He who says: "Doth not nature herself teach you that it is a shame unto man to keep long hair?" I ask him: "Was it a shame unto your leader, who wore long hair? Or, is it a shame unto them who represent him so?" For it is a shame to choose the condemned fashion. Perhaps it is a shame unto foolish nature, who herself gives a thing and yet teaches to remove it.
But Nature has done nothing on her own. For, what is Nature? "The Generative Power, which proceeds from the essence of the Universal Soul, being an image of the Principal Power" (Plotinus). And "shame, since, it arises at low, bad actions, does not at all, belong to the good man, because such ought not to be done at all. Nor does it make any difference to allege that some things are disgraceful, others only because they are thought so, for neither should be done, so that a man ought not be in a position of feeling shame. In truth to be such a man as to do anything disgraceful is the part of a faulty character. And for a man to be such that he would feel shame if he should do anything disgraceful, and to think that this constitutes him a good man, is absurd, because shame is felt at voluntary actions, and a good man will never voluntarily do what is base." (Aristotle Nich.Eth B.IV.Ch.9 ix)
God created human beings through Nature, His Generative Power. That is, He has given bodies to souls. To some manly, to some womanly. Souls in themselves have no sex. The skull and face are the parts of the human body. To men and women both, God gave hair on the skull, but on the face to men only. A certain man comes along and says what I have quoted in the beginning. He and his auditors all are uninstructed. Neither he nor any of them possesses the ability to understand what is meant by Nature and shame. And they are in consequence of this, utterly ignorant of the great sin and sacrilege they are committing by alleging this. But simple enough to believe blindly what is said.
Those who do not follow the folly of this individual are mocked. And when they are seen in their natural form by any of these polished men, even their women cry out: "Does not Nature herself teach them that it is a shame unto man to wear long hair?" The man who is attacked asks: "It was not my choice, but that of God. You say that it is a shameful form. It may be. But shame be to him who has given me that which causes shame, and renders me an object of derision." But that which causes shame, I have adduced from Aristotle, is base and evil. And the doer of this base act in question is Nature. For she has given long hair to man. Nature, I have shown from Plotinus, proceeds from the Universal Soul, which is the image of the One, the first Divine Hypostasis.
Therefore, the cause of this base act is God, which is diabolically and outrageously wicked to think even in a dream. We cannot, justly, do away with the body altogether. But we can do something to it. Some addition or subtraction. We shall do so, if we are persuaded. But before we do it, we must acknowledge, either conscientiously or otherwise, the deficiency of our Fabricator. Which, personally, I shall not. Unto whom must I say, then, the shame is due? Intellect, it is for thee to decide. But when it is going to be distributed, a portion of it, perhaps, will come to my lot, who sluggishly wasted some valuable moments in calling to mind this clownish doctrine, a statement most illogical and self-contradictory.
Plato's views on hair
Plato's authority is sufficient to the wise, and to the bigoted it is impossible to satisfy: Timaeus.
"Again, it was not possible that the head could bear a mere covering of thin bone, owing to the extremes of the different seasons; nor, again, could it be allowed to become clouded, blind and unperceptive, through the overcrowding of flesh. Hence a fleshy membrane, not dried, was left separate from the rest—that now termed cuticle (or scalp). This, then, being brought into union with itself by the moisture about the brain, grows around and circularly invests the head. And it is the moisture flowing under the sutures that moistens this membrane and causes it to close at the crown, connecting it as in a knot. But as for the ever-varying classes of sutures, they are generated through the power of the periodic changes caused by nutriment in the flesh; the variety becoming greater when they struggle with each other more violently, less so when less violently.
"All this membrane the Divine Being pierced all round with fire, and hence, as it wounded, and the moisture externally flowed through it, all that was pure of the moisture and heat was carried off, while that which was mixed and of a nature allied to that of the membrane itself, being raised by the motion, was stretched outwards to a great size, having also a tenuity equal to the amount of puncture, whereas, on the other hand, when continually thrust back through the slowness of its motion by the spirit surrounding it externally, it again revolves under the membrane and there becomes firmly rooted.
