CdnSikhGirl

Though UK (like many other places) have rampant sexual abuse (and India is far from immune in this respect, just look at the recent high profile cases of rapes and killings... the Delhi case on the bus, the low caste woman raped and hanged, the two young sisters raped and hanged etc).... In light of these incidents however, we have to be very careful not to jump to victim blaming. It's never women's faults for being raped or sexually assualted. It's totally the fault of the perpetrator. There are plenty of sane and normal men in the world who do not do that to women, in ALL societies. It sounded like you were trying to say "see women this is what you get for wanting freedoms and preivelages like men have, we will rape you and take away your dignity for even daring to speak out and want the privelages we have" this is very wrong and if this is not what you meant then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But really, rape and assult happened in India before and during the times of the Gurus too. In fact I would say that the rate is actually higher in India than UK... so I don't really see what you were trying to say actually, since India still has higher amount of people following traditional roles. So taking the actual numbers, it still seems like societies where women are more empowered and have equal freedoms, there is actually less harassment, sexual assualts, and rapes I would surmise because society in general holds higher value on women when they are given equal rights. When they are not, they become chattle... property of men. As for those women who try to steal some of their husbands glory... I know some women who do that. There are girls who purposely look for a husband who is a doctor or lawyer for example or a CEO, gold diggers, those looking for power in the wake of their husband's power... the "if you don't do this I'll sick my husband on you" types.... they do this so they don't have to personally strive for anything on their own is my guess. They are being lazy, and are bad examples of women. Me I'd rather achieve something on my own, so when someone says congrats, I know I worked hard to get to the point. I don't ever want to be the shadow... when everyone congratulates the husband, and all you have to listen to is how your husband achieved this or how he achieved that, while you have done nothing of merit or achieved anything on their and are basically a doormat and arm candy for their husbands. I guess I was just born with a mind and consciousness that thinks being told by anyone (least of all men) that I can't do something or I am not allowed to do something because I am somehow below them on the biological totem pole is just wrong. I'm sure that No man would ever want to be in the situation where he was told what to do all the time, bossed around by the other gender, and restricted from being able to live out his own potential and aspirations simply because of what's between his legs. Meanwhile the other gender gets to enjoy full privelage. Being told you are subordinate to someone else, and will always be, no matter what you do, simply because you were born female is just plain 'bites' (sorry I cant think of a better word).

I think I said in my last post those dynamics may have been true in the past where women were maybe less spiritual because they were tied to reproduction (no birth control) and had to look after children etc and therefore did not have the time for a career or to dedicate to spiritual practice. At least they couldn't without having become an ascetic and celibate. Men on the other hand could reproduce as much as they wanted and never have to worry about caring for young. That dynamic has changed drastically now. The old dynamic is pretty much gone. Call it due to the western equality thing or whatever you want, but even in India now, women are seeking careers. In fact over half the scientists who were responsible for the Mars mission in India recently, were women! That the dynamic has changed is also not bad... and you are labelling it as such! It has just 'changed' is all. Women do not want to be locked into the sole role of wife (servant) and Mother (baby machine) anymore. Education and achieving their own aspirations are now possible (instead of only being able to live vicariously through their husbands achievements). And I wouldn't call the old dynamic exactly living in harmony either... you don't think women were oppressed at all? Maybe try reading some history books! In India some of the worst took place (at least prior to Guru Nanak Dev Ji): No property rights, dowry killings, domestic abuse, even sati. Women were told to view their husband as a God and listen to his authority as such and act on his every whim. Is that really fair??? From your point of view you might think its perfectly ok for males to exercise privilege over women, and don't see anything wrong with it, and label it however you want and try to justify it however you want, but ask yourself this question... If you had the chance right now, to be transformed into a woman, and live the life of a woman, in the time of the Gurus, or even now.... would you??? The only thing I have ever said is that both genders should have equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal worth. That means the same opportunities for work, same rights legally etc. We are not talking about minor physical differences in gender and trying to define who is the superior gender (which men try to bring back to physical prowess all the time to justify being superior). What I mean is that regardless of our biology, all humans deserve to have equal opportunity. Why it was good for women that the Gurus were male in that time period I already explained... a woman would not have been taken seriously in that time (still think women were not treated unfairly?) but having male Gurus openly claim that women were equal to men, uplifted women's status far better than if a woman had claimed the same.

