...continued
from Part One
Supdt: Excuse
me, the head when once chopped off renders the body dead and the head does not grow again.
But on the other hand the hair completely shorn off or hair cut short start growing again.
There is a world of difference between the two instances.
Myself: Do you believe in re-incarnation or
transmigration of the soul?
Supdt: Yes, I do.
Myself: Nobody
dies even after death, because the soul migrates. Those who kill others cannot kill their
souls. The soul cannot die and it continues to take new births. The attempt to kill a soul
goes in vain. There can be no success in doing this. In the same way, the effort of those
who cut or shave their hair time and again, goes futile because the shaven or cut hair
continue to grow again and again, the same way as the soul of a killed or dead person
takes birth again and again. The difference, however, is only this that the soul moves on
from one life to another and the killer or the murderer does not realise it, but the hair
continue to grow until death of the person.
Persistent growth of hair
acts as a rebuff to the efforts of the shaver. The way in which the life-spark of a soul
exists in the total life-spark of God, the same way, the life-spark in the hair continues
to exist in the life-spark of the human body until its (body's) complete destruction. It
is very important that each hair on human head and on the entire body should be kept
intact, because these are created there by God - our Creator. The hair on our head and
body grow to such length as is needed by the physiology and biology of each individual
body according to God's plan. The hair grows to certain length and then stops growing
further naturally. Any attempt to undo the Creator's work by either trying to artificially
make hair grow thicker and longer or get rid of it is our folly and also against the Law
of God. Women do not have hair on the face. Any human attempt to grow it there would not
succeed. Similarly, to cut hair from the head is also sheer folly. God - the Creator, has
given beards to men but they shave them every day and try to look like women. But Nature
does not let them do so. They shave but Nature administers a snub to them every morning by
letting it grow again. The shavers receive double blow, one from the shaving blade and the
other from Nature when every morning new beard comes out in defiance of their intentions.
But they do not wake up to the ultimate Reality. Women as well suffer humility when they
try to cut their hair and look like men by imitating them in this mad pursuit. Both male
and female have gained absolutely nothing from this pursuit.
The question should have been
"Why Nature's gift (Hair) should not be left intact on the head and else-where and
why should it be cropped?" But, surprisingly, questions are asked the other way. The
stark reality is that there is an overwhelming majority of people who defy the Divine
because of this habit inherited from others through centuries and have mistaken the shaven
face and shorn hair as a natural form. The reason is that, in the world, there are so few
and so rare people who stick to and are consistent with the Eternal Law of Nature. When
any person from big nations of the world chances to have a glance at a Sikh in natural
form, he wonders at the latter's completely natural face and asks the question: "Is
it necessary to keep hair intact?" In his ignorance he forgets that hair like other
limbs of the body is part and parcel of the human body. A Sikh would never allow a single
hair to be removed from his body because he bows to God's Law, he understands that hair
growth has a purpose behind it and believes it a sin to do otherwise; just as a doctor
would not advise to close a pore on the body.
This is a very complex
question you have raised. Volumes can be written on this topic. We do not have enough time
at our disposal to do full justice to the discussion on the sanctity of our hair. Those
who raise such objections are usually Arya Samajists. Are you not prejudiced like them?
Supdt:
(Smiling) No, I am not that much of an Arya Samajist, though, to some extent I am inclined
towards Arya Samaj beliefs and practices. But I have asked this question to you just
spontaneously. Even though you have used some very blunt epithets but I have, all the
same, liked the line of your argument. A lot of my misconceptions and suspicions have
vanished now.
When you leave jail, I wish
you would write a detailed book on the philosophy of hair and propagate it throughout the
world in all languages. Your argument that in cropping hair or shaving beards people just
follow suit, like the movement of an individual sheep in a flock, has impressed me. All of
our rishies, sages and prophets in the ancient times, were kesbadharis (with natural
hair), which means they kept their hair intact. There is evidence that up to Maha Bharat
times all Khatries, Brahmins and religious leaders used to have long hair intact. In old
Hindu books and scriptures it is written down how ignoble it was to cut hair and it was,
in fact one of the seven punishments under the then state law. Lord Krishna, our Avtar,
substituted cutting off hair of Rukmani's brother Rukman for death sentence in pursuance
of her appeal to save his life. Rukman was so angry with this. He was so much grieved that
he called his sister his enemy, because it was she who had recommended the cutting off his
hair. Rukman himself thought that this punishment was worse than the death sentence.
I value your viewpoint, you
are really a Singh with high ideals, Sardar Randhir Singh! No other Singh has ever
convinced me like this. A grain of cogent argument is more than sufficient for a seeker
after truth. Well, time has passed so quickly. Let us leave it there. Namaste. We will see
to the rest later on.
Myself: Sat Sri Akal. 'Later on', surely
does not so easily.
To be honest, occasion to continue that dialogue 'later
on’ never arrived again, but that prison Superintendent struck me as a very kind and
a thoughtful person. |
