Relays Masters Declaration Form: Rounds 1 3: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Did the British Parliament commission Graham Sutherland to paint a full-length portrait of Sir Winston Churchill in 1954 as a way of giving the then prime minister a reality check of his condition?A. Sir Winston Churchill was honored at the opening of parliament in 1954 which coincided with his 80th birthday. The portrait was commissioned by both houses of parliament as a tribute for his service. While the portrait was unveiled by the opposition leader Clement Attlee, it was not meant to discredit him. He accepted the gift with grace. Although his wife Clementine thought otherwise.Portrait of Prime Minister Winston Churchill painted in 1955 at the age of eighty-one, during his second term as Prime Minister by the artist, Bernard Hailstone. Churchill sat informally to the artist in his famous siren suit, the outfit he habitually wore during his wartime leadership. (Artist sought out by Churchill, and captured as he saw himself.)Winston Churchil: “The portrait is a remarkable example of modern art.”Sutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill - WikipediaThe Real Winston ChurchillWinston Churchill Receives Portrait by Graham Sutherland (1954)Churchill's Forgotten, Ruthless Past | On The Media | WNYC StudiosWhat I Learned From Winston Churchill and ‘The Crown’The International Churchill SocietyPhilip Mould | Historical Portraits | Sir Winston Churchill PM | Bernard Hailstone |Quote Explained #3: Winston Churchill - Success - Inspirational Quotes | QuotiveePortrait art has never been more pointlessThe Winston Churchill style guide: cuban cigars, cars and bow tiesPortrait – Art Term | TateWhat “Darkest Hour” doesn’t tell you about Winston ChurchillThe importance of portrait painting in today's societyקובץ:Winston Churchill in North Africa, August 1942 – ויקיפדיהPortrait painting - WikipediaWhat can Brexit Britain learn from Winston Churchill?Sutherland's portrait of ChurchillWinston Churchill | Historical Figures | History | Yesterday Channel8 Lost Masterpieces of ArtWords to Start a War: Read Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' SpeechSecret of Winston Churchill's unpopular Sutherland portrait revealed10 Great Winston Churchill SpeechesSutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill - WikipediaGraham Sutherland's 1954 portrait of Winston ChurchillIn 1954 the English artist Graham Sutherland was commissioned to paint a full-length portrait of Sir Winston Churchill. The 1,000 guinea fee for the painting was funded by donations from members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. The painting was presented to Churchill by both Houses of Parliament at a public ceremony in Westminster Hall on his 80th birthday on 30 November 1954.Churchill hated the portrait. After the public presentation, the painting was taken to his country home at Chartwell but was not put on display. After the death of Lady Churchill in 1977, it became clear that she had the painting destroyed some months after it was delivered.BackgroundChurchill was an elder statesman in 1954, then towards the end of his second period as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Sutherland had a reputation as a modernist painter with some recent successful portraits, such as Somerset Maugham in 1949. He was drawn to capturing the real person: some sitters considered his disinclination to flattery as a form of cruelty or disparagement.Sutherland and Churchill had very different conceptions of the painting. Churchill hoped to be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter, but the commission specified that he should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress – a black morning coat, with waistcoatand striped trousers, and a spotted bow tie.PreparationSutherland made charcoal sketches of Churchill at a handful of sittings at Chartwell from August 1954, concentrating on Churchill's hands and face, and then made some oil studies. Sutherland also worked from photographs by Elsbeth Juda. He took his preliminary materials back to his studio to create the final work on a large square canvas, the shape chosen to figuratively represent Churchill's solidity, reflecting a remark that Churchill made, "I am a rock".The pose, with Churchill grasping the arms of his chair, recalls the statue of US President Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Churchill is shown scowling, slightly slumped forward, surrounded by wintry grey, brown and black tones. Sutherland was reluctant to discuss the work in progress with Churchill and showed the subject few of his working materials. Churchill's wife thought it was a good resemblance – "really quite alarmingly like him" – but also said it made him look too cross, while recognising that it was a familiar expression. Churchill's son Randolph thought the portrait made him look "disenchanted".Winston Churchill by Graham Sutherland pencil and wash, 1954ReceptionChurchill's wife viewed the completed portrait on 20 November 1954 and took a photograph back to her husband. It was his first view of the work, and he was deeply upset. He described it to Lord Moran as "filthy" and "malignant", and complained that it made him “look like a down-and-out drunk who has been picked out of the gutter in the Strand.” With only 10 days to go, he sent a note to Sutherland stating that "the painting, however masterly in execution, is not suitable" and declaring that the ceremony would go ahead without it. Sutherland maintained that he honestly painted what he saw. MP Charles Doughty persuaded Churchill that the presentation had to go ahead, to avoid offending the donors.The presentation ceremony at Westminster Hall was recorded by the BBC. In his acceptance speech, Churchill remarked on the unprecedented honour shown to him and described the painting (in a remark often considered a backhanded compliment) as "a remarkable example of modern art", combining "force and candour". Other reactions were mixed; some critics praised the strength of its likeness, but others condemned it as a disgrace. While Aneurin Bevan, a Labour MP and one of Churchill's critics, called it, "A beautiful work", Lord Hailsham, one of Churchill's Conservative colleagues and a friend, called it "disgusting".The painting was intended to hang in the Houses of Parliament after Churchill's death, but it had been given to Churchill as a personal gift, and he took it away to Chartwell, where it was never displayed. Requests to borrow the painting for exhibitions of Sutherland's work were refused. In 1978, it was reported that Lady Churchill had destroyed the painting within a year of its arrival at Chartwell, by breaking it into pieces and having them incinerated, to avoid causing further distress to her husband. Lady Churchill had destroyed earlier portraits of her husband that she disliked, including sketches by Walter Sickert and Paul Maze. In fact, Lady Churchill had hidden the portrait in the cellars at Chartwell, and employed her private secretary Grace Hamblin and Hamblin's brother to remove it in the middle of the night and burn it in a remote location.Many commentators were aghast at the destruction of a work of art, and Sutherland condemned it as an act of vandalism; others upheld the Churchills' right to dispose of their property as they saw fit.Some preparatory sketches for Sutherland's painting are held by the National Portrait Gallery, London. It is thought that a copy of the portrait is held at the Carlton Club, also in London, although it is not on display. The Beaverbrook Art Gallery also has a number of studies Sutherland did in preparation for the portrait in its collection.Winston Churchill by Graham Sutherland oil on canvas, 1954Cultural referencesWithin the events of the Netflix series The Crown, the ninth episode of the first season dramatizes the creation, unveiling, and destruction of the portrait starring John Lithgow as Sir Winston Churchill, Stephen Dillane as Graham Sutherland, and Harriet Walter as Lady Churchill. The episode won Lithgow a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series.Winston Churchill Receives Portrait by Graham Sutherland (1954)Westminster's Day Of Majesty (1954)As part of his 1954 birthday celebration, Winston Churchill receives Graham Sutherland's portrait at Westminster Hall in London. "The portrait is a remarkable example of modern art," says Churchill with a sarcastic undertone (he had previously tried to reject the portrait), which draws a laugh from the crowd. The original Graham Sutherland Winston Churchill portrait can be seen in this video. It was never displayed in public and Churchill's wife Clementine would later have it burned.What I Learned From Winston Churchill and ‘The Crown’This 1979 “sand painting” attempts to reproduce Sutherland's painting of Churchill, “a remarkable example of modern art”. Lady Churchill had the original destroyed. (Source: Brian Pike, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)Tod WornerThe artist was standing before a bulldog.And both of them knew it.His subject stood dressed in his stately parliamentary attire. Cigar champed between his teeth, his eyes periodically glowering when they were not searching the artist’s face and hands. Impatiently, he shifted from one foot to the other. The bulldog wasn’t sure he trusted this modern artist.Graham Sutherland by Irving Penn gelatin silver print, 1950For in 1954, Graham Sutherland had