I would not say that holds anymore with regards to men taking more risks. The fact is women used to stay at home more and so all professions were mostly male dominated. Not so applicable anymore. I know plenty of women in high stress leadership positions in all professions. Myself I'm in the Navy for 18 years now and St a supervisory level.... That too in one of the most stressful naval environments... Submarines!! I'm not the only one. Society has changed very much since the Gurus times. And even the. It wasn't women's inability to do those things but the society they were immersed in. It's a very different world today and if the gurus were bringing Sikhi to the world now instead of then we likely would see a few of them women. I still stand on my views that women and men both possess the same ability to develop (and lead) in spiritual matters.

You are thinking in terms of physical. Remember there is only ONE. Physical is an illusion. And all souls are equal. You sound like you are stating that males are superior to females and women should just be treated 'fairly' but not receive equal status or opportunity. Of course everything physically is different. Even one man from another... but would you ever consider that any male is superior to another because of their differences? Difference does not mean inequality!! Equality means no perceived higher STATUS over others. ALL humans are equal in status and equal in worth and should have equal opportunity. If I misunderstood you, I apologize That's how it reads though...

I have to disagree with you BhagatSingh Ji... about women not being as spiritual or meditating etc. I think it's just that women have not felt the need to speak openly about it as much, or if they did, they were held back from doing so for fear of not being taken seriously in a society that saw women as lower spiritually then men. I think both gender equally have the same capacity for spiritual awareness and awakening. I think the Gurus being male was more because of society at that time would never have taken women seriously, and women being uplifted to equal status, the ideal had to come from men. Besides I think there are far more Sants who were female than we will ever know, but since they were not written about like the men, and because women usually do not feel the need to parade around stating to everyone that they are, they were kind of lost in history. I have talked personally to far more women who have had natural spiritual experiences (without even trying) than men who have.

ragnarok is correct. Their gender did not matter. Souls are neither female or male in the physical sense. However all of us are seen as 'soul brides'. It was likely coincidence that they were all male, however there was a positive benefit for women, with them being male. Think about it: Who would have more impact? A slave claiming that they should be free and treated as equals, or their master claiming this? The message of women being equal, needed to come from men in order to have the impact. Women could have demanded to be seen as equal all they wanted but would never have been taken seriously. So the message had to come from men. It had to be men that admitted openly that women were their equals in order for it to mean anything.

realized I already answered this lol

Personally don't care who is in front or behind... think of it this way, the man is not 'leading' because they are supposed to be one soul in two bodies, hence moving as ONE. And they are making a CIRCLE, which has NO beginning and NO end... therefore, in a circle, NO ONE can be in the lead or behind. If the groom looks further ahead, who will he end up being behind? But even if you chose to look at it as leading / following... I prefer to see it as like a chariot, the rider is behind the horse, but who is the one in controlling the 'reins'??? (the palla IS very suggestive of a 'rein' in this position) lol I don't 'think' it was ever meant to be degrading to women (I hope it wasn't anyway) or to signify any sort of 'submissiveness' or to suggest that the man will do all the leading and she will always be a submissive follower. That would not agree with what the Gurus all taught. I think it was more practical in nature... it was usually the girl who left her home to be with the boys family... so she is following him towards her new home and life with him. Not so applicable anymore since both usually move out before marriage now especially if they went away to school etc, but I am more bothered by more serious things like SRM not being followed - those who disallow women to do seva that SRM clearly states they have the right to. p.s. - I am being married this next Summer and I will be in the chariot holding on to the reins as we do the lavans. He knows if he 'trots' too far ahead all I have to do is yank on the reins to keep him in control lol!

Her back is to the Guru I read the apology from the photographer on Facebook. Apparently he is not Sikh... and neither is she. So the fault of the Gurdwara for performing an interfaith marriage to begin with. This took place just after when everyone left to go to the procession and it was only the bride and the photographer there... that's the second error on part of the Gurdwara, someone should always be there in attendance of SGGSJ. Having said that, the photographer is accepting full responsibility and has learned a lot about Sikhi in the process.

Overall, it's been positive. In the group I directly work with, nobody has said anything negative (at least that I know of) however recently, I was removed from participating in an honour guard, and was told it was because of a medical limitation I am on right now due to my left wrist... I have my doubts because left hand doesn't really affect drill, even rifle drill is done 99% in your right. Only last year I was in a guard, and I had my wrist issue then as well and the only thing different between then and now, was the dastar.

