Kesh?!

[Guest Javanmard]

I have written it probably a million times on this posts and others. Amrit has also given it just in the previous posts! As this forum is a continuous test of my patience I will give it again: kesh: sir de rom in Mahankosh (original edition)

[Guest]

Just a note Amrit: You are being too aggressive and personal.

I dont like that, I am sure you wont like me in an agressive mood as well. .

Where am I being to aggressive? I did not even mention your ID. It does not matter what you or me like. The readers can decide who is being aggressive here. And yes, I would like you in aggressive mood.

(Dear moderators, please let me know if I was being 'too aggressive' in any of my post in this thread).

I had valid reasons to question your quotes, and I am doing it not for my benefit but fot clarifying things to the young readers of our forum.

Your quotes only lead to more confusion, rather than clarity.

The quotes are very clear. If you are in confusion, then please let me do what I could do.

Its good to quote form any place, you want to but then one should have valid arguments to support those quotes. You quote nicely but then at least ponder over them before you make them available to all the readers.

You have neither quoted to any old text, nor you have given arguments. Please quote to any old source to prove my points wrong.

As far as defination of Sehajdhari is concerned, I think it is a complete myth that Sehajdhaari can use scissors but not Ustara to cut his her hair. The aim of both is the same hair removal and doing away with the natural form given by God.

The defination of a Sahajdhari has been given in the Rahatnama. The Rahatnama says a Sahajdhari can use scissors, but not 'Ustara'. I have already quoted to the Rahatnama.

If you can quote to any old source, then please do; otherwise no use of showing your ignorance over the topic again and again.

Whay I asked you about Berad Trimmer is, to clarify in which section you would want to put the beard trimmer in ..Ustara or scissors ? as per your of quoted ancient texts.

The person, who is born in a Sikh family and trims his beard, is a 'Patit'. He is not a 'Sahajdhari'. I also gave an example of 'Patits', who have just donated the water treatment plant. If the beard trimmers are not accepted by some people, how can they accept their money in a Sikh Gurdwara? Thus, such people should go to the SGPC and ask to remove the water treatment plant.

'Guru Ka Sikh Kesaan De Ahankaar Kar Sikhi Na Gavaaye'. ('Rahatnama Bhaayee Chaupa Singh').

Is Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji only referring to hair on the head ?

Please read my posts in this thread again. I have written, "For an Amritdhari Sikh, The 'Rahatnama Bhaayee Chaupa Singh' says, "Guru Ka Sikh Dehee De Rom Na Luhaaye". The word 'Dehee' clearly means 'body'. Thus, an Amritdhari is supposed to keep all the hair on his body uncut. (Also see, "Kesdhari Chhaatee De Rom Luhaaye, So Tankhaaheeya").

If you still do not understand my language, then please ask the moderators to make it clear.

And yes, as I quoted to the 'Mahan Kosh', Bhaayee Kahan Singh Nabha wrote that 'Kes' is the hair on the head. :wink:

Keeping Kesh doesnt make one a sikh, BUT Kesh are an essential part of Sikhi. A Sikh should not be arrogant of anything, neither Kesh, nor knowledge. He has to be humble in any case !!!

Should I appologise for my knowledge of the texts?

You will get a detailed reply to your answers and ahy I questioned your quotations.

Why did you not answer right now? Are you going to take help from someone, who knows the texts?

Wello, I am waiting.

If you meant to quote S. Dalip Singh ji, he is not an old source. He has quoted to the Gurbani. If you think the 'Rahatnamas' are not reliable sources, then please quote to the Gurbani, where it has been written that 'Kes' is 'an essential part of Sikhi'.

I found this line in the Gurbani, "bhaavai laa(n)bae kaes kar bhaavai gharar muddaae.

You may have long hair, or you may shave your head bald".

I too believe that an 'Amritdhari' is ordered to keep his all hair uncut, but this can be proved by the tradition and the 'Rahatnamas', which are 'brahamanical', according to you. If so, then prove your statement by quoting to any old source. If you cannot, then please accept my arguments, which are basically the Sikh arguments; and not given by any person, who is ex-communicated by Sri Akal Takht Sahib Jee.

Anyhow, I think you are agreed to my points, you just want to prove me wrong at any cost.

And the 'Rahatnamas' will be availabe online very soon, I hope.

[Guest]

Let me know via pm if someone needs to add anything.

*Locked & Archived for time being*