accepted a sizable commission. He was asked to paint a portrait of Prime Minister Winston Churchill.The occasion for the portrait was Churchill’s 80th birthday. Serving his second term as Great Britain’s Prime Minister, both Houses of Parliament raised a large sum of money to secure the skills of a celebrated artist. Graham Sutherland was deemed worthy and subsequently charged with artistically immortalizing the iconic victor of World War II. Though Sutherland was aware of the mettle of which Churchill was still made, it was clear that the Prime Minister had aged appreciably with accustomed weight gain and physical frailties. And so, Churchill’s interest in a flattering remembrance of “his finest hour” was quite keen.What actually transpired in the sessions held between Graham Sutherland and Winston Churchill is surely lost to history, but the Netflix series (The Crown) about Queen Elizabeth II and Winston Churchill does its level best to poignantly help us to imagine.In the ninth episode (out of ten episodes in Season 1) called Assassins, we witness the initial exchange between the reserved artist and the brash Prime Minister. Both figures are guarded and deftly sizing one another up.Churchill: So, where do you want me? So, will we be engaged in flattery or reality? Are you going to paint me as a cherub or a bulldog? I imagine there are a great number of Mr. Churchill’s.Sutherland: Yes, indeed there are.Churchill: Well, as you search for him, perhaps I can implore you not to feel the need to be too accurate.Sutherland: Why? Accuracy is truth.Churchill: No. For accuracy we have the camera. Painting is the higher art.Churchill recognizes not only has his body tired, mind slowed and weight climbed, but moreover that his indispensable role as the roaring lion of 1940 has passed. He fears that, in spite of his continued hold on the Prime Minister’s position, his power is increasingly ceremonial and phantom…that his age has defeated him. And the stroke of an artist’s brush, if not assiduously coaxed, may tell this story without mercy.Sutherland, on the other hand, feels there is mercy in tenderly surrendering to the inevitable truths (warts, Churchill may call them) of age, that our heroes are human, and that proud ideals are more easily approached when we sense their accompanying twinges of sadness and musty decay.The ideal inspires, leads and ennobles says one. The real humanizes, humbles and assures says the other.In another scene, not allowed to see the portrait in the making, Churchill would badger with a touch of anxious anticipation. Could he give advice to Sutherland to better represent his finer points? Could he help him shave of the bad and smooth over rough edges? After all, Churchill would remind:I find in general people have very little understanding of who they are. One has to turn a blind eye to so much of oneself in order to get through life.When Sutherland gently insists that the artist’s call is to draw out and represent the good as well as the bad, Churchill huffs:Just concentrate on the good, and all will be well. You’re not just painting me, you know. You’re painting the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and everything that great office represents. Democracy. Freedom. The highest ideals of government and leadership. Just remember that.As the sessions continued and the day of presentation drew near, Churchill grew more apprehensive. He began to research Sutherland’s style and questioned him on it, playfully and then, pointedly. Likewise, Sutherland analyzed some of Churchill’s paintings and responded in kind. The resulting dialogue was a pinnacle of poignancy that captured the ideal beauty of art fed by the deep pain of reality.Churchill: Do you think I’ll like it?Sutherland: I think that’s possibly too much to ask for. But I do take comfort from the fact that your own work is so honest and revealing.Churchill: Oh, thank you for the compliment. Well, are there any works that you’re referring to in particular?Sutherland: I was thinking especially of the goldfish pond here at Chartwell.Churchill: The pond? Why the pond? It’s just a pond.Sutherland: It’s very much more than that. As borne out by the fact that you’ve returned to it again and again. More than twenty times.Churchill: Well, yes, because it’s such a technical challenge. It eludes me.Sutherland: Well perhaps you elude yourself, sir. That’s why it’s more revealing than a self-portrait.Churchill: Oh, that’s nonsense. It’s the water, the play of light. The trickery. The fish, down below.Sutherland: I think all our work is unintentionally revealing and I find it especially so with your pond. Beneath the tranquility and the elegance and the light playing on the surface, I saw honesty and pain, terrible pain. The framing itself, indicated to me that you wanted us to see something beneath all the muted colors, deep down in the water. Terrible despair. Hiding like a Leviathan. Like a sea monster.Churchill: You saw all that?Sutherland: Yes, I did.Churchill: Perhaps that says more about you than me?Sutherland: Perhaps.Churchill: May I ask you a question, Mr. Sutherland? It’s about one of your paintings. It’s about the one you call “Pastoral”. With all that gnarled and twisted wood. Those great ugly dabs of black. I found something malevolent in it. Where did that come from?Sutherland: Well, that’s very perceptive. That was a very dark time. My... my son, John, passed away, aged two months.Churchill: Oh my. I am sorry.Sutherland: Yes. Thank you. You have five, yes?Churchill: Four. Marigold was the fifth. She left us at age two years, nine months. Septicemia.Sutherland: I’m so sorry. I had no idea.Churchill: We settled on the name Marigold, on account of her wonderful golden curls. The most extraordinary color. Regretfully, but though perhaps mercifully, I was not present when she died. When I came home, Clemmie roared like a wounded animal. We bought Chartwell a year after Marigold died. That was when... I put in the pond.For a moment, in grief, the artist and the bulldog understood one another. For a moment, they were unlikely brothers. Their art served as an outlet that both obscured and revealed the depths of their despair. The brushstrokes painted images of ideal beauty, yet very real woe.When Graham Sutherland’s painting was unveiled before Parliament, benefactors and Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister was mortified. In it, he saw decay and demoralization. Privately, he called the portrait malignant and had it cut up and burned. Sutherland, however, saw the lion of Britain no less heroic … only tempered by the bittersweet surety of age.Both men went their separate ways.Indeed.And then, both began to paint again.(The Crown, a brilliant series, is available only on Netflix.)Graham Sutherland – Stone in Estuary, 1935 (Left) / Landscape with Rocks, 1944 (Right) – image courtesy of Lucy Johnson galleryPhilip Mould | Historical Portraits | Sir Winston Churchill PM | Bernard Hailstone |Portrait of Sir Winston Churchill KG (1874-1965) Oil and CanvasThis important portrait is a rare life study of Churchill painted in 1955. It shows him at the age of eighty-one, during his second term as Prime Minister, and was painted during sittings for his last commissioned portrait. The artist, Bernard Hailstone, had been commissioned to portray Churchill as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the ancient union of Sandwich, Dover, Hythe, Romney and Hastings. The finished full-length portrait is in the collection of the Imperial War Museum, and shows Churchill in full dress uniform and decorations. The present sketch, however, shows Churchill as he sat informally to the artist in his famous siren suit, the outfit he habitually wore during his wartime leadership.The success of the present portrait in showing Churchill’s character and indefatigable spirit (despite the fact that by then he had suffered three successive strokes) was no small achievement, for the Prime Minister was by no means an easy sitter. Churchill was hard to please, and the Hailstone portrait was in part an attempt to succeed where Graham Sutherland’s earlier portrait of 1954 had so famously failed. When Sutherland’s portrait was unveiled to Parliament in 1954 Churchill made a civil acceptance speech, but privately called it ‘filthy’ and ‘malignant’. His wife Clementine likened the image to a ‘gross and cruel monster’. The painting disappeared, and it was only in 1979 that the national press revealed Clementine had burnt it.Churchill took matters into his own hands, and stormed into studio of Bernard Hailstone, by then a well-established society portraitist, demanding that he execute an alternative portrait: ‘It was a Friday afternoon’ the artist recalled, ‘and I was up in the attic, arranging it as a studio, when Sir Winston came in. “Graham Sutherland”, he snarled, “made me look like some half dead thing. I’m not, am I?”’. Hailstone found Churchill a frustrating sitter, ‘[he] refused to sit for very long at a time and was constantly moving. As a matter of fact he was dictating his “History of The English Speaking Peoples” as I was trying to paint him, and we eventually came to some sort of agreement involving sign language…the hand turned sideways, veering to either right or left, was the indication of where I wanted his head to move”’.The resulting portrait therefore captured Churchill as he saw himself. Churchill’s concern over his own image is reflected in his famous remark that history would be kind to him ‘because I shall write it.’ And his experience with Sutherland was repeated with the sculptor Oscar Nemon, whose first attempt at a bust was struck down with the angry denunciation that it made the sitter look like a ‘shifty warmonger’. The present head study is however remarkably personable. This is Churchill behind the public facade.As an artist, Hailstone was an apposite choice for Churchill. Hailstone’s whole persona conveyed optimism; his gregariousness was much commented upon by his sitters, who included members of the Royal Family (Princess Anne, Prince Charles, and Queen Elizabeth II - in 1978) as well as cultural heavyweights such as Peter Ustinov and Sir Laurence Olivier. His ability to convey charisma derived from observation of nuanced facial expression, and he often surrounded his still sitter with a body of impressionistic brushwork which lent entire compositions animation. In this case, artist and sitter got along well, and both Churchill and Clementine praised Hailstone’s achievement.Hailstone’s own career trajectory was an eccentric one. As a member of the Auxiliary Fire Services, he began painting scenes of the Blitz and the Royal Academy featured them in an exhibition. This attracted the attention of Kenneth Clarke, who asked Hailstone to represent the Merchant Navy an Official War Artist. With typically enterprising spirit he requested a posting to the Far East to paint Lord Mountbatten and his Chiefs of Staff. After the war he focussed entirely on portraiture.This picture was purchased from the artist by a member of Churchill’s family, from whom it has passed by descent. The quirk of its date – a fudged 1957 – needs explanation however. It is reported by the present owner that it was reframed by Hailstone in 1967 and he mistakenly dated it that year. Remembering the true date of 1955, he felt that it was easier to change the 6 than the 7 – accordingly one digit remains erroneous. Two replica versions of this preparatory study are recorded, however they lack the vitality of the original.Portrait art has never been more pointlessWhy does mention of portraiture make me snort with derision? For the sitter, to have one's portrait painted is to indulge in a preposterous bit of self-aggrandisement, while to be a jobbing portrait painter is to exercise the lucrative employment of one's skills in a manner that has nothing to do with contemporary art. To champion portrait painting is to hark back to a 19th-century view of what matters in art, just as to visit the National Portrait Gallery is to enter an archive of social history rather than an art gallery. But isn't there something perverse about this view? I know Jean-Paul Sartre told us that hell is other people, but on the whole we tend not to be so misanthropic. We like people a lot, and whether or not we have met them personally, we gain particular satisfaction from knowing what they look like.Among the genres of art we find outlined in traditional academic theory, landscape appears to be the one with the largest and most immediate contemporary purchase on our imagination. While Joshua Reynolds might have been thinking only of painting when he discussed 'landskips' in his Discourses on Art, the category now encompasses a far wider range of activities, from Richard Long's walks to the wheat crop recently grown and harvestedon a disused railway siding in Dalston, East London, by the Hungarian-American artist Agnes Denes.Alongside landscape, that other minor category, portraiture, seems to be much less secure in its status. The act of commissioning a portrait is something few of us will do – it being restricted to those with more money than is good for them. There are more photographic images of individuals around than ever before – perhaps because of that, and the ease with which still more can be generated, the idea of producing a composed portrait strikes me as increasingly pointless. Even when we do encounter such a thing, we don't always assume that what we're looking at is a portrait. Why is it, for example, that when walking round the current Elizabeth Peyton exhibition at the Whitechapel Art Gallery – an exhibition consisting largely of paintings of people – it doesn't seem right to classify it as a show of portraiture?The people Peyton paints are famous, and their faces can be seen everywhere in countless photographs. So, one of the main functions of the portrait – producing a likeness – is rendered irrelevant because we really don't need Peyton to show us what Liam Gallagher looks like. If her work is interesting it's because it goes beyond this, allowing us to see Gallagher not only as an individual, but as signifying pervasive features of our cultural environment, a screen upon which we can project our own desires and fears. Which is to say, it is not a portrait at all, but what Reynolds would have called a history painting: the most important kind of art there is.Reynolds's preferred term was, in fact, poetical painting. That is, painting that generalises a specific person in an imaginative and instructive way. When Charlotte Corday went to stab the French revolutionary Marat, he was sitting in his bath because that was the only way he could get relief for the chronic skin condition from which he suffered. He was definitely not the smooth-skinned, muscle-bound, Michelangelo-esque demi-god depicted by Jacques-Louis David in his famous painting of the murdered man. Likewise, when Gerhard Richter paints his aunt Marianne from an old family snapshot – a painting shown in the exhibition of his portraits at the National Portrait Gallery earlier this year – what makes it overwhelmingly powerful is the knowledge that some time after the photo was taken she was placed in a mental home and subsequently murdered by the Nazis as part of their euthanasia programme to improve the nation's health.The figure in history is what matters. As with landscape, portraiture becomes pertinent when it breaks out of its straightjacket and offers something more than a tastefully composed and skilfully executed representation of someone. This is not to say that painting can't matter in either landscape or portraiture, it's just that it can no longer be a necessary and sufficient condition. Witness the contrasting tales of two men in Trafalgar Square. Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, has expressed regret at the spectacle of Antony Gormley's One and Other project outside his hallowed doors. Sandy Nairne, director of the adjacent National Portrait Gallery, has himself stood on the fourth plinth. There is a live feed from the plinth relayed to a screen in the portrait gallery's foyer in recognition of the fact that, along with such things as tagged photos on Facebook, this parade of randomly selected humanity is as much as anything else the contemporary face of portraiture.Portrait – Art Term | TateBritish School 17th century The Cholmondeley Ladies c.1600–10 TatePortraiture is a very old art form going back at least to ancient Egypt, where it flourished from about 5,000 years ago. Before the invention of photography, a painted, sculpted, or drawn portrait was the only way to record the appearance of someone.But portraits have always been more than just a record. They have been used to show the power, importance, virtue, beauty, wealth, taste, learning or other qualities of the sitter. Portraits have almost always been flattering, and painters who refused to flatter, such as William Hogarth, tended to find their work rejected. A notable exception was Francisco Goya in his apparently bluntly truthful portraits of the Spanish royal family.Among leading modern artists portrait painting on commission, that is to order, became increasingly rare. Instead artists painted their friends and lovers in whatever way they pleased. Most of Picasso’s pictures of women, for example, however bizarre, can be identified as portraits of his lovers. At the same time, photography became the most important medium of traditional portraiture, bringing what was formerly an expensive luxury product affordable for almost everyone. Since the 1990s artists have also used video to create living portraits. But portrait painting continues to flourish.The importance of portrait painting in today's society.Susan Boone DurkeePortrait Painter specializing in Traditional Classic Portraiture for over 25 years6 articles"There is no greater work of Art then a great Portrait" Henry JamesAn oil Portrait lives forever! The portrait symbolizes the value and worth of the individual in society. To capture a loved one or to honor a special individual on canvas is a timeless human need and expression. An oil portrait, unlike a photograph, has so much room for expression and power, passion and harmony, and life. Today, Portraiture is more important than ever. In a world becoming less and less sensitive to the human condition, the more important portraiture becomes for preserving our humanity, culture, care and love. Mankind has an inherent need to love and honor, as an art form, only portraiture can accomplish this.Portrait painting - WikipediaPortrait painting is a genre in painting, where the intent is to depict a human subject. The term 'portrait painting' can also describe the actual painted portrait. Portraitists may create their work by commission, for public and private persons, or they may be inspired by admiration or affection for the subject. Portraits are often important state and family records, as