Describing the astral realm is very very difficult. There are not really words to describe it but what I usually say is this: I could see sound (and it was very colourful), and hear light (and it was angelic). Thoughts became real tangible things, and I felt more 'awake' than any wakeful moment in the physical world... if the word sleep even means anything at all. There is a medical condition called Synesthesia where something similar happens to people here and now... and there are videos that try to illustrate what it's like. I do think it's somewhat like that, but it's not Synesthesia.... it's just a good comparison.

Due to the fact that I actively fought for Sikh women to be able to tie dastar in uniform in the Canadian military, and I consequently became the first woman to do so in the Royal Canadian Navy, my sangat has given me siropa last weekend. My story had actually made it around the world on many websites, but also in print in several Indian newspapers, including the Times of India. I had no idea that my sangat were doing this, until it happened! I was so overwhelmed and filled with surprise and emotion that I was actually in tears when they gave it to me. Now, I am wondering what to do with the actual cloth? I read that some use them as a keski, but the material s really stiff and thick so I don't think it would work well. Right now I have it with my nitnem gutka. I don't want to inadvertently do anything disrespectful with it... so for now I wrapped my gutka in it and keeping it with my other religious things. So what should I do with it?? I attached the Times Of India story... p.s. in case you are wondering why the different name, Satkirin is just the alias I have been using for some time on forums. When I took a Sikh name, H was the letter and so I am legally 'Harkiran' Wanda Kaur. (Just in case anyone had questions why the name was different on there from my alias)

savinderpalsingh ji... no disrespect meant.... you seem to be favouring the life of an ascetic?? You can't just wall yourself away from everything. There's two options if you want to live like a GUrsikh is supposed to: 1) Wall yourself up - move to the forest in the mountains and live the life of an ascetic avoiding any and all temptation so you don't accidentally fall. What is this really saying? That you are too weak to avoid temptation that is around you? 2) Live life in this reality... this reality that was created, all of it... by Waheguru Ji. Yes you will come across temptation, and the real test in my opinion, is in facing these challenges and still persevering. I work a lot as a volunteer medical responder at concerts etc. One would say that being around music concerts, where people are drunk, on drugs etc Gursikhs should just avoid all together. I'd rather help these people. I immerse myself right in the middle of it all, and catch those who fall. I have held the head of countless drunk teenage throwing up, I have bandaged bleeding fists from drunken fights, I have consoled people who were affected by drugs, and even a few who attempted suicide and were unstable. A school prom, there should no absolutely no alcohol as they are underage. There will be dancing... and socializing. It's one of the last chances for students to interact with their friends before they all move on. I don't know what kind of proms you guys have seen, but here, there are chaperones, no alcohol, even a police officer is on site. Having said that, yes I am sure some flirting goes on, but its a personal choice to ignore it. Anything more than flirting would be easily caught before anything happened. If you can't go a simple school prom, and interact without falling into temptation, then how do you expect to make it through life? If you don't think you can resist the temptation, then move into the forest and join savinderpalsingh ji as an ascetic.

I plan on wearing a white dastar with the blue suit above, and getting him to wear a blue dastar with white. That way we will match and be kind of opposites

Ok it's been awhile and I have been looking all over for different ideas... I know I said I was set on pink but I found this online, it's an anarkali, heavy embroidered, beadwork etc and it's shades of blue. Though they do say they can make in different colour schemes on the site but I am not sure since it specifies blue. I think these might be semi-stitched suits. But just want opinions... and don't have anyone to ask, least of all him because I want it to be surprise at least till closer to the wedding). I really like this style of anarkali... shorter style (I'm short so the floor length ones do not work on me) and I really like all the embellishments on it. I can't find much like this online... I know they exist and I have seen photos of gursikh weddings where the girl is wearing an anarkali similar to this in blue, or I saw one with a very dark blue accented on a cream coloured suit... where can I look for this style of anarkali online? Most seem to be just regular anarkali with a little bit of embroidery but not for wedding... This even has the heavy work chunni. The blue scheme would work with a navy blue dastar....

