# Yes Kesh, Why Tied?



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 21, 2004)

I fail to grasp why kesh is tied up. If you keep God's gift, then why hide it under a turban? Covering head it for humility but if you can keep the hair tidy while it is down then what is wrong with that? Does Sikhism really require that of people that they tie it up, comb twice a day and tie a specific head cover? It all seems pointless and ritualistic.
Hope someone can point me in the right direction.

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 21, 2004)

Dear CC,

I see your point. The main thing is to keep nicely maintained Kesh as a God's gift. Then comes other details which may be trivial in terms of whether turban or not, what style (round, pointed etc), color, way of tying (left, right) etc etc.

Now that when Kesh are there, when sikhism came into existence, the sikh forces had to stay long long time in forests, and maintaining those nicely with open kesh (without turban) was not practically possible.

Further, as a head gear, it seems turban balances the gracious outlook of a sikh who has maintained beard - I mean beard at the face' lower side, and turban from upper side.

Hope that helps. Certainly a great thought from your side


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 22, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Then comes other details which may be trivial in terms of whether turban or not, what style (round, pointed etc), color, way of tying (left, right) etc etc.



OK, it's ok for it to be tied, but the covering humility, why so much fuss about tying this way, that way? Couldn't it become a thing of ego to worry about this? Wouldn't a simple plain bandana do?

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jul 22, 2004)

I agree with Arvind and CC, 

Turbans are worn as a statement to others that you are Sardar... a leader... a little bit of fuss does come into play when a person is not satisfied with the outlook of his truban... 

But its totally a personal thing... I used to be very fussy about the way I used to wear Turban initally... I would tie it and then re-tie it so that I was satsified about  it... but with the passage of time... these things take a backside as we grow... but still I think Sikhs should take care of their bandana or turban so that they tie it neatly. I think its personal choice. 

My personal views...


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 22, 2004)

Hmm.
Well I guess I'll actually mention this since we're on topic. I am actually seriously considering not cutting any of my hair any longer. I'm not a member of the Sikh religion, but well I am beginning to believe this is a righteous thing to do... But my parents see me as a religion hopper, so yeah. And I guess it would be hard for people to accept around me etc. I don't know... Blah  

Being white as well I guess I would get stared at etc... ugh.

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jul 22, 2004)

Dear CC

As someone said 

" *Always follow your Heart... becasue the Almighty stays in your heart...*"  

If you or I feel comfortable with something then what others say does not matter.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2004)

CC reminds me of my elder brother, who had a burning desire to seek more and more. Initially, he used to take at least an hour to wear the turban! Simply not very easily satisfied with things he does. In the thought stream, one fine day, he took off turban, and just maintained kesh, with those flying open. Being in Punjab, born to sikh family, people took it as a matter of gossip. But my brother is a soul, who just doesnt care for, whatever happens, and just follows his heart. He continued keeping his hair not tied, and left them open one, I believe he underwent lot of spiritual changes, beyond my limited grasp of matters. Getting back to point, again, I want to say the turban details are trivial ones. Most importantly, turban is something to remind us always that Ik Ong Kaar exists everywhere, and show your humility and respect all the time, and not only in Gurudwara. 

On the lighter side, I guess sikhs cant change hair styles, so they exhibit their that sense of fashion (!) by different turban colors, styles etc. If anyone gets offended with this, I beg for forgiveness, and do point this out, so that I dont repeat this.

Best Regards.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 22, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> On the lighter side, I guess sikhs cant change hair styles, so they exhibit their that sense of fashion (!) by different turban colors, styles etc. If anyone gets offended with this, I beg for forgiveness, and do point this out, so that I dont repeat this.


LOL. Well isn't it better to avoid fashion as this maybe considered attachment to maya?

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2004)

I take fashion as an exhibitful way of expressing oneself attractive. And when inner qualities compete drastically (positive side) with outer appearance, then who cares for these things. 

Coming back, I guess the discussion of kesh tying or not, turban significance are making sense, CC.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 22, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> I take fashion as an exhibitful way of expressing oneself attractive. And when inner qualities compete drastically (positive side) with outer appearance, then who cares for these things.


Good point... Waheguru gave us personalities, why not express them physically?

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2004)

Right... Consider Coal showcased in golden clothes, and Diamonds in untidy clothes. Of course, the true ones who want to be associated with you wont care about superficial details. But as a wordly requirement, I think it would be wonderful, if Diamonds are presented in golden clothes.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 22, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Right... Consider Coal showcased in golden clothes, and Diamonds in untidy clothes. Of course, the true ones who want to be associated with you wont care about superficial details. But as a wordly requirement, I think it would be wonderful, if Diamonds are presented in golden clothes.


Doesn't Sikhism discourage excess materialism though? ThinkingOneji, either I am dumb, or you are talking in riddles, I am truly lost here!   

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2004)

Perhaps I went to extreme in illustration. On that note, when someone wears golden turban with diamonds, that is against principles i.e. excess materialism. But a simple nicely tied turban is not, and is a matter of maintaining kesh neatly, and showing respect always. IF one can maintain kesh without turban, it is fine.

CC, you are not dumb. However, as all of us here are learners, we are just sharing our thoughts, and trying to understand actual meaning. No riddles... but perhaps by my some writings, I want to sound intelligent(!), Spiritual (!) and learned one(!) and what not ;-)    I will try not to.. okay? 

Best Regards.


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jul 22, 2004)

> IF one can maintain kesh without turban, it is fine.



I wonder how will this thought go with sikh sangat in general... If this is the case then why is there fuss when sikhs are asked by French to remove religious articles including bandana or turban...?


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2004)

I am so sorry for the incomplete sentence: 
IF one can maintain kesh without turban, it is fine. 

I should have said - IF one can maintain kesh without turban and wants to cover head with any other thing, it is fine. 

Sometimes, ignorants like me speak with so much authority, this is not good. But for sure, I am here to learn, and I appreciate sikh sangat to point this out 

Sangat, you are a great help. Best Regards


----------



## Amarpal (Jul 23, 2004)

Dear ThinkingOne Jee,

Kesh, turban both are requirements of Khalsa Panth. Both are part of Sikh uniform. They are essential requirement for synergy within the Panth. If you are not contributing to the synergy, you will not receive it also. The synergy provides the input for Cardi Kala. What we are is the result of this contribution of many of our past generations. We are tall today standing on the shoulderes of your elders. This support which we got from our earlier generation is a debt with us, which we can pay by providing same support to the coming generations. We must be in Sikh uniform, which includes turban.

With love and Respect for all.

Amarpal


----------



## Arvind (Jul 23, 2004)

Agreed. Baani, Baana, Simran, Seva are the things a Sikh should essentially contribute.

Best Regards.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 23, 2004)

Amarpal said:
			
		

> We must be in Sikh uniform, which includes turban.


Here I go slightly off topic again  ... WHY do Sikhs need a uniform? Shouldn't we be more worried about the soul's progress rather than the physical body's progress?

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 23, 2004)

Somato-psychic!


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Jul 23, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Somato-psychic!


