Q: Why do Sikhs keep hair?

jodhvir ji,
I tend to adhere to principle of 5 Ks. However, presently I dont have enough intellect to satisfy your curiosity perhaps. I think, once we understand the significance of 5Ks, then this discussion will become more fruitful.
Thanks

Dear Thinking One Ji

The following link should be helpful in your quest. The reply by S|KH ji is enlightening... must read..

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikhph...12&postcount=3 (Todays Hukamnama)

Regards

This is the article that can throw some light on the questions raised by Jodhvir veer
An article on the importance of kes and dastaar by

Subject: Dignity in Identity


Dignity in Identity


"Sabat Soorat Dastar Sira"

Brig. Hardit Singh (Retd.)*

* 1380 Sector 33-C, Chandigarh. 160047.

Till about a century ago, most of the people in India
and the Middle
East countries wore turban in different styles. One
could, generally,
make out the religious denomination and nationality of
the wearer by the
way his turban was tied. Even now some Rajputs, Jats
and Brahmins of
India, apart from the Sikhs and some Muslims, wear
turbans.

Guru Arjun Dev, the fifth Nanak, in one of his hymns
(SGGS Page 1084),
addressed to a Muslim priest, advises him about the
physical appearance
and spiritual conduct required of the religious
person. The Persian
term "Sabat Soorat Dastar Sira" is a part of this
hymn.

"Sabat" means that which is whole, complete and
unaltered, in its
original form. "Soorat" is face or appearance,
"Dastar" is turban and "Sira"
is head. Collectively, it means a person replete with
full physical
features, inclusive of hair as granted to him by God,
with a turban to
adorn his head. Hair and turban remian the crowning
glory of a male and
this had been the traditional bearing and dress of our
prophets, rishis,
gurus, saints and bhagats.

Every part of the human frame, including the hair, has
a vital role in
the efficient functioning of the body. If it were not
so, God or nature
would not have provided these. Since hair is a part
and parcel of the
human body, the Gurus had thought it redundant to lay
any particular
stress for their preservation. However, there are
several references in
the Holy Scriptures regarding nature of the Cosmic Man
and sacred utility
by human hair:-

The Cosmic Man:

(a) "Tere banke loain, dant raseela, sohne nuk jin
lumbre vala?
(SGGS-500)

- Your attractive eyes, brilliant teeth beautiful nose
and long hair.

(b) In another hymn (SGGS-1082), Guru Arjun Dev has
called God by
different names. Amongst these are - ?Rikhikesh?,
?Narain dara? and ?Kesava?
which point out of the Formless One having long hair
and beard. The
words ?Kesav? and ?Kesva? also appear in many other
hymns.

Sacred Utility:

(a) "Kes Sang das pug jhahro, eha manorath mera" (SGGS
- 500)

My life long desire is to dust the feet of your
devotees with my hair.

(b) (i) "Kesa kar beejna, sant chaur dholavo"

(ii) "Kesa ka kar chawar dholavan charan dhur mukh
lai"

(SGGS - 745 & 749)

Make whisk of hair, fan it over the saints and smear
dust of their feet
on my face.

(c) "Se darhian sachian, jo gur charni lagan" (SGGS -
12119)

Holy are the beards that fall over guru's feet.

Bhai Gurdas is the scribe of the Adi Granth and a
devotee of its author
Guru Arjun Dev. In his two copious works "Varan" and
"Swaiye" he
portrays the Sikh way of life wherein he uses terms
such as "Amritvela sir
nawandhe" - Sikhs wash their hair early in the
morning.

