone can help answer my original question!
Thanks.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Skeptic Freethinker,

Guru fateh.

Are you a skeptic or a free thinker? A skeptic can find faults in anything and a free thinker can be open to accept everything. One can be devil's advocate towards anything one wants to be.

The same thing that you mentioned are difficult to do with long beards can be said about someone having long nails and like them and want to keep them. I have seen women who have very long nails. 

You know very well that there is no answer that can satisfy you or do you have the answer for us that is of your satisfaction?

Allow me ask you a question and I am sure with the help of your research you can find the answer and help me out.

How did the homosapiens cut their nails?

After all they also had long hair and nails.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 8, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Tejwant Ji,

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at but I will surely try to answer your question if that will help you answer mine.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Are you a skeptic or a free thinker?


I am both. Skeptic is one who questions and does not blindly accept any  concept. Free thinker is one whose thoughts are not tied down by  established norms. I am obviously not as enlightened as our Gurus but  our Gurus were the 'Free Thinkers' of their times. They just didn't  follow blind superstitions and found a true path for themselves.



Tejwant Singh said:


> You know very well that there is no answer  that can satisfy you or do you have the answer for us that is of your  satisfaction?


If I had an answer, I wouldn't be asking questions. I am at a crossroad  in my life where I need to make some tough choices. I know I won't get a  reasonable answer from my family and that's why I am forced to seek  answers elsewhere. And surely the bhaiji at our Gurudwara Sahib are of  no help either.
And what makes you assume that I won't be satisfied by a logical answer?  Is it because you fear you don't have a logical answer?? In that case  you don't need to respond. There are plenty of truth seekers on this  forum. I am sure someone will have an answer.



Tejwant Singh said:


> How did the homosapiens cut their nails? After all they also had long hair and nails.


Now here I have no idea what you are even trying to ask. Why are you referring to Homo Sapiens in past tense??
You do realize the term  Homo Sapiens refers to humans? i.e you and me.
I use nail cutter and NO I don't have long nails. What about you?
If you are going to leave sarcastic comments, at least get your facts right!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> I am not entirely sure what you are getting at but I will surely try to answer your question if that will help you answer mine.
> 
> ...




Skeptic thinker ji,

Guru Fateh.

There is no need to get upset. It is not only your right to ask questions. it is everyone's. No one got upset except you for the reasons only known to you.

You know why I wrote homosapiens rather than humans. If you do not understand the difference then allow me to explain that to you. By homosapiens I meant earlier humans. So, my question still stands.

What kind of logical answer are you looking for?

No one is stopping you to cut your nails if that is your question. As far as hair is concerned, it is a tradition and it is a natural way the way we were created. Your assumption about long beards not able to work at Intel or in a kitchen is simply wrong. 

The reasons we keep hair and men use turbans is to stand out and  to be outstanding. I have no idea how much you know about Sikhi. In the day of Guru Nanak, only Brahmins or the Mughal emperors and others in high positions could wear turbans. Guru Nanak defied that and created a new school of thought by using turbans and keeping hair as mundan was the Hindu custom where the child was supposed to have his/her head shaved.

In case you did not know, there are two kinds of skeptics, the scientific ones and the religious ones

Definition - Scientific skepticism - Religious skepticism

So, I would like to know which skepticism you have in mind and as I said before that your question is not to be satisfied with an answer but be a devil's advocate, which in other words is the one who wants to remain skeptic-doubtful.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Tejwant Ji,


Tejwant Singh said:


> You know why I wrote homosapiens rather than humans. If you do not  understand the difference then allow me to explain that to you. By  homosapiens I meant earlier humans. So, my question still stands.


I understand the difference. There is none. Term Home Sapiens refers to Humans. 
Anyways, if you are referring to all pre-historic humans, the answer is  that, as far as we know, they didn't cut their nails or their hair. They  didn't use toilet paper either.
Can I respectfully ask you, what was the point of this question? 




Tejwant Singh said:


> What kind of logical answer are you looking for?


Well, something with sound reasoning and logic. Preferably factual logic.

Something like this:-
Question:- Why do metals conduct electricity efficiently?
Answer:- Because they have free electrons due to larger nucleus.

Question:- Why do we take antibiotics when sick?
Answer:- Because antibiotics kill disease causing bacteria.

Something that does NOT involve "Because that's the way it is", "Because  that's what our ancestors did", "Because our hair capture spiritual  energy!" or "Because ghosts live in our hair who will come out if we cut  them!"



Tejwant Singh said:


> No one is stopping you to cut your nails if that is your question.


Obviously I cut nails. But we both understand what my question means.  Why is it wrong to cut hair when it is ok to cut nails since both are  part of God gifted 'Roop'. That's what I am seeking an answer for.



Tejwant Singh said:


> As far as hair is concerned, it is a  tradition and it is a natural way the way we were created.


Again, nails are also part of the natural way, the way we were created. This does not answer my question.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Your assumption about long beards not able  to work at Intel or in a kitchen is simply *wrong*.


Now statements like these make me upset. First of all I never said I am  unable to work. I just said I have to be more cautious. I am doing  research in microelectronic applications specific to telecom. That's why  I had specifically referred to semiconductor wafers in my earlier post.  When working with microelectronics, all sources of dust need to be  covered. Unless you are bald, you have to wear a special cap. And unless  you are clean shaven, you have to wear surgical mask or something  similar. Since my beard captures significant dust, I wear a mask in lab.  You mention Intel. I regularly visit labs of many major chip  manufacturers like STM, Freescale, AMD and Intel. 

So don't assume stuff.  I am NOT "wrong". You are.




Tejwant Singh said:


> The reasons we keep hair and men use turbans is to stand out and  to be  outstanding. I have no idea how much you know about Sikhi. In the day of  Guru Nanak, only Brahmins or the Mughal emperors and others in high  positions could wear turbans. Guru Nanak defied that and created a new  school of thought by using turbans and keeping hair as mundan was the  Hindu custom where the child was supposed to have his/her head shaved.


I get this. And I respect it. But if this is the only reason for keeping  hair then all we are trying to do is 'look different' from Hindus and  look similar to Mughal emperors. And since we don't have Mughals or  Brahmins wearing turbans anymore, how is this relevant today?





Tejwant Singh said:


> In case you did not know, there are two  kinds of skeptics, the scientific ones and the religious ones



There are many more kinds of skepticism including Philosophical  skepticism and Political skepticism. But a skeptic is a skeptic. One who  critically thinks about all things before accepting any concept. And it  is in no way a negative trait. It only makes you stronger in your  beliefs since you have actually examined them instead of taking  someone's word for it. So to answer your question I am a skeptic. The only kind and all kind.

Let me be honest. Inspite of being a Gursikh so far, my faith in our  religion isn't as strong as it used to be. Reason being, everytime I  question a reason behind a religious belief, be it wearing a 'kada' or  keeping the kesh, it always comes down to "Because that's the way it is"  and "That's what our ancestors did". It used to be good enough for me  when I was a kid but not any longer.

I hope you understand the source of my frustration and I truly hope someone can answer my original question!

Best Regards


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> I understand one of the reasons we are not supposed to cut/trim our hair is because we want to keep the 'roop' given to us by God intact.
> 
> But even the nails were given to us by God. Why is it ok to cut them regularly and not hair?
> 
> ...


 
You can cut you hair if you wish and still  be a Sikh, but you just can't be an Amritdhari Sikh!

You would be classified as a Sehajdhari or slow adopter.


----------



## amritpalsingh (Sep 9, 2010)

Gur Fateh,

I will quote what I heard in a Katha by Maskeen Ji. He said, we cut/remove only the dead nail, we do not cut live nail. Similarly, we do not keep the dead
hair either. Only the comb (kanga) knows, which hair is dead. When we comb everyday, the dead hair is removed.

Not sure if I explained it well.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



> skeptic.freethinker1;132895]Tejwant Ji,
> 
> I understand the difference. There is none. Term Home Sapiens refers to Humans.
> Anyways, if you are referring to all pre-historic humans, the answer is  that, as far as we know, they didn't cut their nails or their hair. They  didn't use toilet paper either.
> Can I respectfully ask you, what was the point of this question?


I am sorry to know that you refuse to see the  difference when I explained you in my earlier  post why I used homo sapiens -as earlier humans. So, if the explanation as simple as that does not convince you what I mean, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.Is not using a toilet paper something degrading? Have you heard of something called Bidet which has been in use in Europe and other parts of the world for a very long time. Now  the  toilets come with bidets attached. So, if you want to discuss the toilet paper, we can do that too.
But let's continue. Shall we?

The common belief is that their nails naturally fell before they became an hindrance like climbing trees and other  things. As we do not  do those kinds of jobs, we have to cut our nails. They- the homo sapiens- the early humans did not  have any tools to manicure their nails. Nature took care of that. May be with time we will evolve enough and may not have any bodily hair, but we may still have hair  on our heads as protection from the Sun. Our nails may stop growing with time. Now a days, you may or may not know that many babies are born without appendix and without wisdom teeth. It  is part of the evolution.

But from what I gather, your true inquiry  is nothing to do with the nails. You want to find some justification as a Sikh to cut your hair.

No one is stopping you to do that. Your journey is your own, that is what Sikhi is all about. Your cutting hair, does not affect me nor anyone else. It only depends on what you are looking for within as a person and how  you want to grow within which will depend on what path you choose.



> Well, something with sound reasoning and logic. Preferably factual logic.
> 
> Something like this:-
> Question:- Why do metals conduct electricity efficiently?
> ...


So, you are looking for a scientific skepticism rather than the  religious one to find your religious answer. How utopically interesting!



> Something that does NOT involve "Because that's the way it is",


Doesn't that we say about the gravity?



> Obviously I cut nails. But we both understand what my question means.  Why is it wrong to cut hair when it is ok to cut nails since both are  part of God gifted 'Roop'. That's what I am seeking an answer for.
> 
> Again, nails are also part of the natural way, the way we were created. This does not answer my question.


So, it seems that being a skeptic and a freethinker, the nail cutting is  just a facade. Deep down you want to cut your hair and you want to justify that with the nails. How interesting.

In other words you want to emulate our Gurus  as you  said in your first post but without your hair. You want to be a skeptic and a freethnkers like our  Gurus were but  on your own terms. How interesting!

My statement:



> Originally Posted by *Tejwant Singh*
> 
> 
> _  Your assumption about long beards not able  to work at Intel or in a kitchen is simply *wrong*._


Your answer



> Now statements like these make me upset. First of all I never said I am  unable to work. I just said I have to be more cautious. I am doing  research in microelectronic applications specific to telecom. That's why  I had specifically referred to semiconductor wafers in my earlier post.  When working with microelectronics, all sources of dust need to be  covered. Unless you are bald, you have to wear a special cap. And unless  you are clean shaven, you have to wear surgical mask or something  similar. Since my beard captures significant dust, I wear a mask in lab.  You mention Intel. I regularly visit labs of many major chip  manufacturers like STM, Freescale, AMD and Intel.
> 
> So don't assume stuff.  I am NOT "wrong". You are.


You sound upset and defensive again. I may be wrong because I am a Sikh, a seeker, a learner. So, I expect myself to make mistakes which is part and parcel of the learning process.

But, let's check your response about the same subject to Soul Jyot ji.



			
				Soul_joyt said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *Soul_jyot*
> _When  a individual uses their hands to do selfless  service of washing up  dirty dishes, cleaning shoes, sweeping the floor,  cooking and serving  food then there is no possibility for nails to  remain long. _



Your response:



> In  this quote you are referencing practicality as to why we need to cut  our nails. By same principle, it should be fine to cut hair, *since in  many jobs it is impractical to have long hair.* For eg. working with  machines or working with food. Your hairs can fall into the food, or the  food particles can get entangled in your free beard


What does,"*since in  many jobs it is impractical to have long hair.* " mean? Does it mean unable to do one's job?



> I get this. And I respect it. But if this is the only reason for keeping  hair then all we are trying to do is 'look different' from Hindus and  look similar to Mughal emperors. And since we don't have Mughals or  Brahmins wearing turbans anymore, how is this relevant today?


The relevance in Sikhi is not pick and choose at will. It makes us stand out so we have to be outstanding. Gurbani is a unique poetry which did not stop in time, just like Sikhi. The same Shabad teaches  us something new about ourselves everyday. A Sikh's duty is to learn, unlearn and relearn daily. Having a turban and Gurbani has been always an advantage for me since I left India at the age of 16. My Sikhi with my hair and turban has always been my asest and I have lived all around the world, even 9 years in Brazil.

If I were you, I would read the following interesting thread recently posted in the forum:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...c-interests-in-european-sikhs.html#post132810



> Let me be honest. Inspite of being a Gursikh so far, my faith in our  religion isn't as strong as it used to be. Reason being, everytime I  question a reason behind a religious belief, be it wearing a 'kada' or  keeping the kesh, it always comes down to "Because that's the way it is"  and "That's what our ancestors did". It used to be good enough for me  when I was a kid but not any longer.
> 
> I hope you understand the source of my frustration and I truly hope someone can answer my original question!


Once again, it  is nothing to do nails but all to do with your faith which is Sikhi and hair. Nails things is  just a cover up to sound logical.

Good luck and enjoy your journey, whichever  you may choose.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

amritpalsingh said:


> Gur Fateh,
> 
> I will quote what I heard in a Katha by Maskeen Ji. He said, we cut/remove only the dead nail, we do not cut live nail. Similarly, we do not keep the dead
> hair either. Only the comb (kanga) knows, which hair is dead. When we comb everyday, the dead hair is removed.
> ...



I beg to differ with Maskeen ji provided what you heard is true. If we cut our hair, it is the same as cutting out nails. If we pull our nails from the cuticle, then it is painful and it is the same as pulling out your hair from the scalp. Both are dead tissues.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> 
> Well, something with sound reasoning and logic. Preferably factual logic.
> ...



Dear Skeptic-freethinker Ji

Far more learned individuals than I have already given you advice on this matter

If you want a direct answer based on logic you won't get one because the source should be the scriptures and I am fairly certain the direct comparison between hair and nails does not exist

Perhaps this is because it was never envisaged that centuries later someone would nitpick to try and justify an action that suited them personally

Apologies if that sounds harsh

No one here is to pass judgement on you. Getting consent from a complete stranger on an internet forum should perhaps not be seen as justification for what you want to do

I would also respectfully suggest that if you move away form the hair thing for a moment and do everything else you're supposed to, that I daresay a lot of individuals with uncut hair don't do, then you will have a lot more to gain

I hope I have not offended you or anyone else with this post

All the best


----------



## polpol (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Skeptic freethinker 1
                            I am not a Sikh but I asked myself the very same question not out of defiance though. I came up with a functionalist hypothesis as to "why", leaving the reference to the scriptures to Sikhs in all due respect. The basic idea is that Sikhs being neither muslims nor hindus, the Gurus provided the followers with apparent means to show their distinctiveness. I am thinking mostly about women Sikhs. I don't know about hindu women, but muslim women (not even sure if we can generalise), discard bodily hair  except the hair on their heads, a mark of beauty. So, even dead, naked or unconscious a Sikh woman will be readilly identified as such and she will identify herself as a follower of Sikh values and way of life even in absolute intimacy when she is alone or with her husband. It is a way of integrating absolutely Sikhism to one's very nature. Does that make any sense? I don't have all the information to make my point, I thought that maybe you could find an answer outside the scriptures without having to split hairs  over your faith and the validity of the Scriptures. Also, in regards to women, not shaving stresses the golden rule of equality between men and women, so distintive of Sikhism. In some feminist cercles, not shaving is the summom of women's liberation.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Tejwant Ji,
Once again thanks for your response. But you assumed a lot of things while responding.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Is not using a toilet paper something degrading? Have you heard of something called Bidet


I didn't say not using toilet paper is any way inferior. I spent my formative years in Delhi where toilet paper is still not the norm.
I am very well aware of Bidet and its predecessor the famed 'Lota/Mug'
Reason I mentioned the toilet paper was beacause you were trying to do some sort of comparison between ways of early man and us. I didn't mean any disrespect to anyone.




Tejwant Singh said:


> But from what I gather, your true inquiry is nothing to do with the ails. You want to find some justification as a Sikh to cut your hair.


Again you are assuming while overlooking my question. Why is it wrong to cut hair? Comparison with nails comes in because the most common explanation for not cutting hair is that they are a gift from God.  

I get the part about early man not having to specifically cut nails since the nails didn't grow too big due to their living conditions. But that really has nothing do with my question.  
How does early man not cutting nails explains us not cutting our hair? For thousands of years before Sikhism came into existence, people around the world were cutting their hair as well as nails. What changed with sikhism? Why did changing our appearance in one way(cutting nails) became acceptable and in another way (cutting hair) unacceptable.




Tejwant Singh said:


> You want to find some justification as a Sikh to cut your hair.


No. I am not looking for a justification to cut my hair. I am looking for a justification to keep my hair. 
I would appreciate if you can leave your pre conceived notions about me for a while and genuinely try to answer my question.





Tejwant Singh said:


> No one is stopping you to do that. Your journey is your own, that is what Sikhi is all about. Your cutting hair, does not affect me nor anyone else. It only depends on what you are looking for within as a person and how you want to grow within which will depend on what path you choose.



I can't convey to you how much I appreciate this comment. Understanding and inclusiveness should be the central tenant of all religions.
Again, I am not eager to go down a path that would upset me as well as my family. But it's hard for me suppress the questions within me if I don't get any answers, spiritual or otherwise?



Tejwant Singh said:


> So, you are looking for a scientific skepticism rather than the religious one to find your religious answer.


I am looking for a rational answer that can stand the test of critical thinking. I don't care from where it comes.



Tejwant Singh said:


> How utopically interesting!


Yes it is. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> Doesn't that we say about the gravity?


Are you trying to compare gravity with religion and spirituality??
You do realise experiments on gravity satisfy the most basic criteria of science. Gravity is predictable, demonstrable and repeatable. 
Even though research is still going on to understand its mechanism, noone says that research should be stopped and everyone should accept that God makes two bodies with mass attract each other. 

On the other hand the concepts like quoted by Soul_Jyot  "People who cut their hair will die terrible deaths" are not predictable or demonstrable. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> the nail cutting is just a facade. Deep down you want to cut your hair and you want to justify that with the nails. How interesting.



You find too many things interesting. I like that about you. Natural curiosity is what leads to discoveries.

Again I am not trying to justify 'not cutting' my nails. I have no wish to grow inch long nails. I am trying to justify keeping long hairs. I am seeking an answer to justify keeping long hair. That's the answer you are unable to provide so far!
And I am not seeking this answer just for myself. There would be many more youths, who would come seeking answer for the same question. I hope it never comes to this but what if someday your own children ask you these questions like I asked my parents. 
Would you continue to give them the same cyclic explanationslike "We need to look like Mughal emperors"? What if these explanations aren't good enough for them?




Tejwant Singh said:


> *In other words* you want to emulate our Gurus as you said in your first post but without your hair. You want to be a skeptic and a freethnkers like our Gurus were but on your own terms.



You are still trying to put words in my mouth and fit it into your pre conceived notion that I am looking forward to cut my hair.
But I will try to be patient and tell you this once again. I am not seeking a justification to cut my hair. I am seeking a justification to keep my hair.



Tejwant Singh said:


> How interesting!


I'm glad you find everything I say as interesting. If you keep up with your interest, I hope you will find some answers.




Tejwant Singh said:


> I may be wrong because I am a Sikh, a seeker, a learner. So, I expect myself to make mistakes which is part and parcel of the learning process.


No worries. I am learning too. It's just that I ask more questions so that I have to assume less.




Tejwant Singh said:


> What does,"since in many jobs it is impractical to have long hair. " mean? Does it mean unable to do one's job?


Once again, you assume too much. I said *'impractical'*. Where did you get *'unable* to do'?

Impractical means 'Not practical.' 'Unable' means NOT being able to do something at all.

Let me use them in a sentence for you:-  
Walking from Las Vegas to Los Angeles is *'impractical'* but doable, given enough time and resources. But I am '*unable'* to swim from Las Vegas to Los Angeles since there is no water body connecting the two cities.

Don't worry about this. We all make mistakes.

Now let's proceed, shall we?




Tejwant Singh said:


> A Sikh's duty is to learn, unlearn and relearn daily.


I am glad you pointed this out. That's part of the reason why I am trying to seek answers. I hope we all are always open to 'unlearn' our blind beliefs and ready to 'learn' concepts which lead us to a True path.




Tejwant Singh said:


> My Sikhi with my hair and turban has always been my asest and I have lived all around the world, even 9 years in Brazil.



I'm glad to see you have lived a successfull and fulfilling life so far. I am even more glad to see that you live near the 'Sin city'. Living in Vegas would be like a dream come true for me 
But I hope you are not assuming that I am having problems 'fitting in' since most sikh youth in west go through that phase. I am past that. Since I am successful in what I am doing, I don't have any problems with 'fitting in'. i am not seeking answers to become acceptable to others. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> Once again, it is nothing to do nails but all to do with your faith which is Sikhi.


You are partly correct. It has lots to do with my faith which is Sikhi. I am seeking answers to help keep my faith. I don't see anything wrong with that.

i hope some one will be able to find the answers and enlighten me too?

Thanks and Best Regards


----------



## polpol (Sep 9, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

Skeptic.freethinker1ji,
                             This is another post because I would like to consider your question from another point of vew. The question you raise does not concern Sikhism only but all religions because not one of them has mentioned what to do with nails. So your question is " why do people and religions give significance to hair and not to nails."So if we open your question to the wider question of culture and why do people beleave and do what they do, we must admit we have no idea. But In regards to hair vs nails and why hair is universally bestowed with significance, while nails are not, I humbly suggest that nails are too limited. They grow, we can only chose to cut them or not, we can also paint them but in comparison to the versality of hair, its possibilities in aesthetique or religeous expression, they are meaningless. It could also be because nails remind us too much of our animal nature while hair is neither fur nor feathers, it is specifically human.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 9, 2010)

Skeptic.Freethinker ji,

You ask for justification for keeping hair but realize that you were born with it. Its the default setting on your body. What is the justification for cutting a part of your body? And further what is the justification for shaving almost every part of the body?

Maybe it would be a good idea to ask, why does everyone else cut their hair? 
We should realize that we have evolved with long hair. What lead us into the present day where we have all these products not only for cutting our hair but for shaving every hair off our body?

It would be good to understand exactly what lead to the "mass face-shaving" phenomenon in men, and the phenomenon of  women in the west, shaving their armpits and then legs.

If you are truly a freethinker as you claim to be then you must make the effort to understand questions associated with this developing trend underneath the level of social norms and bias.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

Skeptic.Freethinker ji,


Guru fateh.


Many of my comments have been distorted by you but I would not get into *** for tat because that leads us no where nor does it give you the justification you are looking for.


So, let's just talk about the main reason of your so many posts involving cutting nails etc is what you really said the reason behind  all this and that is:




> I am seeking a justification to keep my hair.




You have mentioned the above more than once.


Following are the definitions of self justification that you are trying to convey.
Definitions of *self justification* on the Web:


excuse:  a defense of some offensive behavior or some failure to keep a promise  etc.; "he kept finding excuses to stay"; "every day he had a new alibi  for not getting a job"; "his transparent self-justification was  unacceptable"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Self-justification  describes how, when a person encounters cognitive dissonance, or a  situation in which a person’s behavior is inconsistent with their  beliefs, that person tends to justify the behavior and deny any negative  feedback associated with the behavior.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_justification
define:self justification - Google Search

These definitions are self explanatory. No one can decide for you  what to do and I think you do not do yourself justice asking for a  shoulder to lean on, in other words someone will make you keep or cut  your hair. It seems you do not have much knowledge about Sikhi but I may  be wrong there.


 So, stop asking other people to give you reasons for the actions you  want to commit. Look for them within because no one can satisfy you with  an answer you are looking for and I am sure you knew that before  posting your questions.


 I hope the definitions above help you find the answer within.


 Enjoy your journey whichever path you choose.


 Regards


 Tejwant Singh


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 9, 2010)

Having long hair makes some tasks more difficult but is easily dealt with by tying the hair up or covering it up. Long nails, however, make some tasks impossible and therein lies the biological difference.

As far as religion goes; hair makes a visible statement but nails do not. I don't think cutting your hair lessens your ability to understand the Guru Granth Sahib Ji but it does show your commitment to Guru Ji and shows the world you are not afraid of who you are and what you stand for. It makes a stand that you will defend all against tyranny. Kesh and turban add presence and grace to any human being!
Jasleen


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 9, 2010)

Tejwant Ji,

I used the word *'justification'* in my post. No where in my post I mentioned *'self justification'.* You very easily attributed the wrong term to me , then quoted the definition of that term and then went ahead with describing the negative connotations.

I'm sure you know how to use google search. Try to find the difference between the two terms.

Since the guidance of keeping long hair comes from the religion, the answer/justification of doing so would also come from religion  or from the people who are knowledgeable about the religion. I don't need to create a self justification for this.


Since I was asking for *'justification'* of having long hair, can you please provide me that? Or is it that you don't have any and that's why you are resorting to changing my question itself?

Don't worry if you don't have the answer. There are plenty other learned people on this forum and someone will have the answer. 
Once I get it, I will PM it to you too. It's never too late to learn.

Regards


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 9, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> I used the word *'justification'* in my post. No where in my post I mentioned *'self justification'.* You very easily attributed the wrong term to me , then quoted the definition of that term and then went ahead with describing the negative connotations.
> 
> ...



Skeptic. free thinker ji,

Guru Fateh.

Here we go again.

Certain words in English language are implicit. Self means your own. The justification  is your own. You are looking for justification as a self to keep your long hair or not.

You may deny anything you want to. It does not bother me. But the facts of self- justifications are mentioned by you in many of your posts, hence it is irrelevant whether you have used the word SELF or not.

As I said before, good luck in your own (self) decision for your own(self) justification. 

End of story.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 9, 2010)

Tejwant Ji,
I don't agree with your response.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Certain words in English language are implicit.



Nope. These two terms are pretty explicit. They mean what they mean. You  can't just interchange some body's words to fit your own agenda. I must  say you are beginning to sound like people I met once who were trying  to ban evolution from our schools and replace it with creation theory.  They were masters of debate and kept manipulating the meaning of word  'theory'.
I thought we Sikhs were above such tactics.




Tejwant Singh said:


> End of story.



Not yet. I will continue to seek an answer and I will surely get it. And as I said before, I will definitely share it with you.



Best Regards.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 10, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> I don't agree with your response.
> 
> Nope. These two terms are pretty explicit. They mean what they mean. You  can't just interchange some body's words to fit your own agenda. I must  say you are beginning to sound like people I met once who were trying  to ban evolution from our schools and replace it with creation theory.  They were masters of debate and kept manipulating the meaning of word  'theory'.
> ...




Skeptic. Freethinker ji,

Guru Fateh.

Things are becoming hillarious to say the least.

Let me ask you some questions regarding this.

1. Is the decision to look for some justification- not the reason because you did not mention that word, your own(self) or someone else's?

2. Did some one ask you or force you to find your own (self) justification?

3. Did you mention that you are looking for your own(self) Justification to keep long hair several times or not because you know what Sikhi says about hair in SRM?

I have no need to manipulate anything.It was you who was manipulating by using nails as the shield for your own (self) justification about keeping your hair or not.

Allow me to refresh your memory, these are your words.



> You are partly correct. It has lots to do with my faith which is Sikhi. I am seeking answers to help keep my faith.



The above has nothing to do with nails but your faith and that is what we are talking about. As mentioned above, SRM is very explicit about keeping long hair whether you like it or not. No religion has to give anyone any justification. Hence, it is you who is using the tactics not any other Sikh.

The justification to keep your hair or not is your own, in other words it is your self justification.

Let me also add that your desperate attempt to insert evolution and creation thingy fell flat on its face because it is not part of the discussion. By the way, I am an evolutionist.. You  have been keeping not a good company it seems

I have no idea why you are so much in pain or shall I say in skepticism when one can go to any Super Cuts and get one's hair chopped. After all you call yourself a freethinker. I would suggest you to get your hair cut and see how you feel. If your self justification of cutting hair rather than keeping it makes you happy then why not? In case you decide to keep you hair again, you can find self justification to do that too later on. 

The answer you are looking for lies within you, not outside. It is the decision of the self no matter what justification one finds within self.

Once again, good luck in your self discovery,your self justification of the path you want to choose is with yourself, not with any religion or with any person.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Suki (Sep 10, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> I understand one of the reasons we are not supposed to cut/trim our hair is because we want to keep the 'roop' given to us by God intact.
> 
> But even the nails were given to us by God. Why is it ok to cut them regularly and not hair?
> 
> ...


There is no scientific reason behind why sikhs should not cut their hair while at the same time they are allowed to clip their nails. There is definitely spiritual and religious significance in not cutting the hair. It has two significant reasons: the first being in submission to Guru; to surrender one's ego, logic and critical thinking( in other words..intellectual surrender) to acheive the excellence or shall I say perfection in discipleship...a requirement on any spiritual path...especially the paths of Indian origin such as Sikhism, Hinduism or Buddhism. If you read Gurubani..You would know how much emphasis there is on the submission  to one's Guru. So, at one pt. in the history of  sikhism...keeping hair long became one of the provisions for any sikh following the Guruship of Guru Gobind Singh. 
Secondly, why Guru Gobind singh came up with 5 k's as requirement for any sikh? To my knowledge, it had to do with having a distinct identity for sikhs at that time; not to mention that some of K's were the practical need for the sikh warriors. The only spiritual significance even at that time would be in my view to be in submission to one's Guru wholeheartedly.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 10, 2010)

Tejwant Ji, 

Seriously, if you have trouble understanding the meaning of a few words, all you need to do,  is ask me and I will explain it to you. As I said before, it's never too  late to learn.

In my earlier post I had to use sentence formation to explain to you the  difference between 'impractical' and 'unable.' I think I will need to  do some more of that for you.

Let's start:-

Words of the day is 'justification' which also means 'reason'.

I will give you an example. 
Suppose my local utility company by mistake sends me a bill of 100  thousand dollars. Now I know there is a mistake since there is no way I  can use up that much electricity in one month. So, without anyone else  forcing me, I, myself, *on my 'own'*, go to their office to ask for  'justification' for the bill. Now would this 'justification' be called  'self-justification'. I don't think so. It would be called  'justification' and they will need to provide it since they sent the  bill.

So, in a similar manner, since I was born in a sikh family, my religion  requires me to have long hair. Without following the guideline blindly, I  set out to find the reason behind this religious guideline, preferably  from people who are more learned about this matter than I am. 
I asked my parents. They said "To question the religious guideline is a  blasphemy" So I asked the Bhai ji at my Gurudwara. He said that's what  Rehat maryada says and so we have to follow it without asking for  reason. And so here I am asking for reason from people who have been  analyzing our scripture for a long time. And so I am asking for a  'justification' or a reason behind this requirement of having long hair.




Tejwant Singh said:


> The justification to keep your hair or not  is your own, in other words it is your self justification.


Now I will also need to explain to you the difference between 'decision' and 'justification'. Let's start. 
Whether to keep my hair or not will be my *'decision'* and not my *'justification'*. The *'decision'* that I will make after getting the *'justification' or reason *from the people who are more learned about Sikhism than I am. 


Best Regards.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 10, 2010)

My very last word on the subject.

God, Akal Purakh, Vaheguru, whatever name you care to use does not care even the tiniest bit whether you keep kes or grow your nails or any of it.  

I agree with Tejwant ji.  Your motive for asking this appears to be trying to justify something, probably cutting of your hair.  It could also be that you want long fingernails, which are usually associated with women.  

Long fingernails are considered beautiful because they show that the  woman is wealthy enough to have others do her work for her.  They are  merely ego-driven ornaments, a sort of bragging.  

Keeping kes is not a good luck charm or any such superstitious thing.  It is an act of love or it is meaningless and possibly manipulative.  It's very nice if there are scientific reasons for keeping kes, but in the end, unimportant.  It is an act of love or an act of gross hypocrisy.  Nails have nothing to do with anything in this context.

(I remember reading, a long while ago, about some Buddhist monk who grew very long fingernails as some sort of religious thing, but I don't remember much else about that.  Anyway, it's irrelevant here.)

Whatever you do - or don't do - I wish you the best and am glad you asked.  This has been an interesting discussion.

icecreamkaur


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 10, 2010)

Harinder Kaur Ji,

I think we both submitted our posts almost at the same time. For a moment I thought I lost my post which was actually right above yours.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I understand and respect your position on this issue that the only thing that matters is that our Guru has told us to keep long hair. That's what we are supposed to do even if there is no justification for it. 
Your above views are very much similar to the views of my own mother. 

I wish the above reason was good enough for me. 

But this doesn't mean that our Gurus asked us to blindly do something. I'm sure they did provide a real good reason for keeping long hair. All we need to do is look for it or ask the enlightened people.

Thanks again for your post.


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 10, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 Ji, 

do one thing, try keeping both: hairs and nails. self experiencing is the best teacher. if u really want the answer, do try this once.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## arshi (Sep 10, 2010)

Sadh Sangat Ji

I too would like to refresh my own memory and re-read it. On a personal note I would feel naked without my turban and hair because not only do these give me protection from the elements – long nails do not offer any such cover – but also the feeling that I am serving Guru Gobind Singh’s mission to stand out and that gives me courage to excel.

The path of Sikhi is not for the faint and the weak hearted and no one is forced or should be forced into the Order. I often despair when I see individuals presenting themselves as Sikhs half-heartedly, e.g. wearing caps, keeping shorn and clean-cut beards, tying black turbans shaped to resemble hats and hair styles so as not to stand out amongst others. This is truly disgraceful and I would suggested they abandon the fold altogether – this will be no loss to Sikhi. Traveling to India in July, this year, I saw a Sikh at the Heathrow Airport with his hair combed back and tied into a pony tail. He made a ghastly sight and kept his eyes down. I was willing him to look into my eyes so that I could undress his shameful conscious by staring back – my wife was holding my arm to restrain me from saying anything. To such a person I would say ‘go to the nearest hairdresser and spare us the embarrassment and agony of you being identified as Singh. I have more respect for mona Sikhs (if there is such a term) than those who reside at the halfway house.

I apologise for the long post although a lot more can be written and said on thois topic. I believe skeptic.freethi Ji is sincere in his quest and pray he finds the right answers and justification to keep true to his faith. However, before he makes a final decision, I humbly suggest he reads up on Sikh Philosophy and History to appreciate the sacrifices made to sustain this noble way of life we refer to as ‘Sikhi’. I pray he makes the right decision. No offence meant to any of the contributors to this thread. May Guru Ji bless each and all.

Rajinder Singh ‘Arshi’
PS I like Maninder ji's suggestion.


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 10, 2010)

Respected Rajinder Singh 'Arshi' Ji,

Thanks for the appreciation. Though, i have to disagree at following point u mentioned.

"I am not sure that Sikh Gurus underwent any such analysis when recommending our saroop to include unshorn hair. I believe the Gurus laid more stress on saintliness, practicality and vanity-free appearance. "

Here, u forgot the Guru Ji himself is Nirankaar and who knows better than The Nirankaar about anything. Nirankaar needs not to analyse anything bcoz Nirankaar knows everything whether its something related to Spirituality or Technicality or Science or anything. 
One example is Yoga which is also a science. Guru Ji has not asked Sikhs to do Yoga Kriyas as prescribed by Patanjali or other Yoga Gurus. Usually, any kriya/aasan  they do somewhere it is related to breath or controlling the breath or slowing the inhaling and exhaling of breath . Now, in Sikhism if someone who tries Naam Simran or Simran Sadhna will find that it have the same effect as meditation. This means Naam Simran gives u double benefit. Simran plus Meditation even when it is not specified by Guru Ji in Gurbani (i'm not sure, may be somewhere in Gurbani it is specified)
Similarly, if Guru Ji has asked to keep hairs it will have some reason even if not specified. 



skeptic.freethinker1@

Guru Ji Says, 'Jin Prem Kiyo Tin Heee Prabh Paayo' and here Prem can also interpreted as Prem with The Guru. And if u love 'Him' there will be no counter questions from ur side to The Guru. This is one of the basic learning from the life of Dhan Dhan Shri Guru Anged Dev Ji. I have no knowledge of Gurbani so cannot support my views with any Shabad/Tukk. 
Sorry for being naive.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## ugsbay (Sep 10, 2010)

SSA.
SkepticFreeThinker Ji your question is a valid one although for me it is a tricky one. I agree with Tejwant Ji & others who have made some excellent points on this topic. I have learned things i was not aware of in this thread. You mentioned that the hair and nails are gods creation and therefore why should one be kept and the other cut. In my opinion if they are both the same should we start tying turbans on our fingernails too ?.


----------



## gurbanicd (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Skeptic-freethinker Ji
> 
> Far more learned individuals than I have already given you advice on this matter
> 
> ...


 
FREETHINKERJI



The whole idea of keeping kesh or no kesh revolves around the order or hukum of the guru sahib.

Human intellect cannot go beyond a limit.

Guru says this is our turn to meet lord. You cannot meet the lord without the help of guru and 

since we are following guru nanak sahib and all ten guru had long hairs, all on spiritual path had/have long hairs.

Our guru want us to have long hairs. we should trust him, as we trust our family and friends when we ask them for direction to reach our destination.

sometime faith and trust should be given preference over reasoning

bhulan chukan di khima


----------



## arshi (Sep 10, 2010)

*Maninder ji wrote (italics): *

_Respected Rajinder Singh 'Arshi' Ji,

Thanks for the appreciation. Though, i have to disagree at following point u mentioned.

"I am not sure that Sikh Gurus underwent any such analysis when recommending our saroop to include unshorn hair. I believe the Gurus laid more stress on saintliness, practicality and vanity-free appearance. "

Here, u forgot the Guru Ji himself is Nirankaar and who knows better than The Nirankaar about anything. Nirankaar needs not to analyse anything bcoz Nirankaar knows everything whether its something related to Spirituality or Technicality or Science or anything._

*I am not sure what you don’t agree with. When I wrote I was not sure Guru took any scientific analysis on board, it was a polite way of denying any significance attached to such analysis and that Guru Ji laid more stress on saintliness, practicality and vanity-free appearance and above all execution of directives as laid down in Gurbani. I am sorry for not putting it more clearly. *

*As I Sikh of course I believe and trust Guru Ji is all knowing and would never question or challenge his word, deed or recommendation. When you offer your head to Guru Ji, It does not matter what analysis or reasons led to his decision – one accepts his command without question. *

*Thanks for allowing me to clear up any misunderstanding. *

*You will find good support for your comments on Yoga in a very good article, also written by Dr Trilochan Singh – Sikhism and Yoga: A Comparative study in the Light of Gutru Nanak Encounters with the Yogis. I agree with you that Yoga is not a pre-requisite or essential for following the path of Sikhi.*

*Rajinder Singh ‘Arshi’*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 10, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> Seriously, if you have trouble understanding the meaning of a few words, all you need to do,  is ask me and I will explain it to you. As I said before, it's never too  late to learn.
> 
> ...



Skeptic.Free thinker  ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no difficulty in understanding what you write and how you twist things.

FYI, Justification and Reason are 2 different things and have 2 different meanings, you as a learned person should know that.

When one wants to take decision one has to decide how  one should justify that in the manner of self- justification.

We are not here in this thread to show who knows more, You must know a lot more than I do but that is not the objective of  this thread.

As, I suggested in my earlier post, you should get your hair cut and see how you feel and then go from there.

It is not the hair that makes a Sikh. It is learning and practicing what Gurbani says in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, our only Guru.

I was surprised in the other thread where you claimed that Ik Ong Kaar  is a deity and I urged you to read Mool Mantar to find the meaning out.

So, cut your hair, read this beautiful Gurbani, practice it by putting it into prose and you will see the difference from the within. Perhaps after that this nail/hair pony trick will be in the distant past due to the real inner nourishment given by Gurbani.

Good luck in your journey.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 10, 2010)

Respected Rajinder Singh 'Arshi' Ji,

I pointed out ur this comment particularly "I am not sure that Sikh Gurus underwent any such analysis when recommending our saroop to include unshorn hair."
anyways nothing was wrong but clear explanation was missing. dats it.
and yea, thanks for that recommendation. Will try it out.

Rest, about this question, People ask such question only when they don't have faith and love for the Guru. Looking at the broader side, Love and Faith for Guru is also by his Grace. Lets Pray that 'The Almighty' showers his Blessings on all of us.

Bhull Chukk Di Khima

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
waheguru Ji Ki Fateh khandaa


----------



## moni (Sep 10, 2010)

hi,
   I asked same question a few years back from my sister who is Amritdhari sikh and I got same answers...even i was not satisfied and I appreciate that you are on the way to seek truth. I dont know answer but I am on the same path..... only answer I find is SHRADHA.  when GURU GOBIND SINGH  asked for a head in Anandpur Sahab, only one follower who has Shradha, samarpan in Guru, got up and then 4 more, otherwise there were lacs, they cdnt...... I think in every religion one can be a follower by Shradha......
   anyways if you find answer tell me also........ Respected Tejwant Singh Ji help someone, if you know pl dont laugh or taunt


----------



## gurbanicd (Sep 10, 2010)

*FREETHINKERJI*

*The whole idea of keeping kesh or no kesh revolves around the order or hukum of the guru sahib.*

*Human intellect cannot go beyond a limit.*

*Guru says this is our turn to meet lord. You cannot meet the lord without the help of guru and *

*since we are following guru nanak sahib and all ten guru had long hairs, all on spiritual path had/have long hairs.*

*Our guru want us to have long hairs. we should trust him, as we trust our family and friends when we ask them for direction to reach our destination.*

*sometime faith and trust should be given preference over reasoning*

*1.  Page142 Line 7  Raag Maajh: Guru Nanak Dev*

ਕਲਹਿ ਬੁਰੀ ਸੰਸਾਰਿ ਵਾਦੇ ਖਪੀਐ ॥
*kalehi buree sansaar vaadhae khapeeai ||*
*The strife of this world is evil; these struggles are consuming it.*

*bhulan chukan di khima*​


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 10, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> FYI, Justification and Reason are 2 different things and have 2 different meanings



Source:- Dictionary.com

justification - 4 dictionary results
jus·ti·fi·ca·tion   /ˌdʒʌstəfɪˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[juhs-tuh-fi-key-shuhn] 
–noun
1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation


[Deleted my foolish comments] Sorry to Mr. Tejwant. 



I have been following this thread for couple of days since I had similar questions. Actually not about the nails.....primarily only about the hairs. 
Never really thought of creating a acct but the above literary gem was too funny to pass.

Guys, keep up the lively discussion.

Actually I want to share my point of view too. I'll probably post something over the weekend.


----------



## Bmandur (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Tejwant Ji,
> 
> I understand the difference. There is none. Term Home Sapiens refers to Humans.
> Anyways, if you are referring to all pre-historic humans, the answer is that, as far as we know, they didn't cut their nails or their hair. They didn't use toilet paper either.
> ...




*I know one thing with Nails on your hand you wipe off your extra food from back **** and we eat with our hand so you do not want Extra smelly garbage to get stuck in your nails and eat the smelly extra waste food  with your Food With Feet's nails we walk to the washroom for drop our extra food from you know *
Sorry but these are the the facts plain & Simple with Nails

For Hair look what My guru says In Guru Granth Sahib jee

Page 74, Line 9
ਮੈਗੁਰਮਿਲਿਉਚਦੁਮਾਲੜਾ॥
मैगुरमिलिउचदुमालड़ा॥
Mai gur mil ucẖ ḏumālṛā.
I met with the Guru, and I have tied a tall, plumed *turban*

Page 330, Line 2
ਜਿਹਸਿਰਿਰਚਿਰਚਿਬਾਧਤਪਾਗ॥
जिहसिरिरचिरचिबाधतपाग॥
Jih sir racẖ racẖ bāḏẖaṯ pāg.
That head which was once embellished with the finest *turban
*
Page 470, Line 17
ਦੁਇਧੋਤੀਬਸਤ੍ਰਕਪਾਟੰ॥
दुइधोतीबसत्रकपाटं॥
Ḏu▫e ḏẖoṯī basṯar kapātaŉ.
upon your head is a *turban*, and you wear two loin cloths

Page 727, Line 17
ਖੂਬੁਤੇਰੀਪਗਰੀਮੀਠੇਤੇਰੇਬੋਲ॥
खूबुतेरीपगरीमीठेतेरेबोल॥
Kẖūb ṯerī pagrī mīṯẖe ṯere bol.
How handsome is your *turban*! And how sweet is your speech

Page 1084, Line 9
ਨਾਪਾਕਪਾਕੁਕਰਿਹਦੂਰਿਹਦੀਸਾਸਾਬਤਸੂਰਤਿਦਸਤਾਰਸਿਰਾ॥੧੨॥
नापाकपाकुकरिहदूरिहदीसासाबतसूरतिदसतारसिरा॥१२॥
Nāpāk pāk kar haḏūr haḏīsā sābaṯ sūraṯ ḏasṯār sirā. ||12||
Purify what is impure, and let the Lord's Presence be your religious tradition. Let your total awareness be the *turban* on your head.


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 10, 2010)

arshi said:


> Sadh Sangat Ji
> 
> 
> This is an extremely interesting thread and raises questions, answers to which cannot be given in brief posts. A book can be written upon the topic. One will need to go back in history and ask why did pious individuals of all faiths (Yogis, Imams, Mullas, Sidhs, Christian saints and others) adorn hair. Christ, Mohammed, Moses, Vashist, Janak, Vishvamitra, all characters from Ramyana and Mahabharata and many more displayed head and facial hair. The fact that in modern day drama and films, Shri Krishan and Shri Ram are shown clean shaven is just an expression of contemporary human vanity – they too were like all the other sages with flowing head and facial hair. The great philosophers and scientists from the past, too, grew beards, e.g. Bernard Shaw, Galileo.
> ...


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 10, 2010)

harryputtar89 said:


> Source:- Dictionary.com
> 
> justification - 4 dictionary results
> jus·ti·fi·ca·tion   /ˌdʒʌstəfɪˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[juhs-tuh-fi-key-shuhn]
> ...




I think we should all have a bit more respect for each other and be prepared to learn from each other and acknowledge the learning

I have been reading the same posts as well and do not agree with your conclusion


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 10, 2010)

harryputtar89 said:


> This guy is some sort of a literary genius. Somebody get him the Trudeau scholarship for Oxford. Or whatever is the equivalent for Harvard.




Harryputtar89,

Please refrain from making such comments about anyone as it only helps in raising the tempers and doesn't really help the discussion itself. 

Another thing I would like to add here, since you seem to be couple of years younger than me is that I am asking these questions just because I need guidance. I don't want you or anyone else to get influenced in any way because of my curiosity.
If you have enough faith to walk the path of being a Khalsa, then nothing like it. In fact I feel envious of people who can keep their faith intact without questioning it. I wish I had that much faith, and one less thing to worry about.

Once again, if you have something constructive to offer, do chime in. But please don't mock others.

Regards.


----------



## karam (Sep 10, 2010)

I think the reason behind keeping your hair is spiritual reason, all the great Gurus, bhagats, avtaras,rishis of the world had long hair, eventhough they were not sikhs, you eat with your hands so its important to cut your nails to maintain hygiene, obviously hair do not serve no such purpose, I could be wrong I think for spiritual life you need hair, I came across some information on enlightened saints and it seemed to me in the advanced stages of spirituality you japp naam with every rom of your body, so I think it has something to do with spirituality, spiritual people kept uncut hair even before sikh gurus, on the other hand I also feel if you want to cut your hair from the core of your heart but you are forced to keep uncut hair then you are doing a drama of being a puran sikh


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 10, 2010)

Tejwant Ji,

You call my questions  a pony trick but you don't realize that this question is very important specially to youngsters because it effects each and every one of us at a very personal level specially to kids during their formative years when they are looking to forge their life long identities. Since they are in school, they don't have enough time or resources to do in depth study of our religion on their own. So they resort to next best thing which is to ask questions from supposedly learned people. But people like you mock them. You don't realise that your mockery is hurtful and disrespectful to them and their intelligence.




Tejwant Singh said:


> As, I suggested in my earlier post, you should get your hair cut and see how you feel and then go from there.


*
Seriously, if your own son asked you this question, would your answer still be the same to cut his hair and see how it feels?* If not then why are you trying to misguide me? Now don't even try to say that yes you will tell your own child to cut his hair too just to find out how he feels. You know you won't do that. You have continued to mock me all through this thread. I thought being a senior member of the forum you would be helping the young and curious minds. But all you do is make fun and misguide them. When you start your suggestions with such wrong comments, it muddies even the rest of your suggestion. But in spite of that I will start listening to Gurbani as you said, if not for answers, then at least for spiritual growth.


Many other members out here had their doubts about my intention and probably still do. But you were the only one who by yourself decided firmly what my intentions were. In your very first post you declared that I wasn't looking for answers to satisfy me. In your very first post on this thread you said  to me :-


Tejwant Singh said:


> You know very well that there is no answer that can satisfy you



How do you reach such far fetched conclusions about me when you don't know me and that too in your very first post.

Having doubts is one thing but the way you behaved *isn't called being skeptical. It's called being dogmatic.*

After few more posts  you went ahead and *asked me to get my hair cut. You even suggested a barber shop -'Super Cuts.' Amazing!*
You did all this, in spite of me repeatedly pleading with you that *I am not trying to justify cutting my hair and am only trying to justify keeping them.* I kept beseeching you just to  not belittle my intentions and help me with my question. But to no avail. 

*
People like you are the reason why youngsters are running away from Religion* and faith. You don't really care to listen what kids are asking and you just assume that we are up to no good. You don't know me. What gives you the right to say what my intentions are?

You assumed from your very first post that I was here for sinister reasons. You never really paid attention to what I said. You were always trying to read between the lines in my posts and belittle my intentions.

I thought that since you were one of the senior contributors on this forum, and almost my father's age, you would have something to offer. But you couldn't even get through your perceived notion of what you thought my intent was! 

All other senior members like *Mai Harinder Kaur ji, Bhagat Singh Ji, Jyot Ji, Arshi ji, Maninder Singh Ji, Randip Ji, Seeker9* and many others presented their views with much grace. Even if my views and their views didn't reconcile, in most cases we gracefully agreed to disagree. 

If I decide to continue to maintain my Sikh identity, when I have kids, and they ask me questions about my religion,  I would make sure they stay away from dogmatic people like you who can't get over their pre conceived notions and push the kids further away.
*
I have nothing to discuss with you, since you have nothing to offer* except your questions about my intent. Don't bother responding to me anymore. I would rather talk to other senior people on this forum.


Thanks and best regards. Hope you have a nice weekend!



*To All Others:-*
I would be traveling for most of the coming week. Obviously no one cares about the two days old skeptic member. But just wanted to let everyone know since I might not be able to respond in timely manner. Specially to so many wonderful posts in last 24 hrs, to which I surely want to respond.


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 10, 2010)

An interesting observation:
Scientists and people close to nature often have long hair. I'm sure it's subconcsious and that to me says a lot about the meaning of hair (even though we may not realise it on a conscious level).

In the movie avatar, the hair was given a very big significance as it was the way the inhabitants of Pandora bonded with those around them and with the environment. I know it's fiction but seen as the film was made by people who cut their hair, I think it says a great deal about the subconscious meaning of hair to us as human beings. I feel the only reason cutting hair has become popular is through advertising and 'beauty' magazines affecting the way society thinks. Historically people (esp those in power/upper classes) loved long hair


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 11, 2010)

Dear skeptic.freethinker1,

Quote:
<<You call my questions a pony trick but you don't realize that this question is very important specially to youngsters because it effects each and every one of us at a very personal level specially to kids during their formative years when they are looking to forge their life long identities. Since they are in school, they don't have enough time or resources to do in depth study of our religion on their own. So they resort to next best thing which is to ask questions from supposedly learned people. >>

First of all, when I was your age, I never had any instances of clear thinking. Indeed even now at more than twice your age, unlike you, I am generally so muddle-headed that at times I’m drawn to conclude that I must have only half a brain. However in spite of this, there may be something that you could learn from what I have to say.

When I was young, I too was tempted to cut my hair but my reason however, was mostly the outer appearance. There was fear of displeasing my parents but also that in fact if I did cut my hair, I may end up exposing an even uglier ‘actual appearance’, and so I decided that better this remain hidden underneath the outer distractions of hair, turban and beard. :-( 

Later I would have ended up doing it anyway, after also taking into account such things as discomfort and inconvenience. However by then, not only there was fear, but mingled with this, also some respect for my parents. Besides, the young person’s idealistic thoughts about how I should not give in to the expectations of a society that tends to mock and look down upon Sikhs and other similar minority groups, was quite a strong motivation. Related to this were such thoughts as, “I must have good enough reason for cutting my hair” or “Why I should be other than who I am?” which in fact were the main driving force for the position being maintained up until quite recently.

Now of course, these questions do not arise. But still if I did not have a family to think about, I’d just shave and go around bald. This of course has nothing to do with any aim to develop wisdom and other good qualities; in fact it would likely condition some attachment, but surely one not worse than if I continued to maintain my hair. The implication here is that the interest in developing understanding has its causes completely unrelated to whether I have long hair or am completely bald. I think this is very important to note. In other words, thoughts about keeping hair in the context of developing good qualities, is I believe, very misleading. Those who try to justify by giving such reasons as done here, are in my opinion, just increasing their ignorance and attachments and moving even more away from the ideals set and wish to move towards. 

I have young children, both boys. Soon they’d be faced with the kind of situation, as you say, most youngsters face. My wife is a devout Sikh and so my children would know not to even question such things in front of her. I of course, would rather have them cut their hair, knowing that they don’t possess the kind of understanding which would allow them not to react to societal influences negatively leading them to then end up suppressing much and thereby accumulating more bad than any good.

There is quite a bit of discrimination against Sikhs here in Thailand as it is anywhere outside of Punjab, but this is not the reason why any Sikh should then decide to cut his hair, but then again, the reason for keeping it must have a basis in what is good and right. For example, I would try to teach my children about the value of kindness and respect (towards her mother in this context) hence reason not to give in to temptation to cut their hair. However, even this can’t be forced and I’d need to remind myself of the Middle Way.