Huh...???? [We are not all walking dictionaries   ]


----------



## Arvind (Jul 23, 2004)

Oh, sorry for that.

Our physical body gets affected by state of mind. Conversely, state of mind gets affected by physical body. e.g. a happy mind is good for health, and a person with some disease has its impression on his mind also. 

Guru ji has asked sikhs to don Bana (the uniform) who is easily identifiable as a saint-soldier due to this. Amarpal ji has talked about this already.

Best Regards.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 23, 2004)

CC,
Did u happen to read:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/sikhs-in-the-eyes-of-others.243/
Being and Becoming a Sikh by Dr. I. J. Singh Posted by Ideal Singh

Thanks


----------



## etinder (Jul 27, 2004)

guys i just want to quote A Toynbee who is one the most known socio anthropologists ever lived. He has studied different religions n cultures across the globe

He was asked by one lady in a New york conference that who is the most beautiful man u have seen in the whole world? guys hold ur breath he answered a sabat surat sikh who folllowed gurus teaching is the most beautiful person.
and when asked who is the most ugly one he replied," the sikh who inspite of having the gift sikhi destroyed his saroop"
this is not my opinion or neither i m boasting this becoz i m a sikh but the opinion of a well renowned social researcher


----------



## Arvind (Jul 27, 2004)

And this is so inpirational too. Even I cant stop myself commenting (in praise of sikhi) on a sabat surat sikh. Such a complete outlook a sikh gets... just wonderful


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jul 28, 2004)

Wonderful indeed !!


----------



## Arvind (Jul 28, 2004)

Coming back - Keeping kesh and dastaar are one of the requirements to be a sikh - told by Guru ji Himself, but as well said - this is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I mean, just by these two, one doesnt become sikh, but keeping kesh/dastaar should be taken as an entry point, and there are other maryada also to be kept.

Some people argue about: 
1. keeping unshorn kesh/dastaar with doing evil deeds
2. not maintaining kesh/dastaar but all good deeds
which one being better?

In above point, we are missing the total point, and one needs to carefully understand the meaning of kesh/dastaar being a necessary and not sufficient condition.

Regards.


----------



## plamba (Jul 29, 2004)

etinder said:
			
		

> guys i just want to quote A Toynbee who is one the most known socio anthropologists ever lived. He has studied different religions n cultures across the globe
> 
> He was asked by one lady in a New york conference that who is the most beautiful man u have seen in the whole world? guys hold ur breath he answered a sabat surat sikh who folllowed gurus teaching is the most beautiful person.
> and when asked who is the most ugly one he replied," the sikh who inspite of having the gift sikhi destroyed his saroop"
> this is not my opinion or neither i m boasting this becoz i m a sikh but the opinion of a well renowned social researcher



Could you please provide your source for the above information?


----------



## plamba (Jul 29, 2004)

*Khalsa Is a Subset of Sikh*



			
				ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Keeping kesh and dastaar are one of the requirements to be a sikh - told by Guru ji Himself



Guru Gobind Singh codified the Khalsa, not the Sikh. Please, let's not confuse the two.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 29, 2004)

Thanks for pointing this out Puneet ji. Looks like sikh and khalsa are two different ones.

I am just trying to infer more as - Sikh is all Khalsa except with Baana? And Khalsa is one who keeps rehat Maryada as per Guru ji's teachings? Is that correct?

If above is correct, then what does this mean? - Rehat pyari mujh ko, sikh pyara nahi

Best Regards.


----------



## plamba (Jul 29, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Rehat pyari mujh ko, sikh pyara nahi



Let's examine the source of the above statement. Perhaps doing so will make the answer to your question self-evident.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 29, 2004)

Please tell in more detail about the source, and meaning of above tuk. 

Thanks.


----------



## plamba (Jul 29, 2004)

ThinkingOne said:
			
		

> Please tell in more detail about the source



The quote "Rehat Pyari Mujh Ko Sikh Pyara Nahi" is taken from the Dasam Granth, which is *not* our Guru.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 29, 2004)

I am not sure, if Guru Granth Sahib ji contain anything about Guru Gobind Singh ji's proposed maryada. If no, then why are we becoming amritdhari?

At one time, we go for Guru Granth Sahib ji, and other times go for Guru Gobind Singh's Khalsa fauj, the two seems contradictory to some extent!

Please provide more information on this.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 29, 2004)

As there's no such book as Dasam Granth, my understanding of the above verse which does not contradict Sikhi but compliments it, is:

A sikh with Baana but sans Rehat can not be considered a Sikh. In other words, a complete sikh is that that has Baana & Rehat.

Theres nothing called almost sikh.

Peace & Love

Tejwant


----------



## Arvind (Jul 29, 2004)

Although the discussion has deviated from the original topic of kesh/dastaar, but still it is worth it to get deeper into these basic questions.

Tejwant ji - "a complete sikh is that that has Baana & Rehat." This is what Khalsa is as per Puneet ji. And that s our current discussion if there is a difference in khalsa and sikh? Are both of you talking about different entities or same one?

Thanks for the direction veero 

Best Regards.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 29, 2004)

A sikh is nothing without the Khalsa and the Khalsa is nothing without a sikh.

 In other words Baana and Rehat can not be seperated.


----------



## plamba (Jul 30, 2004)

*No Dasam Granth?*



			
				VaheguruSeekr said:
			
		

> As there's no such book as Dasam Granth



In that case, would you please clarify which book this site is referring to?

http://www.dasamgranth.org/


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 30, 2004)

Puneet ji,

My personal view on Dasam Granth is in the following thread:-

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/dr-rajinder-kaur.103/

Peace & Love

Tejwant


----------



## etinder (Jul 31, 2004)

plamba said:
			
		

> Could you please provide your source for the above information?


replying to this puneet ji
i dont remember the source either it was the foreword in Unesco or it was in his study of history, as soon as i come across it again, ill try to note down the exact refernce
regards


----------



## S|kH (Aug 2, 2004)

Khalsa and Sikh two separate things?

Guru Gobind codified the Khalsa? which has no relation to Sikh?

Take this for hand :
khu kbIr jn Bey Kwlsy pRym Bgiq ijh jwnI ]4]3]
kahu kabeer jan bheae khaalasae praem bhagath jih jaanee ||4||3||
Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure - they become Khalsa - who know the Lord's loving devotional worship. ||4||3||

quoted from SGGS, for the sake of plamba. 

Guru Gobind codified the true sikhs and initiated them into the Khalsa.

The Khalsa and the Sikh are very much inter-related, whether its only stated in the Dasam Granth or not. The quote above is from Bhagat Kabeer, and shows the theory of Khalsa had been around long before Guru Gobind created it. 

Khalsa - Brotherhood dedicated to purity of thought and action.
Sikh - seeker of the truth. 

When you have reached the position to be able to maintain purity of thought and action, and still continually seek the truth, you become Khalsa. 

It can be seen as a goal of a Sikh. As even Kabeer says from the above quote, that the pure ones become the Khalsa. 

The Gurus, and many other bhagats simply laid the foundation to become pure, and Guru Gobind added upon this and codified the Khalsa. 