Although the Sikhs were enjoined to maintain their
hair from Guru
Nanak?s time, it was left to Guru Gobind Singh to give
it a final seal. On
the Baisakhi day in 1699, he ordained that keeping of
unshorn hair is
obligatory for a Sikh for a dual purpose. Firstly, it
is to abide by the
altruist Will of God and, secondly, to give the Sikhs
a distinctive
personality to distinguish them from others. The site
from where this
declaration was made was thereafter called "Keshgarh"
- Citadel of Hair"
situated at Anandpur Sahib. The Guru at this time also
gave out code of
conduct (Rahit Maryada) for the Sikhs to follow which
he stated as more
endearing to him than the person :-

(a) "Rehit piyari mujh ko, sikh piyara nahen"

(b) "Rehni rahe soi sikh mera......." (Dasam Granth)

He also warned that ostentatious wearing of symbols
and dress without
inner involvement is like gambling away of one?s
precious life:

"Jioh maile, bahroh nirmal

Bahro nirmal, jioh ta maile,

Jinh janam jooe hariya" (SGGS 719)

Bhai Nand Lal Goya, the devotee and poet of Guru
Gobind Singh court has
said in his ?Rehat-Nama? that a person without long
hair cannot call
himself a Sikh and his identity cannot be divorced
from his personal
appearance. Bhai Nand Lal?s composition has been
blessed by the Guru and
enjoys the status of gurbani.

In eulogizing Guru Gobind Singh?s personality, he has
said that the
value of one tress of his beloved hair is priceless
compared to the
splendour of both the worlds :-

"Har do alam qimat-e-yuk-tar mooe yaar ma".

(Guzal 2)

Bhai Daya Singh, the first ?Piara? to be baptised,
Bhai Chaupa Singh
and poet Sainapati, all contemporaries of the Guru
categorically state
that unshorn hair symbolise Sikhism.

The numerous martyrs whose deeds are narrated in the
daily Sikh ?Ardas?
lived true to their tenets of faith of retaining
unshorn hair till
their last breath. Bhai Taru Singh?s plea to his
executioner to remove his
scalp- rather than his hair - bears testimony to this
conviction. The
foremost prayer of a Sikh is to live with his hair
intact till his end ?
"Sikhi kesan swasan naal nibhai" and "Sikhi daan, kesh
daan".

Prof. Puran Singh in his book ?Spirit of the Sikh,?
Part-II, Page 56
writes - "The Guru?s commandment in asking the
disciples to preserve
their hair unshorn has in it an abiding depth of
truth, giving men some
deeper concerns of the soul, for thereby he has
precluded men and women
living only for the futile foppishness of sartorial
arts or the
barber-made civilization. The hair seems redundant to
the modern man, but to
Guru Gobind Singh, the hair was essential.... for
bringing on of a greater
moral and religious civilization". He further writes
that "if the Sikhs
are left free to cut or shave the hair, how foolish it
would be to
preach a religion and to demand whole herds on
compromised principles....
Taking away the Sikh?s hair is to cut him off from his
intensely
reactive inspiration and source of strength".

In his book The Spirit Born People, page 38, Prof.
Puran Singh further
says that wearing of the ?the Master?s knot of sacred
tresses" is "a
token of spiritual isolation from the herd. So did
Guru Gobind Singh
command. An obedience to him is life. There is no life
outside that Great
Love."

Sikhism is a path of discipleship. Hair are gift of
God and grown by
His Will. In abiding by His Will, our relationship
with Him and the Guru
is strengthened. Let us not try tobe wise ourselves
but do what the
Guru commands.

"Gursikh meet chalo har chali,

Jo gur kahe soi bhal, mano...." (SGGS 667)

"The turbaned Sikh looks like a lion, the rest of us
look like sheep
and goats, afraid to be identified".

A different approach is taken by S.I J Singh in this article

A Sikh Au Courante

By: I.J. Singh Wed Jan 09

We all want to be modern. There is nothing quite so
distressing as to be told that one is behind the times
or is clueless about the world in which he or she
operates. It is worse than being poor, fat or ugly.
But what is it to be modern? What does being modern
mean? Let me illustrate my concerns by two little
tales.