Indeed in light of this latter concept, the teachings on the harm of lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, killing and taking of intoxicants, is put forward as “training rules” and not as commandments. The idea is that while one sees the truth in principle, about the harm in these five kinds of actions, in practice however, without wisdom being developed along side, one ends up following rules with a mind often more harmful than that which one thinks to refrain from. In other words it is better to end up making mistakes now and then with regard to these five actions, than to make those that are worse but hidden by the ‘self image’ invariably resulted. 

Now, restraint from lying, stealing, sexual misconduct and killing are not doubt good since they are indeed right causes leading to corresponding results. But even here as explained above, the likelihood of going about them wrongly, such as when seeing them as commandments to follow rather than something which requires understanding is always there. When it comes to such things as maintaining long hair however, where is there any good being pointed at?!

So perhaps you should begin by separating the issue of hair and its place in your work from religious considerations. Indeed you wouldn’t even have to think then, in terms of being a skeptic and free thinker, because as far as I’m concerned, this is another unnecessary burden that you are carrying. If good has been got from your following Guru Nanak’s teachings, there is no reason that you would not continue to learn more. It is hard for parents to be convinced by their children’s reasoning especially when it comes to the matter of religion. But I suggest that you try to discuss with them with respect, creating an atmosphere in which they will trust you in your ability to discriminate rightly what is good from what isn’t.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 11, 2010)

Dear Confused,

It was a wonderful post. I really appreciate how you acknowledged the practical problems faced by sikh youngsters nowdays, specially the ones growing up outside India.
This understanding might seem natural to you, but it is indeed not so common. Congrats for being an understanding father. Your kids are indeed lucky.

There are parts of your post that I didn't fully agree with or probably didn't understand, maybe because I went through it pretty quickly. I will surely like to discuss with you some points when I am not so pressed for time.

Once again, thanks for your response.

Best Regards.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 11, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1,



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Dear Confused,
> 
> This understanding might seem natural to you, but it is indeed not so common. Congrats for being an understanding father. Your kids are indeed lucky.




I appreciate your saying this, however I don’t think that it correctly reflects the situation. There is no doubt that I am not a good father, being that I am more often than not quite impatient with my children. It would seem that I don’t realize that I too was a child once and made many similar mistakes as they do, or perhaps even more. I’d rather be left alone most of the time and so hardly spend any time talking to my children, or wife for the matter, which is probably due to self-centeredness. Of course I’m very attached to them, but then as we all know, this is all about me and my feelings and is the very reason the anger keeps arising when expectations are not met. Sometimes I am even lead to think along the lines that the people who are dependent on me, the associated karma must not be very good, else they’d have ended up in a better family.

But of course, I have no guilt feelings since such things are not within anyone’s control. And although I do have many, many bad qualities and characteristic traits, one thing I’m quite confident about is that I rightly see the importance of developing such things as generosity, truthfulness, kindness, morality and other good qualities and most of all wisdom on one hand, and on the other, seeing harm in greed, hatred and other bad qualities most notably of which is ignorance. With this all I can hope is that my children will somehow also learn to appreciate these same qualities. In fact recently while talking to someone about the difficult financial situation and little hope that my children will receive any kind of inheritance, I remarked that if they were to become good and know who they are, even if financially they remained poor, I’d consider my duty as a father well done.

But there is no saying that this will happen. I think that it is easier to become a Bill Gates, Obama and an Einstein all in one, than to put someone on the correct path to right-understanding, one who does not have any inclination for it. Indeed, when I was writing my last response to you, one thought that came to my mind was that, “my children, even if they may in the end fail to appreciate these things, it would be good that this young man (meaning you) did.”  ;-)


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 11, 2010)

Dear Skeptic.Freethinker Ji

I can't help feeling you are being a bit harsh about our respected colleague on this forum

Yes, you have been challenged and that can be part of the process when trying to get to the bottom of things

I now believe your enquiry is genuine and look forward to continuing your discussion when you come back

In the meantime have a safe journey and return
:blueturban:


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 11, 2010)

Seeker9 ji,
Yes. Almost as harsh as asking someone to goto Supercuts just for asking questions.

Sorry for short and curt reply but I am limited by the small keyboard of my iPhone.

Thanks for your wishes.

Regards


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 11, 2010)

Nails are free to cut once you have a cutter. Just think how much money you save by not going to the hairdressers! :}8-: Please say that made you laugh....


Dear skeptic.freethinker1 ji,

Hope you had a good trip.

Asking questions is good. Sikhi encourages it. I don't think we should follow blindly especially when there are so many controversies surrounding us and quite frankly I think there are very few people nowadays who have not asked the exact same question you have asked here at some point. If we understand we are more likely to want to follow. The kind of scientific justification you are looking for doesn't exist at this moment in time. You've got several reasons for why cutting nails is ok. However, as far as keeping hair goes, the crux of the matter becomes commitment. If you have the love for Sikhi then these questions become irrelevant. Please bear with me while I explain as I can only do so by referring to personal experience.

I was bullied for the 1st 7 years of my school life, initially it was racial then others jumped on the bandwagon. So i went through a phase where I refused to believe in God as why would God be so evil to put me through that. A lot more happened in my life and thankfully my faith returned. However, I was not satisfied. I saw a lot that didn't make sense in the religious community and the world around me and I didn't know what to make of things. I started going off Sikhi and wanted to cut my hair again-I had faith in God but not in religion. I resisted the urge for my parents sake and slowly started connecting with the Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I attended a couple of camps which helped immensely but was still not completely satisfied. Then sometime ago I moved to a place where I found the sangat I was looking for-Waheguru heard my ardas. A sangat that gave me the courage to trust my skills in my Gurmukhi to connect me the Guru Granth Sahib completely. A sangat that would answer my questions and encouraged me to question more. A sangat that heard my concerns about double standards and felt the same way so tried to do something about it. A sangat that helped me fall in love with the Guru completely, totally and utterly. A sangat that showed me we can *aim* to live true Gursikh lives even today. Unfortunately it has been an uphill struggle since leaving there as I see so much that doesn't work the way it should around me. However, in my love I'm determined. It has taken some time for my family to accept that I won't remove the kesh on my legs anymore-a big deal for a female. It's a pain when going to hot countries as I can't wear shorts and it's a pain when swimming but since I'm not self conscious about it anymore I find more acceptance among others even if they don't agree or understand. I stopped wearing earrings as I realised piercing is also wrong as it also distorts the body given to us by God. This is also a big deal for a female especially in Panjabi culture where looking good is the be all and end all for women-everyone judges on looks.

What I'm trying to say is that these things can't be forced on you. They are not essential for spirituality but are essential for a Gursikh way of life. I knew the logic behind them before but was only able to follow through when I had love for Sikhi and everything it stood for. Until you have that feeling inside then there will always be doubt in your mind. Once you have that love/yearning for the Guru then the need to keep your hair will come from inside.

First thing to do is to try and connect with the Guru itself. Forget what you see/hear in the community and study the Guru Granth Sahib Ji for yourself. I've attached a document about Nankian philosophy I got from another thread and have been really impressed by (I'm still working through it). I hope that provides you with a good starting point. Try and get onto a Sikhi camp if you can (choose carefully) as its a great way to get connected with other Gursikhs. Get involved in local projects if there are any. Do seva (any form-not just in Gurdwara). Read directly from the Granth Sahib if you can as its a special feeling. Give it time-nothing happens overnight! If after a few years you're still feeling lost then maybe it's time to rethink. Try not to get sidetracked by pakhandis around even though there are plenty and instead focus on the Guru.

Apologies for such a long post-wasn't sure my point would come across otherwise. I earnestly wish you lots of luck and hope you find what you're looking for. Take a step towards Ik Oankar and he will guide you further. Most of all don't lose hope!

Best wishes,
Jasleen icecreamkauricecreammundaicecreamkudi


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 13, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 Ji,

One thing which i felt but never shared to anyone since i joined SPN is, here most of the questions of Why/What/When/Where etc are asked by people living in foreign countries as they seek reason for everything they are asked to do. Somewhere its good as knowing/asking the reason is a good thing. And its obvious that whatever Guruji asked us to do, have reason(s) irrespective of the fact that we know or not. Even I never questioned my parents for the same. May be bcoz of lack of 'Why/What/When/Where' kind of thinking or a little awareness that Guruji cannot be wrong in any case. As Sant Singh Ji Maskeen used to explain, Gyan and Shardha are the main ingredients for Enlightenment. Having only one will lead u NOWHERE. Personally I feel Shardha is more important and then comes the Gyan as Gurbani says *"Jin Prem Kio Tin Hi Prabh Paayo"*_ (quoted earlier, also) _ Looking at the other side of coin, I personally feel and has observed that Shardha or Prem is also achieved by *His* Grace only.

Thats personal thinking and I don't claim that it ought to be right as I'm still learning. Here is the logic i have found for ur question. I read it and was impressed. 

*Human Hair - A Biological Necessity 
By Dr. Birendra Kaur
*
Hair is a characteristic feature of mammals, commonly known as "Hairy quadrupeds" - a group of animals that mark the climax of evolution. Mammals are also the dominant animals in the world today, due partly to their ability to regulate body temperature in the face of variations in environmental temperature. This requires regulation of heat production and heat loss by the body. Hair plays an important role in regulating heat loss from the body. Impulses from the brain (hypothalamus) causes the hair to stand on ends, thereby enclosing an insulating layer of air just outside the skin. This layer reduces the loss of heat by radiation. 

Man marks the climax of evolution even among mammals, and has the most complex and highly developed brain, and the longest hair on head. This feature cannot be without reason. It cannot be a matter of mere chance or a mistake by nature, because if the tails has been lost the hair too could have been lost. On the contrary, human head-hair has increased manifold as compared to other mammals. 

This dense and long growth of hair on the head shows that the body is trying to increase the surface area for some particular function. Such a trend to increase the surface area is seen in every system of the body, e.g. the highly coiled intestines with finger-like villi on their inner surfaces for absorption of digested food; alveoli in the lungs for exchange of O2 and CO2; glomerular capillaries in the form of bunch and coiled tubules in the kidneys where urine formation takes place. The circulatory and nervous systems show extensive branching to reach every nook and corner of the body. Even the surface of the human brain has maximum fissures (folds) corresponding to its increased abilities. The results that will be produced by decreasing the surface area of these points is easy for all to imagine! 

*FUNCTIONS OF HAIR:* Hair performs a variety of functions. Some are listed below: 

Form an insulating coat on the body. Trap a layer of still air just outside the skin, and thereby reduce loss of heat by radiation. 
Absorb harmful radiations from the sun. 
Keep out co{censored} dust particles, as in eyelashes, hair in the nasal chambers and ear canals. 
Eyebrows prevent water or perspiration from falling into eyes, due to their particular direction. 
Axillary and pubic hair lessen friction between limbs and body, and between limbs during locomotion. 
Axillary hair provide large surface area for evaporation of sweat.
Beautify the body (otherwise why people do not shave off their hair from the head completely; bald men are desperate and would pay any price to get back hair on their heads). 
Beard and moustaches are for differentiation of sex. Mostly males are decorated in nature, e.g. lion, pea{censored} and other birds, deer, etc. 
Protect from sun and rain.
Prevent water from entering into skin.
Impart colour to body. 
Vibrissae are sensory hair, tactile in nature and useful in dark burrows.
Defend the body in danger, by standing on their ends, thereby making the body look bigger.
Help to disguise by blending with the colour of the surroundings, to escape the watchful eyes of natural enemies. 

*IS HAIR LIFELESS?*

Hair is erroneously considered lifeless because of lack of any visible connection with the brain. But, the drain is not controlling/communicating with our body through nerves alone. Hormones, which are chemical mediators also regulate various body functions. The immune system of the body fights infection with the help of coordinated action of cells, which have no visible connection with each other, or with the brain. So, presence or absence of nerves alone cannot determine the connection of a particular part of the body with the brain. If the hair was really dead to the brain, how then does it come to know that it has been cut, and respond by growing it again to the specific length? Once the specific length has been attained, further lengthening ceases. Thus, undoubtedly the brain is well aware of the condition of the hair, cut or uncut, even upto its tip! This is a sure sign of life. Also, the hair, like any other living organ of the body, responds to ageing, in their length, thickness of growth and greying. The condition of the health of a person is also reflected in the hair, its lustre, shine, etc. 

Lack of sensation in hair, is no indication of its being dead, for, even the brain shows no such sensation. There is also a phylum (Porifera), the animals of which do not possess a nervous system at all. A blow to any part of their body produces no response whatsoever. Do we call these animals dead? Most plants do not show any sensation either. 

Further, a part of that we call "dead" may be without sensation but definitely not without function. Rather, its function is as important as any living part of the body, if not more. For example: 

What would be the fate of an egg without the shell? 
What would be the condition of the body's living cells without the covering of the dead cells, i.e. upper layers of skin? 
How can teeth perform their function without enamel? 
What life would a bird lead without feathers? 
How would many freshwater animals overcome unfavourable conditions and not become extinct without cysts? 
How would plants disperse and reproduce without formation of seeds? 
Actually, different parts of the body or different cells cannot be categorised as useful/not useful. Each is only specially modified to perform different function for the benefit of the same individual. What the cells of a kidney can do, the cells of pancreas cannot. That does not mean that the former are more important than the latter, or vice versa. 

*HAIR VS. NAILS:*

It is often argued that hair and nails are similar, and a question frequently asked: "If we should not cut our hair, then why do we cut our nails?" But even a superficial study of the two shows them to be extremely different from each other. Whereas the hair grows from a tubular pit, the hair follicle, formed by sinking in of the most actively dividing layer of the skin, i.e., stratum germinativum, into the lower dermis, the nails are only modifications of the upper dead layers of the skin, i.e. stratum corneum. Further, the base of every follicle bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for nourishment and nerve fibres that make the hair sensitive to contact. An oil gland, known as sebaceous gland, opens into every hair follicle, the secretion of which lubricates the hair. A muscle is also attach ed to the base of every hair for bringing about movement. Pigments are added to the shaft of the hair as it grows. None of these features is associated with nails. 

Structurally also hair is extremely strong, and resists breaking due to its elasticity and flexibility. Hair is as strong as steel, if we compare the two of the same diameter. Nails, on the other hand, are very brittle and rigid, breaking off easily. Hair number in thousands, thereby increasing the surface area, as if to meet a specific requirement. Nails number only twenty. 

The difference between the two do not end with the structural features. Even the body's response towards the two is totally different. Our body, throughout life, tries to maintain a particular length of hair, and if cut anywhere along the length, responds by growing them again to the specific length. It clearly indicates the link of the body with the hair all along its length. 

The body shows no such response to the nails, which grow from birth to death at the same rate, irrespective of whether cut or not. As has been mentioned earlier, even the shafts of hair, like any other living organ of the body, respond to ageing (in their length, density of growth, greying, etc.) and condition of health is reflected in the person?s hair (in their lustre, shine, etc.), whereas from the dead part of the nail, one can infer no such thing. 

Practically also, hair do not interfere in any daily activity, whereas it is impossible to function at all with long nails. And even if not cut, nails generally fall off of their own easily; rather it takes great effort to maintain them, even upto a short length. In contrast to the long list of the functions of hair, only one function can be attributed to nails - that is, protection of the tips of digits. 

*CONCLUSION:* 

To sum up, if there is anything on the head that can be compared with nails, it is dandruff! 

It is also argued that hair have been lost from the body in man, because the body is kept covered. If that be the case, then the axillary and the pubic hair should have been the first to go. Also, the hair on the face, neck and hands should have remained. 

Nature knows best what to discard or retain. Whatever is retained is not without purpose. If we are unable to explain something, it does not mean it has no significance. We must look for an explanation, rather than deny the role or existence of something we do not see. 

There are sound frequencies we do not hear; light waves, that make everything visible, we do not see; odours that we do not smell; there are animals that do not see as many colours as we do; some things we can neither see nor deny, such as emotions, the bond between mother and child, force of gravity, etc. So, if there are things we do not see, or hear, or smell, it does not imply their absence. Just as an ant cannot apprehend the size and shape of an elephant, life and its processes are beyond human apprehension in the present state of knowledge. Our vast Solar system, which is beyond reach even today, is just a speck in the universe! Even our smallness is beyond our apprehension! 

Hair is a gift from God, not a burden. Guru Gobind Singh, in his infinite wisdom, commanded us to respect it and to refrain from tampering with it. This is the visible token of his affection for us, as well as our faith in him. If we have faith in our Guru who was in communion with God, how can we do anything but follow his advice? 

As Prof. Puran Singh says: "Let us sing in gratitude 'The Song of the Sikh'": 

"Ah! Well, let my hair grow long; ....
I cannot forget the knot He tied on my head;
It is sacred, it is his mark of remembrance.
The Master has bathed me in the light of suns not yet seen;
There is eternity bound in this tender fragile knot.
I touch the sky when I touch my hair, and a thousand stars
twinkle through the night." 

Here is the link

I hope it will impress u, too.    

khandaaWaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh khandaa


----------



## Astroboy (Sep 13, 2010)

I also have a similar questions. 
Why do we eat the flesh and not the bone? 
Why do we peel the bananas - since both are provided by nature.
Why does one thing have more value than the other, since both are created by God.


----------



## moni (Sep 13, 2010)

swordfight


----------



## Bmandur (Sep 13, 2010)

namjap said:


> I also have a similar questions.
> Why do we eat the flesh and not the bone?
> Why do we peel the bananas - since both are provided by nature.
> Why does one thing have more value than the other, since both are created by God.


 
I want to add some more:
Why we take bath every day
Why we eat three or four times a day than we expose the extra food in the morning
why we use the water to wash our hands after we to go the washroom
when we eat food than why can not eat the morning waste food from your body

*That is why it's is very important to cut your nails and keep your Hair nice* *& comb not like Jtta Sadh's we have in India*motherlylove


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 13, 2010)

@Namjap 

Oh so since the guy who started the thread is traveling and isn't here to put you back in your place as he was doing , when he was around, you think it's perfectly fine to have a picnic now with these not so cerebral questions!!

Doesn't matter, let's analyze your question.



namjap said:


> I also have a similar questions.
> Why do we eat the flesh and not the bone?
> Why do we peel the bananas - since both are provided by nature.



Logic and reasoning isn't your forte, is it?

Anyways, first of all let me congratulate you on at least initiating some rational thoughts in your mind. There are not many people around here who would try to answer your questions and not sure when skeptic dude would be back so let me take a strike at these:-

Why do we eat the flesh and not the bone? Because it's not logical. Hard bone segments are hard to swallow, can cause choking and if swallowed, can damage our elementary canal. *Logical and Practical*

Why do we peel the bananas - since both are provided by nature. - Well, first of all, in many parts of he word, the banana peel is indeed eaten and if you really want to, you can very well eat the banana skin. So the question is non sensical. But lets suppose you meant to ask " Why the most popular way to eat banana is to eat it without the peel?" Well, the answer is that the outer portion isn't as sweet and a bit harder to chew. So normal rational, logical people 'prefer' to eat it without the peel. *Logical and Practical*

Now let's go back to what you were trying to negate.

Why do majority of the world population cut their nails? - Because shorter nails are easier to work with and easy to keep clean. *Logical and Practical*

Why do majority of the world population cut their hairs? -  Easier to maintain, easy to keep clean. Dust and food particles get stuck in them if you have a long free flowing beard or long hair. But the people in colder climates tend to keep beards as it helps them trap body heat and the people in warmer climates tend to keep shorter hair and no beards for the exact inverse reason. See.... *Logical and Practical*


Now lets go to the other question --  "Why are we sikhs supposed to keep long hair without any logic and reason when we are pretty rational about cutting our nails?"  *In other words, why do we do something so illogical?*, when we are perfectly logical about so many other things like not eating bones!!

*And in last 5-6 pages of this thread, skeptic showed that there isn't any logical reason behind keeping long hair and beard and it's just a matter of faith. Not sure if he himself realized this yet, but I did. 

And so I have already emailed the link to this thread to all my cousins including the ones in India. I'm sure they will also like to join the discussion*




namjap said:


> Why does one thing have more value than the other, since both are created by God.



Yes, that's exactly what the skeptic guy asked. This was the very basis of his question. Since you don't have any answer, you tried to get back with above questions, since you know he is not responding now days. Good try!


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 14, 2010)

harryputtar89 said:


> @Namjap
> 
> Oh so since the guy who started the thread is traveling and isn't here to put you back in your place as he was doing , when he was around, you think it's perfectly fine to have a picnic now with these not so cerebral questions!!
> 
> ...



Well well..it does appear that in Skeptic.Freethinker Ji's absence
you have appointed yourself guardian of the quest to answer the great question posed in the title of this thread.

It has been an interesting thread in that the debate has been about a particular article of faith when the overall 
spiritual path itself has so much to offer

Different strokes for different folks

Some will be content to follow all aspects of discipline their religion requires, whereas others will be happier to evade the bits they 
don't like

Big deal

I would suggest there is more to being a good person, a spiritual person, a moral person or any other positive aspect you can think of 
than strict adherence to an article of faith. At the end of the day, a mad axe murderer with kesh is still a mad axe murderer...

So adherence to articles of faith should not be blind or forced but should be because you want to

And instead of focussing in on just one aspect, consider everything else this path has to offer. Have you done that? Is it a path you value?
Are there other aspects that you are not entirely comfortable with?

Re your references to logic and reasoning, perhaps you could find a path that requires no faith and requires no commitment 
from its followers to demonstrate they are adherents of the faith but is built solely on logic and reasoning?

In that regard, you may consider becoming a Vulcan (Star Trek). I daresay there are some small internet communities out there that can facillitate
this and make it happen for you

Good luck!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 14, 2010)

OK, I bowed out and now I'm back.  I think somewhere in here we need to ask, what is/are the purpose/s of kakkars?  And what is the purpose of Sikhi?  Not just what are these things to me as an individual, but what were our Gurus trying to accomplish?  Why bother being a Sikh?

Since my ego is intact, I will give my opinion.  I think the fingernail thing is a red herring thrown into the soup to distract us from these real questions. I believe we are not only called on to become different people from non-Sikhs, we are called to become a different kind of person.  I believe that all Sikhs are called to be Khalsa.  Some will answer that call with Yes and some with No.  It is an individual choice;  one that no one can make for you.  I firmly believe that if one is not yet prepared to follow the Khalsa Panth, the answer should be No.  For those, perhaps arguments and discussions of kakkars are useless.  For those who say Yes, arguments are unnecessary.  

However, there are some other possible answers, as life really isn't black and white.  There is Maybe.  There is I Don't Know.  There is Not Yet.  The answers to the meaning and purpose of kakkars might be different for people with these differing answers.  I sense from this thread that the asker of this question has one or more of these three answers.  I am not sure how to answer.  I am one who said Yes, stumbled and fell, was picked up by Guru ji, and then again said Yes.  I can answer for my position only, not for the others.  And I have already done that.

As for keeping kesh, I can make one statement:  If you cannot do this one simple thing, how can you expect to do the much more difficult things asked/expected/demanded of a Khalsa?

I might well be wrong;  I often am.  That's OK.  Being neither Guru nor Pope, I claim neither omniscience nor infallibility.

Oh, yes, there is at least one other answer.  There is I Don't Care.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 14, 2010)

I probably should add that I have often been told that I seem to be half Vulcan and half Klingon (Star Trek again).  The adventure in being my friend is that you never know which one will show up.  Occasionally, I become an integrated whole.  That happens more often as I get a bit older.  That is part of what being a Sikh means to me, becoming a single, whole person with the scientist/logic balanced with the warrior/emotion.  Perhaps this is a slightly different interpretation of the sant-sipahi concept.  (Please don't tell any of the Panthic fuddy-duddies I said that.  I have enough problems to handle with an attack by the fundamentalists.  Oh, wait, I am one of those fundamentalist extremist separatist (probably a terrorist) Khalistani Sikhs.  It gets so confusing.  Anyway, I think I'll go cut my toenails while my kesh is drying from my shower.)kaurhugicecreamkaur


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 14, 2010)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> I probably should add that I have often been told that I seem to be half Vulcan and half Klingon (Star Trek again).  The adventure in being my friend is that you never know which one will show up.  Occasionally, I become an integrated whole.  That happens more often as I get a bit older.  That is part of what being a Sikh means to me, becoming a single, whole person with the scientist/logic balanced with the warrior/emotion.  Perhaps this is a slightly different interpretation of the sant-sipahi concept.  (Please don't tell any of the Panthic fuddy-duddies I said that.  I have enough problems to handle with an attack by the fundamentalists.  Oh, wait, I am one of those fundamentalist extremist separatist (probably a terrorist) Khalistani Sikhs.  It gets so confusing.  Anyway, I think I'll go cut my toenails while my kesh is drying from my shower.)kaurhugicecreamkaur



Now that's funny!
But the important points here and below are well made
Live long and prosper!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 14, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> Now that's funny!
> But the important points here and below are well made
> Live long and prosper!



Truth often comes with a laugh.  (And ice cream.  icecreammundaicecreamkaur)

Prosperity and long life.  (I think k'plach goes in here somewhere, too.)


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 14, 2010)

harryputtar89 said:


> Why do majority of the world population cut their hairs? -  Easier to maintain, easy to keep clean. Dust and food particles get stuck in them if you have a long free flowing beard or long hair. But the people in colder climates tend to keep beards as it helps them trap body heat and the people in warmer climates tend to keep shorter hair and no beards for the exact inverse reason. See.... *Logical and Practical*




I disagree. If long hair were so impractical then why were long hairs kept more often in times of old? Short hair is often styled and therefore needs frequent visits to the hairdressers to maintain....NOT PRACTICAL or cheap. It often requires specialist products too.....NOT PRACTICAL. People who shave their facial (or other hair) need to do this daily adding about 10 mins minimum to their daily routine as well as having to buy creams, lotions, blades etc.....NOT PRACTICAL. Dust is also going to get stuck in short hair if not properly maintained so I don't think there is any difference there. The change in attitude against long hair is media related. It has become fashionable to have short hair so please don't confuse that with practicality. As far as logical or practical goes, both are equal as each has their pitfalls. The main downside of long hair in the modern world is that it stands out in a world that is increasingly bent on wiping out differences-it is not a practical problem


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 14, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> I disagree. If long hair were so impractical then why were long hairs kept more often in times of old?


Well, first of all, from Harappa to Houston, people have been cutting their hair off. Archaeological finds support it that people have been cutting their hair for a very long time so not sure what you mean by 'old times'.

If you were refering to the photos of sadhus, well do you think they couldn't shave with precision blades because they left their families and material world to go to the jungles to pray. And believe me it's really not easy to trim your hair with tree branches while you are praying round the clock.




findingmyway said:


> Dust is also going to get stuck in short hair if not properly maintained so I don't think there is any difference there.


You will get the answer if you seek it.
Material101. - Longer hair, greater surface area, larger area for dust particles to stick to. Almost the same reason why longer hair will retain more water than shorter hair.




findingmyway said:


> The main downside of long hair in the modern world is that it stands out in a world that is increasingly bent on wiping out differences-it is not a practical problem



"The 'main' downside?". Skeptic dude showed so many downsides throughout the thread. I showed one to you in this post about the dust particles.
Let me give you another one.

So many of my friends mentioned hair help us trap body heat. Now that is a big disadvantage when you are living in hot climates. Big disadvantage if you have long hair. It turns into advantage if you are in cold climate. But sikhism doesn't differentiate between the conditions where long hair are good or bad. it just says, keep long hair. That's it. 
So please don't say there is no downside.


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Sep 14, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> I usually eschew long copy/pastes, but this says it much better and in more detail than I can. From
> 
> 
> Hail *Hair* !
> ...


 


There is absolutely no differanca between hair and nails,both are made

 of the same material.

The best way to pleasw God is to roam about naked becaude that is

 how God wished us to be.


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 14, 2010)

> harryputtar89 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, first of all, from Harappa to Houston, people have been cutting their hair off. Archaeological finds support it that people have been cutting their hair for a very long time so not sure what you mean by 'old times'.
> ...



I don't think the Guru's or other Sikhs suffered from problems during their time in the heat


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 14, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



jasbirkaleka said:


> The best way to pleasw God is to roam about naked becaude that is how God wished us to be.



Finally a voice of reason! If that was one of the tenants of Sikhi, I would have been a big fan of our entire philosophy.icecreammunda


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 14, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*

harryputtar89 ji,



harryputtar89 said:


> Finally a voice of reason! If that was one of the tenants of Sikhi, I would have been a big fan of our entire philosophy.icecreammunda



Obviously you have never spent a winter in Montreal!icecreamkaur


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 14, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> So we've established we can't use history as history  supports both sides of the argument



Wrong. Noone was arguing in favor of short hair. Argument was for  freedom to choose long or short hair as a person wishes depending on his  climate and other conditions. So history just shows that people had  always been keeping long or short hair as they wished till sikhism came  along. 





findingmyway said:


> However, slaves always had short hair so hair can be seen as a sign of freedom technically.


 
Open Google image search and search for 'Greek King' and see how many  people with full length hair and full beard come up. Keep in mind, no  trimming or hair styling is allowed 
How about doing some research before you dive in!

Jasleen, You made some pretty good posts in the beginning. What happened to you all of a sudden??


Seriously people, all your theories and reasons have holes the size of  titanic! Why don't you accept that you have no logic or reason behind  keeping long hair and beard and it is all based on blind faith.

*For how long would we keep following this blind superstition about our hair !!*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 15, 2010)

> Why do majority of the world population cut their hairs? -  Easier to  maintain, easy to keep clean. Dust and food particles get stuck in them  if you have a long free flowing beard or long hair. But the people in  colder climates tend to keep beards as it helps them trap body heat and  the people in warmer climates tend to keep shorter hair and no beards  for the exact inverse reason. See....



The answer to both climates is "turban". keeps the hair free from dust and insulates the head in both climates from heat and cold.

Actually, I would say long hair is less maintenance than short hair. Forget about styling.
Long hair have much greater surface area. This allows the oil from the scalp to spread over the hair. With shorter hair, much of the oil from the scalp remains on the scalp, collects dust, and leads to itch.
Also with a turban, long hair only need to be washed once a week. The same cannot be said about shorter hair.


----------



## dalbirk (Sep 15, 2010)

Sikhs are required IMHO to maintain hair so as to maintain distinct identity . The Sikhs should stand out as unique community & not get lost in the crowd was the aim of Guru Gobind Singh Ji because according to JivanSakhis when Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was martyred then none came forward to pick his body though many Sikhs were present . The Sikhs who were required to maintain a strict discipline the beliefs & aims of whom were always at odds with the political & religious set up There was always a danger that Sikhs may try to assimilate under pressure of political powers of the day as well as religious authorities . The similar danger is always lurking living in India especially when we have the examples of two of the oldest religions which sank without a trace ie Jainism & Buddhism so much so that countless efforts to revive these religions have borne no fruit .


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 15, 2010)

Harryputtar ji,
You really are taking things round and round in circles. This will be my final post on this topic as we really have covered everything as far as i can see unless someone has something earth shattering to say!! (Though I am looking forward to skeptic.freethinker1's comments on his return)



harryputtar89 said:


> Wrong. Noone was arguing in favor of short hair. Argument was for  freedom to choose long or short hair as a person wishes depending on his  climate and other conditions. So history just shows that people had  always been keeping long or short hair as they wished till sikhism came  along.
> 
> Open Google image search and search for 'Greek King' and see how many  people with full length hair and full beard come up. Keep in mind, no  trimming or hair styling is allowed
> How about doing some research before you dive in!
> ...



Firstly, don't believe everything you read on google searches. I am constantly telling patients not to use google as there is a lot of rubbish out there. I was thinking back to my history lessons in school (admittedly they were a while ago so I don't remember all the details!!) Also don't believe all pictures. There are hundreds of pictures out there of Guru Nanak Dev Ji holding a mala. Anyone who has started understanding his philosophy will know that this picture cannot have been a real scene as Guru Nanak Dev Ji rejected such things.

No-one has ever said you don't have freedom. That's the beauty of free will. This thread about helping skeptic.freethinker1 and others choose. Every action has a consequence. The symbolism and historical significance has already been explained several times. To many of us keeping kesh is no different to wearing a kara. You say I made sense earlier then why do you keep justifying cutting hair when I already said it's about faith? Keeping kesh is not blind faith but has a logical and understandable motive based in maintaining identity. I think this is just as relevant today as ever. People always dress according to the situation they are in and the person they want to be. Kesh is part of the Gursikh uniform. Those who want to cut their hair as they have difficulties getting into a nightclub definitely should as if they want to go clubbing they are not following a Gursikh path. (Those who keep kesh but are committing atrocities are not following a gursikh path either but that's a different story). Where Sikhs are known they are generally well respected. Admitted that in the west there is still a lot of ignorance about us but organisations such as SALDEF and United Sikhs are working on improving this situation and we all need to be doing our bit by always being on our best behaviour rather than hiding below the covers. Keeping this uniform should always make us aware to always be the best human beings we can be. You can be a good human without the uniform too but that does not lessen the significance of the uniform.

Every action has a consequence. You most definitely do have a choice. You can cut your hair if you don't believe in the reasons presented. You will still be a Sikh if you so choose but you will not have the option to take khanda di pahaul and become a member of the khalsa. If that's not important to you then fine. However, you cannot change a whole religion to suit your sentiments. That's like going into the police force and saying you hate the colour blue for whatever reason so can they change everyone's uniform to green! I am not saying the Khalsa are better than you or anyone else, but you have no right to ridicule their beliefs when they are not doing you or anyone else harm. It is a way of life that people are FREE to CHOOSE. They are willing to show commitment, you are not. Why are you resorting to attacking beliefs to alleviate your own insecurities? Points against keeping kesh have been raised and answered in a reasonable manner so now everyone is free to choose what to do. There are many cases where the Guru's hukam is being ignored as it goes against what people want to do. One example; there are many Panjabi's love their booze! They twist the hukam and give a thousand reasons why it's ok but IT IS AGAINST Guru Ji's hukam. They don't stop being Sikhs but are not following all aspects of Sikhi. Why are we not spending more time on this issue than hair? Keeping hair is a choice with no bad consequences but the same cannot be said about drinking alcohol. So why is one more accepted than the other? Because it is socially acceptable. Again this shows lack of commitment. (I am not attacking you personally harryputtar but am making general statements based on my experiences around the world-i don't know details about you and do not want to know as it is your business frankly, not mine).

Sikhi is a journey. We are all at different points. The less you follow of Guru Ji's hukam, the further you have to travel on that path. If you don't want to be judged for cutting your hair, then don't judge others for wanting to keep theirs.
 



harryputtar89 said:


> Sikh ppl roam around naked in winters in Montreal??
> 
> Don't kid with me. If this is indeed true and Montreal has Naked  Sardarnis, I will take up Amrit tomorrow and would be sweeping the  floors of Montreal Gurudwara by the following day!!



You want to be taken seriously when you make comments such as this?!! Control your lustful thoughts man...
:sigh::nothingtoadd:


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 16, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Harryputtar ji,
> Firstly, don't believe everything you read on google searches.



And you go ahead and believe all the non sense that different religions in this world propagate for their own benefit.

Here is a gem of nonsense being preached and this was quoted by a very 'respected' member of this forum *'Soul_Jyot'*:-

ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਛਾਪ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਕੀ ਪਾਹੁਲ, ਦੇਇ ਉਤਾਰ ਸੋ ਬੇਮੁਖ ਜਾਨਹੁ।
ਬੇਟੇ ਕੋ ਬੰਧੁ ਕੋ ਛਾਪ ਮੁੰਡਾਵਤ, ਜਮ ਦੁਖ ਭੋਗ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਤ ਪਛਾਨਹੁ।
Second part of which means :-
One who shaves the stamp (of the Guru) of their  child (i.e. cut their children's hair), *realise that person will suffer  a terrible death and known as a ghost*

Really, *terrible death* for cutting hair!! *Terrible death* for something most humans do!!?? Pathetic!
And gullible people like you are happy to believe this line that your  religion so happily preaches. I didn't see any of you criticise this  except skeptic.freethinker. He skewered this line but all of you just  stayed mum and kept trying to come up with more and more ridiculous  reasons to keep hair and beard. And each time your new reasons got blown  up, instead of trying to defend them you came up even more silly  reasons.

If you can't even criticize something as irrational as above comment, then anything else you say doesn't hold any water!




findingmyway said:


> No-one has ever said you don't have freedom.



Really! I have the freedom?
Freedom for what? To *'die a terrible death'* as described in above quote??
You really think kids have freedom.

Just do one thing. If you have kids, today tell them that they have the  freedom to keep their hair or cut their hair. Tell them that it's their  choice to keep long hair or short hair and no matter what they choose,  you won't judge them. Tell them you would love them anyways and that  having long or short hair doesn't make them a good person. Being a good  human is what makes them good.

And I am not just talking to 'findingmyway'. I am talking to all of you  who have kids. If you think everybody has the freedom to keep their hair  or not, then go home and tell your kids that they have the freedom.
If you can't, then don't do this drama of sikhism teaching tolerance and  acceptance, irrespective of whether somebody cuts their hair or not.

You guys just talk big. Try to act on it for once.

If I cut my hair, my mom would go bazooka on me. And she is the most  pious sikh you would ever meet. So much for 'sikhism teaches tolerance'.  All because of a 500 year old superstition!!

Findingmyway,
You sound like a nice person and probably if I met you, I  would give lot of weightage to what you have to say on other topics. The  reason you loose credibility on this topic is that you fail to  criticise people of your own ilk for making far fetched irrational  comments.


----------



## harryputtar89 (Sep 16, 2010)

dalbirk said:


> Sikhs are required IMHO to maintain hair so as to maintain distinct identity.



You guys really need to get your act together. Just a few posts back someone said the reason behind long hair and turban was that Mughal emperors used to wear turban. And guruji wanted to defy the distinction and everyone to wear turbans. Now you are saying reason was to look distinct!! 
Which one is it!!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 16, 2010)

OK, Harryputtar, here it is.

As I see it there are two legitimate reasons for keeping kes.



You love your Guru and he asks it of you
You like long hair, beard, etc.
I suppose I could add because you love mata ji and don't want to disappoint her, but I won't.  It would have broken my heart if my child had cut his kes, but broken hearts do mend and I would have survived.

Every other reason is just justification and, frankly, bull ****. It is a useless exercise in something, maybe hypocrisy, maybe something else.

There is no magic in kes: you receive no superpowers.  It just helps make you look like a Sikh, which is a good thing if you want to be recognised as a Sikh.  And, of course, Guru ji asks it of us.

BTW, I am a bit upset at your rudeness - yes, you were quite rude - to polpol who is a lovely person who deserves our encouragement, not our criticism.  

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.


----------



## gurbanicd (Sep 16, 2010)

dear all

since we are following guru nanak sahib and all ten guru had long hairs, all on spiritual path had/have long hairs.

Our guru want us to have long hairs. we should trust him, as we trust our family and friends when we ask them for direction to reach our destination.

sometime faith and trust should be given preference over reasoning

bhulan chukan di khima


----------



## GodsDust (Sep 16, 2010)

Shri Guru Gobind Singh create a Sikh as a warrior person who can fight against injustice and evil. Hair has following significance, that is why it is included in sikh's 5 K.

1. Hair are smalls keratin filaments. When you put together thousands of these filaments together, it gives enormous strength. So keep hair used to help the sikhs during war time. Beard hair used to protect neck from sword attack. Head hair used to give natual helmet. 

2. One of the reason was to give unique identity to a sikh.

3. It makes a women more beautiful and a man more macho.

4. Human hair may not compete with the painful spines of the porcupine, but much of the hair on the human body is suited to protect it. This natural armor cannot directly protect humans from potential predators, but it does help to keep the sense organs, like the eyes, working properly.

5. Hair also provide protection from cold.

Why not nail?

1. Keeping nail would not have given any benifits during wars. On the contrary having long nails is a hindrance to the body. An individual with long nails cannot functions and do everyday chores comfortably.

2. Sikh only cuts dead part of the nail not the alive pink/red part called nail plate. Cutting dead part of the nail and retailing pink nail plate can be analogous to combing and removing dead hair and dandruff while retaining live hair.

3. Hair protects us against the harmful Ultra Violet radiations and skin cancer while the dead part of the nails do not seem to provide a similar functionality.

4. Our body do not treat Keratin of hair as waste product as it restricts its growth and nourishes it. Whereas, for our body keratin in nail is like waste product. And hence it does not nourishes nail, and even it does not restrict it lenght.

5. Hair grows from the most actively dividing layer of the skin (stratum germinativum),  the gray part of nails is only modifications of the upper dead layer (stratum corneum). Hair follicle bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for nourishment and nerve fibers to make the hair sensitive. Sebaceous gland lubricate hair follicle by its secretion. A muscle is also attached to the base of every hair for bringing about movement. Pigments are added to the shaft of the hair as it grows. None of these features is associated with the dead part of nails.


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 16, 2010)

> harryputtar89 said:
> 
> 
> > And you go ahead and believe all the non sense that different religions in this world propagate for their own benefit.
> ...


That is between you and your mother and you need to discuss with her. In a previous post I have given you some ideas as to how to connect with Sikhi but if you don't want to or can't then you need to talk seriously with her and stop taking your anger out on others. We have lots of people in my family with cut hair. I have said time and again it doesn't affect your ability to be a good person but does affect your commitment to the Sikh way of life. Your anger is what people will think about the boy who wants to cut his hair and i'm sure that's not the only thing you want to show the world about yourself. If you want to be taken seriously then you have got to stop ridiculing others as having blind faith when it clearly is not. I don't follow anything i don't believe in or understand. It is not a superstition but a uniform. Simple. There are many things my parents don't want me to do. I have a choice to either accept and live by it. Or work on them to bring them round to my way of thinking. I don't brush the whole world with the same attitudes as it is a personal thing! Same in your case. Why do you wear a kara? Maybe you should stop wearing that too.




harryputtar89 said:


> You guys really need to get your act  together. Just a few posts back someone said the reason behind long hair  and turban was that Mughal emperors used to wear turban. And guruji  wanted to defy the distinction and everyone to wear turbans. Now you are  saying reason was to look distinct!!
> Which one is it!!



Anyone in power wore a turban which is why we were gifted a turban. However, they did not keep kesh so that makes our identity unique from them. We have the status of a turban with a unique appearance for every person-we are all kings and queens for God.

Why do you have so much anger?


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 16, 2010)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> OK, Harryputtar, here it is.
> 
> As I see it there are two legitimate reasons for keeping kes.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Mai Ji

I must commend you on an excellent post that cuts through al the crap to the heart of the issue

As Finding my way has noted, we are going in circles now

We've presented one side, others have presented their side and no consensus has been reached

We'll continue to do our own thing and they can do theirs

End of story

Off all the things to die in a ditch over...I still find it remarkable folk are getting hung up on this one thing when the path has so much else to offer

Dear HarryPutter Ji and Skeptic.Freethinker Ji

Forget about the hair thing for now

Follow the path and see if you feel better for it. But please don't dump everything just over this one thing!

Good luck to you and all the best

rangesingh:


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 16, 2010)

Harryputtar/skeptic

You have quoted some solid points about being logic and rationality behind keeping hair.But I want to ask you is logic and rationality is everything in world.? Please also look at Real world.Sikhs all over the world got the reputation of being brave ,honest hardworking persons .majority of them those wore turban and kept uncut hair.Now in last 20-30 years 
a very large majority of sikh youth cut their hair and what is the present situation of Punjab?

A large majority of Youths are taking drugs.
Majority of them just day dream about leaving India and making quick money.
Participation of sikhs in sports ,Army is constantly declining
Unlike large part of India that worked really hard in education and made good fortune in outsourcing software industry ,the rural sikhs of Punjab have not done this.

The list goes on and on

My simple question to you is that why can't The sikh youths of Punjab who cut there  hair are maintain the reputation of there forefathers of being brave,honest,hardworking etc.?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 17, 2010)

> It is surprising when people argue that there is no mention in Gurbani  about cutting or not cutting your bodily hair.   In Japji Sahib, it is  clearly stated to live our life in accordance to the Hukum (The Laws of  Nature). This statement _*encompasses*_ every trivial argument we make like justifying of _*Cutting/shaving/plucking of Hair from any part of the body*_.
> 
> Kesh or Bodily Hair grow as per the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the  Almighty. Cutting edges of hair or plucking or shaving eyebrows/facial  hair or shaving hair from any part of your body is a clear defiance of  the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the Almighty.
> 
> ...



Aman ji,

Quote:
>>It is really strange when people keep on arguing that there is no mention in Gurbani about cutting or not cutting your hair. In Japji Sahib, it is clearly stated to live our life in accordance to the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) or what we call Bhana in Punjabi. This statement encompasses every trivial argument we make like justifying of Cutting of Hair at any part of the body.


Kesh or Bodily Hair grow as per the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the Almighty. Cutting edges of hair or plucking or shaving eyebrows or shaving hair from any part of your body is a clear defiance of the Hukum (The Laws of Nature) of the Almighty. <<


Perhaps Laws of Nature encompasses more than what you think and the intended meaning and implications is therefore quite different from how you understand it?
Please consider the following, the comments are my own which admittedly, is a topic I don’t usually think about:

The Five Cosmic Orders.

1. Caloric Order.
2. Germinal Order.
3. Moral Order or Karma.
4. Psychical Order.
5. Natural phenomena sequence. 

1. Caloric Order is that which is responsible for the maintenance and disintegration of the material universe. It is what is behind the object of study of the sciences including such things as the origin of the star systems and galaxies and their eventual disintegration. It is the cause for the different seasons and why what germinates where and when. That which people call evolution is in reality a result of this very phenomenon when looked from a particular perspective. Indeed our physical body, much of what it is composed of, is governed by this particular order of things.

2. Germinal Order is about what we identify as the plant kingdom and is what dictates such things as seeds sprout and becomes a tree with its roots, leaves and branches and which then bear fruits. It is that which dictates such things as an apple seed can’t result in a coconut tree.

3. Moral Order or Karma is that by which actions through body, speech and mind occur and these whether they are good or evil. And so too the results which comes from these actions, such as what good and bad experiences through the five senses occur and where and what one is born as and for how long, ugly or beautiful, in a hostile environment or in a place where the Truth is proclaimed, and so on. 

Good actions cannot give rise to bad results and bad actions cannot result in good. Indeed this is the reason that people are invariably faced with moral issues even though some do not go far enough as to then believe in the law of cause and effect which is Karma, for e.g. the Christians. 

4. Psychical Order is reflected in such things as the ‘thinking process’ always following the experience through the five senses whereby ‘sense’ is made out of those experiences. For example, sound when heard is immediately followed by thinking about what that sound is, or reading of words happening here following the experience of these black and white colours on the computer screen. And not only this, this Order is also the cause for the reactions with good and evil tendencies as per the individual and why different people think variously and have different interests and abilities. 

5. Natural phenomena sequence covers all the above and more. 
It is due to this that the earth element is distinct from the fire element and one can’t change to the other. Similarly, feeling is not perception, kindness is not cruelty and ignorance is not wisdom and each of these has its own individual characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. And this is the law which dictates that all of these things are conditioned and impermanent and insubstantial. 

The natural phenomena sequence is why when there is ignorance, formations or karma arises,  and from this rebirth which is the basis for more experience through the five senses resulting in feeling and the craving for this and hence clinging to becoming and all that comes from having been born, namely old age, sickness and death, continually over and over again. And likewise it is that which is behind what causes such phenomena to cease, namely with full enlightenment where no condition for rebirth exists.

In short it is the cause for the general rule, “When that exists, this comes to be. From the arising of that, this arises. When that does not exist, this does not come to be. When that ceases, then this ceases.”

So Aman ji, it would seem to me that the meaning intended by Hukum must primarily be based upon the Moral Order, if not also the last one, namely Natural Phenomena Sequence. All religions after all, emphasize morality and surely Sikhism does this from page one to the last page. Hair and nails are governed by the Caloric Order and would unlikely be a concern to anyone who wishes to grow in goodness and develop wisdom. 
====

Quote:
>>The Hukum by the tenth Master to Keep Kesh is simply a reminder to follow this important Hukum of accepting Bhana/The Laws of Nature.<<

Someone suggested reason for the rule for keeping hair as being necessitated due to the social and political situation at the time. Why not go along with this and allow each individual to judge his own situation as to whether he would like to maintain or cut his hair? 
====

Quote:
>>But as Tejwant ji stated earlier in this discussion itself, a person who is hell bent upon to defy the word of the Guru or the Hukum, will eventually find any justification. <<

What if indeed the Hukum had nothing to do with the Caloric Order but about Karma and the nature of mind in general? Would not focussing wrongly on the former in fact have a negative influence on one’s ability to understand and follow the dictates of the latter? In any case, wouldn’t the one override the other making it really odd that we should give so much importance to it? Are our values misplaced?

It may be true that these two youngsters in this discussion have other motives as well. Personally, I felt that the original question was wrong to begin with. But then again, is it not possible that other reasons include the inability by the older generation, including those around them encountered so far, to show enough understanding? There is a difference after all, between the truths as taught by Guru Nanak and as they are understood by those who follow his teachings. While you try to promote the teachings, must you not also take into account your own limited understanding?

I’ve been quite forthright, but I hope you do not take it negatively. And of course some assumptions have been made for which I’m ready to be corrected.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 17, 2010)

Jasdir ji,




jasdir singh said:


> Belive "I" the real reason behind cutting of  hairs:
> 
> As in acient times the sikhs was allowed to cut their hairs because
> cutting of hairs devlop the outer personality to attrect opposite sex which relatievly devlop the "Ego" called "Haumain" in gurbani,
> ...




Hmm, I think Haumain is conceit and manifests often as comparison. Conceit is so unyielding that it is one of the last evils to get over, after even anger and sensual desire. This is so partly because it comes in very subtle forms beyond the capacity of most people to recognize even conceptually. So while we may recognize some manifestations of this conceit it may well be that in trying to tackle it, we end up having more conceit towards a different object. 

There is conceit due to age, being younger or older. There is conceit due to social status and due to learning. There is conceit due to health and due to one’s looks. There is conceit anytime that one compares regardless whether one concludes that one is lesser, greater or equal in standing to the other person. There is conceit when looking in the mirror shaving, putting on hair fixer or combing one’s beard. There is conceit in choosing the colour of tie to match the shirt one has picked out. There is conceit in commenting on someone else’ dress or even when turning one’s head in surprise towards what appears at first sight. 

No doubt conceit is really ugly and so unnecessary to have around; however it can’t lessen simply by avoiding trying to look good, in fact it more likely will only increase! Do you really believe someone who wears a turban and wants to look "Sadha", that he achieves any good in this regard? Is his haumain not fully intact? And in thinking otherwise, does he not place himself in fact to have more occasions of conceit?

One reason I’d like to see my own children cut their hair is that they would not have to feel so ‘self-conscious’ (one obvious example of conceit). Had they the necessary understanding to deal with the situation, then I’d not have to be concerned about this. But yes, a Sikh man can’t avoid being the object of attention and hence the associated self-consciousness and all unwanted thought proliferations that are likely to follow. I think it is extremely beneficial to be able to move around unnoticed; given that so much unwholesomeness arises and gets accumulated when one is the center of attraction.


----------



## Roop Kaur (Sep 17, 2010)

I don't get one thing. Sorry if someone has already answered this, I haven't too much time to read through all the posts.

Guru Ji told us not to cut our hair ... but did God?

Also, is there anything in Guru Granth Sahib regarding this?

Sorry, lately so many questions have been flying through my mind and this is just one of them!


----------



## Admin (Sep 17, 2010)

Roop Kaur said:


> I don't get one thing. Sorry if someone has already answered this, I haven't too much time to read through all the posts.
> 
> Guru Ji told us not to cut our hair ... but did God?
> 
> ...


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/32165-why-we-not-allowed-cut-hair.html#post133379


----------



## harbansj24 (Sep 18, 2010)

My understanding is quite simple:

Our Gurus gave us a majestic identity. So if a Sikh does a good deed, it becomes an example that should be emulated and brings good name to the community and brings to fore the teachings of our Gurus. Manmohan Singh is Sikh and is well known and admired all over the world. So he brings good name to the community because of his unique identity. Now Obama wants to visit the Golden temple because he is so impressed with Manmohan that he wishes to know more about Sikhs.

But when Sikhs do wrong as is becomming increasingly common these days, and the wrong doing is associated with Sikhs then we should be couragious enough to own that a Sikh has done wrong and that is not the way of a true Sikh. But unfortunately we go into denial mode and try to defend the undefendable and get further bad name. There is no escape and there should not be an escape! There cannot be an easy way out! That is simply not being like a Sikh our Gurus wanted us to be.

Gurufateh and Chardiankalan!


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 19, 2010)

Jasdir ji,




jasdir singh said:


> Belive "I" there is also one more reason, well,
> Sikhism started with Baba Shri Gurunanak ji,
> Gurunanak ever use to wear turben, while guru angand sahib as his sucesser always use to wear turben and continued in whole sikhism,
> It is nature that if anybody wants become like anybody the first love starts externally with physical body and slowely it changes into the love with "Soul",
> ...




Years ago on reading one very popular Zen book I came upon the idea that if one sat up in a lotus posture ready to meditate, this is already an expression of the Buddha qualities. At the time I was attracted to the idea, and on a few occasions when I would sit to meditate, the thought gave rise to a sense of achievement. Almost ten years later when I started to meditate again, although by this time I did not believe in the concept of Buddha Nature any more, nevertheless I still had so much attachment to the idea of ‘meditation’ that I relished at the thought of my children starting to do similarly from a very young age.

Clearly, there was nothing that I could point to as having been ‘understood’ as a result of my own meditation practice. Yet I was ready to put my children through any difficulty that must accompany the process of getting them started in this particular activity. On hindsight, it appears that I was only imitating others and wanted my children to do the same. It was indeed an inclination for and attachment to ‘rite and ritual’ which was the driving force. 