As Bhagat Kabeer stated, the Khalsa, the pure, know the Lord's loving devotional worship. Guru Gobind finished the portrait of the Khalsa, and laid the foundation to become similar teachers. As even Guru Gobind, bent down in most humility and talked to Khalsa Panth as if they were his gurus, his teachers, his informers. 

Guru Gobind did not randomly create the Khalsa. It was an image prevalent among all the other Gurus and bhagats, Guru Gobind simply finished the portrait, or it can be seen as he finished the goal of a Sikh. 
That a Sikh should become part of this pure community, devoted to purity of action and thought, and still continually search for the truth.


----------



## Arvind (Aug 2, 2004)

S|kH said:
			
		

> Khalsa and Sikh two separate things?
> 
> Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure - they become Khalsa
> 
> ...


So nicely explained concept Sikh ji. This is really good for learners like us.

Best Regards.


----------



## Eclectic (Dec 7, 2004)

Sevadaar Singh said:
			
		

> I am so sorry for the incomplete sentence:
> IF one can maintain kesh without turban, it is fine.
> 
> I should have said - IF one can maintain kesh without turban and wants to cover head with any other thing, it is fine.



Aaah! Who makes up all these rules? What does the sikh teachings say about all of this. What are the exact words? And who is to tell people what is excessive materialism and what isn't? Are these unwritten rules or what? lol


----------



## Arvind (Dec 7, 2004)

Well, I didnt/dont write the rules!  I am a Sikh to get direction from Guru Granth Sahib ji. So, regarding your lol, I dont have any answer. May be some learned member on this forum reply appropriately.

Regards.


----------



## Neutral Singh (Dec 7, 2004)

Eclectic said:
			
		

> Aaah! Who makes up all these rules? What does the sikh teachings say about all of this. What are the exact words? And who is to tell people what is excessive materialism and what isn't? Are these unwritten rules or what? *lol*


*Admin Note : I am sure you did not mean to offend anyones sentiments...  Please refrain from such remarks in future. Thank You. 
*____________________________________________________________

Eclectic, i think you have not read the following post by dear S|kh...



> Khalsa and Sikh two separate things?
> 
> Guru Gobind codified the Khalsa? which has no relation to Sikh?
> 
> ...


Eclectic, have you ever thought that you could complete your graduation degree without completing/clearing your 'smaller' grades in schools and colledge ? and these 'smaller' grades are indeed very important milestones in our lives... 

so why so much carelessness while making judgements which are beyond our comprehensions... atleast for now... once we slowly and steadily clear/pass/complete our 'smaller' grades in our religous journey, these so called rules will stop bothering us... We will adapt to these simplest of rules without even a second thought... moreover just by following these simple rules does not make us a Khalsa... its your healthy karmas and purety of thoughts that make us a Khalsa or Pure... 

To be a Khalsa or Pure is a pinnacle for any person... by any person i specifically meant because everybody has the potential to become Pure...

i hope i made some sense as i am no scholar/intellectual... its just my present level of understanding...

Bhul Chuk Maaf (Please forgive my ignorance)

Best Regards


----------



## Eclectic (Dec 8, 2004)

Neutral Singh said:
			
		

> *Admin Note : I am sure you did not mean to offend anyones sentiments...  Please refrain from such remarks in future. Thank You.
> *



Sorry, I didn't think it would be offensive. My question was an honest one. I _did_ ask where does it point out all the specifics of how Sikhis should follow Kesh. But thanks for pointing out the answer.


----------



## plamba (May 19, 2006)

S|kH said:
			
		

> Khalsa and Sikh two separate things?
> Guru Gobind codified the Khalsa? which has no relation to Sikh?
> Take this for hand :
> khu kbIr jn Bey Kwlsy pRym Bgiq ijh jwnI ]4]3]
> ...



Pardon the delay in responding. I was in India for six weeks.

Guru Gobind Singh was born almost 150 years after Kabir's death. The context in which the anti-ritual Kabir uses the word "khalsa" has nothing to do with the highly ritualized Khalsa order created by Guru Gobind Singh. The only thing in common is the word "khalsa." However, the word by itself means little. The context is everything.

"kabeer preeti ik siau keey aan dubhidhaa jaai; bhaavey laambe kes karu bhaavey gharari mundaai" 

(Kabir, when you are in love with the One God, duality and alienation depart. You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald.) 

-- KABIR 

Source: Adi Granth, p. 1365 

Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
+1 339 221 1561


----------



## max314 (Jun 1, 2006)

CaramelChocolate said:
			
		

> I fail to grasp why kesh is tied up. If you keep God's gift, then why hide it under a turban? Covering head it for humility but if you can keep the hair tidy while it is down then what is wrong with that? Does Sikhism really require that of people that they tie it up, comb twice a day and tie a specific head cover? It all seems pointless and ritualistic.
> Hope someone can point me in the right direction.
> 
> ~CaramelChocolate~
> The little philosopher



The turban was considered a sign of status and aristocracy in India.  The Tenth Guru adopted it as a symbol that every man should have the right to dress as a king.  The turban was tied to scare the shit out of oncoming hordes of Mughals.  Hey, there were like 2 Khalsa warriors going up against thousands of Mughals at a time...they needed all the edge they could get :shock:

The 'combing twice a day' thing was to keep the hair of the ever-moving Khalsa clean.  Don't forget that many, many days, weeks...and even years...were spent away at war.  To create a sense of discipline whilist at war is not a bad thing, mon frère :}{}{}:

And, of course, the fact that a fully attired Khalsa would look like this:







meant that any guy would look at that and realise that it's one kick-{censored} piece of 17th century clothing


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 22, 2006)

nice! Although I would argue why the guy is not shown to have body hair and hair on the beck of the neck. Overall it looks gangster


----------



## max314 (Sep 22, 2006)

CaramelChocolate said:
			
		

> I fail to grasp why kesh is tied up. If you keep God's gift, then why hide it under a turban? Covering head it for humility but if you can keep the hair tidy while it is down then what is wrong with that? Does Sikhism really require that of people that they tie it up, comb twice a day and tie a specific head cover? It all seems pointless and ritualistic.
> Hope someone can point me in the right direction.
> 
> ~CaramelChocolate~
> The little philosopher



The turban is like a banner.  It's a symbol of freedom and a declaration of aristocracy.

In the Old East, the turban was considered the highest sign of aristocracy, allowed only to be worn by kings and other figures of importance.  What Guru Gobind Singh did was to say that all men - not just the ones born into certain families - had the right to wear it.

The meaning of the turban in the popular mind has altered as of late.  Oh so many people associate turbans with Arab terrorists, which is an unfortunate association.  But it's original intention was the one stated above.

So yes, it is "ritualistic" in some senses, but it is not "pointless".  As I've said, the whole 'point' of wearing a turban was to 'make a point' :}{}{}:

You should know that the cutting of hair is not condemned anywhere in the Guru Granth Sahib.  In fact, there is a passage that reads as follows:

_"Kabir, when you are in love with the One God, duality and alienation depart. You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald."_

*~ KABIR ~

Adi Granth, p. 1365*​
The keeping of hair and the wearing of the turban were ideas written about in the Dassam Granth; a separate compilation containing the writings of the Tenth Master.

