Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?

[Archived_member14]

Bhagat ji,

I am not sure where they are getting that from. You'll notice it's only householder Sikhs saying that. This is the "householder bias" on the internet. You don't hear from Nihangs or Udasis as they are monks and ascetics, they live such a lifestyle where they don't have computers...

I think many who think that way, do so not because they themselves are householders, but because of what they draw from the teachings. What I believe is that people are inspired mostly by Guru Nanak, and not only was he a householder, but what he taught pointed to the some errors in thought and understanding on the part of those who decide to leave the household life. 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. If this is the case, it is something that I am inclined to agree with. Why?

In Buddhism there is only one leader towards whom everyone has the highest respect, the Buddha. The monk tradition was started by him and all the rules were the product of his great wisdom. No monk with any degree of understanding would therefore think to change the rules or add any new ones. Indeed soon after the Buddha's death, during the first council, a few monks wondered if some of the so-called “minor rules” could be dropped. But no, they decided that they not. After all, although they appear not so necessary, are at the same time, not a hindrance. But more importantly, they knew that if one can be dropped now, others will also be dropped by the generations to come, and that would mean complete destruction of the teachings.

All the Buddhist traditions which came later, where not only new rules were created, but in fact new teachings added and quite perverted, is evidence of the effect of anything short of great wisdom. Actually, no wisdom at all but instead much conceit and wrong understanding, after all, why not encourage strict following of the existing rules and teachings if that is what came from the Buddha himself?

The point I am trying to make is that, for a community of recluse to function optimally, there must be rules which is result of great wisdom; anything short of this is likely to have elements of corruption. To decide on one's own the rules to follow, must be other than wisdom. Those who do this are on a wrong path.

Gursikhs possess the qualities of both a householder and renunciate. - 131
One who knows God is approved whether he is a householder or a renunciate. - 385, 1329
A true householder, a true renunciate is one who recognizes his own Self. – 1332

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."

And there are codes of conduct laid out for these people marking the difference between them and laypersons, within Sikh teachings? Anyway, I should have added the more important qualifier for Buddhist monks, namely, understanding the Four Noble Truths.

Nope no marked difference in Sikh teachings. The teachings for them and lay persons are the same as laid out in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth. Although, sometimes Gurus do speak to renunciates and householders separately.

I was asking about codes of conduct and not the basic teachings. The codes of conduct differentiate the way of life between the lay person and the monk, even though both are taught the same teachings.

There is an additional strict code of conduct for Khalsa and Nihangs and that is the rehitnama. Nihangs also have another text that they venerate, namely Sarbloh Granth. I don't know much about this text.

Don't know of any such codes for Udasis. They probably do have their own code.

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?

Yes the idea of simplicity is very well related to the idea of renunciation. This is the real reason for not cutting hair. Apparently, the exact same reason is also the reason for cutting hair. The world is an odd place indeed.

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.

Sikhs did not always wear turbans, they simply covered their hair with caps (seli topi).

If one must have long hair, then it is better that one ties it into a joora and cover it.

Well, the question is not whether you can or not maintain hygiene with long hair, but which is easier and more practical in terms of the simple life.

Easier is not an issue for monks. Monks aren't necessarily looking for easy things. Both are quite practical. Hence why we see both.

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?

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.

Easy is not an issue, but there is a difference between keeping long hair and not, and wisdom chooses the latter.

You mean it is just symbolic but no real practical purpose?

Well mark of monkhood is one practical purpose. Another is simplicity. Another is a mark of renunciation and detachment.

These are all practical purposes.

To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!

I must be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that hair in Sikhism symbolizes ascetic thought?

The reasons for keeping of hair are the same reason why renunciates/ascetics keep hair - simplicity and detachment from the world.

To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.

 

[aristotle]

