☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Sikh Philosophy Network
Opinion Polls & Surveys
Do You Think You Are Khalsa?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harjas Kaur Khalsa" data-source="post: 83404" data-attributes="member: 2125"><p>I do not agree with the explanation that a Sikh keeping kesh does so for ornamentation or fetishism. I also do not agree that the vast body of esoteric literature regarding advanced yogic practices has no relationship, especially when such definitions are given textually by Udasi's and some Nihang and Damdami Taksal sants.</p><p></p><p>I never said Sikhs tie a joora to attract lightning, that is a ridiculous distortion to make deliberate mockery of these teachings because YOU don't believe in them. If anyone does a simple search of Gurbani to find esoteric concepts for vibrating Naam, for the sound current of the Naad, for the power of Shabda to influence and change your thoughts... (and I realize there is a level of esotericism which requires investigation into Vedic, yogic sutras and Puranas to actually define properly) related to sound currents, intonation of Gurmantra, as applied to jappo and kirtan. It is historically a niche esoteric science. It is not a Western science. They are parallels, because much of the esotericism relates to physical processes. Why disrespect a traditional view of reality? Why disrespect or show contempt at all? What place is there for that kind of attitude in any discussion?</p><p></p><p>Just as it requires an electrical current to stimulate the neurotransmitters and neurohormones in your brain to "think a thought" so does this yogic theory relate how subtle currents which have an electro-magnetic relationship in the physical realm. In this type of practice, the hair yogically is treasured as being a source of holding the Naam as a seal over the mind to cleanse the kalpas.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Studying esotericism, metaphysics or religions, such as these concepts which are found in Gurbani cannot possibly be a <em>"derogatory use of the mind."</em> I do not understand your extreme hostility to religion. And I do not accept your rudeness or put downs as being an acceptable way to discuss disagreements between Western scientific theory and any form of spiritual teaching, esotericism and/or metaphysics.</p><p></p><p>I do not agree with you, but I am not mocking you, inferring your position is worthless or trying to make you look like an idiot in scientific or logic based arguments. That's the kind of personal attack which are properly under category of "flaming" to extremely discourage any possible credibility, common sense respect or proper tolerance to a different view. And that is not acceptable on any discussion forum. As I said before, this very thread was based on a series of personal attacks I was receiving on this forum, and an attempt to answer objections. So to see this same thread again, opened up, not to discuss alternate views but to attack my personal credibility, to be accused of unsavory attitudes which essentially amount to cruelty, excluding others, egotism, arrogance and destroying a religious teaching are just beyond the pale. Simply to voice these kind of personal attacks in response to an opinion is very dismaying to me. Particularly when I am not even the originator of the opinion, but am simply sharing a belief in pre-existing teachings about yogic purpose of hair.</p><p></p><p>As I mentioned, I have been attacked on personal qualities time and again, been moderated, deleted, warned and am still flagged and never have I spoken in this tone, or with this degree of discouragement to others. Even to receiving in the past PMs of a deliberately insulting nature. Why it is tolerated against me repeatedly is just not acceptable. If you don't like the views, then disagree with the views. Why discredit the person? Why mock the person? Why flame the person? Why encourage others to belittle the person? Why make the person unwelcome or ashamed to express an opinion? Did I say something evil like "go and abuse children" where you could credibly say my opinion has the power to destroy a religion? where this degree of hostility would be understood in context? </p><p></p><p>I want to add, I have experienced too much, as a non-Punjabi and as a female of this exact same kind of mockery, shaming, and agressive attempts to ostracize that I'm really sick of it. Really sick of this kind of excuse for religion. This is just not the way to treat anyone in any realistic sense of expecting to keep them. And people wonder why they lose members to other religions. I am convinced that if I was a male Punjabi, no matter how outrageous my opinion or personal behavior, I would be shown reasonable degree of tolerance and respect and cordiality. I have not seen anyone else on this forum receive the same repeated degree of unwelcome or personal flaming, with exception of Sikhnamdhari. For some cultural reason females and non-Punjabis are just repeatedly shown disrespect. If this community doesn't start to address these problems, it will continue to decline. It is so unacceptable for a public forum. Just as it is unacceptable in a Gurdwara.