Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Essential To Keep Hair?

Recommended Posts

Dass has seen lots of people wanting to keep hair, may it be Bibis or guys, but they just need that extra help and boost to do so. Dass has seen and dealt with a few people who think keeping hair is not necessary, this article was something that Dass was looking for in order to show people another way to look at why Sikhs keep our hair, and many Sikhs are asked why do you keep your hair? Many just say It’s apart of my religion, or "God made us like this". Many will argue the significant of hair, the purpose, there is not much online either, Health-wise hair growth is due to testosterone hormone in men, and lack of this in women is what makes their facial hair controlled, etc. Although, there is known to be some other effects of hair such as keeping you warm, while some argue it has something to do with light being absorbed, etc.

If you are aware of topics in psychology, it is well known the brain does billions of calculations, out of 5,000 billion calculations, we as humans only know about 2,000, that have a purpose, either it being memory, retrieving information, solving, analyzing, observing, compiling, controlling our organs, blood flow, pressure levels, growth, etc some calculations have no reason, Some also argue that these calculations is our brain collecting data, that may not currently affect us, for example, If you are looking for something, the image of what you want to see is made in your brain, and although you may be looking around, looking for maybe a pair of keys, everything else that you come across stays in your brain, for example, When you take a picture of someone, Although the picture itself focuses on the person, The tree, person walking in the background, etc all gets captured, Look at the eye itself in this way, when we look for things, other things are caught in our brain, maybe this can explain the phenomenon of dejavu.

Back on topic, The purpose of explaining that was to give a brief introduction to what's below, We as humans still don't know everything in the world, everything develops, and our knowledge of space, planets grows day-by-day, as many argue we are eliminating natural resources, we are wasting and abusing our sources, polluting the air, You learn something new at school, but come home and your ego takes over and makes you think now you are full of knowledge you know everything, you go to school again the next day, to slap yourself and realize we didnt know everything, everything isnt discovered Other than issues that affect the world like pollution, corruption, wars, What kinds of things do we pollute within ourselves? Our thoughts and actions are just two of many things that we directly abuse.

A good example of self-abuse is cutting of kes. Many look at hair as something "extra", the "dust" on our heads that we can just take off in order to be clean. Dass can't argue with such people and cannot change their views on kes, but someone who some consider a Sant, had his own views, Bhai Sahib Randeer Singh on why one should keep and maintain their hair:

One incident that happened in Bhai Randheer Singh's life while he was in jail.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Is it very essential to keep your head on your shoulders?

Mr. Gupta: The body cannot survive without the head.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: But supposing the body survives after the head is cut off, would you cut off your head.

Mr. Gupta:The head is a part of the body and a very prominent part of it. It is only the head that completes the body. Without the head the body cannot be what it is?

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Have you created the head on the body?

Mr. Gupta: No, God has created it, and placed it on my shoulders.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Because God has given you this head, therefore, you feel it to be an essential part of your body. Had it been made by you and placed on your shoulders, you could conveniently take it off, whenever you wished to do so.

Mr. Gupta: Yes, of course. But we cannot remove what has been given to us by God.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Supposing someone cuts off your God-given head, what would you call him?

Mr. Gupta: Murderer, killer, and slayer.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: If some one questions you, why have you kept your head on your shoulders, what would you say?

Mr. Gupta: It would be very foolish of that person to put such a question.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Just as God has given us this head and made it a part of our personality, so are hair given by God and made part of our personality. As the hair is also given by God, the question you have posed, "why it is essential to keep them is not tenable. The question is out of place. I have not created these hairs myself. God gave them to me and I have kept them. Just as God has given us the head, and we keep it, so also the hair on the head has been given to us by God and we keep it. So it is the duty of everyman and woman to preserve and

Maintain them. You call a man who cuts off a person's head, a murderer, a slayer, a killer, would you not consider a man who removes his hair equally cruel? Is not one who destroys a God-given gift an important part of our personality, a blood-thirsty oppressor? I think he is.

Mr. Gupta: You cannot call him a murderer; you can call him by any other name.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Why not a blood-thirsty murderer?

Mr. Gupta: Because when you cut hair, no blood comes out.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: So you think that when no blood comes out, and when some one destroys a part of our body, it is not cruelty, and least of all murder. Supposing some one strangles a person, would you not call It a murder? No blood comes out and the man is killed. I do not wish to prolong any discursive discussion, but you will admit that nowadays so many methods have been devised to kill man that not a drop of his blood comes out. Would you not call these murderers killers, and blood-thirsty slayers? What else would you call them?

