Jump to content

Is Having Hair Mandatory In Sikhism?


Recommended Posts

kesh is required, as it's a condition for Amrit. Requirement of Amrit (the initiation) is repeatedly mentioned in Bani. The initiation is referred to as Deekhya in Gurbani (look it up).

Also, kesh is part of rahit, and the following shabad shows how Gurbani incorporates rahit by reference.

ang 1230

ਸਾਰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

Sārag mehlā 5.

Saarang, Fifth Mehl:

ਹਰਿ ਹਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਮੁਖਹੁ ਬੋਲਿ ਹਰਿ ਹਰੇ ਮਨਿ ਧਾਰੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Har harė har mukẖahu bol har harė man ḏẖārė. ||1|| rahā­o.

Chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har, Har; enshrine the Lord, Har, Har, within your mind. ||1||Pause||

ਸ੍ਰਵਨ ਸੁਨਨ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰਨ ਅਨਿਕ ਪਾਤਿਕ ਪੁਨਹਚਰਨ ॥

Sarvan sunan bẖagaṯ karan anik pāṯik punahcẖaran.

Hear Him with your ears, and practice devotional worship - these are good deeds, which make up for past evils.

ਸਰਨ ਪਰਨ ਸਾਧੂ ਆਨ ਬਾਨਿ ਬਿਸਾਰੇ ॥੧॥

सरन परन साधू आन बानि बिसारे ॥१॥

Saran paran sāḏẖū ān bān bisārė. ||1||

So seek the Sanctuary of the Holy, and forget all your other habits. ||1||.

ਹਰਿ ਚਰਨ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਨੀਤ ਨੀਤਿ ਪਾਵਨਾ ਮਹਿ ਮਹਾ ਪੁਨੀਤ ॥

Har cẖaran parīṯ nīṯ nīṯ pāvnā meh mahā punīṯ.

Love the Lord's Feet, continually and continuously - the most sacred and sanctified.

ਸੇਵਕ ਭੈ ਦੂਰਿ ਕਰਨ ਕਲਿਮਲ ਦੋਖ ਜਾਰੇ ॥

Sėvak bẖai ḏūr karan kalimal ḏokẖ jārė.

Fear is taken away from the servant of the Lord, and the dirty sins and mistakes of the past are burnt away.

ਕਹਤ ਮੁਕਤ ਸੁਨਤ ਮੁਕਤ ਰਹਤ ਜਨਮ ਰਹਤੇ ॥

Kahaṯ mukaṯ sunaṯ mukaṯ rahaṯ janam rahṯė.

Those who speak are liberated, and those who listen are liberated; those who keep the Rehit, the Code of Conduct, are not reincarnated again.

ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਸਾਰ ਭੂਤ ਨਾਨਕ ਤਤੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੇ ॥੨॥੪॥੧੩੩॥

Rām rām sār bẖūṯ Nānak ṯaṯ bīcẖārė. ||2||4||133||

The Lord's Name is the most sublime essence; Nanak contemplates the nature of reality. ||2||4||133||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "genuinely interested" really smells bad coming from Santsaevak. Anyone else smelling the samething?biggrin.gif

He uses politics(number game) to trap posters, but so far none of his tricks have worked.biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

By "genuinely interested" I wanted to clarify that I was not being sarcastic by asking for exact citations. Besides, whoever resists giving citations shows that he is making empty claims without the will or resources to back them up. If you have the requested citations, why not give them and settle the argument? If you yourself have nothing substantial to contribute, then why are you barging in to the discussion?

Furthermore, who in their right mind thinks that politics is number game? Looks like you are yet to be introduced to one of the fundamentals of the universe: mathematics and statistics, which deal primarily .. surprise .. with numbers.

Politics nowadays is resorted to by the people who want to brainwash others who do not have critical thinking skills, or by people who want to gain votes, influence and power by hook or by crook. I do not hold most of the politicians in any high regard. I also do not put much stock in people who respond to request for explanations or justifications with emotional speeches, ad hominem attacks or straw man arguments. These are the kind of people who are doing the most damage to the Sikh religion today. I strongly believe that the more educated the Sikhs are, the more aware they are of their roots, the more comfortable they will be discussing and justifying their religion and faith and the better it will be for the religion in the long run.