well as remembrances.The official Chinese court portrait painting of Empress Cao (wife of Emperor Renzong) of Song Dynasty, 11th centuryHistorically, portrait paintings have primarily memorialized the rich and powerful. Over time, however, it became more common for middle-class patrons to commission portraits of their families and colleagues. Today, portrait paintings are still commissioned by governments, corporations, groups, clubs, and individuals. In addition to painting, portraits can also be made in other media such as etching, lithography, photography, video and digital media.Anthony van Dyck, Charles I in Three Positions, 1635-1636, shows profile, full face and three-quarter views, to send to Bernini in Rome, who was to sculpt a bust from this model.Sutherland's portrait of ChurchillSaturday, 13 May, 2017In June 2016 (see previous article), Alistair Lexden published an article about Graham Sutherland’s acclaimed, but deeply controversial portrait of Winston Churchill. Presented to him on his eightieth birthday, 30 November 1954, the picture was later destroyed on his wife’s instructions. (A copy was later made and given to the Carlton Club, but it is not on display.)A programme about the portrait and its destruction is being made for broadcast on Sky Arts; it is expected to be shown towards the end of the year. On 11 May Alistair Lexden was interviewed at some length in Westminster Hall where the portrait was presented in front of a large group of MPs, peers and distinguished guests. He described the ceremony itself, which concluded with a well-known speech of thanks from Churchill. He devoted just two terse sentences to this “remarkable example of modern art”; a finely produced volume, containing the names of the parliamentarians who had contributed to the cost which was also presented to him, received lavish praise. No one was in any doubt about his dislike of the portrait.Alistair Lexden also explained how Sutherland came to be commissioned by an all-party committee of MPs in July 1954 and how work progressed with Sutherland and Churchill establishing a friendship which was shattered when Churchill saw a photograph of the portrait a few days before it was due to be presented. He tried to get the presentation cancelled. His hatred of the picture became all-consuming. Lady Churchill’s secretary and her brother burned it at the latter’s house near Chartwell in 1955 or 1956.Graham Sutherland – Western Hills, 1938-1941 – image via Financial Times8 Lost Masterpieces of ArtSecret of Winston Churchill's unpopular Sutherland portrait revealedThe true fate of Sir Winston Churchill's Sutherland portrait has come to light, finally unravelling the mystery of its controversial disappearance.The portrait of Sir Winston Churchill by Graham SutherlandBy Hannah Furness, Arts correspondent10:47AM BST 10 Jul 2015As 80th birthday presents go, it was one of the more awkward in political history: a portrait described as making its subject look "half-witted" and famously destroyed by his disapproving wife.Now, decades later, the true fate of Sir Winston Churchill's Sutherland portrait has come to light, finally unravelling the mystery of its controversial disappearance.The painting, hated by Sir Winston's family, was until now understood to have been disposed of by Clementine Churchill, who strove to carefully control the politician's reputation after his death.But a tape stored unnoticed in an archive has revealed the full story behind its disappearance.In fact, the painting was taken out in the dead of night by Lady Churchill's loyal private secretary, driven by her older brother to a country house and burned so far away from the road that nobody ever noticed.The conspiring women later took a vow never to reveal what happened, to avoid anyone being unfairly blamed for using their initiative to carry out Lady Churchill's wishes.Sonia Purnell, a historian who has written a biography of Sir Winston's wife, said the account, from Grace Hamblin, had been recorded onto tape before her death and sealed, lying largely unnoticed by scholars ever since.Clementine Hozier with fiancee Winston Churchill, one week before their marriage in 1908 (Alamy)Speaking at the Telegraph's Ways With Words festival, she said the recording was "probably not looked at until I stumbled across it" at the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge, giving the first full account of the destruction."There have been lots of rumours about it," she told an audience in Dartington, Devon."Clementine asked Grace Hamblin, her secretary at Chartwell: 'What do we do Grace? We've got to get rid of it'."It had been hidden in a sort of cellar at Chartwell. Grace thought about what to do."It was very, very heavy, so she got her big burly brother over to Chartwell in the dead of night, and they carried it out of Chartwell into her brother's van. I think her brother was a landscape gardener or something like that."They put it in the back of his van and drove to his house several miles away, and then scurried round the side of his house into the back garden, built a huge bonfire and put it on so that no-one could see it from the street."The next day, she told Clementine what she'd done and Clementine said: 'We'll never tell anyone about this because after I go I don't want anyone blaming you. But believe me, you did exactly as I wouldhave wanted'."Grace, who died in 2002 aged 94, was described as the "greatly loved and ever efficient private secretary of Winston and Clementine Churchill for more than 40 years".She went on to run Chartwell and became a curator when it was passed to the National Trust and has gone down in history for her discretion and loyal devotion to the Churchill family. Among her tasks was to finally confirm to the public that the Sutherland portrait had indeed been destroyed.A 1978 newspaper article, confirming the loss of the painting, said: "This was done on her own initiative by Lady Churchill before Sir Winston's death."She neither consulted anyone, nor informed anyone, of her intention."The painting, by Graham Sutherland, was commissioned by members of the House of Commons and House of Lords to mark Sir Winston's 80th birthday.When it was first unveiled, Sir Winston archly described it as "a remarkable example of modern art" to laughter from his audience.Sutherland later described the disposal of the portrait as an "act of vandalism"."Clementine's work, in the last few years of her life, was all about protecting his [Sir Winston's] legacy," said Purnell. "When his career was no longer important, it was his legacy that counted."Just as she was fastidious in promoting his career, so she did the same with his legacy."She saw that painting as not being the kind of heroic, warrior statesmankind of image she wanted to project."So she was ruthless about it; it had to go."She added that the recording of the confession had gone under the radar of biographers until now because historians have been so focused on archives relating to Sir Winston himself.Her book, First Lady: The Life and Wars of Clementine Churchill, details Miss Hamblin's account of the incident, saying: "I destroyed it but Lady C and I decided we would not tell anyone. She was thinking of me."The biography was awarded five stars by the Telegraph and is out now.Graham Sutherland – The Fly, 1978 – image courtesy of Goldmark GalleryBy PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAYPUBLISHED: 00:53 BST, 12 July 2015Facing the truth about a legendNow at last we have absolute confirmation that Graham Sutherland’s ruthlessly honest portrait of Sir Winston Churchill was indeed burned because the great man’s wife, Clementine, couldn’t bear to look at it. You can see why. It’s not flattering. But no good portrait is flattering.Now at last we have absolute confirmation that Graham Sutherland’s ruthlessly honest portrait of Sir Winston Churchill was indeed burned because the great man’s wife, Clementine, couldn’t bear to look at itBy the time it was painted, Sir Winston, like the country he had led, was failing, weakened by disappointment and fearful of the future. The picture showed that truth. We still do not like to admit it.Graham Vivian Sutherland / United Kingdom 1903 - 1980 Abstract Art, Neo-romanticism