"And owing to these affections is it that hair springs up on the membrane of the head, being naturally allied, and serving as a rein to this membrane but at the same time becoming harder and denser through the pressure of the cold, which hardens each hair as it proceeds beyond the skin. Thus, then, by the means above mentioned, did our Creator plant the head with hairs, reflecting at the same time that instead of flesh a light covering was needed to guard the brain and give it shade and protection from the extremes of heat and cold without hindering its acuteness of sensation".
Hair and nails
Aye, but some one would say, "Well, if the human body is the fabrication of a benevolent and wise Artificer, and if we are unjustified to clip the hair and beard, are not the nails on the tips of the fingers and toes by the wish of the same Manufacturer? If they are, why should we then feel no hesitation in paring them?" To such a one, I reply :
"Inquisitive inquire, why do you raise a question on 'cutting the nails,' rather than on combing the hair; for, verily, the nail-cutter and the comb perform exactly the same kind of functions. The former removing the 'dead nail' and the latter the 'dead hair.' And on no account I solicit you to keep such things.
"While in the act of combing, by negligence or through any fault of the instrument, if a single live hair is plucked off, what immense pain is felt; and similarly, how exceedingly miserable becomes the condition of a person whose 'live nail' is injured or separated in any way! Again the Creator has already fixed a limit beyond which one may cut the nail; for farther than that extremity the nail is dead and decaying. But there is no such hint concerning hair. And either the head should be shaved entirely, like chin and cheeks, or else every part kept natural. And he who adopts the former custom the same must shave the whole body, including eyebrows, eyelashes, hair of axilla, and the pubes.
"For the Deity has made no note of distinction, above or from which place one may cut or remove the hair, as in the case of the nails. And, therefore, either all which have no limit should be cut right off or kept altogether, being no one considered wise to interfere with the Supreme Design, and draw his own marks of limitation."
Epictetus' pride in his hair and beard
"What then", says Epictetus, "has not Nature used this hair also in the most suitable manner possible? Has she not by it distinguished the male and the female? Does not the nature of every man forthwith proclaim from a distance, "I am a man: as such approach me, as such speak to me; look for nothing else; see the signs?" Again, in the case of women, as she has mingled something softer in the voice, so she has also deprived them of hair (on the chin). You say, not so: the human animal ought to have been left without marks of distinction, and each of us should have been obliged to proclaim, I am a man. But is it not the sign beautiful and becoming and venerable? How much more beautiful than the cock's comb, how much more becoming than the lion's mane? For this reason we ought to preserve the signs which God has given, we ought not to throw them away, nor to confound as much as we can the distinctions of the sexes.
"Did this one of the noblest philosophers persuade his pupils to busy themselves in beautifying their bodies all the time? Do not imagine it. When Domitian ordered the philosophers to go into exile, some of them in order to conceal their profession of philosophy, shaved their breads, Epictetus would not take off his. And it must be during those days when someone addressed him:
"Come, then Epictetus, shave yourself." Epictetus: "If I am a philosopher, I answer, I will not shave myself."
"But," said the other, “I will take off your head."
"If that will do you any good, take it off," replied Epictetus. (Discourses of Epictetus, translated by G.Long, Book I, Ch:II)
"What, again, did he say when a certain young rhetorician came to see him, with his face shaved, and his attire in an ornamental style? After a short discourse on virtue, he said: "If you wish to be beautiful, young man, labor at this, the acquisition of human excellence. But what is this? Observe whom you yourself praise when you praise many persons without partiality: do you praise the just or the unjust: The just, whether do you praise the moderate. And the temperate or the in-temperate." (Book III, ch i) If then you make yourself such a person you will know that you will make yourself beautiful: but so long as you neglect these things, you must be ugly (ala, Xpov), even though you contrive all you can to appear beautiful.
"Further I do not know what to say to you: for I say to you what I think, I shall offend you, and you will perhaps leave the school and not return to it: and if I do not say what I think, see how I shall be acting, if you come to me to be improved, and I shall not improve you at all, and if you come to me as a philosopher, I shall say nothing to you as a philosopher. And cruel it is to you to leave you uncorrected. If at any time afterwards you shall acquire sense, you will with good reason blame me and say, what did Epictetus observe in me that when he saw me in such a plight coming to him in such a scandalous condition, he neglected me and never said a word? Did he so much despair of me? Was I not young? Was I not able to listen to reason?
