Can any Sikh tell me......why do Sikhs feel the need to go LONG.
Last edited:
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
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
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.]
May I append Namdev ji "The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one-eyed",[the Sikh has two eyes but is long sighted.]
Last edited:
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
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
SPNer
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
SPNer
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.)
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.)
Confused Ji....
OOPS.....i dint intend to offend with my remark about the nirvana...maybe i should have used a different terminology.. sincere apologies.
OOPS.....i dint intend to offend with my remark about the nirvana...maybe i should have used a different terminology.. sincere apologies.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Archived_member14
SPNer
Aristotle ji,
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.
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.
Within the system of thought there is no place for the idea, so it is not really about permitting or not permitting is it?
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…..
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?
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.
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.
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.
Within the system of thought there is no place for the idea, so it is not really about permitting or not permitting is it?
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…..
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?
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
SPNer
*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.
*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
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
Confused ji,
Allow me to interject.
Some Udasis keep long hair, others don't and may shave their head bald. Nihangs always keep all their hair.
To be honest anything can become an object of vanity. Hair or no hair.
Allow me to interject.
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.
Yes that sounds like the Udasi and Nihang traditions.
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.
Not really. You can maintain hygiene even with long hair. It requires a bit more work though.
Definitely. But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.
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.
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...
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
SPNer
Aristotle ji,
- 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.
-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.
-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?
- 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.
-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.
- 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.
-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.
-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?
- 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.
-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
SPNer
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.
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.
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
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.
You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?
I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?
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.
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.
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
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.
You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?
I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?
Archived_member14
SPNer
Gyani ji,
I am using your comments to get across some points which I consider important.
But there are also people who cut because they do not see the point of keeping it.
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.
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.
In what way is hair important?
I am using your comments to get across some points which I consider important.
But there are also people who cut because they do not see the point of keeping it.
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.
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.
In what way is hair important?
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
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
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
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.
Sat Sri Akal.
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
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
Confused ji,
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
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.
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.
These are all practical purposes.
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
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 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.
Easier is not an issue for monks. Monks aren't necessarily looking for easy things. Both are quite practical. Hence why we see both.
Well mark of monkhood is one practical purpose. Another is simplicity. Another is a mark of renunciation and detachment.
These are all practical purposes.
The reasons for keeping of hair are the same reason why renunciates/ascetics keep hair - simplicity and detachment from the world.
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.
There are hundreds of such sikhs....who turned a corner too....and whos to question their Motives..??its personal choice.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