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, not a comment or citation to demonstrate a particular view, but is a personal insult couched in the form of ideological disagreement. It isn't about static electricity or conduction of current. It is about implying I am a dishonest and stupid person. How can this be an acceptable way to have a discussion?</p><p></p><p>When analyzing the way Gurmantra works, it has to be heard, it has to be vibrated. So I am discussing this in the only terminology I know. Is it worthless and invalid? Even if it was, how unacceptably rude to say such things on a public forum. I happen to believe these are a valid science not respected by Western disciplines.</p><p></p><p>It goes to show that hair is valuable. If you don't agree, why be insulting? And the only purpose I can think of is to destroy the credibility behind the disagreement. the only purpose is to flag the individual posting as a target worthy of ridicule. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My previous post preached nothing. I shared a viewpoint and I am entitled to have an opinion. If the debate centers on exclusivity of being able to practice Naam jappo with hair, then rest assured I did not create the debate. I am not responsible for the debate. Sikh religion traditionally values the hair. There exists a body of tradition regarding the yogic function of the hair, which I was sharing.</p><p></p><p>I might add, at the time I posted originally I belonged to a Jatha which was very traditional. And I was keeping in-line with beliefs and teachings that I personally did not invent or create in order to "exclude" some people who want to cut hair.</p><p></p><p>Since that time, I have pulled myself out of that Jatha for reasons which will not be discussed publically. I will not speak poorly of the Jatha, but it should be known I no longer consider myself to belong to it. Neither would I be considered by the Jatha to in any way represent it's views at any time. I no longer even defend some of those teachings, although I still agree on some points. I do agree as to yogic practice of keeping hair as a traditional form of pranayama Naam abhiyaas. But I no longer agree that this is the only practice within Sikh religion to obtain mukti. So as you have not even kept up with the change in my personal views, to launch a huge attack against me personally as being somehow responsible for "exclusivism" within Sikh religion is completely irresponsible. How can I, as a marginalized individual who is not even completely welcome in Gurdwara, possibly be a "preacher of exclusivism" to explain a background of yogic theory as relates to Naam jap and pranayama with keeping hair? This is just unrealistic blame and attack.</p><p></p><p>There is an "esoteric" science to keeping hair as a religious practice. There is also a valid "esoteric" science for shaving hair as a religious practice. If you will note, in nearly every world religion there is some form of monasticism where hair is either uncut or shaved. And there is a body of esoteric and yogic literature to support both practices. And if we delve into the Vaishnava Puranas and Bhagavata, bhakti doesn't even require this yogic practice of keeping hair or shaving hair, although some monastic orders within it do both.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The traditional teaching is based on a male body, hence no mention of vaginal opening. The umbilical cord relates to the nabhi, navel which is the seat of ras of the Naam jappo in occult science. Since it is a chakr center of energy which travels along the nadis it is not considered an opening of the subtle body.</p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Teal">ਨਾਭਿ ਪਵਨੁ ਘਰਿ ਆਸਣਿ ਬੈਸੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਖੋਜਤ ਤਤੁ ਲਹੈ ॥</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Teal">naabh pavan ghar aasan baisai guramukh khojath thath lehai ||</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Teal">The breath is seated in the home of the navel; the Gurmukh searches, and finds the essence of reality.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Teal">~SGGS Ji p. 945</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Purple">ਨਾਭਿ ਕਮਲ ਤੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਉਪਜੇ ਬੇਦ ਪੜਹਿ ਮੁਖਿ ਕੰਠਿ ਸਵਾਰਿ ॥