this is actually a very interesting question here as reading this also bothered me and had the question in my mind as well.hopefully i would also be able to find an answer for myself as i have been planning to really research more extensively about this. can see much effort put in this thread and i can see that the argument is really presenting good points although the answer is yet to be discovered.hopefully there will be more input regarding this dilemma so that we may have peace of mind regarding this topic.rest assured iwill pot on my findings soon.
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
PARRH PARRH Gadee laddeyeah...warns GURU NANAK Ji in Asa dee vaar...
Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader
Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader
Gyani Ji is Right,
research, research, research....
when do we get the time to actually experience?
the age of information has passed, all the information, so much information, information overload...do we need any more information?
The age for experience is NOW. rather than research, why not put things into practice and experience it? record your findings....make some adjustments, and experience some more.
i spent years of my life, precious breaths debating, arguing, challenging views...but then i did what i should have done in the first place...to look at SGGS ji for all my answers...and i get all of them from guru ji.
And with Gods grace i am trying to apply and feel and record my experiences...the challengies, the feelings, the energy, the heartache, the joys, the roadblocks etc etc.
God bless all.
The entire 1429 pages of SGGS are "for EXPERIENCING...LIVING..."..but many among us decide to BYPASS the LIVING..the EATING and ENJOYING what Guru ji has put before us in a Thaall....Thaal vich tin vastu payiouh....sat santokh vicharo....khavo bhuncho..enjoy them....live life to the fullest as we (writers of SGGS) have experienced..enjoyed...and we GO into..WHY why..where is it so..who said so..why NOt this ?? why not that ?? so what ?? who cares..?? etc etc...we do research..we wonder..we walk aimlessly..when the GURU offers His hand for us to hold..we shrug it off..step back...and as a result we LOSE it ALL...Beware..time is SHORT...Day is going past EATING..Night goes by SLEEPING...and soon it will be too late...
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
Yes
Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.
Nice. What's teh source?
Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.
Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair.
Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.
You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it. If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.
Yep.back to Confused ji said:
I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society. 0
Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset. You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.
Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
Prakash.s.Bagga said:
Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.
Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga
Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.
Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Bhagat ji,
Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously.
Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.
Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.
=====
Quote: And this was said by the Buddha:
"He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:
"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
An ascetic and mendicant too."
Bhagat: Nice. What's teh source?
Confused: Sorry, I don’t exactly know which Sutta this is from.
====
Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?
Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.
Confused: You don’t need to know the Basket of Discipline. What I am asking you is whether on reading the corresponding Sikh texts, a Sikh householder with any level of understanding will find it inspiring.
====
Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude.
Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair.
Confused: Again, you should not speak for other people but only yourself.
Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here. The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise.
The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?
Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation.
====
Bhagat: Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.
Confused: While keeping hair does require that one maintain it, shaving off in fact is aimed at having *not to maintain it*. Quite opposite isn’t it?
====
Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it.
Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it.
====
Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.
Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.
====
Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?
Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.
Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? Indeed if society was to play a part in the individual’s decision to ordain, it would make meaningless the very idea of renunciation.
I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it. In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair. But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like.
====
Bhagat: Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset.
Confused: Getting upset as a result of self-image will happen only to those monks who in fact are not fit to be monks in the first place. And not only enlightened people are eligible to become monks.
====
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.
Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.
====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?
Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?
====
Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.
A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. But as I pointed out, if you want to maintain this idea of natural, then you’d have to also allow for other things to take place without a need to change. Your belief actually goes against the understanding of the way things are as it manifest from moment to moment, because your concept of “natural” is only a picture that you paint and want to follow. Ask different people and they will give you different ideas about natural. Someone who is taken in by Darwin's 'law of natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might in fact end up having a belief quite opposed to yours. But these are just ideas about natural which comes from ignorance and wrong understanding of the way things are.
My own conception about nature and what it means to be natural is as follows:
Any experience now is real and has a nature particular to it. It would have been conditioned to arise in accordance to fixed natural laws. On seeing a pleasant object, if attachment arises immediately, this is what is natural given who we are. Thinking as each person does motivated by one view or another, this is reflection of tendency that is natural.
In conceiving and thinking as you do about hair growing naturally, the imperative is therefore to understand the nature of the thinking and any mental factors conditioning it. To go by one's own idea about nature and not acknowledge the present moment reality is therefore not natural, but idealistic. Only with the arising of wisdom and therefore detached, is one said to be flowing with nature, otherwise it is the stream of attachment which one is swept along by.
A Buddhist who decides to ordain must have the understanding that the life of a recluse is “natural” to him, if not then he should not do so and just remain as a lay person and keep whatever hair style and change in accordance to conditions. Once he ordains however, following all the rules including shaving his head, would be something that is in accordance with his nature.
So we have natural as in whatever has arisen is because it is in the nature of it to do so. And there is “being natural” as in understanding and living in accordance with one’s accumulated tendencies.
=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.
Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking.
For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.
=====
Quote: The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct.
Bhagat: It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
Confused: Duality is created and then a solution is sought outside of the present moment. This is just a game which in fact does nothing to change the underlying tendency. Buddhism is not a non-dual religion. It is about developing understanding with regard to present moment realities such that in the case of thinking, whatever the thoughts are, this should be known for what it is.
=====
Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!
Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.
Confused: You had said:
“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”
And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic.
=====
Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.
Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair.
Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.
=====
Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga
Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.
Bhagat: Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.
Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want.
Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously.
Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.
Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.
=====
Quote: And this was said by the Buddha:
"He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:
"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
An ascetic and mendicant too."
Bhagat: Nice. What's teh source?
Confused: Sorry, I don’t exactly know which Sutta this is from.
====
Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?
Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.
Confused: You don’t need to know the Basket of Discipline. What I am asking you is whether on reading the corresponding Sikh texts, a Sikh householder with any level of understanding will find it inspiring.
====
Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude.
Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair.
Confused: Again, you should not speak for other people but only yourself.
Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here. The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise.
The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?
Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation.
====
Bhagat: Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.
Confused: While keeping hair does require that one maintain it, shaving off in fact is aimed at having *not to maintain it*. Quite opposite isn’t it?
====
Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it.
Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it.
====
Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.
Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.
====
Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?
Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.
Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? Indeed if society was to play a part in the individual’s decision to ordain, it would make meaningless the very idea of renunciation.
I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it. In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair. But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like.
====
Bhagat: Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset.
Confused: Getting upset as a result of self-image will happen only to those monks who in fact are not fit to be monks in the first place. And not only enlightened people are eligible to become monks.
====
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.
Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.
