Why are we not allowed to cut hair when it's ok to cut nails, since both are created by God?

harry haller · #**235** (**permalink**) 10-Apr-2012, 13:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckysingh

The real point is the day the sikhs were created is when TRUE sikhs were defined.
In society we have all these different terms keshdari, sehajdari, amritdhari and so on....ALL created by us.

That day on Vasaikhi 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't mention any of these. These are labels that we have invented and assigned as years have past.
A mona may have a better heart of a sikh than someone with a khes, we all know this.

But as a SIKH, we cannot label the mona as a true sikh. That is not Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Sikh. There can only be ONE TRUE Guru Gobind's sikh. Being a sehajdari or nearly an amritdhari sikh is simply not an acceptable label for Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Sikh.
You are either a true sikh or you are not, no inbetweens, no exceptions.
The khes along with the other kakkars goes with that person called a sikh.

The message that day was crystal clear, we should have no doubts.
He also informed everyone that a true sikh regards the Guru Granth Sahib as a living and eternal guru. This is why there has never been any doubts over it unlike other written pothis. It is the living guru of a true sikh and every sikh regards it this way.We won't accept any additions or omissions made by anyone to it, so why should we give the label 'Sikh' certain omissions to suit us ??

Therefore, I being mona shouldn't be calling myself a sikh. To say that I'm on the path but have not been initiated or baptised, like I hear many say is also wrong. Saying I'm a sikh but not had the initiation ceremony doesn't give me any right to call myself a sikh wether true or not. As a sikh is only ever 'true' and is only as defined by the Guru.
Question is what do I call myself ???
I think calling myself a 'follower of sikhi' is probably more appropriate as I shouldn't say I'm A SIKH.

Waheguru
Lucky Singh

You are a Sikh, I am a Sikh, anyone is a Sikh who, as per the SRM states. -

Article I – Definition of Sikh

Any human being who faithfully believes in:
• One Immortal Being
• Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• The Guru Granth Sahib
• The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus
• The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.

Archived_member14 · #**236** (**permalink**) 10-Apr-2012, 14:06 PM

Prakash ji,

I do not agree with some of what you state as reason, but other than that I accept your explanation, and only from the perspective of your being an individual who has chosen to follow a particular religion. And we can leave it at this. But allow me to add the following:
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/32165-why-we-not-allowed-cut-hair.html

Either there is understanding or there is ignorance.
When hearing a teaching, if there is no understanding and we follow the suggestion, this in effect is encouraging ignorance. If we think at the time that down the road there will be understanding, we do not realize that it is in fact ignorance and attachment doing the talking, and that these will accumulate and lead to exactly the opposite of that which is aimed at.

In Buddhism the five moral precepts of restraint from killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct and taking of intoxicants are spoken of not as commandments, but as “training rules”. This is because it is to be expected that so long as a person is not enlightened, moral misconduct will continue to arise for him. It is only through the development of wisdom that one by one, defilements are eradicated leading to perfect moral conduct. Therefore if someone were to have an attitude towards these precepts that do not involve understanding, not only does this not address the root of the problem, but invariably leads to more wrong, perhaps in other forms.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32165

Understanding must therefore always be in the forefront and lead the way, because otherwise there will be distortion in both thinking and in behavior. From this perspective, blind acceptance of rules must in effect only lead to more harm than any good.

Archived_member14 · #**237** (**permalink**) 10-Apr-2012, 14:16 PM

Ambarsaria ji,

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
And Sikh teaches the importance of identity / recognition? Is this a virtue, if so which one exactly? To me it looks to be all about encouraging conceit or ego.

Not everything we do or are is conceit or ego it could also be the fault of person like yourself so perceiving it.

You are saying that I may be wrong to identify the situation as conceit. But what else can identity, marking the outward appearance of a person, comparing and encouraging this be, if not conceit? Looking into the mirror to see if my beard is in order is already conceit, how much more it is if I started to scan the whole face and head, identifying with having a turban, particular glasses, skin color etc. and on top of this making the association with a particular religion?

Quote:

As we all know no one can perceive a person in truth to what a person really is in total.