Now, another ten years down the road, I hesitate to ask my children to ‘give’, lest they do so with an attitude encouraging of a reliance on ‘out ward’ behaviour, rather than understanding the state of mind from which all actions through speech and body generates. In other words, now I would not imitate anyone nor ask my children to follow me or anyone else’s outward actions. 


The inclination to imitate and following rites and rituals is deeply rooted and can arise at any time for us, those who have yet so little understanding. Just as the idea of sitting cross-legged being an expression of Buddha nature was so attractive to me at one time, the idea you propose above, is likewise full of danger in this regard. I’d say, it *is* the stuff of rite and ritual!

I don’t know about anyone else, but Guru Nanak, the person well known for pointing out the silliness and danger of following ritualistic behaviour, it would seem that he couldn’t have taught what you claim he did. It is almost like believing in magic, what you say.... Dressing up like how the Guru did believing that one day you will then come to understand what he did.
======
Quote:
>>Well to express the proper feelings i am not having proper words,or it would be a lengthy chapter,
i think this is not the matter of mare talkings,<end quote>


You mean no need to discuss and ask questions, but just follow what you have been told to do? And why would someone who has developed understanding not be able to express what he has come to understand? There is the conditioned reality and there is the unconditioned reality. Growth in wisdom is growing also in the ability to point out with increased precision, the nature of the former and with the help of this, in terms of negation, what the latter is about. 

On the other hand, it is symptomatic of the deluded person that he is vague in his expressions and sometimes making reference to some phenomena imagined, to say then that this is beyond description, thereby clearing himself of responsibility for substantiating his claims.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 19, 2010)

Jasdir ji,

Quote:
>>>And why would someone who has developed understanding not be able to express what he has come to understand? <<<,

Can anybody define the taste of "Tea" with any other example without giving the example of "Tea",

Some things are only subject to realizeations,<<< <end quote>

OK, so what you are saying is that were you for example, to have experienced the ‘dimension of nothingness’ it would be impossible for you to explain to me what this is like, since all I know and can ever think in terms of is based on experiences within the sensual realm alone. And you are not saying that you would not be able to talk about the subject to someone else who might have had some experience of that particular dimension. Is this what you are saying?

In any case your statements so far, have been mostly on very mundane matters which are conventions based on the experience through the five senses and mind. Besides, if you wish to lead anyone to understand ‘tea’, it is possible to talk about water, tea leaves and heat since after all; the understanding of tea involves not just what it tastes like, but the conditions leading to it coming to be. 

There is nothing which is not conditioned and has causes, and so it is always possible to lead others to understand anything at some level. “Understanding” is more than just experiencing, and it starts at the level of hearing and is why teachers of the Truth teach at all. It is wrong to suggest that the other person needs to have the ‘experience’ before there can be any meaningful communication.
=========
Quote:
>>>Now! what i have written in my obove lines is some nearby examples,
But! what about "Mind",
"He" always want's Matter,

"Mind" always want's matter,
"Mind" always start feel boring, When "He" is away from any matter,<<<<end quote>

By ‘mind’ I think you mean ‘consciousness’. There is consciousness which is resultant, as in the experience through the five senses, these of course experience matter. But I think you are alluding to the mind conditioned by greed which is always searching for new experiences? If so, then I’d suggest that greed has *pleasant feeling* (which is not matter) as object much of the time and hence could be said to be searching for such experiences. However, this is got not only from the experiences of such things as tastes, sounds or smells, but also from ideas. 

We are attached for example, not to the physical sensation of money, but to the stories associated with the concept. In terms of the experiences through the senses there is nothing particularly special in driving a BMW, but we are attached to the brand name. People enjoy thinking, philosophizing and even speculating. Indeed the attachment which accompanies “views” is the reason why there is such a strong reaction when one’s religion is being questioned / threatened.


----------



## raminder40 (Sep 19, 2010)

Dear Sceptic ji,

A very informative thread started where learned forum members have tried to justify historically,medically,mythologically,scientifically and of course sikhilogically the significanse of hair and nails respectively.The reasons or Logics have somehow not suited your point of view,which somehow I think is that you are trying to find a reason to sacrifice sikhi in some different garb---logic.

As said by few forum members that it is absolutely your own sweet will to be a sikh or not to a one.But if you chose to a one,you have to accept the tenents of the religion.Every religion and faith has some basic rules,guidelines,parameters,jurisdictions,do's n dont's which makes it distinctive from other religions.There may be logics to everything and there may not be logics to everything.

Irrespective of the situations prevailing during the various Guru's time,each one of them was farsighted and knew the future.This means that if Guru could be specific about hair,He too could have been specific for nails also.So there must have been a definite logic to support His thaughts which might have not been documented (or we are not aware off) for following generations to fall back upon.Since we,including you,are sikhs who bow to SGGS,we accept His supremacy and have no reason to question that.

Its like this that a soldier in a army always tries to find out a reason with his commander before carrying out the orders.Since you too are working in a professional set up which is surely governed by defined guidelines,you can not go and argue with your CEO and figure out the logic behind every guideline or a parameter,but surely a maverick can do so.Yes sikhism is an institution (a very professional if you analyise it since it has very clear thaught process involving well defined guidelines and parameters) with SGGS as the CEO.

I tend to disagree with anyone who claims that sikhi swaroop is a hinderance in progression in any field.There are are innumerable success stories in every field where people have excelled in their chosen fields without compromising the sikhi.So its just a matter of own convenience,but giving it a decent cover of LOGIC.

Guru sammat bakshan..!!!!!

Raminder


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 19, 2010)

jasdir singh said:


> "Majestic identity",
> 
> The post sounds brilliant, even divine,
> 
> ...




With great respected for learned members discussing on this thread, I still must interrupt with an admin concern.

Full shabads must be posted, with Ang numbers, not an isolated verse, tuk, or pangatee.

Also, it is true that the official language of the forum is English. Posting a shabad in English is very helpful. 

However, it is important to have the Gurmukhi and the English together. Here is the reason. Forum members may wish to consider the translation in light of their own understanding of Gurmukhi. They may not agree with the translation and should have a chance to state that and say why. So please in the future post both in Gurmukhi and in English.

Thank you so much.


----------



## dalbirk (Sep 20, 2010)

dalbirk said:


> Sikhs are required IMHO to maintain hair so as to maintain distinct identity . The Sikhs should stand out as unique community & not get lost in the crowd was the aim of Guru Gobind Singh Ji because according to JivanSakhis when Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was martyred then none came forward to pick his body though many Sikhs were present . The Sikhs who were required to maintain a strict discipline the beliefs & aims of whom were always at odds with the political & religious set up There was always a danger that Sikhs may try to assimilate under pressure of political powers of the day as well as religious authorities . The similar danger is always lurking living in India especially when we have the examples of two of the oldest religions which sank without a trace ie Jainism & Buddhism so much so that countless efforts to revive these religions have borne no fruit .


Dear Jasdir Ji , 
           Please read my above post . I will like to add to it that the outer appearance ( HAIR ) is just a very small REHAT of what Sikhism is requiring . What about the requirement of rising at Amritvela , doing Nitnem , being faithful to one Partner , abstaining from pre-marital & extra marital sex , abstaining from tobacco , alcohal , all intoxicants , abstaining from Halal Meat ( not all meat ) , not going to graves ( peers ) , Brahmins, astrologers , mandirs  are all the other requirements of SIKH FAITH . I may bring to your attention that in Indian history many thousand movements started like Bhakti , Yogism ( Gorakh ) Mimasa etc etc all of which sank without a trace , there are even no authentic writings outside of SGGS of Hindu or Muslim Bhagats whose writing are included in SGGS except for those which are already included . Who destroyed all those writings ? Who consumed all those movements , why were they assimilated , many many questions are there . The only probable answer IMHO to all these is perhaps that these were not UNIQUE so they were assimilated & consumed . The reason why Sikhism is still surviving today is ONLY because of HAIR , had they not been compulsory , Brahmins would have been at the helm of affairs at Akal Takhat Sahib like they are at topmost Buddhist & Jainist shrines which is why countless efforts to revive Buddhism ( a major world religion ) & Jainism have borne no fruit & both these religions are lost to India forever .


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 20, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



jasbirkaleka said:


> The best way to pleasw God is to roam about naked becaude that is
> 
> how God wished us to be.



sorry to say but that was the most ugly and stupid post i have ever read. here is wat Guru Ji says about the point u made.

ਮਿਲੈ ਜਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਤਿਆਂ ਡਡਾਂ ਜਲ ਵਾਸੀ॥ਵਾਲ ਵਧਾਇਆਂ ਪਾਈਐ ਬੜ ਜਟਾਂ ਪਲਾਸੀ॥ਨੰਗੇ ਰਹਿਆਂ ਜੇ ਮਿਲੈ ਵਣਿ ਮਿਰਗ ਉਦਾਸੀ॥ਭਸਮ ਲਾਇ ਜੇ ਪਾਈਐ ਖਰੁ ਖੇਹ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ॥ਜੇ ਪਾਈਐ ਚੁਪ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਪਸੂਆਂ ਜੜ ਹਾਸੀ॥ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਰ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਲੈ ਖਲਾਸੀ ॥੧੪॥*

thanks


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 20, 2010)

harryputtar89 said:


> And you go ahead and believe all the non sense that different religions in this world propagate for their own benefit.
> 
> Here is a gem of nonsense being preached and this was quoted by a very 'respected' member of this forum *'Soul_Jyot'*:-



If u think its all non sense that is being taught by all the religions then y u are here debating on different topics. And if u will tell Gurbani nonsense then u r the biggest ******* on this earth along with few others. And it would be a privilege to call u ******* a 100 times for that quote. I am aware that u will come back with a 10 times harder words but that doesn't matters to me. cheerleader icecreamkudi icecreammunda :motherlylove: (sorry the site is not showing the actual words nd m really sorry for that) cheerleader

And better tell ur mother if u dont want to keep hair rather than telling the whole world. And, if u think all the people who are following Guru Ji's Words are fool or something more, remember ur mother is among them. (I'm very very very very sorry to ur mom for the wordings i have used but there is nothing else I can do)




harryputtar89 said:


> ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਛਾਪ ਸਿਰ ਕੇਸ ਕੀ ਪਾਹੁਲ, ਦੇਇ ਉਤਾਰ ਸੋ ਬੇਮੁਖ ਜਾਨਹੁ।
> ਬੇਟੇ ਕੋ ਬੰਧੁ ਕੋ ਛਾਪ ਮੁੰਡਾਵਤ, ਜਮ ਦੁਖ ਭੋਗ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਤ ਪਛਾਨਹੁ।
> Second part of which means :-
> One who shaves the stamp (of the Guru) of their child (i.e. cut their children's hair), realise that person will suffer a terrible death and known as a ghost.



if u r relying on the the translation done by someone, then its ur mistake. the interpretation may vary person to person and it may not be always true.

Anyways, I will pray for me as well as for u. Paramaatma saanu sabb nu Sattbudhi bakshe.

take care


----------



## karam (Sep 20, 2010)

I beleive you should keep hair if you are a practicing sikh and you follow other moral,ethical and spiritual rules of sikhi from heart, otherwise if you are keeping hair just to fulfill a ritual and you drink at night, you goto clubs etc and live immoral life then I don't see any point in keeping hair, or if you keep hair under pressure from family then you are following an empty ritual, I beleive first follow the moral,ethical commandes of the religion, Guru Nanak beleived that whatever you beleive in truthfully should reflect in your life also,as someone mentioned some where in one of the above posts, being in the hukum of akal purkh, you will accept kesh as part of nature's/waheguru's gift, your submission to Guru and in hukum of akal purkh should reflect outwardly also in sikhi saroop, I don't see a point in ritualistically following something


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Sep 20, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



ManinderSingh69 said:


> sorry to say but that was the most ugly and stupid post i have ever read. here is wat Guru Ji says about the point u made.
> 
> ਮਿਲੈ ਜਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਤਿਆਂ ਡਡਾਂ ਜਲ ਵਾਸੀ॥ਵਾਲ ਵਧਾਇਆਂ ਪਾਈਐ ਬੜ ਜਟਾਂ ਪਲਾਸੀ॥ਨੰਗੇ ਰਹਿਆਂ ਜੇ ਮਿਲੈ ਵਣਿ ਮਿਰਗ ਉਦਾਸੀ॥ਭਸਮ ਲਾਇ ਜੇ ਪਾਈਐ ਖਰੁ ਖੇਹ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ॥ਜੇ ਪਾਈਐ ਚੁਪ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਪਸੂਆਂ ਜੜ ਹਾਸੀ॥ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਰ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਗੁਰ ਮਿਲੈ ਖਲਾਸੀ ॥੧੪॥*
> 
> thanks


 

ManinderSingh ji,
:blinkingmunda:I think human body is the most beautiful thing in the world and that is the reason artists from ancient times have created such wonderful

sculutres of the human body all over the world,e.g. in Greece, Rome and even in India.

It is the perverted mind that sees uglyness in a naked body.

If you believe that God created us ugly ,how can you say in the same breath that the hair is beautiful?swordfight


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 20, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



jasbirkaleka said:


> ManinderSingh ji,
> :blinkingmunda:I think human body is the most beautiful thing in the world and that is the reason artists from ancient times have created such wonderful
> 
> scultures all over the world,e.g. in Greece, Rome and even in India.
> ...


I do not believe that anywhere here is anything suggesting the human body, clothed or unclothed is ugly.    What is ugly is the writer's making it into simply an object of lust.    And that is ugly, indeed!


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 20, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



jasbirkaleka said:


> ManinderSingh ji,
> :blinkingmunda:I think human body is the most beautiful thing in the world and that is the reason artists from ancient times have created such wonderful
> 
> scultures all over the world,e.g. in Greece, Rome and even in India.
> ...



jasbirkaleka ji

I think it is a good thing that you went on to explain your point of view. It is much clearer now. Earlier it almost sounded as if you were being sarcastic. Perhaps not, but some readers may not have understood what you meant.


----------



## Sevadar (Sep 20, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasbirkaleka 
The best way to pleasw God is to roam about naked becaude that is how God wished us to be.
Finally a voice of reason! If that was one of the tenants of Sikhi, I would have been a big fan of our entire philosophy.

After going through these logics
The question that comes to my mind is why Didn't god made us self sustainable organism, may be chlorophyll for energy and asexual reproduction and so forth..... If you  really want to stretch your thought then their is no limit...
Their is no GPS routing for spiritual path if you want to walk it, you will only know better ways and will found why those paths are made that way when you will put your self on that journey.....as wise men said can't know the depth of river sitting on banks. 

Good Luck....


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 21, 2010)

Thank you everyone for contributing to the thread!

I was constantly reading the posts even while traveling but couldn't find an opportunity to respond to any of the posts. 

The common theme that seems to have emerged in majority of the posts after I left is that we shouldn't really be looking for a rational or logical reason to do something that our religion asks us to do and instead we should do it because of our faith.

Since I had some time to reflect, I understand this line of thought much better now. I might not agree with it but I fully understand why a person with deep faith would think on these lines.

Now I realise that probably I wasn't clear myself as to what I wanted to ask. My problem probably isn't with the reason behind keeping my hair. If I had enough faith I wouldn't be asking this question at all. My problem seems more because of my lack of faith. 

And faith isn't something you can generate within yourself. You either have it or you don't. And when you do convert from one side to another, it's not usually because you found some real good reasoning to have faith or to not have it. It's mostly because of your state of mind and events that happen in your life. So although I am tempted to ask if someone could give me a good reason to have faith in our religion, I do realise  it would be a silly question because of the above mentioned reasons.

Some of the members mentioned that the 'reason' behind them keeping their hair is their belief in our Guru's teachings. That makes sense when I consider that these people have firm faith in the religion. But I don't anymore, and that's my problem.

What a person of faith calls 'belief' is just a plain superstition for a person like me who doesn't really have enough faith. I have an aunt in India who refuse to follow a route if a black cat crosses her path. Now for me it is a blind superstition since there is no logical reason behind her behavior, but since she really believes in it, for her it's her 'belief'. She just chooses to believe without looking for reason.

I don't know where I am headed spiritually, but that's probably my own journey and no one can help me with that.

Some of the members had recommended listening to Gurbani to find the answers. I tried going through english translations and did cover lot of text. But I realised even that doesn't do anything for you if you don't really believe in what you are reading. And that probably is the case with me. My mind continues to search for reason behind what is being said in the Gurbani and I find none. At least not right now.
Anyways, I will continue to read and see where it takes me.

And some of the members who joined the thread quite late, again tried to give some 'logical' reasons as to why we should keep hair on the lines of heat conservation etc. I think I already discussed and refuted all the similar reasons in the very beginning of the thread, specially the article by Dr. Brinda Kaur. So I won't respond to those 'reasons'.

As for Harryputtar89's posts, although I agree with his content, still I do not agree with the language he used. Discussions should remain civil no matter how contentious the issue might be!


----------



## kds1980 (Sep 21, 2010)

> As for Harryputtar89's posts, although I  agree with his content, still I do not agree with the language he used.  Discussions should remain civil no matter how contentious the issue  might be!



Dear skeptic

Do You think mods and admins  on this site are fools? Harryputtar is your second ID on this sitehttp://www.sikhphilosophy.net/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=133662


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 21, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Do You think mods and admins  on this site are fools?



*Perhaps the strongest argument for proving that skeptic.freethinker ji is the same person as harry.puttar is the insulting language he hurled at respected forum leader Kanwardeep Singh ji. Even the style of his rhetoric is the same. Too bad.
Comments deleted. 
Yours truly, spnadmin



**Response from Skeptic.freethinker1:-
I did not post any such thing in this post which needed  to be deleted. You are just censoring anything which doesn't fit your  view. I didn't even use the word fool. It was Kanwardeep ji who used it.

An allegation was made against me and I have every right to question that and ask for proof. I understand you might not be able to do that because of your privacy policy but this doesn't mean anyone can make any such wild allegations just because I am a new member.
**
If you don't appreciate such discussions on this forum then just let me know instead of trying to censor me.*
 *
 I strongly urge you to restore my original post.



*


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 21, 2010)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> _The common theme that seems to have emerged in majority of the posts after I left is that we shouldn't really be looking for a rational or logical reason to do something that our religion asks us to do and instead we should do it because of our faith._



I feel there are two things that matters while following Religion. Faith and Love. If i talk about myself, Love comes first then the faith. It can take years for the same or few seconds. The only thing matters is *taking the first step* towards it even if u don't have faith or love for that. Starting with Moolmantar or Jap Ji Sahib may be the simplest way. 
Quoting it again,

ਚਰਨ ਸਰਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਏਕ ਪੈਡਾ ਜਾਇ ਚਲ
charan saran gur eaek paidda jae chal
ਸਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੋਟਿ ਪੈਡਾ ਆਗੇ ਹੋਇ ਲੇਤ ਹੈ ॥ 
satt gur kott paindda agae hoe laeth hai ||

It reminds me of the incidence when Bhai Lehna Ji (Guru Angad Dev Ji) came to meet Guru Nanak Dev Ji for the very first time. Guru Ji Himself went to receive Bhai Lehna Ji. Awesome moment that must be. 




skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> _Now I realise that probably I wasn't clear myself as to what I wanted to ask. My problem probably isn't with the reason behind keeping my hair. If I had enough faith I wouldn't be asking this question at all. My problem seems more because of my lack of faith. And faith isn't something you can generate within yourself. You either have it or you don't. And when you do convert from one side to another, it's not usually because you found some real good reasoning to have faith or to not have it. It's mostly because of your state of mind and events that happen in your life. So although I am tempted to ask if someone could give me a good reason to have faith in our religion, I do realise  it would be a silly question because of the above mentioned reasons.
> 
> Some of the members mentioned that the 'reason' behind them keeping their hair is their belief in our Guru's teachings. That makes sense when I consider that these people have firm faith in the religion. But I don't anymore, and that's my problem.
> _


Exactly. But this is not what we should be sorry for. While learning, no phase is wrong.




skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> _What a person of faith calls 'belief' is just a plain superstition for a person like me who doesn't really have enough faith. I have an aunt in India who refuse to follow a route if a black cat crosses her path. Now for me it is a blind superstition since there is no logical reason behind her behavior, but since she really believes in it, for her it's her 'belief'. She just chooses to believe without looking for reason.
> _


This reminds me one point Gyani Sant Singh Ji Maskeen used to tell abt 'Blindfaith'. In Religion Blindfaith is important provided the One u are following is not Blind. 



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> _I don't know where I am headed spiritually, but that's probably my own journey and no one can help me with that.
> Some of the members had recommended listening to Gurbani to find the answers. I tried going through english translations and did cover lot of text. But I realised even that doesn't do anything for you if you don't really believe in what you are reading. And that probably is the case with me. My mind continues to search for reason behind what is being said in the Gurbani and I find none. At least not right now.
> Anyways, I will continue to read and see where it takes me.
> _



I really really appreciate ur efforts and I will pray for u and for me also. Try listening to Bhai Guriqbal Singh Ji. I'm his big fan  welcomemunda welcomekaurhttp://www.sikhnet.com/artist/7595/audio
Another thing is, try reading Gurbani from Gutka Sahib even without translation if u can read Punjabi well.

Best Wishes and Regards.
Its just because of You, i have learned a lotttt. Heartiest Thanks for that. cheerleadercheerleadercheerleadercheerleader


----------



## ManinderSingh69 (Sep 21, 2010)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



jasbirkaleka said:


> ManinderSingh ji,
> :blinkingmunda:I think human body is the most beautiful thing in the world and that is the reason artists from ancient times have created such wonderful
> 
> sculutres of the human body all over the world,e.g. in Greece, Rome and even in India.
> ...



well, i never said that God made us Ugly. He s the Master and has created the Best. I felt ur comment was a bit sarcastic. 2ndly I just told u what Guru Ji has to say(if u are following Sikhism) abt ur point of roaming naked. No other intentions i had.

Warm Regards


----------



## Sanget (Jun 9, 2011)

I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.



Sanget ji,

Thank you for sharing your experience.  Please bear in mind that different people are different.  To you, at this time in your life, you have chosen not to keep kesh.  Fine, that is your decision.

However, please remember that Sikhi is about much more than hair.  Please also remember that what is a bother and seemingly traumatic to you may be beautiful and meaningful to others.

Let's see.  You are 16 and you sound very angry.  You will grow up and many things about you will change.  Possibly this, possibly not.

I wish you well, my young brother, and hope to see you back one day with or without kesh, when you want to learn what Sikhi is all about.

Remain in chardi kala!


----------



## gurbanicd (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.





sangat ji

Your post is somewhat ok somewhat not.I and lakhs of sikh are having similar experience of keeping the keshas forcibly due to community and parental pressure.

Actually keshas are not important for materialistic life BUT are must for spiritual upliftment.

sPIRITUAL UPLIFTMENT IS THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE.

Until unless we are away from guru ,guru shabad,gurbani or COMPANY OF  blessed soulS, (sangat) kesha are almost have no meaning but once we are in gurbani fold that this life is to recite NAAM GURBANI SEVA SIMRAN and we are not meant for running behind materialistic things BLINDLY.

your saying that you are living life to full without hair is your perception only.You mean that all those who are not having full hairs are happy and satisfied is WRONG.

 continuous vichhar of gurbani shabads can help to change the thinking

BHULAN CHUKAN DI KHIMA KHIMA


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.



Sanget ji

Speaking as admin,

I want first of all to ask you to write in standard English so that we can comprehend you without struggle. 

The second thing I beg is that you avoid gross generalizations such as "sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars."

Now let's get down to brass tacks. You have made a decision that suits you. I am relieved.  However...What works for you is not a prescription  for anyone else. OK...so you know what works for you! Don't stretch beyond that point. What works for you is not the solution for any other man or woman who is trying to make his/her own decision about kesh. What is "stupid" to you may be a valid question to someone else.


----------



## dalbirk (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.



Dear Sanget Ji ,
                     I would like to give you my example . I am a Sikh living in India ( Punjab ) . I have never cut my hair in my whole life , not to say that I was very spiritually inclined , it was just pressure of society which kept me from doing so , however in last four years when I have discovered what Sikhism is all about , I have thanked God countless times that He did not let me go down that path . Since last four years I have become many times more happier , more at peace with myself & made great progress in my business . It is all due to the clarity of thought , wisdom , the disciplined lifestyle ( not to be controlled by five vices : Lust ,Anger , Greed , Attachment , Ego ) which our Guru , Sri Guru Granth Sahib asks us to follow though I am not still regular on waking up at Amritvela & doing Nitnem of five baanis . I may suggest you to stop thinking about hair & just follow the teachings of SGGS ( even you keep cutting hair ) . Hair or no hair is irrelevant , when you do not wish to commit adultery you are always comfortable with your looks . You have only one life why waste it in EATING , DRINKING & MAKING MERRY only .


----------



## Bmandur (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.



Sangat Ji,

First I would like to request you read it very carefully than think what you have written based on your needs. You can not comment on Sikh Men
We are proud to be a Sikh
Now:

*Emblem of Honor (Long Hair)*
Like his predecessors, the tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh kept long hair and beard. He was an undisputed spiritual guide and his dominating personality always signified his spirituality. In order to follow him in character and in sprit, his follows realized that it would be easier for them to emulate the qualities of the great Guru if they could begin by looking like their Guru. Being in the image of the Guru would certainly have its spiritual impact on them. Therefore, in making the wearing of long hair one of the conditions for those taking the baptismal initiation of Amrit, the Guru was cautual regeneration.

With the creation of Khalsa, the spiritual impact of long hair for Sikhs becomes so great that they began to prefer death to the sacrifice of their hair. Among those who sacrificed their lives for preserving their hair are Bhai Mani Singh, Bhai Taru Singh, Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Dayala. They are among the hundreds of devout Sikhs who laid down their lives to preserve the sanctity of their hair.

Keshas are symbol of masculinity and strength. The tenth Master ordained his Sikhs to wear long hair and keep them till their death even if they had to make sacrifice for retaining them.

The turban is our Guru's gift to us. It is how we crown ourselves as the Singh’s and Kaurs who sit on the throne of commitment to our own higher consciousness. For men and women alike, this projective identity conveys royalty, grace, and uniqueness. It is a signal to others that we live in the image of Infinity and are dedicated to serving all. The turban doesn't represent anything except complete commitment. When you choose to stand out by tying your turban, you stand fearlessly as one single person standing out from six billion people. It is a most outstanding act.

_Na kahon ab ki Na kahon tab.
Sunnat (Mulim way) hoti sab ki
Agar naa hotey Guru Gobind Singh_

Bhul Chuk Maaf


----------



## findingmyway (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget said:


> I used to keep my hair, I kept my hair for 5 years. Keeping my hair reli screwed my life, i got depression, i constantly got sick, my life suxed, and I was so frustrated. And the reason for keeping my hair? Just because guruji ask to.... What a stupid reason.. I just took a scissors and cut my hair. And now, I am living my life to fullesh, I am so happy now. I look better, more hygienic, 99X happier, dun need to suffer the pain of combing my hair and all the other crap. And now, I have 0 belief in Sikhism and I consider Sikhism as ********. Every sikh men who says they have no problem keeping their hair are liars. Pls cut off your hair if you're not happy with it, dun pretend. You are not doing any good to yourself or the world by keeping your hair, you're just troubling yourself.



Are you sure you can be happy when you are so full of anger!!

Hygiene is not a relfection of more hair or less hair but a reflection of the effort made by the person the hair belongs to and how hygienic they are


----------



## arshi (Jun 9, 2011)

Sanget ji


Dalbirk ji has kindly shared, albeit briefly, his own experiences with Sikhi in his post above. There are many others like him, including me. I too had similar experiences myself. At 16 it is understandable the way you feel now about hair and Sikhi. You are not alone in this as many of our youngsters are growing up in the midst of so many distractions uncertainties. The way some older Sikhs are seen to be conducting themselves does not help. You need to look for good role models around you, although - in your present state of mind that may or may not help - only time will tell. 

I have written several articles (including the five negative traits lust, anger, greed, attachment, egotism) for our young friends like you, many of them posted on SPN, but there is one in particular one which I did not post here, entitled *“Why I am a Sikh”* (www.arshiwaves.co.uk). In this I article I acknowledge how blessed and proud I am to be Sikh. This was not always the case. These articles are written no less to educate myself on the great tenets of Sikhi. 

When I began researching into Sikhi and reading and interpreting Guru Granth Sahib Ji I started to realize how lucky and blessed I was to have been born into a Sikh family. I am fast approaching 70 and still learning and still counting my blessings. Please do not dismiss what I am saying by merely looking at my age as even today I work with youngsters in universities and other institutions. My students come from all ages and faiths. The respect and appreciation I have received as a Sikh has far exceeded my own expectations, and everyday I thank my Guru, like Dalbirk ji, for not letting me stray too far away from the path of Sikhi. I am still praying for the Guru to show me the way. 

I do wish you well in whatever you do but please do feel free to drop a line here or even on my site.

Remain in chardhi kala.

Rajinder Singh ‘Arshi’


----------



## drpranavsingh (Mar 9, 2012)

Aman Singh ji, don't you cut your nasal hair or do you tie it in a goot once they come out of your nose? What about pubic hair? Do you tie a knot down there? 


Why everyone stops short of keeping hair as Guru's Hukam? Hukam also includes honest life, respect towards women, etc. How come one of the states with MOST hairy people like Punjab is also the most corrupt, has highest female foetecide, dowry and racism. Looks like Guru's hukam didn't filter out of the hairy Bush that you endorse.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 9, 2012)

drpranavsingh said:


> Aman Singh ji, don't you cut your nasal hair or do you tie it in a goot once they come out of your nose? What about pubic hair? Do you tie a knot down there?
> 
> 
> Why everyone stops short of keeping hair as Guru's Hukam? Hukam also includes honest life, respect towards women, etc. How come one of the states with MOST hairy people like Punjab is also the most corrupt, has highest female foetecide, dowry and racism. Looks like Guru's hukam didn't filter out of the hairy Bush that you endorse.


 
drpranavsingh ji
The hair in your nostrils,ears and pubic hair only grows to a specific maximum length depending on individuals.
If you wish you can tie it or make dreadlocks as you please, if you find it helps!!!!

A simple answer to the topic is that your nails are dead from beyond the digits on your hands and feet, therefore cutting from these points is eliminating dead cells.
Your skin also sheds dead skin cells continuosly.

The hair is living while it is intact in the hair follicle. Once out of the follicle, it is dead throughout.
When cut, whilst still attached to the follicle is actually cutting a living hair even though it has no sensory function.

To say hairy punjabis are corrupt compared to non hairy is just a ridiculous statement, to say the least.
Like saying that all doctors(dr) are just crazy compared to non-doctors.


----------



## drpranavsingh (Mar 10, 2012)

Lucky Singh ji, 
Thanks for replying on behalf of Aman Singh ji. I am not interested in your reply as it doesn't make any sense to me. So try not to answer for others.
Sincerely,
Pranav Singh


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 10, 2012)

Sat sri akaal

This is a sikh forum, where we all share our opinions and views, not a one to one dialogue.
If you are only interested in a reply from a specific being, then you should contact them via message facility and not the main posts on the forum.

Your question is on the central forum and therefore addressed for attention of all, even if you do write someone's name at the beginning.

Waheguru


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 10, 2012)

How sprituality is related to Kesh I am yet to know but one thing is sure  the KESH give you a distict identity of being known SINGH. This is very important to understand.
We should know a point that even before creation of Khalsaa by 10th GuRu Gobind Singh ji,
In India there were communities like RAJPPUT,JATS and THAKUR making use of the word SINGH with their first Name. So in this contxt the KESH as distinct identity 
is prbably the best identity to know a person as belonging to Khalsaa as SINGH.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 10, 2012)

drpranavsingh said:


> Aman Singh ji, don't you cut your nasal hair or do you tie it in a goot once they come out of your nose? What about pubic hair? Do you tie a knot down there?
> 
> 
> Why everyone stops short of keeping hair as Guru's Hukam? Hukam also includes honest life, respect towards women, etc. How come one of the states with MOST hairy people like Punjab is also the most corrupt, has highest female foetecide, dowry and racism. Looks like Guru's hukam didn't filter out of the hairy Bush that you endorse.



Although I do cut my hair, and have done so for 15 odd years, I find your reasoning quite odd and childish. I have never cut my nasal or pubic hair, I have never had the need to, I suggest you contact the Guinness book of records and see if you can get an entry, certainly if you have enough to tie a knot down there. 

As much as your argument is quite immature, 'why are the hairiest people also the most corrupt', unfortunately, it does carry some weight, the answers are known to us already, in a mire of confusion, and with little decent leadership, Sikhism is going through a change, the people you speak of certainly exist, but Sikhism is not limited only to the Punjab, what you are describing is Punjabi culture, not Sikh culture, your argument does not carry so much weight when directed at say 3HO converts in the west, or all those that seek harmony with Creator with the hair as a side effect, a sign, an outward facet that shows the world, I am a Sikh, I am in harmony with Creator.

Too many have the hair, but not the heart, it is tempting to persuade them to do away with the hair, sure, one less turbaned Sikh, but also one less bad ambassador for Sikhism so that people like yourself who only look at the bad, and laugh from the sidelines, can have one less excuse to be part of the problem rather than the solution. 

However, this must never happen, We must forgive those that do not have the heart, We must encourage understanding, We must hope such people at some point educate themselves, at some point yearn for Khalsa, We must never stop working towards this rather than join the ranks of the those that would stand by and watch the fun.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 10, 2012)

The significance is of KESH which referes to the hairs of HEAD only.The hairs at any oyher place of body are hairs only. This needs a diiferent view about what is required to be maintained as KESH.
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## findingmyway (Mar 10, 2012)

Moderation note. TOS state posts must not be personally insulting. Please debate issues not personalities. All personal insults directed towards another member will be deleted. 

Aman Singh ji is the designer and administrator of the site. He is not responsible for all the content, views and opinions expressed and he is not responsible for answering each and every person.

Thank you for your co-operation


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 10, 2012)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> The significance is of KESH which referes to the hairs of HEAD only.The hairs at any oyher place of body are hairs only. This needs a diiferent view about what is required to be maintained as KESH.
> Prakash.s.Bagga




Parkash Ji,

This is wrong.

KESH as on the HEAD/FACE are the MOST IMPORTANT..YES definitely............BUT the ROM ROM is mentioned...and Rom rom refers to each and every single tiny hair on the human body.* Rom/romaan de beadbi is a** KUREHIT*. Raam in Gurbani..rom rom vich raviah hoyah....means that entity which is resident in each tiny hair of the human body...sikhs who are totally familiar with the Right Simran will also tell you that the Naad resounds via each and every tiny hair on the human body...so each hair is vital..no matter where and how small or big.
The SRM is very very CLEAR on this aspect. Please do read the relevant parts which a SIKH should have memorised within a day of becoming a SIKH and committed to as written in stone a day after becoming a KHALSA.
ref:
SRM..AVOID the FOUR "H" KUREHITS !!
The Sikh code of conduct is called _Sikh Rahit Maryada_  (SRM) and stipulates four major mandates, or cardinal commandments, for  the baptized Sikh which are mandatory after being initiated as Khalsa.  The initiate must refrain from:

*Hajaamat* – Dishonoring, removal, or alteration, of any hair on the *body, face, or scalp.*
*Halaal* – Eating of flesh especially that killed in the manner of sanctioned sacrificial slaughter as proscribed in Islamic law.
*Haraam*  – Adulterous relations with the spouse of another. Relations with a  Muslim woman for whom consequence might be death penalty for consorting  outside of marriage or Islam.
*Hukaa *– Use of tobacco and other intoxicants.
 If any one of these four mandates is breached it is considered to be a  major misconduct. In order for the offender to be reinstated into the  good graces of the congregation, the transgression must be rectified.  The transgressor must appear for confession and chastisement before the panj pyara, the five administers of the Amrit initiation ceremony. The penalty of chastisement is called _Tankhah_, and is meeted out for a designated number of days on an individual basis, and make take the form of:

Community service, such as shoe seva, (cleaning shoes of the congregation).
Assigned reading or recitation  of a particular selection of scripture such as is found in Nitnem, the Sikh daily prayerbook.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 11, 2012)

> ...sikhs who are totally familiar with the Right Simran will also tell you that the Naad resounds via each and every tiny hair on the human body...


 
Thanks Gyani Ji Now I know why God gave me a hairy bottom, it was so it can resonate with sound ofcourse!


----------



## Rajwinder (Mar 11, 2012)

It's like, "hey all my friends and cool guys are making fun of it and i don't see any compelling reason of having it then why not get rid of it". I can tell u something , Going 
in a direction due to these kind of reasons can make us direction-less. For instance check this out http://www.no-shave-november.com/ , so now some people think in some other direction due to 
one reason or other. We can easily argue on all these things on what ever length we want. 

Now thinking about what is meaningful and what is not then, we humans are capable of taking out meaning from any thing and at the same time making some thing meaningful too. 

I think it's not only about having hairs or not having hairs , it's also about if you should or should "not" do 
- paath
- sangat
- serving in langar
- trying to put some effort in understanding Sikh history.
- understanding the philosophy of Sikh religion
- helping in some community service,
- contributing financially for some community service

That actually lead to even bigger question if u need any religion or not ?

Thing is, every religion has their own beliefs and some overlap with other religions. Religion can be more like optional thing to some and core things to others. 
Now the option is either we can say that i don't need religion , i just want to be like others. Problem with that is "others" is a big variable.

For ex , some of these "others" will want you to have hairs some will not ( like in this case ), same for turban,then your clothes , your hair style , brand of the cloth u wear , liking , disliking about sports , your body structure , community u live in , your parents outfit and thinking, temple u go , festivals you celebrate , your language slang , perfumes u use , way u dance and so many more.

What all we will change to make it same as of others and believe me there is a so many variations when it comes to others likings and dislikings.

Second option is to try understand what a religion is. When it comes to that we need to make some investments to understand and experience the philosophy.

Let me give u an example, I recently attended a class on leadership development in corporates and i was surprised to see how much research is done on how a human behaves and what it takes 
to develop some good leadership qualities. People have an ample amount of research on these topics which includes IQ ,EQ , emotional intelligence , somatic intelligence and lots more. Now if I simply tell some body that " Following xyz way " u can be a good leader , probably people will not accept.  Check this out http://www.acomplaintfreeworld.org/ .. these people think that having a bracelet in your wrist and changing it every time you complain about some thing will actually make you mind think before you try to complain. Now we can certainly argue on this for what ever length and it may on may not work for certain people. Now point here is that things like these 5 K's we have are reminder of one thing or other to me. Just by having them will not make much of a difference as far as my view is.

Also when we were born god didn't sent some user manual with us on "how to live life" and as i am getting older and meeting so many different people believe me actually i am realizing
there "cannot be a user manual" written on ways to live life. Now people in different religions who started that particular way of life were pretty good thinkers and what ever they came up with
i think that "deserves" some more investment of time on our behalf, which includes reading history , reading philosophy of a religion , rather then just getting rid of it in one shot , which is kind "not" exploring different sides of your self and different views about living life.

I don't see any harm in following and trying these things ( which is actually exciting to me at least) and see where it lead your brain, how it change your thinking. Believe me whether u r in a job or u r studying and ur researching , there are certain practices that needs to be adopted to go to next level without worrying much about who created those practices and until we know the exact principal behind them we will not do it. In our college, prof's have different styles of teachings , colleges have different way of telling things, we don't go and argue with these bodies about why they think that their way of thinking is the best and what is the logical reasoning behind it be fore pursuing it.

Now i did my studies in India so atleast no body bullied my for wearing turban and having hairs. IT surely a problem in foreign countries and at the same time different organizations are working 
closely with govt authorities and schools to aware them about Sikh religion. It will take time surely. 

Coming from different culture can be seen as a fun too , organizing dance program in your college , participating in functions , participating in debates and discussions about topics which generic in nature and how religions see these topics , participating in NGO programs who help poor with their needs , reaching out to communities to organize and help others when needed. Believe me people are least bother about your hairs when it comes to these things.

At the same time there will be places which will be most bothered about your hairs and turbans including , discotheque , some clubs , prom parties and may be few other things. I would say that is something of personal decisions and as we handle so many other situations these needs to be handled too.

So decision is yours ;-)


----------



## Parma (Mar 13, 2012)

I have a question to all people that wear the 5 k's. Which Guru do you Follow? The Guru Granth Sahib does not ask us to wear the 5k's we are to follow the Guru Granth Sahib as the guide to Sikhism. There is no mention of rehayt maryada, and number of other things. So forget any other points as NOTHING else matters! No one else, or nothing else is above the Guru Granth Sahib in Sikhism, So my question to everyone that wears the 5k's is as follows and stated in the above! 
Which Guru Do You Follow? :singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 13, 2012)

It is hard to wear the 5K's. The mind creates excuses and doubts and finds it unreasonable to follow a particular regulation. Even in the Millitary training grounds we often 'ponteng' certain rules. 

In short, rules are not easy to follow. But they are important for general discipline. As I said, wearing 5K's is not an easy thing. Only those will be wearing them who have subdued their minds wishes. Munn Jeetai Jagjeet.

No where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is it written that the 5K's is a must. But if you follow your Guru's instructions, it is written clearly that Satsang is important. 
Really, one must ask where can you find the right people to call it a Satsang!

Those who have attained liberation or those who have not?
This does not mean that others are not liberated. There are many who do not wear 5K's but are liberated. Question is how are you going to identify them?

5K's is one way.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 13, 2012)

> Question is how are you going to identify them?


 
Veera you can identify them with your ears.


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 13, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Veera you can identify them with your ears.


I 'summon' you to explain what you wish to say clearly. Would be appreciated by Astroboy.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 13, 2012)

> what you wish to say clearly.


 
Veera I came as soon as I was summoned,just as we understand eachother through words exchanged and not by appearance,so it must be with the enlghtened one ,you can identify him from his speech,it may not be so easy to ascertain his state from his silhouette.


----------



## Parma (Mar 13, 2012)

A simple question, How do you identify a friend? How do you Identify a lover? If a person listens hears and gives their upmost respect to you then they are a person you should hold dear regardless, it would be your own downfall if you regarded them with nothing but contempt. Do you ask your people you love to change for you? If they change there will no longer be any love! People are to be recognized by there individual awakening. People say things as how about when no one would collect the guru's sees after he was martyred. You could have a thousand men with 5k's on if they dont have it in their hearts to do the service for the guru then they will not! You can not make your friends or your loved ones stick up for you. That is something that comes from within. The look is between god and the individual. People live in tribes in jungles will you say they have not found god, they will have a belief system not the same as ours maybe but it exists. It comes down to being able to love people for who they are not what you wish them to be. All people have their own service. When love is created try hurting anything even a dog of someone that has love for something and the lover will lay down his life for that! That is true love of the Guru Granth Sahib that is the true Khalsa and that is the truth in everybody. Try hurting the ones you love it is impossible!


----------



## amarjit singh bamrah (Mar 13, 2012)

*Waheguru*

*I read this sometime ago I do not how true this is*

*:interestedsingh:Amarjit*

*======================*

*The Truth About Hair and Why Indians Would Keep Their Hair Long *



United Truth Seekers
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:32 CDT







 © Black Elk

This information about hair has been hidden from the public since the Viet Nam War . 

Our culture leads people to believe that hair style is a matter of personal preference, that hair style is a matter of fashion and/or convenience, and that how people wear their hair is simply a cosmetic issue. Back in the Vietnam war however, an entirely different picture emerged, one that has been carefully covered up and hidden from public view. 

In the early nineties, Sally [name changed to protect privacy] was married to a licensed psychologist who worked at a VA Medical hospital. He worked with combat veterans with PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder. Most of them had served in Vietnam. 

Sally said, "I remember clearly an evening when my husband came back to our apartment on Doctor's Circle carrying a thick official looking folder in his hands. Inside were hundreds of pages of certain studies commissioned by the government. He was in shock from the contents. What he read in those documents completely changed his life. From that moment on my conservative middle of the road husband grew his hair and beard and never cut them again. What is more, the VA Medical center let him do it, and other very conservative men in the staff followed his example. 

As I read the documents, I learned why. It seems that during the Vietnam War special forces in the war department had sent undercover experts to comb American Indian Reservations looking for talented scouts, for tough young men trained to move stealthily through rough terrain. They were especially looking for men with outstanding, almost supernatural, tracking abilities. Before being approached, these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in tracking and survival. 

With the usual enticements, the well proven smooth phrases used to enroll new recruits, some of these Indian trackers were then enlisted. Once enlisted, an amazing thing happened. Whatever talents and skills they had possessed on the reservation seemed to mysteriously disappear, as recruit after recruit failed to perform as expected in the field. 

Serious causalities and failures of performance led the government to contract expensive testing of these recruits, and this is what was found. 

When questioned about their failure to perform as expected, the older recruits replied consistently that when they received their required military haircuts, they could no longer 'sense' the enemy, they could no longer access a 'sixth sense', their 'intuition' no longer was reliable, they couldn't 'read' subtle signs as well or access subtle extrasensory information. 

So the testing institute recruited more Indian trackers, let them keep their long hair, and tested them in multiple areas. Then they would pair two men together who had received the same scores on all the tests. They would let one man in the pair keep his hair long, and gave the other man a military haircut. Then the two men retook the tests. 

Time after time the man with long hair kept making high scores. Time after time, the man with the short hair failed the tests in which he had previously scored high scores. 

Here is a Typical Test: 

The recruit is sleeping out in the woods. An armed 'enemy' approaches the sleeping man. The long haired man is awakened out of his sleep by a strong sense of danger and gets away long before the enemy is close, long before any sounds from the approaching enemy are audible. 

In another version of this test the long haired man senses an approach and somehow intuits that the enemy will perform a physical attack. He follows his 'sixth sense' and stays still, pretending to be sleeping, but quickly grabs the attacker and 'kills' him as the attacker reaches down to strangle him. 

This same man, after having passed these and other tests, then received a military haircut and consistently failed these tests, and many other tests that he had previously passed. 

So the document recommended that all Indian trackers be exempt from military haircuts. In fact, it required that trackers keep their hair long." 

Comment: 

The mammalian body has evolved over millions of years. Survival skills of human and animal at times seem almost supernatural. Science is constantly coming up with more discoveries about the amazing abilities of man and animal to survive. Each part of the body has highly sensitive work to perform for the survival and well being of the body as a whole.The body has a reason for every part of itself. 

*Hair is an extension of the nervous system, it can be correctly seen as exteriorized nerves, a type of highly evolved 'feelers' or 'antennae' that transmit vast amounts of important information to the brain stem, the limbic system, and the neocortex*. 

Not only does hair in people, including facial hair in men, provide an information highway reaching the brain, hair also emits energy, the electromagnetic energy emitted by the brain into the outer environment. This has been seen in Kirlian photography when a person is photographed with long hair and then rephotographed after the hair is cut. 

When hair is cut, receiving and sending transmissions to and from the environment are greatly hampered. This results in numbing-out . 

Cutting of hair is a contributing factor to unawareness of environmental distress in local ecosystems. It is also a contributing factor to insensitivity in relationships of all kinds. It contributes to sexual frustration. 

Conclusion: 

In searching for solutions for the distress in our world, it may be time for us to consider that many of our most basic assumptions about reality are in error. It may be that a major part of the solution is looking at us in the face each morning when we see ourselves in the mirror. 

The story of Sampson and Delilah in the Bible has a lot of encoded truth to tell us. When Delilah cut Sampson's hair, the once undefeatable Sampson was defeated. 

_Reported by C. Young_ 

*Comment: *SOTT can't confirm this story or the research it suggests took place, however, we have wondered on many occasions, what is the use of hair and why so many legends refer to hair as being a source of strength, from Samson, to Nazarenes, to the Long Haired Franks.


----------



## Parma (Mar 13, 2012)

Fair enough. If it helps define you for the better of you then fine, there will be arugments to counter act the case above and all sorts. My argument is with the people in authority not giving any other independant Sikhs or lovers of god, the chance to show love and devotion to god in the way they do. They class themselves as Khalsa without knowing that you can not define Khalsa! Purity can not be defined! Every man should be treated with the same respect. That is why I will not say a depiction of a man with a big beard or big hair is wrong either. The definition is a personal one between god and the individual, if it helps you feel royal fine, if make you feel uncomfortable change that be happy as god intends all that god loves is to be happy. Are you not happy when in love? Just because the 5k's are not adhered to they are not a sikh what rubbish. That is what will bring the downfall. Like I mentioned in a earlier post you can not define god and his humble subjects. God exsits in all. 
p.s. This is all if the established order wants to last. It is for the established order to change. Otherwise it will all change without you it is happening as I type dera's are forming changing sikhism to individual paths in the end the established order will just become another dera. Either change to accept the full truth and nothing but the truth or the truth will change you. Simple. Who are you fighting for nobody because in the end religion is for peace, and the peacfull will not fight. So you will look foolish due to arrogance, and I tell you what it will be you who misses out, because you will be the next stone the next bin laden maybe. Look at history and instead of becoming history become apart of the future the truth. Develop as all things that survive do and so should sikhism it means learn. Learn it! Develop grow become one!


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 14, 2012)

Parma ji.

I appreciate that you question the significance of the 5ks. It is with this in mind that I now make some comments, some to further clarify, but some to correct with the idea that the arrow of understanding can gradually be straightened.

----
P: Fair enough. If it helps define you for the better of you then fine, there will be arugments to counter act the case above and all sorts.

C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth? 

----
P: My argument is with the people in authority not giving any other independant Sikhs or lovers of god, the chance to show love and devotion to god in the way they do.

C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.  

-----
P: They class themselves as Khalsa without knowing that you can not define Khalsa! Purity can not be defined!

C: I think what you are saying is that purity of mind does not come from paying attention to outward behavior, let alone how one looks and what symbols are held. It comes from understanding the mind and what are good and what are evil mental states. To think that conformity in outward appearance can lead to purity of mind is in fact encouraging of belief in the efficacy of rules and rituals which Guru Nanak spoke so much against. Some speak of ‘identity’ and of ‘pride’, but this is the stuff of “ego” which again is spoken against, is it not?

-----
P: Every man should be treated with the same respect. That is why I will not say a depiction of a man with a big beard or big hair is wrong either.

C: Second only to wisdom, kindness or friendliness is the greatest of virtues. Without it, there can be no compassion, no respect and other good qualities. Kindness does not differentiate between persons worthy and not worthy; this is because at the moment it perceives the good in the other person.

-----
P: The definition is a personal one between god and the individual, if it helps you feel royal fine, if make you feel uncomfortable change that be happy as god intends all that god loves is to be happy.

C: This can be misleading.
Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment? The right course of conduct goes against the stream of attachment. This means that any discomfort should be understood instead of reacted to with ignorance; likewise happiness is to be seen for what it is because otherwise, attachment takes reign and directs the show. 

True, good deeds is often accompanied by pleasant feelings (happiness), but the feeling itself is *not* the measure. Besides attachment too comes with pleasant feelings, therefore if one were to go by ‘happiness’ this must be due to ignorance. Because a good deed is good because of its nature and not because it is accompanied by happy feelings.

-------
P: Are you not happy when in love?

C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?

------
P: Just because the 5k's are not adhered to they are not a sikh what rubbish.


C: I do not really know what constitutes and what does not a Sikh. However I do know that if one believes that outward appearance and holding of symbols can lead to mental purity, this must in fact lead to much harm, and I don't believe that Sikh encourages this.   

------
P: That is what will bring the downfall.

C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name. 

-----
P: Like I mentioned in a earlier post you can not define god and his humble subjects. God exsits in all.*

C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.  

ps: The unusual format is because my internet connection is down and this has been written in word and will be transferred to my smartphone and sent via 3G.


----------



## Parma (Mar 14, 2012)

C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth? 

Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought. If your thoughts are distorted then what are they distorted by? I would conclude as the guru's have taught, the distortion is worldly vices. Nothing more or less. So put simply, How can one have a distorted understanding about the cause and effect of the truth, on that basis? There is no distortion apart from what you build up yourself!

C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”. 

Each individual is not allowed to do as conditions dictate they are dictated too. You must not go to the gurdwara. If a simple man asked to read and do service of the gurbani they are not allowed to unless they have taken the 5k's in some temples. You may not experience the differences talk to a whole sikh community that feel excluded from there own temples. It whole sole purpose and rerasoning in why dera's and other paths are being formed. Breaking up sikhism


C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?

I am surprised you disregard feelings so easily. Everything thing is based on feelings. From the point your mother and father make love and produce you to the point of death the feeling of pain. Religion is based on feelings. Humans animals plants energy some of these actions can not be seen only felt. Without feelings you will not wake up. Everything is bound by feelings. Love is the ulitmate feeling and love naturally brings enjoyment which brings happiness so to be neutral on happiness is like saying i am happy but I dont know it makes no sense. Even people with no concept of communication can understand feeling. That is how deep and big feelings are. Happiness is best understanding of one self try it be happy you will not wont to go back to being sad.

C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name. 

Obviously you measure growth in terms of numbers of followers, so how are you going to make someone follow you? Every human recognizes the essentials maybe not in your context but all humans have a conscions, the guru granth sahib is the best guide on forming that conscions better.
C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction. 

It is not misleading to entertain a global idea. That is the whole concept of god. Show every man and women the view of love to all others as their brother and sister what is wrong with that concept? To enforce that view on your brothers and sisters is wrong but to view them as your brothers and sisters is not! Like the gurbarni is it is a natural state of progression. Like you said I agree conformity does not apply to appearance, people are born black, white, brown and everything else under the sun, and as such conformity should be liberal a personal point between the individual and god like the world as it is raw. Who are we to judge that Deep down people are not inherently good. Who is to be the judge? So you start to view people as evil or righteous that has a negative effect. View who you are conform to your own understanding of the gurbani, instead of placing it in a box. Listen like I said this is a battle to discover the truth inside you! Whatever path you take make it into a box or disperse it like grains of sand you can not win as the thought process is between the product and the maker. How will a computer work without a person to work the keyboard. This is longing that will not end that is how you know their is a god. You will not drink if you are not thirsty it is a natural custom a natural process to find peace and the truth you can not stop it build a damn build anything. Were you think nothing exsist something will still exsist. This is beyond comprehension it is the truth.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 14, 2012)

Parma ji,

And I thought that you would agree with most of what I wrote. : -)



> C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth?
> 
> Parma:
> Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought.