====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?
Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?
====
Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.
A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. But as I pointed out, if you want to maintain this idea of natural, then you’d have to also allow for other things to take place without a need to change. Your belief actually goes against the understanding of the way things are as it manifest from moment to moment, because your concept of “natural” is only a picture that you paint and want to follow. Ask different people and they will give you different ideas about natural. Someone who is taken in by Darwin's 'law of natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might in fact end up having a belief quite opposed to yours. But these are just ideas about natural which comes from ignorance and wrong understanding of the way things are.
My own conception about nature and what it means to be natural is as follows:
Any experience now is real and has a nature particular to it. It would have been conditioned to arise in accordance to fixed natural laws. On seeing a pleasant object, if attachment arises immediately, this is what is natural given who we are. Thinking as each person does motivated by one view or another, this is reflection of tendency that is natural.
In conceiving and thinking as you do about hair growing naturally, the imperative is therefore to understand the nature of the thinking and any mental factors conditioning it. To go by one's own idea about nature and not acknowledge the present moment reality is therefore not natural, but idealistic. Only with the arising of wisdom and therefore detached, is one said to be flowing with nature, otherwise it is the stream of attachment which one is swept along by.
A Buddhist who decides to ordain must have the understanding that the life of a recluse is “natural” to him, if not then he should not do so and just remain as a lay person and keep whatever hair style and change in accordance to conditions. Once he ordains however, following all the rules including shaving his head, would be something that is in accordance with his nature.
So we have natural as in whatever has arisen is because it is in the nature of it to do so. And there is “being natural” as in understanding and living in accordance with one’s accumulated tendencies.
=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.
Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking.
For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.
=====
Quote: The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct.
Bhagat: It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
Confused: Duality is created and then a solution is sought outside of the present moment. This is just a game which in fact does nothing to change the underlying tendency. Buddhism is not a non-dual religion. It is about developing understanding with regard to present moment realities such that in the case of thinking, whatever the thoughts are, this should be known for what it is.
=====
Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!
Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.
Confused: You had said:
“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”
And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic.
=====
Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.
Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair.
Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.
=====
Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:
Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga
Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice.
But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.
KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?
This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.
Bhagat: Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.
Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want.
Maybe someone who has experienced both could give us a better idea.
Say, one who has had a kesh or long hair and now has it short or one who used to have shorter hair and now keeps it long or kesh.?
Say, one who has had a kesh or long hair and now has it short or one who used to have shorter hair and now keeps it long or kesh.?
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Luckyji
I had long hair and a turban right up until I was 28. I did not cut my hair for any other reason than my lifestyle was no longer Sikh, and I no longer believed in God, or possibly a better reason would be I was rejecting God, I am not quite sure.
I have now not cut my hair on my head or face for 2 months. I have quite a proper Sardar beard now, it looks the same as when I used to smother it in fixo, although my head just has 3 inch tufts growing out of it at strange angles, apart from the top which is bald. How my wife finds me attractive is beyond me, but every time I mention cutting it, she remarks that I look the same to her regardless, so as hers is the only opinion that matters, I have just let it grow.
I don't think any of my customers really care one way or another, I do not socialise and have no friends, so have no worry about social environments, yet, I do not feel I have quite grasped the message completely regarding the hair. My current stance is that I do not care, yet if you look at Sikhs from history, they did care, passionately, about their hair, they loved their hair, I do not think you can get away from the fact that they were extremely attached to the concept of hair. From that view, hair cannot stand as a symbol of renunciation, there has to be more to it than that, if good Sikhs of old would rather die than cut their hair then either they had the wrong grasp of the concept, or we underestimate the importance.
So clearly, my current state, ie, one who lets it grow because I am unconcerned about my appearance, is not in line with Sikhism.
My own take? I think when Guru Gobind Singh ji gave us an identity, he wanted us as Sikhs to look like him. Were not the Panj Pyare dressed as he was when he came out of the tent, in identical clothes, with Pag and beard.
I had a lengthy discussion a while back with Parmaji, where I conceded that to emulate a Guru could be seen as wrong, as it implied no understanding at all, but I am not so sure anymore, one cannot understand everything, if one keeps hair to assist in emulating the Guru, but does not quite understand why, then I see nothing wrong in that, why spend years attempting to understand why? when in my view, the events that took place that day were more about emulation. I am you, and you are me, take my hair, my clothes, realise that in yourself there is Guru Gobind Singhji, and although at first you may not understand, just keep a pure heart, be truthful, be brave, and it will all make sense as you journey through life, it prompts the question, does one have to truly understand why one must keep hair, in order to keep it, I think becomes one of those things that true Sikhs know exactly why, but are unable to explain it, if keeping hair is akin to knowing the true Guru, then the following explains it well.
P3 SGGS
ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
The state of the faithful cannot be described.
ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਪਿਛੈ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
. One who tries to describe this shall regret the attempt.
Sometimes a bit of faith is required, a jump into the unknown, I think hair is one of those things, if you truly truly know why you keep your hair, your hairy legs, armpits, the stray ones out of your ear and nose, you may find you are unable to explain why it is, but then maybe that was always known, maybe its a test of faith, maybe you don't know until you really try it, and for all the right reasons, all those reasons that still have not come to me yet
I had long hair and a turban right up until I was 28. I did not cut my hair for any other reason than my lifestyle was no longer Sikh, and I no longer believed in God, or possibly a better reason would be I was rejecting God, I am not quite sure.
I have now not cut my hair on my head or face for 2 months. I have quite a proper Sardar beard now, it looks the same as when I used to smother it in fixo, although my head just has 3 inch tufts growing out of it at strange angles, apart from the top which is bald. How my wife finds me attractive is beyond me, but every time I mention cutting it, she remarks that I look the same to her regardless, so as hers is the only opinion that matters, I have just let it grow.
I don't think any of my customers really care one way or another, I do not socialise and have no friends, so have no worry about social environments, yet, I do not feel I have quite grasped the message completely regarding the hair. My current stance is that I do not care, yet if you look at Sikhs from history, they did care, passionately, about their hair, they loved their hair, I do not think you can get away from the fact that they were extremely attached to the concept of hair. From that view, hair cannot stand as a symbol of renunciation, there has to be more to it than that, if good Sikhs of old would rather die than cut their hair then either they had the wrong grasp of the concept, or we underestimate the importance.
So clearly, my current state, ie, one who lets it grow because I am unconcerned about my appearance, is not in line with Sikhism.