</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Purple">naabh kamal thae brehamaa oupajae baedh parrehi mukh kanth savaar ||</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Purple">From the lotus of Vishnu's navel, Brahma was born; He chanted the Vedas with a melodious voice.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: Purple">~SGGS Ji p. 489</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See this is the kind of baiting and unnecessary rudeness which sours the respectful interchange of ideas on a discussion forum. It's in the realm of personal slurs and not even discussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you really think I have the power to destroy Sikhi by expressing my opinions on a forum? Do you really think I have the power to "preach exclusiveness" by sharing a particular teaching about hair which is older than I am? Do you really think I am somehow your personal enemy because of different beliefs?</p><p></p><p>To be honest, the concept of "hairs long in spirit" is somewhat silly. Either keep long hairs to have this practice or don't. As I said, if you at all kept up with my posts, you would know that I did a radical about face from the traditional stance and have very nearly broken away from Sikh religion, for personal reasons which will remain undisclosed. So a personal attack of this nature comes at such a bad time, but really, would never have been appropriate, even if I had ever been some kind of spokesperson for the strictest of the strict viewpoint. Simply to agree with a strict interpretation is not an excuse to berate or abuse the person with the opinion.</p><p></p><p>I personally no longer even accept that Sikh religion is the only boat of mukti in the Kaliyug. I do accept the energy practice of keeping hair as a particular yogic discipline, and believe that was the original intent of the formation of householder yogis. But I do not believe this is the only practice required to achieve mukti. So I publically modify my previous views on this also, and have done so in previous posts.</p><p></p><p>Mukti, if you study outside the box of modern Sikh teaching, from Vedic sources is something much broader, much more humane, much more realistic. There are as many paths to mukti as there are individuals approaching God with their sincerity, their souls and hearts. To be honest, if this kind of rude unwelcome continues, I'm just going to stay on the Hindu discussion forums, where there is a degree of tolerance of diversity and spiritual maturity. Not that I think anyone will be sad about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: Black">How am I tearing Sinister ji apart by asking him not to be rude and mocking? Why am I full of sludge of ego to share a traditional opinion on purpose of hair? Why would anyone think this kind of flaming is hilarious or fun on a religious discussion forum? This kind of response and unwelcome is just pathetic.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>~Bhul chak maaf</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harjas Kaur Khalsa, post: 83404, member: 2125"] I do not agree with the explanation that a Sikh keeping kesh does so for ornamentation or fetishism. I also do not agree that the vast body of esoteric literature regarding advanced yogic practices has no relationship, especially when such definitions are given textually by Udasi's and some Nihang and Damdami Taksal sants. I never said Sikhs tie a joora to attract lightning, that is a ridiculous distortion to make deliberate mockery of these teachings because YOU don't believe in them. If anyone does a simple search of Gurbani to find esoteric concepts for vibrating Naam, for the sound current of the Naad, for the power of Shabda to influence and change your thoughts... (and I realize there is a level of esotericism which requires investigation into Vedic, yogic sutras and Puranas to actually define properly) related to sound currents, intonation of Gurmantra, as applied to jappo and kirtan. It is historically a niche esoteric science. It is not a Western science. They are parallels, because much of the esotericism relates to physical processes. Why disrespect a traditional view of reality? Why disrespect or show contempt at all? What place is there for that kind of attitude in any discussion? Just as it requires an electrical current to stimulate the neurotransmitters and neurohormones in your brain to "think a thought" so does this yogic theory relate how subtle currents which have an electro-magnetic relationship in the physical realm. In this type of practice, the hair yogically is treasured as being a source of holding the Naam as a seal over the mind to cleanse the kalpas. Studying esotericism, metaphysics or religions, such as these concepts which are found in Gurbani cannot possibly be a [I]"derogatory use of the mind."