So, "Only five" ji, what substantial discussion are you bringing here? Or are you only good for ad hominem attacks instead of having the competence of dealing with the topic at hand? You haven't even specified what is this "trap" you speak of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Santsevak, Your rant starts off with disrespecting, Gurumkhs who have shown with the Shabad Guru that Guru and God are one and the same by calling them propaganda spreaders. Then you rant on about how Mool Mantar says Vaheguru is beyond birth and the Gurus aren’t, which is a direct insult to Satguru Nanak Dev ji. You say that you’re not familiar with Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but continue to push your twisted backward thinking beliefs here and the posters replying to you are still calm and explaining Gurmat. Further, randomly you through in that all religions are equal and the Gurus declared this. First you say I am not familiar with Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, but then make an outrageous statement as all religions are equal. An honest person would not speak on something they don’t know. Also they wouldn’t put untruthful words in the Gurus mouth. A person that loves Vaheguru wouldn’t want to misrepresent his words. Furthermore you play with words, when Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji made it a Hukam every Sikh must keep hair uncut (quote Key words are Should not quote).

Then going back on to the whole all religions are equal bit you say, “but in the sense of their equivalence to show people the right path and for peoples' right to practice them.” Did Hinduism show the right path when they believe in many Gods(you yourself say there is one God, but believe that all reiligions lead to God, there’s a clear contradiction in your own thinking). So which God will I reach if I am Hindu, you say there is one. Further, you have Muslims claiming that Allah is the only God and they have put limits on Allah by saying he is not in his creation. They pray to idols and Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji said idol worshippers will not reach Vaheguru or Allah or Raam or etc. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji clearly says I don’t worship anyone(which means not Muslim God, or Hindu or Chrisian or Buddhuism or Jain or Jew, etc) God, only you Vaheguru(Chaupai Sahib). As another poster said, if other religions lead to Vaheguru then why did Vaheguru teach Gurmat(Sikhi)? Why call the idol worshipper blind?

Lasty, you say politics is not about numbers then you say politics nowadays is about getting votes. Are you thick headed or something, votes is a political number game. I want citation saying that Sikhs can cut hair. Also give me ang sungs where Shabad Guru says all religions are equal. And watch yourself……Gurbani is sacred and MUST, NOT SHOULD be kept in context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a benti in your feet veero please stick to the topic and do not get personal, please?

Veera it's hard to stay on topic when Santsevak is through around random opinions and then writing them off as Guru ji said them. Those random misinformation needs to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Lasty, you say politics is not about numbers then you say politics nowadays is about getting votes. Are you thick headed or something, votes is a political number game. I want citation saying that Sikhs can cut hair. Also give me ang sungs where Shabad Guru says all religions are equal. And watch yourself……Gurbani is sacred and MUST, NOT SHOULD be kept in context.

"

(I am not sure the last line makes any sense, probably a messed up typo)

You are conflating two different issues here. The latter I have already dealt with above. The former: numbers are used by politicians, not the other way around. If I say that vast majority of Sikh youth is cutting their Kesh, I am stating that based on my own observations. Do you disagree with this? These is the only context I have used numbers in. Quote me where I used them in any other context.

Where did I say that Gurbani says that Sikhs can cut hair?

In your other comments, you are now just beating a dead horse. I will respond for all those together below.

In, short, here are the points that I have been discussing. First is that the current state of Sikhi is so diluted, that cutting of kesh has become a norm, go see any area in the Punjab, or go see any group of Sikh youths abroad (others have explained what is ideally required, and I accept that) ... a state which is extremely sad and unfortunate, but true. Second was regarding the equality of all religions in terms of their follower's rights (already resolved from others' inputs). Third was regarding the formlessness and life-cycle-independence of God. This last point is still unresolved to me. Others have posted pangtis that they say mean that Gurus were God. But there are clear pangtis that God has no shape and is limitless and free from life cycles. I am not saying any pangtis are wrong (as you are trying to imply), I am looking for resolution that puts the picture together which you are failing to help in. Instead of going on an on about me being wrong, perhaps you can use your intellect to explain how all those pangitis actually mesh together with one another?

Regarding this topic and your attitude, I would like to ask you why do management of gurdwaras have so many non-Sikhs in them (most of them cut their Kesh)? Shouldn't our religious institutions be managed by us Sikhs ourselves?

In fact, I would go one step further, I think all Sikhs should be required to read, write and understand Gurmukhi. But this is for a different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I am not sure the last line makes any sense, probably a messed up typo)

It makes sense Mr. Grammar.

You are conflating two different issues here.

I pointed out that your bringing up different topics up randomly, so that makes me the one that is conflating. Your one lost individual.

The latter I have already dealt with above. The former: numbers are used by politicians, not the other way around. If I say that vast majority of Sikh youth is cutting their Kesh, I am stating that based on my own observations. Do you disagree with this? These is the only context I have used numbers in. Quote me where I used them in any other context.

