5

I have seen many Sadhu who grow their hair and never cut them, while there are some Pandits who shave their hair and just have a small pony tail. Both of them are devotees of God but have opposite traits for their hairs.

Adding more on this, Hindus have a custom/belief/superstition until 'Mundan ceremony' is done, people avoid making a child pass under the shade of a tree as his hairs have not been shaved and they are prone to catching spirits. Also, in jainism (which is a near hinduism religion) there are stories of people plucking all their hairs and attain Dikhsha for Sanyaas. In Hinduism, people shave their hairs when their parents die. People also get hairs shaved in some famous temples like Tirupati Balaji, Mata Chintpurani, etc. There is also a strong belief that while praying or doing something hawan, etc, we tend to cover our hairs.

I want to know if there is a reason/belief for growing or cutting of hairs?

Aby
  • 10,103
  • 22
  • 71
  • 143
  • 2
    Logical Point : Sadhu lives on remote places like forest or himalaya so it is hard to find barber for them, while pandits lives among the normal people and also earns the daxina. One more thing pundits also keeps long chotli rather than full cutting of hair. – Kedarnath Dec 03 '14 at 10:33
  • 1
    @Kedarnath, Haha..are you serious. Talking about today Sadhus and babas, lives in cities too and since there are now residential places on mountain regions also, so they can have barbers too in those places. Moreover, Sadhus wander places so they should find some place which has barber. Also, regarding Pandits, not every Pandit works for Dakshina, there were and are some pandits who are working something else but still are pandit. – Aby Dec 03 '14 at 11:21
  • 1
    The "hair" itself is a mystery, even for science. No one has an answer for why it, grows at all. Why its most dense on head and in pubic region? Why it keep growing after death (including nails). I think it must closely be related with the flow of Prana, and thus Tantra. Which is a long lost Science. No one here is worthy enough to "really" answer this ques of yours on this site. Its hilarious to see people are still trying. :) – Hindu Dec 03 '14 at 12:02
  • @Hindu: Actually there are answers to those questions. Head hair protects against the sun, armpit and pubic hair reduces friction. Rather than why we have hair, the more interesting question for scientists are why we lose them, as all our closest evolutionary cousins are hairy and they were used for temperature regulation. And no, nails and hair don't grow after death, rather tissues around them retracts due to dehydration which gives the impression of a longer hair/nail. The last bit is well-documented among morticians, who would regularly moisturize bodies to minimize this effect. – Lie Ryan Dec 03 '14 at 14:06
  • 2
    @LieRyan, We DON'T need explicit "protection" from sun. You are just trying to make a trivial function of it, as the whole reason of its existence. Same thing you are doing for armpit, and pubic hairs. Kids don't have them, but still are more physically active than most adults. Sorry bt FALSE reasoning! And Darwin's theory is not just false but stupid. Life is not a product of Probability. You may be right on the growth of Hairs/Nails after death. Thanks. – Hindu Dec 03 '14 at 15:28
  • 1
    @LieRyan Few example statements in the same line of your reasoning: "The whole Reason for moon to be a approx. sphere is for its Surface area to become close to 4.pi.radius^2"..OR "The reason for a Flower's existence is its smell", OR "The whole reason for any existing biological features, is because this is the most "fit" way possible" (False Darwin's reasoning). – Hindu Dec 03 '14 at 15:48
  • if by sadhu you mean saint, not all sadhus grow their hair: take a look at Swami Sivananda, Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekananda, Shirdi Sai Baba, Adi Shankaracharya, etc. So there can be no hard and fast rule about this. It depends on personal preference as well as the taste of the individuals I guess – Sai Dec 03 '14 at 17:04
  • @Hindu Are you a creationist? – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 03 '14 at 20:40
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I am a Hindu, who believes in Conscious creation of this world. – Hindu Dec 03 '14 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Hindu: As I said before, you are really asking the wrong question. Most mammals have hairs, and their functions and development are well-studied and well-understood, thermoregulation, protection from scratches, sensory, etc. It wouldn't be interesting had we maintained a thick coat of hair, as evolution often keeps features that has lost its raison d'être, as removing features can be more expensive than keeping them. The more interesting question is why we lose most of our body hair, there are various theories around this, control of fire, improvements to sweat glands, reducing lice, etc. – Lie Ryan Dec 04 '14 at 00:19
  • 1
    @Hindu: From evolutionary stand point, hair in human does not need a reason to exist, it's the status quo. It's losing them that needs a reason; similar to how an object needs no reason to keep moving under vacuum, it's the status quo. Also, there are well known physical reasons why large planets are ball-shaped. Over long period of time, self-gravity would crush any objects large enough to have significant gravity into a sphere, because a sphere is (mathematically) the most efficient shape under self gravitation. This is getting off topic. If you want to continue, please open a chat room. – Lie Ryan Dec 04 '14 at 00:39
  • 1
  • My question was absolutely fine. Calling hairs "status quo", is too much of an "abstraction", and doesn't seem to fall under Scientific Thinking. Sorry. 2. Darwin's theory is false & (stupid too) in general. Human have, roughly the same amount of hairs, since the dawn of humanity on Earth. And lastly I know why planets are spherical, and that example was just an example of your previously used flawed reasoning, and was not intended to question your knowledge in that particular field. Indeed, this is getting off-topic. So lets just leave this nice talk here itself. Thank You! :)
    • – Hindu Dec 04 '14 at 06:35
  • 3
    @Hindu: It isn't about scientific thinking, that evolution has inertia is well established, it normally do not add or shed features without evolutionary pressures. Calling a fact false and stupid doesn't make it false nor stupid. Also, noone is talking about Darwin's theory; I agree lots what he said was stupid, evolution science has moved a lot since Darwin's time. Human have, roughly the same amount of hairs You are just playing word games. The amount of hair follicle is roughly the same, yes, but the length of modern human body hair is so short that they're practically non-existent. – Lie Ryan Dec 04 '14 at 16:06