The question is not of Buddhism or any other branch of asceticism. I think the thread has been drifting in quite a wrong direction. We respect all the world faiths, and labeling any faith right or wrong would be grave injustice (Buddhist monks don't keep hair, Sikhs do, that logically means both are opposite to each other and if one is 'right', the other one is automatically 'wrong').
There could be a plethora of such questions, 'Why do the evangelists wear the crucifix?', 'Why are there five Namaaz times and not six or four?', 'Why do the Hindus worship stone idols even when their scriptures at places talk of an all pervading God?' ...
Clearly, none of the religions is absolutely necessary for 'life', and atheists and agnostics survive without them all, and quite nicely at that, I must say..
Now, let's return to the main question. The Sikh Code of Conduct clearly implies the importance of unshorn hair. We do not know if the Father and relatives of Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore unshorn hair there is no definitive evidence to it, clearly not a good piece of trivia. But, in the Janamsakhi, which is by far the most 'oldest'(?) surviving evidence of the historical Nanak, The guru is pictured as instructing Mardana , "Don't cut thine hair." ("ਮਰਦਨਿਆ, ਕੇਸ ਨਾ ਕਟਾਉਣੇ।") Don't know whether the source is credible or not, but even if not completely authentic, the Janamsakhi has clearly remained at the hearts of Sikh folk. Also, there are varied scattered accounts of the Gurus having long unshorn hair and beards. And most importantly, since it is one of the 'kakaars', the importance of the same is indispensable. Bhai Nand Lal even goes to the extent of declaring 'kesh' as the most important 'kakaar'.
Evidently, you must be in the mindset of finding a 'scientific' answer to the 'Kesh' issue...As far as I can say, there are no authoritative studies on the same, but that doesn't mean Kesh are useless.....
I expect fellow SPNers to elaborate more on this point..

 

[Archived_member14]

Aristotle ji,

The question is not of Buddhism or any other branch of asceticism.

Are you suggesting that Buddhism teaches asceticism?

I think the thread has been drifting in quite a wrong direction.

It has shifted from the initial reference point, namely God and his creation. But it is still about cutting / not cutting hair.

We respect all the world faiths, and labeling any faith right or wrong would be grave injustice (Buddhist monks don't keep hair, Sikhs do, that logically means both are opposite to each other and if one is 'right', the other one is automatically 'wrong').

If Bhagat ji was saying this, it would be understandable. But you had earlier suggested that Sikhs keep hair as mark of connection with the world, so you can't really compare this with a Buddhist monk's decision to shave, can you?

My part of the debate started when I suggested that keeping long hair had nothing to do with developing morality or wisdom and that the only good reason for doing so was out of respect for one's parents. Later another member made a reference to Buddhist monks and wondered why they shaved their heads. I responded and it is to this that you gave your own response.

Only after did the discussion become one about recluses, namely that some keep long hair and some shave off and whether both or only one is right. In between it was pointed out that Sikhs keep hair as mark of connection with the world (by you) vs. that it is in fact sign of a simple life and detachment(Bhagat ji’s).

So yes, there is not just one debate. However it is still all about hair and comes down to whether or not hair serves any practical purpose with regard to the development of goodness and wisdom.

The debate is not about Buddhist monks vs. lay Sikhs. So you can't really say that the one's decision to shave and the other's to keep long hair stand in opposition to each other. You can compare Buddhist monks with other recluses and you can compare lay Buddhist with Sikhs, but not this one.

There could be a plethora of such questions, 'Why do the evangelists wear the crucifix?', 'Why are there five Namaaz times and not six or four?', 'Why do the Hindus worship stone idols even when their scriptures at places talk of an all pervading God?' ...

These questions are different in kind to the one we are discussing.

Clearly, none of the religions is absolutely necessary for 'life', and atheists and agnostics survive without them all, and quite nicely at that, I must say..

"Survival", is this what life is about? Well it appears that you need to reevaluate yourself as to why you are interested in religion.
Religion is not necessary for 'life' if this in fact is about survival / running towards pleasure and away from pain. But religion actually points to the fact that these are not worthy goals and that being a human, we can rise above them, otherwise it would be no different from animals.

The teachings on giving, morality, kindness, compassion and so on, these all encourage being less self-centered and stands opposite to greed, aversion, conceit, miserliness etc. which power the quest for pleasure and for survival.

If on the other hand what you are alluding to is the fact that atheists and agnostics can experience goodness even though they reject religion, I say that this is in spite of their rejection. And besides, what they reject may be only those parts which require “belief” such as the idea of God and the attributes given and reasonings made in support. They may be deriving inspiration from other sources, but if this is about giving, morality, kindness etc. then they are in fact *not* rejecting religion, but only the image they have about the different religions out there.

Now, let's return to the main question. The Sikh Code of Conduct clearly implies the importance of unshorn hair.

And I suggested that this should not have been there. But I'm not saying that it should be changed now. What I am trying to encourage is that as individuals, there be some discriminative wisdom towards the issue. The rule should not be clung to and it should not be forced upon others, particularly one's own children. If someone asks you why you keep hair, you can answer that it is the tradition and is something you do not wish to break. But don't start trying to give logical / objective reasons for it, because there is none, and you will only end up taking the attention away from other aspects of the religion and encouraging wrong understanding.