"And how many other young men at this age commit many like errors? I hear that a certain Polemon from being a most dissolute youth underwent such a great change. Well, suppose that he did not think that I should be a Polemon: yet he might have set my hair right, he might have stripped off my decorations, he might have stopped me from cutting the hair out of my body; but when he saw me dressed like—what shall I say? he kept silent. I do not say like what; but you will say when you come to your senses, and shall know what it is, and what persons use such a dress. If you bring this charge against me hereafter, what defence shall I make? Why shall I say that the man will not be persuaded by me?
"But since I have been condemned to wear a white beard and a cloak, and you come to me as to a philosopher, I will not treat you in a cruel way nor yet as if I despaired of you, but I will say, 'Young man, whom do you wish to make beautiful?' In the first place, know who you are and then adorn yourself appropriately. You are a human being; and this is a mortal animal which has the power of using appearances rationally. But what is meant by 'rationally?', conformably to Nature and completely. What then do you possess which is peculiar? Is it the power of using appearances? No. You possess the rational faculty as a peculiar thing; adorn and beautify this; but leave your hair to Him who made it as He chose. Come, what other appellations have you?
"Are you man or woman? Man. Adorn yourself then as man, not as woman. Woman is naturally smooth and delicate; and if she has much hair (on her body), she is a monster and is exhibited at Rome among monsters. And in a man it is monstrous not to have hair; and if he has no hair he is a monster; but if he cuts off his hairs and plucks them out, what shall we do with him? Where shall we exhibit him? And under what name shall we show him? I will exhibit to you a man who chooses to be a woman rather than a man. What a terrible sight! There is no man who will not wonder at such a notice.
"Indeed, I think that the men who cut off their hairs do what they do without knowing what they do. Man, what fault have you to find with your Nature? That it made you a man? Was it fit that Nature should make all human creatures women? And what advantage in that case would you have had in being adorned? For whom would you have adorned yourself if all human creatures were women? But you are not pleased with the matter; set to work then upon the whole business— take away—what is its name? —that which is the cause of the hairs: make yourself a woman in all respects, that we may not be mistaken: do not make one-half man, and the other half woman.
"Whom do you wish to please? The women? Please them as a man. Well, but they like smooth men. Will you not hang yourself? And if women took delight in catamites, would you become one? Is this your business? Were you born for this purpose—that dissolute women should delight in you? Shall we make in such a one as you a citizen of Corinth and perchance a Prefect of the city, or chief of the youth, or superintendent of the games? Well, and, when you have taken a wife, do you intend to have your hairs cut off? To please whom and for what purpose? And when you have begotten children, will you introduce them also into the state with the habit of plucking their hairs?
"Come then, let us obey God, that we may not be subject to His anger. You say, No. But (I say), if a crow by his croaking signifies anything to you, it is not the crow which signifies, but God through the crow; and if he signifies anything through a human voice, will he not cause the man to say this to you, that you may know the Power of the Divinity, that He signifies to some in this way, and to others in that way, and concerning the greater things and chief, He signifies through the noblest messenger."
"Allow a man to be a man, and a woman to be a woman, a beautiful man to be as beautiful man, and an ugly man as an ugly man. But up to the present time I dare not tell you that you are ugly, for I think you are readier to hear anything than this. But see what Socrates says to the most beautiful and blooming of men, Alcibiades. Try then to be beautiful. What does he say to him? Dress your hair and pluck the hairs from your legs? Nothing of the kind. But adorn your will, take away bad opinions. How with the body? Leave it as it is by nature. Another has looked after these things: entrust them to Him. What then, must a man be uncleaned? Certainly not; but what you are and are made by nature, cleanse this. A man should remain clean as a man, a woman as a woman, a child as a child. You say no: but let us also pluck out the lion's mane, that he may not be uncleaned, and the cock's comb for he also ought to be cleaned. Granted, but the cock as a cock, and the lion as a lion, and the hunting dog as a hunting dog.
To a clerk, student, and the professional men, is it more troublesome to wash a manly face than shaving in the morning? Is a shaven face more smooth after a few hours, than an unshaven one perpetually? Let a lady try this experiment by rubbing her cheeks against those of the former and the latter. Is the handsomeness or comeliness acquired artificially better than that which is gifted by the Divinity? Should one pretend to appear young when God wants him to look old according to his years? Is it not a sin to conceal the right age? Is it not wicked in the eyes of God to be a hypocrite? Is it not transgressive to assume yourself, and endeavour to show others, for some sensual purpose, that you are young when you are not so in reality?
