☀️ 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
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
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="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 164185" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p>Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue">Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.</span></p><p></p><p>=====</p><p>Quote: And this was said by the Buddha: </p><p></p><p> "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:</p><p></p><p> "Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,</p><p> Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm</p><p> To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.</p><p> An ascetic and mendicant too." </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Nice. What's teh source?</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Sorry, I don’t exactly know which Sutta this is from.</span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text? </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: You don’t need to know the Basket of Discipline. What I am asking you is whether on reading the corresponding Sikh texts, a Sikh householder with any level of understanding will find it inspiring.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>==== </p><p>Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude. </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Again, you should not speak for other people but only yourself. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here. The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off? </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: While keeping hair does require that one maintain it, shaving off in fact is aimed at having *not to maintain it*. Quite opposite isn’t it?</span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it. </span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.</span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it? </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? Indeed if society was to play a part in the individual’s decision to ordain, it would make meaningless the very idea of renunciation. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it. In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair. But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Getting upset as a result of self-image will happen only to those monks who in fact are not fit to be monks in the first place. And not only enlightened people are eligible to become monks. </span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.</span></p><p></p><p>====</p><p>Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? </p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be?</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>==== </p><p>Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them? </p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. But as I pointed out, if you want to maintain this idea of natural, then you’d have to also allow for other things to take place without a need to change. Your belief actually goes against the understanding of the way things are as it manifest from moment to moment, because your concept of “natural” is only a picture that you paint and want to follow. Ask different people and they will give you different ideas about natural. Someone who is taken in by Darwin's 'law of natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might in fact end up having a belief quite opposed to yours. But these are just ideas about natural which comes from ignorance and wrong understanding of the way things are. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">My own conception about nature and what it means to be natural is as follows:</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Any experience now is real and has a nature particular to it. It would have been conditioned to arise in accordance to fixed natural laws. On seeing a pleasant object, if attachment arises immediately, this is what is natural given who we are. Thinking as each person does motivated by one view or another, this is reflection of tendency that is natural.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">In conceiving and thinking as you do about hair growing naturally, the imperative is therefore to understand the nature of the thinking and any mental factors conditioning it. To go by one's own idea about nature and not acknowledge the present moment reality is therefore not natural, but idealistic. Only with the arising of wisdom and therefore detached, is one said to be flowing with nature, otherwise it is the stream of attachment which one is swept along by.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">A Buddhist who decides to ordain must have the understanding that the life of a recluse is “natural” to him, if not then he should not do so and just remain as a lay person and keep whatever hair style and change in accordance to conditions. Once he ordains however, following all the rules including shaving his head, would be something that is in accordance with his nature.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">So we have natural as in whatever has arisen is because it is in the nature of it to do so. And there is “being natural” as in understanding and living in accordance with one’s accumulated tendencies.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>=====</p><p>Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves?</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic.</span></p><p> <span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion.</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>===== </p><p>Quote: The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct. </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald.</p><p></p><p> Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart.</p><p> You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25||</p><p> page 1365</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Duality is created and then a solution is sought outside of the present moment. This is just a game which in fact does nothing to change the underlying tendency. Buddhism is not a non-dual religion. It is about developing understanding with regard to present moment realities such that in the case of thinking, whatever the thoughts are, this should be known for what it is. </span></p><p></p><p>=====</p><p>Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all! </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: You had said:</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">“But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.”</span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic. </span></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue"></span></p><p>=====</p><p>Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment. </p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.</span></p><p></p><p>===== </p><p>Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this:</p><p></p><p>Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu.</p><p> KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ?</p><p> This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS.</p><p> That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU.</p><p></p><p>Bhagat: Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: deepskyblue">Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 164185, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, Quote: And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. Bhagat: Udasis comes from Guru Nanak Dev ji's son Sri Chand ji. In general, Sikhs hold a lot of respect for both groups. [COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]Confused: Let’s just say that “you” respect both.[/COLOR] ===== Quote: And this was said by the Buddha: "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said: "Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm, Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true. An ascetic and mendicant too." Bhagat: Nice. What's teh source? [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Sorry, I don’t exactly know which Sutta this is from.[/COLOR] ==== Quote: Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text? Bhagat: Not familiar enough with the material to make any comments. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: You don’t need to know the Basket of Discipline. What I am asking you is whether on reading the corresponding Sikh texts, a Sikh householder with any level of understanding will find it inspiring. [/COLOR] ==== Quote: Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude. Bhagat: Sikhs don't have those problems because we know how to handle hair. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Again, you should not speak for other people but only yourself. Knowing how to handle the hair stands together with knowing how to handle baldness. This is not the issue here. The question is why keep hair in the first place if one thinks to lead a simple life. If one has hair and does not have the means to cut it, but knows to handle that situation, this is different. But given the options, why would one not choose to do away with hair since the problems associated with it invariably arise. The concept of the simple life comes from seeing the danger of attachment and whatever else is associated. Why would someone who sees the dust in the household life, not also see the dust of having long hair and therefore choose to cut it off? Indeed people in becoming used to and learning how to handle their hair this is not the result of any wisdom, but more a reflection of the nature of attachment. And this is opposite in spirit to what we are talking in favor of, namely renunciation. [/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: Yes form-wise the two practices appear different, in one case you have hair and in the other you don't. The practices that go along with maintenance are certainly different. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: While keeping hair does require that one maintain it, shaving off in fact is aimed at having *not to maintain it*. Quite opposite isn’t it?[/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: You mention some issues that arise with keeping hair but simplicity is the way you handle those issues. So one may wash their hair, comb it and put a turban on. The other decides to get rid of it. Simplicity here is not in what you did but how you did it. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Then keeping nails uncut but cleaning it should also be OK? According to your line of reasoning, it is not about whether to cut or keep nails, but how you deal with it. Absurd suggestion isn’t it? Think about hair in the same way and you may come to have a similar view about it. [/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: If the one who shaves his head is filled with the 5 thieves than his so-called simple action is not simple at all. Simplicity is to be without the five thieves. If this is present then all actions are simple. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Of course one should not ordain at all if one is not wise and pure enough. But when one has the understanding and wants to live the simple life, why would one think to maintain hair? The idea of keeping hair beside what I have pointed out so far must also come from conceit and encourage more of it at every turn, from the time one wakes up to the time one goes to sleep. This is *not* simplicity at all! Indeed it is from such a perception that some people think it best to get rid of hair altogether.[/COLOR] ==== Quote: I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it? Bhagat: I am sure Buddhists would also get upset if they were made to wear a wig or were forced to grow their hair by society. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: How come you suddenly factor in society? Indeed if society was to play a part in the individual’s decision to ordain, it would make meaningless the very idea of renunciation. I was talking about an individual’s action towards another individual. I was pointing to self-image that comes with the individual’s decision to keep hair while rejecting the idea of cutting it. In the case of some Buddhist monk, if there is irritation, this would be no different from when someone instead of putting a wig, puts paint on his head. It is not about maintaining the image of having no hair. But in the case of some sanyasi, there is the image of one with long hair to be maintained as a result of growing identification with it. Besides, while the Buddhist monk is doing what the community of monks have laid out rules for, therefore being bald is not about personal image, the sanyasi in maintaining his hair must be motivated to a good extent by the idea of what sanyasi’s should look like. [/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: Unless both parties are enlightened they will get upset. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Getting upset as a result of self-image will happen only to those monks who in fact are not fit to be monks in the first place. And not only enlightened people are eligible to become monks. [/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: You get upset when you are not "set" down in God. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: A Buddhist monk, who believes in God, has zero understanding about the Buddha's teachings.