CdnSikhGirl

I remembered reading this online before: http://www.wahegurunet.com/astral-plane (I can't speak to the validity of it or not, but I read your comments and it triggered my memory of that page, so I just looked it up again)

Ok so I changed my colour scheme to tea pink, onion pink, gold... instead of the original colours the suit comes in... which was red, blue, gold. I wore pink to the Gurdwara yesterday and was told that pink really is my colour anyway, so I think it will still look good, and since it's not red it won't cause a ruckus. (Though truth be told, avoiding colours really has me feeling like I am following blind ritual). But I do like the pink colour scheme with this design once we made a mock up of the fabrics, so I will go with that. And I will get him to wear pink turban to match. I will wear white dastar under the pink chunni, and he can wear white suit so it will work well I think for the wedding. Heres the colours we decided on in the end. I think it will be good maybe it looks better than red on me anyway since I am fair skinned. p.s. regarding green colour, what do Amritdhari Sikhs in the army do? Is it kind of overlooked then since it's a uniform and they can't serve in the army without wearing green? Just curious... (I know it's just Taksalis that follow this, but are there any Taksalis in the army? Would they avoid joining because of the uniforms? If it seems like a stupid question I apologize, I just got thinking about it because myself I am in the military, though I am Navy not army and we wear black and white... and Navy blue in work dress. But army definitely wears green... a lot of green! Even Indian army!)

Yes, but everyone are saying red is forbidden... and I don't want to any chances of anyone picking at me on my big day for doing something that *might* be against Sikhi.

So if I change to a combo of tea pink (light pink like in my current avatar pic) and onion pink (bit darker pink) with gold embroidery... that will be ok? (not bright pink like magenta) btw I am not Taksali and do not follow GRM... I follow SRM. But I don't want to hurt anyone sentiments since I am getting married in India. However as far as I know, his whole family (who are Amritdhari) follow SRM and not GRM. They are not Taksali... or any specific Jatha for that matter. But just to keep peace and not have anyone picking at me, pink is ok?

Unfortunately, I am not tall.... at all.... so floor length anarkali do NOT look good on me... I get lost in all the flowy bottom.... lehenga same thing... so thats why I went with semi patiala but trust me the kameez makes up for it... its MUCH more embellished than the two anarkalis you linked!

Thats just it... I found the one I want.... I love it... but it's red lol. It's a regular salwar suit but it's the embroidery on it and the trim etc that I love... but its red! And I kind of really like the red... will this set me back another 8.4 million lifetimes?? lol.

Thanks! Kind of both... anand karaj in Kashmir, and legal ceremony in Canada. And... I do not look good at all in blue... and I don't think he likes blue either. I have bright green eyes... so blue in general (unless it's just accent colour) somehow clashes on me haha.

Do Hindus have a monopoly on the colour red? Why can't colours just be.... colours? And why can't clothes just be clothes? Why can't someone wear a red shirt for example, because they are drawn to red roses? To me, the red rose is no less deserving than the orange or yellow one... Anyway, I am getting married next Summer. And the suit I really fell in love with, happens to be red... hence my question. Well, it's red base colour but with gold and navy blue embroidery. I thought it would work well with a navy blue dastar. But it's red... well probably more dark red... like maroon... will I be committing some ghastly crime if I get married wearing red? Case in point... see attached images...

chatanga1: Here are the 52 Hukams... pls show me where it says red / green (or any colour for that matter) are prohibited? As for those who said that SRM has holes and is incomplete: Some say this, and others say that GRM is too restrictive actually bordering on useless rituals which the Gurus taught against. Like it or not, MANY Sikhs follow the SRM. Not all Sikhs are Taksalis, so one jatha's more restrictive RM can not speak for the entire panth. So in all things we are supposed to look to SGGSJ for guidance correct? Please show me in SGGSJ, our only Guru, where red (and green) are prohibited. The quote by sher seems to suggest the opposite: sloku mÚ 1 ] salok ma 1 || Salok, First Mehla: nw mYlw nw DuMDlw nw Bgvw nw kcu ] naa mailaa naa dhhu(n)dhhalaa naa bhagavaa naa kach || Neither dirty, nor dull, nor saffron, nor any color that fades. nwnk lwlo lwlu hY scY rqw scu ]1] naanak laalo laal hai sachai rathaa sach ||1|| O Nanak, crimson - deep crimson is the color of one who is imbued with the True Lord. ||1|| In fact I went on srigranth.org and searched for crimson myself and every instance is an example suggesting that crimson (red) is a spiritual colour. There are no instances where it suggests avoiding this colour. On the contrary and when we dig a little deeper, SGGSJ suggests in numerous places that the colour of one's clothes does not matter at all. It makes reference to ascetics etc wearing all white (just as one example) and makes the statement that this will not bring you closer to Waheguru Ji. This also suggests that avoiding certain colours is useless in bringing you closer to the divine. In the case of crimson, it's making the statement that wearing crimson for the specific purpose of bringing you closer to the divine is useless... instead naam colours your soul crimson - it's using crimson as a comparison to show the needlessness of useless rituals like avoiding / only wearing certain colours. It's our actions and not what we wear that gets us there. So... none of this actually prohibits wearing red...