No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:

Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.

Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it. 




> If your thoughts are distorted then what are they distorted by? I would conclude as the guru's have taught, the distortion is worldly vices. Nothing more or less.



Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.



> So put simply, How can one have a distorted understanding about the cause and effect of the truth, on that basis? There is no distortion apart from what you build up yourself!



I was referring to the idea of cause and effect in the case of wrong understanding. So it was not about the Truth but what is fact is not the Truth. And this as I said above, is the worst of distortions. Because while the distortion that comes with other instances of ignorance such as attachment and aversion only conditions more of the same, this one mistakes what is not the truth for the truth hence leads one further away from the possibility of ever understanding the Truth. 




> C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.
> 
> Parma:
> Each individual is not allowed to do as conditions dictate they are dictated too.



Each person does what conditions allow and these conditions are not within his or anyone else's control. If you follow someone else's dictates this is because the conditions which include your own ignorance and attachments, dictate that you do. If you are not influenced, this points to other tendencies, but nevertheless still not within your or anyone else's control. Choice is an illusion which wrong understanding likes to believe it has. 




> You must not go to the gurdwara. If a simple man asked to read and do service of the gurbani they are not allowed to unless they have taken the 5k's in some temples. You may not experience the differences talk to a whole sikh community that feel excluded from there own temples. It whole sole purpose and rerasoning in why dera's and other paths are being formed. Breaking up Sikhism



But don't you at the same time believe that purity of heart is a matter of each individual's own development? So what if you can't go to the Gurdwara and do what you want to do? Is this an obstacle to right conduct? If you've accumulated much understanding and kindness, can anything stop these from arising in any situation? On the other hand if you have much ignorance and greed, what makes you think that these won't arise when you go to the Gurdwara? If it can happen to those you point a finger at, it can happen to anyone although manifested differently.




> C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?
> 
> Parma:
> I am surprised you disregard feelings so easily. Everything thing is based on feelings.



We are moved by feelings, this I have pointed out in my last response when I said:
“Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment?”

We are attached to pleasant feelings, repelled by unpleasant feelings and grow in ignorance in response to neutral feelings. This is the way we are and being fuel for continued existence, is the reason why we remain trapped. It is an aspect of wisdom which understands this to be the case and thereby grow less and less influenced by feelings.




> From the point your mother and father make love and produce you to the point of death the feeling of pain.



Yeah, the stuff of continued existence.




> Religion is based on feelings.




If by this you mean that most people are motivated to follow one religion or another due to attachment and the pleasant feelings which accompany it, I agree. But then this would be the wrong motivation and is reason why people of faith create such a bad impression on those who do not believe in any religion.




> Humans animals plants energy some of these actions can not be seen only felt.



Or perhaps you just imagine things and don't know that this is taking place. Energy is a concept, the product of the thinking process, what is experienced through touch are the earth, fire and wind elements. And yes, these are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but feeling is feeling and not the physical phenomena being referred to. 




> Without feelings you will not wake up. Everything is bound by feelings.



Let’s say this, all mental states are accompanied by feeling, some pleasant, some unpleasant and some neutral. Attachment can be towards pleasant feelings but not only this, but anything else, for example, color, smell, taste, concepts and so on. So in fact we may wake up in response to pleasant feeling, or we may wake up in response to some other object. And I don’t disagree that feeling is important, as you say, we are “bound by feelings”, but what I’m suggesting at the same time is that this is because of ignorance and attachment. 

So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….




> Love is the ulitmate feeling and love naturally brings enjoyment which brings happiness so to be neutral on happiness is like saying i am happy but I dont know it makes no sense.



I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another. 

So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.




> Even people with no concept of communication can understand feeling. That is how deep and big feelings are. Happiness is best understanding of one self try it be happy you will not wont to go back to being sad.



Yes, as I said each mental state is accompanied by feeling and we all find this important. A man who is deaf, dumb and also blind, even he is moved by feelings, so too are animals and insects. And yes, people crave for more and more pleasant feelings, hence the phenomena of addiction to drugs and alcohol. And all beings are repelled by sadness given that this is accompanied by unpleasant feelings, but this is a conditioned response which happens regardless of whether there is any pleasant feelings to compare with. 




> C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name.
> 
> Parma:
> Obviously you measure growth in terms of numbers of followers, so how are you going to make someone follow you?



You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the fact that there are people who do this but suggested that this in fact is not important.



> Every human recognizes the essentials maybe not in your context but all humans have a conscions, the guru granth sahib is the best guide on forming that conscions better.



You are imagining things and continue to believe in it in spite of evidence to the contrary. 
All human beings have consciousness, but 99.99% of the time, this is rooted in ignorance.



> C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.
> 
> Parma:
> It is not misleading to entertain a global idea.



You misunderstood my reference to global. But I'll not go into this now as the response is already quite long. Maybe there will be another chance to clarify.


----------



## Parma (Mar 14, 2012)

Ok, I agree with what you wrote, do you agree : - )

No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:

Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.

Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it. 

So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?

Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.
I agree!!

So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….

Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake. So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!

I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another. 

So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.

Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji? lol

welcomemunda This is earth!


----------



## Parma (Mar 14, 2012)

cheerleader


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 15, 2012)

If we read Gurbani..one thing is crystal clear...GURU JI is very very concerned about the "BHANDA"......several examples of how a BHANDA has to be thoroughly clean..washed..put out in the sunshine rays..etc BEFORE the MILK cna be placed in it t make a PERFECT YOGHURT (and not just split milk / SPOILT MILK..that is of no use)...how the BHANDA must NOT be desecrated...burnt..tortured etc..(The Creator is not glad when we break our bones, not feed, not drink, bathe unnecessarily, stand on one leg for long periods of time , walk up a thousand stone steps on our bleeding knees, etc etc etc etc...all of which are STANDARD methods recommended by religions as WAYS TO MAKE HIM HAPPY)...how a weak/dirty/unfit BHANDA cannot be used to STORE/RECEIVE AMRIT/MILK/YOGHURT etc...

Now if it was ALL in the MIND..why all this "lopsided" overloading on BHANDA METAPHOR....??? Obviously MOST of those ADVOCATING "changes" in the BHANDA ignore these..and concentrate on the "MIND"....which cannot be seen/felt.....while the BHANDA is highly Visible and very difficult to HIDE mutilate unseen.

A cracked POT cannot keep AMRIT or even water. period. The MARYADA is the GLAZE on the BHANDA...the PAINT on the EXTERIOR WALLS...etc etc...and IF we seek to protect the ordinary stone buildings with expensive PAINT....why NOT the MIND be kept safe inside a PERFECT BHANDA of the Human body...Maryada...REHIT is the DISCIPLINE..the "PAINT"..on the BODY that keeps it protected and healthy.. *REHNNI* *RAHEY..SOOEE SIKH MERA*....a BUILDING thta is PAINTED REGULARLY...can be compared to one that is NEGLECTED...compare the situation 
Food for thought...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 15, 2012)

Parma ji,

Ok, I agree with what you wrote, do you agree : - )

No.

----
Me:
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it. 

You:
So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?


In the above paragraph to which you have responded, I did point out that thinking arises with wisdom / understanding did I not? But let us go back to the beginning:

You had said that “Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought”. This suggested that you equated understanding with being a form of thinking.

I responded to this by pointing out that thinking is one reality and understanding another reality and that they can arise together. 

So I wonder why you read this as suggesting that “there is no thought in understanding”. Do you perhaps believe that when wisdom arises, it not only understands, but also thinks and that there is no need for a separate mental factor called 'thinking' to assist it?

---
Me:
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….

You:
Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake.


Allow me to come in from another angle.

Attachment is said to be the 'near enemy' of kindness (your love). One of the reasons for this is that both attachment and kindness is associated with pleasant feelings. So obviously if one does not know the difference in characteristics between these two, invariably the attachment will be mistaken for kindness if judgment is made in terms of feeling.

------
So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!


You are unnecessarily proliferating. 
The contention is not that kindness is aimed at the happiness and well-being of the other. It is about whether the happiness one feels should be the determining factor as to whether what one thinks or does is right. In other words, whether kindness should be measured by way of the happy feeling arisen. 

But even if we consider this from the standpoint of the other person, we know that although attachment is aimed at making others happy it however is *not* kindness, and while the latter is not self-serving in any way, the former actually comes down to one's own happiness. So again we can see how misleading it is to judge by feelings.

-------
Me:
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another. 

So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.


You:
Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji?  


What you are saying is that when you distinguish between one kind of mental reality from another it is OK and even wise, but when I do it, it is madness. :- )

Or are you really serious about judging the value of what is good and bad, right and wrong, by way of whether it gives you happiness or not? So according to you, this is wisdom, namely the ability to discriminate between what makes oneself and others happy and what does not and acting accordingly?

Allow me to add the following:

Dukkha or Suffering in Buddhist teachings has been pointed out by way of feelings as follows:

1.	Suffering as pain, namely bodily and mental unpleasant feelings. 
2.	Suffering as change, namely pleasant feelings do not last.
3.	Suffering as inherent characteristic, referring to the oppressive nature of all conditioned existence, including neutral feelings. 

From the above we can see that even if one experiences happiness, it does not last and may be followed by unpleasant feelings. Indeed if there is attachment and a yearning to have pleasant feelings, disappointment must follow and this is an aspect of aversion which *always* arises with unpleasant feeling. More importantly however, all three feelings, in fact are oppressive in nature, therefore even pleasant feelings cannot be relied upon. The only medicine is the development of wisdom, to this it does not matter whether the feeling accompanying the moment is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

----- 

  welcomemundaThis is earth!


There is no earth, only one instance of consciousness experiencing an object through the five senses or thinking (about 'earth' for example). 
So my suggestion to you is to get out of the ocean of concepts and come to understand reality. Here there is no one to welcome anyone else, just impersonal elements rolling on one after another.


----------



## drpranavsingh (Mar 15, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> If we read Gurbani..one thing is crystal clear...GURU JI is very very concerned about the "BHANDA"......several examples of how a BHANDA has to be thoroughly clean..washed..put out in the sunshine rays..etc BEFORE the MILK cna be placed in it t make a PERFECT YOGHURT (and not just split milk / SPOILT MILK..that is of no use)...how the BHANDA must NOT be desecrated...burnt..tortured etc..(The Creator is not glad when we break our bones, not feed, not drink, bathe unnecessarily, stand on one leg for long periods of time , walk up a thousand stone steps on our bleeding knees, etc etc etc etc...all of which are STANDARD methods recommended by religions as WAYS TO MAKE HIM HAPPY)...how a weak/dirty/unfit BHANDA cannot be used to STORE/RECEIVE AMRIT/MILK/YOGHURT etc...
> 
> Now if it was ALL in the MIND..why all this "lopsided" overloading on BHANDA METAPHOR....??? Obviously MOST of those ADVOCATING "changes" in the BHANDA ignore these..and concentrate on the "MIND"....which cannot be seen/felt.....while the BHANDA is highly Visible and very difficult to HIDE mutilate unseen.
> 
> ...



I don't quite get the "BHANDA" theories. Theories are abundant. Everyone is smart but "Sehas seanpaan lakh hove, tan ik na challe naal". The only importance hair has in a sikh's life is that of a separate identity. There is no spiritual advantage of hair. Otherwise Bhagat Kabir ji's shabad "ਕਬੀਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਇਕ ਸਿਉ ਕੀਏ ਆਨ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾਇ  ॥ ਭਾਵੈ ਲਾਂਬੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਰੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਘਰਰਿ ਮੁਡਾਇ ॥" would never have made an entry into Guru Granth Sahib ji. Now professor Sahib Singh in his teeka says that Kabir ji isn't talking about sikhs because khalsa panth was not formed then! The enlightened professor forgot that Gurbani transcends time. What was true then, is true now and will be true forever. 
Sikhism teaches that inflicting pain on self does not lead to salvation. Guru Nank Dev ji says "ਅੰਤਰਿ ਅਗਨਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਤਨੁ ਸੁਆਹ ॥" Now one would say that he pointed towards ritualistic rubbing of ashes by hindus. But it applies to sikhs as well who maintain an outwardly symbolic K's without shunning their "ego". 
Many sikhs keep hair just because of family or peer pressure, even if tying turban gives them pain in the ears, or traction alopecia or dandruff on the scalp or chronic neck pain because of turban weight(these are all real medical problems faced by sikhs and are well documented in medical literature...enthusiastic sikhs may search on pubmed.com). Is living with pain all life worthwhile? No it is not. Gurbani is against it. 
I lived with these problems for 34 years. I gave up my external sikh identity. I am happy now. I can pursue sports and extracurricular activities(how many sikhs swim?). I can get ready in time and not waste 1 hour everyday on beard and turban and instead can utilize it for constructive purpose. At the same time, I can read and embrace the teachings of Gurbani, one at a time. I haven't come across a single tuk in SGGS ji advocating long hair. 
I want to make clear that I have utmost respect for gursikhs(As embodied in SGGS ji). I respect my father who is an Amritdhari sikh, leads an honest life and doesn't use intoxicants of any sort(very commonly seen in present day "gursikhs"). He did not bad-mouth or abuse me after I cut my hair, nor did he give me any lecture. Thats how Sikhs should behave. With grace and love, even towards those who don't want to toe the line. For the same reason, I would have same respect for him even if he didn't keep hair. I hope my point is getting across.  
In general, youth is not happy with sikh external identity. When Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji,  said jab lag khalsa rahe neyara, he meant both in appearance and actions. Or else he wouldn't have bestowed his blessings on bhai Nand Lal ji and many other non-khalsa in his cadre. No one can be a sikh by birth. Sikhism cannot be forced upon anyone by making them keep hair.


----------



## Parma (Mar 15, 2012)

Mr Confused ji,
You are obviously talking about psychiatric issues here. This is a faith based forum. If you are looking for professional help, I would charge. Religious service I would do for free. If you are looking for help on your thesis try somewhere else that is a professional matter.
I did try to dissect you analogy and it was a beautiful reply only when I tried to post it the site would not let me, I just can not be bothrered now, maybe an admin issue you naughty admins!!! I will not reply further, unless it is regarding faith
:interestedsingh:


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 15, 2012)

Parma Ji,
A psychiatrist was once asked how he handled so many cases with such remarkable results.
And the answer was phrased - ".......I don't listen to them."

Yes this is a Faith Forum. And we are all ears sitting at the edges of our chairs just because we are thrilled with the style of various presentations forwarded here. That's what makes SPN a good Forum to visit. 

Scarlet P., 
You said that you  can judge them by your ears without even seeing the other party, or something like that. Thanks for that. It makes sense but not entirely.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 15, 2012)

Parma ji,




Parma said:


> Mr Confused ji,
> You are obviously talking about psychiatric issues here. This is a faith based forum. If you are looking for professional help, I would charge. Religious service I would do for free. If you are looking for help on your thesis try somewhere else that is a professional matter.
> I did try to dissect you analogy and it was a beautiful reply only when I tried to post it the site would not let me, I just can not be bothrered now, maybe an admin issue you naughty admins!!! I will not reply further, unless it is regarding faith
> :interestedsingh:



Well my name is Confused and you could also call me Delirious if you want to, and if you think I am mad, it would not be far from the truth. But do I need professional help? No.

I have absolutely no interest in psychology and I do not think that any psychiatrist can help me. Although my problem is not less than anyone else's, only the gradual development of understanding with regard to the Truth is the remedy for me. And this is a statement reflecting my “faith” / “confidence”!

In reducing what I wrote as being of the field of psychology, this shows that you have not yet understood what I have been talking about. I have been pointing to the mental and physical phenomena that make up human experience which can be seen and related to directly, if conditions permit. Psychology on the other hand, is all about theories based on conventional observation and not on understanding reality. 

While what I point to can lead to the direct study of the reality now, and thereby increase one's understanding which will always be an asset, psychology on the other hand seeks simply to replace one story / script with another. The result is only attachment changing objects.

So you see Parma ji, I have in fact been talking about that which is directly related to faith. Only it is probably not the same faith that you are referring to. But we can discuss this if you like. ;- )


----------



## Rajwinder (Mar 15, 2012)

I think if we see in this way that there is no mention of 5K's in guru Granth Sahib Ji then at the same time there is no mention of allot of day to day things like should we even wear clothes or not , should cut hairs or not , what all veg should we eat , what all languages we should speak etc .. 

My view is that when "rehat maryada" was established then the scholars picked up themes from all the writings and created these 5 K's as symbols of these themes and to keep us reminding of those themes. 

We can surely say why these 5 k's and not some thing else , i think if for me atleast this "something else" can be long list with it's own pros and cons , so i think it's correct to have 5 K's.:interestedmunda:


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 16, 2012)

Rajwinder ji,




Rajwinder said:


> I think if we see in this way that there is no mention of 5K's in guru Granth Sahib Ji then at the same time there is no mention of allot of day to day things like should we even wear clothes or not , should cut hairs or not , what all veg should we eat , what all languages we should speak etc ..
> 
> My view is that when "rehat maryada" was established then the scholars picked up themes from all the writings and created these 5 K's as symbols of these themes and to keep us reminding of those themes.
> 
> We can surely say why these 5 k's and not some thing else , i think if for me atleast this "something else" can be long list with it's own pros and cons , so i think it's correct to have 5 K's.:interestedmunda:




Well that's the point isn’t it? The fact that there is no mention about what clothes to wear, what food to eat, what languages to speak or whether or not one should keep long or short hair is because doing so would be encouraging of attachment to rules and rituals. 

Even as an individual if I thought up a symbol, such as 'the sword of wisdom', already this is inviting of attachment and ignorance. Why, because the truth is right here and now to understand or not. If not, even this can be known and would be an instance of some understanding of the truth, plus expression of truthfulness / sincerity. But to think up a symbol with the hope of using it as a reminder, is at that very moment, ignorance of the truth and attachment to a projected aim, also it shows that sincerity is lacking. And from this no good can be expected to follow.

So bad enough when the individual creates his own sets of symbols to hold on to and rules to follow, worse is when in the name of Truth these are created by others and we end up believing in and following them. 

There is much talk about ‘nature’ and how letting the hair grow is to be in line with nature.  But this is a picture painted as backdrop used to justify doing what one believes in and nothing more. It is a mind created scenario which has nothing to do with the Truth that is right here and right now. 

The truth is the truth of this moment. If there is seeing, this is the truth, if it is thinking, then thinking is. This is the “nature” and is what needs to be understood. If anger arises, it is because of nature, and if this is followed immediately by attachment, this too reflects nature. Given this, understanding has to develop “naturally” and therefore to set up rules for this to happen is to be facing exactly in the opposite direction. 

Therefore when someone questions following particular rules, let us not make it bad by insisting that he does and / or providing misleading reasons for it. Because that would be discouraging understanding the truth of the moment which arose naturally for him due to conditions. Besides, you can see that this is the way that more acceptances of other people happen.

In other words, to understand who we are is to understand the world / nature in the only way that is possible. Any other way must be that of “thought” and this is not reality / truth. Symbols and rules in the name of Truth must be the product of wrong understanding and this is worse than just being a diversion, it is downright misleading. And I think this is why Guru Nanak was so much against the kind of thing. 

In the context of conventional reality where Truth is not being referred to, it is not only fine to have rules, but sometimes even necessary. In the military for example, if there were no rules, the military will not function. I don't have any knowledge about Sikhism, but I remember as a boy having heard that rules were laid out by Guru Gobind Singh for the soldiers who were fighting along his side. This to me sounded like a matter of military discipline, and is fine. But I think it should have ended right there when the situation changed and those Sikhs were not obliged to fight anymore.

It is not really my business to question these things, but I was encouraged by Parma ji’s post who pointed out the some people felt constraint due to not having followed all the rules. And it has been part of my thoughts all along that youngsters who have yet to develop any understanding, will naturally react negatively (this includes when they willingly accept those rules) and thereby accumulate more unwholesome tendencies. And so when drpranavsingh ji wrote what he did, I approved of what he said and felt even more motivated.

Only a small handful of people read the messages here, which means that I can’t really be a threat to anyone. So don't mind what I've written.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 16, 2012)

1. The BHANDA is not  a "theory"..its FACT and can be read in Gurbani of SGGS. Bhanda is the Pristine Human Body.

2. What Kabir ji said is correct and valid for all time. The Failure is in our own understanding.
Kabir is addressing the RELIGIOUS DUALITY of...Lambeh Kes....vs Gharra Mundaii...

a.) Group of SADHUS/Yogic Practitioners who have to KEEP LONG HAIR in JATT FORM...no cutting/no COMBING/NO OILING/ just coiled on head. These people still exist TODAY and cna be seen in nay Hindu Teerath or even /villages/towns in Ind1a. *TO These people this state of LONG UNKEMPT HAIR unwashed for DECADES is a RELIGIOUS DUTY that GUARANTEES MUKTI.* ( Sikhisms LONG Hair rule is Totally OPPOSITE of this disgusting practise...a SIKH has been Gifted a COMPULSORY COMB and has been ordered to COMB his long hair TWICE a DAY..keep it nicley oiled/washed/and neatly tied up in a Joora/under a dastaar.)

b.) On the Opposite spectrum there are another group of Sadhus/Yogics/ jains etc..WHO absolutely HATE all hair...so they RUB ASH on their heads and PULL OUT ALL HAIR by the ROOTS....to them *THIS is RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT which GUARANTEES MUKTI.* (Gharrar Mundaii)

Just as GURU NANAK JI Sahib has also addressed THESE and many other even MORE BIZARRE RELIGIOUS PRACTISES...( One of the most disgusting ones is passing motion and then turning around covering up ones FACE/Head with a CLOTH...taking a STICK..and POKE around the SH.IT and INHALE the ODOURS arising form the fresh shi.t )..so does Bhagat Kabir Ji address the FUTILITY of such practises.

Sikhi and GURMATT doesnt "Guarantee" any sort of Muktee or spiritual benefits/salvation/rewards etc etc SIMPLY due to either keeping Long hair or cutting it. So those who think that by shaving their beards or visiting the barber for a hair cut makes them any "better" than the sikh who doesnt do that is fooling no one but themselves...*NEITHER *is with any MERIT..because *GURMATT STRESSES PRACTISE of GURBANI.*...Guru nanak Ji has alredy made it very clear...SHUBH AMALLAN BAJOH...Shubh Amalls come with PRACTISING GURMATT and GURBANI..not via letting ones hair DOWN (either at home or at the barbers)

THIS is the real lesson behind the Bahgat Kabir Tuk quoted above and NOT what the proponents of CUTTING HAIR think it is (Giving them a carte blanche to viist the barber/nai). 

Just because a CUT hair person thinks hes BETTER simply due to his short hair...doesn't make it FACT...same goes for a long haired person thinking hes better simply due to the length of his hair....BOTH are FOOLING ONLY THEMSELVES. Spirituality is NOT measured by length of hair or absence or presence of Hair....its whats being *PRACTISED*...and once that fact is acknowledged..the FAKE arguments against HAIR get flushed down the DRAIN HOLE into the sewage tank ( where they belong)


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 16, 2012)

Good post showing the 2 extremes that are around with different beliefs for their hair.
Interestingly like the sadhu's that keep hair unwashed, unoiled we also have another group of believers that do this.- The afro carribean Rastafarians- 
This rastafarian religion requires that they keep matted hair in the same way as sadhus. The hair goes from shiny to matt if it is not washed or treated for a long time.

Interestingly, I just realised that the Rastafarian movement also respects Lord Shiva since Shiva was famous for making holy the cannabis plant. The sadhus and rastafarians both smoke cannabis as a religious ritual and the rastafarians also get their name from the indian word 'rasta'- the path and 'farian' to walk!!!!


----------



## drpranavsingh (Mar 17, 2012)

Very nice reply by Giani Jarnail singh ji. I would like to add that I haven't come across anyone who cuts hair and thinks they are superior to amritdhari sikh. Anyone who respects The 10th masters edict is a jewel. There are many gursikhs who belong in that category and are involved in community service and are an example to the society. There are many others whose claim to fame is writing ludicrous hair theories nd bashing those who cut hair in online forums. Like Giani ji mentioned, hair is a manifestation of a higher spiritual state that comes after merging with almighty when appearence doesn't matter any more to mortal beings. It is not the starting point. You cannot put cart before the horse.

And Kabir ji's tuk is not an excuse by the proponents of cutting hair. Its a simple timeless truth that applies to present day Sikhs as well as it applied to the pakhandi sadhs. 

It is up to the Sikhs if they want to preserve the sanctity of gatra and not let it become a synonym for janeu.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 18, 2012)

drpranavsingh ji,

This is going to ruffle some feathers, but hopefully it will be useful for some in the long run.



> Very nice reply by Giani Jarnail singh ji.




My impression is different. I read the message as an attempt to highlight two extreme practices, making a statement about the intentions of those who cut their hair which they do not have, and trying to make a case for keeping hair.



> I would like to add that I haven't come across anyone who cuts hair and thinks they are superior to amritdhari sikh.




And the truth is:
A Sikh who cuts hair does so motivated by attachment and by conceit. A Sikh who maintains hair thinking that it serves some spiritual purpose is motivated by attachment, by conceit and also wrong understanding.




> Anyone who respects The 10th masters edict is a jewel. There are many gursikhs who belong in that category and are involved in community service and are an example to the society.



And there are more people involved in the kind of activities who do not believe in any religion at all. 

I know that you are highlighting Sewa here. However, it should be noted that in any particular situation while involved in some activity, there are many different motivations involved and mostly negative ones. 

One thought of kindness is quickly followed by desire to “do something” and when done, the conceit “I” who does it. Following this, idealistic thoughts are entertained which is expression of more ignorance, attachment and conceit. More importantly however, it usually takes much involvement in “worldly values” to set up an organization with the aim to actualize one’s ideals. And this shows inability to distinguish worldliness from what is the real goal of religion, namely the liberation from the cycle of existence.




> There are many others whose claim to fame is writing ludicrous hair theories nd bashing those who cut hair in online forums. Like Giani ji mentioned, hair is a manifestation of a higher spiritual state that comes after merging with almighty when appearence doesn't matter any more to mortal beings. It is not the starting point. You cannot put cart before the horse.




I know that you do not intend this, but to me what you say is misleading. Some people will ignore your latter remark while latching on to the other idea, namely that “hair is a manifestation of a higher spiritual state that comes after merging with almighty when appearence doesn't matter any more to mortal beings”.

How does unconcern about appearance lead to keeping the hair long? Why would someone whose hair was short, after he has come to realize the Truth suddenly stop cutting his hair? If he still bathes, dresses up, makes an effort to eat, speak and move around, why would he suddenly think not to cut his hair? Beside between short or no hair vs. long hair, in terms of hygiene and general convenience, which is better? 
Moreover, given the image amongst ignorant people regarding a saint being so much to do with appearance, should one suddenly keep long hair and thereby risk sending out the wrong message? 




> And Kabir ji's tuk is not an excuse by the proponents of cutting hair. Its a simple timeless truth that applies to present day Sikhs as well as it applied to the pakhandi sadhs.
> 
> It is up to the Sikhs if they want to preserve the sanctity of gatra and not let it become a synonym for janeu.




I'm not sure what you are implying, but are you suggesting that a gatra and kirpan have some practical purpose in today's world?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 18, 2012)

Confused ji wrote:
My impression is different. I read the message as an attempt to  highlight two extreme practices, *making a statement about the intentions  of those who cut their hair which they do not have, and trying to make a  case for keeping hair.*

  Quote:
 <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=""> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> 			 				I would like to add that I haven't come across anyone who cuts hair and thinks they are superior to amritdhari sikh. 			 		</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 

*And the truth is:
A Sikh who cuts hair does so motivated by attachment and by conceit. A  Sikh who maintains hair thinking that it serves some spiritual purpose  is motivated by attachment, by conceit and also wrong understanding.*

IS That the Real "TRUTH" or simply a Made up statement ?? ( as I am accused of making statements Jios ??) How does one JUDGE a "truth" from a "made up statement"...intentions which they DO NOT HAVE ?? How does one KNOW whats in every ones hearts ??..is there  a Truth Meter ...and a "made up statement false intentions meter ??

The ONE and ONLY unalterable TRUTH is GURBANI..all others simply state their own OPINIONS....you, me. every poster here...no one has the monopoly on "truth/facts".
I ma 60+ and have been dealing with Sikhs, of all shades sizes, leabnings and all for past decades..locally face to face, internationally abroad face to face and via the Internet ...and thats why my Gmail accounts ( are all FULL to capacity)..and i have first hand accounts of sikhs cutting hair, facing all sorts of problems, etc etc and sikhs who keep full banna ..instant amrtidharees who think they have the world at their feet the moment they step out of Amrit sanskaar Ceremony..etc etc...so i do have a little first hand knowledge of "INTENTIONS"....but i still cannot judge anybody because thats not my job. I have many sikhs among my closest associates who dont keep hair and claim sikhi is INSIDE...and that they are MUCH BETTER than some Full banna amritdharees who cna be seen in discos.bars at weekends..and I agree..it could be..but that could also be that the Full banna guy is much more easily RECOGNISABLE even from across the road..than a cut hair shaved 'sikh" who has sikhi inside and also a jug of beer in his belly..and a lady of the night on his shoulder...no one..not even me..can see INSIDE either...whether its really "SIKHEE" inside or just SICKEE". we come to SPN to *LEARN*...*UN-LEARN*...*RE-LEARN..*.24/7..no one is perfect...long har, short hair...balding...lasered..coloured..plucked...whatever..  SHUBH Amallan bajoh DOVEH ROOVEE...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 18, 2012)

Kirpan ( the gatra is just an instrument to enable the easy wearing of  the Kirpaan - just as Dastaar is for the sole purpose of keeping the Kesh Neat and tidy and clean)..is not only PRACTICAL..it has its rightful place among the 5 Kakaars essential for a Amritdharee Khalsa SIKH. To even suggest otherwise is taking too much into ones own hands....This is a PANTH MATTER..not for individuals to decide. No one is forced to wear one...

2. Janeau...is CLASS SPECIFIC...a Brahmin cannot wear a Janeau meant for a SHUDRA..and Vice versa...each varan has its own specific janeau. ( Read up on Hindu sites)
KIRPAN is FOR ALL AMRITDHAREES. The Lowest of the Lowest mazhbee/night soil carrier is authorised to wear a Kirpan the moment he takes Amrit and his Kirpan is the exact SAME as one worn by a son of the Patiala Royal family who chhaks Amrit at the same amrit sanskaar ceremony as the mazhbee. MY Kirpan is the same as the one any other Khalsa wears in any part of the world..
Thus people who love to compare Kirpan to janeau are actually comparing moongee daal to Mangoes......///////?????????/////////????????:happysingh:kaurhug


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 19, 2012)

Gyani ji,


I consider the opportunity to hear and discuss these things rare. I therefore would like to be as direct as possible.



> > Confused ji wrote:
> > My impression is different. I read the message as an attempt to highlight two extreme practices, making a statement about the intentions of those who cut their hair which they do not have, and trying to make a case for keeping hair.
> >
> >
> ...



It is a general statement not pointing to particular incidents, but universal truths. 

A Sikh who decides to cut his long hair will not have any spiritual reasons for doing so (if there are some unusual exceptions, we should not consider it). It is clear then that he does it with attachment and if connected with some image, there must also be conceit. 

A Sikh who maintains hair due to spiritual reasons has wrong understanding, since hair as you have said also, has nothing to do with the ability to develop goodness or wisdom. When there is wrong understanding, there must also be attachment associated with it. But also the very idea of long hair invariable becomes the object of sense attachment especially when there is the kind of wrong understanding. And in thinking that “I have long (or short) hair”, this is clearly an expression of conceit. 

Do you disagree with this? If so, what is the reason?




> ...intentions which they DO NOT HAVE ?? How does one KNOW whats in every ones hearts ??..is there a Truth Meter ...and a "made up statement false intentions meter ??



You had written in your original message:

“Just because a CUT hair person thinks hes BETTER simply due to his short hair”

This I took as projecting a situation not likely to ever happen. If there are rare cases that a Sikh decides to cut his hair thinking that he will be a “better” person in doing so, it must be very rare. But certainly this can’t be taken to represent all those other people who do so simply out of attachment and conceit, can it? On the other hand, Sikhs who keep hair as a religious symbol and who convince themselves by making the association with particular moral qualities, this is very common is it not? Even if they do not in their minds, form an idea regarding why hair must be kept, do they not however feel that in cutting their hair they would be doing wrong?

Do my statements appear to be made up, if so, in what way? 




> The ONE and ONLY unalterable TRUTH is GURBANI..all others simply state their own OPINIONS....you, me. every poster here...no one has the monopoly on "truth/facts".




And according to your criterion, what you state above is just opinion. Doesn't sound right, does it?
One of us may be right and the other wrong or both are wrong depending on the topic of discussion. Indeed we may both be wrong about everything; however this would be due to conditions and can’t be helped. But to presume that what we say is only opinion, makes pointless any discussion of this sort, I’d think. 

Would it not be that you have some level of understanding with regard to the truth that there is some validity in your stating that the Gurbani contains the Truth? Why then suggest that we come in thinking that what we say is only opinion? Why not discuss what is said in order to determine whether or not it is in line with the Truth?




> I ma 60+ and have been dealing with Sikhs, of all shades sizes, leabnings and all for past decades..locally face to face, internationally abroad face to face and via the Internet ...and thats why my Gmail accounts ( are all FULL to capacity)..and i have first hand accounts of sikhs cutting hair, facing all sorts of problems, etc etc and sikhs who keep full banna ..instant amrtidharees who think they have the world at their feet the moment they step out of Amrit sanskaar Ceremony..etc etc...so i do have a little first hand knowledge of "INTENTIONS"....



What you describe appears as a case simply of attachment and conceit and is what I had pointed out. But in your original post you had said:

“Just because a CUT hair person thinks hes BETTER simply due to his short hair”

As I said, it appears very unusual this particular line of thought. It may be that this had in fact nothing to do with spiritual aims, but why then compare this with the person who keeps his hair whose reasons include spiritual ones?




> but i still cannot judge anybody because thats not my job. I have many sikhs among my closest associates who dont keep hair and claim sikhi is INSIDE...and that they are MUCH BETTER than some Full banna amritdharees who cna be seen in discos.bars at weekends..and I agree..it could be..




It is good to hear that you keep friendship with Sikhs regardless of whether they keep or cut their hair. 




> but that could also be that the Full banna guy is much more easily RECOGNISABLE even from across the road..than a cut hair shaved 'sikh" who has sikhi inside and also a jug of beer in his belly..and a lady of the night on his shoulder...no one..not even me..can see INSIDE either...whether its really "SIKHEE" inside or just SICKEE". we come to SPN to LEARN...UN-LEARN...RE-LEARN...24/7..no one is perfect...long har, short hair...balding...lasered..coloured..plucked...what ever.. SHUBH Amallan bajoh DOVEH ROOVEE...




It is to be expected that everyone, both young and old, is full of attachment. Going to discos and bars is what young people like to do and if not this, they'd be attached to something else. Not going to discos and drinking does not therefore prove that there is no attachment; indeed there may be attachment to *not doing* these things. So why take the concept of amritdhari so seriously? There appears to be so much unnecessary suppression and guilt involved in the whole thing. 

If attachment to sense objects is wrong, point out to the nature of attachment. In highlighting certain aspects and the idea that in being able to avoid these one is on the right track, this easily becomes yet another object of attachment, which means that in the end it serves no purpose at all. Besides which is worse, a person who drinks but knows that it is not good, or someone who does not drink, but not aware of his attachments?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 19, 2012)

Gyani ji,




> Kirpan ( the gatra is just an instrument to enable the easy wearing of the Kirpaan - just as Dastaar is for the sole purpose of keeping the Kesh Neat and tidy and clean)..is not only PRACTICAL..



But I was questioning the practicality of kirpan, the gatra comes later.




> it has its rightful place among the 5 Kakaars essential for a Amritdharee Khalsa SIKH. To even suggest otherwise is taking too much into ones own hands....This is a PANTH MATTER..not for individuals to decide. No one is forced to wear one...



This is a discussion amongst individuals who are interested to find out what is right and what is wrong and no one has to think to change the established rules. As you say, one can decide to follow or not, therefore we discuss the understanding behind the decision either way. 




> Janeau...is CLASS SPECIFIC...a Brahmin cannot wear a Janeau meant for a SHUDRA..and Vice versa...each varan has its own specific janeau. ( Read up on Hindu sites)
> KIRPAN is FOR ALL AMRITDHAREES. The Lowest of the Lowest mazhbee/night soil carrier is authorised to wear a Kirpan the moment he takes Amrit and his Kirpan is the exact SAME as one worn by a son of the Patiala Royal family who chhaks Amrit at the same amrit sanskaar ceremony as the mazhbee. MY Kirpan is the same as the one any other Khalsa wears in any part of the world..




Thanks for your explanation. What you are saying is that the reason for janeau is encouraging of discrimination between people, whereas that of kirpan is not. However the topic of discussion here is about having to have any symbols at all. I say that whatever the reasoning behind it, symbols are symbols and are potential object of attachment, leading away from the possibility of understanding the Truth.




> Thus people who love to compare Kirpan to janeau are actually comparing moongee daal to Mangoes......///////?????????/////////????????



The similarity is in that both being symbols, are equally potential object of attachment, ignorance and wrong understanding.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 19, 2012)

Confused Ji..
i am too much 'attached" to gurbani and sggs...so i cant see what you are attached to..or confused about....apologies..i have to step out of this "confusion" as i dont belong.
Please carry on your line of thought....until maybe there is no more attachment to confusion..

In Gurbani the GURU encourages "attachment"....to HIMSELF..His DHARRA (group)...so I guess i have taken that instruction to heart...sorry.japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 19, 2012)

Gyani ji,




Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Confused Ji..
> i am too much 'attached" to gurbani and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji...so i cant see what you are attached to..or confused about....apologies..i have to step out of this "confusion" as i dont belong.
> Please carry on your line of thought....until maybe there is no more attachment to confusion..
> 
> In Gurbani the GURU encourages "attachment"....to HIMSELF..His DHARRA (group)...so I guess i have taken that instruction to heart...sorry.japposatnamwaheguru:



One day ten years ago, my wife commented to me that Sikhism is aimed at “understanding”. Up until then, my image regarding Sikh was that it is a religion requiring faith and beliefs not questioned. Her comment therefore aroused curiosity and interest and I was motivated to look for some Sikh discussion list on the web to find out more. On and off I visited a few websites and there was one which consisted of articles written by the author of the website I was somewhat impressed by. But I didn't like the style of expression and preferred more to discuss and later came upon this website.  


But here as in other places, my impression has been that although there is much talk regarding the virtue of “wisdom”, when it comes down to it, the general attitude does not reflect this. I see a lot of criticism about the wrong practice of other religion and sects which of course is what happens in discussion lists of other religions as well, including Buddhism. And as it is the case with most Buddhists, Sikhs express attachment to rules and rituals quite a lot. Also there are many Sikhs who often sound like the Hare Rama Hare Krishna people when expressing their love for God. But maybe all this is just due to the fact that very few people really understand. So it may be that what you say about the Guru encouraging “attachment” is perhaps not true…

Anyway, I agree with you that we should drop this particular discussion.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 19, 2012)

Satnaam Sat Sangat Ji,

In all forms of life, if something has to blossom...you need to look at the 'root' cause of the problem...
unless our next generations are bought up with Simran and Seva as method of feeling at peace along with education, brushing their teeth etc etc...then there will continue to be confusion amongst people.

the problem is that children are being told to keep their hair, but not given the deeper meaning, the power, the divine connection it has because the parents themselves do not know why they have kept their hair...its an endless cycle.

I Pray to god that when i have children that through Gods grace, i can show them the beauty of remembering Veheguru's name and helping and serving his creation...so that my Children in return can also show me where i am going wrong...Gods evolution

When the inner form (pure soul) shines its light though every pore of our being, then our outer form will shine brighter than a thousand suns. and when the world cries for help, i pray that our outer form acts like a lighthouse and that our purity can guide people across the terrifying world ocean.

During my mediations, i have felt energy trickle all over my body including my hair..
these are things you cannot describe to someone when they are focussed on wanting scientific reasoning for keeping their hair. or why we cut our nails. God is your Breath of life...literally, when you start to feel his prescence within you, you will then understand everything you need to know.

Concentrate on your simran to all the confused people...do your scientific research...record your experiences, your obstacles, your feelings every month. You will experience youself evolving that i can promise you  and then god will tell you himself from within whether you should cut your hair or not or keep your nails, whether you should wear nike or adidas


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 20, 2012)

All the answers are within us. This is how naam simran can really help us all individually.

With regards to my own hair, I never gave it much thought before,
I have been mona my whole life which just went with my upbringing. I have now not cut my hair for 10 months or so and it's still growing. If I tell someone that I may keep a khes- they just don't for the slightest believe me since I have always been famous for my hairstyles and dress sense.
Non of this matters to me anymore. Since doing simran/meditation I have actually felt an attachment and strength with the keeping of long hair. It's not Samson or anything like that, that i'm talking about. But I somehow realise that there is power/strength whatever you want to call it with maintaing long hair. The thought of cutting it makes me cringe.
I pray to the Lord to give me this continued strength. I hope I can go ahead and keep a khes. It's not anyones suggestion or even any goal that I set. It is basically an attachment to not being attached to hairstyles..etc... I hope I am able to maintain a khes with dignity. At this very moment in time, I am sure, infact I know I am doing the right thing. What happens in a year from now, I can't say, but I can't think of any strong reasons to keep myself as a mona any more. No one except myself have been involved with this choice of not cutting. Maybe it comes automatically when one starts to purify themselves from within, I can't say for sure. But it just seems the most natural and correct thing to do at this moment in my life. 
Within us all, we can  all determine what is right or wrong, we have had this ability since being little infants. Many of us will say it's just logic, but the answer comes from within us. I may never get this feeling or chance to keep a khes again, so I shall pursue this decision very wisely.
Being a khalsa and within it's image is the perfect example we can set for the young.
Like Chaz ji said, many of us with a khes don't even realise its significance. I am very lucky that I can actually feel it's significance even though i'm mona.
This is all thanks to the almighty creator that pervades everywhere including within us.

Waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 20, 2012)

You dont realise the "Feel Good factor"...until you are GURPARSAAD....bottom line. Most have an attachment to their "looks"...thats why they cut and style...or maybe its recommended becasue Guru ji also advises..Paggh chunn chunn ke bandhi...a dastaar should be vaery carefully and neatly tied...and thats attachment too...a lot of Offices require formal dress in office..others say naything goes..its all a matter of choice..


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

Satnaam Sat Sangat Ji,

Its a Joy reading all your messages...Sangat is all powerful and enlightening.

The truth is nothing on the outside matters when the inside is rotton to the core.
I wear a turban, i stand out at work, in a crowded railway station...wherever i go.
People assume i am a certain way...but within myself i am filled with Ego and Filth...I can try to fool myself into thinking i am pure and a good person...but the negative aspects exist...i can feel them waiting to pounce on me. If i am making no attempt to purify myself of the 5 thieves...then I am a *conman*, and of no use to anyone. My outer dress is meaningless.

akhar parr parr bh*u*l*ee**ai* bh*ae*kh*ee* bah*u*th abh*i*m*aa*n ||
_Reading their books over and over again, people continue making mistakes; they are so proud of their religious robes. Siree Raag 61_ 

ho*u*m*ai* karath bh*ae*kh*ee* neh*ee* j*aa*n*i**aa* ||
_Acting in egotism, the Lord is not known, even by wearing religious robes. Raag Gauree 226_

b*aa*har bh*ae*kh a(n)thar mal m*aa*e*i**aa* ||
*Outwardly, they wear religious robes, but within is the filth of Maya. Raag Gauree 
267 
*
The secret weapon is Simran/Meditation on the Naam of Wahegury Ji. The method with which one can cure all negativity inside them. I am on the path to recovery...I wish all the Sangat would walk down this path with me 

With Purity, your Souls Light will shine brightly...God will walk with you literally...and he will dress you as he pleases..and your life will truely be under his hukam. People will recognise you from your outer dress, and will be guaranteed to get nothing but un-conditional love from you. they will be speaking to God through you....a pure true khalsa 


God bless all.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> You dont realise the "Feel Good factor"...until you are GURPARSAAD....bottom line. Most have an attachment to their "looks"...thats why they cut and style...or maybe its recommended becasue Guru ji also advises..Paggh chunn chunn ke bandhi...a dastaar should be vaery carefully and neatly tied...and thats attachment too...a lot of Offices require formal dress in office..others say naything goes..its all a matter of choice..


 
Attachment is a disease...desire is a disease..

Even the desire to wear a stylish turban so that you look good.
the pride that someone may have in their turban is also a disease.

when this pride and desire and attachement is controled...god will live through us all....It will be God that is tying our turban in the morning, or combing our hair..whether it is Cut or Not. He will keep us as he pleases...

We will be representing God. and he will make sure we are beautifully dressed and changing the lives of the people we meet.

*Daily Simran* and Seva with the knowledge that you are serving Gods creation is the Key to all ailments


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 20, 2012)

ChazSingh ji sorry you are going over board with your generalizations and end game as for as I think.





chazSingh said:


> Attachment is a disease...desire is a disease..
> _
> Calling all these a disease is a disease.  Using your brain to be a fine good looking or pretty person example of creation is not a disease.  Creator did not give us all so we close our eyes and just chant or do simran.  This is a disease of not recognizing the gift of the brain that we are given by the creator.
> _
> ...


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 20, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> ChazSingh ji sorry you are going over board with your generalizations and end game as for as I think.
> Sat Sri Akal.



In Sikhism there does exist a trip switch, a failsafe device designed to kick in to stop Sikhs sitting in mountains with matted hair, it is the diktat that tells us that we must live as householders, as real people, with real feelings, accomplishments, goals, desires.

Chazji, I think you are a fine person, and as stated earlier, your posts always impress me with your devotion, but there is also happiness, joy and pleasure in living as a householder, I have to agree with my Veer Ambarsariaji


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Calling all these a disease is a disease. Using your brain to be a fine good looking or pretty person example of creation is not a disease. Creator did not give us all so we close our eyes and just chant or do simran. This is a disease of not recognizing the gift of the brain that we are given by the creator.
> 
> pa(n)ch b*i*kh*aa*dh*ee* e*ae*k gar*ee*b*aa* r*aa*khah*u* r*aa*khaneh*aa*r*ae* ||
> _The five vicious thieves are assaulting my poor being; save me, O Savior Lord! Raag Gauree
> ...


 
god bless all


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

harry haller said:


> In Sikhism there does exist a trip switch, a failsafe device designed to kick in to stop Sikhs sitting in mountains with matted hair, it is the diktat that tells us that we must live as householders, as real people, with real feelings, accomplishments, goals, desires.
> 
> Chazji, I think you are a fine person, and as stated earlier, your posts always impress me with your devotion, but there is also happiness, joy and pleasure in living as a householder, I have to agree with my Veer Ambarsariaji


 
Satnaam Harry ji,

The beauty if Simran is that it is to be done in the household...and not in the mountains..

Please quote where i have stated that we should sit in the mountains 
We need to keep close to what each other are saying, otherwise we have to keep repeating everything over and over and people stop reading the sangats comments 

Simran is more than chanting...chanting is a mechanical process...
If you add PURE Love (which is god himself, and is infinate), and if we sit, contemplate his greatness, ask him questions, listen to his answers, his guidance, feel his being that exists in each and every pore of yourself...god is your breath of life...feel your breath...vibrate the sounds of gurbani along your breath...feel the gurbani vibration thorughout your body and spine...God is the breathe of your life. Believe it, live it, feel it, experience it....THIS IS SIMRAN my friends... tune into His frequency...he's right there...inside of you.

g*u*ramath n*aa*m m*ae*r*aa* pr*aa*n sakh*aa**ee* har k*ee*rath hamar*ee* rehar*aa*s ||1|| reh*aa*o ||
_Through the Guru's Teachings, the Naam is my breath of life. The Kirtan of the Lord's Praise is my life's occupation. ||1||Pause||_

s*o* k*i*o manah*u* v*i*s*aa*r*ee**ai* j*aa* k*ae* j*ee*a par*aa*n ||
_How can you forget the One who created your soul, and the praanaa, the breath of life?_

j*i*s k*ae* j*ee*a par*aa*n h*ai* man vas*i**ai* s*u*kh h*o*e ||2||
_He is the Giver of the soul, and the praanaa, the breath of life; when He dwells within the mind, there is peace. ||2||_

e*i*kas k*aa* man *aa*sar*aa* e*i*k*o* pr*aa*n adhh*aa*r ||
_The One is the Support of the mind; the One is the Support of the breath of life._

not just a chanting of a mantra.
Let there not be any confusion in gurbani...it is as clear as night and day 

god bless all


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 20, 2012)

chazsingh ji thanks for your post.  Some comments,





chazSingh said:


> Simran is more than chanting...chanting is a mechanical process...
> If  you add PURE Love (which is god himself, and is infinite), and if we  sit, contemplate his greatness, ask him questions, listen to his  answers, his guidance, feel his being that exists in each and every pore  of yourself...god is your breath of life...feel your breath...vibrate  the sounds of gurbani along your breath...feel the gurbani vibration throughout your body and spine...God is the breathe of your life.  Believe it, live it, feel it, experience it....THIS IS SIMRAN my  friends... tune into His frequency...he's right there...inside of you.
> 
> _Above is very well said.__  Thank you.
> ...


Sat Sri Akal and thanks for your post. mundahug


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Above is very well said._ Thank you.
> 
> The only thing to watch is "Excessive Infatuation" with the regimen of Simran. __Whenever we become slaves of habit, techniques, regimens, we lose a lot that our creator gifted mind has to offer._
> A habit by mere definition one does almost without thinking...please re-read my personal experience and definition of Simran.
> ...


 
God bless all the Sangat


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 20, 2012)

Chazji

If this works for you then godspeed on your journey, I need to find a way of expressing myself being at odds with your thoughts without sounding like I am being critical, or that you are on the wrong path. I think you are absolutely on the right path for you, you certainly make the right noises on that front. 

What concerns me slightly is that those reading who cannot feel the connection you feel, or who have an aversion to the sort of relationship you have, like myself. We need to reassure those that feel this way that all is not lost, there are many different relationships to have with Creator, some can attain the same feeling through works and understanding, certainly that is how I get my connection, simran does absolutely nothing for me, but it is not a competition, we must all help each other but also accept that there are many ways to Mukti not only within Sikhism but outside of Sikhism too


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Kindly explain why our Gurus dressed as Royalty and were always very well turned out and also carried themselves with style and bearing
> 
> Satnaam Harry Ji,
> 
> ...


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 20, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Chazji
> 
> If this works for you then godspeed on your journey, I need to find a way of expressing myself being at odds with your thoughts without sounding like I am being critical, or that you are on the wrong path. I think you are absolutely on the right path for you, you certainly make the right noises on that front.
> 
> What concerns me slightly is that those reading who cannot feel the connection you feel, or who have an aversion to the sort of relationship you have, like myself. We need to reassure those that feel this way that all is not lost, there are many different relationships to have with Creator, some can attain the same feeling through works and understanding, certainly that is how I get my connection, simran does absolutely nothing for me, but it is not a competition, we must all help each other but also accept that there are many ways to Mukti not only within Sikhism but outside of Sikhism too


 
Satnaam Harry Ji,

god bless you...you are correct...i too dont want to just tell the sangat that Simran is the only way...or my way is the correct way...

We need to experiment with everything and something will work for us...
that is why i always tell people to give Simran a try, daily for a few months...without missing a day...try it...record your feelings and experiences..

I pray we give everything a try with an open mind and not restrict anyone by implanting our opinions.

The quotes in gurbani are there for a reason...so that we try and experiement and experience...

appologies to the sangat if i come across in a negative or forceful way..

god bless all


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 20, 2012)

Of course, don't knock it until you've tried it. I mean really tried it.
You can only gain.
Harry ji, you seem to feel that it doesn't do anything for you, but did you really try it from completely within. There's a treasure within us all, it's how we find it that is important. If religion helps then use whatever faith you wish. If finding yourself helps then go ahead, if charity or seva help then be it.
Whatever path we take, the lord is not going to mind or give brownie points. Whatever religion,faith or ritual used the lord is still not going to mind. As long as we can blend and vibrate in the same frequency and light that is the lord is all that matters.
By sharing our experiences and success if one get's encouraged and gains this can only be good and beneficial for all mankind.

Satnaam Waheguru


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Mar 22, 2012)

ambarsaria said:


> chazsingh ji sorry you are going over board with your generalizations and end game as for as i think.
> Sat sri akal.



Well said, Ambersaria ji.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 22, 2012)

Gentlemen, 

I have been musing about this for the last few days..

We are all at different stages in our lives, some of us are fighting, every day, fighting to survive, fighting to move forward, fighting to sustain, and some of us just have to accept. 

Allow me to explain, the fifth master, when he was on a boiling hot tava, surrounded by guards, and bearing in mind he had a statement to make, was in a mood of acceptance. He needed to show his captors that no matter what they did to him, he would accept it with grace as Hukam. Contrast this to the tenth master, at war with his enemies, was he in a mood to accept defeat? no, never. 

If I were on a hot plate, I would want to be doing simram, I would want to escape to the depth of my mind and connect with the molecule of Creator and find a way to rise above what was happening around me. However, if I were on a battleground, it would be the last thing I would want to do, I would want to fight, and to be alert and extremely aware of my surroundings. 

Personally, my life is a fight. My wife and I are getting close to our fifties with no assets to our name whatsoever. This is not the time for simran, this is the time to use every available resource and make a reasonable nest so that if illness comes to us, we are ready and able to deal with it, without taking a begging bowl to our relatives. Neither of us are in the best of health, but we are happy and we are at peace working our way through this with the blessings of Creator on us as we cut a path through the rough and plan our future. Meditation or simran is not going to help us, it is not going to advance us, it is not going to pay my medical bills, or put food on the table, if I was to believe it was, that then opens the door to superstition, (is not Guruji wonderful, he put food on the table because of our simran), this is not the Sikhism I wish to be part of, the worship/reward cycle can be seen in many other religions, Guru Nanak was completely aware of this, which is why if you read Mool Mantra it is patently obvious that Sikhism is an extremely pragmatic religion which shies away from the blind faith and reliance on miracles that are so popular elsewhere. 