Yes, there are differences, but those differences should never put men and women into a hierarchal system with one above the other. Neither gender should enjoy more privileges than the other. Neither should be 'in charge' of the other or 'in authority' over the other. And especially in Sikhi where we believe that the same divine light is in everyone equally.... God in either male or female form, should not be put at a disadvantage. Nobody should any restrictions placed on them based purely on their gender (any seva). As long as that person is physically capable of doing it, they should be given the chance. Yes, I even believe that people we might consider to be disabled, should also be given the chance to be panj pyares... if they are physically capable of maintaining the correct posture etc. Because 'disability' is not a black and white definition. One person may be more challenged by something while another isn't. We can't put our own definition of disability. We can't label someone because they have different challenges. So my definition of someone who is 'disabled' could be different than your own. Who should have the say which one is correct when selecting panj pyares? I think the term 'disability' in the correct spirit of the term when speaking of restrictions, means those who can't physically perform the ceremony without making adjustments to it because then the ceremony has been changed. But someone with a bad shoulder may be perfectly capable of carrying out the entire ceremony as it was meant... As for panj pyares and women. When I look at someone, I don't immediately judge them based on their gender, rather their actions. I don't think 'hey this person can't do this because they are guy' or 'this person shouldn't be allowed to do this because they are a girl' etc. I think instead 'if they are fully capable of doing this, and have desire to do so, then they should be given the opportunity to do it' I don't even consider gender etc. I think this is in the true spirit of what our Gurus taught. Not, let's restrict women from doing doing this, simply because they were born women. I don't think the Gurus taught men to look for any minute little detail to find reasons to restrict their Mothers. their sisters, their daughters, and instead taught to uplift and support them so that they could stand as independent equals beside their Singhs. The fact that some members on here consider the mere suggestion that women and men should have the same rights and privileges, to be sexist against men, says a lot. Also I have seen N30's post on another forum about women Sants (and on here) It's a beautiful post and we need more like it! However, I have seen quite a few members speak against that post though, saying that women have never been 'officially' recognized as Sants, so therefore they are not really etc. It's was really disheartening to see those negative responses...

The difference is my statements are ALL entirely in response to posts that were suggesting women 'shouldn't be allowed to do this' or 'women have loose morals' or 'women should have less privelages in sikhi' or 'women shouldn't even be given the same Amrit as men' or 'women can't possibly maintain rehet to the same degree as men' etc. My posts are all defensive against such above remarks and merely calling out the men for it. And yes it's been from day one.... Show me one post even where any of you say that sikh men and women should be treated equally, or that in the face of inequalities even in this modern world that sikh guys should stand up for the equality taught by the gurus about every human and that Singhs should be supportive of the equal status given to Kaurs in Sikhi. There isn't even one. I've just done searches for the terms 'women' 'bibian' etc and in every single thread are comments suggesting women shouldn't be treated equal, women shouldn't be given same privelages in sikhi, women are all loose morals, they can't maintain rehet, even one now saying merely giving birth to a child means a woman breaks rehet. I have never posted anywhere suggesting men should be treated less than women.., not once. I merely keep pointing out the men who keep saying these things about Sikh girls who are supposed to be their sisters. And you are trying to call this sexist against men? Never did I say or suggest men should be treated as less than women or that men have less capability to maintain rehet or suggest men are all loose morals etc. So you are taking that even merely suggesting that men and women should be treated equally in Sikhi is some kind of sexist remark against men???? Really???? That just proves my point! That's the big difference. I'm promoting equality between gender as taught in Gurbani... Same divine light in everyone... And you are trying to suggest that if I try to defend against inequality touted by 'some males' on this forum, then you are saying I am being sexist. Huge difference!

savinderpalsingh ji, can you please explain to me why women would break rehet by giving birth? And please include references... Why would women giving birth mean they can not follow rehet? As far as I know, giving birth does not require intoxicants, cutting hairs, adultry, or (kutha) meat... and those are the 4 kurehits that would mean needing to retake Amrit. Also, what about women who chose not to have children? Myself, I chose to never have kids, and pursue a career in the military, and I follow SRM. Am I still less qualified to have kande de pahul than any male in present time, who never actually embodies the 'soldier' aspect? I know plenty of SIkh men who work at cushy desk jobs and would never fight, yet I have made a career of it. It seems to me, that you guys are actively looking for reasons to put women into lower roles than men. You are approaching everything with the mindset to find something.... anything to use as justfication. Is this not ego (male ego)? Is this not a case of "I am more deserving than any female, just because I happened to be born a male" because this is really what it sounds like. It's gone beyond hanging up the 'boys club no girls allowed' sign, and gone to researching medical books for any hint of a suggestion that girls really have cooties to use as justification to ban them from your blanket fort.

More than just being disappointed in the men for thinking such things, they'd probably kick their butts!