Mr. Gupta: But Sir, excuse me, if I say, that when you cut off the head of a person, you cannot replace it, but if you cut off the hair of a person they grow again. A dead man never comes to life, but when we destroy living hair, new ones grow in its place. There is a good deal of difference between cutting one's head and cutting one's hair. Even if both are crimes, there is vast difference between the two crimes.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Do you believe in the transmigration theory.

Mr. Gupta: Yes, I do believe in transmigration theory.

BHAI RANDHEER SINGH: Then according to that theory, you do not die even when your head is cut off. The soul (Atman) is born again. So those who murder, kill nothing. The soul is eternal. They relieve a person of one birth in a cycle of births. By doing so they indirectly do well. But the man does not die after being killed. He will be born again and again. This is what actually happens. Yet he who kills commits a futile act, he does not do good. So they who cut their hair again and again do no good, nor is there any virtue it. The hair that is cut again and again just as a man who is killed, is born again and again. The only difference is that the soul may be born in different forms and may be even born as an animal. The hair of the head continues to grow when cut. Man foolishly cuts the hair and it grows again. That is how nature slaps the fool who goes against its requirement. Thus the attempt of a man to destroy his hair completely is as futile as to kill a man or animal. The life and Spirit of the Atman survives as long as the Spirit and vital force of God is present in it. Similarly the living essence of the hair will continue to be there as long as the body and head survive with the Spirit of God. The hair of the body is to be preserved and kept clean just as Nature has created them. The hair of the head grows to a natural length. Beyond a certain length they do not grow. Those who put on artificial hair to bring them to a fashionable length go against nature and do a foolish thing. Women do not grow any beard on their faces. If any woman wants, she cannot. Just as it is unnatural to try to develop beards on the faces of women, it is unnatural and wrong to destroy the natural hair that grows on men's head. Men naturally grow beards on their faces. But the fashionable people shave it every morning. Every morning nature slaps them on the face by resisting their attempt to remove the beard, but they are unconscious of it. They want to make their faces look exactly like those of women. Men have gone against nature by shaving their beard and appearing like women and gained nothing. Unfortunately women have started cutting short the hair of their head like men, in order to look like men. They too have gained nothing. I think it is utter shamelessness for men to try to imitate women and for women to imitate men. The real question should be, "why is this God given gift, the natural hair and beard removed," but those who do so against the wishes of nature start questioning the other way round. The unfortunate thing is that the majority of the people are shaving these days and this sheep-like imitation and fashion to remove the hair and beard is deemed as the natural law. There are very few who obey the essential laws of nature in this connection. Apart from the Sikhs there are very few who keep hair and beard. Those who spoiled their manly appearance and personality given by nature, are unconscious of their own folly in distorting their appearance but they are shocked to see a man keeping hair and beard, and do not hesitate to ask him : "Is it essential to keep hair and beard ?" They suddenly become unconscious of the fact that hair is a part of the whole body and grows on every pore of the body. Those who are pure in body, mind and soul, and those who know something about sciences know that to remove bodily hair from the whole of our body is crime against health. You have taken up discussion on a subject on which many articles and even a book can be written. Neither you have time to enter into such a long discussion nor am I free to do so. Such discursive discussions and questions are generally raised by Arya Samajists. Have you at any time fallen under their evil influence?

Mr. Gupta (laughing): I am not the type of Hindu, the staunch Arya Samajists are, nor do I believe in any discursive discussion. I was attracted a bit towards Arya Samaj. I put the question out of curiosity and not with the intention of debating about it in an injurious way. I really wanted to know something about it. Although you have used some strong words in your discussion, yet Your arguments have impressed me. Many of my doubts have been cleared. I hope when you are released you will write excellent book on the subject and get it translated in other languages to explain it to the world at large. Your argument of fashionable and sheep-like imitation is correct. Our Rishis, Munis, Avatars and Prophets used to keep hair and beard. We have clear cut evidence up to period of Mahabharata. Brahamins, Kshatriyas, and Peshwas in our ancient history kept hair and beard. God alone knows when the custom of shaving began in India. From the Mahabharata and other Indian literature of the period we learn that removal of the hair or beard was considered worst punishment than death. When Shri Krishna on the recommendation of his espouse Rukmani, reduced the death sentence of her brother Rukman to the punishment of removing his hair and beard, Rukman in a pitiable tone appealed to his sister Saying:

"0 Rukmani you are not my sister; you are my enemy. You have got my death sentence repealed and got for me a greater punishment of removing my hair and beard. To remove my hair and beard would be far more painful and tortuous than killing me. “Your ideas are indeed very enlightened and you are indeed a true Sikh living according to the highest principles of your faith. No one has ever given so convincing reply to my question. For a seeker even one good argument is enough. Now a good deal of time has elapsed. My namaste to you. We will meet again. I greeted him. "Again, we may never get a chance to discuss anything-" I said. Mr. Gupta was indeed a very noble soul. We never got a chance to hold discussion again.