Chazji, I put it to you that your life is one of acceptance, in which case you are doing exactly the right thing for you, which is simran to gain strength to accept, but mine is one of fight, which is why I cannot even contemplate simran in any other way than in a physical manner, by which I mean to focus, to understand, to implement, to work hard, to set goals, to achieve those goals, to be prepared, but all in the spirit of Sikhi, in a manner befitting a Sikh. 

That is my take on this subject


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 22, 2012)

jasbirkaleka said:


> Well said, Ambersaria ji.


Satnaam Jasbir Ji,

Lets please give your reasoning for a certain belief or interpretation.

It would be interesting to know why you feel a certain way or where you think Shabad Guru Ji will ferry you to


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 22, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I have been musing about this for the last few days..
> 
> ...


 
God bless all


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 22, 2012)

Chazji

There was a time not so long ago, I could have accepted what you say and understood, but the more you write, the more I am convinced that what you are suggesting is Udasi Sikhism.

_Satnaam Harry Ji, you have explained the Guru ji's actions with the emotions of your mind as they understand things in the finite world. We cannot even for a second describe the state of the guru's being.

I disagree, the Guru's were human beings, just like you and me, We aspire to be like them, and I believe it is possible to be like them. It is not possible to aspire to be Creator, but the Gurus achieved what mortal human beings achieved as a shining example to us all. 

 If you were One with God, Connected to each molicule of the creation and everything beyond. Saw only god in everything...who can hurt you? who can upset you? who can defeat you? If all is god, where is the enemy? who is the enemy if all is God? It's only when your consciousness starts to expand the limitations of your mind through Simran can any one if us start to understand this. 5th Master saw no enemies, His enemy was the 5 thieves that controlled the beautiful souls that lay within the moghul soldiers (yes, they had BEAUTIFUL SOULS)...please understand this (the 5 THIEVES were the enemy)... and by Gods grace he accepted NO DEFEAT by his actions....He showed to everyone, including the minds that carried out the act that you can destroy the dust that is our physical body, but the God in each of us you cannot destroy. He already knew that Death does not exist...that there is no Death of the Consciousness that resides in us. He could have turned the world upside down and destroyed these so called enemies with the mere thought...but what would that have showed the rest of us, the rest of us that are being held by our hair by the 5 thieves also? the whole world would have been attached to the site of the Miracle instead of the divine meaning in the actions itself (which is the true miracle)

Sorry, but again, I would press that the Gurus were human beings incapable of miracles. They had no more ability to destroy their enemies with magic than I could. To suggest that miracles could exist is in my view a gross insult to the achievement of enlightenment that existed in the 10 Masters. Miracles are for magicians not pragmatic realistic focused humans. 

All these actions are there to spark something inside all of us...to make us stop and think for a second the deep meaning behind these actions...to connect us even for a second to our heart and soul and think
_
_On the battle gound, with a thousand swords and spears heading your way...would you have the time and thought to want to stop, aid the wounds of this so called enemy? would you put gold on each of your arrows to aid the families of the dead who hit the might of your arrows?
when all they want to do is kill you and hang you out to dry.
On the battlefield when you saw the anger and hate of the enemy would you be able to see the light of their souls and want to free them of their diluded minds?
_

Please spare me the bleeding heart liberal view here, Bhai Kanhaiya did not go round helping soldiers in the thick of battle, he helped all soldiers, Sikh and Muslim, after the battle. Again gold arrowheads were applied before fighting, not during. As for seeing the anger and hate on the battlefield, all I can say is I am glad that the battle was fought by Nihangs, who were known for their ferocity rather than their ability to see the light in the enemy. There is a time for seeing light in everyone, and there is a time to smite the enemy. If a man breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to attempt to see his light, or break his neck?

_Mool Mantra describes also your true potential...your TRUE IDENTITY i.e SATNAAM, that your true identity is fearless, that your true identity is without hate, that you have been since the dawn of time, through the ages and forever shall be....that you came from the one EK, from his sound (ONG) and now exist within his creation (KAAR). what lies in you...your true being is the Sat Naam that when you realise who you are...you wont be worrying about your nest...or how much money you have saved...that when you give you mind body and soul to the guru and serve him, that the whole universe will serve you...the guru will take care of everything....you will see no difference in good or bad._

This stands for everything within Sikhism I find offensive, the Guru will not take care of everything, the only person that can take care of me is me! Suggesting that I do not worry about my financial future and spend the rest of my days in quiet contemplation of Guruji is not how I see Sikhism. Sikhism gives us the tools to live in Mukti every day, by gaining knowledge and enlightenment we can follow Hukam through understanding, not by passing the buck. This is in my view a very dangerous path that breeds ritual, superstition and expectation. 


_The shabad guru - sounds of the vibrations of the gurbani that destrys the EGO which is telling you that you have no time for Simran and that it's pointless..._

If its sounds we are talking about rather than meanings, then the latest pop song could do the same trick

Chazji, if what you do works for you then great, but what I do, works for me, and without the need for me to attempt to preach or convert others. 

I have no time for pixies, goblins, fantasies, miracles or pleasing God. All I know is the truth and the truthful way to live,. 

Apologies for my bluntness, but I have been biting my tongue on this for a while, forgive me  if I have offended you in any way, that is not my intention, but readers should be aware of the two sides to the coin


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 22, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Chazji
> 
> There was a time not so long ago, I could have accepted what you say and understood, but the more you write, the more I am convinced that what you are suggesting is Udasi Sikhism.
> 
> ...


 
God bless the Sangat


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 22, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Chazji
> 
> There was a time not so long ago, I could have accepted what you say and understood, but the more you write, the more I am convinced that what you are suggesting is Udasi Sikhism.
> 
> ...


 
God bless all


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 22, 2012)

Satnaam Harry Ji,

First time I have come across this term Udasi Sikhism 
My views have honestly just come from my reading of gurbani, sitting in the gurdwara and meditating/simran because that is what i thought Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was telling me...

I may be doing wrong...but my heart is yearning...calling out...
is this a bad thing? and does it belong only to some sect or version of sikhi?

Absolutely not, you are following your heart, just like I follow mine, I am pleased that you are finding your own path, its brilliant to read, and its brilliant to follow, I would never ever ask you to change your path or your thinking, just allow that other Sikhs exist that do not share your thoughts, and have their own way, their own path, my way has been through women, drugs, gambling,prison,bankruptcy excesses in all areas, that is how I gained my understanding, by having the **** kicked out of me through my actions in life, I would no more advocate this as a useful way of learning than I would advocate the path you have chosen. It is not how we came to our conclusions that is important, it is our conclusions themselves. 

We both appear to have the same conclusions, and that is wonderful, but there appears to be a pattern of insisting others try the same things that have brought you to your path, this can make some people insecure or unsure about their own path, I do not like to see this, all paths can be valid, even one as disgusting as mine, but you cannot see into anothers heart or know what it will take to make them see enlightenment, your pressing of others to do Simran could end up making a pragmatic and practical person lose himself in Simran in the hope that 'god will take care of everything' and have awful consequences. It is not a responsibility I would want............


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 22, 2012)

The method is to experiement... 

what we shouldnt say is that something is right and something is wrong...
what we should be doing is sharing experiences and wishing all the very best if they try certain methods...and to come back and share those experiences...

and that is all it is....


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 22, 2012)

chazSingh said:


> The method is to experiement...
> 
> what we shouldnt say is that something is right and something is wrong...
> what we should be doing is sharing experiences and wishing all the very best if they try certain methods...and to come back and share those experiences...
> ...


One person's remedy can be a poison for some other mode.

Search the Homeopathic Remedy "Lachesis" and see how it works.  A wonderful remedy for the right symptoms and person.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 23, 2012)

Harry ji,

I am responding to your post because it contains a few points I'd like to address. And I am going to be straightforward, but I hope that this will have a positive effect sometime down the road.




> I disagree, the Guru's were human beings, just like you and me, We aspire to be like them, and I believe it is possible to be like them.



You don't aspire to be like anyone. To think in such terms is to be moved by conceit and blinded by ignorance. Just because we are all humans doesn’t mean that we are equal in terms of potential for good and evil. You hear words of wisdom with regard to what is right and wrong course of action and you appreciate this in accordance to your level of understanding / accumulations. To think to emulate and be like anyone is to be driven by attachment and conceit instead of knowing who you are. This latter is the only valid base from which any further development in wisdom and other good can happen, because otherwise it is overreaching and we end up deluding ourselves.




> Sorry, but again, I would press that the Gurus were human beings incapable of miracles. They had no more ability to destroy their enemies with magic than I could. To suggest that miracles could exist is in my view a gross insult to the achievement of enlightenment that existed in the 10 Masters. Miracles are for magicians not pragmatic realistic focused humans.



Whether or not any particular person is capable of miracles, this you know not by comparing yourself with others. Because when this is the case, it is conceit and not the understanding of the moment to moment experiences whereby one comes to get a glimpse as to one's own limitations, namely the pasture around which one's thinking moves. Enlightenment includes the knowledge about what happens within the spectrum and also what is above and below.




> As for seeing the anger and hate on the battlefield, all I can say is I am glad that the battle was fought by Nihangs, who were known for their ferocity rather than their ability to see the light in the enemy. There is a time for seeing light in everyone, and there is a time to smite the enemy. If a man breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to attempt to see his light, or break his neck?



You suggest that others are taking a dangerous path, but what you state above is one of the grossest forms of wrong understanding and very dangerous. 

Whatever was behind the actions of those people, you are however making what is essentially evil appear as good in your attempt to explain and justify. Ferocious and not seeing the good in the enemy is obviously not an instance of kindness or of compassion. Is it moral restraint, generosity, sympathetic joy, shame and fear of wrong doing? Is it motivated by faith in good? Obviously not. So what is it? 

Sounds like aversion to me. But not only this, there is also a sense of self-righteousness there. And you also suggested that “there is a time for seeing light in everyone, and there is a time to smite the enemy”. And so we have, discouragement of kindness, promoting aversion, promoting killing and encouraging conceit. And given that you distinguish enemy from friend the way you do, it is likely that what you feel toward the latter is not kindness but in fact attachment and this is what you end up encouraging in the process. 

Which direction are you facing and where do you expect to arrive?!!

A wise man once said to the effect that, the person who answers to anger with anger is worse of the two. This is because he acts out with anger in spite of just having experienced how unpleasant it is to be the receiver of anger. This wise man then suggested that reacting to anger with kindness is equivalent to a battle hard won. 

So really there is no enemy other than one's own defilements and no victory except when wisdom and other kinds of good arise! What do you think differentiates a wise man from a fool? Is it not that the fool acts out his ignorance, attachment, aversion and does not know what is the correct Path to take? Is not the wise man one who does not react to other people’s wrong with wrong but in seeing the value of good, acts accordingly?

We all have a lot of defilements, and knowing myself, I'm quite sure that I’d try to kill anyone who is a threat to the lives of those I am attached to. But do I think that this is a good thing? No I do not. What I see is that attachment is harmful, so is conceit and aversion. What I understand also, is that worse of all is wrong understanding, especially when this leads to justifying evil. Because while I still have so much defilements and aeons away from being rid of them, I know that if I don't understand them for what they are, I'd end up not only increasing but actually *encouraging* them. 

So the first step is always Wisdom. Indeed it is that which is in between as well as what is in the end. Otherwise we have attempts for example, to fight the five thieves but invariably encourage attachment to self, conceit and other kinds of evil. But this is another topic which if you are interested, we can discuss.

Back to the topic above; given that your view regarding what is good and bad, right and wrong is one which is dependent on the context, I wonder if this is the reason why you resist the teachings regarding karma. Since the law of cause and effect which is karma dictates that for every action there is a corresponding result, meaning good deeds results in good effects and bad deeds in bad, this doesn't allow for the kind of justification for evil deeds as you have done above. 

When placed in context of a given situation, not only any good is made to inflate and evil overlooked, but as above, the evil is made to appear good, all by force of attachment, conceit and wrong understanding. And this is being irresponsible and shows lack of courage and sincerity. Instead of knowing and accepting that one has little capacity for good and much unwholesome tendencies, one hides behind a 'situation' painted, which then serves not only to fool oneself, but other people as well.




> Chazji, if what you do works for you then great, but what I do, works for me, and without the need for me to attempt to preach or convert others.



And I have to say that I am put off by such kind of suggestions especially when in what preceded you were making the point about how wrong Chaz’s views are in light of your knowledge about Sikh teachings. But perhaps you want to explain more…..?




> I have no time for pixies, goblins, fantasies, miracles or pleasing God. All I know is the truth and the truthful way to live,.



You say this, but I doubt it. Your confidence with regard to the unreality of pixies, goblins etc. and the wrongness of trying to please God, appears to be due simply to holding onto a different set of illusions and not to knowing the Truth. Sorry.




> Apologies for my bluntness, but I have been biting my tongue on this for a while, forgive me if I have offended you in any way, that is not my intention, but readers should be aware of the two sides to the coin



And don’t mind my bluntness. There are some good intentions here. ;-)


----------



## gurjeet1972 (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Harinder Kaur Ji,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my query. I  appreciate that you have tried to respond using logic and reason as I  was indeed looking for such an answer. After all logical and critical  thinking is what separates true path from blind superstitious beliefs.
> 
> ...



Gurfateh

My elders have informed me that our Gurus have laid their life for the sake of humanity.  Our tenth Guru Gobind Singh JI has founded the Khalsa panth . While fighting with moughals to save the people of punjab our guruji wandered from place to place helping the needy from the tortures of moughals .They used to ride horses so fast to reach the places for immediate help with their fellow men many used to get hurt while learning the skills of warrior . They used to wander from place to place had no time for hair cut.  They cleaned and maintained their hair and protected the soft part of the skull by making jura(rolling hair) and tied a cloth i.e. turban which protected the head/skull as an helmet. The nihaangs used to put a khanda around their turbans.  Which protected them from head injury. A group was organised to save people like this. They were identified with their roop(dressing of turban).  Then many women have also joined the group.  As they never stayed at one place and had to rush immediatedly they use to wear long knickers called kacchera which was very easy for them to climb or mount the horse at the time of immediate action. Women in the group also had to bathe it was advised to wear long kaccheras  and keep kirpaans with them and  wear karas for their protection.   since then to maintain cleanlinesss of the hair a kanga is kept along with hair .  all the five Ks kanga kesh kachhera kada and kirpan had become the identity of this warrior kaum.  When khalsa panth's sajna diwas was held on baisakhi in the year 1699 since then they have become our identity.


as then they had no time cook food and wait for long time . The quick energy giving Kada parshad was cooked and distributed among all the warrior group after the ardaas wand ke chhako.  so it was cut by the kirpaan for dividing and distributing


are u convinced now


----------



## Parma (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



gurjeet1972 said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> My elders have informed me that our Gurus have laid their life for the sake of humanity. Our tenth Guru Gobind Singh JI has founded the Khalsa panth . While fighting with moughals to save the people of punjab our guruji wandered from place to place helping the needy from the tortures of moughals .They used to ride horses so fast to reach the places for immediate help with their fellow men many used to get hurt while learning the skills of warrior . They used to wander from place to place had no time for hair cut. They cleaned and maintained their hair and protected the soft part of the skull by making jura(rolling hair) and tied a cloth i.e. turban which protected the head/skull as an helmet. The nihaangs used to put a khanda around their turbans. Which protected them from head injury. A group was organised to save people like this. They were identified with their roop(dressing of turban). Then many women have also joined the group. As they never stayed at one place and had to rush immediatedly they use to wear long knickers called kacchera which was very easy for them to climb or mount the horse at the time of immediate action. Women in the group also had to bathe it was advised to wear long kaccheras and keep kirpaans with them and wear karas for their protection. since then to maintain cleanlinesss of the hair a kanga is kept along with hair . all the five Ks kanga kesh kachhera kada and kirpan had become the identity of this warrior kaum. When khalsa panth's sajna diwas was held on baisakhi in the year 1699 since then they have become our identity.
> 
> ...


 
No, I am not convinced with that explaination, because your saying they never had time to get a hair cut, but they had time to forge Kara's from steel for each individual, they had time to forge kirpans, they had time to do simran, they had time for a bath, they had time to have family lives, they had time to cut nails, yet they never had time for a hair cut, *non-sense!*
lollol lol lol lol


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 25, 2012)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



gurjeet1972 said:


> Gurfateh
> 
> My elders have informed me that our Gurus have laid their life for the sake of humanity. Our tenth Guru Gobind Singh JI has founded the Khalsa panth . While fighting with moughals to save the people of punjab our guruji wandered from place to place helping the needy from the tortures of moughals .They used to ride horses so fast to reach the places for immediate help with their fellow men many used to get hurt while learning the skills of warrior . They used to wander from place to place had no time for hair cut. They cleaned and maintained their hair and protected the soft part of the skull by making jura(rolling hair) and tied a cloth i.e. turban which protected the head/skull as an helmet. The nihaangs used to put a khanda around their turbans. Which protected them from head injury. A group was organised to save people like this. They were identified with their roop(dressing of turban). Then many women have also joined the group. As they never stayed at one place and had to rush immediatedly they use to wear long knickers called kacchera which was very easy for them to climb or mount the horse at the time of immediate action. Women in the group also had to bathe it was advised to wear long kaccheras and keep kirpaans with them and wear karas for their protection. since then to maintain cleanlinesss of the hair a kanga is kept along with hair . all the five Ks kanga kesh kachhera kada and kirpan had become the identity of this warrior kaum. When khalsa panth's sajna diwas was held on baisakhi in the year 1699 since then they have become our identity.
> 
> ...


 
Parmaji I agree, this is non-sense. Even my very young kids wouldn't buy this explanation.
They had no time for haircut is why sikhs maintain long hair and all they ate was karaah. This is a joke, I can't believe that Gurjeet is actually being serious. I won't comment any further, but to any young youths or newbies, they need to be aware that these comments and this theory is ridiculous and shouldn't even be considered for one moment.
Sikhism was NOT designed as a 'convenience' religion-- Far from it.
I'm going to go and wash my hair, I think I still have time, yet if I had short hair it would take me less time.!!!!

Waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## panj (Mar 25, 2012)

@ skeptic.freethinker1, 

trees shed leaves, (law of the nature) for leaves to grow next season  and so forth (follow a path/process). 

The part of the nails which doesn't feel nothing is treated as desired by the human action. The part of the nail which does feel something, can hurt, if treated for the same desired result. (even though the action is to cut). Hair (all over the body), is treated as desired by the human action. 

The resulting action may hurt (in different ways) or may not. The human action, applied (where, when, why....etc) determines the result (physical/psychological etc). Personal hygiene in a constructive manner is important.

hope it helps fellow SPN'er!


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 26, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> One person's remedy can be a poison for some other mode.
> 
> Search the Homeopathic Remedy "Lachesis" and see how it works. A wonderful remedy for the right symptoms and person.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


 
Satnaam Ambarsaria ji,

In gurbani (and i'm hoping it is gurbani we are trying to live and breath?)
it is clear as night and day as to the utmost importance of simran. we cannot and we should NEVER remove it's importance on every human being on this planet regardless of their life situation.

prabh kaa simaran sabh thae oochaa ||
The remembrance of God is the highest and most exalted of all.

how can we remember something we have not experienced or found? If you've never eaten an apple, how can you sit in rememberance of the taste of an apple? But what if you've already tasted the apple but have forgotton over countless lifetimes? is the process of simran to clear our minds so that we can re-establish our true selves...our true identity...satnaam...that we have experienced before but only forgotton throught he grasp of our diluded minds.

prabh kai simaran oudhharae moochaa ||
In the remembrance of God, many are saved.

prabh kai simaran sabh kishh sujhai ||
In the remembrance of God, all things are known 

prabh kai simaran man kee mal jaae ||
In the remembrance of God, the filth of the mind is removed 

Again, reference to simran providing the tool to remove the filth of our minds, which we all are infected with. 

a(n)mrith naam ridh maahi samaae ||
The Ambrosial Naam, the Name of the Lord, is absorbed into the heart.

After effects of daily Simran with full love and devotion to the supreme lord?


naanak simaran poorai bhaag ||6||
O Nanak, this meditative remembrance comes only by perfect destiny. ||6|| 

May we all be blessed with the thirst, the grace, the motivation from within to start daily Simran and bit by bit remove the stanglehold of the mind and start to experience our real true selves...our true identity which can only be divine in nature...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 26, 2012)

panj said:


> @ skeptic.freethinker1,
> 
> trees shed leaves, (law of the nature) for leaves to grow next season  and so forth (follow a path/process).
> 
> ...


_Folks add to all this the natural laws.  Apparently every hair on the body gets replenished over six months.  So we lose and grow hair continuously and nature by self defines how long and where.  winkingmunda.  So nature does not have special preference or love for hair as much as somehow we want to make it or the way we try to make it.
_
Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 26, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> _Folks add to all this the natural laws. Apparently every hair on the body gets replenished over six months. So we lose and grow hair continuously and nature by self defines how long and where. winkingmunda. So nature does not have special preference or love for hair as much as somehow we want to make it or the way we try to make it._
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


 
Nice one, this is an actual fact. Infact we do more damage to our hair with shampoos and conditioners. If we just cleansed with water, sure the hair get's extremely greasy at first and  for a few months, but after some months it starts replenishing itself and the greasiness and limpness resides and it becomes more full bodied and healthier. This is a fact that many have witnessed.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2012)

Confusedji

firstly you still owe me a reply for my last post addressing yours 

I do aspire to be like the Gurus, I aspire for the clarity of vision, for the calmness, for the ability to see the truth. I do know who I am, and sometimes it is not a pretty sight, what else is Hukam, other than aspiring to be like Creator with Creators values? I do this in the hope that the part of me I dislike so much can be shed. 

It is important that I do not believe in miracles, believing in such opens a a whole new universe where the laws of nature can be bent at will by Creator, I do not believe this, I believe that Creator allows us to make our own decisions, and judgement is given by Creation. If I believed in miracles, I could well spend all my time appeasing God in the hope something good will happen, instead of living by Bani in the hope that this will provide a better outcome from Creation. 

As far as the Nihangs go, if you are going into battle, you better do it with every mental and physical weapon open to you, when the time comes to fight, one must fight, with anger and hate, your survival depends on it. however, I can see your point of view, it is something I will think about tonight. 

I cannot answer your question on direction, again I will give this some thought

If you could explain how answering anger with kindness on a battlefield works, I would be grateful, as I cannot, with respect see how this works. 

I would like to think of wisdom as the eternal universal truth, the proper way to act in any situation, I would be the first to admit that my wisdom is flawed, I am learning like all of us here

I have a big problem with Karma, unless we are talking in the single life, with effects and consequences in this life. I would also say that not all good deeds have good effects, giving to beggars could be seen as a good deed with potentially bad effect, same as spoiling a child, or lending another money, it can result in dependence, I guess wisdom tells us what is a good deed and what is not, but I do not think good deeds are hugely obvious taken at face value, tough love can be a good deed, although not immediately apparent. 

I have shifted my view hugely, what I believe is for me and for me alone, I have huge respect for other beliefs and interpretation. I apologise if I have come across as arrogant. 

In my heart I feel I know the truth, however, I never said that I practice it, my posts are clearly written by someone that may well know some truths, but it is implementing what I know, and I seem to be struggling with that, having said that, when I was a child, on a regular basis, I would throw everything in the air and start again, I feel like I am doing this now with my approach to Sikhism, I rather feel like I am in a game of snakes and ladders, and I have just slid down a huge snake. 

I think your post is more spot on than I would care to admit to myself, I will comment again tomorrow, 

and you still owe me a reply


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 27, 2012)

> and you still owe me a reply


 
Veer Ji No one owes you a reply ,it is each members right to post or not post ,respond or not respond,since we each possess autonomy ,we should never coerce replies as it is not the 'done thing'.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Confusedji
> 
> firstly you still owe me a reply for my last post addressing yours
> 
> ...


 God Bless all.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 28, 2012)

Harry ji,




> firstly you still owe me a reply for my last post addressing yours



I don't recall. Can you please direct me to the particular post?



> I do aspire to be like the Gurus, I aspire for the clarity of vision, for the calmness, for the ability to see the truth.



You see, when being reminded about particular good qualities, you appreciate the value and know that they should be developed. But to think in terms of another person having those qualities and wanting to be like him, this is an instance of conceit and desire and these are *not* worthy of encouragement. 



> I do know who I am, and sometimes it is not a pretty sight, what else is Hukam, other than aspiring to be like Creator with Creators values? I do this in the hope that the part of me I dislike so much can be shed.



This to me sounds like the ultimate conceit. First you attribute all that “you” think is good onto one entity, give it power of control over all there is, and then say that you want to emulate that entity. 

When wisdom arises to know the presence of some unwholesome state, there is detachment by virtue of the understanding. Conceit is unwholesome, but to be put off by it because “you” have conceit is just more conceit. Likewise to be averse to anger is just more anger, and to hope to be without desire is actually more desire. In other words you fall into the trap of those same mental qualities which at some point you have understood as being harmful. This shows lack of wisdom and the detachment which necessarily comes with it.



> It is important that I do not believe in miracles, believing in such opens a a whole new universe where the laws of nature can be bent at will by Creator, I do not believe this, I believe that Creator allows us to make our own decisions, and judgement is given by Creation. If I believed in miracles, I could well spend all my time appeasing God in the hope something good will happen, instead of living by Bani in the hope that this will provide a better outcome from Creation.



I don't believe in miracles either, but I take it that you also reject such things as supernormal powers, in which I'll have to point out that believing in this is not mutually exclusive to understanding the causes and conditions which lead to increased morality and other kinds of good. Good accumulates by virtue of it having arisen and grows as a result of understanding the value. Trying to please God and anybody with aim of getting something for oneself is desire, and desire is of course an unwholesome mental reality which in fact is cause for unpleasant results in the future. 



> As far as the Nihangs go, if you are going into battle, you better do it with every mental and physical weapon open to you, when the time comes to fight, one must fight, with anger and hate, your survival depends on it. however, I can see your point of view, it is something I will think about tonight.
> 
> I cannot answer your question on direction, again I will give this some thought



And while you are thinking about it you might like to consider that the issue is not about how a battle is fought, but to battle at all. And if one is obliged to go into battle because one happens to have joined the army thinking at the time, that there would never be a need to go to battle, one may instead use force to capture the enemies rather than kill them……



> If you could explain how answering anger with kindness on a battlefield works, I would be grateful, as I cannot, with respect see how this works.



Above is one example. Another as you would know is working as a medic. Indeed if you perchance became enlightened during a battle, you'd be completely incapable of killing even an insect, not to speak of human beings. Therefore you may end up being killed if you can't escape the situation, but this won’t however be a cause for even the slightest regret.

But before you come to this point you'd have to consider, if joining the army means that you must fight, why join the army then?



> I would like to think of wisdom as the eternal universal truth, the proper way to act in any situation, I would be the first to admit that my wisdom is flawed, I am learning like all of us here



What you suggested before is what most people who don’t follow any religion are inclined to believe. But Sikhism as far as I know, teaches about the wrongness of krodh and the value of ‘love’ does it not? Would it not then be that in all situations the former is to be discouraged and the latter encouraged? The problem is when there is ignorance and one just reacts as before, either with attachment or with aversion. But this is easy isn’t it, and easy too that this is followed by wrong understanding which seeks to justify the attachment and aversion such as in suggesting that there is a time for kindness and a time to express anger? What is difficult is for wisdom to arise to condition the appropriate action because this goes against the stream which we otherwise simply are swept along.



> I have a big problem with Karma, unless we are talking in the single life, with effects and consequences in this life.



Well that is the problem, you are inclined to define reality in terms of what you perceive and have no mind to question the nature of the perception itself. If what you perceive is conditioned by ignorance and wrong understanding, then your objection towards karma reflects the wrong understanding. 

If you think about moral cause and effect as being for example, you steal and are caught and put into jail, then you are actually overlooking certain things which actually reflect the workings of karma. Karma is a mental reality which behaves according to its own law, therefore if you insist on the kind of cause and effect involving “you” from the moment of your birth till the time that you die, then you are insisting on going by the kind of observation which is dependent on agreed upon convention and not on truth /reality.

Karma as cause is actually the intention accompanying mental states such as craving, aversion, jealousy and so on on one side and kindness, giving, morality and understanding on the other. These are not “you” doing this or doing that in a given situation. The results of karma are the experience through the five senses, but also birth, life (life continuum) and death are results of karma. Should these be thought about as being “you” facing this or that situation? Absolutely not. 

If we are caught up in stories about “me” and the situations of my life instead of thinking in terms of precise mental and physical phenomena, then it is to be expected that you either will believe in karma or you will not. But just as the former does not reflect real understanding about the way things are, neither is the latter making any statement about truth and reality. What actually takes place is rejection of karma due to making a different kind of observation and having different set of beliefs about cause and effect.

For someone who has arrived at the conclusion that the right course of action is dependent on the situation such that sometimes kindness is called for but at another time anger, this is clear evidence that indeed the mode of observation is wrong and possibility of understanding karma very remote.



> I would also say that not all good deeds have good effects, giving to beggars could be seen as a good deed with potentially bad effect, same as spoiling a child, or lending another money, it can result in dependence, I guess wisdom tells us what is a good deed and what is not, but I do not think good deeds are hugely obvious taken at face value, tough love can be a good deed, although not immediately apparent.



You are involved in a kind of observation which does not distinguish correctly, between moral cause and effect. Giving is karma, a cause, and the result of this is not something that the beggar or child does with your gift. What he does is his karma or cause for results that will only come to him later in the form of good or bad experiences through the senses or as rebirth, which of course is unpredictable. And although some instances of giving are preceded by ignorance and desire and others by wisdom which then makes a difference to the quality of the giving, the giving itself is however always good. Lending money is of course not giving, it is business and conditioned by desire. 

When you suggested, “I do not think good deeds are hugely obvious taken at face value, tough love can be a good deed, although not immediately apparent”, what you appear to have in mind is not the particular mind state arisen with the intention to act, but the short or long term response of the other person. But this is not the way one thinks about moral cause and effect and what is good and bad.

Good is good and encouraged by virtue of the fact that particular mental phenomena is seen by wisdom to have some positive quality while at the same time seeing harm in the opposite. This means that you do good for its own sake and not discriminate for example, between who we should be kind to and who not. In the case of giving indiscriminately resulting in the recipient's misuse of the gift, if prior knowledge about the possibility was present, this simply reflects lack of discriminative power, but it does not make the giving somehow wrong.

I am leaving out the rest of your post and hope to be able to say more when responding to any subsequent response from you. And also I owe a reply to you, so please don’t forget to direct me to that one.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 28, 2012)

Confusedji

My apologies, you did reply, I must have missed it, so it is me that owes you a reply


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2012)

Satnaam Confused Ji,

You make some very valid points.

Life is a constant evaluation of oneself...I spent most of my life blaming things on others...looking for outwardly reasons for everything...sometimes blaming god.
God has put me in some testing situations...and i honestly believe if it wasnt for my now love and dedication for Simran that I would have reacted in many situations with Anger, Hate, Ego etc etc...

I spent 3 years of my life 'looking for a wife' my parents were actively looking...i was meeting girls with a view to getting married. I thought of myself as religious...went to the gurdwara...etc etc my view was that i was a really nice guy that didnt do much wrong....and i was seeking similar attributes in a wife to myself.

When i eventually got married, my now wifes character started to come out...she wasnt interested in God, infact she stated she 'hates' the thought of god. She once screamed out "what will you find in that big book of ours". She's now stated she wants to cut the hair of any future kids because she "cannot be bothered with the hassle", she doesnt want to go to the temple...or do any Seva... she's very self centered. I started to wonder what i have done to get into such a relationship. I've been threatened by her family because she complained to them that we don't have enough money (when we do). 

you see marriage is there so that you can come face to face with your own negatives. Theres no escaping it...marriage is like a mirror.
In anger my wife has shouted "you think you're religious, but you've not done this...and you dont do that...and sometimes you can come across like this and that" 
I could have reacted in anger...got involved in many arguments but i started to self evaluate...rather than look at my wifes negatives...i realised i wasnt putting the effort in to do Simran, wasnt doing much Seva at all, wasnt sharing my earning with people that are in need.... i was static...she pointed out so many of my negatives..

So i started a regular daily Simran/meditaton...i'm always looking for ways to do Seva now, and to start giving more... meeting my wife has been a blessing...she is a blessing..

But, we are completely different characters at the moment. I almost have a seperate life to her (in terms of my spirituality)...what do I do?

Do i run, have a divorce? nope...i put my faith in guru Ji that whatever situation he puts me into i will accept...and in the meantime i will continue my Simran, Seva (which is also to serve my wife) and to share with others. good can come out of any situation that may appear bad.

In one situation, my wife had a 2 hour bout of Extreme Anger...she was throwing things, breaking things, shouting the most disgusting abuse...and all i did was sit there...in complete calm, observing....she threatened to leave me for the 5th time...so i picked up a small suitcase and gently started putting her clothes into it.

She stopped...and there was a deafening silence...she asked what i was doing...
I said..."you seem really unhappy and keep threatening to leave...i;ll help you pack your bags...this is not a prison, you're free to leave anytime..."

Since that day her anger has subsided...her threats of leaving have dissapeared.

for me this is all the power of simran....to reduce attachment...the fear of losing something, to subdue anger, jelousey, desire 


God bless all.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 28, 2012)

Confusedji

I will confess to being devoid of my normal calmness at present, there are events going on in which although I show no outward signs of anger, inwardly, yes I am angry, agitated. Reading my posts recently is like reading those of a stranger. 

My wife is very Buddhist in her thinking, and when I start reading similar concepts from your posts and find myself arguing with her, I have to assume I have taken a wrong turning somewhere. 

I accept your argument about aspiring, one has to be oneself, and find ones own centre, as a Sikh, this means stripping away the anger, the hate, the agitation through understanding rather than modelling. 

I also have to accept that emulate may be the wrong word. A quick look at the dictionary confirms this possibly to be the worst word I could have chosen

em·u·late  (my-lt)
tr.v. em·u·lat·ed, em·u·lat·ing, em·u·lates
1. To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
2. To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.

I see Creator as a big brother who I would like to be more like, but through my own understanding not imitation. I have to accept that to want to be like someone else, even if it is Creator, is a dangerous path, one can only hope to be ones true self. 

I agree with your paragraph on miracles, I do not live to appease God in the hope of good things happening, I see God as quite detached from the world. I do not pray, or hope to catch a smile or a cheery nod, nor do I live in fear of a frown or a grimace, judgement comes through Creation. 

The Nihang/battle issue is murky, I think we may be at odds here, but I will concede that battles can be fought without hate and anger. I also accept that a valid contribution to a battle is to be a medic, the murkiness stems from my lack of belief in reincarnation. 

Direction-normally I am at peace with myself and my surroundings, at present I feel like I am in a war zone. 

Your comments on Karma work well coupled with a belief in reincarnation, as I lack the belief in reincarnation, I cannot comment. 

I do not agree with the 'giving is always good'. When I give, I give my all, and am always let down. My wife has made the comment that firstly, I should never even expect a thank you, and secondly, I should never give so much that I am left with nothing, so I guess my idea of giving is flawed. 

I sense a philosophy of giving and loving and leaving the rest to Karma, is this correct?
However if one does not believe in Karma as you have defined, then the responsibility surely rests with the giver. 

Thank you again for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated, I was sitting at home taking it in turns to annoy the animals when my wife insisted I go to the shop and post, it makes you peaceful, she says....


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 28, 2012)

Chazji, 

I wish I had your calmness, I never get angry per se, but reading the above makes me realise how peaceful my married life is. My wife also does not believe in God, but has made every effort to debate with me and share with me my journey. I do not know how I could possibly handle what you describe, you must be some sort of hugely enlightened fellow. 

If it were me in your situation, I would be practically broken, and although it makes me realise how dependent I am on my wifes good nature, and I suppose how sometimes I take advantage of it. As people we always want more, when I read your post, and realise how irritated I get because of the amount of time and money we spend on our animals, or because my wife has decided that another one of her patients needs heating paid, or shopping bought, I feel quite ashamed. 

I have realised that no matter how good things are, perfection is always one step too far away, your post has made me realise just how discontented I manage to convince myself I am sometimes, and just how wrong I am to feel like this. 

Thanks for sharing something so personal


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 28, 2012)

Chazji, 
Firstly, I would like to say well done for staying calm. It's amazing how one's calmness can help diffuse many situations. I can't comment on a personal level as such, but you should carry on and conduct your self in this manner with the help from the lord.
I personally have been amazed in the calmness attained with the help of the almighty. Wether it's my meditation and simran, or my increased activity in sikhism or just a combination of all. I do find that in situatutions I face in everyday life, I seem to have a completely different attitude. I was always the 1st to complain and start tearing my own hair as well as others, but I'm completely the opposite. If someone does something or says something upsetting, I just can't help feeling sorry for their view that's causing them to be upset.-sounds a little crazy at times, but this immense love is what I feel for all, all along. My wife begins to worry and sometimes I do, she's concerned about my lack of worrying!! 
I think in your situation, I reckon you are just glad that your wife is still upfront about her lack of beliefs. I would think it be better this way rather than having someone who pretends to be a believer and in reality they are something else. We have all seen our own sikhs with turban, uncut dhari portraying a khalsa image, but in reality they are up to no good and have no belief at all!!!
I would consider my self fortunate that one may be on a different and opposite boat to mine but at least they are clear and upfront about it rather than taking me for a ride.
The one fear I do have is exactly this, the fear of someone taking me for a ride and just playing with me with dishonesty. Maybe i've encountered it one too many times in my life from those very close to me, maybe. BUT, I would rather someone just be honest and upsetting to me rather than them being dishonest to please me, this I fear the most and is one of the reasons I hate dishonesty so much.

They say it takes 2 to argue, so I would just continue keeping my mouth shut and eyes and ears open, we can definitely learn much more this way.

Having a control over all your attachments is something that really helps. I am surprised at how I've come to this point where it seems much easier for once. I'm still at war with emotional attachments, but at one time, infact for decades I was very attached to physical posessions. Anyone that knows me would confirm, all I would wake up for,or want, would be the best belongings, best clothes, best looks, best cars,best holidays just infact the best of whatever I could afford, and that is all I woke up and worked for. -WHAT A WASTE- I am so glad that I realise just how much of my life I wasted, even though at the time I felt in control and in the right direction.
This complete change in my attitude and lifestyle has come thanks to the word of the guru's shabad that I can feel resonating in every bone thanks to sikhi and simran.
I really wish that I had started simple naam simran many many years ago.
All I can say for sure is that I know what I want in my life for once and for all, that is the ultimate truth- Waheguru.


Waheguru,waheguru,waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 29, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Chazji,
> 
> I wish I had your calmness, I never get angry per se, but reading the above makes me realise how peaceful my married life is. My wife also does not believe in God, but has made every effort to debate with me and share with me my journey. I do not know how I could possibly handle what you describe, you must be some sort of hugely enlightened fellow.
> 
> ...


 
My Friend,

On Forums, we can hide behind a name and can come across in anyway that we want to. I've read some of your earlier posts and you've spoken about some very personal things...but i connected with you more because i started understanding you as a real person who has had his own life journey...our messages between each other take a whole new meaning when we share something a little deeper.

And thats why i wanted to share something with the Sangat as well.
I'm no enlightened person  i'm just someone that feels ashamed of how i've been in the past, and someone that is trying to understand my true self.

True happiness starts within the Home. And this takes 2 meanings...
1. in your home..with the family...keep positive energy around you and in your thoughts and behaviour as much as possible. #
2. in the home of your being (mind body and soul). be content, calm and focussed. (very easy to say, but can be difficult to implement).

My wife asks me on a daily basis why she is always getting into negative situations with people in her family, people at her job, friends.
My analysis is that she only see's her glass half empty and is always complaining about what she hasnt got and therefore always in a negative mood everyday....but she doesnt realise that her glass is already half full and she has so much already


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 29, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Chazji,
> Firstly, I would like to say well done for staying calm. It's amazing how one's calmness can help diffuse many situations. I can't comment on a personal level as such, but you should carry on and conduct your self in this manner with the help from the lord.
> You see my friend, they're all tests of my character. All my life i've thought of myself as calm...my Job requires me to be calm..i've been labelled at work as being the 'calm one'. But my home situation started bringing the anger and emotions out...I don't blame my wife for this...she's there so that my weaknesses are highlighted. but my Simran has allowed me to recognise when this happens and prevent it from influencing my actions...which has kept me going strong, focussed and with a renewed level of dedication to Waheguru Ji...
> 
> ...


 
God bless all


----------



## Auzer (Mar 29, 2012)

Well hairs are part of nature but so is appendix , nails , teeth etc ... Facial hairs or hair on the body overall serves no very special purpose. Cutting them doesn't effect the nature of the man...so I see no logic in keeping your hairs. Specially , the facial hairs of girls/women..Women/girls look weird with mustaches and unnecessary facial hairs. Won't you agree? Mustaches are for men , not for women... Appendix is also a part of human body but it now serves no purpose..so many people remove it....facial hairs are also a part of body but don't serve any purpose..removing them should not be a problem. Also , most Sikh girls remove theirs anyways...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 30, 2012)

Harry ji,




> I accept your argument about aspiring, one has to be oneself, and find ones own centre, as a Sikh, this means stripping away the anger, the hate, the agitation through understanding rather than modelling.



Obviously I am no better than the average person in terms of accumulated tendency to kindness, morality and so on on and have no less hatred, greed, ignorance etc. In fact I have very strong attachments and get angry more easily than most people. And when I think about people like Bin Laden and Gadhafi, knowing myself, it is easy for me to imagine that I have been worse in past lifetimes and will likely be so in future ones. It just happens that the conditions in this lifetime have been such that this has not happened and probably will not. 

But all this is to be expected, since change must happen very, very gradually. Indeed it has been compared to using a knife. One does not see how much the handle is worn away when observing one day after another, but only after a long time will you see that it has worn away a little. And according to the Buddha, the first step is the eradication of wrong understanding and doubt and with these, also miserliness and jealousy. And this is already aeons away for someone like me, not to mention anger, sensual desire, conceit, attachment to being and ignorance which are further down the road (although not long after). And what does this point to?

That if we think to fight sensuous attachments, conceit and anger we are in fact invariably encouraging them in other forms and towards other objects. The cause as well as what results is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of understanding. It is this latter which gives the impression not only that we should try to fight these vices, but also the illusion that we have had some success in lessening them.

So long as there is wrong understanding, other evils will not lessen one bit, in fact they are being encouraged in other forms, including to the very idea of being without particular ones. All this is the result of “attachment to self” and the illusion is due to the fact that wrong understanding feels right to the person who has it. It is also from not understanding that the root of the problem is not attachment, aversion and so on, but in fact “ignorance”.

The Buddha gave the example of a man trying to cross the flood (comparable to the flood of desire, aversion, and ignorance). If he strains, he is swept away. If he stands still, he sinks. The former is when for example, with wrong understanding we try to fight our vices, one obvious manifestation of which is asceticism. The other is when we indulge in them thinking that they are not harmful, as in hedonism. The Middle Way is that of understanding which sees the danger of all those mental phenomena and therefore also of any attachment to the idea of being without them. Hence the Path is that of understanding all the way through characterized by a corresponding level of detachment. In other words, a desire to be rid of attachment, aversion or conceit is to be replaced by detachment conditioned by the understanding that that these will lesson only by the gradual development of wisdom. 

There are no shortcuts, therefore if you find yourself being attracted to some particular method to grow in morality and wisdom, this again must be due to a perversion of understanding. It is the same when we idealistically go out and try to be proactive in “doing good”, such as what we do in the name of Sewa. It all comes down to “attachment to self” and therefore must in the final analysis be all about me, mine and I. And this is not the way to enlightenment, but in fact more ignorance and more attachment.



> I see Creator as a big brother who I would like to be more like, but through my own understanding not imitation. I have to accept that to want to be like someone else, even if it is Creator, is a dangerous path, one can only hope to be ones true self.



There is in Buddhism an object for the development of calm which is “reflection on the qualities of the Buddha”.  But who can have such an object? Obviously only the one who does have the depth of understanding to see the true value of all those qualities? So what happens if some so called Buddhist tries to concentrate on what he thinks is a Buddha and the qualities that is possessed by such a one, but in fact is quite ignorant and does this with attachment? The result would be even more perversion of perception, consciousness and understanding would it not?

There is also the problem in thinking in terms of “persons” that this takes the attention away from the qualities themselves. So we risk ending up worshiping the person and this can't be good, can it?



> I agree with your paragraph on miracles, I do not live to appease God in the hope of good things happening, I see God as quite detached from the world. I do not pray, or hope to catch a smile or a cheery nod, nor do I live in fear of a frown or a grimace, judgement comes through Creation.



You are probably being too confident. If he is up there somewhere, you will inadvertently every now and then; be seeking approval for your different acts. Just like what happens here, often we write and wonder if anyone will approve of it.



> The Nihang/battle issue is murky, I think we may be at odds here, but I will concede that battles can be fought without hate and anger. I also accept that a valid contribution to a battle is to be a medic, the murkiness stems from my lack of belief in reincarnation.



But before reincarnation (rebirth), there must be belief in karma. So yes, I think this is one of the obstacles. In fact it has been pointed out as one of the main obstacles to the development of wisdom. But as I pointed out in our earlier discussions, this is not about blind acceptance, but about understanding. To not believe because one does not yet have the basis to do so is one thing, but to reject it altogether as a result of some wrong understanding about moral cause and effect, this is really harmful. 

Ignorance is dark, but on hearing about the Truth a little light can occasionally come through. Wrong understanding on the other hand, is to be facing in a direction where darkness is seen as light, so how can one expect that any real light will ever come through?



> Direction-normally I am at peace with myself and my surroundings, at present I feel like I am in a war zone.



We are all more or less in the same boat Harry ji. If I told you about my life, especially in light of what just happened last week, your hair will definitely stand on its ends. I am however encouraged by the fact that although there has been so much aversion (to the point of depression), understanding could still intermittently arise from time to time. But then again the problem is really our habit of thinking in terms of stories about self and other. If instead we could see things in terms of moment to moment experiences, the problems will not appear as such. 



> Your comments on Karma work well coupled with a belief in reincarnation, as I lack the belief in reincarnation, I cannot comment.



You have perhaps accumulated so many preconceptions about the one that this continues to be an obstacle to taking the first necessary step, namely that karma is about your experience “now”. The idea about future lives comes from understanding the nature of that which makes up your day to day experiences such as attachment, aversion, kindness, morality and so on. 



> I do not agree with the 'giving is always good'. When I give, I give my all, and am always let down. My wife has made the comment that firstly, I should never even expect a thank you, and secondly, I should never give so much that I am left with nothing, so I guess my idea of giving is flawed.



I am perceived by some people as the most generous person they personally know. This has put me and my family in a lot of financial trouble, so much so that I am now quite sure that I will not be able to pay for my children's college education and I fear this very much. I regret having helped all those people, but only to the extent that I did not at the time consider wisely. But was my giving bad, no, of course it wasn't. Indeed if I thought otherwise, not only will I not get my money back, I will have added more problems and much worse, namely aversion and wrong understanding.    



> I sense a philosophy of giving and loving and leaving the rest to Karma, is this correct?



Not really. Firstly is it about the development of understanding all the way through. This of course will include seeing the value of giving, kindness and so on, which by virtue of the very understanding are encouraged to arise. 
And contrary to what some opponents of Karma think, understanding leads to less and less thinking about what the future will bring, (including what rebirth) but more the nature of the “cause” *now*.



> However if one does not believe in Karma as you have defined, then the responsibility surely rests with the giver.



If this sense of responsibility comes with the perception of “me”, “mine” and “I”, how can it be good?  Anyway, you will have seen from my previous comment that a correct understanding about karma actually leads to thinking in terms of cause which is this moment, and this to me *is* the only real expression of responsibility.



> Thank you again for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated, I was sitting at home taking it in turns to annoy the animals when my wife insisted I go to the shop and post, it makes you peaceful, she says....



And thank you for giving me the opportunity to sort out my thoughts and for hearing me. ;-)


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 30, 2012)

can any Buddghist tell me....why do Buddhists feel the need to go BALD ??? I have never seen a Buddhist MONK who is long haired....why they believe HAIR interferes with their spirituality ?? Has there ever been a Holy man in Buddhism with long hair/dastaar ??..why NOT ??


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 30, 2012)

> can any Buddhist tell me....why do Buddhists feel the need to go BALD


 
Can any Sikh tell me......why do Sikhs feel the need to go LONG.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 30, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Can any Sikh tell me......why do Sikhs feel the need to go LONG.



So many posts right here on SPN....have you missed them ??? all of them are from SIKHS......and why....
I am looking for the "Buddhist" perspective...there are many "baldy" sikhs..BUT never a Long haired dastaar wearing Buddhist MONK..is my query...
(Before I wrote this i visited each and every Major Vihara in Kuala Lumpur..not a single long haired monk anywhere..all shining baldies ( who served me a lot of hot chai and snacks BUT couldnt tell me WHY NO LONG HAIR...hence my open query...maybe on SPN there is an enlightened nirvana achived Buddhist friend who can answer me...thanks ji


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 30, 2012)

Sorry Gyani Ji I see only Buddhist Sikhs,I see no posts that can make me see the other or another.
May I append Namdev ji _"The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one-eyed",[the Sikh has two eyes but is long sighted.]_


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 30, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Sorry Gyani Ji I see only Buddhist Sikhs,I see no posts that can make me see the other or another.
> May I append Namdev ji _"The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one-eyed",[the Sikh has two eyes but is long sighted.] _



Scarlet Pimpernel veer ji thanks for your post.  I quote complete hymn below,

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥
हिंदू अंन्हा तुरकू काणा ॥  
Hinḏū anĥā ṯurkū kāṇā.  
The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. 

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੁਨਾਖਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਇਕ ਅੱਖ ਵਾਲਾ।  
ਤੁਰਕੂ = ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ।
ਸੋ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਦੋਵੇਂ ਅੱਖਾਂ ਗਵਾ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਹੀ ਖ਼ਰਾਬ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ;

 ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥
दुहां ते गिआनी सिआणा ॥  
Ḏuhāŉ ṯe gi▫ānī si▫āṇā.  
The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them. 
ਬ੍ਰਹਿਮਵੇਤਾ ਦੋਨਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਅਕਲਮੰਦ ਹੈ। 
 
xxx
ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਸਿਆਣਾ ਉਹ ਬੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ (ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਹਸਤੀ ਦਾ ਸਹੀ) ਗਿਆਨ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ।
 
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥
 हिंदू पूजै देहुरा मुसलमाणु मसीति ॥  
 Hinḏū pūjai ḏehurā musalmāṇ masīṯ.  
The Hindu worships at the temple, the Muslim at the mosque. 

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੰਦਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਪਾਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਤੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਮਸਜਿਦ ਵਿੱਚ।  
 
xxx
_*(ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨੇ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਤਾਂ ਤਦੋਂ ਗਵਾਈ ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਇਸ਼ਟ ਬਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾ-ਹੀਣ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਘੜਨ ਲੱਗ ਪਿਆ, ਤੇ ਦੂਜੀ ਗਵਾਈ, ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਰਾ ਮੰਦਰ ਵਿਚ ਬੈਠਾ ਸਮਝ ਕੇ) ਮੰਦਰ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਜਣ ਲੱਗ ਪਿਆ, ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ (ਦੀ ਹਜ਼ਰਤ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਿਚ ਪੂਰੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾ ਹੋਣ ਕਰਕੇ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਤਾਂ ਸਾਬਤ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਦੂਜੀ ਗਵਾ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਰੱਬ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਰਾ ਮਸਜਿਦ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਣ ਕੇ) ਮਸਜਿਦ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਘਰ ਸਮਝ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ।*_
 ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
 नामे सोई सेविआ जह देहुरा न मसीति ॥४॥३॥७॥  
 Nāme so▫ī sevi▫ā jah ḏehurā na masīṯ. ||4||3||7||  

Naam Dayv serves that Lord, who is not limited to either the temple or the mosque. ||4||3||7||  

ਨਾਮਾ ਉਸ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਘਾਲ ਕਮਾਉਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਕੋਲ ਨਾਂ ਮੰਦਰ ਹੈ ਨਾਂ ਹੀ ਮਸਜਿਦ।  
 
ਜਹ = ਜਿਸ ਦਾ। ਦੇਹੁਰਾ = ਮੰਦਰ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
 ਮੈਂ ਨਾਮਦੇਵ ਉਸ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਹ ਕੋਈ ਖ਼ਾਸ ਮੰਦਰ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਨਾ ਮਸਜਿਦ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
 
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=875&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=1

I have been looking for this as I was not sure if such was so stated and the reason in SGGS.  I will probably raise it in Gurmat Vichhar section later for the complete sabad.  Many examples even in Sikh institutions and believers following or starting to follow the trappings highlighted in this sabad.  Not specifically regarding Hair and Nails per se.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Mar 30, 2012)

Gyani ji,


I don't fit the bill, and I've never given this any thought before. The solution would be to do some research, but this I'm not good at doing. But being the more knowledgeable member in this regard, I'll express some thoughts.  




> So many posts right here on SPN....have you missed them ??? all of them are from SIKHS......and why....
> I am looking for the "Buddhist" perspective...there are many "baldy" sikhs..BUT never a Long haired dastaar wearing Buddhist MONK..is my query...




First, I think that you are wrong to make the kind of comparison. Sikhs unlike Buddhists do not have the monastic tradition as part of their system of thought. In Buddhism there are monks, nuns (for want of a better word), laymen and laywomen, whereas Sikhs I think, only have laymen and laywomen. So if you want to compare, then it must be between laypeople and not laypeople vs. monks.