My own take? I think when Guru Gobind Singh ji gave us an identity, he wanted us as Sikhs to look like him. Were not the Panj Pyare dressed as he was when he came out of the tent, in identical clothes, with Pag and beard.
I had a lengthy discussion a while back with Parmaji, where I conceded that to emulate a Guru could be seen as wrong, as it implied no understanding at all, but I am not so sure anymore, one cannot understand everything, if one keeps hair to assist in emulating the Guru, but does not quite understand why, then I see nothing wrong in that, why spend years attempting to understand why? when in my view, the events that took place that day were more about emulation. I am you, and you are me, take my hair, my clothes, realise that in yourself there is Guru Gobind Singhji, and although at first you may not understand, just keep a pure heart, be truthful, be brave, and it will all make sense as you journey through life, it prompts the question, does one have to truly understand why one must keep hair, in order to keep it, I think becomes one of those things that true Sikhs know exactly why, but are unable to explain it, if keeping hair is akin to knowing the true Guru, then the following explains it well.
P3 SGGS
ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
The state of the faithful cannot be described.
ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਪਿਛੈ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
. One who tries to describe this shall regret the attempt.
Sometimes a bit of faith is required, a jump into the unknown, I think hair is one of those things, if you truly truly know why you keep your hair, your hairy legs, armpits, the stray ones out of your ear and nose, you may find you are unable to explain why it is, but then maybe that was always known, maybe its a test of faith, maybe you don't know until you really try it, and for all the right reasons, all those reasons that still have not come to me yet
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
Let's not.
Yes, that is what I responded to. I am not familiar enough with Sarbloh Granth or the rehitnamas written by Guru Gobind Singh ji's contemporaries to give you a response.
I will continue to speak for other people when I wish. In general Sikhs (the ones that keep hair including myself) know how to handle hair, the ones that handle them can keep them. If you cannot handle long hair you are not going to keep it, it's as simple as that. If you cannot ride a bike you are less likely to keep one around.
Yes knowing how to handle means you know how to solve the problems that arise.
Hahaha most Indians who renounce the householder life, keep long hair. Many enlightened sages kept their hair. They just let them grow out. It is not a problem like you are making it out to be.
False. Know-how comes from wisdom. Brushing your teeth comes from wisdom. Yes some people brush their teeth because their parents told them, but others brush them because they are wise enough to know what the consequences of not brushing once's teeth.
"Why don't Buddhist monks remove their teeth? Because then they won't have to brush them, it will make their life even simpler. Are they attached to their teeth?"
Do you see the problem here with the above? That is how I hear you speak.
Although there are some important differences between long hair and nails, namely manageability, keeping long nails is fine too. It's how you deal with it.
No long hair does not encourage conceit, no more than a shaved head. This is just a false perception you have.
If you think removing parts of the body means you are living simply then you should just continue to remove parts of the body, till you are dead. That would be the simplest of living. Hahaha! lol
On a serious note, that's true. To live as if you are dead is the simplest way to live. Without possessions, without the 5 thieves, without a sense of self, without an identity, without a tribe, without this and without that. When you clear your life of all the peripheral junk, all you have is life in it's simplest form. One may have those things but one must live with detachment, almost as if one didn't have those things. This is what makes for simplest living. Having hair or not is rather insignificant here.
I didn't. I factored in change. Don't read the word society if it bugs you.
The point I am making is no matter who you think you are, you are likely to get attached to that. If a Buddhist monk shaves his head and if for some reason he can't or is forced to change his image, he would be quite upset.
I know.
Images are always present. Whether you have hair or not. I am sure Buddhist monks are also motivated to a good extent by the idea of what Buddhist monks should look like. There is an image of a Buddhist monk with a bald head. Any time you have a monk and he has no hair...
If he has orange and red robes, I think "Buddhist"
If he has white robes "a Jain monk"
If he has no robes, or long hair "could be a Hindu monk"
Image is always present. When we learn to detach ourselves from them, this is known as simplicity.
I am not talking about belief. I am talking about being rooted in God.
Comb? yes. Oil? no. My scalp produces enough oils to cover the length of my hair. Though in general Sikhs do oil their hair. Either way, this is letting it be, cutting it is not.
lol What's the word? When someone thinks they know how the other would respond but they just come across as ______________.
You are putting words in my mouth. Keeping hair is not the only option I provided. I said you may do whatever you want with it, real simplicty comes from being without the 5 thieves. On the other hand, it is you who says shaving is the only way of simplicity.
To clarify, I am not talking about what is natural.
Not exactly, you have not understood it.
If you take God as an idea, then no doubt what you say is true. But here I am not talking about God as some sort of idea but as a reality.
In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, God is described as all-pervading, vartmaan. Vartmaan also means "present moment".
or attachment towards the idea of not keeping it... (the flip side to aversion)
Yes of course, why else do you wash your face?
No, it is aversion to having a moustache. Common sense dictates that you move it out of the way or simply clean it after you've had your meal. It is not common sense to walk out on your meal to go cut your moustache and return to finish the meal.
I was responding with regards to the practicality aspect.
With regards to attachment, it may be easy object of attachment. Any object can be an easy object of attachment, the entire world is, Maya. Marks are just part of maya like anything else. They are no more "easier".
Mark of inner renunciation as well. (What good is outer renunciation without the inner renunciation?)
It could be a symbol I suppose but that does not mean it is there due to the lack of understanding, in fact, it could be the opposite, that once there was understanding, one adopted the symbol.
Identity is every where. Only when one lives completely in the present moment, that there is no identity seeking.
Let me rephrase Kabir's salok for you so that you may meditate on it.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the Present Moment (when you live in it), duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
One could say that. And perhaps for some it was true but hair in Sikh history has represented Dharam. To cut hair was not to cut hair but to give up Dharam and the Khalsa saw themselves as up holders of Dharam so cutting hair was out of the question.
Not all Sikhs kept hair and saw it this light however.
I would say i was one of them. I think i kept my hair because i was attached to it, or even just used to having it uncut due to my parents saying we have to keep it uncut.
It's only when i started delving into Sikhi, spirituality (which is a major part of sikhi) did i start to feel a more spiritual connection with my hair, but not just my hair, with all aspects of my body and mind.
Now when i sit and do simran, and i can feel the energy flowing through me, when i feel the joy of the experiences i have, when i feel the sadness (bairagh) of my soul wanting to be with god, then i feel like my whole body and existance is part of god and i dont want to nor even think of cutting my hair.