Where can I find this? It's not anywhere in the SRM... I've looked it top to bottom!

I remember reading somewhere online that red should not be worn by the bride or groom... but then when I went to look at the SRM, it doesn't say anything about clothing colour for the wedding, so I am wondering where I saw this? Is it true, should bride not wear red at all? Because every Sikh bride I see, even Gursikh turban wearing seem to wear red lehenga or punjabi suit... or a shade thereof like maroon. In Sikh Rehet Maryada the only thing I was able to find about red at all is that it says they should not wear a "red thread around their wrist" (which I am assuming is in reference to the Hindu Kalava or Rakhi)? As a side note I can't seem to find it again online or anywhere for that matter (so maybe I am going crazy lol), where it stated that red should not be worn... so maybe it was a mistranslation of the above mentioned part of SRM?

Agreed... (you asked) As I said there are methods to keep those things within the female body, even during that time...yes entirely within the zone of the skin. I realize back in time, there weren't the products available today, but there are now several that *ahem* keep *female red blood cells* within the confines of the body until said product is removed. Im sure you can google and figure them out. With those products there is not a single chance that anything would leave the body at the wrong time.... Marvels of modern hygene product industry... and then there are females like myself who take injection (myself because I was experiencing problems, but others take it because they have had as many children as they want) and it completely stops female cycles alltogether. Then, there are older aunties, who do not have that issue anymore at all anyway. Either way it's totally possible in this day and age to remain just as clean as any other time. So it should not be an issue to barring women from anything at all. That same guy I posted the FB screenshot from, he told me that the women where excluded all the time because the men would never be able to tell if she was or not... that's just wrong. It's a private issue between the woman and Waheguru Ji. Its not up to the men to enforce, any more than they stand guard and make sure every man washes his hands or changes their clothes etc. Hmm you reminded me of seeing a photo recently of a Singh who fell asleep during akhand paath, mid recital. The photo made it all over the net. Obviously he was not pure of mind to allow that to happen.

excuse me... but I am backing up all my statements with gurbani! How about you?? All I have seen you guys do is say that "well, so and so said it so it must be true"... or "it's tradition"... or "learn the culture"... or perhaps my most favourite... "just accept it". I have not seen any of you actually try to justify your answers using Gurbani! My original post was a valid question! I read GRM so I could better unserdtand your position. I was told in the other thread that DDT do not discriminate women except for Panj Pyare. So I went to DDT own website to research and give you the benefit of the doubt. However, when I actually read the GRM, it was apparent this is not true. Women are in fact discriminated from nearly all seva by DDT. So that guy who told me on Facebook was actually right (the one I posted screenshots from i the other thread). My questions were regarding the statement about women considering men as God, and men considering women as followers. And also the usage of 'Singh' in all the seva listed in GRM. When it is you guys who are saying things like "here's the quote from GRM, it states Singhs for Panj Pyare so women can't be end of story" - using that same argument, you can't disagree with the other places where it states 'Singh'. So I was trying to get you to clarify this discrepency. You state you fully believe 100% in the GRM and consider SRM as garbage (actually I believe you called it worse than that savinderpalsingh ji), but yet both of you are saying you disagree with the parts in GRM where it says 'Singh' everywhere else? You can't apply the rule in one spot and not another... I am only asking for clarification from YOUR point of view. Not answers of "just because" or "just accept it" I am looking for honest answers, that agree with Gurbani which should dispell any doubts. As Sikhs are we not all supposed to be seekers and search for the truth? What kind of Sikhs would we be then, if we just 'accepted' everything we are told by someone else without learning on our own? Instead all of you keep saying the same thing over and over... "just because" "just accept it" "It's tradition" etc. - It looks to me that I am the only one who is trying to learn! I am actually trying to apply Gurbani to both GRM and SRM to substantiate it. SGGSJ is supposed to be our highest authority is it not? So I can't see how any RM could disagree with it. Especially in translations of single tuks, which when the whole shabad is read, have nothing to do with how it's being used in the GRM. Jaikara Ji also agrees with the meaning of that shabad so its not only me who sees it. These were VALID questions that all of you have avoided and instead attacked me, calling me a man hater. I don't hate men. However I feel sorry for the men who can't see the divine light EQUALLY in everyone and feel they must always be 'above' women. Luckily there are plenty of Sikh men who do not fall into this thinking and my Singh is one of those. He actually fights for women's rights at Sri Harmandir Sahib! I have a friend Kirpal Singh Ji who is a university professor who I told about this forum. I think he started posting on a different forum by accident, but I myself am only on this forum and Sikh Philosophy Network. Kirpal Singh btw is 67 years old and has a lot of knowledge under his belt. He is not a know it all. He studied with SMC.