Comparing laypeople we can see that while Sikhs encourage keeping hair for all, in Buddhism there are no rules in this regard. A bald Sikh is one who would have gone against the tradition, whereas a bald lay Buddhist is just one of many possible choices and he is no more or less a Buddhist by virtue of this. Monks on the other hand must all have a shaven head. Why, I am not sure because it has never occurred to me to try to find out, but I do have some thoughts and will give them to you.

A monk, idealistically, is one who has given up the household life after seeing the dustiness of such a life. He therefore has decided to lead a simple life without any possessions except the basic requisites needed to sustain life. Hair as we know is object of vanity and it is my guess that one of the reason why monks shave off their hair completely is to remind them about this. Besides if monks were allowed to keep their hair, how long or how short, with sideburns or not, mustache and beard or none, these would be considerations that clearly take the attention away from the real aim, namely the development of wisdom and detachment.

Also in a community, there have to be set of rules both in conduct as well as appearance so as to allow smooth functioning of the whole. If therefore, monks were allowed to keep hair, there'd be so much distraction for each individual followed by comparison and this is chaotic. And I suppose also, that no hair is practical in terms of hygiene and this is in line with the spirit of a simple life. 

But I'll try to find out more when next I meet my friends.



> (Before I wrote this i visited each and every Major Vihara in Kuala Lumpur..not a single long haired monk anywhere..all shining baldies ( who served me a lot of hot chai and snacks BUT couldnt tell me WHY NO LONG HAIR...hence my open query...maybe on SPN there is an enlightened nirvana achived Buddhist friend who can answer me...thanks ji




I think you could have avoided making the kind of remark as in the last one!

Anyway, the first monks under the Buddha were all enlightened whose behavior was perfect and therefore no rules existed at the time. Gradually as time passed by, people with less than perfect understanding and virtue started to ordain and one by one conducted themselves in such a way that rules had to be created so as to discourage repetition of such behavior. These rules were however all in line with natural laws such that any monk with understanding will see them as reminders about what is good and worthwhile and all of them supports for the development of understanding. 

But of course as time passed by even more, those same rules became such that monks would either follow or break them but with no understanding either way. And this is the situation of Viharas in KL and everywhere else in the world today. So I don't think that these are the places one goes to in order to ask the kind of questions with the expectation of getting the correct answer.


----------



## aristotle (Mar 31, 2012)

Lets dwelve into the history.
Prince Siddhartha (=Buddha) left his palace in the bleak night to serve as a monk and learn about spiritual traditions. And the first thing he did was to cut his long hair, as a mark of renunciation. This is the same reason why most of the Buddhist monks do the same.
Sikhism, by inherence, does not permit hermitage or monkhood, hence no room for renunciation. Hair are considered in Sikhism as a mark of connection with the world, with the orders of the Guru, and most importantly as a mark of special identity of t Sikhs. Had it not been so, Sikhism would way back have been phagocytosed by Hinduism.
Sikhism does not involve the renunciation of the World, it involves renunciation of Maya (=extreme passion towards worldly possessions.)


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Mar 31, 2012)

Confused Ji....
OOPS.....i dint intend to offend with my remark about the nirvana...maybe i should have used a different terminology.. sincere apologies.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 31, 2012)

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2009/06/05/buddha-live-reincarnated-nepalese-jungle/


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 1, 2012)

Aristotle ji,



> Lets dwelve into the history.
> Prince Siddhartha (=Buddha) left his palace in the bleak night to serve as a monk and learn about spiritual traditions.



You either approach this from the standpoint of history or someone interested in understanding the teachings. If the latter, then I think it is wrong to suggest that the Buddha “left the palace to serve as a monk and learn about spiritual traditions”. 

You must remember first, that the concept of “monk” applies only to those who heard and understood the Buddha's teachings and consequently decided to ordain under his dispensation. So a Buddha-to-be who was yet to become enlightened, could not have been a monk. He did approach several teachers and heard and learned different teachings some even opposed to each other. But he was not satisfied with any of them. So really at no time was he in a situation comparable to the people who later on heard him and became his disciples.   



> And the first thing he did was to cut his long hair, as a mark of renunciation. This is the same reason why most of the Buddhist monks do the same.



No follower of the Buddha with any degree of understanding will think to emulate him. It is one thing to understand the Truth after hearing about it and another altogether to discover it on one's own. If a monk is to emulate any quality, it is that of the arahat, the fully enlightened *disciple* of a Buddha and this by virtue of understanding and being able to follow all the 200 plus monastic rules. The Buddha-to-be cutting his hair was symbolic and he did let his hair grow during the time that he was still searching for the Truth. His follower monks shave their hair completely, for reasons I have expressed earlier, and this for the whole time that they remain as monks. 



> Sikhism, by inherence, does not permit hermitage or monkhood, hence no room for renunciation.



Within the system of thought there is no place for the idea, so it is not really about permitting or not permitting is it?



> Hair are considered in Sikhism as a mark of connection with the world,



This is new, are you sure about this? In fact I've heard Sikhs trying to justify growing hair by appealing to the fact that some so called ascetic saints also leave their hair uncut…..



> with the orders of the Guru, and most importantly as a mark of special identity of t Sikhs. Had it not been so, Sikhism would way back have been phagocytosed by Hinduism.



If truth is the aim, why give any thought to such things? 
Is the religion defined by the message or the outward appearance and number of followers?
What is more valuable, one person who understands or a million who misunderstand?



> Sikhism does not involve the renunciation of the World, it involves renunciation of Maya (=extreme passion towards worldly possessions.)



I would like to know what you understand by “world” and what you understand by “maya”. To me, from one perspective they are in fact synonyms. I know that Guru Nanak pointed out the danger of Maya, and I must say that it has always been my impression that Sikhs all over do not really understand what maya is. I see that they are in fact very lost in maya, and in trying to justify worldly pursuits appeal to worldly values and say that this is what the Sikhi teaches. In other words they are in the world and are driven by worldly values when they should in fact be aloof. Living in the world, yet not *of* the world.

And remember this, Buddhism in having the institution of monkhood is not asking anyone to renounce the world as means to develop wisdom. There are as I pointed out, lay men and lay women as well and one can become enlightened as such. The monkhood is for people with the particular kind of accumulated tendency who have seen through the dustiness of the household life (and this can happen even without understanding the Buddha's teachings) and thereby are inclined to live the life of a recluse. Indeed it would be counterproductive if someone who does not have the accumulated tendency, to ordain as a monk.

What then is being encouraged is understanding who one is, as one is. And this means that if one is inclined to living the life of a householder that is what one understands. Likewise if one leans towards being a recluse that is what one understands.


----------



## aristotle (Apr 3, 2012)

*The concept of monkhood is not unique to Buddhism. Jainism its older sibling, has its monks by the name of 'Shravans'. In fact, Monkhood was ubiquitous in medieval and pre-medieval Indian saintly traditions.
*Buddha didn't directly go to the 'Bodhi Tree'. He, in his quest for the 'ultimate answer', went to several saints and ascetics before retiring to solitary meditation (and all the time he lived the life of a hermit/monk/ or whatever terminology you may use). In the life stories of Buddha, the ' Buddha Charitras' as they are commonly called by laymen, his cutting of hair after leaving the palace (he had cut his hair even after parting from his charioteer) are described as a mark of renunciation of his princely life. This is stressed by the fact that even after his attainment of Buddhahood, he didn't return to live with his family. (And obviously, this conduct of Buddha is considered as an example by the monks who neither have family, not have any worldly possessions.) It was in this tune had I stressed that the Sikh hair suggest just the opposite.
* Buddha had long hair when he attained Buddhahood and thereafter throughout his life. The same can be seen in numerous statues and paintings of the Buddha.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Apr 3, 2012)

Confused ji, 
Allow me to interject.


Confused said:


> First, I think that you are wrong to make the kind of comparison. Sikhs unlike Buddhists do not have the monastic tradition as part of their system of thought.


Monastic traditions do exist. Udasis and Nihangs (warrior monks) I know are monastic. I am not sure if the Nirmala and Sevapanthi traditions are monastic.

Some Udasis keep long hair, others don't and may shave their head bald. Nihangs always keep all their hair.



> A monk, idealistically, is one who has given up the household life after seeing the dustiness of such a life. He therefore has decided to lead a simple life without any possessions except the basic requisites needed to sustain life.


Yes that sounds like the Udasi and Nihang traditions.



> Hair as we know is object of vanity and it is my guess that one of the reason why monks shave off their hair completely is to remind them about this. Besides if monks were allowed to keep their hair, how long or how short, with sideburns or not, mustache and beard or none, these would be considerations that clearly take the attention away from the real aim, namely the development of wisdom and detachment.


Well you can leave your hair and not bother with it as Sadhus and Udasis do. You can also leave it and tie it up into a turban as the Nihangs do. There are no concerns like the ones you mention.

To be honest anything can become an object of vanity. Hair or no hair.



> And I suppose also, that no hair is practical in terms of hygiene and this is in line with the spirit of a simple life.


Not really. You can maintain hygiene even with long hair. It requires a bit more work though.



> But I'll try to find out more when next I meet my friends.


Definitely. But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.



> This is new, are you sure about this? In fact I've heard Sikhs trying to justify growing hair by appealing to the fact that some so called ascetic saints also leave their hair uncut…..


Yes that is the origin of keeping hair in the tradition. Hair is actually a mark of renunciation in the tradition. In line with already-existing ascetic/monk thought.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 3, 2012)

And "HAIR" is the ...."main stumbling block"...to many Sikhs hwo want so much to BLEND in..melt into the Majority Communities they live in ( who cut hair as a matter of course and prefer to be called clear shaven etc).....live with the times..be fashionable etc etc..
To these peoples mindset..long hair/beards/turbans are a major HINDRANCE to their melting in?merging in/Blending IN...hence the heartbreaks...and sobbing tales.."I wnat to cut my hair..I am on the verge of cutting my hair...BUT Never..I want to discard my Karra..or I ma on the verge of throwing away my kirpan..or i want desperately to stop wearing the Kachhera.....always its the HAIR/Beard/Turban...IF only the other SIkhs ALLOW this cutting...so many will be overjoyed..free of stress..tensions..the numbers will begin climbing and such type of sikhism will get the title of Fastest growing new religion...??? really ?? not really becasue the HAIR is a important..have it or dont ahve it..not withstanding...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 4, 2012)

Aristotle ji,



> *The concept of monkhood is not unique to Buddhism. Jainism its older sibling, has its monks by the name of 'Shravans'. In fact, Monkhood was ubiquitous in medieval and pre-medieval Indian saintly traditions.



- Of course there were and still are Jain and other monks. But since I was talking about the monks under the Buddha and you were talking about the same when comparing with Sikhs, I didn't expect you or anyone to suddenly place the concept in a more general context. 



> *Buddha didn't directly go to the 'Bodhi Tree'. He, in his quest for the 'ultimate answer', went to several saints and ascetics before retiring to solitary meditation (and all the time he lived the life of a hermit/monk/ or whatever terminology you may use).



-Not the question of terminology, but the understanding in relation to the particular concept. A monk under a Buddha is totally different from any other kind of monk. He is one who by virtue of appreciating the teachings on the Four Noble Truths, a disciple of the one teacher, the Buddha. It is evident therefore that the Buddha-to-be can't have been a monk of this kind. 



> *In the life stories of Buddha, the ' Buddha Charitras' as they are commonly called by laymen, his cutting of hair after leaving the palace (he had cut his hair even after parting from his charioteer) are described as a mark of renunciation of his princely life. This is stressed by the fact that even after his attainment of Buddhahood, he didn't return to live with his family. (And obviously, this conduct of Buddha is considered as an example by the monks who neither have family, not have any worldly possessions.)



-The Buddha was enlightened to the Four Noble Truths, the fourth of which is the Path. This means that whatever happened prior to his enlightenment, it wasn't the same as what he then taught to his followers. And given especially that since the Path can arise not only in those who are recluse, but also householders, this means that the understanding in those who were disciples of the Buddha and wanted to ordain is different from that of the Buddha-to-be when he left his palace. 

Indeed the first disciples were enlightened before they decided to ordain, in fact there were arahats who did not have any attachment at all. Could you say that these people cut their hair as a result of following Buddha's example? Moreover it was common practice that people in those days, left their homes and became recluses. This includes those outside of the Buddha's teachings. So why would it be said that the Buddha's disciples followed *his* example particularly?



> *It was in this tune had I stressed that the Sikh hair suggest just the opposite.



- OK, but remember that I pointed out to you that in Buddhism, there are lay persons and these can become enlightened as well. This shows that the Buddha's teachings are not defined by the existence and practice of monkhood.  But you compared Buddhism and Sikhism in a way suggesting that one aimed at renouncing the world whereas the other not. 

Regarding your suggestion that Sikhs in keeping hair point to the opposite of renunciation, I’d like to add this. Just as I think it is wrong to say that Buddhist monks shave their head to “symbolize” renunciation, I think it is even more wrong the idea that Sikhs keep hair as symbol of life of a householder, since this would make it attachment to symbols which I don't think even Guru Nanak would approve of. In fact I would be very surprised if it is established that Guru Nanak as a householder, kept long hair, because I don't think he did. 



> * Buddha had long hair when he attained Buddhahood and thereafter throughout his life. The same can be seen in numerous statues and paintings of the Buddha.



-In paintings which of course came much later. But there are suggestions also that he was bald, I don't know. In any case, he was fully enlightened and therefore in a situation very different from his follower monks.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 4, 2012)

Bhagat ji,




> Monastic traditions do exist. Udasis and Nihangs (warrior monks) I know are monastic. I am not sure if the Nirmala and Sevapanthi traditions are monastic.
> 
> Some Udasis keep long hair, others don't and may shave their head bald. Nihangs always keep all their hair.



Thanks for the information. I find it interesting, since so far I've only heard Sikhs lauding the idea of living life as a householder and against becoming a recluse.



> > A monk, idealistically, is one who has given up the household life after seeing the dustiness of such a life. He therefore has decided to lead a simple life without any possessions except the basic requisites needed to sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that sounds like the Udasi and Nihang traditions.



And there are codes of conduct laid out for these people marking the difference between them and laypersons, within Sikh teachings? Anyway, I should have added the more important qualifier for Buddhist monks, namely, understanding the Four Noble Truths.



> Well you can leave your hair and not bother with it as Sadhus and Udasis do. You can also leave it and tie it up into a turban as the Nihangs do. There are no concerns like the ones you mention.
> 
> To be honest anything can become an object of vanity. Hair or no hair.



Yes, and the problem of vanity is not the main reason for Buddhist monks to shave their heads. Still however, being that *all* monks shave (and wear same clothing), this helps avoid comparison which is at the root of vanity. Simplicity is the more important reason in the case of Buddhist monks. Were they instead to keep hair, with or without a turban, they'd have to make sure that it remains clean and well combed. Besides, monks don't shave themselves, but let other monks do it and on a fixed day of the week (or longer?). This helps avoid having to think about and deciding how and when to do it. The situation is not the same were they to keep long hair. And tying a turban, this is an unnecessary load and can cause the brain to fry!! Just kidding. winkingmunda



> > And I suppose also, that no hair is practical in terms of hygiene and this is in line with the spirit of a simple life.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. You can maintain hygiene even with long hair. It requires a bit more work though.



Well, the question is not whether you can or not maintain hygiene with long hair, but which is easier and more practical in terms of the simple life.



> But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.



You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?



> > This is new, are you sure about this? In fact I've heard Sikhs trying to justify growing hair by appealing to the fact that some so called ascetic saints also leave their hair uncut…..
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is the origin of keeping hair in the tradition. Hair is actually a mark of renunciation in the tradition. In line with already-existing ascetic/monk thought.



I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 4, 2012)

Gyani ji,

I am using your comments to get across some points which I consider important.



> And "HAIR" is the ...."main stumbling block"...to many Sikhs hwo want so much to BLEND in..melt into the Majority Communities they live in ( who cut hair as a matter of course and prefer to be called clear shaven etc).....live with the times..be fashionable etc etc..



But there are also people who cut because they do not see the point of keeping it.



> To these peoples mindset..long hair/beards/turbans are a major HINDRANCE to their melting in?merging in/Blending IN



To others the merging and identification is towards the community of like-minded and similarly dressed people and this serves as a shelter for escape. And talking about “hindrances”, one big hindrance to progress along the path of good is a distorted sense of morality. Those who keep hair (especially when young) are made to feel that it is morally wrong to cut their hair, when in fact this has absolutely nothing to do with morality whatsoever. At the same time those who keep hair often end up thinking that they are doing good, when this in fact has nothing to do with any kind of good, except if done to show respect for one's parents.



> ...hence the heartbreaks...and sobbing tales.."I wnat to cut my hair..I am on the verge of cutting my hair...BUT Never..I want to discard my Karra..or I ma on the verge of throwing away my kirpan..or i want desperately to stop wearing the Kachhera.....always its the HAIR/Beard/Turban...IF only the other SIkhs ALLOW this cutting...so many will be overjoyed..free of stress..tensions..the numbers will begin climbing and such type of sikhism will get the title of Fastest growing new religion...??? really ??



While the sense attachments and conceit of those other people are being pointed out, there appears to be no less attachment and conceit on this side. Unless of course one is speaking from on a moral high horse, which then makes it a species of ascetism and therefore much worse.



> not really becasue the HAIR is a important..have it or dont ahve it..not withstanding...



In what way is hair important?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 4, 2012)

confused ji,
i dont seem t have the eyes you ahve to see the conceit attachment etc in 'others" or even myslef...i feel i need more Gurbani to get me to that point.
Yes hair is "important"...whether we have it or not...thats why all these posts and sob stories...if it were not imporatnt..who would bother at all...
i cant see what you seem to see so clearly..(must be my  long streaming hair getting in my eyes..not from my head but form my bushy eyebrows..he he)
Have a Nice day.
Jarnail Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 4, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> confused ji,
> i dont seem t have the eyes you ahve to see the conceit attachment etc in 'others" or even myslef...i feel i need more Gurbani to get me to that point.
> Yes hair is "important"...whether we have it or not...thats why all these posts and sob stories...if it were not imporatnt..who would bother at all...
> i cant see what you seem to see so clearly..(must be my  long streaming hair getting in my eyes..not from my head but form my bushy eyebrows..he he)
> ...


Gyani Jarnail Singh ji in my humble opinion I believe there are three possible situations regarding hair. 


*You Learn to Keep Hair:*  Through upbringing and then believing or liking to do so.  Say a Sikh child in a Sikh household.
*You Inherently Love Hair and Hairiness:*  We are all different who knows what causes that other than it reminds us where we originated from and it is no hassle but is liked.
*You Don't Like Hairiness:*  This is personal as much as number two.
Now on lighter side how about this,


> *How you define aging gracefully*
> 
> You lose hair where you want (say Head) and get hair where you don't want (say ears and eyebrows)
> lol​


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 4, 2012)

Hair is ?  "important"..otherwise there wouldnt be MULTI BILLION DOLLAR Hair Industry...all kinds of shampoos that restore regrow hair..creams that grow hair and  creams that remove hair...hair weavers..and hair restorers..etc etc..whoever says hair is not important ??


----------



## BhagatSingh (Apr 4, 2012)

Confused ji,



Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> 
> Thanks for the information. I find it interesting, since so far I've only heard Sikhs lauding the idea of living life as a householder and against becoming a recluse.


I am not sure where they are getting that from. You'll notice it's only householder Sikhs saying that. This is the "householder bias" on the internet. You don't hear from Nihangs or Udasis as they are monks and ascetics, they live such a lifestyle where they don't have computers...

Gursikhs possess the qualities of both a householder and renunciate. - 131
One who knows God is approved whether he is a householder or a renunciate. - 385, 1329
A true householder, a true renunciate is one who recognizes his own Self. - 1332



> And there are codes of conduct laid out for these people marking the difference between them and laypersons, within Sikh teachings? Anyway, I should have added the more important qualifier for Buddhist monks, namely, understanding the Four Noble Truths.


Nope no marked difference in Sikh teachings. The teachings for them and lay persons are the same as laid out in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth. Although, sometimes Gurus do speak to renunciates and householders separately. 

There is an additional strict code of conduct for Khalsa and Nihangs and that is the _rehitnama_. Nihangs also have another text that they venerate, namely Sarbloh Granth. I don't know much about this text.

Don't know of any such codes for Udasis. They probably do have their own code.




> Yes, and the problem of vanity is not the main reason for Buddhist monks to shave their heads. Still however, being that *all* monks shave (and wear same clothing), this helps avoid comparison which is at the root of vanity. *Simplicity is the more important reason in the case of Buddhist monks.* Were they instead to keep hair, with or without a turban, they'd have to make sure that it remains clean and well combed. Besides, monks don't shave themselves, but let other monks do it and on a fixed day of the week (or longer?). This helps avoid having to think about and deciding how and when to do it. The situation is not the same were they to keep long hair. And tying a turban, this is an unnecessary load and can cause the brain to fry!! Just kidding. winkingmunda


Yes the idea of simplicity is very well related to the idea of renunciation. This is the real reason for not cutting hair. Apparently, the exact same reason is also the reason for cutting hair. The world is an odd place indeed.

Sikhs did not always wear turbans, they simply covered their hair with caps (seli topi). This tradition was started by the sixth Guru, who on his ceremony of receiving Guruship asked Baba Buddha ji to place a turban and plume on his head rather than a cap. The sixth Guru and tenth Guru saw these caps as the symbol of pacifism and slavery and urged all warriors to wear turbans. They themselves wore turbans. 

Udasis who existed prior to the guruship of the sixth Guru did/do not wear turbans but Nihangs, on the other hand, come from the time of the sixth Guru and so they wear turbans. Now during the rule of the tenth Guru, we an increasing number of Shaivite recruits in the army. This lead to a distinct Nihang turban style and symbolism.





> Well, the question is not whether you can or not maintain hygiene with long hair, but which is easier and more practical in terms of the simple life.


Easier is not an issue for monks. Monks aren't necessarily looking for easy things. Both are quite practical. Hence why we see both.




> You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?


Well mark of monkhood is one practical purpose. Another is simplicity. Another is a mark of renunciation and detachment.

These are all practical purposes.




> I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?


The reasons for keeping of hair are the same reason why renunciates/ascetics keep hair - simplicity and detachment from the world.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 5, 2012)

*https://www.facebook.com/<wbr>photo.php?fbid=327306100667356&<wbr>set=a.103692436362058.5469.100<wbr>001639061798&type=1&ref=nf*



There are hundreds of such sikhs....who turned a corner too....and whos to question their Motives..??its personal choice.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 7, 2012)

Bhagat ji,




> I am not sure where they are getting that from. You'll notice it's only householder Sikhs saying that. This is the "householder bias" on the internet. You don't hear from Nihangs or Udasis as they are monks and ascetics, they live such a lifestyle where they don't have computers...



I think many who think that way, do so not because they themselves are householders, but because of what they draw from the teachings. What I believe is that people are inspired mostly by Guru Nanak, and not only was he a householder, but what he taught pointed to the some errors in thought and understanding on the part of those who decide to leave the household life. And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. If this is the case, it is something that I am inclined to agree with. Why?

In Buddhism there is only one leader towards whom everyone has the highest respect, the Buddha. The monk tradition was started by him and all the rules were the product of his great wisdom. No monk with any degree of understanding would therefore think to change the rules or add any new ones. Indeed soon after the Buddha's death, during the first council, a few monks wondered if some of the so-called “minor rules” could be dropped. But no, they decided that they not. After all, although they appear not so necessary, are at the same time, not a hindrance. But more importantly, they knew that if one can be dropped now, others will also be dropped by the generations to come, and that would mean complete destruction of the teachings. 

All the Buddhist traditions which came later, where not only new rules were created, but in fact new teachings added and quite perverted, is evidence of the effect of anything short of great wisdom. Actually, no wisdom at all but instead much conceit and wrong understanding, after all, why not encourage strict following of the existing rules and teachings if that is what came from the Buddha himself?

The point I am trying to make is that, for a community of recluse to function optimally, there must be rules which is result of great wisdom; anything short of this is likely to have elements of corruption. To decide on one's own the rules to follow, must be other than wisdom. Those who do this are on a wrong path. 



> Gursikhs possess the qualities of both a householder and renunciate. - 131
> One who knows God is approved whether he is a householder or a renunciate. - 385, 1329
> A true householder, a true renunciate is one who recognizes his own Self. – 1332



And this was said by the Buddha: 

"He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:

"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
 Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
 To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
 An ascetic and mendicant too."



> > And there are codes of conduct laid out for these people marking the difference between them and laypersons, within Sikh teachings? Anyway, I should have added the more important qualifier for Buddhist monks, namely, understanding the Four Noble Truths.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope no marked difference in Sikh teachings. The teachings for them and lay persons are the same as laid out in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth. Although, sometimes Gurus do speak to renunciates and householders separately.



I was asking about codes of conduct and not the basic teachings. The codes of conduct differentiate the way of life between the lay person and the monk, even though both are taught the same teachings.



> There is an additional strict code of conduct for Khalsa and Nihangs and that is the rehitnama. Nihangs also have another text that they venerate, namely Sarbloh Granth. I don't know much about this text.
> 
> Don't know of any such codes for Udasis. They probably do have their own code.



Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?



> Yes the idea of simplicity is very well related to the idea of renunciation. This is the real reason for not cutting hair. Apparently, the exact same reason is also the reason for cutting hair. The world is an odd place indeed.



Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic  attitude.



> Sikhs did not always wear turbans, they simply covered their hair with caps (seli topi).



If one must have long hair, then it is better that one ties it into a joora and cover it.



> > Well, the question is not whether you can or not maintain hygiene with long hair, but which is easier and more practical in terms of the simple life.
> 
> 
> 
> Easier is not an issue for monks. Monks aren't necessarily looking for easy things. Both are quite practical. Hence why we see both.



I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?

The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct. 

Easy is not an issue, but there is a difference between keeping long hair and not, and wisdom chooses the latter.



> > You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!



> > I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for keeping of hair are the same reason why renunciates/ascetics keep hair - simplicity and detachment from the world.



To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.


----------



## aristotle (Apr 7, 2012)

The question is not of Buddhism or any other branch of asceticism. I think the thread has been drifting in quite a wrong direction. We respect all the world faiths, and labeling any faith right or wrong would be grave injustice (Buddhist monks don't keep hair, Sikhs do, that logically means both are opposite to each other and if one is 'right', the other one is automatically 'wrong').
There could be a plethora of such questions, 'Why do the evangelists wear the crucifix?', 'Why are there five Namaaz times and not six or four?', 'Why do the Hindus worship stone idols even when their scriptures at places talk of an all pervading God?' ...
Clearly, none of the religions is absolutely necessary for 'life', and atheists and agnostics survive without them all, and quite nicely at that, I must say..
Now, let's return to the main question. The Sikh Code of Conduct clearly implies the importance of unshorn hair. We do not know if the Father and relatives of Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore unshorn hair there is no definitive evidence to it, clearly not a good piece of trivia. But, in the Janamsakhi, which is by far the most 'oldest'(?) surviving evidence of the historical Nanak, The guru is pictured as instructing Mardana , "Don't cut thine hair." ("ਮਰਦਨਿਆ, ਕੇਸ ਨਾ ਕਟਾਉਣੇ।") Don't know whether the source is credible or not, but even if not completely authentic, the Janamsakhi has clearly remained at the hearts of Sikh folk. Also, there are varied scattered accounts of the Gurus having long unshorn hair and beards. And most importantly, since it is one of the 'kakaars', the importance of the same is indispensable. Bhai Nand Lal even goes to the extent of declaring 'kesh' as the most important 'kakaar'.
Evidently, you must be in the mindset of finding a 'scientific' answer to the 'Kesh' issue...As far as I can say, there are no authoritative studies on the same, but that doesn't mean Kesh are useless.....
I expect fellow SPNers to elaborate more on this point..


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 9, 2012)

Aristotle ji,



> The question is not of Buddhism or any other branch of asceticism.



Are you suggesting that Buddhism teaches asceticism?



> I think the thread has been drifting in quite a wrong direction.



It has shifted from the initial reference point, namely God and his creation. But it is still about cutting / not cutting hair.



> We respect all the world faiths, and labeling any faith right or wrong would be grave injustice (Buddhist monks don't keep hair, Sikhs do, that logically means both are opposite to each other and if one is 'right', the other one is automatically 'wrong').



If Bhagat ji was saying this, it would be understandable. But you had earlier suggested that Sikhs keep hair as mark of connection with the world, so you can't really compare this with a Buddhist monk's decision to shave, can you? 

My part of the debate started when I suggested that keeping long hair had nothing to do with developing morality or wisdom and that the only good reason for doing so was out of respect for one's parents. Later another member made a reference to Buddhist monks and wondered why they shaved their heads. I responded and it is to this that you gave your own response. 

Only after did the discussion become one about recluses, namely that some keep long hair and some shave off and whether both or only one is right. In between it was pointed out that Sikhs keep hair as mark of connection with the world (by you) vs. that it is in fact sign of a simple life and detachment(Bhagat ji’s). 

So yes, there is not just one debate. However it is still all about hair and comes down to whether or not hair serves any practical purpose with regard to the development of goodness and wisdom. 

The debate is not about Buddhist monks vs. lay Sikhs. So you can't really say that the one's decision to shave and the other's to keep long hair stand in opposition to each other. You can compare Buddhist monks with other recluses and you can compare lay Buddhist with Sikhs, but not this one.



> There could be a plethora of such questions, 'Why do the evangelists wear the crucifix?', 'Why are there five Namaaz times and not six or four?', 'Why do the Hindus worship stone idols even when their scriptures at places talk of an all pervading God?' ...



These questions are different in kind to the one we are discussing.



> Clearly, none of the religions is absolutely necessary for 'life', and atheists and agnostics survive without them all, and quite nicely at that, I must say..



"Survival", is this what life is about? Well it appears that you need to reevaluate yourself as to why you are interested in religion. 
Religion is not necessary for 'life' if this in fact is about survival / running towards pleasure and away from pain. But religion actually points to the fact that these are not worthy goals and that being a human, we can rise above them, otherwise it would be no different from animals.

The teachings on giving, morality, kindness, compassion and so on, these all encourage being less self-centered and stands opposite to greed, aversion, conceit, miserliness etc. which power the quest for pleasure and for survival.

If on the other hand what you are alluding to is the fact that atheists and agnostics can experience goodness even though they reject religion, I say that this is in spite of their rejection. And besides, what they reject may be only those parts which require “belief” such as the idea of God and the attributes given and reasonings made in support. They may be deriving inspiration from other sources, but if this is about giving, morality, kindness etc. then they are in fact *not* rejecting religion, but only the image they have about the different religions out there.



> Now, let's return to the main question. The Sikh Code of Conduct clearly implies the importance of unshorn hair.



And I suggested that this should not have been there. But I'm not saying that it should be changed now. What I am trying to encourage is that as individuals, there be some discriminative wisdom towards the issue. The rule should not be clung to and it should not be forced upon others, particularly one's own children. If someone asks you why you keep hair, you can answer that it is the tradition and is something you do not wish to break. But don't start trying to give logical / objective reasons for it, because there is none, and you will only end up taking the attention away from other aspects of the religion and encouraging wrong understanding.



> We do not know if the Father and relatives of Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore unshorn hair there is no definitive evidence to it, clearly not a good piece of trivia. But, in the Janamsakhi, which is by far the most 'oldest'(?) surviving evidence of the historical Nanak, The guru is pictured as instructing Mardana , "Don't cut thine hair." ("ਮਰਦਨਿਆ, ਕੇਸ ਨਾ ਕਟਾਉਣੇ।") Don't know whether the source is credible or not, but even if not completely authentic, the Janamsakhi has clearly remained at the hearts of Sikh folk.



Do you really believe that the man who was known for pointing out the wrongness of rites and rituals as practiced by Hindus and Muslims would think that there is some religious significance in keeping hair? Would it not have occurred to him that while the Hindu comes across to outsiders as encouraging rites and rituals only during those time that he is engaged in those practices, himself with his long uncut hair would come across to others as attached to rules and rituals any and at all times?



> Evidently, you must be in the mindset of finding a 'scientific' answer to the 'Kesh' issue...As far as I can say, there are no authoritative studies on the same, but that doesn't mean Kesh are useless.....



I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh……


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 9, 2012)

I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only  in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I  have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh…….......................

*And I dont think you will ever........becasue whats "wise" to one  is foolish to another.     (One mans meat is anothers poison ??)*

1. ask a Hindu..whats "wise" about a bath in the ganga to wash the soul..water thrown to feed departed souls at hardwaar.. ?
2. ask a muslim whats "wise" about circumcision ?? why not  substitute with a cut finger or a toe nail ..
3. ask a christian whats "wise" about a dip in holy water to replicate the river Jordan ?
4. ask a buddhist whats wise about begging ?? To a Sikh BEGGING is such a  deplorable thing that even an ordinary sikh wont beg..much less a Holy  man..but in Buddhims this is a Pillar and all Holy men MUST BEG.

so theres "wise" and theres wise..and thers WISER...just choose whats best for yourself...and be content...no offense.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 9, 2012)

Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.

Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 9, 2012)

When Guru Gobind Singhji appeared with the Panj Piare, I recall they were dressed in the same style as Guruji. As Guruji kept a full beard and long hair, and as the Khalsa is the Guru, and vice versa, it is by no means surprising that Sikhs should wish to look like Khalsa, which ultimately is to look like Guruji. 

I can relate to this somewhat, when I was Keshdhari, I would avoid looking in the mirror, it was too painful sometimes to see a bearded turbaned Sikh looking back at me, I felt only those with a heart of a Khalsa should look like a Khalsa, I felt a fraud, in hindsight, I should have made more effort to be Khalsa instead of giving up completely, and consigning myself to 15 years of worry, fear, addiction, etc. 

The problem is what do we do about our youth, on the one hand, we say be true to your insides, on the other hand we say never cut your hair, it is hard for young people, they have a lack of good Sikh role models, they are subject to a lot of confusion about Sikhism, they hear stories about Guru Nanakji refusing to wear a thread, and in the next breath get told to follow a blind ritual with little or no explanation as to why this is different. 

In my humble opinion, long gone are the days when wearing a turban would mean that you were a Sikh of the Khalsa, today many Sikhs do not keep hair, but that does not mean they do not have the heart of a Sikh, they know they are in the wrong as much as their hairier brothers who may have other less visual vices. I do however take exception with any mona Sikh who would argue that there is no need for kesh, who would argue that perfection can be found in being mona, I am not proud of my monaism, I see it as falling short, I am not going to beat myself up over it, but it is an expression that Guruji lives inside you, is you, and it makes , for me anyway, thinking or doing acts that are distasteful, a lot harder.

Having said all that, why would I not wish to embrace a turban and beard at this stage in my life, I have no friends, no one to ask me 'why are you doing that?'. I think my wife would be my biggest critic. Although I currently look like a homeless person, with a 3 inch beard, and 4 inch tufts of hair sprouting from the side of my head, She has never once asked me to get a haircut, or tidy myself up, but if I decided to wear a turban, she would say I was not ready yet, that to do so before I was ready would only be pride or ego, and to concentrate on having the heart of a Khalsa, and when the time is right, just allow myself to be a Khalsa, and let Hukam take place, and before I know it, I will have enough hair to tie into a knot!

I think I will give the fixo a miss though. 

And one more thing, do people living in large communities of Sikhs, who happen to be deaf, have trouble lipreading? lol


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 9, 2012)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
> But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
> KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
> This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
> ...


_Prakash.S.Bagga ji I also have known this as to be the rationale as to the origin of the Five K bearing Sikh since from my early childhood.  The hair being significantly differentiating a Sikh among a crowd in those days.

Basically,

_

> Stand up and be counted as a Sikh for what you believe in; even at the danger of being put to death or having to fight to death.



Sat Sri Akal.​


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 9, 2012)

Mind you, according to David Icke, an english ex football player now expert in the takeover of the world by the reptilians, 

_Traditional Sikhs wear turbans. They use a turban to cover their long hair which the Sikh gurus told them to keep. Credo Mutwa states in the Reptilian Agenda, that throughout history, crowns and turbans have been worn by monarchs and religious leaders to imitate the large heads of reptilians/greys. Sikhs have worn turbans since the days of Guru Nanak. In statues and painting/pictures, the Hindu god Shiva is shown with a large heap of dreadlocks on his head. A sect of warrior Sikhs, known as the ‘Akali Nihang’, imitate the Shiva hair-do by wearing a large blue conical turban, called a ‘Dastar Bunga’. And they even adorn it with small iron weapons of war. _

full article about Sikhism and reptilians 

Sikhism and the reptilians - David Icke's Official Forums


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 9, 2012)

Gyani ji,





> > I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh…….......................
> 
> 
> 
> And I dont think you will ever........becasue whats "wise" to one is foolish to another. (One mans meat is anothers poison ??)



No, not because “what's "wise" to one is foolish to another”, but because this is not the perception and understanding of those who know the Truth but the experience of the common man who is moved by ignorance and craving and therefore mistakes the product of delusion for the truth. 



> 1. ask a Hindu..whats "wise" about a bath in the ganga to wash the soul..water thrown to feed departed souls at hardwaar.. ?



And therefore Guru Nanak was making a statement of Truth in pointing out that these people were following wrong practices. 



> ask a muslim whats "wise" about circumcision ?? why not substitute with a cut finger or a toe nail ..



And either would be attachment to rules and ritual and this is the Truth! 



> 3. ask a christian whats "wise" about a dip in holy water to replicate the river Jordan ?



Another manifestation of wrong practice.



> 4. ask a buddhist whats wise about begging ?? To a Sikh BEGGING is such a deplorable thing that even an ordinary sikh wont beg..much less a Holy man..but in Buddhims this is a Pillar and all Holy men MUST BEG.



Where did you hear this from? Or is this a case of seeing what one likes to see. If you are interested I can explain the phenomena to you but for now I'll just leave you with this:
Anyone who has developed some understanding of the Buddha's teachings will see the wrongness of asking anyone for anything; even a son will hesitate to ask his own father for something. Do you think therefore that begging would be encouraged by the same set of teachings?



> so theres "wise" and theres wise..and thers WISER...just choose whats best for yourself...and be content...no offense.



There are levels of wisdom. This however is differentiated by the depth and not by difference in value of different action, mental, verbal or bodily.  The levels must conform to each other such that the wisest when stating something, the least wise will understand in accordance to his level but nevertheless agree fully with, and not disagree.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 9, 2012)

Prakash ji,




> Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
> But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.



And here there is constant debating amongst Sikhs about the teachings where each side thinks that he is right and the other is wrong. But you are not saying that this is not important so long as everyone involved has long hair and ties a turban, are you?



> KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?



And Sikh teaches the importance of identity / recognition? Is this a virtue, if so which one exactly? To me it looks to be all about encouraging conceit or ego.



> This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
> That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.



As an individual who knows to develop goodness and wisdom, thinking about one's own hair is already a distraction, how much more when thinking about that of fellow followers of the religion. This is where wisdom makes a difference and I thought that Sikhi encouraged this!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 9, 2012)

Confused ji thanks for your post.


Confused said:


> And Sikh teaches the importance of identity / recognition? Is this a virtue, if so which one exactly? To me it looks to be all about encouraging conceit or ego.


_Not everything we do or are is conceit or ego it could also be the fault of person like yourself so perceiving it.__  As we all know no one can perceive a person in truth to what a person really is in total.
_


Confused said:


> As an individual who knows to develop goodness and wisdom, thinking about one's own hair is already a distraction, how much more when thinking about that of fellow followers of the religion. This is where wisdom makes a difference and I thought that Sikhi encouraged this!


_Now Confused brother ji this is what I call kind of nonsense as in making no sense.  Whatever you do is a distraction whether you cut your finger nails, wear a flashy or saffron robe, etc.  We all realize that all such have an impact on who we are and hence small or large impact on wisdom we develop or understand._ _Where do you draw so called lines of pure unadulterated wisdom? As I understand, manifestation(s) and actions resulting from wisdom are always impacted by the total whole of who we are._

Metta.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 9, 2012)

Confused ji,
We can not put question what has been established by our GURU.
It is like this if any existing Government makes any Law it is followed by the new coming Governments unless changed by majority. So Sikhs follow the same principle of keeping the continuity of the oreder of GURU. There is nothing wrong in adhering to the order of GURU. Some may not be understanding the significance of the order of GURU and may go astray but at large Sikhs are going to stay with the order of GURU. Others would also realise sooner or later because any order in the interest of the concerned persons is always for ever.
Many argue where SGGS is ordering us to follow the order of 10th NANAK.In view of above context one should understand why and how it should be necessary to follow the orders established by 10th Nanak.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 9, 2012)

The real point is the day the sikhs were created is when TRUE sikhs were defined.
In society we have all these different terms keshdari, sehajdari, amritdhari and so on....ALL created by us.

That day on Vasaikhi 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't mention any of these. These are labels that we have invented and assigned as years have past.
A mona may have a better heart of a sikh than someone with a khes, we all know this.

 But as a SIKH, we cannot label the mona as a true sikh. That is not Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Sikh. There can only be ONE TRUE Guru Gobind's sikh. Being a sehajdari or nearly an amritdhari sikh is simply not an acceptable label for  Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Sikh. 
You are either a true sikh or you are not, no inbetweens, no exceptions.
The khes along with the other kakkars goes with that person called a sikh.

The message that day was crystal clear, we should have no doubts. 
He also informed everyone that a true sikh regards the Guru Granth Sahib as a living and eternal guru. This is why there has never been any doubts over it unlike other written pothis. It is the living guru of a true sikh and every sikh regards it this way.We won't accept any additions or omissions made by anyone to it, so why should we give the label 'Sikh' certain omissions to suit us ??

Therefore, I being mona shouldn't be calling myself a sikh. To say that I'm on the path but have not been initiated or baptised, like I hear many say is also wrong. Saying I'm a sikh but not had the initiation ceremony doesn't give me any right to call myself a sikh wether true or not. As a sikh is only ever 'true' and is only as defined by the Guru.
Question is what do I call myself ???
I think calling myself a 'follower of sikhi' is probably more appropriate as I shouldn't say I'm A SIKH. 

Waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 9, 2012)

Confused Ji,
I wrote about Begging Monks becasue thats what we have in malaysia...a Buddhist Monks with just a saffron cloth wrapping around the body  BEGGING BOWL and a CLOTH BAG ( to transfer goods begged form bowl to bag) are everywhere. Legitimate ones have letters of authority from the Major Viharas..the FAKE ones are reported as and when they annoy someone too much and get caught.
I beleive in Thailand this is also the norm..a Novice MONK has to be shaved bald and go on begging rounds to qualify.
Anyway when you have the time..maybe you can enlighten me on this aspect of Buddhism..and why its practsied if its NOT the right teaching..


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 10, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> The real point is the day the sikhs were created is when TRUE sikhs were defined.
> In society we have all these different terms keshdari, sehajdari, amritdhari and so on....ALL created by us.
> 
> That day on Vasaikhi 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't mention any of these. These are labels that we have invented and assigned as years have past.
> ...



You are a Sikh, I am a Sikh, anyone is a Sikh who, as per the SRM states. -

*Article I – Definition of Sikh 

Any human being who faithfully believes in: 
• One Immortal Being 
• Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• The Guru Granth Sahib
• The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus 
• The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.

*


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 10, 2012)

Prakash ji,

I do not agree with some of what you state as reason, but other than that I accept your explanation, and only from the perspective of your being an individual who has chosen to follow a particular religion. And we can leave it at this. But allow me to add the following:

Either there is understanding or there is ignorance. 
When hearing a teaching, if there is no understanding and we follow the suggestion, this in effect is encouraging ignorance. If we think at the time that down the road there will be understanding, we do not realize that it is in fact ignorance and attachment doing the talking, and that these will accumulate and lead to exactly the opposite of that which is aimed at.

In Buddhism the five moral precepts of restraint from killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct and taking of intoxicants are spoken of not as commandments, but as “training rules”. This is because it is to be expected that so long as a person is not enlightened, moral misconduct will continue to arise for him. It is only through the development of wisdom that one by one, defilements are eradicated leading to perfect moral conduct. Therefore if someone were to have an attitude towards these precepts that do not involve understanding, not only does this not address the root of the problem, but invariably leads to more wrong, perhaps in other forms.

Understanding must therefore always be in the forefront and lead the way, because otherwise there will be distortion in both thinking and in behavior. From this perspective, blind acceptance of rules must in effect only lead to more harm than any good.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 10, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,



> Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
> And Sikh teaches the importance of identity / recognition? Is this a virtue, if so which one exactly? To me it looks to be all about encouraging conceit or ego.
> 
> Not everything we do or are is conceit or ego it could also be the fault of person like yourself so perceiving it.



You are saying that I may be wrong to identify the situation as conceit. But what else can identity, marking the outward appearance of a person, comparing and encouraging this be, if not conceit? Looking into the mirror to see if my beard is in order is already conceit, how much more it is if I started to scan the whole face and head, identifying with having a turban, particular glasses, skin color etc. and on top of this making the association with a particular religion? 



> As we all know no one can perceive a person in truth to what a person really is in total.



We are not talking about anything beyond what is manifested in the moment and as expressed by the other person. 

And what are you referring to by the idea of “total of a person”?



> Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
> As an individual who knows to develop goodness and wisdom, thinking about one's own hair is already a distraction, how much more when thinking about that of fellow followers of the religion. This is where wisdom makes a difference and I thought that Sikhi encouraged this!
> 
> Now Confused brother ji this is what I call kind of nonsense as in making no sense. Whatever you do is a distraction whether you cut your finger nails, wear a flashy or saffron robe, etc.



I should probably have used another word instead of “distraction”. But having used it, allow me to explain further.

Obviously distraction is not inherent in the activity itself, nor is it in the simple act of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling. What it must therefore be is some volitional activity, one which is conditioned at the root, by ignorance. In the example you give above, these can be done with or without ignorance, however when ignorance is present this must be accompanied by attachment and / or conceit. They are as you say, distractions, the kind we all experience every day and to be expected, therefore wrong to talk as if one is worse than the other. Also there is no need to make it into anything bigger by highlighting them.

The distraction I was referring to is however different. What I said was in response to the promoting of religious identity. This is therefore a problem not only of attachment and conceit, but wrong understanding as well. And while the first two are wrong but to be expected, and therefore no need to be overly concerned about, the latter is a case in fact, of failure to acknowledge their wrongness; indeed it is indirectly promoting these. Therefore in this case, it has to be pointed out and never enough.



> We all realize that all such have an impact on who we are and hence small or large impact on wisdom we develop or understand.



I don't understand your reasoning, can you please explain?



> Where do you draw so called lines of pure unadulterated wisdom?



Wisdom is a mental phenomenon with a particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. The following is from one Buddhist text:

Quote:
Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non perplexity as its proximate cause, as it were a good guide in the forest.

In short, wisdom is right understanding, and understanding understands reality / the Truth.



> As I understand, manifestation(s) and actions resulting from wisdom are always impacted by the total whole of who we are.



Wisdom manifests as non-delusion, and non-delusion with regard to what? To the nature of consciousness, of mental factors and of material phenomena. It is not measured by the result we “think” about, because that would be in the realm of ideas and ideas are concepts which are mind-created.    

Again, you'd need to explain this idea about “whole of who we are”, what are you thinking in terms of here?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Apr 10, 2012)

Gyani ji,




Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Confused Ji,
> I wrote about Begging Monks becasue thats what we have in malaysia...a Buddhist Monks with just a saffron cloth wrapping around the body  BEGGING BOWL and a CLOTH BAG ( to transfer goods begged form bowl to bag) are everywhere. Legitimate ones have letters of authority from the Major Viharas..the FAKE ones are reported as and when they annoy someone too much and get caught.
> I beleive in Thailand this is also the norm..a Novice MONK has to be shaved bald and go on begging rounds to qualify.
> Anyway when you have the time..maybe you can enlighten me on this aspect of Buddhism..and why its practsied if its NOT the right teaching..



Begging involves asking, soliciting for some material object. Buddhist monks don't ask or solicit. In fact if they do (and they do a lot nowadays), they are committing a greater wrong than would a lay person under similar circumstances. 

The Buddha founded this order with the understanding that there are lay people who respect recluses and willingly provide them with the necessary requisites of food, shelter, clothing and medicine. In exchange these lay people receive teachings from those recluses which help them live the life of a good householder, and this is exactly what Buddhist monks are supposed to do.

The bowl that you call “begging bowl” is filled not by virtue of a monk’s going around and asking for food, but the layperson's desire to provide support in the hope that by doing so, these monks will be able to sustain their lives, grow in morality and wisdom and will continue to teach them the good teachings. Besides, it is one big opportunity for lay people to express generosity in terms of material goods and for the monk's to share the Truth. 

A monk does not knock at doors but pass the houses of lay people who have food in front of them and ready to fill the bowls. Besides, they stand there for a short time and if there is the impression that a particular lay disciple is not ready or does not wish to give them any food, will walk away immediately in the direction of the next house.

This is a quick one, but I hope it is helpful.


----------



## findingmyway (Apr 15, 2012)

Moderation Note: This thread seems to have gone off topic dramatically several times. Please can I request all members to keep the thread topic in mind when exploring other topics and try to keep a link. The thread has grown too big for me to tease out the various topics but if you have a related topic please start a new thread and post the link here. Thank you.


----------



## sandeep17oct (Apr 15, 2012)

Dear skeptic free thinker
Everything is not subject to rationalization. You can only rationalize material concepts. You can't do the same with spiritual ones. That is why science has never come to terms with the concept of God.
 One reason for not cutting hair is that hair protects the wisdom acquired by the Jaap of the Naam. Will science ever come to terms with this reason? 
Please understand that science will not free you of your suffering neither can anybody else. The only one who will is THE GURU. His word should be enough to satisfy your mind. Rationalization is a trap that mind uses to trigger disbelief in the facade that if I get the reason I'll be satisfied. But is it? Is it ever satisfied? 
Moreover do we know everything? How much has science told us and how much of that is true ? We have all known about what happened with Newton's theories. Now Einstein's are in the firing line with the LHC speed of light constrait contradiction. Truthfully I think we should question why these theories keep changing but those of religion remain constant.Science is an 
amateur youth. Religion is wise and old. 
Mere Patshah da ek bol saare science de theories hor aan wali saari theories to utte hai. Koi uchi cheez nu explain karan de lae neevi cheez da istemal thoda kita jaanda hai. Science neevi hai hor neevi rahoogi. Ek banda si Bhardwaj naa da, scientist siga, cancer ho gya si unu, saare science de tareeke laga lay unne lekin thik nhi hoya. Ohi banda nu nai jindagi mili jad unu Darbar Sahib de darshan hor Guru de shabad sunan da mauka milya, oda cancer thik ho gya. Eda koi explanation nhi. Ae te Guru di bakshish hai. Shabad hai "Mera baid Guru Gobinda" 
Reason nu passe karo. Reason will not help you overcome "Jam di mar" or death. 
Waheguruji ka Khalsa.Waheguruji ki Fateh.


----------



## jonj (Apr 26, 2012)

this is actually a very interesting question here as reading this also bothered me and had the question in my mind as well.hopefully i would also be able to find an answer for myself as i have been planning to really research more extensively about this.  can see much effort put in this thread and i can see that the argument is really presenting good points although the answer is yet to be discovered.hopefully there will be more input regarding this dilemma so that we may have peace of mind regarding this topic.rest assured iwill pot on my findings soon.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 26, 2012)

PARRH PARRH Gadee laddeyeah...warns GURU NANAK Ji in Asa dee vaar...
Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 30, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> PARRH PARRH Gadee laddeyeah...warns GURU NANAK Ji in Asa dee vaar...
> Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader


 
Gyani Ji is Right,

research, research, research....
when do we get the time to actually experience?

the age of information has passed, all the information, so much information, information overload...do we need any more information?

The age for experience is NOW. rather than research, why not put things into practice and experience it? record your findings....make some adjustments, and experience some more.

i spent years of my life, precious breaths debating, arguing, challenging views...but then i did what i should have done in the first place...to look at SGGS ji for all my answers...and i get all of them from guru ji.

And with Gods grace i am trying to apply and feel and record my experiences...the challengies, the feelings, the energy, the heartache, the joys, the roadblocks etc etc.

God bless all.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 30, 2012)

The entire 1429 pages of SGGS are "for EXPERIENCING...LIVING..."..but many among us decide to BYPASS the LIVING..the EATING and ENJOYING what Guru ji has put before us in a Thaall....Thaal vich tin vastu payiouh....sat santokh vicharo....khavo bhuncho..enjoy them....live life to the fullest as we (writers of SGGS) have experienced..enjoyed...and we GO into..WHY why..where is it so..who said so..why NOt this ?? why not that ?? so what ?? who cares..?? etc etc...we do research..we wonder..we walk aimlessly..when the GURU offers His hand for us to hold..we shrug it off..step back...and as a result we LOSE it ALL...Beware..time is SHORT...Day is going past EATING..Night goes by SLEEPING...and soon it will be too late...


----------



## BhagatSingh (Apr 30, 2012)

Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> 
> I think many who think that way, do so not because they themselves are householders, but because of what they draw from the teachings. What I believe is that people are inspired mostly by Guru Nanak, and not only was he a householder, but what he taught pointed to the some errors in thought and understanding on the part of those who decide to leave the household life.


Yes



> And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously.


Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.



> And this was said by the Buddha:
> 
> "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:
> 
> ...


Nice. What's teh source?




> Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?


Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.




> Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic  attitude.


Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair. 

Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.

You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it. If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his  so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.



			
				back to Confused ji said:
			
		

> If one must have long hair, then it is better that one ties it into a joora and cover it.


Yep. 



> I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?


I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society. 0 Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset. You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.

Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them? 
The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?



> The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct.


It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.

Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365



> To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!


Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.



> To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.


Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:


			
				Prakash.s.Bagga said:
			
		

> Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
> 
> But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
> KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
> ...



Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.


----------



## chazSingh (May 1, 2012)

> Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Prakash.s.Bagga*
> ...