Those who sophisticate that a man with manly face seems dirty, will they tell me whether the one half or three fourths of the living rulers of mankind are not clean? For they do not shave.
May the Heavenly Father have mercy on the soul of the late King Edward the Seventh of England. During the memorable week in which he passed away, I happened to see a number of portraits, from the date of his marriage to the date of his death; but curiously enough I did not come across a single one in which his face was shaved.
In Gaul, hair was much esteemed, hence the appellation Gallia Comata; cutting of the hair was a punishment. The royal family of France held it as a privilege to wear long hair artfully dressed and curled.
Was the unshorn man unclean? Were Darwin, Kelvin and Tolstoy not clean?
Embellish your true Self, O Man, for it is worthwhile to take pains in adorning a thing, which, being besides your own, is imperishable. But it is unwise to waste time, more than due, on a body which must necessarily decay.
Some say, "When you are in Rome, do as the Romans do." But then, are the Christian missionaries right in praying to their Jehovah when they are wandering in a country of idolators? For what reason do they not worship, amongst pagans, and what the pagans worship? Why should a temperate man confirm to his principle, when he is a guest of his drunken friends? How is a civilized man justified in abstaining from human flesh if he happens to live in the land of cannibals? On what account is a doctor acting right, to talk sensibly, when he is visiting an asylum? Would that the men had followed so zealously some paradox of the wise, or a proverb composed by some pious man! Would to God that could be persuaded to do so!
How pleasant and delightful it would have been if they had paid but no heed to such an idiotic maxim; an emanation from some stupid, lethargic mind. And "it were surely proper that they should neither perform nor imitate anything else; (Plato Rep. Lib. III.) but should they imitate at all, to imitate from their childhood upwards just what corresponds with these: brave, temperate, pious, generous-hearted men, and the like; but neither to perform, nor to desire to imitate what is illiberal or base, lest from the very imitation they come to experience the positive reality."
"Pythagoras kept long hair, beard, etc. -Diogenes Laertius". Eratosthenes says, as Phavorinas quotes him, in the eighth book of his Universal History, that Pythagoras was the first man who ever practised boxing in a scientific manner, having his hair long, and being clothed in a purple robe; and that he was rejected from the competition among boys, and being ridiculed for his application, he immediately entered among the men, and came out victorious. (One of the seven sages of Greece; flourished 1941 B P (Before Plato).
It is recorded of Servius Tullius [Reigned 145-106 P B] the sixth king of Rome, that his hair emitted electric sparks on being combed. This could not have occurred unless the hair was long. The phenomenon, in India, I myself have observed frequently. Indeed, my own hair emitted, there; very large sparks. In cold climates, it is almost impossible to witness this, as the hair is there never perfectly dry; and dryness is the most important item in the experiments of electrostatics.
"The Greeks," says Professor Becker, "bestowed great pains on that natural ornaments of the head, the hair,"(Private Life of the Ancient Greeks) as Plato calls it; and he is very averse to having it covered up in any manner.
Winkelmann remarks that the natives of the South are endowed with a greater profusion of hair than the inhabitants of Northern lands: and by the Greeks its growth was carefully cherished, as it was thought to contribute greatly to render the figure noble and attractive. "Moreover, a certain political significancy was attached to the hair; families, grades of rank and of age, being thereby distinguished. In after times the Athenians, who followed the Ionic fashion, were distinguished from the Spartans, who adhered to the old Doric. The latter allowed the hair, as being the cheapest of ornaments to grow long.
"No less attention was lavished on the beard, which was not looked on as a troublesome encumbrance, but as a dignified ornament of maturity and old age. In general, a strong full beard was held to be a sign of manliness and power.
Alexander brought shaving into fashion, but there can be no doubt that it was partially adopted at much earlier period; though the practice was certainly regarded as contemptible. So the Courtiers of Philip are attacked by Theopompus.
