Likewise , we can appreciate kesh as a gift of GodGuru , the natural I prefer the term beautiful since similar sentiments about kesh are expressed throughout Sikh scipture and literature form , and accept our functioning bodies without being dogmatic about it i . e . refusing to cut nails , wash ourselves , refuse medical treatment , etc . Why should we appreciate it as a gift of GodGuru ? Where in the Sikh scripture does it tell us to do that ? There is one line from Desa Singh that says to appreciate the beauty of the natural form of a man with mustache , beard , and hair intact , but that ' s not a rigorous theological explanation , and more along the lines of modern FB posts that talk about how a man is nothing without his mane . In fact , the historical opinion according to Panth Parkash , seems to be more along the lines that kesh was implemented to emulate Kshatriyas , not ascetics . Even the joorha , which I used to think was an ascetic way of keeping the hair , seems to be actually a royalKshatriya style while the matted locks are favored by ascetics this is why Udasis are always depicted artistically with such locks . Also , I believe the Gurus kept kesh at least in their artistic depictions , but I ' m pretty sure the majority if not all the Bhagats didn ' t . Farid for example would have trimmed his mustache , and many of the other Bhagats are shown with shaved beards and short hair . Part of the problem is that a lot of modern Sikh artists paint the bhagats in our modern conception of what they have to be , and not accurately what they were . For example , here is a Sikh depiction of Naam Devkavita . comnamdev . jpg , which is very different from the standard Marathi depiction of him 12 namdev 5 . jpg . Now , I personally do agree there ' s a good argument to be had that the kesh was also implemented to emulate the great spiritual ascetics and not just the warriors , but it is by no means the definitive one . And thus the beauty of the divine is not really a primary reason either . RE individuality and the expression thereof we have to be honest and ask ourselves what it is we ' re doing when we talk about expressing our individuality . Shouldn ' t we first become Guruorientated Sikhs and seek to eliminate our bases instincts of lust , anger , pride , greed and attachment lest they manifest themselves in subtle ways amidst our attempts to express our individuality ? Right , so like I said , much of the ways earringstattoos potentially bolster one ' s ego applies to other things , like fancy turbanstyles , kundiya muchhan which are actually extremely egotistical within the context of Punjabi culture , and so on . Should the Rehit ban those things too ? I agree that within a Sikh context , as one becomes more spiritual , the urge to do all of these things will fade more and more . But within the context of a Rehit maryada , where we are micromanaging certain aspects that we believe are completely offbase , there needs to be a basis for determining why a certain practice in this case , tattoos and earpiercing is so much more manmat than the other kundiya muchhan , fancy paghs , that one warrants a ban in the Rehit and the other has a pass . If you believe that both should be banned as they are equally damaging in how much tehy bolster the ego , I suppose that ' s a fair standard I can agree with . But if you are saying that the reason earrings are worse than kundiya muchhan is because they mutilate the body , well , there needs to be a standard in Gurbani to support that . Is there ? I think not . I think it ' s clear that the Gurus did not agree with certain religious groups who believed that mutilating the body was good for spiritual purposes e . g . , Hindus shaving the head of babies because they believe it to be polluted wbad thoughts , Muslims performing circumcisions , Jogis ritually piercing the ears , etc , but it ' s not like they affirmed Sikhs have some utmost standard to revere the divinity of the body as is and that such actions are inherently sacrilegious to the body . Sikhi as understood by pretty much every sect absolutely rejects mutilationSure , that ' s the modern , most commonly adopted explanation as given by the AKJ , the SGPC maryada , etc . Even then , I ' m sure not all groups believe it I doubt the Nihangs would , given that the prominent Akali Phula Singh himself had his ears pierced , princesorgenerals . WellcomeL 0028069 . jpg 220 pxPage 116 % 3 Bthreeportraitsofkings , princesorgenerals . WellcomeL 0028069 . jpg shitty pic but you can see the hoop . Furthermore , this reasoning is not found in any actual old Sikh texts . If the unsightliness of tattoospiercings was the primary motive , why would they be against dying and tying of beards ? Well first of all , the tying of beards isn ' t actually mentioned in any Rehit . The AKJ says that there was a vocal rehit given by Guru not to tie beards , but it just seems like bunk to me . Secondly , I think the dying of beards perfectly fits in with the unsightliness . In India , the primary method of beard dying is that with henna which gives the orange beards some Muslims have , so in that line , I think it makes perfect sense why in the name of cleanliness the bearddying would be expressly banned plucking out white hair is also banned , but that ' s a removal of kesh . Thirdly , I am not saying that the historic reason for the ban on earringstattoos was because of unsightliness I don ' t even believe there was a historic ban on earringstattoos in the first place . For tattoos , there is no mention whatsoever to my knowledge , I should add in Sikh literature or scripture . For earrings , the Bhai Daya Singh rehitnama is the only one that has anything to say about it , and that too provides a muddled context . For example , if we go with this translation which is almost certainly not accurate to the original due to the style of writing , look at the used multiple times , it states that makeup is banned for men , and says nothing about maintaining the natural form or what have you . One could certainly make the argument that it could be a reason , but we could equally make the argument that makeup , nose piercings , and ear piercings for men in particular would be very unsightly for a hypermasculine warrior force , and there was some minimization of deviation needed in the unity of the force . In any case , this Rehit is an outlier to the overall historical trends . Sikh women certainly wore jewelry , nosepiercings , and earpiercings , and Sikh men wore earpiercings so much that the British even stated one of the best ways to distinguish the Sikh cavalry was their big hoop earrings . And like that picture shows , there ' s actually a chance some of the Gurus themselves had ear piercings . One Rehitnama Prem Sumarag even tells Sikhs to pierce the ears of their newborn sons and pierce the nose of their newborn daughter although I ' m 99 % sure this is just a relic of HinduismAll of this isn ' t to say that those Sikhs were all absolutely correct and we should follow them I definitely do not at all believe that at all , but rather , that mutilation in terms of earpiercing was not traditionally seen as a defilement of one ' s divine beauty or sacrilegious . I believe that the modern distaste for earringstattoos among religious Sikhs is along the lines of what I said about unsightliness and maintaining a dignified appearance , which I think is perfectly valid . If people aren ' t going to get a big fat tattoo in their professional office space , why would they want it while representing being a SinghKaur of the Guru ? I personally will never get a tattoo or earring for the same reason . I actually don ' t have that much of a problem with the ban on the tattoosearrings , so much as the reasoning of maintaining the natural form argument , which , again , I find silly and unsupported by Gurbani . Gurbani also rejects material adornments shingaar and tells us what kind of ornaments we should wear . Just to be a devil ' s advocate , that doesn ' t outright ban us from wearing adornments though , does it ? Guru Gobind Singh Ji ' s kalgi and other adornments come to mind . Although I do agree that if the Rehit maryada were to ban showyflashy jewelry which I think it already does , I wouldn ' t have a problem with it . Actually , if the Rehit were to ban tattoosearrings on that basis of avoiding material adornments , I wouldn ' t have a problem either . I just have a problem , again , with the naturla form argument .