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 3, 2012)

Bhagat ji,

Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. 

Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.

Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.

=====
Quote: And this was said by the Buddha: 

 "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:

 "Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
 Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
 To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
 An ascetic and mendicant too." 

Bhagat: Nice. What's teh source?

Confused: Sorry, I don’t exactly know which Sutta this is from.

====
Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text? 

Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.

Confused: You don’t need to know the Basket of Discipline. What I am asking you is whether on reading the corresponding Sikh texts, a Sikh householder with any level of understanding will find it inspiring.

==== 
Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude. 

Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair. 

Confused: Again, you should not speak for other people but only yourself.  
Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here.  The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise.

The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?   

Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation. 

====
Bhagat: Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.

Confused: While keeping hair does require that one maintain it, shaving off in fact is aimed at having *not to maintain it*. Quite opposite isn’t it?

====
Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it.

Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it. 

====
Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.

Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.

====
Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it? 

Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.

Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? Indeed if society was to play a part in the individual’s decision to ordain, it would make meaningless the very idea of renunciation. 

I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it. In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair.  But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like. 

====
Bhagat: Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset.

Confused: Getting upset as a result of self-image will happen only to those monks who in fact are not fit to be monks in the first place. And not only enlightened people are eligible to become monks. 

====
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.

Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.

====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? 

Confused: Same with nails then.  And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?

====  
Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them? 

Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.

A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. But as I pointed out, if you want to maintain this idea of natural, then you’d have to also allow for other things to take place without a need to change. Your belief actually goes against the understanding of the way things are as it manifest from moment to moment, because your concept of “natural” is only a picture that you paint and want to follow. Ask different people and they will give you different ideas about natural. Someone who is taken in by Darwin's 'law of natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might in fact end up having a belief quite opposed to yours. But these are just ideas about natural which comes from ignorance and wrong understanding of the way things are. 

My own conception about nature and what it means to be natural is as follows:

Any experience now is real and has a nature particular to it. It would have been conditioned to arise in accordance to fixed natural laws. On seeing a pleasant object, if attachment arises immediately, this is what is natural given who we are. Thinking as each person does motivated by one view or another, this is reflection of tendency that is natural.

In conceiving and thinking as you do about hair growing naturally, the imperative is therefore to understand the nature of the thinking and any mental factors conditioning it. To go by one's own idea about nature and not acknowledge the present moment reality is therefore not natural, but idealistic. Only with the arising of wisdom and therefore detached, is one said to be flowing with nature, otherwise it is the stream of attachment which one is swept along by.

A Buddhist who decides to ordain must have the understanding that the life of a recluse is “natural” to him, if not then he should not do so and just remain as a lay person and keep whatever hair style and change in accordance to conditions. Once he ordains however, following all the rules including shaving his head, would be something that is in accordance with his nature.

So we have natural as in whatever has arisen is because it is in the nature of it to do so. And there is “being natural” as in understanding and living in accordance with one’s accumulated tendencies.

=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?

Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.

Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking.

For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.

=====   
Quote: The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct. 

Bhagat: It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.

 Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.
 You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
 page 1365

Confused: Duality is created and then a solution is sought outside of the present moment. This is just a game which in fact does nothing to change the underlying tendency. Buddhism is not a non-dual religion. It is about developing understanding with regard to present moment realities such that in the case of thinking, whatever the thoughts are, this should be known for what it is. 

=====
Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all! 

Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.

Confused: You had said:
“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”

And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic. 

=====
Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment. 

Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. 

Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.

===== 
Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:

Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga 
Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.

But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
 KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
 This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
 That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.

Bhagat: Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.

Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 3, 2012)

Maybe someone who has experienced both could give us a better idea.
Say, one who has had a kesh or long hair and now has it short or one who used to have shorter hair and now keeps it long or kesh.?


----------



## Harry Haller (May 3, 2012)

Luckyji

I had long hair and a turban right up until I was 28. I did not cut my hair for any other reason than my lifestyle was no longer Sikh, and I no longer believed in God, or possibly a better reason would be I was rejecting God, I am not quite sure. 

I have now not cut my hair on my head or face for 2 months. I have quite a proper Sardar beard now, it looks the same as when I used to smother it in fixo, although my head just has 3 inch tufts growing out of it at strange angles, apart from the top which is bald. How my wife finds me attractive is beyond me, but every time I mention cutting it, she remarks that I look the same to her regardless, so as hers is the only opinion that matters, I have just let it grow. 

I don't think any of my customers really care one way or another, I do not socialise and have no friends, so have no worry about social environments, yet, I do not feel I have quite grasped the message completely regarding the hair. My current stance is that I do not care, yet if you look at Sikhs from history, they did care, passionately, about their hair, they loved their hair, I do not think you can get away from the fact that they were extremely attached to the concept of hair. From that view, hair cannot stand as a symbol of renunciation, there has to be more to it than that, if good Sikhs of old would rather die than cut their hair then either they had the wrong grasp of the concept, or we underestimate the importance. 

So clearly, my current state, ie, one who lets it grow because I am unconcerned about my appearance, is not in line with Sikhism. 

My own take? I think when Guru Gobind Singh ji gave us an identity, he wanted us as Sikhs to look like him. Were not the Panj Pyare dressed as he was when he came out of the tent, in identical clothes, with Pag and beard. 

I had a lengthy discussion a while back with Parmaji, where I conceded that to emulate a Guru could be seen as wrong, as it implied no understanding at all, but I am not so sure anymore, one cannot understand everything, if one keeps hair to assist in emulating the Guru, but does not quite understand why, then I see nothing wrong in that, why spend years attempting to understand why? when in my view, the events that took place that day were more about emulation. I am you, and you are me, take my hair, my clothes, realise that in yourself there is  Guru Gobind Singhji, and although at first you may not understand, just keep a pure heart, be truthful, be brave, and it will all make sense as you journey through life, it prompts the question, does one have to truly understand why one must keep hair, in order to keep it, I think becomes one of those things that true Sikhs know exactly why, but are unable to explain it, if keeping hair is akin to knowing the true Guru, then the following explains it well. 


P3 SGGS

ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ 
 The state of the faithful cannot be described.
ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਪਿਛੈ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥ 
. One who tries to describe this shall regret the attempt.

Sometimes a bit of faith is required, a jump into the unknown, I think hair is one of those things, if you truly truly know why you keep your hair, your hairy legs, armpits, the stray ones out of your ear and nose, you may find you are unable to explain why it is, but then maybe that was always known, maybe its a test of faith, maybe you don't know until you really try it, and for all the right reasons, all those reasons that still have not come to me yet


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 3, 2012)

Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> 
> Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously.
> 
> ...


Let's not.


> ====
> Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?
> 
> Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.
> ...



Yes, that is what I responded to. I am not familiar enough with Sarbloh Granth or the rehitnamas written by Guru Gobind Singh ji's contemporaries to give you a response.



> ====
> Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude.
> 
> Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair.
> ...


I will continue to speak for other people when I wish. In general Sikhs (the ones that keep hair including myself) know how to handle hair, the ones that handle them can keep them. If you cannot handle long hair you are not going to keep it, it's as simple as that. If you cannot ride a bike you are less likely to keep one around. 




> Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here.  The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise.


Yes knowing how to handle means you know how to solve the problems that arise.




> The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?


Hahaha most Indians who renounce the householder life, keep long hair. Many enlightened sages kept their hair. They just let them grow out. It is not a problem like you are making it out to be.


> Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation.



False. Know-how comes from wisdom. Brushing your teeth comes from wisdom. Yes some people brush their teeth because their parents told them, but others brush them because they are wise enough to know what the consequences of not brushing once's teeth.

"Why don't Buddhist monks remove their teeth? Because then they won't have to brush them, it will make their life even simpler. Are they attached to their teeth?"
Do you see the problem here with the above? That is how I hear you speak.



> ====
> Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it.
> 
> Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it.


Although there are some important differences between long hair and nails, namely manageability, keeping long nails is fine too. It's how you deal with it.



> ====
> Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.
> 
> Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.


No long hair does not encourage conceit, no more than a shaved head. This is just a false perception you have. 

If you think removing parts of the body means you are living simply then you should just continue to remove parts of the body, till you are dead. That would be the simplest of living. Hahaha! lol

On a serious note, that's true. To live as if you are dead is the simplest way to live. Without possessions, without the 5 thieves, without a sense of self, without an identity, without a tribe, without this and without that. When you clear your life of all the peripheral junk, all you have is life in it's simplest form. One may have those things but one must live with detachment, almost as if one didn't have those things. This is what makes for simplest living. Having hair or not is rather insignificant here.




> Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?
> 
> Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.
> 
> Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society?


I didn't. I factored in change. Don't read the word society if it bugs you.

The point I am making is no matter who you think you are, you are likely to get attached to that. If a Buddhist monk shaves his head and if for some reason he can't or is forced to change his image, he would be quite upset.



> I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it.


I know.



> In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair.  But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like.


Images are always present. Whether you have hair or not. I am sure Buddhist monks are also motivated to a  good extent by the idea of what Buddhist monks should look like. There is an image of a Buddhist monk with a bald head. Any time you have a monk and he has no hair...
If he has orange and red robes, I think "Buddhist" 
If he has white robes "a Jain monk"
If he has no robes, or long hair "could be a Hindu monk"

Image is always present. When we learn to detach ourselves from them, this is known as simplicity.




> ====
> Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.
> 
> Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.


I am not talking about belief. I am talking about being rooted in God.



> ====
> Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?
> 
> Confused: Same with nails then.  And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?


Comb? yes. Oil? no. My scalp produces enough oils to cover the length of my hair. Though in general Sikhs do oil their hair. Either way, this is letting it be, cutting it is not.



> ====
> Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
> 
> Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.


lol What's the word? When someone thinks they know how the other would respond but they just come across as ______________.




> A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally.


You are putting words in my mouth. Keeping hair is not the only option I provided. I said you may do whatever you want with it, real simplicty comes from being without the 5 thieves. On the other hand, it is you who says shaving is the only way of simplicity.

To clarify, I am not talking about what is natural.



> =====
> Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
> 
> Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.


Not exactly, you have not understood it.



> Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking.


If you take God as an idea, then no doubt what you say is true. But here I am not talking about God as some sort of idea but as a reality.

In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, God is described as all-pervading, _vartmaan_. Vartmaan also means "present moment".




> For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair?


or attachment towards the idea of not keeping it... (the flip side to aversion)



> If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness?


Yes of course, why else do you wash your face?



> To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.


No, it is aversion to having a moustache. Common sense dictates that you move it out of the way or simply clean it after you've had your meal. It is not common sense to walk out on your meal to go cut your moustache and return to finish the meal. 




> =====
> Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!
> 
> Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.
> ...


I was responding with regards to the practicality aspect.
With regards to attachment, it may be easy object of attachment. Any object can be an easy object of attachment, the entire world is, Maya. Marks are just part of maya like anything else. They are no more "easier".




> =====
> Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.
> 
> Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair.
> ...


Mark of inner renunciation as well. (What good is outer renunciation without the inner renunciation?)

It could be a symbol I suppose but that does not mean it is there due to the lack of understanding, in fact, it could be the opposite, that once there was understanding, one adopted the symbol.



> =====
> Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga
> ...


Identity is every where. Only when one lives completely in the present moment, that there is no identity seeking.

Let me rephrase Kabir's salok for you so that you may meditate on it.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the Present Moment (when you live in it), duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 3, 2012)

> they did care, passionately, about their hair, they loved their hair, I do not think you can get away from the fact that they were extremely attached to the concept of hair.


One could say that. And perhaps for some it was true but hair in Sikh history has represented Dharam. To cut hair was not to cut hair but to give up Dharam and the Khalsa saw themselves as up holders of Dharam so cutting hair was out of the question.

Not all Sikhs kept hair and saw it this light however.


----------



## chazSingh (May 3, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> One could say that. And perhaps for some it was true but hair in Sikh history has represented Dharam. To cut hair was not to cut hair but to give up Dharam and the Khalsa saw themselves as up holders of Dharam so cutting hair was out of the question.
> 
> Not all Sikhs kept hair and saw it this light however.


 
I would say i was one of them. I think i kept my hair because i was attached to it, or even just used to having it uncut due to my parents saying we have to keep it uncut.

It's only when i started delving into Sikhi, spirituality (which is a major part of sikhi) did i start to feel a more spiritual connection with my hair, but not just my hair, with all aspects of my body and mind.

Now when i sit and do simran, and i can feel the energy flowing through me, when i feel the joy of the experiences i have, when i feel the sadness (bairagh) of my soul wanting to be with god, then i feel like my whole body and existance is part of god and i dont want to nor even think of cutting my hair.

It's hard to explain, you start to look after yourself more, eat healthy, want to exercise, what to interact with people and put a smile on peoples faces. i'm always looking for moments throughout the day where i can do some more simran or seva.

But in a similar way to what bhagat singh said, its not about whther you keep your hair or not, its what you're doing to purify yourself of the 5 thieves, and how much of a stranglehold they have on you. As you start to control the 5 thieves, the increased levels of purity inside you will determine your outer actions.

God bless all.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 4, 2012)

Bhagat ji,


 Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.

 Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.

B: Let's not.

C: You mean respecting both comes with being a Sikh? In other words all Sikhs are expected to acknowledge and respect the Udasi tradition?

===
B: I will continue to speak for other people when I wish. In general Sikhs (the ones that keep hair including myself) know how to handle hair, the ones that handle them can keep them.

C: You mean there are no Sikhs who learn to handle and keep hair because they have no other choice? You mean all Sikhs who keep long hair do so willingly and with the same understanding?  

=====
B: If you cannot handle long hair you are not going to keep it, it's as simple as that. If you cannot ride a bike you are less likely to keep one around. 

C: Well, kids will let their parents comb and tie their hair and most of them do not like keeping it. I keep my hair and although I have no problem managing it, however do have issues with having to do so. In other words I manage my hair all by force of attachment and conceit, but at the same time wish that I did not have to be in the situation where these unwholesome tendencies are encouraged. 

===== 
B: Yes knowing how to handle means you know how to solve the problems that arise.

C: Well we do manage to solve most of our problems. But the real problem is that we do not realize that in all cases this is with ignorance and attachment and no wisdom involved anywhere. We are simply swinging between aversion for one object and attachment towards another. In other words, replacing aversion with attachment is how we solve our problems.

====
Quote: The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off? 

B: Hahaha most Indians who renounce the householder life, keep long hair. Many enlightened sages kept their hair. They just let them grow out. It is not a problem like you are making it out to be.

C: From reading their teachings I am not convinced that any of them are enlightened, sorry …

==== 
Quote: Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation. 

B: False. 

C: Not to understand the present moment reality but instead go by an “ideal”, in this case of keeping hair, cannot be the result of anything but attachment and wrong understanding. Any action which follows in relation to this over time can only be more of the same and must also involve conceit.

===
B: Know-how comes from wisdom. Brushing your teeth comes from wisdom. 

C: Please explain to me, which part of the process requires wisdom and wisdom as in understanding what? There must be wisdom associated with every mundane activity then? So wise people are everywhere, and we don’t necessarily have to look up to some religion in order to gain wisdom? Perhaps even a chimpanzee who has mastered the art of picking out lice from other chimpanzees can be said to have some level of wisdom?   

====
B: Yes some people brush their teeth because their parents told them, but others brush them because they are wise enough to know what the consequences of not brushing once's teeth.

C: So Guru Nanak could possibly have taught someone about the consequence of not brushing teeth and the art of dental hygiene? Maybe also how best to keep long hair and tie a turban?

====
B: "Why don't Buddhist monks remove their teeth? Because then they won't have to brush them, it will make their life even simpler. Are they attached to their teeth?"

C: You are now telling me that hair has some practical purpose, therefore if I suggested cutting it off, then I should also be ready to pull my teeth out? 

How can pulling the teeth make life more simple when this means that only certain foods can be eaten and therefore served? Teeth have a practical purpose and do not come in the way of anything. Nor is it an object of vanity as it is in the case of hair. Not cleaning teeth leads to problems that can be avoided by daily taking care of it. Which yes, is a problem, but not of the kind that we are talking about with regard to hair, but one related to the fact of conditioned existence and having to go through the cycle of birth and death. But this is something one comes to understand and excepts.

Can the same however be said about hair? 
Hair when cut, not only does not cause other problems, but in fact solves a few potential ones. Indeed in more or less the same way that cleaning the teeth do. But not only this, while shaving the head is done once in every few days and in the meantime, the only time that one thinks about it is when bathing, long hair needs to be attended to very often. And given that it has to be kept a particular way, must involve conceit / vanity (unless one is fully enlightened).

So no, not removing one’s teeth does not imply attachment to them. Indeed to remove them can only come from attachment to some silly ideal. 

====  
Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it. 

B: Although there are some important differences between long hair and nails, namely manageability, keeping long nails is fine too. It's how you deal with it.

C: And this is to be simple? A person with protruding teeth will learn how to manage them, so will someone without one or more limbs. But hair and nails can easily be removed, not to cut these must therefore amount to a more or less bull-headed attitude towards them. Anyway the point here is that if one insists on keeping long hair because it is part of nature, then one *must* also keep long nails for the same reason.

====
B: No long hair does not encourage conceit, no more than a shaved head. This is just a false perception you have. 

C: On one hand it is cutting off something with no practical purpose, but has always been an object of vanity, and now one does not have to think about it as one used to. On the other hand, it is encouragement to continue thinking about it, although in a different way. But given that it must be kept in one particular way and groomed, can vanity be avoided? 

====
B: If you think removing parts of the body means you are living simply then you should just continue to remove parts of the body, till you are dead. That would be the simplest of living. Hahaha! 

C: “Removing parts of the body” is what you have reduced it to and characterized. Cutting off the hair does not involve the perception of being “part of the body” and “removed”. This idea is yours only, one which apparently comes from self-identification or self-view something which a good Buddhist monk understands as the main obstacle to wisdom. Indeed he is not even faced with the decision whether or not to shave, since to do so is simply following one of the rules laid out.

But I’m just reminded about the subtlety of the Middle Way. That without it one has no way out but to swing between two extreme positions. 

==== 
B: On a serious note, that's true. To live as if you are dead is the simplest way to live. Without possessions, without the 5 thieves, without a sense of self, without an identity, without a tribe, without this and without that. When you clear your life of all the peripheral junk, all you have is life in it's simplest form. One may have those things but one must live with detachment, almost as if one didn't have those things. This is what makes for simplest living. Having hair or not is rather insignificant here.

C: If you believe that you must leave your hair uncut, then the 5 thieves are not going to go away anytime soon. 

====
Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.

Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? 

B: I didn't. I factored in change. Don't read the word society if it bugs you.

C: It did not bug me, but the impression was of you having the idea that society decides the rules for monks. Why did you refer to society then?

====
B: The point I am making is no matter who you think you are, you are likely to get attached to that. If a Buddhist monk shaves his head and if for some reason he can't or is forced to change his image, he would be quite upset.

C: The institution of the monkhood cannot exist without all the rules laid out. These rules have been laid out to be in accord with the accumulations of a certain group of people, such that these act not as commandments, but reminders as to what is and not the right attitude towards any given situation. To change any of these rules therefore can only be result of the corrupting effect of attachment and wrong understanding. 

So what you suggest is a case of corruption and if made to take effect, makes no difference then whether a monk gets upset or not. Either way, the monk would not be worthy of the monkhood. Better that he stay as a layperson.

====
B: Images are always present. Whether you have hair or not. I am sure Buddhist monks are also motivated to a good extent by the idea of what Buddhist monks should look like. There is an image of a Buddhist monk with a bald head. Any time you have a monk and he has no hair...

C: You having the particular image of him does not mean that he has the same image of himself. You have the image of him having a bald head, but he simply knows himself to be a monk. This means that he knows that he has given up the household life and is training to be rid of attachment and ignorance. Removing his hair knowing what it is to have hair may cause him to have attachment to the particular image, but this would be *in spite of* the initial motivation and not the result of it. 

=======
B: If he has orange and red robes, I think "Buddhist" 
 If he has white robes "a Jain monk"
 If he has no robes, or long hair "could be a Hindu monk"

 Image is always present. When we learn to detach ourselves from them, this is known as simplicity.

C: “You” have the image. He is just following rules laid out, where it would not matter to him, what color the robe is.  

======
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.

 Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings. 

B: I am not talking about belief. I am talking about being rooted in God.

C: What is God?!!! And if I am not rooted in God, what do you expect your communicating the idea be received by me as?

=====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? 

Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be? 

B: Comb? yes. Oil? no. My scalp produces enough oils to cover the length of my hair. Though in general Sikhs do oil their hair. Either way, this is letting it be, cutting it is not.

C: Letting it be the way you propose with regard to cutting hair, would include *not combing it* or tying it into a joora. And don’t you think that not putting oil and depending entirely on what the scalp naturally produces is sign of letting things be. 

Shaving your head off is of course not letting it be. But this ‘letting it be’ that you propose is in fact fueled by attachment and wrong view. While shaving the head is in response to the fact that keeping hair involves attachment and conceit in order to maintain, you’re letting it be relies on following an ideal at the expense of understanding the reality that is now. 

=======
 Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them? 

 Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair. 

B: What's the word? When someone thinks they know how the other would respond but they just come across as ______________.

C: Well, fill the blank for me because I’m blank at this point.

======
Quote: A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. 

B: You are putting words in my mouth. Keeping hair is not the only option I provided. I said you may do whatever you want with it, real simplicty comes from being without the 5 thieves. On the other hand, it is you who says shaving is the only way of simplicity.

 To clarify, I am not talking about what is natural.

C: My mistake. But you have been making reference to Sikhs keeping their hair as well and also suggest such things as:

“Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?”

But given your clarification here, I guess this was only in response to my own suggestion regarding shaving off the hair…?

In any case, I still maintain that shaving the head is the only correct option for those who truly want to live the simple life. And given this I maintain that to choose to keep long hair for this purpose must be due to ignorance, attachment and lack of understanding. 

And btw, I think it wrong to suggest that “real simplicity comes from being without the 5 thieves” if this means coming from not knowing that in fact it is ignorance which is the root of the problem and therefore it is wisdom which should be the focus of attention. In other words, it is in understanding that simplicity manifests, therefore even when other unwholesome tendencies still exist, simplicity arises each time that wisdom is being developed.

=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?

Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic. 

B: Not exactly, you have not understood it.

C: Then do explain some more if you can.

=====
B: If you take God as an idea, then no doubt what you say is true. But here I am not talking about God as some sort of idea but as a reality.

C: Reality which make up our moment to moment experiences or something that is outside of this? What kind of reality are you talking about?

=====
B: In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, God is described as all-pervading, vartmaan. Vartmaan also means "present moment".

C: So this is your reality? 
When I talk about the “present moment”, I mean that which is defined by the reality being experienced. This would be conditioned and with the nature of rise and fall. You of course are not proposing that God is of a similar nature. You will say in fact that it lasts in time or in other words present as in “ever present”, right? My question to you then, how is this God experienced? And since it obviously must not be the five senses, through which doorway is it experienced? 

===
Quote: For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? 

B: or attachment towards the idea of not keeping it... (the flip side to aversion)

C: Neither of the two, but as I said many time, it is from understanding what all that comes with having to keep hair. 
The fact that you know fire to burn and therefore avoid touching it, does this mean “attachment to avoiding touching the fire or staying away from it”?!

===
Quote: If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? 

B: Yes of course, why else do you wash your face?

C: So according to you an enlightened person who does not have any aversion anymore, will not wash his face?

===
Quote: To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion. 

B: No, it is aversion to having a moustache. 

C: I trim my mustache for this reason and have no aversion towards whatever is left of it.

===   
B: Common sense dictates that you move it out of the way or simply clean it after you've had your meal. 

C: Common sense says that if this is the case each time, why not juts shave it off. 

====
B: It is not common sense to walk out on your meal to go cut your moustache and return to finish the meal. 

C: So you resort to creating absurd alternatives in order that your position looks good!!

==== 
Confused: You had said:
 “But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”

 And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic. 

B: I was responding with regards to the practicality aspect.
 With regards to attachment, it may be easy object of attachment. Any object can be an easy object of attachment, the entire world is, Maya. Marks are just part of maya like anything else. They are no more "easier".

C: Marks in this case is not just another aspect of Maya, but its very creation, one which is aimed at its own perpetuation conceived of in the name of understanding. Therefore this is not just another object of attachment, but in fact an excuse for it.

=====
Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction. 

B: Mark of inner renunciation as well. (What good is outer renunciation without the inner renunciation?)

 It could be a symbol I suppose but that does not mean it is there due to the lack of understanding, in fact, it could be the opposite, that once there was understanding, one adopted the symbol.

C: Having understanding as a lay person and wanting to adopt a symbol of renunciation is a very odd combination. It is like trying to mix different things together hoping to get a better taste, but what you get is something that tastes very bad. Why would someone who has the understanding and already detached think to adopt symbols? Only fools do it!

===== 
Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want. 

B: Identity is every where. Only when one lives completely in the present moment, that there is no identity seeking.

C: It is one thing to be attached to an identity due to still being generally ignorant and with lots of attachment and conceit. With the development of understanding, one gradually moves in the direction where these tendencies are dealt with. To encourage identity in the name of good is however to be on the path facing the opposite direction, hence making it impossible for such tendencies to ever lessen. 

======
B: Let me rephrase Kabir's salok for you so that you may meditate on it.
 Kabeer, when you are in love with the Present Moment (when you live in it), duality and alienation depart.
 You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
 page 1365

C: After reading my comment about the “present moment” above, do you still think this rephrasing will change anything? Actually I would expect even you to have a problem with this part, namely “*in love* with the Present Moment”….:-/


----------



## Luckysingh (May 5, 2012)

Does keeping long hair increase one's spirituality ?
Can long hair make a person more aware and in touch with their senses ?

Have a look at this interesting article below

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...ir-and-Why-Indians-Would-Keep-Their-Hair-Long


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 6, 2012)

Lucky Singh ji,


> Hair is an extension of the nervous system


I don't think there is any scientific evidence for that. I majored in Biology and studied evolution thoroughly in my past time, I have never found evidence for such or came across any such notion in biology. Yes the hair evolved long on humans and it is unclear why but that does not mean it needs to have a function (other than insulation and mate selection). The sensation you feel through the hair say on your arm, is not because of the hair but because of the nerve endings in the follicles. So when you touch your hair, you feel it because the hair moves inside the follicle, and stimulates nerves there. If the hair is too long then it actually loses this ability. (Maybe it becomes more sublte?) But if that article rings true to your lived experience, I would say stick to your lived experience.


----------



## findingmyway (May 6, 2012)

Being  a householder and a Sikh is not about leading a simple life by  eliminating all distractions and tests in life. Being a Sikh is about  living a simple life and functioning in the normal world despite what  is happening around you. Being a recluse is completely against Sikh  philosophy as you are no longer able to cope with life challenges if you  are just removing them from around you. The real challenge is not being  influenced by what is around you. Gurbani describes a beautiful lotus  flower not being influenced by its surroundings. Keeping kesh and turban  is nothing to do with attachment but do so with not being afraid to be  who you are. Guru Gobind Singh ji brought in our identity so people  couldn't run away from doing the right thing. We should be visible from a  distance so people in trouble can identify Sikhs and know they can come  to them for help. This is nothing to do with attachment, but is  everything to do with being able and willing to do the right thing and  not being ashamed to be identified by those in need. This attitude is not conceited on any  level.

 This thread was started by Sikh youth to understand the  SIKHI viewpoint. To keep bringing in concepts which do not have anything  to do with Sikh philosophy, e.g. the reclusive lifestyle of Buddhist monks is misleading and confusing for youngsters reading this. I ask all  members to be responsible and stick to SIKH philosophy on this thread. To  explore other concepts of hair, please start a new thread in the  interfaith forum section.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 6, 2012)

Bhagat ji,
I totally understand your comment. The reason and focus on the article was not to relate hair to sympatheic or parasympathetic N.S or why you get goose pimples..etc.or anything else.
But, it was to see this claimed relationship with spirituality and long hair.

Even though the article is with regards to native indians and long hair, I have also come across other groups that make similar if not exact claims.
An example is the classic 'hippy' group, -I know some of you will think-what the hell?- But, the original hippies wanted to be in harmony with nature and their environment. The true pioneers felt that long hair helped them achieve this harmony. Yes, they may have used other natural herbs to help this as well, but they did feel the need for the long hair. 
Through time,things change and other groups and sects form and some of these now don't undertsand this original concept of long hair like some new age travellers you get nowadays or hells angels..etc....
Note, it was also this belief in the long hair that convinced some of these original hippies to listen to Yogi Bhajan, when he first came here. As a sikh with long hair, they found it easy to relate to him to achieve their own goals of 'harmonising'.
Most of these hippies then went on to become full sikhs and we now have the 3HO etc..

Another group of  people that believe in this long hair is the rastafarians. Although they slightly differ in the sense that they keep long matted hair more in line with Lord Shiva, their concept is also based on spirituality and being in touch with God. Some of them have claimed that the hair are like antennae to help you get on the same frequency and wavelength as God.

It's these interesting beliefs from around the world that made me question a link between spirituality and hair, and that is all I would prefer others to comment on and discuss.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 6, 2012)

Bhagat Ji..interesting reply..
Are the feelers of {censored}roaches...having nerves..or do they also simply transfer touch to their roots ?? What purpose do the feelers serve ?? Thanks


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 6, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Bhagat Ji..interesting reply..
> Are the feelers of {censored}roaches...having nerves..or do they also simply transfer touch to their roots ?? What purpose do the feelers serve ?? Thanks


Gyani ji this is not science but I thought the warmest spots on the body get hair.  All the way fro the head to privates, armpits, etc.  I believe hair has a function to dissipate heat without the need for sweating that skin does.  I may be totally wrong but I stand corrected with more knowledgeable one's.

When we get older and become generally cool the hair loss happens and the loss of heat component is moderated through turning grey.

My theories any way and no references  lol mundahug

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Ishna (May 6, 2012)

Hair as a means of heat displacement and hair as a means of environmental sensors or receivers of etheric energy... what use at all for these purposes if wound up and covered with a royal dastaar?

Food for thought, no disrespect to dastaar.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 7, 2012)

Ishna Ji...you were missed..where have u been all this while..
Food for thought.......oh what use is "Food for Thought" IF the stomach remains hungry ?? ha ha...

The Dastaar and hair are like the Tree's Crown and its Roots (liberally talking..)..of what use are roots if covered with soil and we only see the crown ?? Roots have their purpose..crown has its own. ONLY SIKHS who keep their hair INTACT wear the dastaar 24/7 (in life)..those who cut hair discard it straightaway...or wear it sparingly becasue its NO hair no dastar (generally)...so the Dastaar keeps INTACT the Principle behind WHY BLEND IN IF YOU WERE MADE TO STAND OUT !! SIKHS are made to STAND OUT.

Recently we had a huge "gathering" ( Govt calls it s a riot/demonstration etc)....and all were encouraged to wear Yellow T Shirts with the words Bersih 3.0 on it to show solidarity/unity etc. Many did wear them..many wanted to come..BUT didtnt wear Yellow..Many others wanted to come..But STAYED AT HOME instead writing encouraging comments form their laptops...You see the "STAND UP and be COUNTED" Principle still stand VALID TODAY in many many situations....

Do write more often jios..


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 7, 2012)

Confused ji I will respond to you when I have untangled our debate. Currently it's a mess.



Luckysingh said:


> Bhagat ji,
> I totally understand your comment. The reason and focus on the article was not to relate hair to sympatheic or parasympathetic N.S or why you get goose pimples..etc.or anything else.
> But, it was to see this claimed relationship with spirituality and long hair.


Lucky Singh ji,
Well here's another belief you can contemplate about how hair can make one more spiritual. Imagine a society where everyone has cut hair with the exception of one individual. Now when this individual is young he does not see much of a difference, he goes through life like everyone else. He does what they do, he thinks the way they think, etc. But after growing up a bit, he starts to notice that he looks different. Everyone else shares the cut hair but he does not. He starts to see himself differently  thereby becoming detached for the collective identity. This noticeable difference in image can potentially push this individual into reduced identification with the thought processes and behaviours of the society. And in doing so he becomes more aware of his own thought processes and behaviours, and potentially having heightening his awareness baseline, thus potentially becoming more spiritual.

Basically, the individual sees that he is different so starts to look more closely at the relationship between him and society.

This applies even the other way around so a society where all individuals have uncut hair with an individual with a shaven head. It also applies to things like  burkas, turbans, green mohawks and various handicaps.



Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Bhagat Ji..interesting reply..
> Are the feelers of {censored}roaches...having nerves..or do they also simply transfer touch to their roots ?? What purpose do the feelers serve ?? Thanks


They are not like hair Gyani ji, they are appendages which have the nervous system running through them. They pick up chemicals in the air or surfaces and depending on what the chemical is, a certain signal is sent to he brain "tasty food", "female ready for mating", "smells like fish", etc.



Ambarsaria said:


> Gyani ji this is not science but I thought the warmest spots on the body get hair.  All the way fro the head to privates, armpits, etc.  I believe hair has a function to dissipate heat without the need for sweating that skin does.  I may be totally wrong but I stand corrected with more knowledgeable one's.
> 
> When we get older and become generally cool the hair loss happens and the loss of heat component is moderated through turning grey.
> 
> ...


Ambarsaria ji,
Those parts you mention often have the most sweat glands. They sweat more. The idea is that the surface area of the skin there is greater due to the presence of hair. The greater the surface area, the easily the sweat will evaporate. Sweat evaporates by taking up heat from the environment thus cooling off the air immediately next to it. When a large surface on the body does this, the cooling effect is noticeable.


----------



## Archived_member14 (May 8, 2012)

Findingmyway ji

Some clarifications and some comments.



> This thread was started by Sikh youth to understand the SIKHI viewpoint. To keep bringing in concepts which do not have anything to do with Sikh philosophy, e.g. the reclusive lifestyle of Buddhist monks is misleading and confusing for youngsters reading this.



The likeliness of this being cause for confusion is very little as compared to what goes on generally here, namely, Sikhs disagreeing with each other while both sides making reference to and quoting the same authoritative source.

The reference to Buddhist monks is not a matter of bringing in another viewpoint hence possibly distracting, but an illustration for the purpose of better understanding the issue, all within context of what the Truth is.



> I ask all members to be responsible and stick to SIKH philosophy on this thread. To explore other concepts of hair, please start a new thread in the interfaith forum section.



My intention has always been to share what I understand with others so that they too will gain something. But due either or both to my own and other people's attachments, disturbances can't be avoided. But I don’t think that this is enough reason to stop writing.

From where I stand there is either a correct or incorrect understanding with regard to the concept of hair. Therefore I do not have the perception of coming in with a Buddhist perspective against a Sikh perspective. So no need to start a new thread in the interfaith forum I would think, but that either we continue here or not at all.

Now on to the other points.



> Being a householder and a Sikh is not about leading a simple life by eliminating all distractions and tests in life.



A person who decides to become a recluse is motivated not by removal of distractions, but rather the risk of being distracted and this getting worse.



> Being a Sikh is about living a simple life and functioning in the normal world despite what is happening around you.Being a recluse is completely against Sikh philosophy as you are no longer able to cope with life challenges if you are just removing them from around you.




The decision to become a recluse comes from seeing aspects of experiences a layperson fails to see or if he does, knows himself not to be ready for. This is that attachment is unwholesome and lead to much harm, and how this arises from the moment one opens one’s eyes in the morning up till the time that one goes to sleep. Such a person knows also that he can do without objects of attachment which come in the form of material possessions, family and friends. Moreover he knows that to live as a layperson, this is impossible without some degree of attachment and conceit being involved. 

More importantly, he understands that living together with other people, particularly those with low character, given his own still existent unwholesome tendencies, the chance of being corrupted is high, therefore it is better that he find wiser and better people to associate with, and if this is not possible, live alone.

Is this a process of removing things around you or is it moving toward what is more beneficial? Beneficial not only for oneself, but for other people as well. After all what good can come from a situation where all involved end up increasing their unwholesome tendencies? Indeed, that one decides to give up objects of attachment may act as inspiration for those who remain, to also develop detachment to the extent that is possible for them. And also when the one goes to visit the other, instead of talking about lowly matters, there can be talk related to morality and wisdom instead.

So indeed, one person in one family decides to become a recluse (with the right motivation), this will possibly bring much benefit to the whole family.  




> The real challenge is not being influenced by what is around you.



The real challenge is to understand the experience through the five senses and the mind. If this does not happen, then invariably one will be fooled into thinking that one needs to rise above the influence of other people. And essentially this is no different in fact, from being influenced by them.




> Gurbani describes a beautiful lotus flower not being influenced by its surroundings.



One must *be* a lotus flower to begin with, and not just imagine that one is so. Such lotus flower will however also know that it is a waste of time to associate with fools and that it is better to live and talk with people who have the potential to develop the good.




> Keeping kesh and turban is nothing to do with attachment



If you ever noticed how turning the direction of one's gaze away from one object and toward another is by force correspondingly, of aversion and attachment. If you knew that thoughts related to the past and future including such simple ones as, “what to do?” are motivated by attachment. If you knew that to look into the mirror and decide to comb your hair must beside attachment also involve conceit. If you had some understanding as to what is involved in holding a belief. You will see that the idea of keeping kesh and turban must encourage not only much attachment and conceit, but also wrong understanding. 




> but do so with not being afraid to be who you are.



“Not being afraid to be who you are” must include the decision to do what one pleases with regard to one’s own hair. In your case apparently, this comes only after a decision to hold the particular belief (of keeping hair). It therefore works not as sign of being independent in mind, but as dependence on an ideal. And this can only encourage more conceit.




> Guru Gobind Singh ji brought in our identity so people couldn't run away from doing the right thing. We should be visible from a distance so people in trouble can identify Sikhs and know they can come to them for help.



If you only knew about a local Thai belief with regard to perceiving a Sikh coming their way, (very unflattering) I believe that you would hesitate from saying what you said here. And perhaps you will also see the wrongness of reliance on symbols, which according to me can only have a corrupting effect.



> This is nothing to do with attachment, but is everything to do with being able and willing to do the right thing and not being ashamed to be identified by those in need. This attitude is not conceited on any level.



This is what you superimpose onto reality, which is each individual's moment to moment experience. It can only lead in the case of those who are attached, to grow even more so and also act as a boost to their sense of self importance.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 8, 2012)

Today I asked a few Mulsim Ulamas and general public..Why are Muslims "allowed" to cut a certain part..But NOT their noses..or lips or any other parts of the body ? After all IF the purpose of cutting "that" part is religious..why not the nose/lips ?? Their reply..Thats the WAY IT IS. PERIOD. Its blasphemy to even talk about thsi let alone question it. Looks liek we sikhs are way way more " liberal"..


----------



## Harry Haller (May 8, 2012)

Gyaniji, 

with respect, you have always taught us to question and seek answers rather than blindly follow rhetoric for the sake of it

Humbly, 

Harry


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 8, 2012)

Harry Ji,
That post was to compare....not to "stop" asking. ASKING besides the point..GURU NANAK JI Sahib began ANSWERING !!! Read Siddh Ghhost bani..its the "others" who ASK...its GURU NANAK JI who provides the ANSWERS...and thats what we try to do here ta SPN..follow in the footsteps of our Guru ji...although at times we do find out our inadequacies..our shortcomings to answer..we still endeavour and persevere...ASK AWAY JIOS...
Regards
Jarnail Singh


----------



## lionprinceuk (May 10, 2012)

For martial reasons, beards are very important as it can be used by trained warriors to let strikes to the throat become misaligned. Tying up beards negates this effect, so beards should really be left open. 

Even nails are useful in war settings, especially in grappling and hand-to-hand battles. Techniques such as taking eyes out, ripping testicles off, pinching weak points, ok this would probably be better in the martial arts section.

Also, chunnis can be used in martial consequences by women as well. 

So you see, there are so many techniques. Personally for myself having a jura has protected my head from being banged on the wall, when I have had my hair open I haven;t been so lucky lol.


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 19, 2012)

SAT SRI AKAAL,

Function of human mind is to reason, fellow of faith is beyond reasons.

All human actions are resolution of "SELF" discontent.

With self content 
one has achieved 
inner silence and happiness.

Other's have yet to look mirror, 

and 

cut there hair to resolve "SELF" discontent of looks.

One can self assess, 
what one feels,
when on has urge to cut to improve upon natural looks.

Aware One's 
Who do not cut hair feel "SELF" content.


Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Ekampreet Kaur (May 19, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7a1J3xSfM&feature=youtu.be


----------



## TigerStyleZ (May 19, 2012)

So please can somebody summerise up?  Don´t want to went through all pages. Thanks


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 19, 2012)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Aim is to know The "SELF"

Body shall be in union with "SELF"

One is union with the "SELF"


Know   your    "I"

What "I" do, 

if every one do the same, "I" will not change

and if no body do it my way, again it's my way.


i.e. I want to Drink Heavily, 

if every on drinks heavily, my mother,father, sister, brother, wife, daughter, son, friends and other) I will not change.

if every body is not drinking, yet I will not stop heavy drinking.

One can leave relations, nation, body  but it's difficult for one to leave "I"


To some heavy drink is 

"Liquor"  

for same

"Naam Ras"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.


----------



## dalbirk (May 20, 2012)

In Sikhism IMHO hair were made compulsory to make us UNIQUE from Hindus & Muslims , also all other communities in the world . Sikhs are made unique so they have been given unique look by Guru Gobind Singh Ji . It is only Hair which have prevented us from being assimilated into the sea of Hinduism , otherwise post the decline of Buddhism in India in 8th century AD millions of social movements have started in India but sank without a trace . There is no sign of any of these in Indian society today . Sikhs are still standing out due to the FORESIGHT of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj who made keeping Hair first & foremost condition to be called a Sikh .


----------



## Harry Haller (May 20, 2012)

dalbirk said:


> In Sikhism IMHO hair were made compulsory to make us UNIQUE from Hindus & Muslims , also all other communities in the world . Sikhs are made unique so they have been given unique look by Guru Gobind Singh Ji . It is only Hair which have prevented us from being assimilated into the sea of Hinduism , otherwise post the decline of Buddhism in India in 8th century AD millions of social movements have started in India but sank without a trace . There is no sign of any of these in Indian society today . Sikhs are still standing out due to the FORESIGHT of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj who made keeping Hair first & foremost condition to be called a Sikh .



Although I understand your sentiments ji, I do not find it uplifting that for all the philosophy, the unique way of looking at Creator, the courage, bravery, backbone, lack of ritual and magic, the need to love the rest of humankind, the role of social policeman, uplifting the downtrodden, protecting the weak, standing up for the righteous, out of all these things, you attribute the hair to being the key that stopped us being assimilated into the sea of Hinduism. I find that akin to saying a certain war was won due to the uniforms worn by the soldiers. 

I have a different view, hair to a Sikh are pips to a general, it is a sign that comes from within to show the world who you are, it is both completely irrelevant and completely relevant. It should not be worn with humai, but more with just 'being', does a general spend as much time contemplating his pips? No, he does not, he may contemplate his victories, his actions, his bravery, himself, but his pips are what happens after these victories, these actions


----------



## Amarpal (May 20, 2012)

Hair and nails are both natural and sois their growth.

Hair are part of Khalsa identity, nails are not. This is the reason for the two different approach for hair and nail.

With  love and respect for all.

Amarpal  Singh


----------



## thesikhviewpoint (Jul 12, 2012)

Dear
we cut our nails becoz. of hygienic aspect but i think that aspect is also well established in case of hair..............we keep hair uncut becoz. they are god's gift but we do remove unwanted hair while combing as we can see a lot of dead hair with our comb which are weak and crossed their life span and thats what we do with nails........we keep the nails and remove the unwanted nails and even if we do not remove them they are going to break in most of the cases..........so its actually not only about keeping but also about removing......hope you got ur answer.......


----------



## drpranavsingh (Jul 12, 2012)

Dear Sikh viewpoint,
When we comb our hair the tangled hair break and NOT the dead or unwanted hair. These hair break from shaft and NOT roots. Hair is always dead keratin but the root where follicle is composed of living cells. People who have short hair hardly lose any hair while combing because they are not tangled! 
Long hair can be washed once a week whereas short hair can be washed daily. Where is your hygiene theory? Uncut hair can give lot of diseases just like uncut nails, such as
1. Lice infests long hair as its easy to hide and much more difficult to get rid of
2.  Seborrheic dermatitis and dandruff affects hairy areas of face head and chest and is impossible to treat unless hair is shortened . It's more common in Sikhs than general population as per medical literature.
3. Sikhs who do judas get premature traction baldness

I hope that clarifies some myths, answers emotional rhetorics and instills some rational thinking.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Jul 12, 2012)

SAT SRI AKAAL,

Different "UNDERSTANDING" leads to 31 Chapters on this topic.

Nature has created "duality" or "duvidha" 

let's understand "one" and live as one.

If one has kept hair, why he want's to convince other about his action
Or Vice Versa  

Just live and increase your understanding, 

Prolonged discussions are waste of time and energy'

Path is shown one may follow or leave, 

There are other sects Namdhari's/ Osho's/ Dera's/ Baba's  
who preach 
"GURU's BANI" in there own way.

One can follow piracy leave original.

It's all "ONE"  only perception is different

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## thesikhviewpoint (Jul 12, 2012)

well dear drpranav
i think you have lots of misconceptions..........first of all you are telling that tangled hair come out .......  then why to comb????? i think you posted your comment in little bit hurry and didn't read what I've commented "we do remove unwanted hair while combing as we can see a lot of dead hair with our comb* which are weak and crossed their life span"* ...........and let me clear your misconceptions:


1. Lice infests long hair as its easy to hide and much more difficult to get rid of: lice does not infest long hair but it infests unclean dirty hair...lice infest your head not to hide but to suck blood which is not possible if lice will remain hiding in long hair away from head as per ur views.
2. Seborrheic dermatitis and dandruff affects hairy areas of face head and chest and is impossible to treat unless hair is shortened . It's more common in Sikhs than general population as per medical literature.: well dear i am also a medical professional and apart from this also a researcher..........you wrote that seborrheric dermatitis and dandruff are more common in sikhs as per medical literature......i challange you to put that medical literature here on this site which refers that sikhs are more affected with such conditions due to their intact hair. and i may also like to tell you (may be your medical college skipped telling you) that "Seborrheic dermatitis appears in genetically pre-disposed individuals with the so called seborrheic diathesis, meaning increased sebum secretion in the sebaceous gland rich areas of the body" and it is almost nowhere mentioned in medical literature that keeping long hair causes such problem. 
3.  Sikhs who do judas get premature traction baldness: as far as i know as a medical professional problems like hair fall, dandruff and baldness are more common in persons who cut their hair or those whose hair are not covered because pollution and dust gets accumulated in hair and causes such problems and thats why we can see a lots of shampoo companies advertising their products on TV & the main causes depicted are not long uncut clean covered hair but cut, uncovered hair full of dust and pollutants.....and regarding uncut hair and judaas having traction force causing baldness i think people   other than sikhs are having this problem of baldness and you'll never see a sikh going to a doctor for problem of baldness. and from medical point of view again baldness in sikhs due to traction of juraah is never ever documented where as problem of baldness in non sikhs is highly documented and the causes include exposure of hair to dust, pollution and sun...............
and now if from my personal point of view i can challenge any human on this earth  having hair cut ........being a gursikh my hair & head are more cleaner, healthy, & blooming than yours...............and one more thing gursikhs are not only ordered to keep their hair uncut but also ordered to maintain hair's hygiene and if we go by the medical data.....no medical research can say that keeping uncut hair is house of diseases...........but yes if this same principle is applied to non sikh subjects i can not guranteee as we can see a lot of sadhu's who do keep their hair but don't do necessary cleaning and care.......and thats why they are not sikhs.

AND LASTLY byt not LEASTLY: 
*Long hair can be washed once a week whereas short hair can be washed daily. Where is your hygiene theory?*------Answer is simple......people having cut uncovered hair wash their hair daily becoz. their hair get dirty daily due to exposure to dust where as in case of sikhs hair are well covered and kept away from harmfull pollutants keeping them clean and healthy for long time...........AND no wonder most of gursikhs even than wake up early at 3:00 Am and wash hair daily while bathing......KEEPING HAIR IS THE WORTH OF EARLY RISER, QUICK AND SMART PERSONS NOT LAZY ONES WHO NEED SHORT CUT IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE.......
AND AS PER MY UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE OF WHY NOT CUTTING HAIR WHEN WE CUT NAILS IS VERY WELL DISCUSSED AND ANSWERED BY SIKHS FROM SCIENTIFIC, RELIGIOUS, MEDICAL AND OFF COURSE HYGIENIC POINT OF VIEW.......SO BY POSTING SUCH IRRELEVANT COMMENTS ONE CAN NOT GET UPPERHAND OVER TRUTH AND FACTS.

AND FROM Dr. point of view if you really are......i may like to suggest you to do read medical books and journals to gain some knowledge as medical profession is not so narrow as you might have taken it...........Regards thesikhviewpoint (Dr. Randhir Singh)


----------



## findingmyway (Jul 12, 2012)

Moderation note:

Dr Randhir Singh ji,
Thank you for joining the discussion. It is wonderful to have your input. However, please can I remind you and others that according to internet etiquette, using caps lock is equivalent to shouting.

Please can all members refrain from using *all* caps (odd words are ok) and use other methods of emphasis.
Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 12, 2012)

DAILY on my D2h and FTA Channels I am LAMBASTED to boredom by HAIR ADVERTISERS...hair fall experts, baldness cures, hair regrowth formulas etc etc etc etc..and I have yet to come across even *ONE SIKH* who was featured on these advertisements...in Fact MAJORITY of such ads are IN CHINESE and the people featured are short haired CHINESE !! Even the INDIAN Channels USE the same Chinese ads and simply DUB them in Hindi/regional languages for the Indian audiences...There may be about 3 BILLION People in the world with HAIR PROBLEMS, skin problems..DANDRUFF problems...and according to* Dr Paarvan *the Vast MAJORITY of them are all *LONG HAIRED SIKHS !!* There are various Shampoo ads, Anti dandruff ads..ALL feature SHORT HAIRED persons of NON_SIKH origin..or am I watching the wrong channels from dr paarvaan ??

THANK YOU sikhviewpoint (Dr randhir Singh ji) for a most enlightening post. nailed it all down good and proper.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 13, 2012)

There is only one reason for a Sikh to grow hair in my humble opinion, and that is Love. It is pointless trying to be logical and scientific about love


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 13, 2012)

harry haller said:


> There is only one reason for a Sikh to grow hair in my humble opinion, and that is Love. It is pointless trying to be logical and scientific about love




and YES..LOVE is BLIND and DEAF..so we long haired sikhs should STOP justifying..making logical reasons, explanations etc etc..absolutely NO REASON except LOVE LOVE LOVE..BLIND and DEAF LOVE...


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 13, 2012)

harry haller said:


> There is only one reason for a Sikh to grow hair in my humble opinion, and that is Love. It is pointless trying to be logical and scientific about love



Yes, that hits it exactly.  mundahug kudihug kaurhug (sorry, no singh hug)

Of course, that statement might be clarified a bit.  Love of whom or what, for example.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 13, 2012)

Maiji

Well, in my opinion, it is the recognition that Guru Gobind Singh wished us to behave and act like him. He gave us a uniform that epitomised the way he carried himself, and part of that was the hair, so I would guess it is the love for the Guru as teacher. I guess this also clarifies an answer for those that think we do it for God, I do not think we do, I think it is for Guru, and ultimately for ourselves, as Khalsa, we are Guru, and Guru is us.


----------



## itsmaneet (Jul 13, 2012)

It's a good question & rightly answered by some one above that its the 'hukum' of Waheguru so we have to follow it. But for those non enlightened souls questions do come in mind & the same question rose in my mind too some years back. I have been a keen reader of books authored by seasoned Sants strictly following Gurbani & in one of those the reason of not cutting hairs is the following - 

a) It's the 'Hukum' of Waheguru & without any quest we are supposed to follow it.
b) Hairs on body have a scientific reason as well. It's a lengthy topic & anyone in medical 
    field should know the importance of hairs on body. And Guru Granth Sahib is stands true 
    in each & every aspect of science unlike other books.
c) As far as nails are concerned scientifically grown nails are useless & in turn an invitation 
    to various diseases. 

Even if we look at the Hindu Gods & Goddess, they always had grown hairs. Saying this am not comparing any religion but just bringing into notice that there is an importance of hairs on the body & for one reason or the other it's beneficial for humans.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh !!


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Jul 13, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Maiji
> 
> Well, in my opinion, it is the recognition that Guru Gobind Singh wished us to behave and act like him. He gave us a uniform that epitomised the way he carried himself, and part of that was the hair, so I would guess it is the love for the Guru as teacher. I guess this also clarifies an answer for those that think we do it for God, I do not think we do, I think it is for Guru, and ultimately for ourselves, as Khalsa, we are Guru, and Guru is us.



Would I be stretching it too far to say that it is also love of my natural form?  Women, especially, are taught to detest the way we are naturally.  I think one of the gifts of Guru ji is the knowledge and acceptance of our naturalness.

BTW, I have always loved beards and now I am beginning to grow a beard.  Still a bit straggly, but it's a start.  And I am not wearing lipstick.  My lips are just a bit chapped.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 13, 2012)

Inderjeetji, 

I do not think you would be stretching the truth, although if SPji were around he may accuse you of stretching the beard hairs! lol


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 13, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Maiji
> 
> Well, in my opinion, it is the recognition that Guru Gobind Singh wished us to behave and act like him. He gave us a uniform that epitomised the way he carried himself, and part of that was the hair, so I would guess it is the love for the Guru as teacher. I guess this also clarifies an answer for those that think we do it for God, I do not think we do, I think it is for Guru, and ultimately for ourselves, as Khalsa, we are Guru, and Guru is us.



After having sacrificed his FOUR SONS and about 700 mureeds, when the Muslim Pir Budhu Shaha met Guru Gobind Singh after Battle of bahangannee..Guru Ji asked him what can i Gift you ??? The Pir replied..Give Me your Kangha with bits of hair inside it....THAT GIFT is invaluable for me..and the descendants of Pir still have that wooden Kangha and Guru jis hair in it. That is LOVE.
The PIR fought on Guru Jis side against the MUGHALS and HINDU Rajas .