This is what you have said before:

More than 75% "Sikhs" have cut their hair in one form or another. If they are not Sikhs, it should be clarified. Are you familiar with the state of Sikhs outside the Punjab? I would wager that more than 95% have cut their kesh. Are they still Sikhs? Moreover, are non-amritdharis also Sikhs? Who is a Sikh? On the flip side, our gurus have taught us that all religions of the world are equal.

This is over flowing with political correctness and trying to get the other person to say just because alot cut hair that they still can be considered Sikh. Sorry pal, but a Sikh is with uncut hair, even if only one is left.

Where did I say that Gurbani says that Sikhs can cut hair?
You are right in the sense that all Sikhs should not cut their hair. I am not contesting that. But the keyword is "should not".

Above you state that you have dealt with the hair topic, but you dealt with it by saying the keyword is should keep hair NOT must as Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji said(same with Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji). So your not even sticking to Guru Sahibs word, but again spreading your twisted views. I have never stated that you said Gurbani says, Sikhs can cut hair, but like you said the key word is 'should' so show me this 'should keep hair uncut.' Satguru has direct orders and those orders are a MUST not should, maybe or any other ambiguous word you can think of.

Second was regarding the equality of all religions in terms of their follower's rights (already resolved from others' inputs).

Here are your other statements and others can see how your acting like a fish now out of water:

"Note that our gurus taught us that all religions are equal. So they accepted all of them."

Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji didn't accept the Koran or Vedas. If they did then there would be no need to give the world the teaching of Shabad Guru, Gurbani.

"On the flip side, our gurus have taught us that all religions of the world are equal."

Give me the ang sung where it Guru Sahib says this.

"BTW, I thought it was clearly understood and obvious that by "equal" I did not mean to be equal in the literal sense, but in the sense of their equivalence to show people the right path and for peoples' right to practice them. "

Give me the ang sung where Guru Sahib says all religiions are equal in the sense of their equivalence to show people the right path? So which is your finally statement?

Third was regarding the formlessness and life-cycle-independence of God. This last point is still unresolved to me. Others have posted pangtis that they say mean that Gurus were God. But there are clear pangtis that God has no shape and is limitless and free from life cycles. I am not saying any pangtis are wrong (as you are trying to imply), I am looking for resolution that puts the picture together which you are failing to help in. Instead of going on an on about me being wrong, perhaps you can use your intellect to explain how all those pangitis actually mesh together with one another?

Since your the one saying that Guru and God are not the same because of Mool Mantar then explain Mool Mantar to the rest of us so we can learn the real Sikhi by you. And don't mistranslate Ajooni and Akal Moorat for your own distorted views.

Regarding this topic and your attitude, I would like to ask you why do management of gurdwaras have so many non-Sikhs in them (most of them cut their Kesh)? Shouldn't our religious institutions be managed by us Sikhs ourselves?

What's your point by this. You trying to say because a mona is in a committee they are termed as Sikh. How more political do you want to get here. Stop being a punk and act like a truthful person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense Mr. Grammar.

I pointed out that your bringing up different topics up randomly, so that makes me the one that is conflating. Your one lost individual.

This is what you have said before:

This is over flowing with political correctness and trying to get the other person to say just because alot cut hair that they still can be considered Sikh. Sorry pal, but a Sikh is with uncut hair, even if only one is left.

Above you state that you have dealt with the hair topic, but you dealt with it by saying the keyword is should keep hair NOT must as Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji said(same with Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji). So your not even sticking to Guru Sahibs word, but again spreading your twisted views. I have never stated that you said Gurbani says, Sikhs can cut hair, but like you said the key word is 'should' so show me this 'should keep hair uncut.' Satguru has direct orders and those orders are a MUST not should, maybe or any other ambiguous word you can think of.

I am glad you are now paying attention to proper usage of my words. I will put this a bit more specifically. By definition, you are probably thinking about Amritdhari Sikh, Patit Sikh and Sehajdhari Sikh (more to come further below). Various important Sikh organizations have defined these terms. It is quite easy to find it on the web, here is one link:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Patit

and you are probably thinking about the main kurahits as well:

"(1) trimming or shaving of hair,

(2) eating kuttha or halal meat, i.e. flesh of bird or animal slaughtered in the Muslim`s way;

(3) sexual contact with a woman or man other than one`s own wife or husband; and

(4) the use of tobacco in any form."

(there, that by itself shrinks the number of Sikhs to negligible levels!).

And just to raise the stakes, SGPC also has this term Keshdhari Sikhs when it is related to the question who can vote in SGPC elections.