Not so long ago, a young Sikh technocrat and I were
passing the time of day over a cup of coffee. He is a
bright MBA and a good man but not a recognizable Sikh.
All of a sudden he blurted out: "We Sikhs have a very
practical and logical religion with an incomparably
attractive and modern worldview but our external
appearance is not consistent with that modern
framework." He was pointing to the turban and bearded
visage of the observing Sikh male.

Another incident is from a few years ago when I was
single. Some kind friends tried to set me up with a
Sikh lady in a different town and gave me her
telephone number. She was a bright, young,
professionally educated Sikh - a psychiatrist.

We talked a few times on the telephone. Here, we both
thought, might be some possibilities. Naturally, we
wanted to meet face to face to see what kind of
chemistry might result. We hadn't yet met and didn't
know what the other looked like. One day, we were on
the phone chatting about the logistics of meeting,
when she abruptly inquired: "Are you a modern Sikh?"

I knew what she was about but decided to play it for
what it was worth. To me, the antithesis of being
modern is to be primitive. So, my response turned out
to be somewhat tactless but not entirely pointless. I
countered that I never ever left the house without
clothes, could coherently converse on a variety of
subjects including religion, politics and sex, and
knew which fork to use with which plate at dinner;
therefore, I was not exactly primitive. She thought my
response was aggressively, if not offensively,
unresponsive; she had wanted to know if I was
keshadhari, long-haired Sikh or not. I thought a crew
cut would not necessarily endow me with the so-called
characteristics of modernity, anymore than long hair
would automatically transform me either into a sage or
a savage. Needless to say we never met.

I must confess that in both encounters - with the lady
psychiatrist and the MBA - initially I was somewhat
taken aback but, upon reflection, realized that
perhaps this is how most of the world thinks of us. I
see that many Sikhs also seem to reason similarly;
that says something for our sense of self and the
self-imposed psychological burden that many Sikhs seem
to carry. The question, of course, is less how others
view us, even though that is extremely important but,
more significantly, how comfortable we are with
whatever we have chosen to be.

My cohorts in both encounters insisted that Sikh
philosophy and precepts were modern. (Did they really
know enough of Sikh tradition to so assert or were
they only mouthing the words? I merely raise the
question here.) Nevertheless, if I accepted their
protestations then the unassailable definition of
modernity for a Sikh would be to understand and live
by the very modern tenets and postulates of Sikhism.
And would that not, I wondered, include the lifestyle
of a Sikh, including one's appearance as one? It seems
to me a very clear outcome of their logic on the
modernity of Sikhism.

But in common parlance - in proposing such a
conditional definition of modernity implied by my
friends - we usually mean only the principles of
Sikhism that should govern our everyday reality -
trade, family and at most the ethical framework of our
existence. But in such reasoning both of my friends
have created a rift between the postulates of Sikhism
and their historical manifestation in the individual
Sikh with his articles of faith, including the unshorn
hair. This dichotomy states that other rules of the
game - such as the ones that dictate our outer garb -
are an entirely different matter and perhaps
irrelevant and immaterial. In this view, the external
appearance of the male Sikh is not consistent with the
ways of the world, as we know it, hence not in keeping
with the times. Seriously, I have come across several
fresh arrivals from India who said to me: "On the
phone you leave a different and more modern
impression. But I see that you look like a traditional
Sikh, something we didn't expect after so many years."
I wonder what they were really thinking.

There are several ways to explore this paradoxical
situation and many levels of objections to such an
attitude that seems to select some rules as applicable
while branding others as extraneous. Qualitatively,
there are at least two kinds of argument that I can
muster to dismiss such reasoning.

One can sensibly suggest that the Sikh appearance was
not decided by a people after some sort of a
referendum but was willed to them by their Guru.
Surely these articles of faith are not at all like
corporate logos that are redesigned periodically by a
professional team of consultants after a survey and
market-analysis of the current trends and fads.