Sharma Ji, You state (separated into points):1. The first 9 Gurus were Vaishnav (Vishnu Bhakta) Vedantists.2. And there’re many verses where Vishnu is mentioned as Supreme and many where Vishnu himself is considered secondary while Parabrahm is considered Supreme. This creates confusion in the minds of many people and they tend to select one verse over the other according to their understanding and belief.3. These contradictions appear due to the reason that Sikhs have stopped reading their own texts with the traditional commentaries4. and also the Dharmic texts (Hinduism) on which the whole philosophy is based..Point 1Let me put it to you that first Guru Guru Nanak rejected the Hindu ceremony of JANAEU or the HINDU SACRED THREAD, an important ceremony of the Sanatan Faith.This what Guru Nanak said in SGGS 471 Slok M:1 in response to the Pandit who was performing the ceremony of the Hindu Sacred Thread for Guru Nanak.(SGGS – Sri Guru Granth Sahib)Shalok, First Mehl:Make compassion the cotton, contentment the thread, modesty the knot and truth the twist.This is the sacred thread of the soul; if you have it, then go ahead and put it on me.It does not break, it cannot be soiled by filth, it cannot be burnt, or lost.Blessed are those mortal beings, O Nanak, who wear such a thread around their necks.You buy the thread for a few shells, and seated in your enclosure, you put it on.Whispering instructions into others' ears, the Brahmin becomes a guru.But he dies, and the sacred thread falls away, and the soul departs without it. ||1||Essentially Guru Ji used the “sacred thread” metaphorically here. He says the key is COMPASSION, CONTENTMENT, MODESTY not a THREAD round the neck which will get soiled, break, burn or lost. Can you see that the PHILOSOPHY behind Guru Nanak’s thinking is totally different. One is a AN ACTION FROM A THOUGHT PROCESS (result of controlling the 5 vices of lust, anger, greed, attachment, ego), the other a RITUALISTIC PRACTICE. It is suggested you read further than the above stanza where Guru Nanak outlines further his opinion of the practices.From this, it is clear that Guru Nanak and the other 8 Gurus did not subscribe to the VAISHNAV faith. Just because Guru Nanak and the other 9 Gurus (including the 10th Guru Guru Gobind Singh) refer to Vishnu does not mean they are VAISHNAVs. Just because you found the word “baisno” meaning a devotee of Vishnu in a dictionary, you conclude that all the 9 Gurus were VAISHNAVs. Did you try to understand in what context the word was used. You seem to just pick one word or even one verse and jump to conclusions. To appreciate the Gurus teachings, you will have to understand the whole Shabad (hymn) before making any conclusion.Whatever you interpret must tally with or have a bearing on the rest of the teachings in the Sikh Scriptures. Guru Nanak and all the other 9 Gurus were devotees of God EK OANGKAR (not any other entity e.g. person, statue, animal, tree ….) as described in the Mool Mantar.The Guru also refers to the Muslim faith and uses the word ALLAH; but that does not mean that he follows the Muslim faith. The Guru respected all faiths but commented on the practices of the leaders and/or followers of other faiths in the Guru Granth Sahib and other Sikh Scriptures. Guru Gobind Singh explicitly stated in Gurbani composition “Krishan Avatar in Dasam Granth”Mai Na Ganesahi Prithama Manaaoo ॥ Kisan Bisan Kabahooaan Na Dhiaaaoo ॥I do not adore Ganesha in the beginning and also do not mediatate on Krishna and VishnuKaani Sune Pahichaan Na Tin So ॥ Liva Laagee Moree Paga Ein So ॥434॥I have only heard about them with my ears and I do not recognize them my consciousness is absorbed at the feet of the Supreme Kal (the Immanent Brahman).434.Mahaakaal Rakhvaara Hamaaro ॥ Mahaa Loha Mai Kiaankar Thaaro ॥The Supreme Kal (God) is my Protector and O Steel-Purusha Lort ! I am Thy slaveGuru Gobind Singh is the 10th Jot of Guru Nanak. Bhai Gurdas explicitly states in his Vaaran that the Jot of Guru Nanak is also the Jot of 2nd Guru, the 3rd Guru up to the 10th Guru. Today this Jot rests in the Guru Granth Sahib. Hence the extreme reverence to Guru Granth Sahib by the Sikhs.This does not mean that the Guru had no respect for the Prophets, Granths, Scriptures of other faiths, which they had studied and knew the true understanding of. They pointed out what they saw the mal practices by the adherents of these other faiths in their writings.For example, you state that God is Brahman and outline some qualities. Then you go on to imply that Krishna is GOD but Vishnu is not. This statement of your does not tally with your quoted Vishnu Purana [1:14] where Vishnu is stated as God (see below). I suspect you are Krishna Bhagat. Will the Vishnu Bhagats or Brahma Bhagats of Siva Bhagats agree with you? There is no such issue in the Sikh faith; all are devotes of God EK OANKAR.What is the Gita? The Bhagavad-Gita is the eternal message of spiritual wisdom from ancient India. The word Gita means song and the word. Bhagavad means God, often the Bhagavad-Gita is called the Song of God. The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna.In Chapter 4 KRISHNA reveals that he has LIVED THROUGH MANY BIRTHS. Guru Nanak says God is not subject to birth in Mool Mantar (SGGS 1 Jap Ji Sahib). Mool Mantar statesOne Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, BEYOND BIRTH, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace. || Chant And Meditate || True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True. ||1||Again totally different philosophy. How can then the 9 Gurus subscribe to the Vedanta, where, as you imply (“ParamAtman, who is also Krishna …”, ), that Krishna is ParamAtman i.e. God? You also said that Vishnu is not God (Godhead). The whole of the writings of the 10 Gurus is in the praise of God EK OANGKAR; then how can you say that the 9 Guru subscribe to Vedanta?The key question in relation to Bhagvat Geeta is that; “Is Krishna describing “God Krishna” or the TRUE God (who is beyond birth as per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Mool Mantar the core of the Philosophy of Sikh Gurus)?”. WHO is the “I” and “HE” mentioned in the BG verses you quote? TRUE God or Krishna?Not being a student of Vedanta I do not know and have no intention to interpret the Geeta through skewed eyes. My question is based on having a good understanding of the 10 Gurus plus Guru Granth Sahib teachings and your comments with reference to English translations (not interpretations) of the Bhagvat Geeta.The verse you quote Bhagvat Gita [8:11] is at odds with “Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Transliterated Sanskrit Text, T.N.Sethumadhavan, Nagpur” (REF01)Which statesyadaksharam vedavido vadantivishanti yadyatayo veetaraagaahyadicchanto brahmacharyam charantitatte padam samgrahena pravakshye // 8.11 //What the knowers of the Vedas speak of as Imperishable, what the self-controlled(Sannyaasins) freed from attachment enter and to gain which goal they live the life of aBrahmachari, that state I shall declare to you in brief.Where is the word OMKARA in the Sanskrit text? The word “OM” is however referred to in [8.13].Omityekaaksharam brahma vyaaharan maamanusmaranyah prayaati tyajan deham sa yaati paramaam gatim // 8.13 //Uttering the monosyllable OM-the Brahman-and remembering Me, he who so departs, leaving the body, attains the supreme goal.Note that OM is not what you term OMKARA (or OANGKAR as per Guru Granth Sahib). OM as per [8.13] is a sound, a monosyllable. OANGKAR, as the Sikh Gurus refer to in the Sikh Scriptures, on the other hand refers to the TRUE God. It describes the main or primary qualities i.e. the collective power of creating, preserving and destroying of God. By use of the word EK preceding OANGKAR, it explicitly clear that God is UNITARY. Unlike the Hindu faith, the followers of faith of the Gurus, Sikhs, are the devotes of God EK OANGKAR, not any other entity (person, statue, animal, tree ….).Point 2You state, those who do not understand the philosophy behind and the teachings of the Sikh faith, will find they are confused with what is in Guru Granth Sahib. You are one of them who is talking from a high pedestal about Sikhism but without the proper understanding of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. I have shown your false claim in Point 1 above. The same is the case with Point 2.Vishnu is referred to in about 48 verses in the Guru Granth Sahib. There is no confusion in the use of Vishnu. Never is Vishnu referred to as God EK OANGKAR. In fact, it is stated that:God (EK OANGKAR) created Vishnu who acts according to Gods will or command (SGGS 504, Goojri, 1st Guru; SGGS 839, Bilawal, 1st Guru; SGGS 948, Ramkali, 3rd Guru, SGGS 1026, Maroo, 1st Guru; SGGS 1037, Maroo, 1st Guru; SGGS 1051, Maroo, 3rd Guru; SGGS 1094, Maroo, 5th Guru; SGGS 1030, Bhairon, 3rd Guru; SGGS 1403, Savaeyay, 4th Guru; )Vishnu is a manifestation of the ONE GOD (EK OANKAR) and acts according to God’s will or command (SGGS 908, Ramkali, 1st Guru)Vishnu became exalted due to meditating on the word of God (NAAM) (SGGS 1013, Maroo, 1st Guru)Vishnu “serves” or “meditate on” ONE GOD (EK OANGKAR) (SGGS 1022, Maroo, 1st Guru, SGGS 1053, Maroo, 3rd Guru, SGGS 1079, Maroo Solhay, 5th Guru)Only God (EK OANGKAR) existed before God created the creation. Then there was no Vishnu (SGGS 1034, Maroo, 1st Guru)Vishnu is bound by the three gunas or Maya (SGGS 1050, Maroo, 3rd Guru, SGGS 1156, Bhairon, 1st Guru)ONE GOD (EK OANGKAR) created many-many incarnations of Vishnu (SGGS 1156, Bhairon, 5th Guru)Nowhere is Vishnu referred to as “Supreme” meaning Vishnu is ONE GOD (EK OANGKAR).Point 3As stated in the response to Point 2 above, there is no contradiction to one who has a proper understanding of the teachings of the 10 Gurus and Guru Granth. The Gurus were specific and clear about their statements on Vishnu – see Point 2 above.Point 4You make a sweeping statement that who whole of Sikh Faith philosophy is based on Hindu Dharmic texts. I put it to you that your claim is false. Just take the commencing verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib shown below.One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, BEYOND BIRTH, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace. || Chant And Meditate || True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True. ||1||I don’t believe that there are verses in any of the Hindu (Sanatan) scriptures which outline information of ONE GOD (EK OANGKAR) akin to in the above verses in Guru Granth Sahib.Guru Granth Sahib and other Sikh scriptures are teaching devotion to ONE GOD (EK OANGKAR) while Hindu (Sanatan) faith lists multiple Gods and there are Krishna