It's hard to explain, you start to look after yourself more, eat healthy, want to exercise, what to interact with people and put a smile on peoples faces. i'm always looking for moments throughout the day where i can do some more simran or seva.
But in a similar way to what bhagat singh said, its not about whther you keep your hair or not, its what you're doing to purify yourself of the 5 thieves, and how much of a stranglehold they have on you. As you start to control the 5 thieves, the increased levels of purity inside you will determine your outer actions.
God bless all.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Bhagat ji,
Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.
Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.
B: Let's not.
C: You mean respecting both comes with being a Sikh? In other words all Sikhs are expected to acknowledge and respect the Udasi tradition?
===
B: I will continue to speak for other people when I wish. In general Sikhs (the ones that keep hair including myself) know how to handle hair, the ones that handle them can keep them.
C: You mean there are no Sikhs who learn to handle and keep hair because they have no other choice? You mean all Sikhs who keep long hair do so willingly and with the same understanding?
=====
B: If you cannot handle long hair you are not going to keep it, it's as simple as that. If you cannot ride a bike you are less likely to keep one around.
C: Well, kids will let their parents comb and tie their hair and most of them do not like keeping it. I keep my hair and although I have no problem managing it, however do have issues with having to do so. In other words I manage my hair all by force of attachment and conceit, but at the same time wish that I did not have to be in the situation where these unwholesome tendencies are encouraged.
=====
B: Yes knowing how to handle means you know how to solve the problems that arise.
C: Well we do manage to solve most of our problems. But the real problem is that we do not realize that in all cases this is with ignorance and attachment and no wisdom involved anywhere. We are simply swinging between aversion for one object and attachment towards another. In other words, replacing aversion with attachment is how we solve our problems.
====
Quote: The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?
B: Hahaha most Indians who renounce the householder life, keep long hair. Many enlightened sages kept their hair. They just let them grow out. It is not a problem like you are making it out to be.
C: From reading their teachings I am not convinced that any of them are enlightened, sorry …
====
Quote: Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation.
B: False.
C: Not to understand the present moment reality but instead go by an “ideal”, in this case of keeping hair, cannot be the result of anything but attachment and wrong understanding. Any action which follows in relation to this over time can only be more of the same and must also involve conceit.
===
B: Know-how comes from wisdom. Brushing your teeth comes from wisdom.
C: Please explain to me, which part of the process requires wisdom and wisdom as in understanding what? There must be wisdom associated with every mundane activity then? So wise people are everywhere, and we don’t necessarily have to look up to some religion in order to gain wisdom? Perhaps even a chimpanzee who has mastered the art of picking out lice from other chimpanzees can be said to have some level of wisdom?
====
B: Yes some people brush their teeth because their parents told them, but others brush them because they are wise enough to know what the consequences of not brushing once's teeth.
C: So Guru Nanak could possibly have taught someone about the consequence of not brushing teeth and the art of dental hygiene? Maybe also how best to keep long hair and tie a turban?
====
B: "Why don't Buddhist monks remove their teeth? Because then they won't have to brush them, it will make their life even simpler. Are they attached to their teeth?"
C: You are now telling me that hair has some practical purpose, therefore if I suggested cutting it off, then I should also be ready to pull my teeth out?
How can pulling the teeth make life more simple when this means that only certain foods can be eaten and therefore served? Teeth have a practical purpose and do not come in the way of anything. Nor is it an object of vanity as it is in the case of hair. Not cleaning teeth leads to problems that can be avoided by daily taking care of it. Which yes, is a problem, but not of the kind that we are talking about with regard to hair, but one related to the fact of conditioned existence and having to go through the cycle of birth and death. But this is something one comes to understand and excepts.
Can the same however be said about hair?
Hair when cut, not only does not cause other problems, but in fact solves a few potential ones. Indeed in more or less the same way that cleaning the teeth do. But not only this, while shaving the head is done once in every few days and in the meantime, the only time that one thinks about it is when bathing, long hair needs to be attended to very often. And given that it has to be kept a particular way, must involve conceit / vanity (unless one is fully enlightened).
So no, not removing one’s teeth does not imply attachment to them. Indeed to remove them can only come from attachment to some silly ideal.
====
Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it.
B: Although there are some important differences between long hair and nails, namely manageability, keeping long nails is fine too. It's how you deal with it.
C: And this is to be simple? A person with protruding teeth will learn how to manage them, so will someone without one or more limbs. But hair and nails can easily be removed, not to cut these must therefore amount to a more or less bull-headed attitude towards them. Anyway the point here is that if one insists on keeping long hair because it is part of nature, then one *must* also keep long nails for the same reason.
====
B: No long hair does not encourage conceit, no more than a shaved head. This is just a false perception you have.
C: On one hand it is cutting off something with no practical purpose, but has always been an object of vanity, and now one does not have to think about it as one used to. On the other hand, it is encouragement to continue thinking about it, although in a different way. But given that it must be kept in one particular way and groomed, can vanity be avoided?
====
B: If you think removing parts of the body means you are living simply then you should just continue to remove parts of the body, till you are dead. That would be the simplest of living. Hahaha!
C: “Removing parts of the body” is what you have reduced it to and characterized. Cutting off the hair does not involve the perception of being “part of the body” and “removed”. This idea is yours only, one which apparently comes from self-identification or self-view something which a good Buddhist monk understands as the main obstacle to wisdom. Indeed he is not even faced with the decision whether or not to shave, since to do so is simply following one of the rules laid out.
But I’m just reminded about the subtlety of the Middle Way. That without it one has no way out but to swing between two extreme positions.
====
B: On a serious note, that's true. To live as if you are dead is the simplest way to live. Without possessions, without the 5 thieves, without a sense of self, without an identity, without a tribe, without this and without that. When you clear your life of all the peripheral junk, all you have is life in it's simplest form. One may have those things but one must live with detachment, almost as if one didn't have those things. This is what makes for simplest living. Having hair or not is rather insignificant here.
C: If you believe that you must leave your hair uncut, then the 5 thieves are not going to go away anytime soon.
====
Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.
Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society?
B: I didn't. I factored in change. Don't read the word society if it bugs you.
C: It did not bug me, but the impression was of you having the idea that society decides the rules for monks. Why did you refer to society then?
====
B: The point I am making is no matter who you think you are, you are likely to get attached to that. If a Buddhist monk shaves his head and if for some reason he can't or is forced to change his image, he would be quite upset.