Now, one can choose either to walk the path of the
master or not - that choice is always available. But
to walk while continuing to quibble full force reminds
me of the adage "faint heart never climbed a
mountain." (Or was it faint heart never won a fair
lady, but let's not be sexist.) To sit around and
second-guess the Guru's intention and how he might
have decided if he had lived in this 21st century is a
game with no rules or one where every player makes his
own rules.

It reminds me of many students who protest that the
rules and requirements of the course that I teach are
onerous, unfair and demanding, but this protest occurs
during midsemester usually after a harrowing and
hopeless test and is primarily limited to those who
are floundering. That's when the rules no longer
appear convenient or helpful to the learning process
but loom as a hurdle to their graduating. Students
look only at the fact that the rules impose hardships
on them or set them apart from other friends who may
not be in a similarly demanding program. On the other
hand, I am aware of the role my students are destined
to play as health professionals and I must design the
rules of the game that will prepare them for such
responsibility. Inconvenient the rules may be but are
they necessary? If necessary then they are also
eminently fair. To demand less would not be doing
justice to the professional choices these young people
have made in life.

I am not unmindful of the social isolation and the
economic repercussions that many Sikhs fear their
appearance might produce. The other side of the coin
raises an interesting issue: what insecurities in me
suggest that life would be so much rosier if only I
looked like John Doe? If such attitudes reside in me
and govern my outlook in life it must be difficult
indeed to look in the mirror. Life has taught me that
no matter what I look like there will always be some
who will not like me while there will be others who
will accept me as I am. For many, I will always remain
too short or too tall, too fat or too thin, too dark
or too pale, too this or too that. No matter how smart
I am there will be millions who will be smarter and
just as many who will not be. No matter how rich I
am?. and so on, ad infinitum. Whether it is in
personal relationship or in social and professional
interaction there is always a glass ceiling. But is it
the result of our own inadequacies or those of others?
Perhaps a little of each.

If I truly feel uncaged and free only when dressed in
a particular manner then the problem lies primarily in
my head, not in others. No one can make me feel small
without my consent. So to look for an excuse or
explanation in the demands of society is really not
meaningful. Also, such demands can never be settled in
full. My sense of self must be pretty feeble if it
depends primarily upon my button down collar, wing tip
shoes, blow-dried hairstyle or, most importantly, the
opinion of others. I know the requirements of the
corporate culture but my bonus is finally determined
more by my production figures and only minimally, if
at all, by my spit-shined shoes.

I know full well the pitfalls in taking the road less
traveled. I also know that Sikhs are a minuscule
minority in any part of the world, even in the Indian
culture, except perhaps in Punjab. I know the
situation is not likely to change. I am also convinced
that Guru Gobind Singh, when he ordained the Khalsa,
never had any expectation that there would ever be
more Khalsa than there are people of other kind in the
world. We are ordained to remain a minority. We have
to learn to rejoice in this and not try to
metamorphose into a brown sahib. For instance, there
will never be more of any kind of people in this world
than there are Chinese but that is no reason why
everyone has to look Chinese or ape their very rich
culture.

The five symbols of our religion, including the long
unshorn hair, become articles of faith only when their
magic and historical impact become integrated into our
lives and embedded in our psyche such that they define
us. Otherwise they remain symbols that can be
discarded as and when the spirit moves us. As articles
of faith they become a part of the self and good
people will fight and die for them but not abandon
them. As symbols they will always leave us
uncomfortable and ill at ease. Symbols have a price;
they can be bought and sold in the marketplace. As
articles that define faith they acquire value which is
often greater than life itself ; they can't be weighed
and measured in the market, nor do they become
shop-worn. Then the question of their being with the
times or not becomes silly as would a question that
demands to know the price, justification or relevance
of any part of the self.

Parenthetically, I wish to leave with you one thought.
Look closely at these five articles of faith in
Sikhism. You will see that they have undergone
transformation with time, some more than others. I
have attempted a fuller discussion on this elsewhere
and it is not pertinent here.