devotees, Vishnu devotes, Siva devotes ….. .The Gurus preached that all humans being are equal while the Hindu (Sanatan) faith preaches the caste system; the castes ranging from high to low castes and with decreasing privileges.These are only and few which I have pointed out. There are many more. The Sikh faith is a totally different faith as compared to the Hindu (Sanatan) faith.Point: The translations of BG you presentedYou have not quoted the source of your translations. Your translations do not match those as per REF01. They also do not match with another translation “Bhagvaat Gita, Annie Basant and Bhavavan Das, Theosophical Publishing Society, London and Benaras, 1905 ” (REF02). A translation must give the intended meaning in the original language. It should not include interpretations. I have shown that your “translation of [8:11] does not match that given in REF01. Likewise checking others with REF01 and REF02, there seem to be a mismatch. You should not include your interpretation as a part of the translation. This is leading the reader to your thought which may be not true or correct.Point: The interpretation of Vishnu Purana [1 14] you presentedI will produce the extract from The Puranas “A compact, English-only version of the Major 18 Puranas in one document, Issue 1, Draft 1, Compiled by the Dharmic Scriptures Team, October 3, 2002” (REF03). The section 1:14 is in chapter 3 Vishu Purana of this document. The extract below.3.1.14 Appearance of the LordAs soon as Prahlad began to pray the Lord, his Naagpaash broke and the mountains that the demons had thrown into the sea also lightened up causing great relief for Prahlad. Lord Vishnu appeared before him and said- "O Prahlad! I am pleased with your devotion. You may seek any boon of your wish." Prahlad said- "May I always have an unconditional devotion for you. May your remembrance never be away from my heart."God said - " Your devotion for me shall always remain the same. Now, seek anything you wish." Prahlad said- "O Lord! My father has always cultivated hostility for you because of my devotion. May my father be free from the sin of his action." Lord said- "O Prahlad! All your wishes shall come true but still seek any boon of your choice."Prahlad said- "O Lord! I don’t want anything other than devotion for you." Lord said -" O Prahlad! You have nothing in your mind but devotion for me, so with my grace, you will attain supreme abode."Saying this, the Lord disappeared. In later course, ultimately Hiranyakashipu decided to kill Prahlad himself. He tied Prahlad to a pillar and shouting abusively for God, he hit the pillar. As soon as he hit the pillar, it broke and Lord appeared from it in Narsimha incarnation. His appearance was extremely formidable with half human and half lion form. Dragging Hiranyakashipu to the threshold, He killed him with his powerful talons. After the killing of his father, Prahlad took over the throne and ruled his subjects religiously.Compare this to what you have written. In REF03, [1:14] is relating Vishnu appearing before Prahlad, who was a devotee of Vishnu and the conversation between Vishnu and Prahlad. In this Purana, Vishnu is the God of Prahlad. Then Hiranyakashipu, who is Prahlad’s father, attempt to kill Prahlad is related, which eventually leads to the killing of Hiranyakashipu by Narshima, an incarnation of the Vishnu. Thereafter Prahlad ruled the kingdom religiously. Essentially the narration shows that Prahlads’s devotion to his God Vishnu protected him. This narration is totally different from what you have outlined for [1.14]. An interpretation must have a bearing on the actual scriptural text of the Vishnu Purana. Your interpretation has no bearing on the translation scriptural text of the Vishnu Purana. Where is the “We adore that Supreme Brahman (Parabrahm), the ultimate condition of Vishńu, unproductive, unborn, pure, void of qualities (Nirguna), and free from accidents; who is neither high nor low, neither bulky nor minute, has neither shape, nor colour, nor shadow, nor substance, nor affection, nor body; …” in the scriptural text? Can you explain how you arrive at a totally different interpretation of [1:14]?Other PointsPoint A: Your explanation of the verses in Guru Granth Sahib on GurmukhGuru Granth Sahib--Raag Raamkali Guru Nanak Dev-Ang 941Guramukh Saasathr Simrith Baedh ||Faridkot Tika:Guramukhōn nē sāsatra 6, simratī 27, bēd 4, in sabh kē sidhānta kō jāṇa lī'ā hai.The Gurmukh has understood the essence of, the 6 Shastras, the 27 Smritis and the 4 Vedas.Here the Gurus say the Gurmukh is the essence of Shastras, Smritis and the Vedas.You don’t seem to understand even the English translation. There meaning of “UNDERSTOOD THE ESSENCE” as compared “IS THE ESSENCE” is totally different. The meaning of the verse is understood the essence NOT is the essence. Is the essence means that “one is a basic nature of” while “understood the essence” means “one understands the basic nature”.You INTERPRETATION “Here the Gurus say the Gurmukh is the essence of Shastras, Smritis and the Vedas” is totally wrong. This is how one with lack of proper understanding misinterpret the scriptures. It is just like saying that “someone who understands the Muslim faith” is “a Muslim”. Can you see how ridiculous the meanings become?I notice a similar interpretation of you own scriptures; your interpretation of [1.14] being an example. You seem to pull out interpretations which have no bearing on what the scriptures mean (English translation).Point B: Guru Granth Sahib 1082, Raag Maroo Guru Arjan DevPlease use accepted translations of the SGGS when you try to interpret the teachinngs of the Gurus. I pen below the widely accepted translation of the SGGS Shabad Hymn you are referring to.Maaroo, Fifth Mehl: (SGGS 1082)The Supreme Lord God is imperishable, the Transcendent Lord, the Inner-knower, the Searcher of hearts. He is the Slayer of demons, our Supreme Lord and Master. The Supreme Rishi, the Master of the sensory organs, the uplifter of mountains, the joyful Lord playing His enticing flute. ||1||The Enticer of Hearts, the Lord of wealth, Krishna, the Enemy of ego. The Lord of the Universe, the Dear Lord, the Destroyer of demons. The Life of the World, our eternal and ever-stable Lord and Master dwells within each and every heart, and is always with us. ||2||The Support of the Earth, the man-lion, the Supreme Lord God. The Protector who tears apart demons with His teeth, the Upholder of the earth. O Creator, You assumed the form of the pygmy to humble the demons; You are the Lord God of all. ||3||You are the Great Raam Chand, who has no form or feature. Adorned with flowers, holding the chakra in Your hand, Your form is incomparably beautiful. You have thousands of eyes, and thousands of forms. You alone are the Giver, and all are beggars of You. ||4||You are the Lover of Your devotees, the Master of the masterless. The Lord and Master of the milk-maids, You are the companion of all. O Lord, Immacuate Great Giver, I cannot describe even an iota of Your Glorious Virtues. ||5||Liberator, Enticing Lord, Lord of Lakshmi, Supreme Lord God. Savior of Dropadi's honor. Lord of Maya, miracle-worker, absorbed in delightful play, unattached. ||6||The Blessed Vision of His Darshan is fruitful and rewarding; He is not born, He is self-existent. His form is undying; it is never destroyed. O imperishable, eternal, unfathomable Lord, everything is attached to You. ||7||The Lover of greatness, who dwells in heaven. By the Pleasure of His Will, He took incarnation as the great fish and the tortoise. The Lord of beauteous hair, the Worker of miraculous deeds, whatever He wishes, comes to pass. ||8||He is beyond need of any sustenance, free of hate and all-pervading. He has staged His play; He is called the four-armed Lord. He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed. ||9||He is adorned with garlands of flowers, with lotus eyes. His ear-rings, crown and flute are so beautiful. He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10||The Lord of yellow robes, the Master of the three worlds. The Lord of the Universe, the Lord of the world; with my mouth, I chant His Name. The Archer who draws the bow, the Beloved Lord God; I cannot count all His limbs. ||11||He is said to be free of anguish, and absolutely immaculate. The Lord of prosperity, pervading the water, the land and the sky. He is near this world and the nether regions of the underworld; His Place is permanent, ever-stable and imperishable. ||12||The Purifier of sinners, the Destroyer of pain and fear. The Eliminator of egotism, the Eradicator of coming and going. He is pleased with devotional worship, and merciful to the meek; He cannot be appeased by any other qualities. ||13||The Formless Lord is undeceivable and unchanging. He is the Embodiment of Light; through Him, the whole world blossoms forth. He alone unites with Him, whom He unites with Himself. No one can attain the Lord by himself. ||14||He Himself is the milk-maid, and He Himself is Krishna. He Himself grazes the cows in the forest. You Yourself create, and You Yourself destroy. Not even a particle of filth attaches to You. ||15||Which of Your Glorious Virtues can I chant with my one tongue? Even the thousand-headed serpent does not know Your limit. One may chant new names for You day and night, but even so, O God, no one can describe even one of Your Glorious Virtues. ||16||I have grasped the Support, and entered the Sanctuary of the Lord, the Father