That is all well and good. But recall that I had used the words like "now" or "present times" or "nowadays". It is not uncommon to see Sikh background youth getting married in Gurdwaras abroad when they support a nominal beard during the ceremony and shave it all off before the afternoon is over after the phere. Yet the couple is called a gursikh couple. Again, I am not saying how it was in the olden times, what I am stressing is that these days the general use of the work Sikh encompasses all these cases. I am not happy with it, but it is there. It is a fact. All my friends, many from rural Punjab, call themselves Sikhs in the census yet support no beard or a turban.

You are right in the relationship of a beard and a Sikh as was original intentioned, but nowadays that it is all changing. What was a "must" then has become optional today. Hence why I used the word "should". It was not reflecting what was the practical situation some hundred years ago, but what it is now, today. How many patit or sehajdhari Sikhs have you met that haven't called themselves Sikhs? Try asking whoever is beside or near you right now.

The best recent news I have had about this affair was by the Punjab and Haryana High Court which stated that people with unshorn hair are not Sikhs. It was a wonderful news. Unfortunately, it appears to have done absolutely nothing to curb the ongoing trends of beard and kesh trimming. And, besides, this ruling has no implication for Sikhs abroad for obvious reasons. But what was the result of the ruling? The students seeking admissions to Sikhs institutions (engg. medical, etc.) in the Punjab supported their beard for some months till the interviews and admission, and after that the business was back to the usual. Yet they are all called Sikh in daily life. Also noteworthy is the fact that SGPC itself did not really define a Sikh that way (http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIsikhs/SAHAJDHARI_SIKHS/2008/5_Mattewal_Tribune.htm, very good read).

Regarding Guru =?= God, please take it up with these guys: http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/gurus/ (based on the statistics given here , a Sikh with full beard and a turban is a minority in the Punjab!), or with these http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/gurunanak.asp. From the latter:

"Nanak was an extra-ordinary and different child in many ways. God provided him with contemplative mind and rational thinking. " and also "God is Formless (Nirankar), the Sole, the Creator, the self-existent." I may not be a learned person in Sikh theology, but these guys are the authority, chosen by the Sikh sangat themselves! I learn from them many things. Therefore, I kindly request you to read these links. If you believe their information is wrong, it would be great if you can point it out to them and to have it corrected.

Again, I am not going back to the "equality" of religions and their followers' rights, try as hard as you might, this is has already been discussed.

ਚਡ਼੍ਹਦੀ ਕਲਾ।

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Can you please cite where this is stated as fact by a court of law? Also, which court? Please be complete and exact.

2. Can you please properly cite where you got the above pangti from?

I am genuinely interested.

Please refer to recent responses in this thread. We have already established what we mean by "equal" in terms of religions of this world. If you can find something in SGGS that actually clearly contradicts that, please quote is properly here (I am sure you won't find anything).

Which facts are you talking about that I have twisted? The examples you have quoted just show that couple of cases in which people did not want to accept people with shorn hair as Sikhੇ. The second case is irrelevant, since it involved a non-Sikh. The fact I stated is that by far the vast majority of Sikh youths today are cutting their hair and doing way will full beard and turbans. And only a miniscule minority outside of the Punjab supports unshorn hair. How can you refute this fact? The examples you quotes are quite irrelevant to this actually.

Similarly, each human being is of a religion to which his/her parents belong. As I said before, and I state again, just having unshorn hair does not make you Sikh, it might be a necessary condition to be a Sikh, but it is definitely not a sufficient one. Which part of this do you not understand?

From what I have able to understand, you are of the opinion that whoever cuts his/her hair is not a Sikh. And I accept this as your opinion, no problem here at all.

Also, could you please use proper English grammar and punctuation? It makes it difficult to understand you otherwise. But if you are more comfortable writing in Gurmukhi (I am sure you are), that would be even better. In fact, it would be awesome!

ਚਡ਼੍ਹਦੀ ਕਲਾ।

I have sent the whole judgement 1 year back 165 page pages pronounced by by full bench of Punjab and hayana high court on 31 may 2009 in gurleen kaur versus state of punjab case no is 14859 of 2008 . Secondly this lines were dictated by Guru Gobind Singh to bhai Nand lal Singh ji these submissions with other references were submitted by Atinder Pal Singh Khalastani to the courtalong with other 274 references were from rehatnamas guru granth shaiab u can search throgh website of court and the earlier posts by me by seeing the judgements ur mind will be cleared of misunderstanding. Secondly u can go through the writings of poet senpati. Conversation of Guru Nanak ji with bahrauddin in baghdad is very important if u term these as unreliable then it is ur problem. Name of Rehatnama of Bhai Nand lal is called SAKHI REHAT KI and PRASAN UTTAR . Desa Singh REHATNAMA is almost same those cutting hair are termed as SIRGUMS those doing kurahit after taking Amrit which includes trimming or cutting of hair are called PATITS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use