We do not know if the Father and relatives of Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore unshorn hair there is no definitive evidence to it, clearly not a good piece of trivia. But, in the Janamsakhi, which is by far the most 'oldest'(?) surviving evidence of the historical Nanak, The guru is pictured as instructing Mardana , "Don't cut thine hair." ("ਮਰਦਨਿਆ, ਕੇਸ ਨਾ ਕਟਾਉਣੇ।") Don't know whether the source is credible or not, but even if not completely authentic, the Janamsakhi has clearly remained at the hearts of Sikh folk.

Do you really believe that the man who was known for pointing out the wrongness of rites and rituals as practiced by Hindus and Muslims would think that there is some religious significance in keeping hair? Would it not have occurred to him that while the Hindu comes across to outsiders as encouraging rites and rituals only during those time that he is engaged in those practices, himself with his long uncut hair would come across to others as attached to rules and rituals any and at all times?

Evidently, you must be in the mindset of finding a 'scientific' answer to the 'Kesh' issue...As far as I can say, there are no authoritative studies on the same, but that doesn't mean Kesh are useless.....

I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh……

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh…….......................

And I dont think you will ever........becasue whats "wise" to one is foolish to another. (One mans meat is anothers poison ??)

1. ask a Hindu..whats "wise" about a bath in the ganga to wash the soul..water thrown to feed departed souls at hardwaar.. ?
2. ask a muslim whats "wise" about circumcision ?? why not substitute with a cut finger or a toe nail ..
3. ask a christian whats "wise" about a dip in holy water to replicate the river Jordan ?
4. ask a buddhist whats wise about begging ?? To a Sikh BEGGING is such a deplorable thing that even an ordinary sikh wont beg..much less a Holy man..but in Buddhims this is a Pillar and all Holy men MUST BEG.

so theres "wise" and theres wise..and thers WISER...just choose whats best for yourself...and be content...no offense.

 

[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.

Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

When Guru Gobind Singhji appeared with the Panj Piare, I recall they were dressed in the same style as Guruji. As Guruji kept a full beard and long hair, and as the Khalsa is the Guru, and vice versa, it is by no means surprising that Sikhs should wish to look like Khalsa, which ultimately is to look like Guruji.

I can relate to this somewhat, when I was Keshdhari, I would avoid looking in the mirror, it was too painful sometimes to see a bearded turbaned Sikh looking back at me, I felt only those with a heart of a Khalsa should look like a Khalsa, I felt a fraud, in hindsight, I should have made more effort to be Khalsa instead of giving up completely, and consigning myself to 15 years of worry, fear, addiction, etc.

The problem is what do we do about our youth, on the one hand, we say be true to your insides, on the other hand we say never cut your hair, it is hard for young people, they have a lack of good Sikh role models, they are subject to a lot of confusion about Sikhism, they hear stories about Guru Nanakji refusing to wear a thread, and in the next breath get told to follow a blind ritual with little or no explanation as to why this is different.

In my humble opinion, long gone are the days when wearing a turban would mean that you were a Sikh of the Khalsa, today many Sikhs do not keep hair, but that does not mean they do not have the heart of a Sikh, they know they are in the wrong as much as their hairier brothers who may have other less visual vices. I do however take exception with any mona Sikh who would argue that there is no need for kesh, who would argue that perfection can be found in being mona, I am not proud of my monaism, I see it as falling short, I am not going to beat myself up over it, but it is an expression that Guruji lives inside you, is you, and it makes , for me anyway, thinking or doing acts that are distasteful, a lot harder.

Having said all that, why would I not wish to embrace a turban and beard at this stage in my life, I have no friends, no one to ask me 'why are you doing that?'. I think my wife would be my biggest critic. Although I currently look like a homeless person, with a 3 inch beard, and 4 inch tufts of hair sprouting from the side of my head, She has never once asked me to get a haircut, or tidy myself up, but if I decided to wear a turban, she would say I was not ready yet, that to do so before I was ready would only be pride or ego, and to concentrate on having the heart of a Khalsa, and when the time is right, just allow myself to be a Khalsa, and let Hukam take place, and before I know it, I will have enough hair to tie into a knot!

I think I will give the fixo a miss though.

And one more thing, do people living in large communities of Sikhs, who happen to be deaf, have trouble lipreading? lol

 

[Ambarsaria]

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.

Prakash.s.Bagga

Prakash.S.Bagga ji I also have known this as to be the rationale as to the origin of the Five K bearing Sikh since from my early childhood. The hair being significantly differentiating a Sikh among a crowd in those days.