of the world.The Messenger of Death is terrifying and horrendous, and sea of Maya is impassable. Please be merciful, Lord, and save me, if it is Your Will; please lead me to join with the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy. ||17||All that is seen is an illusion. I beg for this one gift, for the dust of the feet of the Saints, O Lord of the Universe. Applying it to my forehead, I obtain the supreme status; he alone obtains it, unto whom You give it. ||18||It is advisable you use accepted translations, instead of making your own translations to interpret the Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Arjan Dev Ji in 18 stanzas you posted is describing the how the TRUE God EK OANGKAR interacts acts with the creation through aspects of the creation (which is God’s play) which is the SARGUN form of Ek Oangkar. The aspects of the creation referred to are Madhsudan (slayer of demons), Rishis, Krishan, Nirsing (supporting the earth), Bavvn, Raam Chand, eyes, hands, savious of Dropadhi, fish, tortoise, and may others. So essentially Guru Arjan Dev Ji is extolling the qualities of Ek Oangkar not of any other through the creation.Once again, your lack of understanding of the concepts of the Gurus’ teachings show. Guru Arjan is extolling “the qualities of God through the creation” using “the creation aspects. Many of the aspects used are from the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic stories of which the Gurus were well versed (and also concepts of other faiths e.g. Muslim, Christian ..). He has rightly so used these to explain that the One God Ek Oangkar interacts with the creation through the aspects of creation known to people then, Guru Arjan Dev would not find much success in his teaching if he started using spaceships and rockets etc to explain concepts to the people then! Using the aspects of the creation from the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic texts does not mean that the Gurus subscribed to the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic faith. If they had, there would be no need for the Mool Mantar. They would have just used the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic texts to explain to the people. BUT they did not.So you see, the Sikh Gurus teachings are different than those in the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic texts.SummaryFrom the above discussion the following becomes clear.The philosophy of Sikh faith by Guru Nanak and the other 9 Gurus can be said to be to have some similarities to the Hindu (Sanatan) Philosophy (then again which faiths do not have some similarities to one another) AND the Sikh Gurus were not Vaishnavs.The followers of faith of the Gurus, Sikhs, are the devotes of God EK OANGKAR, not any other entity (person, statue, animal, tree ….).There is no confusion in the use of Vishnu in Guru Granth Sahib. Never is Vishnu referred to as God EK OANGKAR.The whole of the Sikh Philosophy is not based on the Hindu Dharmic Texts. The concept of God in Mool Mantar, the commencing verse in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, is a total departure from the Hindu Dharmic concept (based on translations of the Gita and Vishnu Purana).In Sikh faith all humans are equal, while in the Hindu faith society is divided into castes ranging from high to low castes and decreasing privileges.You make interpretation of your scriptures which have no bearing on the actual scriptural texts (translation REF01, REF02, REF03).The Sikh Gurus teachings are different than those in the Hindu (Sanatan) Dharmic textsYour lack of proper understanding of Sri Guru Granth results in your misinterpretation of the verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib relaying a wrong message to the reader.It is thus obvious that you are misinterpreting the philosophy and teaching of the Sikh Gurus and the READER SHOULD NOT PAY HEED TO WHAT YOU SAY.

Let me introduce you the German pulp booklet Science Fiction series PERRY RHODAN.Well it’s a longer read since not many non-Germans knows about this series which I feel to have to introduce in more depth.So, get yourselves chips and beer ;-).Real world perspectiveIt was named after the titular hero and it is still written by a team of authors under the supervision of exposé authors.The whole series started in 1961 and described the first manned moon mission carried out in 1971, ten years into the future when the first issue came out.Within these about 64 DIN A5 pages each issue there’re artist impressions.At the beginning, Johnny Bruck was the main artist, later there were several artists.The drawings, the technical manuals consists of cutaway graphics, shematic diagrams, fully drawn space crafts and planetary facilities and wristband computers, weapons, zero-G cars, the galactic empires with all their territories.Many of the imagined future tech truly was visionary but since the first of these descriptions were made in the early 1960s the fictional future computers sill had relays, communicated with punch hole stripes and other outmoded elements.Oh, and the species, they were painted often in a truly amazing fashion.Links to the official and semi-official pages are following at the end of my answer.A bit of the story lineRemark: In Italic some real world references and remarks can be found.In 1971, mankind became separated into three major power blocks. The western NATO under the lead of the USA, the eastern block under the lead of the Soviet Union and the Asian Federation formed after the unification of China, Japan, both Koreas, Tibet, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia after Tschiang Kai Scheck managed to win the civil war against Mao Zhedong some years earlier.In this year, the US Space Force formed in the 1960s launched the first manned moon mission led by major Perry Rhodan, his first officer Captain Reginald Bull and Dr. Eric Manoli and Captain Clark Flipper.The way to the moon already was riddled with issues and after the Stardust moon lander (described like a kind of 1960-fyed space shuttle) stranded on the moon, the four astronauts around and including Rhodan discovered a stranded extraterrestrial space craft, spherical, with a diameter of 500 meters.Inside this space craft, Rhodan and Bull leaving Flipper and Manoli back at the Stardust, encountered members of a fully humanoid alien species which calls themselves the Arkonides.Their own vast interstellar empire was about to fall apart due to decadence, complacence and a neglect of the states affairs (1) by the aristocratic elite. The Arkonides became addicted to a virtual reality game as well as to lavish parties.The only still active Arkonides aboard the alien space craft named Aetron (2) were Ka’Marentis (3) Crest da Zoltral and his close relative the female Vere’Athor (4) Thora da Zoltral. Both played out to be members of the ruling family of the da Zoltral.Crest accepted mankind and after some plannings, he handed over all the technological knowledge of the Arkonides. Wit these means, Rhodan denied any of the poweer blocks this technology, landed right in the dessert of Gobi and declared his own nation which should act in the name of the whole mankind since Rhodan saw the need of a unified mankind.The original superpowers of Earth couldn’t accept this, thought, Rhodan was a spy of the other power blocks and eventually waged a nuclear war. With the aid of the Arkonide technology like shutting down nuclear fission from a vast distance on a whole planet and other feats Rhodan and Thora da Zoltral shut down this nuclear world war and Crest aided Rhodan and his team to create this newly declared nation called the “Third Power” to symbolize that the Third Power doesn’t want to become part of the Earth’s power blocks but the core of a unified mankind.Now, some “positive mutants” emerged, mutants not with misshaped bodies but outfitted with paranormal senses like telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation, hypnosis, power projection, time dancing, molecular reshaping. These mutants joined Rhodan since they wanted to help him to unify mankind and so they became the most successful “secret weapon” of the Terrans against the much more powerful aliens out there in space.