We are not talking about anything beyond what is manifested in the moment and as expressed by the other person.

And what are you referring to by the idea of “total of a person”?

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
As an individual who knows to develop goodness and wisdom, thinking about one's own hair is already a distraction, how much more when thinking about that of fellow followers of the religion. This is where wisdom makes a difference and I thought that Sikhi encouraged this!

Now Confused brother ji this is what I call kind of nonsense as in making no sense. Whatever you do is a distraction whether you cut your finger nails, wear a flashy or saffron robe, etc.

I should probably have used another word instead of “distraction”. But having used it, allow me to explain further.

Obviously distraction is not inherent in the activity itself, nor is it in the simple act of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling. What it must therefore be is some volitional activity, one which is conditioned at the root, by ignorance. In the example you give above, these can be done with or without ignorance, however when ignorance is present this must be accompanied by attachment and / or conceit. They are as you say, distractions, the kind we all experience every day and to be expected, therefore wrong to talk as if one is worse than the other. Also there is no need to make it into anything bigger by highlighting them.

The distraction I was referring to is however different. What I said was in response to the promoting of religious identity. This is therefore a problem not only of attachment and conceit, but wrong understanding as well. And while the first two are wrong but to be expected, and therefore no need to be overly concerned about, the latter is a case in fact, of failure to acknowledge their wrongness; indeed it is indirectly promoting these. Therefore in this case, it has to be pointed out and never enough.

Quote:

We all realize that all such have an impact on who we are and hence small or large impact on wisdom we develop or understand.

I don't understand your reasoning, can you please explain?

Quote:

Where do you draw so called lines of pure unadulterated wisdom?

Wisdom is a mental phenomenon with a particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. The following is from one Buddhist text:

Quote:
Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non perplexity as its proximate cause, as it were a good guide in the forest.

In short, wisdom is right understanding, and understanding understands reality / the Truth.

Quote:

As I understand, manifestation(s) and actions resulting from wisdom are always impacted by the total whole of who we are.

Wisdom manifests as non-delusion, and non-delusion with regard to what? To the nature of consciousness, of mental factors and of material phenomena. It is not measured by the result we “think” about, because that would be in the realm of ideas and ideas are concepts which are mind-created.

Again, you'd need to explain this idea about “whole of who we are”, what are you thinking in terms of here?

Archived_member14 · #**238** (**permalink**) 10-Apr-2012, 15:04 PM

Gyani ji,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyani Jarnail Singh

Confused Ji,
I wrote about Begging Monks becasue thats what we have in malaysia...a Buddhist Monks with just a saffron cloth wrapping around the body BEGGING BOWL and a CLOTH BAG ( to transfer goods begged form bowl to bag) are everywhere. Legitimate ones have letters of authority from the Major Viharas..the FAKE ones are reported as and when they annoy someone too much and get caught.
I beleive in Thailand this is also the norm..a Novice MONK has to be shaved bald and go on begging rounds to qualify.
Anyway when you have the time..maybe you can enlighten me on this aspect of Buddhism..and why its practsied if its NOT the right teaching..

Begging involves asking, soliciting for some material object. Buddhist monks don't ask or solicit. In fact if they do (and they do a lot nowadays), they are committing a greater wrong than would a lay person under similar circumstances.

The Buddha founded this order with the understanding that there are lay people who respect recluses and willingly provide them with the necessary requisites of food, shelter, clothing and medicine. In exchange these lay people receive teachings from those recluses which help them live the life of a good householder, and this is exactly what Buddhist monks are supposed to do.

The bowl that you call “begging bowl” is filled not by virtue of a monk’s going around and asking for food, but the layperson's desire to provide support in the hope that by doing so, these monks will be able to sustain their lives, grow in morality and wisdom and will continue to teach them the good teachings. Besides, it is one big opportunity for lay people to express generosity in terms of material goods and for the monk's to share the Truth.

A monk does not knock at doors but pass the houses of lay people who have food in front of them and ready to fill the bowls. Besides, they stand there for a short time and if there is the impression that a particular lay disciple is not ready or does not wish to give them any food, will walk away immediately in the direction of the next house.