C: The institution of the monkhood cannot exist without all the rules laid out. These rules have been laid out to be in accord with the accumulations of a certain group of people, such that these act not as commandments, but reminders as to what is and not the right attitude towards any given situation. To change any of these rules therefore can only be result of the corrupting effect of attachment and wrong understanding.
So what you suggest is a case of corruption and if made to take effect, makes no difference then whether a monk gets upset or not. Either way, the monk would not be worthy of the monkhood. Better that he stay as a layperson.
====
B: Images are always present. Whether you have hair or not. I am sure Buddhist monks are also motivated to a good extent by the idea of what Buddhist monks should look like. There is an image of a Buddhist monk with a bald head. Any time you have a monk and he has no hair...
C: You having the particular image of him does not mean that he has the same image of himself. You have the image of him having a bald head, but he simply knows himself to be a monk. This means that he knows that he has given up the household life and is training to be rid of attachment and ignorance. Removing his hair knowing what it is to have hair may cause him to have attachment to the particular image, but this would be *in spite of* the initial motivation and not the result of it.
=======
B: If he has orange and red robes, I think "Buddhist"
If he has white robes "a Jain monk"
If he has no robes, or long hair "could be a Hindu monk"
Image is always present. When we learn to detach ourselves from them, this is known as simplicity.
C: “You” have the image. He is just following rules laid out, where it would not matter to him, what color the robe is.
======
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.
Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.
B: I am not talking about belief. I am talking about being rooted in God.
C: What is God?!!! And if I am not rooted in God, what do you expect your communicating the idea be received by me as?
=====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?
Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?
B: Comb? yes. Oil? no. My scalp produces enough oils to cover the length of my hair. Though in general Sikhs do oil their hair. Either way, this is letting it be, cutting it is not.
C: Letting it be the way you propose with regard to cutting hair, would include *not combing it* or tying it into a joora. And don’t you think that not putting oil and depending entirely on what the scalp naturally produces is sign of letting things be.
Shaving your head off is of course not letting it be. But this ‘letting it be’ that you propose is in fact fueled by attachment and wrong view. While shaving the head is in response to the fact that keeping hair involves attachment and conceit in order to maintain, you’re letting it be relies on following an ideal at the expense of understanding the reality that is now.
=======
Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.
B: What's the word? When someone thinks they know how the other would respond but they just come across as ______________.
C: Well, fill the blank for me because I’m blank at this point.
======
Quote: A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally.
B: You are putting words in my mouth. Keeping hair is not the only option I provided. I said you may do whatever you want with it, real simplicty comes from being without the 5 thieves. On the other hand, it is you who says shaving is the only way of simplicity.
To clarify, I am not talking about what is natural.
C: My mistake. But you have been making reference to Sikhs keeping their hair as well and also suggest such things as:
“Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?”
But given your clarification here, I guess this was only in response to my own suggestion regarding shaving off the hair…?
In any case, I still maintain that shaving the head is the only correct option for those who truly want to live the simple life. And given this I maintain that to choose to keep long hair for this purpose must be due to ignorance, attachment and lack of understanding.
And btw, I think it wrong to suggest that “real simplicity comes from being without the 5 thieves” if this means coming from not knowing that in fact it is ignorance which is the root of the problem and therefore it is wisdom which should be the focus of attention. In other words, it is in understanding that simplicity manifests, therefore even when other unwholesome tendencies still exist, simplicity arises each time that wisdom is being developed.
=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.
B: Not exactly, you have not understood it.
C: Then do explain some more if you can.
=====
B: If you take God as an idea, then no doubt what you say is true. But here I am not talking about God as some sort of idea but as a reality.
C: Reality which make up our moment to moment experiences or something that is outside of this? What kind of reality are you talking about?
=====
B: In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, God is described as all-pervading, vartmaan. Vartmaan also means "present moment".
C: So this is your reality?
When I talk about the “present moment”, I mean that which is defined by the reality being experienced. This would be conditioned and with the nature of rise and fall. You of course are not proposing that God is of a similar nature. You will say in fact that it lasts in time or in other words present as in “ever present”, right? My question to you then, how is this God experienced? And since it obviously must not be the five senses, through which doorway is it experienced?
===
Quote: For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair?
B: or attachment towards the idea of not keeping it... (the flip side to aversion)
C: Neither of the two, but as I said many time, it is from understanding what all that comes with having to keep hair.
The fact that you know fire to burn and therefore avoid touching it, does this mean “attachment to avoiding touching the fire or staying away from it”?!
===
Quote: If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness?
B: Yes of course, why else do you wash your face?
C: So according to you an enlightened person who does not have any aversion anymore, will not wash his face?
===
Quote: To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.
B: No, it is aversion to having a moustache.
C: I trim my mustache for this reason and have no aversion towards whatever is left of it.
===
B: Common sense dictates that you move it out of the way or simply clean it after you've had your meal.
C: Common sense says that if this is the case each time, why not juts shave it off.
====
B: It is not common sense to walk out on your meal to go cut your moustache and return to finish the meal.
C: So you resort to creating absurd alternatives in order that your position looks good!!
====
Confused: You had said:
“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”
And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic.
B: I was responding with regards to the practicality aspect.
With regards to attachment, it may be easy object of attachment. Any object can be an easy object of attachment, the entire world is, Maya. Marks are just part of maya like anything else. They are no more "easier".
C: Marks in this case is not just another aspect of Maya, but its very creation, one which is aimed at its own perpetuation conceived of in the name of understanding. Therefore this is not just another object of attachment, but in fact an excuse for it.
=====
Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.
B: Mark of inner renunciation as well. (What good is outer renunciation without the inner renunciation?)
It could be a symbol I suppose but that does not mean it is there due to the lack of understanding, in fact, it could be the opposite, that once there was understanding, one adopted the symbol.
C: Having understanding as a lay person and wanting to adopt a symbol of renunciation is a very odd combination. It is like trying to mix different things together hoping to get a better taste, but what you get is something that tastes very bad. Why would someone who has the understanding and already detached think to adopt symbols? Only fools do it!
=====
Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want.
B: Identity is every where. Only when one lives completely in the present moment, that there is no identity seeking.
C: It is one thing to be attached to an identity due to still being generally ignorant and with lots of attachment and conceit. With the development of understanding, one gradually moves in the direction where these tendencies are dealt with. To encourage identity in the name of good is however to be on the path facing the opposite direction, hence making it impossible for such tendencies to ever lessen.