This is why I am seriously considering leaving this forum... From the beginning it seemed to be a 'boys club'. The members aside from their personal beliefs that women are 'less than' men, and therefore should have less privileges in Sikhi, but now it appears that you all are are actually LOOKING for reasons, any reason, to put women beneath men. And then in the same breath try to say that it has nothing to do with equality. Hyprocrites. I personally take offence to a blanket statement saying that women are all lacking in morals, or are of impure desires, while you are all intimating that men are somehow more saintly. Or saying that women are unable to maintain rehet to the same degree as men and therefore don't even deserve the same amrit given to men. I wonder what ANY of our Gurus would say in response to this... it's really disgraceful!

Wow, so now it's not just trying to say women should not be Panj Pyare but also that women should not even be entitled to the 'real' / same amrit as men at all... and I think I even read a bit in there about keski / dastar too and that women should not. So what.... Guru Gobind Singh Ji was sexist? And Sikhi was only for the men... let me guess, women were only kept around to cook langar for the men... I really can't believe what I am reading here. Some of you tout GRM as THE RM of Guru Ji... exact words from our Guru... but then, you admit that there were changes. Then you go back and try to say that the parts pertaining to women were the correct untouched parts and the changes 'must' be other parts... as if you want to pick and chose which parts are the original, based on your own beliefs about women. I am in agreement with Singh123456777... Guru Gibing Singh Ji was not sexist. Barring either gender from necessary functions of what he was teaching as the vital philosophy and spirituality of human life, is suggesting that even our Creator was sexist against women. The Gurus all taught against such foolishness. We have already seen how easy it is to take something as 100% truth, and then discover that changes happened to what we thought was the 100% original words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji... Historical accounts all over the world were conveniently shaped by patriarchal systems, in favour of men, even when women achieved greatness. India was not immune.... no matter what you think. If all Sikhs were told to strive for taking Amrit... I highly doubt there was some diluted 'almost' amrit done with a kirpan to give women a 'sort of almost' amrit which was hierarchically lower than men. The Gurus taught that the SAME divine light is in everyone... I have been away for awhile as I was in Kashmir, and I was there when the floods happened.... anyway, my question to everyone is... assuming the SGGSJ is taken as our only living Guru.... when we have a 'rule' document like reset maryadas which have been shown to be 'amended' and changed by humans... if there is an obvious disagreement between the RM and SGGSJ, which one are you supposed to follow? Which one wins out? It seems here that most of you would revert to the GRM, even when there is evidence of change from the original, and even though it means going against what is taught in SGGSJ... our only living Guru! I have shown in previous posts how things which are in DDT's own copy of the GRM on their own website, deliberately take one tuk of a shabad out of context, in order to say that women should view their husband as 'God' while he views her as a loyal servant. The original shabad is talking about husband Lord... and all humans as soul-brides. Its obvious when you read the full shabad. But to take that one tuk and translate it so it says women should view their husbands as God... is wrong. Also the only argument against women as Panj Pyare was that 'because that's what the GRM says... 'five Singhs" I have shown, that the GRM actually states 'Singhs' for ALL seva. But yet many of you have stated that women are not barred from those other seva... like akhand paths, ragis, granthi, even making kara prashad! The GRM states 'Singhs' for ALL of them. But yet you are trying to say that women are allowed to do those things and have been allowed in even DDT run Gurdwaras.... but in the same breath you keep quoting the GRM where it says 'five SIngh's' as the reason to bar women.... stating it's the infallible direct word of Guru Ji. If that were the case, then ALL seva is for men only. You can't pick and chose which things to bar women from. And historical things can't be used to prohibit.... If that were the case then I should not vote because historically, women did not vote. If it were specifically prohibited for women to participate in anything at all.... don't you think Guru Ji would have specifically STATED IT somewhere....???? Anywhere???? And not just as an omission to be intimated. If he really was discriminating against women, and wanted us barred from things and restricted and treated as lower than men, it would have been stated somewhere directly. If it was important as say... not cutting kesh... wouldn't it be stated somewhere? Even in the GRM itself it doesn't specifically say 'no women' it just say's 'The Singhs who are doing this' well, it is not saying ' women can't do this' that is just saying that at the time, it was men who did it when that was written, so it was stated in that way. There is no specific restriction written anywhere in any RM stating that women should be restricted, prohibited, treated less than men. I really ca't believe what I am reading in here from Singhs too! Who should divert to SGGSJ in ALL things if there is any doubt! Not historical accounts, not heresy, not RM's which have been changed over time... but the ONE UNCHANGED document that we all revere as the only living Guru... SGGSJ. And in there, it plainly states that the SAME DIVINE LIGHT is in ALL humans EQUALLY. That there is only ONE thing in existence in reality... God, and that essentially the DOER in ALL OF US, is ONE IN THE SAME. Therefore, there should be no restriction on any human because of what is between their legs. This is all I am saying on this...

