Cutting Hair

[Guest gary jatt]

what is wroung with having tatoos or cutting hair. But that is like saying don't cut ur nails isn't that cause if u can't cut ur hair but u can cut ur nail don't get this sombody explain.

[sikha]

Hair is the sign of the Guru, nails arent...

[Dalvir]

WaheguruJiKaKhalsaWaheguruJiKiFateh

Hairs and Nails

Aye, but some one would say, "Well, if the human body is the fabrication of a benevolent and wise artificer, and if we are unjustified to clip the hair and beard, are not the nails on the tips of the fingers and toes by the wish of the same Manufacturer? If they are, why should we feel no hesitation in paring them?" To such a one, I reply:

"Inquisitive inquire, why do you raise a question on 'cutting the nails,' rather than on combing the hair; for, verily, the nail-cutter and the comb perform exactly the same kind of functions. The former removing the 'dead nail' and the latter the 'dead hair,' And on no account I solicit you to keep such things. While in the act of combing, by negligence or through any fault of the instrument, if a single live hair is plucked off, what immense pain is felt; and similarly, how exceedingly miserable becomes the condition of a person whose 'live nail' is injured or separated in any way! Again the Creator has already fixed a limit beyond which one may cut nail; for farther than that extremity the nail is dead and decaying. But there is no such hint concerning hair. And either the head should be shaved entirely, like chin and cheeks, or else every part kept natural. And he who adopts the former customs the same must shave the whole body, including eyebrows, eyelashes, hair of axilla and the pubes. For the Deity has made no note of distinction, above or from which place one may cut or remove the hair, as in the cause of the nails. And, therefore, either all which have no limit should be cut right off or kept altogether, being no one considered wise to interfere with the Supreme Design, and draw his own marks of limitation."

Hair vs. Nails

It is often argued that hair and nails are similar, and a question frequently asked: "If we should not cut our hair, then why do we cut our nails?" But even a superficial study of the two shows them to be extremely different from each other. Whereas the hair grows from a tubular pit, the hair follicle, formed by sinking in of the most actively dividing layer of the skin, i.e., stratum germinativum, into the lower dermis, the nails are only modifications of the upper dead layers of the skin, i.e. stratum corneum. Further, the base of every follicle bulges out forming an inverted cup, which receives blood capillaries for nourishment and nerve fibers that make the hair sensitive to contact. An oil gland, known as sebaceous gland, opens into every hair follicle, the secretion of which lubricates the hair. A muscle is also attacked to the base of every hair for bringing about movement. Pigments are added to the shaft of the hair as it grows. None of these features is associated with nails.

Structurally also hair is extremely strong, and resists breaking due to its elasticity and flexibility. Hair is as strong as steel, if we compare the two of the same diameter. Nails, on the other hand, are very brittle and rigid, breaking off easily. Hair number in thousands, thereby increasing the surface area, as if to meet a specific requirement. Nails number only twenty.

The differences between the two do not end with the structural features. Even the body's response towards the two is totally different. Our body, throughout life, tries to maintain a particular length of hair, and if cut anywhere along the length, responds by growing them again to the specific length. It clearly indicates the link of the body with the hair all along its length.

The body shows no such response to the nails, which grow from birth to death at the same rate, irrespective of whether cut or not. As has been mentioned earlier, even the shafts of hair, like any other living organ of the body, respond to ageing (in their length, density of growth, graying, etc.) and condition of health is reflected in the person's hair (in their lustre, shine, etc.), whereas from the dead part of the nail, one can infer no such thing.

Practically also, hair do not interfere in any daily activity, whereas it is impossible to function at all with long nails. And even if not cut, nails generally fall off of their own easily; rather it takes great effort to maintain them, even up to a short length. In contrast to the long list of the functions of hair, only one function can be attributed to nails - that is, protection of the tips of digits.

taken from: http://sikhee.com/literature.html

Hope that helps.

WaheguruJiKaKhalsaWaheguruJiKiFateh

[Guest Guest]

Guru Ji says to keep hair...anyone who tries to argue that is using MANMAT. simple.

[Guest Guest]

I have heard this hair nail thing from many "monay".

It is an good example, because both are from nature.

But there aren't any rehatnamey saying don't cut your nails.

[B4ND4]

^^ Guest #1, you are no one to decide who is doing MANMAT and who is not. If you don't have anything that helps original poster you could very well not hurt your fingers by typing such ridiculous posts : ).

To original poster,

Don't just think about cutting kes veer ji. Find the reasons to why we keep kes, find em out yourself. If you still aren't statisfied with your research then make a decision based on your intelligence.

garry jatt .. PJD 4 life .. loolz :s

[Harmeet_Singh]

What is the point OF cutting your hair and getting a tatoo? You cut it, then it grows back, you cut iit again and it grows back, you cut it again and yet it grows back...................

As for a tatoo, it serves no real function other than to impress others and boost our ego.

[carin]

As for a tatoo, it serves no real function other than to impress others and boost our ego.

Same could be said for buying clothes, cars, shoes, etc...

[Harmeet_Singh]

so we should walk around barefoot and naked?

Its all about the intentions behind the actions. Why does someone spend hundreds of pounds on a pair of trainers? Purely ego unless they actually serve a function that gives them such a value.

[carin]

so we should walk around barefoot and naked?

Its all about the intentions behind the actions. Why does someone spend hundreds of pounds on a pair of trainers? Purely ego unless they actually serve a function that gives them such a value.

If you think a pair of trainers costs so much, complain to the store who sells them or the designer who made them. Don't blame the common person for buy something they really want. The kind of mentality you're talking about where we should dress simple and live simple is admirable, but don't knock those who choose to stray from that. To dismiss buying anything expensive as "ego" is asinine.