Even though, and perhaps especially because they were
so few, the challenge for Sikhs was always to remain
undaunted and to walk the razor's edge of their faith
with courage, confidence and a smile. In other words
to live life fully, not by half measures. That was,
perhaps, the meaning behind Guru Gobind Singh's
challenging call for a head on Vaisakhi 1699. This is
maybe the lesson that emerges from the sacrifices of
Guru Arjan, Guru Tegh Bahadur and countless Sikh
martyrs that history has honored. This is what Guru
Nanak may have meant when he challenged his followers
to walk with the head in the palm of the hand. I would
think that to be able to put your head on the line for
principle is an utterly modern concept that only a
free people can adopt.

To live free is to be modern. This implies the courage
to be distinct and to walk the different beat of your
distant drummer. Look back, perhaps not so many years
in your life, and what do you see? During adolescence
when life was driven by raging hormones, the most
powerful urge - not always clearly seen - was to
define one's own self by being different from everyone
else. (I know that this drive was also accompanied and
backed by another - to belong to a pack, which emerged
from the fear of being alone.) The sense of self -
indeed our identity - developed out of the complex
interplay of these competing desires and directions.

We spend our defining years learning to become
individually distinct. In selecting what we wear or
carry, we spend our teen years trying to make a unique
statement. I am my own person, we want the world to
know. It doesn't matter if the world thinks it's
ridiculous but dyeing pink a swath down the middle of
the head makes me unique, so that's what it will be. I
want to be alone on my path but not lonely, so I look
for a ratpack that travels together, where each
enhances the other's emerging individuality. I also
search for a badge that stamps me as exclusive - a
limited edition - by joining exclusive clubs and
secret societies.

In Sikhism, the Guru gave us the gift and the courage
to stand out and yet to belong to a rich, powerful and
eloquent tradition. I can't imagine a more fittingly
modern idea. The question is how to model our lives so
that our difference makes a statement. And then the
question is what kind of a statement do we wish to
make.

We are an integral part of society and so are
integrated into it. Being like others defines the
niche to which we belong - a space that is carved out
of a shared history. By attaching ourselves to the
timelessness of a heritage we become free of the
restraint as well as of the tyranny of changing
customs and changing times. Would the slavery to fad
and fashion not make us prisoners of our time? And in
the process would we not lose the sense of our
heritage that makes us different and unique?

It is not always easy, even the concept isn't so easy
to grasp. But I think the most expanded version of
being in tune with the times would be - being the
right person at the right time in the right place for
the right reason.


Waheguru ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru ji ki Fateh

I believe this satisfies Jodhvir ji's curiosity. Also John has got a few concerns about uniform. I am sure, this article gives better insight into those queries.

Thanks much sikhphilosophy and etinder ji.

Best Regards.

__________________
jau qau pRym Kylx kw cwau[[ isr Dir qlI glI myrI Awau[[ iequ mwrig pYru DrIjY [[ isr dIjY kwix n kIjY [[
..................................... gurU swihb (AMg 1412)

Without wanting to appear too dogmatic or rigid in reasoning, the question begs another question,"Why do soldiers have wear a uniform?" For me, being a Sikh and wanting to remain one, it sufficient that we were commanded and directed to wear the 5'K's. If I choose to be a soldier there should be no question of being frightened of the bullet which is always pointed at the head of one who chooses the line.

As such being a Sikh, it is an unquestionable obligation that we keep what we were asked to keep. Sikh di shan dooron desdi hai is an added bonus that we can be recognised in whatever the size of the crowd. The Taj is happily visible from a far distance.

To me instead of asking the question why we should keep the hair, we should ask ourselves is whether we consider ourselves Sikhs or not and if we are then let us continue to be proud (without arrogance) to be Sikhs and Khalsa's (Waheguru Ji's humble warriors).

I hope I have not hurt anyone's sentiments as there was absolutely no intention to do so.

