Re:All this talk about "Hair"
Posted by Pritam Singh
Re:All this talk about "Hair"
Posted by Pritam Singh on Friday, 9/18/1998 10:57 PM MDT
| Re: All this talk about "hair". Jasjit Singh ji and other participants of Sikhnet, Yes, I quite agree that a lot of discussion is happening about the pros and cons of keeping/cutting Kesh, but this is only the beginning. Stalwarts of the Sikh community like the academics that relentlessly pursued Pashaura Singh, and other people like Dr. Birendra Kaur, Dr. J. S. Neki, Prof. Madanjit Kaur (Guru Nanak Dev university), including the office of the Akal Takhat and its 5 jathedars: all need to participate in an open forum like Sikhnet. Once they start participating then in all likelihood most of the issues would find resolution. Now, why would you think that such discussions would always lead to becoming "heated and worse", "and will lead to nowhere"? This is a rather pessimistic and despondent view and totally "un-chardi-kala" like. If an issue of keeping or cutting the Kesh lowers chardi-kala, this is indicative of a much bigger problem that needs to be explored. Our young people don't need to be given more baggage that would put them into the hands of social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. If the chardi-kala could be affected by people cutting their hair, then may be, it too was a phenomenon that had very little reality to it. It is quite possible that the very concept of chardi-kala has elements in it that rob people of their humanity. It is pretty obvious that this directly affects one's self-esteem. A number of our teenagers see themselves as being less than worthy when they cannot aspire to the demands of a culturally reinforced standard of "Sikhs always being in chardi-kala". I am quite intrigued about how ordinary human hair could assume both religious and political proportions that are heavily at odds with the vast history and experience of the human race, which only Sikhs seem to worry about. Something just isn't right. Either the Sikhs know something that the human race has been totally and completely ignorant about, or the Sikhs themselves have created something that has no basis. The truth about this matter needs to surface. Sikhs don't consider Kesh like the hair that other human beings have. If they did, then all of the attributes that Sikhs attach to the Kesh, wouldn't apply. My friend, your words: "There is a tendency sometimes to CREATE justifications for our actions. It only shows self-weakness and self-doubt?" seems to demonstrate confusion and a twisted logic. Yes, I know you are referring to the justification of cutting the Keshas. This has always been an old argument. If a person justifies his/her actions, then this is not indicative of "self-weakness and self-doubt" - rather it is a sign that he/she has employed a good use of one's mental faculties to arrive at a decision. Of course, such a decision will probably be at odds with the prevailing rhetoric of not cutting the Keshas. So, how is it that when one decides to cut one's Keshas, such an act could only be associated with "self-weakness and self-doubt"? Thousands of people have been cutting their hair. Some even shave it off. I can see that your point might apply to olden days when people had their heads shaved as a symbol of being punished. However, that doesn't apply anymore. Similarly, the cutting or the keeping of hair should not affect one's self-esteem, either. From time immemorial, the keeping or the cutting one's hair has been a relatively neutral thing. It is only when cultural and religious forces usurp the neutrality that it has been given by nature, then does it become a problem. Nature has provided human beings with the same equipment - two eyes and ears, a mouth, a tongue, a nose, and other openings in the body. The functioning of the human body is no different than that of other living creatures. Once life breathes itself into the body, the body keeps functioning. Some aspects of the body are similar to other animals. Hair and nails are a good example of this. The animal side of the human body has nothing to do with spirituality. It never did and never will. If we were to weigh the body of a person who is spiritually ignorant with a person who is spiritually aware, no difference in weight could be found. That's because spirituality doesn't owe its existence to the human body. Spirituality doesn't need a human body to manifest. From the tips of every blade of grass to the deepest valleys and the highest mountain peaks, the wind and the rain; all carry the aroma of spirituality. No tree had ever thought that it would lose its spirituality once its leaves and branches wer e cut off. If Sikhs insist that normal human hair has links to making a human being spiritual, then what value is such spirituality in the first place? If spirituality could be bounded by such inane and contorted human thinking, then what kind of a spirituality could it be? It seems as if the Sikhs know better than God. To judge human beings based upon whether or not they keep or cut their hair, doesn't really smack of great wisdom. Rather, such a predisposition illustrates that what is absurd, is considered to be the truth. Yes, I quite agree that a house needs to be built upon a strong foundation? a foundation that is imaginary, or based upon fantasy simply won't do. I submit to you, that the 5 k's, the Amrit of Khanda-da-Bata, the Amrit of Naam, are all part of the fantasy that the Sikhs have created, and still want to remain in such a mythical world. Just like the example I have mentioned earlier, none of those things bring spirituality to or take away from what God has already put inside the gurdwara of the human body. I also agree with you on another point: "If we create our foundations with deceit and falsehood, we cannot expect the house that is built on it, to have any spiritual aspect" - then why not examine the truth of what I have said? Whatever I have said, is merely an application from the understanding of Gurbani. If you need references, then I would be more than willing to provide those. However, I do not agree with your other statements concerning those people who have partaken the Amrit of Khanda Bata. Gurbani does not support the Amrit of Khanda-da-Bata, 5 K's, and the Khalsa Panth. If you say that no one has the right to QUESTION those things, then try reading the GGS first --because it does question those things. Now if Sikhnet also decides that such type of questioning can't be done, then everybody needs to re-examine the Guru Granth Sahib. It would be far better to outlaw and ban the Guru Granth Sahib, because that's where I get my inspiration. In the same context, it would be far better for the Akal Takhat to delete certain portions of the Guru Granth, so that the Akal Takhat never faces a rebellion from the teachings that are contained therein. I know certain portions of the Bible were taken out. So, perhaps it would be in keeping with the tercentenary celebrations of the Khanda-da-Bata valeh Khalsas to do the same so that they could keep their own identity and existence from becoming extinct. If this is not done, then the Khalsas ultimately will be undermined and uprooted lock, stock and bar rel. Answer to your question: "Why can't we Live and Let Live"? -- The GGS provides us with numerous examples that demarcate why it is better to challenge and question falsehood, rather than remaining complacent. Regards, Pritam Singh [email protected] |