[/I] I do not understand your extreme hostility to religion. And I do not accept your rudeness or put downs as being an acceptable way to discuss disagreements between Western scientific theory and any form of spiritual teaching, esotericism and/or metaphysics. I do not agree with you, but I am not mocking you, inferring your position is worthless or trying to make you look like an idiot in scientific or logic based arguments. That's the kind of personal attack which are properly under category of "flaming" to extremely discourage any possible credibility, common sense respect or proper tolerance to a different view. And that is not acceptable on any discussion forum. As I said before, this very thread was based on a series of personal attacks I was receiving on this forum, and an attempt to answer objections. So to see this same thread again, opened up, not to discuss alternate views but to attack my personal credibility, to be accused of unsavory attitudes which essentially amount to cruelty, excluding others, egotism, arrogance and destroying a religious teaching are just beyond the pale. Simply to voice these kind of personal attacks in response to an opinion is very dismaying to me. Particularly when I am not even the originator of the opinion, but am simply sharing a belief in pre-existing teachings about yogic purpose of hair. As I mentioned, I have been attacked on personal qualities time and again, been moderated, deleted, warned and am still flagged and never have I spoken in this tone, or with this degree of discouragement to others. Even to receiving in the past PMs of a deliberately insulting nature. Why it is tolerated against me repeatedly is just not acceptable. If you don't like the views, then disagree with the views. Why discredit the person? Why mock the person? Why flame the person? Why encourage others to belittle the person? Why make the person unwelcome or ashamed to express an opinion? Did I say something evil like "go and abuse children" where you could credibly say my opinion has the power to destroy a religion? where this degree of hostility would be understood in context? I want to add, I have experienced too much, as a non-Punjabi and as a female of this exact same kind of mockery, shaming, and agressive attempts to ostracize that I'm really sick of it. Really sick of this kind of excuse for religion. This is just not the way to treat anyone in any realistic sense of expecting to keep them. And people wonder why they lose members to other religions. I am convinced that if I was a male Punjabi, no matter how outrageous my opinion or personal behavior, I would be shown reasonable degree of tolerance and respect and cordiality. I have not seen anyone else on this forum receive the same repeated degree of unwelcome or personal flaming, with exception of Sikhnamdhari. For some cultural reason females and non-Punjabis are just repeatedly shown disrespect. If this community doesn't start to address these problems, it will continue to decline. It is so unacceptable for a public forum. Just as it is unacceptable in a Gurdwara. Again, not a comment or citation to demonstrate a particular view, but is a personal insult couched in the form of ideological disagreement. It isn't about static electricity or conduction of current. It is about implying I am a dishonest and stupid person. How can this be an acceptable way to have a discussion? When analyzing the way Gurmantra works, it has to be heard, it has to be vibrated. So I am discussing this in the only terminology I know. Is it worthless and invalid? Even if it was, how unacceptably rude to say such things on a public forum. I happen to believe these are a valid science not respected by Western disciplines. It goes to show that hair is valuable. If you don't agree, why be insulting? And the only purpose I can think of is to destroy the credibility behind the disagreement. the only purpose is to flag the individual posting as a target worthy of ridicule. My previous post preached nothing. I shared a viewpoint and I am entitled to have an opinion. If the debate centers on exclusivity of being able to practice Naam jappo with hair, then rest assured I did not create the debate. I am not responsible for the debate. Sikh religion traditionally values the hair. There exists a body of tradition regarding the yogic function of the hair, which I was sharing. I might add, at the time I posted originally I belonged to a Jatha which was very traditional. And I was keeping in-line with beliefs and teachings that I personally did not invent or create in order to "exclude" some people who want to cut hair. Since that time, I have pulled myself out of that Jatha for reasons which will not be discussed publically. I will not speak poorly of the Jatha, but it should be known I no longer consider myself to belong to it. Neither would I be considered by the Jatha to in any way represent it's views at any time. I no