----------



## mintrose (Jul 13, 2012)

I recently came across this website about the benefits of men having long hair - it helps their intuition and their ability to sense danger -

http://www.harisingh.com/HairInLaysTheTruth


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 13, 2012)

Is it a coincidence that almost nil research etc done on the KARRA..*steel bangle on wrist.
No health surveys no whys and no ifs..and LOTS of non-sikhs also wear these...in fact many Pakistanis wear them to Gurdawaras/Vasakhi melas/sikh weddings etc etc.. to pretend to be sikh boys...Its becasue its EASY and "fashionable"..BUT keeping hair is difficult and bothersome ??...in FACT ALL the 5 Kakaars are important BUT KESH are the CROWN JEWEL...No KESH..the other 4 kakaars are uselsess.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Jul 14, 2012)

> Would I be stretching it too far to say that it is also love of my natural form?


Sister your transnatural form has no hair on it's body,stretch your mind, not your beard.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 14, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Inderjeetji,
> 
> I do not think you would be stretching the truth, although if SPji were around he may accuse you of stretching the beard hairs! lol



or maybe he might not............


----------



## Searching (Jul 14, 2012)

> Is it a coincidence that almost nil research etc done on the KARRA..*steel bangle on wrist.



Gyani ji, wearing of some metals can cause contact dermatitis, an allergic skin condition. It is not very common though.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 14, 2012)

According to hindu mystics and yogis, long hair enhances meditation....as I am now balding, perhaps this is one of the reasons I'm not doing so well!


----------



## findingmyway (Jul 14, 2012)

harry haller said:


> There is only one reason for a Sikh to grow hair in my humble opinion, and that is Love. It is pointless trying to be logical and scientific about love



I disagree. I think the strongest reason for keeping kesh is identity, commitment and bravery. Bravery in not being afraid to stand up for what you believe in and for letting your appearance guide your actions so they are the best they can be. Identity so those in trouble know who they can approach.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Jul 14, 2012)

But commitment, identity and bravery are all just temporal qualities. Love for Akaal Purakh is spiritual in nature.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 15, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Sister your transnatural form has no hair on it's body,stretch your mind, not your beard.



SP Ji..the beard stretches itself naturally...in fact you got to lather it and use effort to shorten it each morning..ha ha..BUt the MIND is another bowl of fish altogether...not easily stretched  ha ha


----------



## findingmyway (Jul 15, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> But commitment, identity and bravery are all just temporal qualities. Love for Akaal Purakh is spiritual in nature.



And Sikhism stresses the importance of living in the temporal world with spiritual morals. Temporal considerations are vital to leading a spiritual life as a Sikh. Without commitment, identity and bravery we cannot fulfil our duties as Sikhs.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 16, 2012)

findingmyway said:


> I disagree. I think the strongest reason for keeping kesh is identity, commitment and bravery. Bravery in not being afraid to stand up for what you believe in and for letting your appearance guide your actions so they are the best they can be. Identity so those in trouble know who they can approach.



I respectfully disagree Bhenji, the need for identity, bravery and commitment stems from the love we have for Guru. Sikhism is not a fear/reward religion, and in my opinion, if you have the love first, everything else is easy. 

When you are in love with your partner, nothing is too much trouble, in fact every chore, every job is met with pleasure, the pleasure at being given chance to do something for them. Compare this to the 'I should do' attitude prevalent in relationships devoid of deep love, I should put the rubbish out, I should tidy up after myself, I should be more understanding, 

Love makes the hardest task into a pleasure, it makes the whole argument of hair keeping irrelevant, it is the foundation and basis for all the qualities you have indicated, in my view, everything stems from love, if you love what you are doing, it is no longer hard, it is a pleasure, be it hair, job, spouse, cleaning the toilet, whatever. 

:singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Jul 16, 2012)

> SP Ji..the beard stretches itself naturally...in fact you got to lather it and use effort to shorten it each morning


 
Gyani Ji each morning our time on this earth shortens without effort,so let us stretch _our mind to see, that self cleaning glass is what we should be._


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 16, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Gyani Ji each morning our time on this earth shortens without effort,so let us stretch _our mind to see, that self cleaning glass is what we should be._




AGREED 100% SP ji...


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Aug 17, 2012)

I found another great article on the topic shared by a bibi on FB:

Q: Why Sikhs do not cut their hair but they cut their nails?

A: It is often argued that Sikhs do not cut their hair so why do they cut their nails. Sikhs only cut the dead gray part of their nails, not the alive pink/red part. This is similar to combing and removing dead hair while retaining live hair. Just like we do not cut the pink/red part of our nails, why should we cut our perfectly live an
d healthy hair? If anything dead grey part of nails should be compared to dandruff or dead hair removed while combing.

In addition, hair is not a hindrance to anyone. Because hair can be placed in a bun and kept clean and does perform a number of functions, it is only practical to realize that keeping hair is not hard. On the other hand, having long nails is a hindrance to the body. An individual with long nails cannot functions and do everyday chores comfortably. In order to ensure that one can perform the tasks of everyday life, only the dead part of nails is trimmed.

In addition, whereas the hair grows from a tubular pit (hair follicle), formed by sinking in of the most actively dividing layer of the skin (stratum germinativum) into the lower dermis, the gray part of nails is only modifications of the upper dead layer (stratum corneum). Further, the base of every follicle bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for nourishment and nerve fibers to make the hair sensitive. An oil gland, known as sebaceous gland, opens into every hair follicle, the secretion of which lubricates the hair. A muscle is also attached to the base of every hair for bringing about movement. Pigments are added to the shaft of the hair as it grows. None of these features is associated with the dead part of nails.

Structurally, hair is extremely strong, and resists breaking due to its elasticity and flexibility. Strength of hair can be estimated from the following facts, a human hair laid on a bar of steel and then passed through a cold rolling mill would leave an imprint on the face of the steel. A hair of a man’s beard is about as strong as a copper wire of the same dimensions. If a rope were made out of strands of long hair, it would be strong enough to lift an automobile. Dead part of nails, on the other hand, are very brittle and rigid, breaking off easily. Hair are countless (upto 125,000 on head region alone), thereby increasing the surface area. Hair protects us against the harmful Ultra Violet radiations and skin cancer while the dead part of the nails do not seem to provide a similar functionality.

The differences between the two do not end with the structural features. Even the body’s response towards the two is totally different. Our body, throughout life, tries to maintain a particular length of hair. Every individual has a specific length for hair. Once the hair reaches its specific length, it stops growing. If the hair is cut, the body responds by growing it again to the specific length. It clearly indicates the link of the body with the hair all along its length. The body shows no such response to the nails, which grow from birth to death at the same rate, irrespective of whether cut or not. It follows, thus, that cutting of the dead part of nails does not tell on the body at all, whereas, cutting of hair puts extra load on the body. To sum up, if there is anything on the head that can be compared with the dead part of nails, it is either dandruff or dead hair which are removed by combing.

Nature knows best what to retain or discard. Whatever is retained is not without purpose. Hair is a gift from God, not a burden. Guru Gobind Singh Ji, in his infinite wisdom, instructed us to respect hair and refrain from tampering with it. This is the visible token of his affection for us, as well as our faith in him


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Aug 18, 2012)

Lol, why I never came across to this thread?  I would post that what Kanwaljit said 3 years ago. This is the best " reason" . But what you need for Hair is just love... Someone who dont want to maintain it, will defiently find a way to cut it.. Mhh, I think it is just because of the society.. there is no other reason ... I knew a very  clever/smart  guy(just on bowing terms)  he made his  DR title with 18 years.. I had a short moment to talk with him.. and he said he only does it because it is easier in this society.. I dont want to be excluded.. He said he doesnt want to cut, but he does it for others ..


----------



## Kamala (Aug 18, 2012)

So do you think we are allowed to cut our split ends and dead hair off?


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Aug 18, 2012)

Kamala said:


> So do you think we are allowed to cut our split ends and dead hair off?



_An amritdhari Sikh doesn't cut any hair anywhere on the body. "Allowed"?  You can do whatever you want, I suppose. 

This is sounding very legalistic to me. _ :noticekudi:

This points out the weakness in all the arguments, except my final answer here.*

_ I think of a Christian lady I used to know.
_
"What will happen if you cut your hair."
_"Nothing."
_
icecreamkudi


"Will God punish you?"
:whatzpointsing:
_"No."_

"Will you be thrown out of being a Sikh?"
:angryyoungkaur:
_"No."_

"Will other Sikhs hate you?"
:angryyoungsingh:
_"A few maybe.  Not many of them."_

"So why don't you cut your hair?"

_"I love my hair.  And Guru told me not to cut them.  And not cutting honours my natural form, the way my Creator made it."  
_
kaurhug
This reminds me of my next door neighbour, a morose Ukrainian who believes there has to be a hell because "why else would people obey God?"

peacesignkaur


----------



## Kamala (Aug 18, 2012)

But it's dead.. just like when we take dead skin cells off our body after a shower..
But funny post hehe


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Aug 18, 2012)

I think a split end would keep on growing. It is not as if it would stop!


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Aug 18, 2012)

OK, I can be a hair-splitting legalist when the occasion calls for it.

First, how do you recognise a dead hair and on what basis to you say that split-end hairs are dead? 

For the sake of argument, let us agree that split-end are dead.  Examine the split end.  Assuming dead hairs can be cut, exactly where should it be cut.  Exactly where does the live hair end and the dead hair begin?  



This all gets very silly, very quickly.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Aug 18, 2012)

Sat siri Akal ji,
First of all - this makes sense do yiu even know how spliss accruses? It is due to fricition(if it is long) If it is cut short - there isnt much friciton - furthermore it is predisposition - Chemical substrats can promote spliss as well! Scientifally proven.. Just search for it..!
And the thing with the dead hair - yes cut it if you find any! - That why we got a comb - it removes it without searching for one " dead " hair... all hair that is solid in our scalp is you can call it " living" - You can cut the hair that you put out of your comb - but I dont know what you gain  - furthermore I don´t think you will search 2 hours on your head for a "dead hair". I dont get your point...


----------



## Luckysingh (Aug 18, 2012)

I don't get the point either!!!!


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Aug 18, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> I don't get the point either!!!!



If this is directed at me, I was just trying to show how silly it gets when we try to make legalisms instead of focusing on the spirit of the issue.


----------



## Luckysingh (Aug 18, 2012)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> If this is directed at me, I was just trying to show how silly it gets when we try to make legalisms instead of focusing on the spirit of the issue.


 
What makes you say that ? It's not directed at anyone, the conversation went into ''cutting dead hairs''
The 'I don't get it'' is directed at this timewasting suggestion by Kamalaji.

Tigerstylezji has made it clear that so called dead hairs are dead because they are not attached into the follicle!!- this is what our combs are for.
Why would anyone go looking for loose dead hairs in your scalp, when your comb pulls them out.
What is this crazy talk of cutting dead hairs.- split ends are partially damaged hairs they are NOT dead, I'm sure we all kow that!!
Yes, split ends are damaged and can be repaired!!
I am no hairdresser or expert, but I'm sure that the hundreds of costly serums are to ''repair''. We can't repair something that is 'dead'


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Aug 18, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> What makes you say that ? It's not directed at anyone, the conversation went into ''cutting dead hairs''
> The 'I don't get it'' is directed at this timewasting suggestion by Kamalaji.



That was not clear to me, so I responded.  This is silly.  Shall we move on?

How do you repair split ends?  My hair are very fine and damage easily.  Nothing I have tried has worked.  Any home/natural remedies.


----------



## Kamala (Aug 19, 2012)

What about damaged hair? Can we get rid of those? We should always look our best just like how our Guru jis have (especially Guru Gobind Singh ji).


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 19, 2012)

Kamala said:


> What about damaged hair? Can we get rid of those? We should always look our best just like how our Guru jis have (especially Guru Gobind Singh ji).



How could anyone know, no faithful depictions were ever made


----------



## Luckysingh (Aug 19, 2012)

Kamala said:


> What about damaged hair? Can we get rid of those? We should always look our best just like how our Guru jis have (especially Guru Gobind Singh ji).


 
We look our best with the 5k's, doesn't matter if hair is straight or curly or split ended. If it's too damaged and doesn't belong on the head, then it will fall out on it's own accord, need not worry about that activity!


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Aug 20, 2012)

What do you mean by "Guru Gobind Singh ji" did? Guru Gobind Singh ji maintained his hair..  Kamala ji if you don´t feel the need of hair - get rid of those . If you don´t want to follow any Guru jis Hukam - do whatever you want! No one is forcing you to be a Sikh ! Why searching for execuses, or try to justify your doing? ...? Just burn all the hair on your body - then I bet you will feel free, you will look the cleanest and best in the world... cutting hair is only a "cosmetical reason" -  because majority is doing this ..  It infested their mind that they "look good" then.. No they don´t not in my eyes I prefer 
this: and this: :blueturban: or this:winkingmunda


----------



## bscheema (Aug 20, 2012)

sorry i jumped to last , 

well god created all trees on earth we cnt cut all of them , god created paddy , wheat etc we can cut .God created nails if you work hard with your hand every day they wnt grow, but it doesnt hppns with hair they ll grow nice till you are young even if you work hard .


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 21, 2012)

TigerStyleZ said:


> What do you mean by "Guru Gobind Singh ji" did? Guru Gobind Singh ji maintained his hair..  Kamala ji if you don´t feel the need of hair - get rid of those . If you don´t want to follow any Guru jis Hukam - do whatever you want! No one is forcing you to be a Sikh ! Why searching for execuses, or try to justify your doing? ...? Just burn all the hair on your body - then I bet you will feel free, you will look the cleanest and best in the world... cutting hair is only a "cosmetical reason" -  because majority is doing this ..  It infested their mind that they "look good" then.. No they don´t not in my eyes I prefer
> this: and this: :blueturban: or this:winkingmunda



We are all at different stages in this life my young Veerji


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Aug 21, 2012)

Harry ji you are right, but why don´t we start working to develope ourselfs..? There is moer arguing about Kesh and other things - then Simran / contemplation...


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 21, 2012)

Kesh is irrelevant, you either wish to keep it out of love, or you do not, it is merely the end product of understanding. 

you are right though my feisty young friend, it is through contemplation we find ourselves, and then ultimately our answers, is is through living that understanding, we make Creation a better place, I myself do not understand the whole kesh argument, many people keep it, but I warrant only those that Creator has blessed with understanding,  truly love it. And as we all know, you cannot buy love.........


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 21, 2012)

Welll..... One can commit a crime & then give thousands/lacs of justifications, references, excuses etc just for his own satisfaction & avoid feeling of guilt .... isn't it  ??   

I personally feel, -  Anybody disregarding hairs (order of our Gurus) is not a "Sikh" but a sick


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 21, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> Welll..... One can commit a crime & then give thousands/lacs of justifications, references, excuses etc just for his own satisfaction & avoid feeling of guilt .... isn't it  ??
> 
> I personally feel, -  Anybody disregarding hairs (order of our Gurus) is not a "Sikh" but a sick




PIR BUDHU SHAH who sacrificed his FOUR SONS and over 700 mureeds on the Battlefield at Bhanganni fighting the MUGHALS+Hindu rajahs on the side of Guru Gobind Singh ji....begged Guur Ji for His KANGHA containing a few broken hairs. (Guur ji was in his tent combing his kesh and the kangha was in his hands...when the Pir entered the tnet, Guur ji appreciated his HELP and asked him..Pir Ji manggoh kee manggnann ahai..Pir ask me anything..and the PIR  aMUSLIM said..OH Guur Ji, i dont ask for anything..BUT if you want to give me..GIVE ME YOUR KANGHA with the hair inside it intact. That Kangha is still with the Pirs descendants who are still MUSLIMS. Now IF a mulsim Pir cna ppreciate the value of a Kangha with broken hair....isnt he a BETTER SIKH than most GHONA MONAS who claim they are Son of sardar..or Jatt Sikh etc... *THEY ARE PATIT. PERIOD.*


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 21, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> Welll..... One can commit a crime & then give thousands/lacs of justifications, references, excuses etc just for his own satisfaction & avoid feeling of guilt .... isn't it ??
> 
> I personally feel, - Anybody disregarding hairs (order of our Gurus) is not a "Sikh" but a sick


 
Yes Ji, and if we had more folks like your goodself Sikhism would be full of keshdhari Sikhs all following orders. I do not wish to follow orders, to do something without love is ritual, and there is enough ritual already in Sikhism. If you wish to breed Sikh robots, all following orders, that is up to you, I myself would prefer a conveyor belt with Sikhs at various stages, but where each stage is understood and practiced, the hair comes from love, not orders


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 21, 2012)

Guur Gobind Singh Ji...and earlier GURU NANAK JI shaib never INTENDED the KHALSA to be a Army of ROBOTS. "we" created this army of robots so that vested interests can REMOTE CONTROL....

WE..refers to the Mughals who torured and hunted in order to recruit their robots..the British..using more subtle methods..like enrollment in army..jobs, titles, lands, jagirs, or hanging, jailing, torture etc...and now the same thing via different agencies..sgpc, takahst, badals, rss, goi, bjp, etc etc etc...sants, babas, rs beas gurus, namdharees , cults like nanksarees, rarrewallahs etc etc...attempting to rope in as many keshadharee/monas/whatever "Sikhs" in their TENTS/Camps and handle them by REMOTE CONTROL....the Beas Remote Control controls so many lakh votes..the Sauda Saadh RC has so many premi votes...and so on...some move when the Akal Takhat jathedars finger presses his REMOTE..the cry rises  Akal takhat Mahaan hai..REMOTE CONTROL ton aee awaaz..channel change kardo...and so on..we have becoem robots..watching dishtv...videocon..suntv..kiseh te dish swaar hai..kisseh nu con chnaggah lagdah hai..koi tatatv de gunn gayee jandah hai koi zee zee zee karda firdah hai..sabh de sabh ROBOT hann..GURU DE SIKH bahut Ghatt hann...


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Aug 22, 2012)

All Khalsa soldiers are controlled by Guru and Gurmat. But it is hard to come to it.

I have been doing Sehaj Path. I do like 15-20 Ang per day. Trust me, it is like small shackles are breaking up within me. The hate and anger is gone. Guru is replacing it all with Pyar and Acceptance. It is really magic. Though it is something different that I wake up with more hate again. I think once I will break of this cycle. I think doing Sehaj Path before sleeping helps. It undoes what damage has been done to your psyche in the day.

I personally feel we should do complete Path of Guru Granth Sahib once at least in our life. Let our Sikhya and Guru's set of instructions for us, be not left incomplete!


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Aug 22, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> All Khalsa soldiers are controlled by Guru and Gurmat. But it is hard to come to it.
> 
> I have been doing Sehaj Path. I do like 15-20 Ang per day. Trust me, it is like small shackles are breaking up within me. The hate and anger is gone. Guru is replacing it all with Pyar and Acceptance. It is really magic. Though it is something different that I wake up with more hate again. I think once I will break of this cycle. I think doing Sehaj Path before sleeping helps. It undoes what damage has been done to your psyche in the day.
> 
> I personally feel we should do complete Path of Guru Granth Sahib once at least in our life. Let our Sikhya and Guru's set of instructions for us, be not left incomplete!



That is beautiful and inspiring.  Thank you.  animatedkhanda1


----------



## Luckysingh (Aug 22, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> All Khalsa soldiers are controlled by Guru and Gurmat. But it is hard to come to it.
> 
> I have been doing Sehaj Path. I do like 15-20 Ang per day. Trust me, it is like small shackles are breaking up within me. The hate and anger is gone. Guru is replacing it all with Pyar and Acceptance. It is really magic. Though it is something different that I wake up with more hate again. I think once I will break of this cycle. I think doing Sehaj Path before sleeping helps. It undoes what damage has been done to your psyche in the day.
> 
> I personally feel we should do complete Path of Guru Granth Sahib once at least in our life. Let our Sikhya and Guru's set of instructions for us, be not left incomplete!


 
That is very nice to hear and I agree that we should all make attempts to do it. Whatever one can do in the time they have is totally acceptable.
I know exactly what you mean about feeling a better person within yourself. The love you feel for everything is infact undescribable and you begin to appreciate that every breath you breathe should not be wasted.

I'm sure you will continue to do this throughout your life as there is never not enough or too much. Once a person completes it, then it feels like a huge void and quite sad, this 'lost' feeling encourages one to do it again!!
I do believe that the words of the Guru can do something quite magical and uplifting.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 22, 2012)

It is as per SRM !! A SIKH should keep one sehaj paath going on continuously...thats real Naam japp...read..contemplate..understand..IMPLEMENT..see the resultant CHANGES...human to DEVTA !! Thats what the SGGS is FOR....

a spanner is for..turning NUTS...tighten them or loosen them...BUT if someone uses his spanner to....."Throw a spanner in the works.."...its Gross Misconduct...similarly IF a Sikh uses the SGGS as  a paper weight...idol...covered in rumallahs..sukhasan..air conned room..fresh flowers, perfumes etc etc BUT Never reads..opens..follows..then its Gross MISCONDUCT...MISUSE of SGGS...GHOR BEADBI...Human becomes INHUMAN...invents fake tall tales of how he fasted..and forced Guru nanak ji to come out of SGGS and eat his food..wah wah...as IF Guru is in PRISON of Paper !!!..hungry and cold..or sweating in summer and needs air cons....how stupid can we be ??? apparently only Guur nanak ji walked out..why the other NINE Gurus remained INSIDE is a mystery only that Mahapurash (Khasmeh kreh beraberi) knows...or maybe IF Guur Hargobind ji and Guur Gobind singh Ji Guru har rai ji a re also in there..then GRASS also needs to be brought and placed in front of SGGS..just in case these Gurus come out on HORSES..then what will the Horses eat ??..so easy way out,...Confine Grimms Fairy talke to Guru nanak..safest that way...icecreammundaicecreammundaicecreammundaicecreammundaicecreammunda

I was once "trapped" into becoming a Pyara..a member of FIVE "singhs" invited to a Sikh home for parshada..dinner in order to ward off evil sukh shanti etc..When we arrived..a mahabhart was going ON...apparently the one who invited us..wasnt at all much appreciated...one daughter in law threw the kheer pateela on the floor...another one threw the ice creams (five) out the window...finally peace was hastily restored....ceasefire...then firing broke out again..the one who had deliberately upset the kheer pateela noticed her name was LEFT OUT of the ardass...she kept insisting she was paying full attention..her name wasnt mentioned..everyone else said it was...what a CIRCUS...a child was sent out to buy another Five ice creams for dessert..he cmae back with four..having eaten one on the way...sent out again..hastily...i never laughed that much again....SUKH SHANTI...Parshaada for Five..No wonder..the house was a battlefield...no amount of Five eating parshadas could ever solve their war zone....this is SIKHI today...empty ritualsim...hoping FIVE gyanis eating will solve marital problems, daughter in alw problems...>>>???/


----------



## dalbirk (Aug 22, 2012)

Gaini Ji , I cannot stop laughing .


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Aug 22, 2012)

> I know exactly what you mean about feeling a better person within yourself. The love you feel for everything is infact undescribable and you begin to appreciate that every breath you breathe should not be wasted.


 
Even one line from Anand Sahib changes your perspective about the world:

ਏਹੁ ਕੁਟੰਬੁ ਤੂ ਜਿ ਦੇਖਦਾ ਚਲੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਤੇਰੈ ਨਾਲੇ ॥
ayhu kutamb too je daykh-daa chalai naahee tayrai naalay.
This family which you see shall not go along with you.

And when you read the treasure of Gurbani, on each Ang you read a theme which can touch you like anything. It is so inspiring that your heart calls out to Gurbani and you read louder and louder in a merry state.



> I'm sure you will continue to do this throughout your life as there is never not enough or too much. Once a person completes it, then it feels like a huge void and quite sad, this 'lost' feeling encourages one to do it again!!


 
Yes I am sure that once I reach Ang 1430, I would go back to Ang 1 



> It is as per SRM !! A SIKH should keep one sehaj paath going on continuously


 
You know in software world, some test team people will cry saying there is no DEFINED CAREER GROWTH PATH for them. When it comes to Sikhi, Guru Sahib has shown us a very clear path. But no Sikh would like to follow it! We would like STATUS QUO! We have so many tools of liberation!



> hoping FIVE gyanis eating will solve marital problems, daughter in alw problems


 
That is just like giving food to 10 pandits was known to solve health problems. But it has been proven to be false.

On side note, Gyaniji you could have met the family separately and given them Gurmat counselling. What's wrong in a try?


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 22, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Yes Ji, and if we had more folks like your goodself Sikhism would be full of keshdhari Sikhs all following orders. I do not wish to follow orders, to do something without love is ritual, and there is enough ritual already in Sikhism. If you wish to breed Sikh robots, all following orders, that is up to you, I myself would prefer a conveyor belt with Sikhs at various stages, but where each stage is understood and practiced, the hair comes from love, not orders


You are right.... Hairs wud come with love & not with orders BUT ..... *If someone have love with his Guru he'l love his order as well !!*


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 22, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> You are right.... Hairs wud come with love & not with orders BUT ..... *If someone have love with his Guru he'l love his order as well !!*


 
There is a saying, 'first do no wrong', the principle being that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. If one were to love the order of the Guru, than I would take that as being the same as love, period. 

Orders are different, orders are what certain people live their life by, they know what to do, when to do it and how it is to be done, but they understand nothing, because there is no wisdom, no learning, no application, just a firm belief that if orders are carried out, everything will be ok.

If I may say so, you seem to represent the latter. Your firm belief that the DG was written by the Tenth Master is, in my view, validates this. All you seem able to see is Tenth Guru+some writings=DG. I do not believe you are digging deep enough, you seem happy to accept very weak surface explanations without listening to your heart. Would the Tenth Master really have either written, or agreed to have such filth next to his own works. The sad fact of the matter is that the answer is so glaringly obvious, I take even questioning it as a bigger shameful action. 

No Sikh Guru that I am aware of forced anyone to accept anything, ours is not a religion of forced ritual or orders, it is a religion of Love, and everything that is done, is done out of Love. 

It has to be that way, otherwise we would end up chasing dreams like everyone else, instead we chase the truth, our only friend being Love, that is what the Gurus were full of, and that is the spirit in which they would want us to proceed.

I disagree with your stance on the DG, you think all Monas are sick, which stance is within Sikhi? Which stance stands for everything that is wrong with Sikhi?

If I am mistaken, then I am depriving myself of valuable assistance along the road by not having a full head of hair, however, if you are mistaken, you could be chasing ghosts for years

First do no wrong............


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 22, 2012)

> *THEY ARE PATIT. PERIOD.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->*


I'm considered Patit ,but I see only one who is really Pavan,
I agree with the Mona Musketeer, A discipline or martial code has most value when we impose it on our Mind-Self for the right reasons,infact if you know the reason ,then thats more important than wearing the uniform of a soldier alone,however if you know both thats good. One of the core values a Soldier should have is Respect for Others,Armies change their uniforms,weapons and vehicles for the situation or country and period in time.


----------



## itsmaneet (Aug 23, 2012)

harry haller said:


> There is a saying, 'first do no wrong', the principle being that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. If one were to love the order of the Guru, than I would take that as being the same as love, period.
> 
> Orders are different, orders are what certain people live their life by, they know what to do, when to do it and how it is to be done, but they understand nothing, because there is no wisdom, no learning, no application, just a firm belief that if orders are carried out, everything will be ok.
> 
> ...



  1) Bhai Taru Singh Ji gave away his head but refused to cut down his hair.
http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/martyrs/tarusingh.html

  2) Guru Nanak Ji asked Bala Ji to respect his hair & keep it unshorn to be with him to
      which Bala Ji agreed.
http://gurmatbibek.com/forum/read.php?3,23853,23857,quote=1

  3) In history, it's said that cutting hairs was the biggest punishment even more than the
      death sentence .... must be for a valid reason. Isn't it ??

  Just imagine, smbody proudly calling himself a Sikh & not following orders of Guruji. What kinda Sikh he is then only he knows ....

  In SSGS, at many places it's said to surrender your intelligence & follow the orders of the Guru but it seems 'Mona-Ghona-self called Sikhs' are putting their intelligence even upfront of the Guru's orders.

I remember a story a Sant use to tell.....
A village faced a deadly flood. The father took his son on his back & swam the other end safely. He saw another small kid crying for help & the father cudnt see a kid crying & went back. He took the small kid on his shoulders & asked him to remember 2 things -

1. Hold my shoulders tight
2. Never try your swimming abilities

Above 2 are related. If the kid tries swimming his own he's dis trusting the man & for this he'll have to unhold his shoulders. So the kid trusted the man & followed his 2 orders & went across safely.

Same is with Guru's - Enjoy riding on their shoulders, never mis trust them, never ever question them. What they said is right & accept it as an order to safely go across this "sansar".

In above story, if the boy had used his swimming abilities that wud have been coz of mis trust & over confidence on his abilities....doing so he wud have sunk in the fast flowing river.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 23, 2012)

itsmaneet said:


> 1) Bhai Taru Singh Ji gave away his head but refused to cut down his hair.
> http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/martyrs/tarusingh.html
> 
> 
> ...


 
Itsmaneetji

I have noticed you have a habit of not remarking on the issues I have raised, and you do this every time we debate.

I have no desire to change your mind, that is not what this forum is here for, I am here to debate matter that I have not formed an opinion on, to that end, I find most of your posts extreme, but also helpful, you do drop the odd gem, and indeed at least one of your posts has kept me awake thinking. 

The issues we have with hair and DG, we should put to one side now, let us concentrate on our common beliefs instead

mundahug

P.S. I will however continue with the sarcasm, I know you are big enough to see it for what it is, just brotherly digging


----------



## malon (Sep 23, 2012)

@AmanSingh
Hair falls out after it reaches a certain length, so that means by your logic, falling-off of hair is in accordance with the Hukum, which by extension, by your rationale for cutting nails, should allow people to cut hair as well. I'm just merely observing and stating a fact from your point of view. Take no offence, I'm trying to be objective as possible. 
I'm a young adult who has had her hair at it's maximum length since I was born and I take care of it more than anyone can ever realize. The time and effort I put into taking care of it would surprise many people. But, it still doesn't stop it from falling.


----------



## TigerStyleZ (Sep 24, 2012)

@malon
It is often argued that Sikhs  do not cut their hair so why do they cut their nails. Sikhs only cut  the dead gray part of their nails, not the alive pink/red part. This is  similar to combing and removing dead hair while retaining live hair.  Just like we do not cut the pink/red part of our nails, why should we  cut our perfectly live and healthy hair? If anything dead grey part of  nails should be compared to dandruff or dead hair removed while combing. In  addition, hair is not a hindrance to anyone. Because hair can be placed  in a bun and kept clean and does perform a number of functions, it is  only practical to realize that keeping hair is not hard. On the other  hand, having long nails is a hindrance to the body. An individual with  long nails cannot functions and do everyday chores comfortably. In order  to ensure that one can perform the tasks of everyday life, only the  dead part of nails is trimmed. 
 In addition, whereas the hair  grows from a tubular pit (hair follicle), formed by sinking in of the  most actively dividing layer of the skin (stratum germinativum) into the  lower dermis, the gray part of nails is only modifications of the upper  dead layer (stratum corneum). Further, the base of every follicle  bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for  nourishment and nerve fibers to make the hair sensitive. An oil gland,  known as sebaceous gland, opens into every hair follicle, the secretion  of which lubricates the hair. A muscle is also attached to the base of  every hair for bringing about movement. Pigments are added to the shaft  of the hair as it grows. None of these features is associated with the  dead part of nails. 
 Structurally, hair is extremely strong, and  resists breaking due to its elasticity and flexibility. Strength of hair  can be estimated from the following facts, a human hair laid on a bar  of steel and then passed through a cold rolling mill would leave an  imprint on the face of the steel. A hair of a man’s beard is about as  strong as a copper wire of the same dimensions. If a rope were made out  of strands of long hair, it would be strong enough to lift an  automobile. Dead part of nails, on the other hand, are very brittle and  rigid, breaking off easily. Hair are countless (upto 125,000 on head  region alone), thereby increasing the surface area. Hair protects us  against the harmful Ultra Violet radiations and skin cancer while the  dead part of the nails do not seem to provide a similar functionality.
 The  differences between the two do not end with the structural features.  Even the body’s response towards the two is totally different. Our body,  throughout life, tries to maintain a particular length of hair. Every  individual has a specific length for hair. Once the hair reaches its  specific length, it stops growing. If the hair is cut, the body responds  by growing it again to the specific length. It clearly indicates the  link of the body with the hair all along its length. The body shows no  such response to the nails, which grow from birth to death at the same  rate, irrespective of whether cut or not. It follows, thus, that cutting  of the dead part of nails does not tell on the body at all, whereas,  cutting of hair puts extra load on the body. To sum up, if there is  anything on the head that can be compared with the dead part of nails,  it is either dandruff or dead hair which are removed by combing.
 Nature  knows best what to retain or discard. Whatever is retained is not  without purpose. Hair is a gift from God, not a burden. Guru Gobind Singh Ji,  in his infinite wisdom, instructed us to respect hair and refrain from  tampering with it. This is the visible token of his affection for us, as  well as our faith in him.

That sums it up.  a

BTW: i made an experience, I didn´t cut my nails for 5 months( but kept them cleen and stuff) do you know what happend? It is like Aman ji described they broke off! and only on the DEAD part. Maybe the shape doesnt looks round like you cut it with the nail clipper - but it is almost the same result! What you have described make no sense.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Sep 24, 2012)

malon ji,

TigerStyleZ gave some good arguments.

I have one that cannot be refuted, at least to a Sikh.  Guru ji told us to keep our hairs intact.  No such order or request was made about fingernail (or toenails).


----------



## Anmeet Singh (Oct 20, 2013)

Veerji first thing ur question is wrong.. Question must be y we cut hair..
2nd thing the way u criticise things.. means u go wid logic..i like dat becoz same i am.. i want logic of everything.. like i have a ques in mind regarding our religion but i got most of ans aftr goin to gurdware 2 months daily.. and many thing in our religion are still goin wrong becoz purane jamane k log chalate aa rhe hain.. 
Sikh hair kyu ni kaat te.. becoz its gft of god to us.. sikha di history give u every ans.. bhai taru singh ji..bhai mati das ji..etc all set us a good example ki saanu ki karna hai te ki nai karna.. dere are 2 type of ppl.. MANMUKH AND GURMUKH..manmukh banda hamesha duniya de mutabik and mann de mutabik chalda hai..ur life will be very tuff agr tussi mannmukh bann jaoge..
U said -Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?
ur comparison b/w hair and nails are wrong.. its like u r comparing ur mom wid ur aunty.. u cant place ur aunty on place of ur mom.
And jaise parents ko wahi bache pasand aate hai jo unka kaha mante hai.. same case.. guru ko apne wahi bache pasand aate hain jo unke chalaye hue raste pe chalte hain.

Alwaz remember one thing..har insaan galat ho sakta hai par guru kabhi galat ni hote.. Guru Granth sahib me likhi hui har ek cheez ka reason hai aur reason bhi guru granth sahib ji me diya hai but people follow that blindly and say kyunki guru ji ne kaha hai.. becoz dey dont have valid reason.
U r science student as i read above.. i study in class 9th there dere are only 2parts of our body jo kisi kaam ni aate.. first is nails and 2nd is nictitating membrane..
I hope u know ki hume hair kyu rakhne chahiye.. bu still i give an ans of ur ques

FOR UR NAIL QUES
This question is frequently asked, "Why do Sikhs keep their hair?" Hair is a gift from God, therefore why should anyone give it away by cutting it? Hair is one of the five articles of faith for Sikhs. Sikhs live the way God made humans and never cut their hair. For Sikhs hair is the symbol of love for God and the respect for everything He has given us. The way God made us is the most beautiful of all. To Christians, even the Bible says, "God loves us and cares so much about us that even all the hairs of our head has well counted" (Matt.10:30).

It is often argued that Sikhs do not cut their hair so why do they cut their nails. Sikhs only cut the dead gray part of their nails, not the alive pink/red part. This is similar to combing and removing dead hair while retaining live hair. Just like we do not cut the pink/red part of our nails, why should we cut our perfectly live and healthy hair? If anything dead grey part of nails should be compared to dandruff or dead hair removed while combing.

In addition, whereas the hair grows from a tubular pit (hair follicle), formed by sinking in of the most actively dividing layer of the skin (stratum germinativum) into the lower dermis, the gray part of nails is only modifications of the upper dead layer (stratum corneum). Further, the base of every follicle bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for nourishment and nerve fibers to make the hair sensitive.



LINK-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWUg5NqcOOY


Sorry for long reply..but hope u got a logical answer and if not i will explain it briefly.Like the way u reply to others.. god bless u..


----------



## heoric (Oct 20, 2013)

Did you know human hair is used in Pizza, bread and flour to bind the flour together. Human Hair is collected from Barber shops and sold to the food giants to convert this into a binding agent. Google this and you can read about this


Does your daily bread contain human hair? 
Justin Rowlatt - 
10 Jan 07, 02:50 PM

I don’t mean one of your stray locks that fell into the butter. What I want to know is whether amino acids produced from human hair were used to process the flour that went to make that piece of toast you wolfed down on the way to the bus stop.

It sounds unthinkable doesn’t it? But since I became a vegan on New Year’s day I’ve developed a keen interest in what goes into the food I eat and I’ve discovered that a food additive which is sometimes produced from human hair can be used as an additive in some baked goods. 

But first, the veganism. I am not becoming a vegan out of high principle. The idea is to test the claim made by a number of people who have emailed in to insist that becoming a vegan significantly reduces one’s impact on the environment. 

I will be vegan for all of January. So my new diet did not preclude me eating Ned the Newsnight turkey 

I am happy to report that Ned was as tasty as he was ethical. My family gnawed our way through his ample carcass over the course of a full week. We ate Ned roast on the big day, then sandwiched, curried, as a supreme and finally in a tasty soup. Then, as the last few slices of Ned grew an extravagant mould in the bottom of our fridge, the New Year turned and my diet became completely meat and dairy free. 

It is not easy. I’m not just cutting meat and fish out of my diet. Vegans don’t eat any animal products including milk, eggs and honey. So will cutting out all animal products reduce my carbon footprint?

I need a bit of persuading about the bees but cows certainly produce an impressive quantity of greenhouse gases. I cited the extraordinary figure of up to 500 litres of methane a day per animal when I announced this project in December. 

At a conference last week the environment secretary David Milliband pointed out that "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than transport". Agriculture is reckoned to account for 7% of all greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as aviation.

And methane isn’t the only issue. It is claimed that one acre of arable crops can produce enough food for up to 20 people. Turn that field over to beef production and it will feed just one person.

Not only that, raising animals is a lot more carbon intensive than growing vegetables. David Pimentel, an ecologist from Cornell University, has calculated that animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than plant protein yet yields proteins only 1.4 times as nutritious for humans.

That’s the average. When you look at individual sectors the figures are even more startling. Take beef, for example. Using US Department of Agriculture figures he found that beef production requires an energy input to protein output of 54:1 (as well as 100,000 litres of water per kilogram of meat).

Vegetarians shouldn’t feel too smug, though. Milk protein has a ratio of 17:1. In fact, rather depressingly the most efficient form of animal production – perhaps not surprisingly – is battery chickens. Pimentel finds that broiler chickens have a ratio of energy input to protein output of just 4:1. 
My problem has been eradicating all these inefficient animal proteins from my diet. Take my very first day of vegan living, New Year’s Day. 

I hadn’t prepared very well and hadn’t got any margarine in. The local corner shop, a Londis, was open and they stock a good range so I wasn’t too worried. But as I worked my way through the eight or so different varieties of margarine I was amazed to find that every single one contained milk or dairy products in some form. 

It makes you realise just how common the use of animal products in food is. Before I became a vegan I would eat animal products in every single meal. Indeed the Vegan Society points out that some vegans consider tap water unacceptable because it contains chemicals that have been tested on animals.

I am not going that far but I have certainly developed a mania for reading food labels and there are all sorts of unexpected animal additives. 

Most people know that gelatine is produced from animal skin and bones and that the rennet used in some cheeses comes from calves stomachs. But did you know that bone char (from cow bones) is still occasionally used to whiten some sugars or that some wines and many beers (particularly real ales) include isinglass – a substance obtained from the swim bladders of fish?

Which brings me back to the possibility that human hair may be used in bread. A vegetarian friend alerted me to the existence of an animal-based flour additive called L-Cysteine. It is an amino acid which is used as a flour improver. It is known as E920 and is permitted for use in all biscuits, breads and cakes except those that claim to be wholemeal. 

The problem for a would-be vegan like me is that traditionally L-Cysteine is produced from feathers, pig bristles and sometimes even human hair. These days L-Cysteine can also be produced synthetically but apparently human hair remains one of the richest sources of this amino acid – it makes up about 14% of your hair - and there is a small industry in China making the additive from hair clippings. 

There’s even a paper on the web written by a Rabbi about whether L-Cysteine from human hair is kosher. Apparently it is – so long as the hair in question was not harvested from dead bodies. 

So how commonly is L-Cysteine used? My vegetarian friend claims that the problem with E920 is that – even when it is used – it doesn’t have to be listed in the ingredients. She says that’s because it is broken down in the baking process so the manufacturers argue that doesn’t constitute an ingredient. 

That is something the Food Standards Agency flatly denies. It says that L-Cysteine must always be labelled. Indeed, the industry says the reason you so rarely see E920 on labels is that these days it is very rarely used (apparently it was much more common fifteen years ago). The industry also says that the only L-Cysteine their members would use is the synthetic variety.

That is a little odd because according to the Food Standards Agency the European regulation specifies that only L-Cysteine produced from duck and chicken feathers or from pig bristles can be used. That means that, so long as your daily bread was baked in Europe, it almost certainly does not include human hair. 

But it leaves me a little confused. If British bakers are using synthetic L-Cysteine are they breaking EU guidelines? It is hard to get a straight answer because the biscuit makers told me it would be added when the flour is milled and the millers say it something the bakers would add. 

So if anyone can put this hairy issue to bed once and for all I’d be very grateful. And while I am on the subject, if anyone knows of any other animal-based (or human-based) food ingredients an embryonic vegan like myself needs to steer clear of please do tell me.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 20, 2013)

Anmeetji

Welcome to the forum, very nice informative post, if you could try and write in normal fashion rather than textspeak, that would be great as many of us here are quite advanced in years and have trouble reading it!


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 20, 2013)

Anmeet ji

I want to back harry ji's words. SMS code/language used for texting is a language unto itself and just close enough to English to make reading it a burden.

English is the official language of the forum. Please write your posts in English.

Otherwise, it is good to see you posting and I hope you will do so again. Welcome to SPN.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 20, 2013)

SAT SRI AKAAL,

All these issues 

1. Hair or No hair
2. Liquor or No Liquor
3. Flesh or No Flesh
4. Veg or Non Veg.

are non conclusive to followers of faith. 
Individual's mind shall be free from such discussion and arguments,
and follow path with faith 
and unison of mind with GURU's teaching.

Arguing on such topics is foolishness, 

and 

"GURSIKH" shall not discuss/argue on such topics,
it is more of personal faith and belief.

 Free mind attached to "GURU's" bani is righteous living.
Rest is all human and man made thoughts (MANMAT)

"FREE MIND" is achievement, one is still thinking of right and wrong if mind
is arguing. 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 20, 2013)

ravneet_sb said:


> SAT SRI AKAAL,
> 
> All these issues
> 
> ...



where does that leave those of us that are not Gursikh that are trying to align ourselves with such?

If you are devoid of such arguments, then you have reached the state of Gursikh, my heart is full for you, if you have not reached such a state, kindly enlighten the rest of us where you stand on the above 4 topics, and with what ease you deal with such. It would certainly help those that are not used to your writing style to decipher what exactly you are stating


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 20, 2013)

Sat Sri Akaal,

As a reverse question, often for self, to clear pathways of my mind

1. If everyone human shall do same than I accept or follow
2. If no one accepts than I will still follow

If answer to self 
is no to 1st and yes to 2nd, 
its clear answer to self.

Faith is unconditional, with no argument 
but a clear reflect of 
thought and action. 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 20, 2013)

Sat Sri Akaal,

own mind is origin of all controversies, 
which manifest outside as discussions

Understand MIND function inside own body.
It plans, reasons, justify etc. and make one's act but have no understanding of
right or wrong, 
intellect gives direction of right or wrong
Feed "Guru's Bani" to intellect.

Righteous Path are difficult, be addict to righteousness.

One smoking addict was advised to addict, 
to stop smoking, he said well you will also die one day.

This shall be spirit for addiction of "RIGHT".


Faith is higher order beyond mind.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 20, 2013)

thank you Ravneetji for clearing that up..


----------



## gurtej khubbar (Oct 20, 2013)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



Tejwant Singh said:


> Skeptic thinker ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Well I am not a skeptic, however as someone stated that we are born perfect may want to extend what they r trying to say. Children are born  with cancer and all other sort of diseases, sure u can put philosophical explanation as to why that's the case but it's not going to be true? Please explain


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 21, 2013)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



gurtej khubbar said:


> Well I am not a skeptic, however as someone stated that we are born perfect may want to extend what they r trying to say. Children are born  with cancer and all other sort of diseases, sure u can put philosophical explanation as to why that's the case but it's not going to be true? Please explain



do you want to tell him he is not perfect?


----------



## gurtej khubbar (Oct 21, 2013)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



harry haller said:


> do you want to tell him he is not perfect?



Ofcourse he is not , u give him the option as to if he will be happier being a normal person physically with the same brain and answer would be yes.

That's my point , keeping hair doesn't make one perfect. It's what u feel about urself... U exactly proved my point..


----------



## aristotle (Oct 21, 2013)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



gurtej khubbar said:


> That's my point , keeping hair doesn't make one perfect. It's what u feel about urself... U exactly proved my point..



Well, it is never argued that keeping hair makes you 'perfect'. When you are arguing on theology you shouldn't just make up things.
Any claim of 'perfection' would be sheer arrogance or Haumay.  That would defeat the very philosophy of the Amrit vows.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 21, 2013)

*Re: Why are we allowed to cut nails but not hair?*



gurtej khubbar said:


> Ofcourse he is not , u give him the option as to if he will be happier being a normal person physically with the same brain and answer would be yes.
> 
> That's my point , keeping hair doesn't make one perfect. It's what u feel about urself... U exactly proved my point..



Has it ever occured to you that he may not have pushed his brain as far as he had if he had been able bodied? of course we will never know, but he has led a full life, marriage, career, i think he , and the world consider him pretty perfect.

Where do you draw the line on so called imperfection? I have a pot belly and thin arms and legs, would my life be better if I were in proportion? My last wife had a chest that entered the room way before she did, it ruined her life, all people did was talk to her chest, would her life be better if she was perfect? 

As for hair making one perfect, I have never heard of anything more ridiculous, the hair in my view, is a respect for Creation and a respect for the words of the tenth master, I do not understand your fascination with it, if Sikhs choose to honour Creator and the words of Guru Gobind Singhji, and they find honour, peace, love in such, what does it have to do with you or anyone, and why should they justify it to a third party? We could waste time asking why Hasidic Jews have ringlets, or black hats, we could sit by the roadside and mock and question every person who looks different, both your argument and reasoning seem to be a complete waste of everyones time, including your own.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 22, 2013)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Experience "Haume"

Longing for more space (big house/ big factory, big institution)
Longing for higher position (Vice President/ President/ Director)
Longing for higher education/ energy


Triggers of "Haume"

Higher position
Higher space
Higher energy (youth/ finance etc)

Finally 

"Haume" reflection is 

I am the best, and everyone shall be like me.

Aim of developed Human mind is lost in "Haume" 

Discussion of  "Falsehood"

"Guru's Bani" Says

Higher Position, Youth Higher space shall not be "Sikh" way to deal with "Haume"

Most of educated cause of action revolve around this thought of mind

but "GURU'S BANI" 

say's ultimate longing is "RESPECT" which has no requirement of all above, 
and is required 
In the absence of respect for each other brother/brother brother/sister father/son mother/daughter and for other religion etc all above is need for mind satisfaction.

and "SIKH" way of life is 

"Ji Kaho and Ji Kahao" 

Mutual respect for each other.

Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## somethingwithsloths (Oct 22, 2013)

Sat Sri Akal, 
I have a question regarding the keeping of the kesh. 
I understand that we are not supposed to cut any hair on the body, but what about bleaching, highlighting, dyeing hair. 
I mean technically it is not cutting the hair, however it can be argued that these chemicals used to alter the color of one's hair is damaging.
So my question is this:
Is bleaching/coloring hair just as bad as cutting/shaving/waxing hair?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2013)

somethingwithsloths said:


> Sat Sri Akal,
> I have a question regarding the keeping of the kesh.
> I understand that we are not supposed to cut any hair on the body, but what about bleaching, highlighting, dyeing hair.
> I mean technically it is not cutting the hair, however it can be argued that these chemicals used to alter the color of one's hair is damaging.
> ...




dying hair is also a no no, particularly men and beards, for some reason..


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 22, 2013)

harry haller said:


> dying hair is also a no no, particularly men and beards, for some reason..



No experience of hair colour, but some learning of skin colour

Nature has give  best to most of us to live and survive.

But humans are not satisfied with there own looks, when one looks in the mirror, one want's to look better, it leads to fashion, cosmetics etc 
all this human action has born from

colour discrimination, 
disregard of old etc. 

MELANIN is responsible for colour of skin, people living in southern part of earth receives more sunlight, they have natural dark colour, so do near to equator have wheatish, and to upper regions of earth have white colour.

But mind without awareness of true nature 
human use lotions to make skin white,

though whites have to use sun screen lotion to protect from sun burn.

Understand Nature or Own Mind to free "MIND" from such thoughts
Do mirror meditation, 
STAND Before Mirror 
Spend Time to resolve looks and make mind free for receiving "GURU's BANI" 


Live Natural, Live Wise
Stay happy and healthy. 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 22, 2013)

somethingwithsloths said:


> Sat Sri Akal,
> I have a question regarding the keeping of the kesh.
> I understand that we are not supposed to cut any hair on the body, but what about bleaching, highlighting, dyeing hair.
> I mean technically it is not cutting the hair, however it can be argued that these chemicals used to alter the color of one's hair is damaging.
> ...



If one purpose of keeping kesh is to show respect for the way our Creator made us, the question answers itself.  

Honestly, keeping kesh is the easiest of any religious requirement, ever.  Leave it alone and it grows on its own.  All we need do is keep the hair clean and tidy. Conditioner and hair oil are OK because they help keep hair healthy.  All that other stuff is just haumai anyway, something to be avoided.

Of course, that's easy for me to say.  I'm 61 and still no grey hairs.  And mentioning that is haumai, too.  Sneaky stuff, this haumai.   

BTW, keeping kesh doesn't make me perfect, but I'm closer to perferction with it than without it.


----------



## ravneet_sb (Oct 22, 2013)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Understanding "Haume" or "EGO" and performing action to satisfy "EGO" to make min free of thought's

Science has explored brain, heart, lungs, stomach etc. and functions related to organs
One can see and experience through models, picture, video etc.

But what about software, which is the cause of action for operation of hardware.

EGO,  JEALOUSY, DUALITY, ANGER, etc are the routines of mind programming.

Religious scripts give the glimpse of mind programming.

RAVAN with 10 heads, i.e five positive and five negative emotion, these head of emotion appears every moment in one's life. 
Daily human heads with anger, attacment, lust, poses, ego, love, compassion, de attached, appears and disappears within same human body.

Duality lying down in our mind as bheeshm pitama receiveing duality (DUBIDHA), and always deciding of right and wrong ways, never dying process of mind.

As bird "CHATRIK" in "GURU's BANI" who has oceans, rivers, ponds of water to drink, but due to hole in his neck, "CHATRIK" cannot consume water from these source,
and has to rely on  "Rain" event of "Nature" to quench his thirst.

So do lot of thoughts in this world of emotion  

but 

one "MIND" shall take in thought of "GURU's BANI" 

Rest is man made (MANMAT) and rejected thought.


to keep hairs or not, to dye hairs or not,

keep mind free,

Perspective of religion is different.   


 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 21, 2014)

Sat Sri Akaal Everyone,
Are we still working on the answer??!!


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 22, 2014)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Sat Sri Akaal Everyone,
> Are we still working on the answer??!!



no we got the answer in the thread some time ago, try reading it


----------



## ravneet_sb (Sep 22, 2014)

harry haller said:


> no we got the answer in the thread some time ago, try reading it



Sat Sri Akaal,

Faith develops after self realisation, 

than only one can have faith on "SELF"

and is confident personality. 

To argue is role of mind. 

One is still in doubt within own self act, and want's to confirm on act.


It is difficult to choose path and adhere to it.


To transform "Sikh" to "Khalsa Sikh"


Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 22, 2014)

harry haller said:


> no we got the answer in the thread some time ago, try reading it



Thanks Harry Haller Ji!
I am reading through the posts. Can you please provide the particular page or post on this thread to which you were referring?


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 22, 2014)

skeptic.freethinker1 said:


> Thanks Harry Haller Ji!
> I am reading through the posts. Can you please provide the particular page or post on this thread to which you were referring?



no, I am sorry you will have to do that yourself, however, having read the answers, I feel that the subject has been covered, if you do not feel the same feel free to raise any questions on the already substantial material that has been posted, and I am sure someone will supply you with the missing answers that you need. 

perhaps to assist us, you could provide us with all your login names so that duplicate answers are not given to questions from another account, or better still reply to them yourself!


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 23, 2014)

ravneet_sb said:


> Sat Sri Akaal,
> 
> Faith develops after self realisation,
> 
> ...



Yes. My thoughts exactly!

Ravneet Ji,
You are my new favorite writer! You have this unique way with words...it's almost poetic.


----------



## skeptic.freethinker1 (Sep 23, 2014)

harry haller said:


> no, I am sorry you will have to do that yourself



Harry Ji,
No need to apologize. I will read through the posts. I have gone through quite a few pages already.


----------