Same file in .doc format attached.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ahmediyas: a historically persecuted -- at the hands of mainstream Islam! -- Muslim sect that's held up as an example of the "good", acceptable, and tolerant side of Islam. Yet, this is what happens when you give any Islamic group an inch; they reveal their true hand, and reach for a mile! This is EXACTLY the reason I roll my eyes when people get misty eyed about fringe Muslim sects -- such as Sufis -- being an antidote to the mainstream khattar orthodoxy of the Sunni & Shia crews. The fact isn't that Ahmediyas and Sufis don't share the beliefs and the aim of their Ummah brethren, i.e. the establishment of the Caliphate and the subjugation of the Kaffir. The difference is these minor sects desire the same outcomes as their bigger brothers, only they aren't too fussed on getting to that destination in a hurry, as opposed to the Sunnis and Shia who want it all yesterday. The Ummah reigns supreme. Muslim apologists and sympathisers are either too dense to process this FACT, or are willfully omitting these inconvenient truths in order to strengthen their narrative of #notallmuslims.
    • As per usual,  our openness and tolerance is seen as weakness for others, and they take full advantage. 
    • This is nothing new. I tried setting up an initiative to defeat this trend; happened a good few years back on this forum, but some of us decided to establish a body of sorts which would publish and distribute literature regarding the falsity spread by other faiths vis-a-vis Sikhi. Because we were based in different countries we used to stay in contact via email to exchange ideas and finalize publications in our own respective countries. I wrote and dispatched a particular article on the falsity that Bhagat Fareed was a hardcore Muslim and by incorporating his Bani into the Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the Sikh Gurus proved their respect for Islam and hence all Sikhs should become Muslims. Here are some examples of what I wrote: "For Bhagat Farid, and Sufis in general, life is but nihilistic. Such a perception, logically, leads to renunciation and asceticism. Farid asserts:

      'Farid, had my throat been slit on the same day as my umbilical cord, I would not have been prey to trouble nor weathered such hardship. Farid, I alone thought I was in pain, but the whole world is in pain. I ascended my roof and witnessed each and every house in flame.' 
      -Saloks 76 and 81, ASGGS, Ang. 1381-82.

      When Guru Nanak Dev Ji had entered Multan, the local Sufis had tried to eject him on the pretext of his criticism of the Sufi order. The Guru had rejected their renunciation and described their acts of obeisance as charades. With this particular incident in mind, Guru Arjan Dev Ji elected to reply to Farid with the following:

      'The world is akin to a garden, Farid, in which poisonous plants take root. They for whom the Master cares suffer not at all.' 


      'How sweet be this life oh Farid! With health the body blooms, but they who love their dear beloved Lord are rarely found.' 
      -Mohalla 5, Saloks 82-83, ASGGS, Ang. 1382.

      The writings of Farid were incorporated into the Sikh canon to refute the notion that life, in general, is painful. For the Gurus life is what one makes out of it. Ignorance, naturally, leads to pain whilst knowledge leads to joy. By positing their views below Farids', the Sikh Gurus refuted the Sufi notion of life being suffering in toto.'   "The Sufi path of asceticism is best summed up in the following conversation between Sayid Muhammad Gesu Daraz and a suppliant. Daraz was the acolyte of Shaikh Farid Nasir-u'd-Din-Chiarg-i-Delhi, the disciple of Nizam-u'd-din Auliya who was the successor to Baba Farid. This conversation is recorded in the 'Jawama-u'l-Kilam' and focuses on the physical suffering weathered by Baba Farid in his search for the Divine. Pledging his mind to the Lord's path, the latter Farid hung upside down in a well for forty days and nights. 

      'Then one day when Sayid Muhammad Gesu Daraz was recounting the pledge of (Baba Farid), a man queried: "how is it that blood does not run out of the eyes and mouth of the person who undertakes it and how is it that foodstuff and other bodily elements do not come out of him?" The Saint explained that in a body as emaciated as that of Farid, the question of food and blood no longer lingers as austerities have reduced such a body to mere skeleton.' 

      Bhagat Farid writes:

      'Farid, if one were to hack my body, not a drop of blood would ooze from it. Those who are imbued with the Lord's love have no blood left in their beings.' 
      -Salok 51, ASGGS, Ang. 1380.