longer even defend some of those teachings, although I still agree on some points. I do agree as to yogic practice of keeping hair as a traditional form of pranayama Naam abhiyaas. But I no longer agree that this is the only practice within Sikh religion to obtain mukti. So as you have not even kept up with the change in my personal views, to launch a huge attack against me personally as being somehow responsible for "exclusivism" within Sikh religion is completely irresponsible. How can I, as a marginalized individual who is not even completely welcome in Gurdwara, possibly be a "preacher of exclusivism" to explain a background of yogic theory as relates to Naam jap and pranayama with keeping hair? This is just unrealistic blame and attack. There is an "esoteric" science to keeping hair as a religious practice. There is also a valid "esoteric" science for shaving hair as a religious practice. If you will note, in nearly every world religion there is some form of monasticism where hair is either uncut or shaved. And there is a body of esoteric and yogic literature to support both practices. And if we delve into the Vaishnava Puranas and Bhagavata, bhakti doesn't even require this yogic practice of keeping hair or shaving hair, although some monastic orders within it do both. The traditional teaching is based on a male body, hence no mention of vaginal opening. The umbilical cord relates to the nabhi, navel which is the seat of ras of the Naam jappo in occult science. Since it is a chakr center of energy which travels along the nadis it is not considered an opening of the subtle body. [INDENT][COLOR="Teal"]ਨਾਭਿ ਪਵਨੁ ਘਰਿ ਆਸਣਿ ਬੈਸੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਖੋਜਤ ਤਤੁ ਲਹੈ ॥ naabh pavan ghar aasan baisai guramukh khojath thath lehai || The breath is seated in the home of the navel; the Gurmukh searches, and finds the essence of reality. ~SGGS Ji p. 945[/COLOR][/INDENT] [INDENT][COLOR="Purple"]ਨਾਭਿ ਕਮਲ ਤੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਉਪਜੇ ਬੇਦ ਪੜਹਿ ਮੁਖਿ ਕੰਠਿ ਸਵਾਰਿ ॥ naabh kamal thae brehamaa oupajae baedh parrehi mukh kanth savaar || From the lotus of Vishnu's navel, Brahma was born; He chanted the Vedas with a melodious voice. ~SGGS Ji p. 489[/COLOR][/INDENT] See this is the kind of baiting and unnecessary rudeness which sours the respectful interchange of ideas on a discussion forum. It's in the realm of personal slurs and not even discussion. Do you really think I have the power to destroy Sikhi by expressing my opinions on a forum? Do you really think I have the power to "preach exclusiveness" by sharing a particular teaching about hair which is older than I am? Do you really think I am somehow your personal enemy because of different beliefs? To be honest, the concept of "hairs long in spirit" is somewhat silly. Either keep long hairs to have this practice or don't. As I said, if you at all kept up with my posts, you would know that I did a radical about face from the traditional stance and have very nearly broken away from Sikh religion, for personal reasons which will remain undisclosed. So a personal attack of this nature comes at such a bad time, but really, would never have been appropriate, even if I had ever been some kind of spokesperson for the strictest of the strict viewpoint. Simply to agree with a strict interpretation is not an excuse to berate or abuse the person with the opinion. I personally no longer even accept that Sikh religion is the only boat of mukti in the Kaliyug. I do accept the energy practice of keeping hair as a particular yogic discipline, and believe that was the original intent of the formation of householder yogis. But I do not believe this is the only practice required to achieve mukti. So I publically modify my previous views on this also, and have done so in previous posts. Mukti, if you study outside the box of modern Sikh teaching, from Vedic sources is something much broader, much more humane, much more realistic. There are as many paths to mukti as there are individuals approaching God with their sincerity, their souls and hearts. To be honest, if this kind of rude unwelcome continues, I'm just going to stay on the Hindu discussion forums, where there is a degree of tolerance of diversity and spiritual maturity. Not that I think anyone will be sad about it. [COLOR="Black"]How am I tearing Sinister ji apart by asking him not to be rude and mocking? Why am I full of sludge of ego to share a traditional opinion on purpose of hair? Why would anyone think this kind of flaming is hilarious or fun on a religious discussion forum? This kind of response and unwelcome is just pathetic.[/COLOR] ~Bhul chak maaf [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Sikh Philosophy Network
Opinion Polls & Surveys
Do You Think You Are Khalsa?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top