|
Add to Interest Profile
Edit Interest Profile
Email This Message
Search
| Manjinder Singh, Regarding your comment about langar, my understanding (as a Sikh that believes meat eating is condoned in Sikhism) is that the reason meat is not served in Langar is so that langar remains open to all. Serving meat would discourage vegetarians/hindus from eating langar and attending Gurdwara. The only reason I wouldnt feel it is not "allowable" is because of that, not because of any notion of langar having to be non-meat. As far as shaving legs, I honestly dont know if the Akal Takht has declared that Sikh women are not allowed to shave their legs or not. I think its almost something that people "assume" whether validly or not. Has the Akal Takht declared this already? I have trouble accepting the notion that a person who shaves their legs or unarms is "violating" Sikh culture. Ive never attached sanctity to hair under my arms as I do to the hair on my heard/beard, nor have I ever thought the "religious argument" to not shave ones legs was very solid. I wrote a post about this a while ago, i'm curious as to what your response would be. Ive copied it below. ----- In my personnal opinion (and again, let me make this clear, my PERSONNAL opinion, which may be in disagreeance with others), I have a hard time attaching the same sanctity to hair under my arms as I do to the hair on my head. Please note though, I have NOT taken Amrit yet, so I have more of a liberty to adhere to that belief (whether right or wrong). I'm not sure what the Akal Takht's stance is on this, but obviously their stance is what you should follow regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Anyhow, the problem I see with the stance of "cutting all hair from your body is equally wrong" is that if we take two examples, one is a person that cuts the hair on their head/face but who doesnt cut any hair under their neck, then we compare that to a person that keeps their hair/beard, who looks like a Sikh, wears a turban etc, but who shaves hair under his neck, then according to the original definition both would be "1/2 of a Sikh." Wheras I dont feel you can equate one with being equal to the other, not even remotely. With the advent of shaving legs, there has arisen a certain issue of whether keeping the kesh means "on my head/face or on my whole body." Often I was a bit confused about this myself. But I came to a few conclusions, from my own personnal (admittedly limited) understanding of Guru Gobind Singh's time when which he instructed his Sikhs to keep their hair. The first assumption that I go on, which I believe we could all pretty much agree on, was that shaving was not a common practice back in 1675 in India. I dont believe anyone really for that matter shaved their legs or underarms or whatever during that time. That being agreed, this next fact has led me to the conclusion that the hair under my arms does not have the same sanctity as the hair on my head. After Guru Tegh Bahadur was martyred, Guru Gobind Singh had heard that many of his Sikhs had not stood up and denounced this injustice our of fear of being punished in Delhi. It was at this point that Guru Gobind Singh said "I will one day give me Sikhs a form so that they will never be able to hide from others, that they will stand out 1 in a million." That fact of history plays a strong role in how I view why we have the kesh. I feel a large reason was to give Sikhs such a blatant physical identity symbol of their allegiance to Sikhism's way of life, a symbol they could never conceal from others out of fear, a blatant symbol that proclaimed their acknolwedged duty in life. And I just dont feel hair under my arms is that "blatant physical identity symbol." In my view, if people didnt shave their legs/underarms back then, and Guru Gobind Singh made this statement despite this, I dont see how unshaved legs played a signifigant role in what the kesh was intended to do to Sikhs. A Sikhs identity has never been confirmed by looking for armpit hair, the Moghuls never instructed the people in Punjab to shave their legs so they could find out where Sikhs were. Rather they instructed the people to cut their hair and shave their beards, because that is what would give Sikhs away. I know one thing is for certain, as a Sikh man, the hair on my head and beard are whats not be cut, without a doubt. And that for a Sikh woman, the hair on her heard should not be cut (by the simple fact that women dont have beards). Everything else in my opinion you should decide for yourself according to what your understanding of the Khalsa and the 5K's tell you. Make your own decision. In my view, women arent supposed to genetically have facial hair. I dont see how plucking out a stray facial hair amounts to being a "bad Sikh". I mean maybe this is a bad example, but you comb your hair right? What happens when you comb it, tangly hair or weak hair or out of place hair is pulled out. Should we considered that to be a violation to? No obviously not. Its basic grooming standards. Thats what I feel a woman plucking stray facial hair is. Sundeep Singh |