Basically,

Stand up and be counted as a Sikh for what you believe in; even at the danger of being put to death or having to fight to death.

Sat Sri Akal.​

 

[Harry Haller]

Mind you, according to David Icke, an english ex football player now expert in the takeover of the world by the reptilians,

Traditional Sikhs wear turbans. They use a turban to cover their long hair which the Sikh gurus told them to keep. Credo Mutwa states in the Reptilian Agenda, that throughout history, crowns and turbans have been worn by monarchs and religious leaders to imitate the large heads of reptilians/greys. Sikhs have worn turbans since the days of Guru Nanak. In statues and painting/pictures, the Hindu god Shiva is shown with a large heap of dreadlocks on his head. A sect of warrior Sikhs, known as the ‘Akali Nihang’, imitate the Shiva hair-do by wearing a large blue conical turban, called a ‘Dastar Bunga’. And they even adorn it with small iron weapons of war.

full article about Sikhism and reptilians

Sikhism and the reptilians - David Icke's Official Forums

 

[Archived_member14]

Gyani ji,

I'd be the last person to seek a scientific answer. I am interested only in Truth and this is objective field of wisdom, not of science. And I have yet to hear a “wise” argument with regard to keeping Kesh…….......................

And I dont think you will ever........becasue whats "wise" to one is foolish to another. (One mans meat is anothers poison ??)

No, not because “what's "wise" to one is foolish to another”, but because this is not the perception and understanding of those who know the Truth but the experience of the common man who is moved by ignorance and craving and therefore mistakes the product of delusion for the truth.

1. ask a Hindu..whats "wise" about a bath in the ganga to wash the soul..water thrown to feed departed souls at hardwaar.. ?

And therefore Guru Nanak was making a statement of Truth in pointing out that these people were following wrong practices.

ask a muslim whats "wise" about circumcision ?? why not substitute with a cut finger or a toe nail ..

And either would be attachment to rules and ritual and this is the Truth!

3. ask a christian whats "wise" about a dip in holy water to replicate the river Jordan ?

Another manifestation of wrong practice.

4. ask a buddhist whats wise about begging ?? To a Sikh BEGGING is such a deplorable thing that even an ordinary sikh wont beg..much less a Holy man..but in Buddhims this is a Pillar and all Holy men MUST BEG.

Where did you hear this from? Or is this a case of seeing what one likes to see. If you are interested I can explain the phenomena to you but for now I'll just leave you with this:
Anyone who has developed some understanding of the Buddha's teachings will see the wrongness of asking anyone for anything; even a son will hesitate to ask his own father for something. Do you think therefore that begging would be encouraged by the same set of teachings?

so theres "wise" and theres wise..and thers WISER...just choose whats best for yourself...and be content...no offense.

There are levels of wisdom. This however is differentiated by the depth and not by difference in value of different action, mental, verbal or bodily. The levels must conform to each other such that the wisest when stating something, the least wise will understand in accordance to his level but nevertheless agree fully with, and not disagree.

 

[Archived_member14]

Prakash ji,

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.

And here there is constant debating amongst Sikhs about the teachings where each side thinks that he is right and the other is wrong. But you are not saying that this is not important so long as everyone involved has long hair and ties a turban, are you?

KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?

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.

This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.
That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.

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!

 

[Ambarsaria]

Confused ji thanks for your post.

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

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. 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. Where do you draw so called lines of pure unadulterated wisdom? As I understand, manifestation(s) and actions resulting from wisdom are always impacted by the total whole of who we are.

Metta.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Confused ji,
We can not put question what has been established by our GURU.
It is like this if any existing Government makes any Law it is followed by the new coming Governments unless changed by majority. So Sikhs follow the same principle of keeping the continuity of the oreder of GURU. There is nothing wrong in adhering to the order of GURU. Some may not be understanding the significance of the order of GURU and may go astray but at large Sikhs are going to stay with the order of GURU. Others would also realise sooner or later because any order in the interest of the concerned persons is always for ever.
Many argue where SGGS is ordering us to follow the order of 10th NANAK.In view of above context one should understand why and how it should be necessary to follow the orders established by 10th Nanak.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[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

 

[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..

 

[Harry Haller]

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]

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:

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.

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]

Ambarsaria ji,

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?

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: 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.

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?

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.

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]

Gyani ji,

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]

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]

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?
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"
Reason nu passe karo. Reason will not help you overcome "Jam di mar" or death.
Waheguruji ka Khalsa.Waheguruji ki Fateh.