This is a quick one, but I hope it is helpful.

findingmyway · #**239** (**permalink**) 16-Apr-2012, 02:15 AM

Moderation Note: This thread seems to have gone off topic dramatically several times. Please can I request all members to keep the thread topic in mind when exploring other topics and try to keep a link. The thread has grown too big for me to tease out the various topics but if you have a related topic please start a new thread and post the link here. Thank you.

sandeep17oct · #**240** (**permalink**) 16-Apr-2012, 04:31 AM

Dear skeptic free thinker
Everything is not subject to rationalization. You can only rationalize material concepts. You can't do the same with spiritual ones. That is why science has never come to terms with the concept of God.
One reason for not cutting hair is that hair protects the wisdom acquired by the Jaap of the Naam. Will science ever come to terms with this reason?
Please understand that science will not free you of your suffering neither can anybody else. The only one who will is THE GURU. His word should be enough to satisfy your mind. Rationalization is a trap that mind uses to trigger disbelief in the facade that if I get the reason I'll be satisfied. But is it? Is it ever satisfied?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32165
Moreover do we know everything? How much has science told us and how much of that is true ? We have all known about what happened with Newton's theories. Now Einstein's are in the firing line with the LHC speed of light constrait contradiction. Truthfully I think we should question why these theories keep changing but those of religion remain constant.Science is an
amateur youth. Religion is wise and old.
Mere Patshah da ek bol saare science de theories hor aan wali saari theories to utte hai. Koi uchi cheez nu explain karan de lae neevi cheez da istemal thoda kita jaanda hai. Science neevi hai hor neevi rahoogi. Ek banda si Bhardwaj naa da, scientist siga, cancer ho gya si unu, saare science de tareeke laga lay unne lekin thik nhi hoya. Ohi banda nu nai jindagi mili jad unu Darbar Sahib de darshan hor Guru de shabad sunan da mauka milya, oda cancer thik ho gya. Eda koi explanation nhi. Ae te Guru di bakshish hai. Shabad hai "Mera baid Guru Gobinda"
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32165
Reason nu passe karo. Reason will not help you overcome "Jam di mar" or death.
Waheguruji ka Khalsa.Waheguruji ki Fateh.

jonj · #**241** (**permalink**) 27-Apr-2012, 02:58 AM

this is actually a very interesting question here as reading this also bothered me and had the question in my mind as well.hopefully i would also be able to find an answer for myself as i have been planning to really research more extensively about this. can see much effort put in this thread and i can see that the argument is really presenting good points although the answer is yet to be discovered.hopefully there will be more input regarding this dilemma so that we may have peace of mind regarding this topic.rest assured iwill pot on my findings soon.

Gyani Jarnail Singh · #**242** (**permalink**) 27-Apr-2012, 04:42 AM

PARRH PARRH Gadee laddeyeah...warns GURU NANAK Ji in Asa dee vaar...
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32165
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32165
Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader

chazSingh · #**243** (**permalink**) 30-Apr-2012, 17:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyani Jarnail Singh

PARRH PARRH Gadee laddeyeah...warns GURU NANAK Ji in Asa dee vaar...
Be afraid..Very AFRAID of being so engrossed in "research......research..research....WHY WHY WHY......."..Until all your Hair DROPS off.........and its Too late.....No hair worthy of cutting..no strength to cut your own nails..shaking hands..trembling legs..weak heart..teary eyes..trembling tongue...lying on the bed....waiting for DEATH....Farid Ji also Warns...Kabir Ji also Warns....PROCATINATION is NOT SIKHI/GURMATT....decide once and for all NOW !!! and pick the Path you want to follow....duality..destroys...procastination destroys...cheerleader

Gyani Ji is Right,

research, research, research....
when do we get the time to actually experience?

the age of information has passed, all the information, so much information, information overload...do we need any more information?

The age for experience is NOW. rather than research, why not put things into practice and experience it? record your findings....make some adjustments, and experience some more.

i spent years of my life, precious breaths debating, arguing, challenging views...but then i did what i should have done in the first place...to look at Sri Guru Granth Sahib 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.