[/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: Hair grows regardless of what you want. Can you accept that and let them be? [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Same with nails then. And same with anything that happens to the hair for example, getting dirty and having lice live in. Can you accept that and let it be? But you do comb and oil the hair right? Is this really letting it be? [/COLOR] ==== Bhagat: Can you let them do what they do and maintain your composure with them? [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: You're not living in a vacuum of course. There'd be times when you'd be faced with whether the hair be kept or got rid of. Can you get rid of it and still maintain your composure? Apparently not. Because you are motivated in fact not by detachment towards any situation, but attachment to not cutting the hair. A Buddhist can decide whether or not to ordain and therefore keep or not keep hair. But the only option you provide is to keep hair and then justify this with the idea that it grows naturally. But as I pointed out, if you want to maintain this idea of natural, then you’d have to also allow for other things to take place without a need to change. Your belief actually goes against the understanding of the way things are as it manifest from moment to moment, because your concept of “natural” is only a picture that you paint and want to follow. Ask different people and they will give you different ideas about natural. Someone who is taken in by Darwin's 'law of natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might in fact end up having a belief quite opposed to yours. But these are just ideas about natural which comes from ignorance and wrong understanding of the way things are. My own conception about nature and what it means to be natural is as follows: Any experience now is real and has a nature particular to it. It would have been conditioned to arise in accordance to fixed natural laws. On seeing a pleasant object, if attachment arises immediately, this is what is natural given who we are. Thinking as each person does motivated by one view or another, this is reflection of tendency that is natural. In conceiving and thinking as you do about hair growing naturally, the imperative is therefore to understand the nature of the thinking and any mental factors conditioning it. To go by one's own idea about nature and not acknowledge the present moment reality is therefore not natural, but idealistic. Only with the arising of wisdom and therefore detached, is one said to be flowing with nature, otherwise it is the stream of attachment which one is swept along by. A Buddhist who decides to ordain must have the understanding that the life of a recluse is “natural” to him, if not then he should not do so and just remain as a lay person and keep whatever hair style and change in accordance to conditions. Once he ordains however, following all the rules including shaving his head, would be something that is in accordance with his nature. So we have natural as in whatever has arisen is because it is in the nature of it to do so. And there is “being natural” as in understanding and living in accordance with one’s accumulated tendencies. [/COLOR] ===== Bhagat: The question is why are you cutting it - are you coming from a place of aversion to the lifestyle with hair or are you coming from a place of love for God, a place without the 5 thieves? [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Whoa, you see only these two possibilities?! And is one even related to the other?! This is not just diversion, but bad logic. Let alone a need to refer to concepts such as God or humanity, understanding the nature of aversion does not even engender the idea of it as happening to “self”. And the important thing is that it is in the very understanding that the conditions are being created to its overcoming. To go outside of the present moment and refer instead to ideas such as God as means to deal with the 5 thieves is in fact a case of avoidance rather than understanding the reality there and then, plus making it ever harder the prospect of understanding the thinking (while conceiving of God) as thinking. For someone who sees the importance of studying the present moment reality, why would you assume that he comes from a place of aversion towards the idea of keeping hair? If you wash your face because it is dirty, is this out of aversion towards the dirtiness? To cut the mustache in reaction to its coming in the way of eating food is common sense and not result of aversion. [/COLOR] ===== Quote: The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct. Bhagat: It is about the mindset not what they do. One who has a simple mindset may either choose to have long hair or shave their head bald. Kabeer, when you are in love with the One Lord, duality and alienation depart. You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald. ||25|| page 1365 [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Duality is created and then a solution is sought outside of the present moment. This is just a game which in fact does nothing to change the underlying tendency. Buddhism is not a non-dual religion. It is about developing understanding with regard to present moment realities such that in the case of thinking, whatever the thoughts are, this should be known for what it is. [/COLOR] ===== Quote: To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all! Bhagat: Not just the mark of but actual, monkhood, simplicity and renunciation itself. The mark obviously is rooted in actual monkood, simplicity and reality, which is the only reason why it can be a mark of it, in the first place. If it wasn't rooted in the actual somehow it wouldn't be called a mark of it. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: You had said: “But I think shaving of hair or leaving it alone are both just ways of differentiating one's monkhood from the laymen.” And this is what I was responding to. So what you are saying now is in effect changing the topic. [/COLOR] ===== Quote: To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment. Bhagat: Wasn't talking about symbolic reasons. This is the reason why they did it in the past; renunciation from the world is why Sikhs keep long hair. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: What could be more symbolic? A Sikh is asked to live the life of a householder while keeping hair as mark of renunciation. If this is not symbolic then it must be a state of contradiction.[/COLOR] ===== Bhagat: It is of course not the most popular reason these days. But it is the original reason. The most popular one these days is this: Quote: Originally Posted by Prakash.s.Bagga Among 1000 persons without Kesh it is difficult to know who among thousand is what in reference of religious beliefs.Persons without Kesh are those who believe in multi God of their own choice. But A single SIKH with KESH among 1000 can be identified that this particular person is one with belief in GuRu or NIRANKAAR PRABHu. KESH provide a very very strong identity to Sikhs. Among persons without KESH one can not identify who is a Sikh ? This is probably one of the most important aspect of KESH for SIKHS. That is why KESH are refered as STAMP of GURU. Bhagat: Now if you give it some attention, you realize both reasons are the same in essence. [COLOR="deepskyblue"]Confused: Well the reason why I chose not to argue with Prakash ji on this is because I had the impression that he was giving a reason related to “identity” and not to renunciation. But I do have a problem with that other reason as well. We can therefore discuss this if you want. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
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