If you're a _Star Wars_ fan, like me, then you might like thinking of it like this: the Force exists, and both Jedis and normal people who learn to harness its energies can utilise it.  But those who do not control their inner selves and do not practice discipline become destructive in their powers.  They become 'Sith'.  Therefore, it is necessary for the Jedi to have a certain code to help to ensure that no selfish Siths are created.  Of course, there is still no guarantee but it certainly helps.

Similarly, the Tenth Master felt that if ever Khalsa (or 'Jedi Knight') wore the *5Ks* to remind him/her of their values at all times of the day and night and to recite the words of _gurbani_ that teach devotion to nothing except the Universe itself (_waheguru_), and to respect all its creations and to fights for the equality of all men and women, that the fire-woshipping, snake-eating, triabl-warring, widow-burning, stone worshipping world of 17th century India could be changed for the better into a more productive society.

Whilst I don't adhere to the Code Of The Khalsa, I certainly don't see anything wrong in adopting it.  Even if it is a little dated, it can still teach good morals and good discipline.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 22, 2006)

When the English attacked Panjab, they looted the Khalsa darbar afterwards. Most of the stuff they robbed is here in the U.K.

This turban helmet was one of such things held at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It shows that under some circumstances at least, Sikhs didn't wear turbans.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 22, 2006)

dal singh  althought I dont disagree wih you i think that somekind of head dress (maybe a smaller turban) WAS worn under the helmet

max I dont think the five ks are outdated.... They are actually very modern, in my opinion. There will be a time where scientists etc will start encouraging people to not cut their hair etc maybe due to the sun or whatever the reason might be

as for why kesh are kept tied... i think its mostly to hold them in place so they dont interfere with what ur doing
i personally like kesh open and flowing or braided


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 22, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:
			
		

> dal singh althought I dont disagree wih you i think that somekind of head dress (maybe a smaller turban) WAS worn under the helmet


 
Possibly, but looking closely at that picture makes me think not.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 23, 2006)

Here is another one.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 23, 2006)

This is what a Singh should look like


----------



## max314 (Sep 24, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> max I dont think the five ks are outdated.... They are actually very modern, in my opinion. There will be a time where scientists etc will start encouraging people to not cut their hair etc maybe due to the sun or whatever the reason might be



Some people may consider the wearing of a _kaschaera_ that is bound exclusively by a _nala_ - as opposed to elastic - as not being the epitomy  of modernity.  Also, some may say that steel wrist-guards don't necessarily play a huge role in modern society.  And neither does carrying a sword around in a society that aims to be peaceful and non-violent.

As I said, these things probably had a real sense fo value in the time of the Tenth Master, but other than being symbols and articles of of a proud heritage, it is quite valid to say that those five 'Ks' are a little dated by today's standards.


----------



## max314 (Sep 24, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> This is what a Singh should look like




Perhaps.  Though I'd be interested to see him trying to walk through a doorway.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 24, 2006)

max314 said:


> Perhaps. Though I'd be interested to see him trying to walk through a doorway.


 

He wouldn't have to much of a problem I think....but this guy..... is another story


----------



## max314 (Sep 25, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> He wouldn't have to much of a problem I think....but this guy..... is another story



Wow, that is pretty big.

I'm a big believer that one should live their life in moderation.  Such extremes, in my view, can assist in bloating the ego.

_"People wear all sorts of costumes and wander all around, but in their hearts and minds, they practice deception."_
*~ From Siree Raag, Third Mehl ~*​


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 25, 2006)

max314 said:


> Wow, that is pretty big.
> 
> I'm a big believer that one should live their life in moderation. Such extremes, in my view, can assist in bloating the ego.
> 
> ...


 

I think one thing all Sikhs need to realise is that as a quom, we are a heavily symbolic people. Much more so than average in my opinion (i.e. compared to the groups around us).

I see nothing wrong with this. Even the 5 Ks.

You say it is out date, but look at "modern" England. They still have people dressed up in gowns and wigs like they were in the 17th century in their legal system, which is central to the whole country. My point being we certainly are not the only ones doing this and others from the "developed" world have no problem with it, so how is it outdated?



I love the fact that Nihungs today wear 10 pags in rememberence of defiance by Singhs who wore paghs despite a ban being placed on them doing so. It is basically a statement of defiance and self esteem. I think any true spirited Panjabi can relate to this, and would love it, whether mona or otherwise. We owe our existence to these "outdated" things.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 25, 2006)

Are our symbols any more outdated than these?


----------



## max314 (Sep 26, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> I think one thing all Sikhs need to realise is that as a quom, we are a heavily symbolic people. Much more so than average in my opinion (i.e. compared to the groups around us).



Curious, is it not, that from a philosophy that originated on that very rejection of symbolism and value in cloth is now one of the single biggest advocates of its uses.

It bears thinking about.



> I see nothing wrong with this. Even the 5 Ks.



I never actually said it was "wrong".  Simply that it could be argued that it is outdated.



> You say it is out date, but look at "modern" England. They still have people dressed up in gowns and wigs like they were in the 17th century in their legal system, which is central to the whole country. My point being we certainly are not the only ones doing this and others from the "developed" world have no problem with it, so how is it outdated?


 
Here's the thing: I think that even _this_ is outdated.

So I stand by my comments.

(Besides, as the bar and legal practice insitutions beging to merge into what is now following the American legal structure, those wigs are soon going to become a thing of the past within the next fifty odd years anyway.)



> I love the fact that Nihungs today wear 10 pags in rememberence of defiance by Singhs who wore paghs despite a ban being placed on them doing so. It is basically a statement of defiance and self esteem. I think any true spirited Panjabi can relate to this, and would love it, whether mona or otherwise. We owe our existence to these "outdated" things.



Indeed we do, and they should be duly honoured in whichever way people deem necessary.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 27, 2006)

max314 said:


> Curious, is it not, that from a philosophy that originated on that very rejection of symbolism and value in cloth is now one of the single biggest advocates of its uses.
> 
> It bears thinking about.
> 
> ...


 
If all Sikhs started to believe that the distinct look of the Khalsa was outdated and dropped it for this, I don't think we as a community would be better off.

I accept there has always been a mix of sehajdhari and keshdhari Sikhs, and so will it remain.

But when people within the Sikh community start to suggest that full bana Sikhs are outdated, it is a sad day indeed.

You did make this interesting point:

"Curious, is it not, that from a philosophy that originated on that very rejection of symbolism and value in cloth is now one of the single biggest advocates of its uses.

It bears thinking about."

But most Sikhs believe that in spirit all Gurus were one (this is nothing new and was propagated during the Gurus lifetimes itself), so could it not be said that instead of change it was actually development of the panth taking place. If the external symbols and militancy wasn't introduced, Sikhism may not have survived the Moghul onslaught it had to endure.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 27, 2006)

Also it isn't out of date because it gives us a template of what to do if we ever encounter similar circumstances, God forbid.