      Guru Amardass Ji comments on this Shabad in the following way:

      'The body is all blood, without blood it cannot exist. Those who are imbued with the Lord's love have not a single drop of selfish blood in their bodies. When the fear of Divine enters one's being, it becomes emaciated, and the blood of greed departs. As flames purify metal, so too does the fear of the Divine cast out impure inclinations. They alone are beautiful, Nanak, who are dyed with the love of the Lord.'
      -Mohalla 3, ASGGS, Salok 52, Ang. 1380. 

      Farid's ascetic undertones are sidelined, by the Guru, to provide a more rational interpretation of his words. Farid's "blood" becomes "selfish blood" and the external is transformed into the internal. It is not the physical frame which matters but the internal, the spiritual. Only through spiritual austerities can inimical inclinations depart; physical austerities only invite weakness and prolonged suffering."   "Now, we will look at the Bani of Bhagat Farid along with the relevant commentary by the Sikh Gurus. 

      'Farid, she who did not enjoy her spouse when black-haired, will she enjoy him when grey-haired? Love the Lord with such love that your hair's color will never change!'
      -Salok 12, ASGGS, Ang. 1378.

      Bhagat Farid holds that youth is conducive to following the spiritual path, in old age it is a lost cause. Guru Amardass Ji, who became the third Nanak at the age of 72, provides a commentary on this shabad:

      'Farid, whether one's hair be black or grey, the Lord is ever present if one remembers him. True love does not come from one's own desire, that cup of the Master's love he himself gives to whomever he desires.'
      -Mohalla 3, Salok 13, ASGGS, Ang. 1378.

      Bhagat Farid believes effort to be necessary vis-a-vis the spiritual path; the Sikh Gurus concur but to an extent. All transpires due to the Divine Will and man's efforts have a limit. Divine Will is more pontificate than man's efforts; man should elect to reside in this will and recognize where effort ends. From a Nanakian perspective effort is necessary in the temporal paradigm, but in the spiritual paradigm success depends on the Divine initiative. Guru Nanak Dev Ji states:

      'Does it matter if one is a swan or heron on whom the Lord casts his glance? Sayeth Nanak that if he so desires, crowns turn into swans.'
      -Mohalla 1, Salok 124, ASGGS, Ang. 1384. 

      The Lord is supreme in all that he does.

      Bhagat Farid then utilizes martial scenery:

      'One who is not welcome by her in-laws, and who has not place at her parents' house; and whose spouse does not care an iota for her, is she truly a happily married wife?'
      -Salok 31, ASGGS, Ang. 1379. 

      The 'parents' house' symbolizes societal life, the 'in-laws' spiritual life and the 'spouse' the Lord. Bhagat Farid is commenting on those spiritualists, those devotees, who desire the best of both spiritualism and societal living. He feels that by pursuing both concepts, one ultimately fails in all that he/she commits to. Guru Nanak Dev Ji comments:

      'At her in-laws and at her parents' house, she belongs to her spouse, the Divine beloved who is inaccessible and unfathomable. Oh Nanak! That one is indeed a happily married bride, who pleases the indifferent one.'
      -Mohalla 1, Salok 32, ASGGS, Ang. 1379.

      In contrast to Farid, the Guru elaborates that via Divine Grace both the temporal and spiritual paradigms become successful for the devotees. The true spiritualist is one who pursues both fields rather than renouncing one over the other. Nonetheless, hypocrisy in both fields should be avoided."   "In Suhi Lalit, Bhagat Farid forewarns:

      'You could not construct a raft when required. Now that the ocean is full and overflowing, it is hard to traverse. Do not touch the saffron flower for it's color will depart, my beloved. Rahau.
      The bride is weak and her husband's command is too hard to bear. As the milk does not return to her breast, nor will the soul return to the body. Sayeth Farid, friends, when the spouse calls this soul departeth crestfallen and the body is reduced to ashes.'
      -Suhi Lalit 1, ASGGS, Ang. 794.

      Guru Nanak Dev Ji, prior to Farid's verse, expounds:

      'Make meditation and restraint the raft via which to traverse the flowing stream. Your pass will be comfortable as if there is no ocean or overflowing stream. Your name alone is the unfading matter with which this cloak is dyed; my Beloved Lord, this color is perennial. My dear companions have departed, how will they meet the Lord? If they are united in virtue, the Lord will unite them with himself. Once united the mortal does not separate if the union be true. The cycle of birth and death is nullified by the True, Eternal Lord. She who removes her own self-centrism sews herself a garment to please her spouse. By the Guru's words, she obtained the fruit of the nectar of the Lord's word. Sayeth Nanak, my companions, my spouse be dear to me. We be the Lord's handmaidens; he our husband.'
      -Mohalla 1, Suhi 4, Ang. 729.