Bhul Chuk Maaf Karna. Sat Sri Akal.

Living Mind

Ek Onkar Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Dear jodhbir Singh ji
I want to share some thoughts with you regarding this topic
Sikh religion was not created as such to add to a fuss, as already prevailing at the time of guruji due to many other religions .It is our inability to consider it as a religion. In this world you cant understand any thing without classifying it into one or the other, I f I say you that Sikh was never created as religion it will be very difficult to comprehend for you as it cant be classified into any known system. KHALSA was created as Akal Purakh KI FAUJ the fauj of SANT SIPAHI, who can serve whole humanity and people of all religion.
Religion it self is most nonsense thing prevalent at time of guru ji and till date .it is really difficult to comprehend but I will try my best. In this scientific world as you might very well be knowing I some thing new is discovered while very original and new to human knowledge (for example new animal species) immediately it is labelled and classified into on of the already known classes until somebody realises that no its totally knew kind of specie. Similar is the case with our KHALSA it was never created as religion but eventually it came to be known as religion. So it is our foolishness and inability to label it as religion and compare with other religion.

About hair (kesh) I agree with you that hair doesn’t make a person spiritual but I want to assure you that without hair one cant become KHALSA (off course people keep hair and don’t become KHALSA) it is a dress code of SANT SIPAHI you cant change dress of a army which was created to serve humanity

About small number of Sikh even though it is such a noble religion, actually as I have already told you it not a religion although it is viewed as one it is much greater BLESSING of AKAL PURAKH And as a KHALSA we don’t want recruitment as it is done in other religion like Islam and Christian, you tell me what is aim of doing it, it is just like fool competing for some thing that is worthless
Work of KHALSA is to serve humanity and not to make whole planet their member
As KHALSA is AKAL PURAKH KI FAUJ he only can recruit init and believe me it is going on and will remain like this, who so ever is bestowed with this responsibility by AKAL PURAKH do it automatically, so you don’t worry about their number.

As per following teaching of guru without 5 ks every body is most welcome and I don’t see any problem what so ever in his/her spiritual path he can complete his journey even without becoming KHALSA as being KHALSA is special gift given to you by AKAL PURAKH you can’t take it your self.

So I request all my brothers and sister on this forum not to force this HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE JOB OF KHALSA ON EVERY BODY just give them environment and information they require I am sure AKAL PURAKH will choose his SANT SIPAHI himself

In this world, where everything tends to get classified as per known entities or perceivable by human senses, this makes more sense when drkhalsa ji said about 'inability to consider it as a religion'. As good as saying - Fine, God is there, tell me if God is male or female. because our knowledge limits define someone as he/she/it Only. There comes the point of understanding an 'ism' or 'way of life'.

Emphasizing last para of drkhalsa ji, Amrit is best given to a growing kid, when they understand their responsibilities as Khalsa. Child-baptism is something sikhs dont go for, but thats anyway different matter to talk about.

Regards.

__________________
jau qau pRym Kylx kw cwau[[ isr Dir qlI glI myrI Awau[[ iequ mwrig pYru DrIjY [[ isr dIjY kwix n kIjY [[
..................................... gurU swihb (AMg 1412)

That 2nd article posted above is by far one of the best articles I've ever read regarding Sikhism and Kesh.

It talks in such a "down-to-earth" level, where all kids and adults can feel and realize what the author is stating.

I'm copying it and saving it on my hard drive forever.

Thanks to the poster.

__________________
Music is the air I breathe
The prayer I leave
Rippin' in the atmosphere
Up there in the breeze

Well well well, just click the link below and you would be reading an entirely new perspective about keeping kesh and feminity from a welknown sikh scholar... dear S|kh, would be well aware of this person and his buddy...
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...opic=5266&st=0

I am reproducing two extracts to give you a overview of things written in that thread posted above...

Now, this point of view is entrely opposite to that being discussed under this thread... but that makes the whole thread a non issue...

What are you views ?