----------



## max314 (Sep 29, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> If all Sikhs started to believe that the distinct look of the Khalsa was outdated and dropped it for this, I don't think we as a community would be better off.



I never said that the "look of the Khalsa" should be "dropped", dear friend.



> I accept there has always been a mix of sehajdhari and keshdhari Sikhs, and so will it remain.



I see no reason to think otherwise.



> But when people within the Sikh community start to suggest that full bana Sikhs are outdated, it is a sad day indeed.



Are you saying that underwear held together by a _nala_ instead of elastic is not "outdated"?



> You did make this interesting point:
> 
> "Curious, is it not, that from a philosophy that originated on that very rejection of symbolism and value in cloth is now one of the single biggest advocates of its uses.
> 
> ...



You know, I've always wondered how this is possible when the Gurus' lifetimes overlapped one anothers'.  It's one of the ideas that I pay no credence to, especially since neither its verification nor its invalidaion has any bearing on the Truth, and - if anything - does nothing but distract one from it.



> ...so could it not be said that instead of change it was actually development of the panth taking place. If the external symbols and militancy wasn't introduced, Sikhism may not have survived the Moghul onslaught it had to endure.



Indeed.  Those "external symbols" were needed in order to have "survived the Moghul onslaught it had to endure".

But that was three centuries ago.

Whilst honouring those symbols is important (and I made this opinion quite clear at the end of my last post), does this eliminate the idea that - three hundred years later - at least _some_ of these symbols could be classified as being "outdated"?


----------



## max314 (Sep 29, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Also it isn't out of date because it gives us a template of what to do if we ever encounter similar circumstances, God forbid.



Indeed.  Though, once again, I fail to see how underwear that is held together exclusively by a _nala_ instead of elastic is ever going to help save the world.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 29, 2006)

max314 said:


> Indeed. Though, once again, I fail to see how underwear that is held together exclusively by a _nala_ instead of elastic is ever going to help save the world.


 

Point taken, but the message behind it, regarding soldiers not being bhalatkars ( or rapists), proved to be quite effective, Even Afghans who invaded Panjab, noted this (see quote below). Many peasant panjabis had/have problems with restraint in this area (infact nearly every single Panjabi film made in the 1980s was about this jat rapist versus the noble jat theme). The concept behind the kachera attacked this from my understanding, it represented sexual restraint in a time when this was unthought of in war situations. So yes, it wont save the world but it is still needed as a concept to explain things to some very forceful and randy farmers back home at least. But living in the England Max, don't you notice how promiscuity seems to be the norm here? Again the concept behind the kachera becomes useful, so we don't get crabs/AIDS and stay away from slappers...lol


"Leaving aside their mode of war, hear you of another aspect that distinguishes them among warriors. At no time do they kill one who is not a man (namard). Nor would they obstruct the path of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth and ornaments of a women, be she a well to do lady or a maid servant. There is no adultery amongst these Sikhs, nor are these people given to thieving. Whether a women is young or old they tell her "budiya go occupy a corner." The word budiya in the Hindi language means old women. "

Qazi Nur Mohamad in Jang Namah. Compiled in 1765.

Don't get me wrong though, I understand your sentiment, but personally I admire those who still have the balls to wear bana, it is sad if other Sikhs perceive them as archaic or outdated.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 29, 2006)

Max, its cool, I think many people will be thinking like you in the future. But as long as your loyalty and love remains with Sikhism and doesn't jump elsewhere, its not a problem. 

But be a bit sensitive to your bros and sis's who wear bana!


----------



## max314 (Sep 29, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Point taken, but the message behind it, regarding soldiers not being bhalatkars ( or rapists), proved to be quite effective, Even Afghans who invaded Panjab, noted this (see quote below). Many peasant panjabis had/have problems with restraint in this area (infact nearly every single Panjabi film made in the 1980s was about this jat rapist versus the noble jat theme). The concept behind the kachera attacked this from my understanding, it represented sexual restraint in a time when this was unthought of in war situations. So yes, it wont save the world but it is still needed as a concept to explain things to some very forceful and randy farmers back home at least.



Allow me to make it clear that I've always agreed 110% with the symbol of sexual restraint and self-control.

What bothers me is people who think their souls will be ripped out through their skulls by dark spirits (no joke) unless they wear _nala_-based underwear.

I find it disturbing that people forget that the 5Ks were created for _practical_ reasons, and actually had very little to do with God.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji created them out of tenacity, not divinity.  They were all based firmly in the realm of _maya_, and with good reason.  _Maya_ is our world.  It may not be the _full_ world, but it's the world that we have fought and died for in order to affect change within it.

The very essence of _kirt karo_.



> But living in the England Max, don't you notice how promiscuity seems to be the norm here? Again the concept behind the kachera becomes useful, so we don't get crabs/AIDS and stay away from slappers...lol


 
 What people do with their time and their bodies is not my business, but I personally do not intend to become involved with anyone until marriage.  I don't have 'strict' parents; they are fairly open-minded.  But I do have parents who understand the importance of communication.  Me and my younger brother and sister have all been brought up in the same way, and we all share the same set of values, which goes to show that raising Asian kids in a moderate household is not a lost cause with some good parenting.

I have seen the amount of distress caused by sexual overactivity in some of my friends is simply a reaffirmation that my life choices are the right ones.

Excess of anything is bad.  That includes an excess of spirituality, an excess of materialism, etc.  Sikkhi tells of striking the correct balance.



> "Leaving aside their mode of war, hear you of another aspect that distinguishes them among warriors. At no time do they kill one who is not a man (namard). Nor would they obstruct the path of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth and ornaments of a women, be she a well to do lady or a maid servant. There is no adultery amongst these Sikhs, nor are these people given to thieving. Whether a women is young or old they tell her "budiya go occupy a corner." The word budiya in the Hindi language means old women. "
> 
> Qazi Nur Mohamad in Jang Namah. Compiled in 1765.



Exemplary behaviour.

Did you know that even American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have been raping civilian women?



> Don't get me wrong though, I understand your sentiment, but personally I admire those who still have the balls to wear bana, it is sad if other Sikhs perceive them as archaic or outdated.



I too admire people who wear _bana_, and who represent a noble and commendable philosophy.

I don't, however, admire people who follow in a sheep-like fashion.  It was precisely that sheep-like mentality and narrow-minded dogmatism that the Gurus attempted to break people out of.  And these dogmatisms come out of people who orally add bits and bobs to _gurbani_ and give wrong interpretations that are considered 'the norm' after three hundred years.  What I find is that many people have simply broken old bonds only to go on to form entirely new ones.


----------



## max314 (Sep 29, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Max, its cool, I think many people will be thinking like you in the future. But as long as your loyalty and love remains with Sikhism and doesn't jump elsewhere, its not a problem.
> 
> But be a bit sensitive to your bros and sis's who wear bana!



I do my best, but sometimes diplomacy and tact just gets in the way of tackling the real issue.