      Bhagat Farid provides a picture of doom and gloom by lamenting lost opportunities. He focuses on old age, where mental and physical faculties are too frail to be attuned to Divine contemplation. Guru Nanak Dev Ji, instead, expounds that it is never too late to focus on the Lord (one should remember Guru Amardass Ji here) for the Beloved is not harsh nor his commands. Via the saffron flower, Bhagat Farid warns of the fleeting pleasures of the world -here today, gone tomorrow- Guru Nanak Dev Ji instead elaborates that all pleasures belong to the Lord and via merging with him, all pleasures become permanent for he is the highest pleasure of all. 

      For Farid, death is the final test; even the faithful, in his view, should fear it for the soul never returns to the body. Guru Nanak Dev Ji however believes death to be a joy and a privilege of the valorous, for it is via death that one perfects his/her union with the Divine.

      From a Nanakian perspective, Farids's words apply to the manmukh and not the Gurmukh. But even a manmukh is worthy of Divine Grace, provided he recants at the ultimate moment."   "Bhagat Farid, a Sufi, informs us:

      'My physical frame is oven-hot; my bones are the firewood. If my feet fail, I shall walk upon my head to meet my Beloved.'
      -Salok 119, ASGGS, Ang. 1384.

      Bhagat Farid utilizes the metaphor of a kiln to depict his love for the Lord. A Sufi, his ascetic concepts however were not in line with Gurmat. Guru Nanak Dev Ji refutes his call for such asceticism by commenting:

      'Do not heat your physical frame oven-hot; burn not your bones like firewood. What harm have they committed that you torture them such? Rather behold the Beloved within your soul, Farid.'
      -Salok 120, ASGGS, Ang. 1384.

      Bhagat Farid is of the mind that the human body is but a prison and the soul it's captive. The Sikh Gurus believe that the human body is a temple, a locus where the Lord resides and awaits his devotee. By utilizing this Shabad of Farid, the Gurus desired that their Sikhs imbue the same zeal as the Sufi did whilst also discarding his asceticism; hence the refutation. Throughout Bhagat Bani we find a similar concept at play. The Sikh Gurus initiate a written dialogue with the radicals of their time and provide an unalloyed picture of the Divine Truth. For Farid, creation is a falsity; for the Gurus it is a truth. Farid's asceticism renders the body as simply an object; the Gurus however perceive it to be divine and encourage their Sikhs to employ it in the service of the Divine by societal living." I printed all this out in pamphlet form and took it to a local Nagar Kirtan when I was in Australia and man, some of the Muslims burned. A few confrontations occurred, "how can you say Guru Nanak was a non-Muslim?!" "Gobind Singh made you anti-Muslim." "Your history is a lie, all Gurus were Muslims and they even married Muslims!" Basically they were clutching at straws. The pamphlets were enough to make the Sikhs ignore these idiots and they grew worried and left the scene. Later a famous attendant Gyani, from Taksal (and who I will not name), got hold of one of the pamphlets. After having it explained to him he called me over and asked me what jatha I belonged to. I told him none. Then he asked me where I got this information from. I told him my sources. Basically his problem was that I was not crediting any jatha on my pamphlet. He asked me to mention Taksal in them but I refused. Few days later all the pamphlets were thrown in the trash and I was told to abstain from publishing such (and here's how they described them) lies. The youth wanted more, but the Gurughar committee would have none of it. The main problem, here, is the liberal fuddu attitude our qaum has that respect all faiths at the expense of your own.  After this some of us decided to stick to the social media. There was veer Bijla Singh Ji with his Search Sikhism page which, back in the heyday of grooming, forced several Muslim preachers to quit their anti-Sikh proselytizing. There were a few more who set up Tisarpanth. Then there was The Truth of Sikhi and Shamshir Publications. Bijla Singh Ji advised us but out of the three initiatives set up, only one is going strong and the others were forced to close down. Why? Because they had to hit the streets and they faced the same problem which I did- our own elders were and still are shooting us down. If we had claimed affiliation with some jatha, then we would have been lionized.   
    • In that way you're right. It is a big deal. My heart would pain to see anyone lost to Islam especially on a large scale. And your cautionary message is well founded.  But in the fake news, shame Sikhi, propaganda way I feel it was being used. Pfft. In that context I feel more a response of "And? Big deal. Who gives a ****"
    • That's her father in law Tarsem Singh of Hushiarpur, he is the village Granthi.   Her father's name is Monohar Lal of Delhi and her name is Kiran Bala. Sikhs don't have names like Lal and Bala. These are typical Hindu names.