======
B: Let me rephrase Kabir's salok for you so that you may meditate on it.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the Present Moment (when you live in it), duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
C: After reading my comment about the “present moment” above, do you still think this rephrasing will change anything? Actually I would expect even you to have a problem with this part, namely “*in love* with the Present Moment”….:-/
Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.
Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.
B: Let's not.
C: You mean respecting both comes with being a Sikh? In other words all Sikhs are expected to acknowledge and respect the Udasi tradition?
===
B: I will continue to speak for other people when I wish. In general Sikhs (the ones that keep hair including myself) know how to handle hair, the ones that handle them can keep them.
C: You mean there are no Sikhs who learn to handle and keep hair because they have no other choice? You mean all Sikhs who keep long hair do so willingly and with the same understanding?
=====
B: If you cannot handle long hair you are not going to keep it, it's as simple as that. If you cannot ride a bike you are less likely to keep one around.
C: Well, kids will let their parents comb and tie their hair and most of them do not like keeping it. I keep my hair and although I have no problem managing it, however do have issues with having to do so. In other words I manage my hair all by force of attachment and conceit, but at the same time wish that I did not have to be in the situation where these unwholesome tendencies are encouraged.
=====
B: Yes knowing how to handle means you know how to solve the problems that arise.
C: Well we do manage to solve most of our problems. But the real problem is that we do not realize that in all cases this is with ignorance and attachment and no wisdom involved anywhere. We are simply swinging between aversion for one object and attachment towards another. In other words, replacing aversion with attachment is how we solve our problems.
====
Quote: The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off?
B: Hahaha most Indians who renounce the householder life, keep long hair. Many enlightened sages kept their hair. They just let them grow out. It is not a problem like you are making it out to be.
C: From reading their teachings I am not convinced that any of them are enlightened, sorry …
====
Quote: Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation.
B: False.
C: Not to understand the present moment reality but instead go by an “ideal”, in this case of keeping hair, cannot be the result of anything but attachment and wrong understanding. Any action which follows in relation to this over time can only be more of the same and must also involve conceit.
===
B: Know-how comes from wisdom. Brushing your teeth comes from wisdom.
C: Please explain to me, which part of the process requires wisdom and wisdom as in understanding what? There must be wisdom associated with every mundane activity then? So wise people are everywhere, and we don’t necessarily have to look up to some religion in order to gain wisdom? Perhaps even a chimpanzee who has mastered the art of picking out lice from other chimpanzees can be said to have some level of wisdom?
====
B: Yes some people brush their teeth because their parents told them, but others brush them because they are wise enough to know what the consequences of not brushing once's teeth.
C: So Guru Nanak could possibly have taught someone about the consequence of not brushing teeth and the art of dental hygiene? Maybe also how best to keep long hair and tie a turban?
====
B: "Why don't Buddhist monks remove their teeth? Because then they won't have to brush them, it will make their life even simpler. Are they attached to their teeth?"
C: You are now telling me that hair has some practical purpose, therefore if I suggested cutting it off, then I should also be ready to pull my teeth out?
How can pulling the teeth make life more simple when this means that only certain foods can be eaten and therefore served? Teeth have a practical purpose and do not come in the way of anything. Nor is it an object of vanity as it is in the case of hair. Not cleaning teeth leads to problems that can be avoided by daily taking care of it. Which yes, is a problem, but not of the kind that we are talking about with regard to hair, but one related to the fact of conditioned existence and having to go through the cycle of birth and death. But this is something one comes to understand and excepts.
Can the same however be said about hair?
Hair when cut, not only does not cause other problems, but in fact solves a few potential ones. Indeed in more or less the same way that cleaning the teeth do. But not only this, while shaving the head is done once in every few days and in the meantime, the only time that one thinks about it is when bathing, long hair needs to be attended to very often. And given that it has to be kept a particular way, must involve conceit / vanity (unless one is fully enlightened).
So no, not removing one’s teeth does not imply attachment to them. Indeed to remove them can only come from attachment to some silly ideal.
====
Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it.
B: Although there are some important differences between long hair and nails, namely manageability, keeping long nails is fine too. It's how you deal with it.
C: And this is to be simple? A person with protruding teeth will learn how to manage them, so will someone without one or more limbs. But hair and nails can easily be removed, not to cut these must therefore amount to a more or less bull-headed attitude towards them. Anyway the point here is that if one insists on keeping long hair because it is part of nature, then one *must* also keep long nails for the same reason.
====
B: No long hair does not encourage conceit, no more than a shaved head. This is just a false perception you have.
C: On one hand it is cutting off something with no practical purpose, but has always been an object of vanity, and now one does not have to think about it as one used to. On the other hand, it is encouragement to continue thinking about it, although in a different way. But given that it must be kept in one particular way and groomed, can vanity be avoided?
====
B: If you think removing parts of the body means you are living simply then you should just continue to remove parts of the body, till you are dead. That would be the simplest of living. Hahaha!
C: “Removing parts of the body” is what you have reduced it to and characterized. Cutting off the hair does not involve the perception of being “part of the body” and “removed”. This idea is yours only, one which apparently comes from self-identification or self-view something which a good Buddhist monk understands as the main obstacle to wisdom. Indeed he is not even faced with the decision whether or not to shave, since to do so is simply following one of the rules laid out.
But I’m just reminded about the subtlety of the Middle Way. That without it one has no way out but to swing between two extreme positions.
====
B: On a serious note, that's true. To live as if you are dead is the simplest way to live. Without possessions, without the 5 thieves, without a sense of self, without an identity, without a tribe, without this and without that. When you clear your life of all the peripheral junk, all you have is life in it's simplest form. One may have those things but one must live with detachment, almost as if one didn't have those things. This is what makes for simplest living. Having hair or not is rather insignificant here.
C: If you believe that you must leave your hair uncut, then the 5 thieves are not going to go away anytime soon.
====
Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.
Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society?
B: I didn't. I factored in change. Don't read the word society if it bugs you.
C: It did not bug me, but the impression was of you having the idea that society decides the rules for monks. Why did you refer to society then?
====
B: The point I am making is no matter who you think you are, you are likely to get attached to that. If a Buddhist monk shaves his head and if for some reason he can't or is forced to change his image, he would be quite upset.
C: The institution of the monkhood cannot exist without all the rules laid out. These rules have been laid out to be in accord with the accumulations of a certain group of people, such that these act not as commandments, but reminders as to what is and not the right attitude towards any given situation. To change any of these rules therefore can only be result of the corrupting effect of attachment and wrong understanding.