I hope I've made it perfectly clear that my feelings towards the wearing of _bana_ is overly positive (I was born into a Sikkh family, and I suspect that my bias towards the Sikkh image will remain for many years).  But I do disapprove of what I perceive to be abuse of the Sikkh philosophy.

I understand it will be a controversial viewpoint, but I honestly believe that abuse of Sikkh philosophy began almost immediately after the passing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  The Tenth Master was, in effect, the only ever true practicioner of the Khalsa that I am aware of.

This abuse was undoubtedly unintentional.  But I do believe it took place.

If you want to know more, I will tell you.  But I will give you a heads up that it is potentially volatile material that you and others may not like.

I don't believe I am saying anything wrong, however.  It is regrettable, but it isn't wrong.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 29, 2006)

max314 said:


> Did you know that even American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have been raping civilian women?.


 
Really! Is this true, where did you hear that!




max314 said:


> I understand it will be a controversial viewpoint, but I honestly believe that abuse of Sikkh philosophy began almost immediately after the passing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The Tenth Master was, in effect, the only ever true practicioner of the Khalsa that I am aware of.
> 
> This abuse was undoubtedly unintentional. But I do believe it took place.
> 
> ...


 
This is no big secret to people who have studied Sikh history, Sikhs under Banda kicked off with the Tat Khalsa within a few years of the Guru passing. Plus living up to Guru Ji is not something easy to do, but he left us with an awesome role model.



max314 said:


> I too admire people who wear _bana_, and who represent a noble and commendable philosophy.
> 
> I don't, however, admire people who follow in a sheep-like fashion. It was precisely that sheep-like mentality and narrow-minded dogmatism that the Gurus attempted to break people out of. And these dogmatisms come out of people who orally add bits and bobs to _gurbani_ and give wrong interpretations that are considered 'the norm' after three hundred years. What I find is that many people have simply broken old bonds only to go on to form entirely new ones..


 
I think we can agree on this, I'm not keen on paranoid dogmatic practice either. But let them be.


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> Really! Is this true, where did you hear that!



Believe it or not, my mum told me! 

She said she'd heard women's accounts on some radio station about how they'd been abused.  It was on an Asian radio station, hardly mainstream at all.  I doubt that the British and American governments would want to talk about that stuff.



> This is no big secret to people who have studied Sikh history, Sikhs under Banda kicked off with the Tat Khalsa within a few years of the Guru passing. Plus living up to Guru Ji is not something easy to do, but he left us with an awesome role model.



Whilst I am an eager student of history, it seems that your knowledge on Sikkh history is greater than mine.  I'd be very appreciative if you could tell me more about this '_Tat Khalsa_' as it is the first I've heard of it (and yes, I was actually referring to Babba Banda Singh ).



> I think we can agree on this, I'm not keen on paranoid dogmatic practice either. But let them be.



Oh, of course.  I'm not going to go out of my way to wag my finger at them any time soon.  I was just stating it in the interest of our discussion on the issue that there is a 'lost essence' of Guru Nanak's philosophy.


----------



## dalsingh (Sep 30, 2006)

max314 said:


> Believe it or not, my mum told me!
> 
> She said she'd heard women's accounts on some radio station about how they'd been abused. It was on an Asian radio station, hardly mainstream at all. I doubt that the British and American governments would want to talk about that stuff.


 
I must say I am not surprised, when you look at the history of Anglo-Saxons it is full of sexual exploitation of women. Be this of African women who were being used as slaves, American Indians (I recall this documentary from a good few years ago where a contemporary recorded the event of a whiteman raid on an Native Indian encampment, they were sexually mutilating the women en masse apparently), Pocahontas, Aboriginals, all have suffered. Randy sods these goray, just look at how they go on in Ibiza...lol

I think the izzat system in the Panjab meant that they had to tone it down a bit there or they would have had a major uprising on their hands. I've even heard rumours that Maharani Jindan was gang banged by English soldiers to teach her a lesson. But couldn't verify this.





max314 said:


> Whilst I am an eager student of history, it seems that your knowledge on Sikkh history is greater than mine. I'd be very appreciative if you could tell me more about this '_Tat Khalsa_' as it is the first I've heard of it (and yes, I was actually referring to Babba Banda Singh )..


 
I think I posted some relevant stuff on this on the thread about the animation "The rise of the Khalsa", check that out if you haven't already. Randip Singh also seems very knowledgeable about this stuff, so maybe ask him.

I'm busy right now with a lot of stuff, but when I get the time I post some info for you. Rattan Bhangu, who was a direct descendent of people involved in those times, has written about it also, but I can't get hold of his stuff in English. We really need an English translation of this stuff!




max314 said:


> Oh, of course. I'm not going to go out of my way to wag my finger at them any time soon. I was just stating it in the interest of our discussion on the issue that there is a 'lost essence' of Guru Nanak's philosophy.


 
It is not lost, its just waiting there to be fully discovered. Hopefully the breakthroughs in decoding Gurbani with the help of technology should help us remove much of the mystery around this "philosophy"


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

dude wear a THICK metal kara    looks very nice and it can be used as a weapon 
as for the kachera... its all part of the image
nihang style pug, flowing beard
huge kara
kangha
kachera
long kirpan

i want to go to school looking like this .. except maybe they wont lemme carry that kirpan around  but it looks awesome

just like the japanese "show off" their "culture" (looking for a better word) samurais, ninjas etc  in shows 
sikhs should show off nihangs, khalsa


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

max i dont know if this has been mentioned but an elastic will enventually get weaker in strength but a nala will not so .... ya


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

Some people may consider the wearing of a _kaschaera_ that is bound exclusively by a _nala_ - as opposed to elastic - as not being the epitomy of modernity. Also, some may say that steel wrist-guards don't necessarily play a huge role in modern society. And neither does carrying a sword around in a society that aims to be peaceful and non-violent.

max like i have mentioned- they look good and if u wear the right kind they can be useful
the kara and the kirpan can be both used as weapons or just to "scare" the attacker if u dont use them
the kachera nala or elastic with this on u can pretty much walk around in ur "underwear" lol

i personally think that someone with these "outdated" symbols on, looks cool


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

dalsingh said:


> I must say I am not surprised, when you look at the history of Anglo-Saxons it is full of sexual exploitation of women. Be this of African women who were being used as slaves, American Indians (I recall this documentary from a good few years ago where a contemporary recorded the event of a whiteman raid on an Native Indian encampment, they were sexually mutilating the women en masse apparently), Pocahontas, Aboriginals, all have suffered. Randy sods these goray, just look at how they go on in Ibiza...lol



I don't think that skin colour has all that much to do with it.  Hindus were doing plenty of barbarous things too, including committing regular paedophillic acts in their temples.



> I think the izzat system in the Panjab meant that they had to tone it down a bit there or they would have had a major uprising on their hands. I've even heard rumours that Maharani Jindan was gang banged by English soldiers to teach her a lesson. But couldn't verify this.


 
Only the women seem to loose their "_izzat_" according to Indian culture.  Strange how the rapists themselves mysteriously retain their 'honour'.  It's a bent system.