"Yet Chrysippus expressly states that this new custom of shaving was introduced by Alexander. Plutarch asserts that Alexander caused his soldiers' beards to be shaved, from motives of strategical caution. The innovation was stoutly resisted in many states, and was forbidden by special laws which do not seem to have been universally, and very speedily adopted. Alexander's successors adhered to the new custom in their own persons, and most of the kings of the Macedonian dynasties are thus represented. There are a few exceptions, such as Ptolemaeus Philadelphus and the celebrated Cameo Gonzaga."
Another point in the favour of Theomorphists (the Gurus) is that in the days of Plato, at Athens, shaving and hair cutting was in vogue.
Shaving was neither unknown nor its practice was uncommon in the days of Plato, and if even then, and under those circumstances he kept long hair, beard etc, caring not for the custom of the time, it is quite obvious and certain that he wanted his genuine and faithful disciples also to do the same, and to imitate him in everything as nearly as possible. And it would have been quite another matter if no one in those days had known such a custom as shaving, and if under those circumstances I had mentioned before the case of Plato, you could have said, "Oh, but in those days everyone did the same. People did not know shaving. It was utterly unknown to them. Otherwise surely Plato would have shaved." But now, O rational animal, since the matter is such as I have endeavored to depict it, you are not justified to argue in that way.
Now tell me, do you possess a soul holier than that of Orpheus; or masters more sublime than Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato; or disciples more faithful than Antisthenes, Diogenes, Zeno, and Epictetus; or expositors as truly inspired as Plotinus and Porphyrius; or commentators more profound than Syrianus and Proclus; or biographers more divine than Plutarchus and Iamblichus? No, only their bibliophgists!
In what way are you then superior to the ancients? Have not your inventions created countless more temptations the seducers of the soul? Have they not enticed her from rectitude and duty? Is she not enslaved by their ephemeral pleasures? Is she not their prisoner without any leisure? Ah! How can you free her, unless these alluring and regretful conditions, more easily than in days of yore? Alas, in no wise! And unless and until you pass your life entirely aloof from the sensual gratifications, given rise to by your marvelous discoveries, those causes and expressions of your ostentation and pride— Buddha is absolutely unable to help you, Jesus is blameless not to recognize or receive you, and Mohamet is not authorised to advance and defend you.
Enough has been said about the hair; and the (unshorn) hair is the Emblem of Passive Obedience.
The comb (kanga)
The second symbol is the Comb. But that requires no explanation. Nor is there any mystery to be disclosed about it. For it is clear enough that it is meant for the purpose of keeping the former clean and tidy. It is the Emblem of Purity.
The iron bangle (kada)
The third symbol is the iron bangle. Is not a handcuff made of iron? And is it not used as a manacle for the wrist? You ask, For whose wrists? Undoubtedly for the wrists of the prisoners. But are not the human souls prisoners on account of their having behaved iniquitously, and proving disobedient to God's divine Commandments? Besides the holy Phostris, the great Plato declares positively that they are. The learned Pythagoreans, too, answer in the affirmative.
If, then, a person, who is a prisoner, does not act rightly; and if even in prison he is worse than ever, should he not justly expect a still more torturous punishment? He must. But what if he repents truly for his past injustice? If he always realizes the shameful position in which he is put; if his fetters remind him every moment that he is a slave; that it is outcome of his precious behavior, will he not be set free?
Certainly, if the justice is justice; and the judges have the powers to read the hearts, and that of knowing what is to come in the future. But suppose an infringer of the laws was not imprisoned; or imprisoned in such an easy way that he was unaware even of his being a prisoner during the course of his confinement, what will happen? He will violate the laws again, knowing not that he had been punished for his former misdeed. And what will be the issue? He will be imprisoned at once. Not as before. But this time in a manner, which will tell him every moment, that he is a cageling.
But if, on the contrary, previous to his last hard imprisonment, he had been confined in such a way that he could have known it, at least that he was under the eyes of justice; the he was being punished, however rightly, he was sure to have been on his guard, and would not probably have committed a further folly. So of this kind is the iron bangle a reminder. And, therefore, if we do not adopt it, or care not for the services of this loyal remonstrator, we are liable to go on doing wrong till we are turned into hideous animals and then we will truly know that we are prisoners. We are in need of it, because we are prisoners of such a superior kind that it is impossible for us to be reminded otherwise that we are confined. He, of course, whose powers of self-control transcend these boundaries does not require it; if happily there be any one who has reached to give caution, and to vociferate into their ears, always, without cessation:
"Thou soul of my wearer, pay heed to me, and listen to me more attentively; and see what most important facts I am to reveal. Thou art confined. Yes, and art bound by this body and the mind. On High once thou didst dwell in the regions of the Blessed, and enjoyed the true felicity. But what art thou now? "Thou hapless adventurer, hear: "Thou art but a miserable slave."