savinderpalsingh ji, I did not say I agree with everything SGPC does. Like any they have their faults. I think DDT have MORE faults though. They are tredding on close terriroty to being the Taliban of Sikhi in their views of women. I just that the SRM in my opinion is the closest ideal to what our Gurus taught, and it passes the test in agreement with SGGSJ most closely. I don't see anywhere in SGGSJ that states to treat women as beneath men, or to discriminate against women. I see only messages that the same divine light is in everyone equally. How can you say that that same light in one form is any less pure than that same light in another? SGGSJ doesn't say its more pure in men, and less pure in women. SGGSJ doesnt say that the divine light in female form is any less than in male form. Or that the divine light in male form is more privelaged. I have a feeling that unless I become a male however, none of you will ever have any sort of respect for me being female. I am starting to think I need to do just that in order to be accepted. You know, my cousin is actually doing just that...funny thing is, one transitioned, she would actually be accepted more than me in Sikhi it seems. Or (then he) would be able to do more than me anyway.

Well luckily there are drugs that completely stop women's cycles. You can actually take birth control pills continually... or take the injection (liek I do), or IUD. All those options completely stop any chance of cycle alltogether. So if we are really that unclean or impure during that time as you say.... I dont see why washing wouldnt work for that as well? Even for those who don't take drugs to stop their cycles, there are means to keep it entirely 'internal' (without getting into details, but there are products made just for that). A woman during that time anyway would have absolutely no chance of getting anything into food during langar seva or getting anything anywhere near SGGSJ. Its not like she bleeds from her whole body, and doesn't wash her hands etc... wow... I cant believe what i am reading. Someone who just went #2 and washed their hands... or a woman who just washed her hands after dealing with her cycle... same thing. I agree! Everyone should... that's just basic hygene! eewww and its not most goray?? wow... everyone I know does. So am I to asume now that you guys think all the discrimination are because women have cycles?? You guys have completely diverted the question I posed in the original post. And instead now you are attacking women for natural biological functions.

Anyway none of you have answered my original question. That being that the Gurmat Rehet Maryada states 'Singh' in all of the seva (aside from langar) that includes Ragees/kirtan, chaur sahib seva, akhand paaths, granthi, etc. All of them state 'singh' which is the same argument people quote to show that women can not be Panj Pyare. I did not get that translation from anyone else for the GRM. It was from Damdami Taksal's own website. And I earlier posted screenshots from a DDT member that confirmed it. Yet Sant Jarnail Singh Ji spoke against all of it except for Panj Pyare. So who is correct? Is it the Gurmat Rehet Maryada? If so, then why would a Sant speak against it? Or was he correct? And if so, that shows the Rehet itself is in need of some editing / updating for today's society. And yes... women WOULD be stopped completely if they tried to do kirtan at Harmandir Sahib. Or Palki seva, etc.

Would you say a man who has cut his finger is unclean with a bandaid covering it? Should he then avoid doing seva until his cut heals? This idea of blood being somehow unclean is against sikhi. Blood is a life force. Its not dirt. A woman during that time of the month is no less clean than any other time. Thats just foolishness - Bhraminism at its best! Let's look at Gurbani for the asnwer: ਜਿਉ ਜੋਰੂ ਸਿਰਨਾਵਣੀ ਆਵੈ ਵਾਰੋ ਵਾਰ ॥ Ji▫o jorū sirnāvaṇī āvai vāro vār. As a woman has her periods, month after month, ਜੂਠੇ ਜੂਠਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ Jūṯẖe jūṯẖā mukẖ vasai niṯ niṯ ho▫e kẖu▫ār. so does falsehood dwell in the mouth of the false; they suffer forever, again and again. ਸੂਚੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਜਿ ਪਿੰਡਾ ਧੋਇ ॥ Sūcẖe ehi na ākẖī▫ahi bahan jė pindā ḏẖo▫e. They are not called pure, who sit down after merely washing their bodies. ਸੂਚੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜਿਨ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਸੋਇ ॥੨॥ Sūcẖe se▫ī nānkā jin man vasi▫ā so▫e. ||2|| Only they are pure, O Nanak, within whose minds the Lord abides. ||2||

It wasnt SGPC who changed it... SGPC were the ones who ruled that it was allowed. "The Damdami Taksal, yesterday outrightly rejected the proposal for allowing the baptised women to perform kirtan [hymn singing] inside the Harmandir Sahib, the sanctum sanctorum of Golden Temple. The Damdami Taksal's resolve to oppose this move was also supported by the Sant Samaj, a conglomerate of Sikh preachers headed by Baba Sarbjot Singh Bedi, at a function here on the occasion of the death anniversary of Sant Kartar Singh Bhindranwale. It may be recalled that the S.G.P.C. had last week taken the decision to allow women to perform kirtan inside the Harmandir Sahib. The decision had been taken at a meeting of the S.G.P.C.'s Religious Advisory Board."