> I think I posted some relevant stuff on this on the thread about the animation "The rise of the Khalsa", check that out if you haven't already. Randip Singh also seems very knowledgeable about this stuff, so maybe ask him.



Kewl.



> I'm busy right now with a lot of stuff, but when I get the time I post some info for you. Rattan Bhangu, who was a direct descendent of people involved in those times, has written about it also, but I can't get hold of his stuff in English. We really need an English translation of this stuff!



Okay, sounds cool.



> It is not lost, its just waiting there to be fully discovered. Hopefully the breakthroughs in decoding Gurbani with the help of technology should help us remove much of the mystery around this "philosophy"



I think that the Truth exists eternally.  Whether we call it Sikkhi, Bicky or Micky, the Truth is the Truth.  That's really my only concern, and I believe that it was Guru Nanak's only concern as well.

Thanks man, nice discussion.


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> max i dont know if this has been mentioned but an elastic will enventually get weaker in strength but a nala will not so .... ya



Then buy a new pair of pants.



> max like i have mentioned- they look good and if u wear the right kind they can be useful
> the kara and the kirpan can be both used as weapons or just to "scare" the attacker if u dont use them
> the kachera nala or elastic with this on u can pretty much walk around in ur "underwear" lol



I don't see how we can create a modern, peace-oriented society if we're busy trying to scare people with swords.  And I'm not really keen on walking around in my underwear, either.  But thanks for the advice :wink:



> i personally think that someone with these "outdated" symbols on, looks cool



That's fine.  But I don't think it makes them any less archaic.  In my view, of course.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

ur right it doesnt but they still look cool 

well about the buying a new pair... why buy a new one when the one with the nala will last a lifetime?


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> dude wear a THICK metal kara    looks very nice and it can be used as a weapon
> as for the kachera... its all part of the image
> nihang style pug, flowing beard
> huge kara
> ...



Well, _there's_ something to think about over breakfast, eh? :}{}{}:



> just like the japanese "show off" their "culture" (looking for a better word) samurais, ninjas etc  in shows
> sikhs should show off nihangs, khalsa




I thought we already did?

And I don't know how much the Japs really show off their culture, at least outside of Japan.  They are actually pretty mellow people, but their J-Pop culture - which is actually just a skewed reflection of Western culture through a Japanese view-point - is quite outspoken in Japan.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

"don't see how we can create a modern, peace-oriented society if we're busy trying to scare people with swords. And I'm not really keen on walking around in my underwear, either. But thanks for the advice :wink:"

dude i meant when u NEED to scare thats when u do it. Imagine this, some guys about to attack u and he sees ur kirpan (or u pull it out or sumtin) he gets scared and backs away... isnt this peace?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

wel


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> ur right it doesnt but they still look cool







> well about the buying a new pair... why buy a new one when the one with the nala will last a lifetime?




Haha...spoken like a true Indian :}{}{}: I'm sure Russel Peters could think of a few minutes of patter with that one...

"We're cheap enough on the whole...I just think that _kaschaera_-wearing people take it to a whole 'nother level..." :rofl!!:

Hehe...to be honest, that's kinda the reason I wear leather jackets.  Because it lasts.  _And_ coz it looks cool.  I just don't see myself flashing my undies  in public any time soon :8-


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

i meant in cartoons and stuff  to provoke the youth    show them wha khalsa really is


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

lol russell peters
well if u really wana buy a new nala-kachera pair then go ahead no oness stopping u 
i personally dont think like that (true indian) 

kachera doesnt look like regular undies  ...


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> dude i meant when u NEED to scare thats when u do it. Imagine this, some guys about to attack u and he sees ur kirpan (or u pull it out or sumtin) he gets scared and backs away... isnt this peace?




Let's just say I'd feel more comfortable if everyone wasn't going around with lethal weapons.

My _kara_'s enough of a weapon.  Then there's my fifteen years of experience in _tae-kwon-do_, _muay thai_, _karate_ and _nintai jitsu_.

Seriously, that's the reason we have a group of people known as police men.  They exist so that we don't _have_ to carry swords like we did in the feudal states of 16th century India.  But if you need a weapon, a can of mace or a chunk of keys or your metal bracelet will do the job.


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> i meant in cartoons and stuff  to provoke the youth    show them wha khalsa really is




Yeah, I own 'Rise Of The Khalsa' and the one about the _Saeb Jade_.  The  production quality wasn't fantastic, but the heart was there.


----------



## max314 (Sep 30, 2006)

BhagatSingh said:


> lol russell peters
> well if u really wana buy a new nala-kachera pair then go ahead no oness stopping u
> i personally dont think like that (true indian)



Yeah, I know you don't, I was just having a larf 

I just find wearing elastic to be more comfortable.



> kachera doesnt look like regular undies  ...




Wait, let me guess...they look like the product that Jaguar would produce if they ever opened a clothing line?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2006)

yes thats true but the police dont always come on time (lol reminds me of bollywood films)
and by the way nowadays u dont really need it .. its all for looks  like i have been saying since i started answering this post 

Aight man wutever u feel comfortable in  lol i am not taking any sides


Max do u watch boolywood films.. if yes then have u seen  "abh tumare hawale watan saathiyo" if yes  then    remember that part where akshay kumar gets caught and in the jail this guy grows a beard, mustache and gets long hair then beats the other guy    he looked AWESOME    now imagine that scene with a sikh  fighting a bunch of bad guys (bollywood style  ) in a movie     i wud love that!!


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 1, 2006)

Bhagat Singh,

I hope you don't mind me saying, but you look better in that pagh than the one in the previous picture.

Plus stay away from Bollywood films, they will rot your brains....lol
------------------------
MAX
 "Seriously, that's the reason we have a group of people known as police men. They exist so that we don't _have_ to carry swords like we did in the feudal states of 16th century India. But if you need a weapon, a can of mace or a chunk of keys or your metal bracelet will do the job."

Watch out some of these policemen in England are undercover nazis!


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 3, 2006)

thanks lol that old pic's a year old

the reason i want to get in to bollywood films and portray a good sikh image is that whatever ppl in india know about sikhs... its all from bollywood... they litereally think sikhs are dim witted idiots who are always happy and always joking and s*** like that

so if we can change that than i think us sikhs have made some progress

Bhagat


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 6, 2006)

Having nothing pressing to do tonight, I have read this whole thread from over the last two years. I have never posted anything here before and maybe I should refrain now, since none of you know me and I should make a good first impression. And being a woman in my 50's perhaps I should show a little more dignity. However, since I can't resist: I have worn any type of underwear you can imagine, and nothing is anywhere as comfortable as kechera.​ 

A young man in full Khalsa dress is an incredibly attractive masculine sight for this woman to see, and​ 

I did a lot of fencing when I was young, and believe me, hair flopping around or coming lose in a sword fight is a complete disaster.​


----------



## preetikaur (Oct 6, 2006)

Sat sri akal!!
This is my first post. I have a query. We say "Sab sikhan ko hukum hai, Guru maaniyo Granth"
in our ardaas daily. Is their any qote in Sri Guru Granth Saheb, which says that Sikhs should not even trim their hair?
If everything in our religion is based on scientific reasons, can anyone tell me what is  the reason to not maintaining your hair by trimming it?
Hair is meant for protection of our head and other reasons exist, true, but these factors still remain if you do not shave your head.
With the increasing pollution and work stress, there is increasing hair fall which troubles you more when you cannot do anything to your hair.
Guru Nanak Dev ji never laid down any such rules to differentiate Sikhs from others.
Are we following this just to maintain this difference from others?
Sikhism is based on pure thoughts and is free from unnecessary rituals or show offs...
Please tell  if this is written in Guru Granth Saheb that no Sikh is allowed to cut/trim his/her hair.