So what you suggest is a case of corruption and if made to take effect, makes no difference then whether a monk gets upset or not. Either way, the monk would not be worthy of the monkhood. Better that he stay as a layperson.
====
B: Images are always present. Whether you have hair or not. I am sure Buddhist monks are also motivated to a good extent by the idea of what Buddhist monks should look like. There is an image of a Buddhist monk with a bald head. Any time you have a monk and he has no hair...
C: You having the particular image of him does not mean that he has the same image of himself. You have the image of him having a bald head, but he simply knows himself to be a monk. This means that he knows that he has given up the household life and is training to be rid of attachment and ignorance. Removing his hair knowing what it is to have hair may cause him to have attachment to the particular image, but this would be *in spite of* the initial motivation and not the result of it.
=======
B: If he has orange and red robes, I think "Buddhist"
If he has white robes "a Jain monk"
If he has no robes, or long hair "could be a Hindu monk"
Image is always present. When we learn to detach ourselves from them, this is known as simplicity.
C: “You” have the image. He is just following rules laid out, where it would not matter to him, what color the robe is.
======
Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.
Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.
B: I am not talking about belief. I am talking about being rooted in God.
C: What is God?!!! And if I am not rooted in God, what do you expect your communicating the idea be received by me as?
=====
Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?
Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?
B: Comb? yes. Oil? no. My scalp produces enough oils to cover the length of my hair. Though in general Sikhs do oil their hair. Either way, this is letting it be, cutting it is not.
C: Letting it be the way you propose with regard to cutting hair, would include *not combing it* or tying it into a joora. And don’t you think that not putting oil and depending entirely on what the scalp naturally produces is sign of letting things be.
Shaving your head off is of course not letting it be. But this ‘letting it be’ that you propose is in fact fueled by attachment and wrong view. While shaving the head is in response to the fact that keeping hair involves attachment and conceit in order to maintain, you’re letting it be relies on following an ideal at the expense of understanding the reality that is now.
=======
Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them?
Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.
B: What's the word? When someone thinks they know how the other would respond but they just come across as ______________.
C: Well, fill the blank for me because I’m blank at this point.
======
Quote: A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally.
B: You are putting words in my mouth. Keeping hair is not the only option I provided. I said you may do whatever you want with it, real simplicty comes from being without the 5 thieves. On the other hand, it is you who says shaving is the only way of simplicity.
To clarify, I am not talking about what is natural.
C: My mistake. But you have been making reference to Sikhs keeping their hair as well and also suggest such things as:
“Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be?”
But given your clarification here, I guess this was only in response to my own suggestion regarding shaving off the hair…?
In any case, I still maintain that shaving the head is the only correct option for those who truly want to live the simple life. And given this I maintain that to choose to keep long hair for this purpose must be due to ignorance, attachment and lack of understanding.
And btw, I think it wrong to suggest that “real simplicity comes from being without the 5 thieves” if this means coming from not knowing that in fact it is ignorance which is the root of the problem and therefore it is wisdom which should be the focus of attention. In other words, it is in understanding that simplicity manifests, therefore even when other unwholesome tendencies still exist, simplicity arises each time that wisdom is being developed.
=====
Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?
Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.
B: Not exactly, you have not understood it.
C: Then do explain some more if you can.
=====
B: If you take God as an idea, then no doubt what you say is true. But here I am not talking about God as some sort of idea but as a reality.
C: Reality which make up our moment to moment experiences or something that is outside of this? What kind of reality are you talking about?
=====
B: In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, God is described as all-pervading, vartmaan. Vartmaan also means "present moment".
C: So this is your reality?
When I talk about the “present moment”, I mean that which is defined by the reality being experienced. This would be conditioned and with the nature of rise and fall. You of course are not proposing that God is of a similar nature. You will say in fact that it lasts in time or in other words present as in “ever present”, right? My question to you then, how is this God experienced? And since it obviously must not be the five senses, through which doorway is it experienced?
===
Quote: For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair?
B: or attachment towards the idea of not keeping it... (the flip side to aversion)
C: Neither of the two, but as I said many time, it is from understanding what all that comes with having to keep hair.
The fact that you know fire to burn and therefore avoid touching it, does this mean “attachment to avoiding touching the fire or staying away from it”?!
===
Quote: If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness?
B: Yes of course, why else do you wash your face?
C: So according to you an enlightened person who does not have any aversion anymore, will not wash his face?
===
Quote: To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.
B: No, it is aversion to having a moustache.
C: I trim my mustache for this reason and have no aversion towards whatever is left of it.
===
B: Common sense dictates that you move it out of the way or simply clean it after you've had your meal.
C: Common sense says that if this is the case each time, why not juts shave it off.
====
B: It is not common sense to walk out on your meal to go cut your moustache and return to finish the meal.
C: So you resort to creating absurd alternatives in order that your position looks good!!
====
Confused: You had said:
“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”
And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic.
B: I was responding with regards to the practicality aspect.
With regards to attachment, it may be easy object of attachment. Any object can be an easy object of attachment, the entire world is, Maya. Marks are just part of maya like anything else. They are no more "easier".
C: Marks in this case is not just another aspect of Maya, but its very creation, one which is aimed at its own perpetuation conceived of in the name of understanding. Therefore this is not just another object of attachment, but in fact an excuse for it.
=====
Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.
B: Mark of inner renunciation as well. (What good is outer renunciation without the inner renunciation?)
It could be a symbol I suppose but that does not mean it is there due to the lack of understanding, in fact, it could be the opposite, that once there was understanding, one adopted the symbol.
C: Having understanding as a lay person and wanting to adopt a symbol of renunciation is a very odd combination. It is like trying to mix different things together hoping to get a better taste, but what you get is something that tastes very bad. Why would someone who has the understanding and already detached think to adopt symbols? Only fools do it!
=====
Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want.
B: Identity is every where. Only when one lives completely in the present moment, that there is no identity seeking.
C: It is one thing to be attached to an identity due to still being generally ignorant and with lots of attachment and conceit. With the development of understanding, one gradually moves in the direction where these tendencies are dealt with. To encourage identity in the name of good is however to be on the path facing the opposite direction, hence making it impossible for such tendencies to ever lessen.
======
B: Let me rephrase Kabir's salok for you so that you may meditate on it.
Kabeer, when you are in love with the Present Moment (when you live in it), duality and alienation depart.
You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||
page 1365
C: After reading my comment about the “present moment” above, do you still think this rephrasing will change anything? Actually I would expect even you to have a problem with this part, namely “*in love* with the Present Moment”….:-/
Does keeping long hair increase one's spirituality ?