Maybe I am really a man then?? Maybe I should get gender reassignment surgery so that the outside will match the inside? lol

I fully agree!!! But they are using it as such! they twist it from saying "who views the transcendent lord as her husband" (which has nothing to do with marriage - to - "who views her husband as God." and include it in the marriage section of the GRM.

savinderpalsingh ji, one of the gifts I have been given by Waheguru Ji is in my singing. To be told by anyone, that because of my gender I am not allowed to do kirtan, would be devestating. AT least its only at Harmandir Sahib that they have affected. I can not imagine never doing kirtan except in the quiet of my own home alone. While some men who can hardly hold a note on pitch are allowed simply because they are men..... Kirtan is meant to be shared. Where you and I differ, is that I see the Indian culture and Bhraminism crept into the GRM, where you think it's Guru Ji's wishes. If nobody ever speaks out about injustice, things will never change. Do you think that Iraqi people should just accept ISIS? How about the women who are covered head to toe in black? People being crucified etc. SHould they all just 'accept it'? My test of whether something is true or not is when I compare it to Gurbani. GRM did not pass that test as you can see above on the statament of women seeing their husband as God. The shabad was taken out of context. Its easily seen when you read the whole shabad... even the original Gurmukhi. Further regarding just accepting things, you keep mentioning Sant Jarnail Singh Ji in yur earlier posts. He himself spoke against the Gurmat Reher Maryada in the same video that everyone posts... aside from the Panj Pyare issue, he actually stated women should be allowed to do all other seva. This is in stark contrast to the Gurmat Rehet Maryada that states only 'Singhs' can do nearly ALL seva. So which are you following? You once asked me how could I go against what Sant Ji said... which is right? GRM or Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji (who was educated by DDT)?

What I get from Sikhi is equality... I read GRM fully so I could learn... to see your view point. All I was after reading it was angry. Even you yourself said that DDT did not discriminate women, only with Panj Pyare... so I read to see what they said... and then found all the other instances of 'Singh' and saw that women are excluded from nearly everything by DDT (except of course cooking the rotis for the men). I'm sorry savinderpalsingh ji, I must go by SRM because its in my opinion the closest that espouses what the Gurus taught. And my feelings are based on Gurbani. You are free to follow whatever RM you want though. Just please try to look past the culture, and look at the actual religion and always ask if it makes sense with what is written in SGGSJ.

Exactly... and when taken in context of the entire shabad it becomes apparent that its not telling women to view their husband as God. However, Damdami Taksal, in their GRM, outright tell Singhs must view their SInghni as their faithful follower, while the Singhni is to view her husband as God. And it's because of the last two lines in the quoted shabad. Their translation makes it sound like subordinate and subservient women are what pleases God and that she must be in submissive role to her husband who she is to consider as God. But this is in the ineffable infallible GRM that savinderpalsingh ji says is directly Guru Gobind Singh Ji's word. That translation puts marriage into a master / slave relationship rather than a marriage of equal partnership on the same spiritual path that embodies the 'one light in two bodies' mentioned in SGGSJ.

Except... This is not each and every thing.. its only the mistreatment of women by only a small group of Sikhs. Since when did discrimination become a part of Sikhi that everyone should just 'accept'? It may be Indian culture to put women beneath men, but it is what the Gurus strongly taught against. Everything they worked for on equality.... And as soon as they were gone it went right back. It's a shame. At least its not ALL Sikhs, its only small group. Here locally the Gurdwra has seen twice in the last revent years an ENTIRELY female management committee. Not just one or two positions but ALL of them. And every other year at least one female member. Usually its women doing kirtan, not men. Nearly all the time its a woman who does Ardas. Hukam is about 50/50. They are all Punjabi btw. I imagine you'd just cringe in the Gurdwara here then... seeing the women doing that... Oh, and I would never 'just accept' to view my husband as God, while I am the little follower. We are equals. One soul in two bodies. Only Waheguru Ji deserves to be seen as God. No man is. Even though we posses the divine light... ALL OF US EQUALLY male and female both, individually we are not God. There are no hierarchies, women are not beneath men in the eyes of Waheguru Ji. And you never even attempted to answer... That says a lot. Facebook? I was not aware we were friends? I only post on my own page and it's blocked to anyone I don't have added. And I don't usually post Sikh related stuff on there as many of my fb friends are coworkers etc.

Imagine switching roles, how would you honestly feel?