Chaz JI, you are referring to the Astral level only, when there are many more above it... Physical -- etheric -- astral -- mental -- So to say that the Astral realm is limited --- well yes it is... because the astral level is only a small portion of what exists. You can't experience ONEness in the astral level, but you can in levels much higher. How do you ascend to higher levels? You have to raise your frequency to detune the astral level and tune into a higher level. And remember that consciousness is pure frequency so you have it within you. Also remember that love / caring etc are emotions which have a higher brainwave frequency... while anger and jealousy and fear cause lower brainwaves... so that is a starting point and also why seva helps. Its why those who are angry and fearful and jealous have much trouble progressing spiritually at least until they resolve the conflict. And yes, I have experienced at least briefly the feeling of ONEness before, and while connected in that state, I lost connection to any sort of form. It was like I was the smallest pin point of consciousness, but at the same time I was everywhere. However it was very brief... I did experience the level above astral once... but never again after that one time. Also, you ARE part of that source! YOU already know the way there.... you are NOT something separate from the creator. THAT'S the illusion...

Chaz Ji I have to disagree with some of what you wrote... From my experiences with AP / EP while it's true that you are experiencing higher levels through other subtle bodies, there is the whole experience of what lies between those levels. It's not a direct experience... but more the knowledge that the subtle bodies are just more vehicles - but your consciousness remains intact. That means the part of you that is the experiencer, the 'doer' is not those subtle bodies at all. So it's realization through indirectly experiencing it. The direct experience with God comes from the realization that you yourself are formless... that everything is ONE, everything is the same one universal field of consciousness... therefore, the DOER in all of us is one and the same. You can experience this when you go higher (just look up a map to the planes of existence, the higher you go, the more detached and less 'personal' you become... until in the highest of realms, you actually experience ONEness. There was a GREAT diagram made by Tim Duerden based on knowledge from several spiritual paths, linking the subtle bodies to the planes, and showing where the limit of the 'personal self' etc is in the grand scheme of things... His site however is down, and I can't find it again. But there are others that illustrate it. The way I explain OBEs: Nothing is leaving anything at all. YOU ARE. Imagine you are a radio. Only the radio is formless... basically you are pure consciousness. All that exists is pure frequency (even the physical... Einstein even said that matter is merely energy vibrating at a slow frequency) So you, the radio, are focused on only one radio station at a time... the physical, the etheric, the astral etc. You never left anything, you only 'tuned' into a higher frequency station. All stations, all frequencies however are ALWAYS received by the antenna... it's the tuner that choses the station. In our case in the physical world, as Einstein stated, low frequency = slow vibration = matter. The higher frequency you go, the higher 'stations' you tune into, you get more complex structures but less matter (for example, plasma, gases etc are higher frequency than solids). Watch an oscilloscope though as you change a pitch higher, the faster a wave vibrates, the closer the peak and trough become until you reach a point where it appears there is no more vibration, only one discrete frequency... it looks like a straight line instead of a wave. So eventually you go high enough to just experience the pure frequency itself = ONEness = God realization. This is just a way I try to get the idea across... using a radio as comparison makes sense to me when we are talking frequency....

Sorry I have already settled on the pink now thanks to a bunch of people at the gurdwara Sunday telling me how pink was my colour... (I wore the suit that I am wearing in my avatar pic, so you can see it's a pale tea pink colour). I'll attach the actual pic so you can see... Red actually might be too hard on me, only because I have such pale skin. Pink seems to work better anyway, and then I won't have to worry about the red/green thing. But...nobody answered my question about Amritdhari Sikhs who serve in the army?? Army uniforms pretty much everywhere in the world wear green! Is it overlooked among any Takaslis who join the army? Or do they just not join the army? I'm lucky I'm in the Navy and my uniforms are dark blue for work dress and black/white for dress uniform. So seeing the pic of the pink suit on me, and the colours we chose are similar (only the fabric will be satiny silk brocade fabric and there is heavy embroidery on the suit) I think pink will work... just need to get pink turban material to match for him. I'll wear a white dastar under. And he can wear white sherwani. So we will match