----------



## preetikaur (Oct 6, 2006)

Sat sri akal!!
This is my first post. I have a query. We say "Sab sikhan ko hukum hai, Guru maaniyo Granth"
in our ardaas daily. Is their any qote in Sri Guru Granth Saheb, which says that Sikhs should not even trim their hair?
If everything in our religion is based on scientific reasons, can anyone tell me what is the reason to not maintaining your hair by trimming it?
Hair is meant for protection of our head and other reasons exist, true, but these factors still remain if you do not shave your head.
With the increasing pollution and work stress, there is increasing hair fall which troubles you more when you cannot do anything to your hair.
Guru Nanak Dev ji never laid down any such rules to differentiate Sikhs from others.
Are we following this just to maintain this difference from others?
Sikhism is based on pure thoughts and is free from unnecessary rituals or show offs...
Please tell if this is written in Guru Granth Saheb that no Sikh is allowed to cut/trim his/her hair.


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 6, 2006)

From what I was taught it was the failure of Delhi Sikhs to come forward at the challenge by Mogul soldiers to claim their Guru's body after his public execution that prompted Dasmesh Pita to make Sikhs stick out (niarapun) so that they could not hide their faith like Judas.

It worked, within a few generations, Singhs were terrorising the Moghuls and bravely took control of the Panjab not only against Mogul resistance buy also Afghan and Persian.

Rak Karega Khalsa


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 6, 2006)

Obviously that should read RAJ Karega Khalsa ---- whoops



HEY ADMIN, HOW COMES I HAVEN'T GOT THE EDIT FACILITY ANYMORE! I NEED IT FOR MY PSEUDO-DYSLEXIC MOMENTS.


----------



## LearningGuy (Oct 7, 2006)

I knew that Sikh's can't cut their hair if they are following the 5 Ks.

However I didn't know that they had to tie their hair in a specific manner.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 7, 2006)

Hey Preeti,
Guru Gobind Singh Ji told sikhs not to cut their hair from any part of the body. 
Bhagat


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 7, 2006)

LearningGuy said:


> I knew that Sikh's can't cut their hair if they are following the 5 Ks.
> 
> However I didn't know that they had to tie their hair in a specific manner.


 
They don't but in battle you can't have open hair you know, you'll either try to control your hair or fight, that's why even the female sikh warriors had turbans.

Bhagat


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 7, 2006)

WJKK WJKF Preeti Ji,

*If everything in our religion is based on scientific reasons, can anyone tell me what is the reason to not maintaining your hair by trimming it?*

Yes everything is based on logic and scientific reasons. You don't have to trim your hair to maintain them, that's not really maintaining now is it? Maintaining is washing it 1-3 times per week and combing it twice a day and keeping them covered. 

Thats like saying I maintain my body by trimming off bits. Whenever I get fat, I simply cut off the excess. :rofl!!: WOW

*Hair is meant for protection of our head and other reasons exist, true, but these factors still remain if you do not shave your head.*

You are starting to catch on.  Let me add, that these factors will still remain even if you do not trim your hair.


*With the increasing pollution and work stress, there is increasing hair fall which troubles you more when you cannot do anything to your hair.*

Which is why, us sikhs wear turbans you know.  


*Guru Nanak Dev ji never laid down any such rules to differentiate Sikhs from others*.

Guru Gobind SIngh Ji, the tenth master did.  


*Are we following this just to maintain this difference from others?*

YES and NO. It depends. Some even do it because their parents stress it. Personally I love my long hair. 


*Sikhism is based on pure thoughts and is free from unnecessary rituals or show offs...*

Unecessary? What are you calling unecessary?:shock: Trimming off hair is unneccesary! 


*Please tell if this is written in Guru Granth Saheb that no Sikh is allowed to cut/trim his/her hair.*

This is where Guru Gobind Singh Ji comes in. :}{}{}: 

It is only when you understand the religion properly, will you realize the importance of keeping unshorn hair.  

WJKK WJKF
Bhagat Singh


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 7, 2006)

> Please tell if this is written in Guru Granth Saheb that no Sikh is allowed to cut/trim his/her hair.


It seems that no one has clearly answered Preeti Ji's question.




> This is where Guru Gobind Singh Ji comes in. :}{}{}:
> 
> It is only when you understand the religion properly, will you realize the importance of keeping unshorn hair.


 


This is beating around the bush. I'd like a clear answer, too.
Please?


----------



## kaur-1 (Oct 7, 2006)

Mai said:


> It seems that no one has clearly answered Preeti Ji's question.
> 
> This is beating around the bush. I'd like a clear answer, too.
> Please?



*"That is why I have Kesh"*
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/4380-post1.html

*and

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikheducation/5K's.pdf
*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 8, 2006)

Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not say to keep hair. In fact, God doesn't care if you have hair. Again, it was Guru Gobind Singh Ji who made this "rule". 

When I said that you have to understand the religion to know the significance of keeping unshorn hair, I MEANT it. This is not beating around the bush etc. I know people who understand the religion and know why hair is important and I know people who don't understand Sikhism and say hair are not important. One who understands will always be in "favour" of keeping hair and one who doesnt, will not be.

Is that clear?

Bhagat


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 8, 2006)

Thank you, Bhagat Ji. 

That answers my concerns exactly and clearly.


Please be very, very patient with those of us who don't know. I know of no other way to learn except by sometimes sounding ignorant or lacking understanding. That's why I come here.

Mai


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Oct 10, 2006)

Now that I have enough posts to get links, I immediately visited the one provided by kaur-1.  It is a beautiful essay.  Thank you.

The reason I was so insistent on knowing exactly where the 'rule'  about hair was written was that I had been rather forcefully asked and was being pressured for an answer I didn't have.

If I have been impatient or rude, I apologize.  It was not my intention.  Neither was it my intention to disrespect or denigrate kesh; I would never do that.

Now I hope there is no misunderstanding.


----------



## kaur-1 (Oct 10, 2006)

Mai said:


> Now that I have enough posts to get links, I immediately visited the one provided by kaur-1.  It is a beautiful essay.  Thank you.
> 
> The reason I was so insistent on knowing exactly where the 'rule'  about hair was written was that I had been rather forcefully asked and was being pressured for an answer I didn't have.
> 
> ...



Panji Mai, There is info on Sikhnet too.

Why do Sikhs wear Turbans?
Heritage of the Turban

See 5 k's pdf for Kesh(hair) file in *Sikh Educational Materials*
Share Your Light


----------