"A serf to the passions of these impure organs." Woe unto thee! How long prithee wilt thou remain here? Think of thy returning back to thy glorious Parents. How happy will thy Father be to receive thee again! Spare thy chastity, O virgin, I entreat thee. The joys of Venus are evanescent and fleeting. This music too is false. For thou dost not enable thyself to discriminate from it the divine harmony. Thou art beautiful; it is true. But hast not beheld thy real charm. It lays hidden behind the deceptory polish. O child, thou disgrace and ignominy to thy Preceptor, do attend and give ear to my implorations. How long shall I be with thee; and how many times shall I give thee these friendly counsels? Ah! thou dost not seem to be affected by any. Please thyself. But remember, thou wilt regret, and there will be wailing and the grinding of the teeth, when presently thou art enveloped into some beastly structure. And rest assured thou will not regain soon, my girl, this noble form, even though didst make earnestly countless supplications."
The Iron Bangle thus appears to be the Emblem of Justice.
The sword (kirpan)
The fourth symbol is the tiny iron imitation of sword. The sword is a weapon which is used for the purpose of destroying some believed imminent visible cause of evil. Any the tiny sword, if it were a voice-dividing being, would never have ceased exclaiming, and now as it is, it is meant to exhort its carrier: "Just as thou wouldst use, O mortal, the weapon of which I am a representation, against thy external foes, so be not neglectful to repeat "Vahguru; as that is the only sword wherewith thou canst slay thy mental enemies, those most dreadful and powerful agents of impiety, which are never out but always within."
The tiny sword is, therefore, the Emblem of Prudence.
The trouser (kachh)
The fifth symbol is short linen trousers reaching the knees, but not covering them. And this is the Emblem of Modesty and Temperance.
If after all this, any one is still desirous of appearing what he should not, or that of confuting me and disproving what I have laid down, let him first of all show himself to his own self that he has led, and is leading, a better life than those whose opinions and teachings I have been presenting to support my arguments. But if, perchance, he is unable to do that, let me remain silent; if he should rattle out reasons even more plausible than those of Gorgias and Protagoras, they will be absolutely of no value in my estimation. And you, O beloved, perpetrate not on any account, even though you run the risk of losing your life, anything immoral, ignoble and unnatural; but that which participates of neither of these vices do unhesitatingly if the necessity requires.
NOTES & REFERENCES
1. T. Flavius Domitianus Augustus, was the younger of Vespasian's sons by his first wife Domitilla. He succeeded his elder brother Titus as Emperor of Rome, and reigned from 81 to 96 in the year of Jesus. His cruelty and tyranny have given his reign an unenviable notoriety. All the philosophers who lived at Rome were expelled. Christian writers attribute to him a persecution of the Christians likewise.
2. The story of Polemon is told by Diogenes Laertius. He was a dissolute young man. As he was passing one day the place where Xenocrates was teaching, he and his drunken companions burst into the school, but Polemon was so affected by the words of that excellent teacher that he came out quite a different man, and ultimately succeeded Xenocrates in the school of Academy. Xenocrates was the disciple of Plato, who had succeeded him in his school.
3. The Egyptians did not wear beards; the Assyrians did. They have been worn for centuries by the Jews, who were forbidden to mar their beards. 1490 B.C. (Lev.xix. 27). The Tartars waged a long war with the Persians, declaring them infidels because they would not cut their beards after the custom of Tartary. The Greeks wore their beards till the time of Alexander, 330 B.C. Beards were worn by the Romans. 390 B.C. In England they were not fashionable after the conquest, 1066, untill the 13th century, and were discontinued at the Restoration. Peter the Great enjoined the Russians, even of rank to shave but was obliged to keep officers on foot to cut off the beard by force. About 1851 the custom of wearing the beard increased in Great Britain until about 1890, when moustaches only became popular; after about 1905 it became the fashion to wear no hair of any kind on the face." Hayden's Dictionary of Dates, 25th edition.