Can long hair make a person more aware and in touch with their senses ?
Have a look at this interesting article below
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...ir-and-Why-Indians-Would-Keep-Their-Hair-Long
Can long hair make a person more aware and in touch with their senses ?
Have a look at this interesting article below
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...ir-and-Why-Indians-Would-Keep-Their-Hair-Long
BhagatSingh
SPNer
- Apr 24, 2006
- 2,921
- 1,657
Lucky Singh ji,
I don't think there is any scientific evidence for that. I majored in Biology and studied evolution thoroughly in my past time, I have never found evidence for such or came across any such notion in biology. Yes the hair evolved long on humans and it is unclear why but that does not mean it needs to have a function (other than insulation and mate selection). The sensation you feel through the hair say on your arm, is not because of the hair but because of the nerve endings in the follicles. So when you touch your hair, you feel it because the hair moves inside the follicle, and stimulates nerves there. If the hair is too long then it actually loses this ability. (Maybe it becomes more sublte?) But if that article rings true to your lived experience, I would say stick to your lived experience.
Being a householder and a Sikh is not about leading a simple life by eliminating all distractions and tests in life. Being a Sikh is about living a simple life and functioning in the normal world despite what is happening around you. Being a recluse is completely against Sikh philosophy as you are no longer able to cope with life challenges if you are just removing them from around you. The real challenge is not being influenced by what is around you. Gurbani describes a beautiful lotus flower not being influenced by its surroundings. Keeping kesh and turban is nothing to do with attachment but do so with not being afraid to be who you are. Guru Gobind Singh ji brought in our identity so people couldn't run away from doing the right thing. We should be visible from a distance so people in trouble can identify Sikhs and know they can come to them for help. This is nothing to do with attachment, but is everything to do with being able and willing to do the right thing and not being ashamed to be identified by those in need. This attitude is not conceited on any level.
This thread was started by Sikh youth to understand the SIKHI viewpoint. To keep bringing in concepts which do not have anything to do with Sikh philosophy, e.g. the reclusive lifestyle of Buddhist monks is misleading and confusing for youngsters reading this. I ask all members to be responsible and stick to SIKH philosophy on this thread. To explore other concepts of hair, please start a new thread in the interfaith forum section.
This thread was started by Sikh youth to understand the SIKHI viewpoint. To keep bringing in concepts which do not have anything to do with Sikh philosophy, e.g. the reclusive lifestyle of Buddhist monks is misleading and confusing for youngsters reading this. I ask all members to be responsible and stick to SIKH philosophy on this thread. To explore other concepts of hair, please start a new thread in the interfaith forum section.
Bhagat ji,
I totally understand your comment. The reason and focus on the article was not to relate hair to sympatheic or parasympathetic N.S or why you get goose pimples..etc.or anything else.
But, it was to see this claimed relationship with spirituality and long hair.
Even though the article is with regards to native indians and long hair, I have also come across other groups that make similar if not exact claims.
An example is the classic 'hippy' group, -I know some of you will think-what the hell?- But, the original hippies wanted to be in harmony with nature and their environment. The true pioneers felt that long hair helped them achieve this harmony. Yes, they may have used other natural herbs to help this as well, but they did feel the need for the long hair.
Through time,things change and other groups and sects form and some of these now don't undertsand this original concept of long hair like some new age travellers you get nowadays or hells angels..etc....
Note, it was also this belief in the long hair that convinced some of these original hippies to listen to Yogi Bhajan, when he first came here. As a sikh with long hair, they found it easy to relate to him to achieve their own goals of 'harmonising'.
Most of these hippies then went on to become full sikhs and we now have the 3HO etc..
Another group of people that believe in this long hair is the rastafarians. Although they slightly differ in the sense that they keep long matted hair more in line with Lord Shiva, their concept is also based on spirituality and being in touch with God. Some of them have claimed that the hair are like antennae to help you get on the same frequency and wavelength as God.
It's these interesting beliefs from around the world that made me question a link between spirituality and hair, and that is all I would prefer others to comment on and discuss.
I totally understand your comment. The reason and focus on the article was not to relate hair to sympatheic or parasympathetic N.S or why you get goose pimples..etc.or anything else.
But, it was to see this claimed relationship with spirituality and long hair.
Even though the article is with regards to native indians and long hair, I have also come across other groups that make similar if not exact claims.
An example is the classic 'hippy' group, -I know some of you will think-what the hell?- But, the original hippies wanted to be in harmony with nature and their environment. The true pioneers felt that long hair helped them achieve this harmony. Yes, they may have used other natural herbs to help this as well, but they did feel the need for the long hair.
Through time,things change and other groups and sects form and some of these now don't undertsand this original concept of long hair like some new age travellers you get nowadays or hells angels..etc....
Note, it was also this belief in the long hair that convinced some of these original hippies to listen to Yogi Bhajan, when he first came here. As a sikh with long hair, they found it easy to relate to him to achieve their own goals of 'harmonising'.
Most of these hippies then went on to become full sikhs and we now have the 3HO etc..
Another group of people that believe in this long hair is the rastafarians. Although they slightly differ in the sense that they keep long matted hair more in line with Lord Shiva, their concept is also based on spirituality and being in touch with God. Some of them have claimed that the hair are like antennae to help you get on the same frequency and wavelength as God.
It's these interesting beliefs from around the world that made me question a link between spirituality and hair, and that is all I would prefer others to comment on and discuss.
Bhagat Ji..interesting reply..
Are the feelers of {censored}roaches...having nerves..or do they also simply transfer touch to their roots ?? What purpose do the feelers serve ?? Thanks
Are the feelers of {censored}roaches...having nerves..or do they also simply transfer touch to their roots ?? What purpose do the feelers serve ?? Thanks
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
Gyani ji this is not science but I thought the warmest spots on the body get hair. All the way fro the head to privates, armpits, etc. I believe hair has a function to dissipate heat without the need for sweating that skin does. I may be totally wrong but I stand corrected with more knowledgeable one's.
When we get older and become generally cool the hair loss happens and the loss of heat component is moderated through turning grey.
My theories any way and no references lol mundahug
Sat Sri Akal.
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,193
Hair as a means of heat displacement and hair as a means of environmental sensors or receivers of etheric energy... what use at all for these purposes if wound up and covered with a royal dastaar?
Food for thought, no disrespect to dastaar.
Food for thought, no disrespect to dastaar.
Last edited:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