(I call them ironically “Rhodans X-Men”)After having defeated some alien threads like a species which could separate their spirits from their original bodies and taking over other bodies which makes them the perfect spies.Other defeated enemies were aggressive space traders (5), corrupt medics (6). In some cases, the normally pacifist Rhodan managed to befriend some of them thanks to his diplomacy but Rhodan could be a fierce fighter for the interests of “his” mankind he identified with so much.Sometimes, Rhodan captured some alien space crafts and integrated them into the fledgling Human space fleet.In addition, Rhodan and his men and women solved a large “Cosmic Riddle” laid out by a collective biological superintelligence who wanted to test mankind. In return, Rhodan and his trusted men and women got their lives vastly prolonged and they got some additional technological gadgets like a kind of teleport station.At the same time, mankind, now on peaceful terms started to create their own space fleet with now interstellar space crafts truly built on Earth vastly supported by a large Arkonide base on Venus which central commanding computer accepted Rhodan as its new commanding officer.Nevertheless, in 1984, the situation became dire to the “Third Power”. On Arkon, a few years ago a gigantic computer system called the “Great Coordinator” or “Robot Regent” sensed that the situation within the failing Arkonide Empire became too critical.So, according to the plans of the then still highly active and very determined Arkonides pre-decadency most prominently programmed by the former Ka’Marentis (3) Epetran da Ragnaari this gigantic computer, situated on the main military planet of the Arkonide home solar system (7) took over the Arkonide Empire, fully reactivated the fleet, rebuilt into gigantic drones and forced the renewed “Pax Arkon” over the Arkonide part of the Milky Way galaxy.Rhodan, visited the Arkon system to ask for helpbut learned about the Robot Regent. After several tense adventures Rhodan managed to steal the newest prototype space craft developed by the Robot Regent, a 1500 meters diameter super battle vessel named “Veast’Ark” and renamed into “Titan” by the Terrans.The Robot Regent learned about the Terrans around Rhodan and considered them to be a thread to the Arkonide Empire if they remain a sovereign power, so, the Robot Regent decided to conquer Earth and force the so Arkonideoid humans to become slaves to the Arkon Empire.So, Rhodan and his allies, now fully including Crest da Zoltral and Thora da Zoltral after the miss-treatment by the Robot Regent after they already fully supported them, staged a gigantic bluff. They managed to create the illusion, a planet orbiting Betelgeuse was the true Terra, Rhodan lured in a fleet of Mehandors and after a fierce battle the Mehandor “destroyed Terra” and “killed Rhodan”Now, from 1984 to 2040 Rhodan have won the time to fully unify Terra. In 1990 the Solar Empire was founded, colonized many moons and planets of the Solar System and the first exoplanet colonies widely spread out over the nearby Milky Way galaxy as a kind of backup plan if the core system, the Solar System got conquered by an alien force which discovers this bluff by Rhodan.Now, in 2040, Terra is the flourishing capital world of the still young Solar Empire, hunger, diseases, war, racism, communism, fascism, religious intolerance were eliminated under the administration of “First Administrator” Perry Rhodan and his cabinet consisting of his deputy Administrator Reginald Bull, the secret intelligence leader Allan D. Mercant, the finance and economy minister Homer G. Adams, the mutant corps leader John Marschall and all the others like the friendly alien Gucky (8). Venus (9) and Mars became highly important settler worlds.In this year 2040, another Arkonide emerged from the Atlantic Ocean. His name, Atlan (10). He was on Earth for ten thousand years and so wished to return to Arkon. After a severe case of misinterpreted intentions between Rhodan and Atlan and some fierce fights between both, both became fire forged friends and allies after Atlan learned to accept that his once so proud Arkonides became decadent and complacent.In this year, a traitor betrayed Terra and revealed that the planet still existed and the Terrans were still alive and well. And another event occured. An Interdimensional phemonenon endangering the life of the galaxy. This prompted the Robot Regent to forge an alliance with the creative and organic Terrans to fight this phenomenon.In 2044, after some more dangerous adventures, the Robot Regent was about to betray the alliance between him and Rhodan and so, Rhodan and his fellow Terrans and allies like Atlan out of desperation tried to destroy the Robot Regent. Atlan in a moment of delusion walked straight to the extreme powerful force field protecting the Regent and demanded the submission of this machine under him as the crown prince. … And the Regent, after a full checkup of his historical records, biometric data and legal claims … fully complied. Atlan, as a highly active and extremely intelligent Arkonide became the new Emperor of Arkon. The Robot Regent became his tool to rule Arkon. And so, a lasting and more reliable alliance between Rhodan and “his” Solar Empire and Atlan, the friend of the Terrans and Emperor of Arkon, was forged.In the next centuries, Rhodan, his Terrans, Atlan and his Arkonides learned much of the already forgotten earlier history of their peoples. The Arkonides played out to be descendants of colonists of a predecessor empire, the Akon-Empire.And so, it became 2400.The Solar Empire now is the most powerful galactic empire after the fall of the Arkonide Empire mostly due to the attack and sucessful destruction of the war world (7) long after Atlans resign since he couldn’t bear the decadent behavior of his fellow Arkonides and all the assassination attempts anymore. Atlan founded the United Stars Organization, an independent international police force strongly supported by the Solar Empire.In this year, the next main chapter of mankind started. The first intergalactic adventure against more dangerous enemies, especially the MdI (12). In a six year war, the Solar Empire and its already traditional allies, the Posbi (13) and the newly won allies of the Maahks (14), the first time in their history, humans became their trustworthy allies.During this war, Rhodan and his friends, among them the Halutian (15) Icho Tolot and Atlan, oh, and Gucky not to forget (he was, is and will be highly important, don’t forget that) found out that the Akons, the predecessors of the Arkonides themselves were once colonists coming from a planet named Lemur.It played out that Lemur is identical with Terra thus making the Akons and Arkonides full humans.During this time travel part of the MdI-war the Terrans around Rhodan learned from the Lemurian-Halutian war ca 50100 to 49960 BCE during which the first human interstellar empire (16) got destroyed by the once fierce and aggressive Halutians who declared the Lemurians “time criminals” since the Halutians due to their own history starting 30000 years earlier (in around 80000 BCE) feared time travel and the Lemurians, not knowing about the Halutians experimented with time travel.The Lemurians had to flee the Milky Way Galaxy, the Halutians ravaged Lemur, destroyed the continent of Lemuria and left this now war scarred planet which fell back to a stone age technological level.Back in the present time the Terrans, the USO, the Posbi, the Maahks and some other Andromeda indigenous managed to defeat the MAsters of the ISland who played out to be descendants of the Lemurians who fled to the Andromeda galaxy where they became the Tefrondians (17). These seven humans declared themselves being original Lemurians and ruled the galaxy with an iron fist, destroying whole disobedient species.In 2406, this grand intergalactic war was over with the victory of the Terrans and their allies.And so, during the next millennia, the Terrans around Rhodan experiences cosmic wonders, new chains of events, travelled forward and backwards in time, discovered other universes, encountered god like beings and species, fought for the greater good (meant as having cooperative international relationships of mutual respect and friendship, having a liberal society with freedom of speech, convictions and beliefs and a free market economy with a strong social welfare system and a states driven regulation against corruption and a market economy went too far.)Well, here I finish the introduction since I could write pages over pages filling up hundreds of DIN A4 or American Letter formatted pages.Remember, links follow at the end of the answer.More Background information mostly real world perspective.The authors described space battles as between hundreds if not ten thousands of space vessels, spreading over several astronomical units with maneuver so fast they often have to be preprogrammed and this already in the 1960s. They often make use of the 3D space trope and only sparsely fall back int o a 2D space thinking.This mainly was supported by the fact, one of the founding authors Karl Herbert Scheer nicknamed “Handgrenate Herbert” since he was the one writing most of the space battle scenes originally was member of the German Navy during World War II, in a submarine and so he had first hand military knowledge and a certain sense of 3D battle situations.Space crafts had been described more like “submarines in space” without large outside windows, the center (if the space vessel was/is spherical) right int he center of the whole ship thus making it extremely safe if compared to other space and science fiction series and movies like Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon5 or so.The mutant corps Rhodan with the aid of John Marschall and Crest da Zoltral established consisted of these among other mutants:- John Marschall, the leader, an Australian formerly working as a bank clerk. Telepath.- Tako Kakuta, a Japanese, the son of a Hiroshima survivor. Teleporter.- Ras Tschubai, a Subsaharan African, another teleporter.- Andre Noire, a Frenchman, Hypno.- Kitai Ishibashi, another Japanese, Suggestor (a kind of Hypno).- Ernst Ellert, German, time dancer.- Betty Toufry, New Mexico, telepath and telekinetic.- Ivan Ivanowitsh Goratshin, Russian, double headed, carbon based molecular igniter.- Tama Yokida, Japanese, telekinetic.Other weak mutants were:- Perry Rhodan himself, a weak telepath. Activated after an Arkonide teaching method by using a neuronal-digital interface.- Homer G. Adams, a weak telepath.All mutants regardless their home country were treated equally, for instance the subsaharan black African Ras Tshubai had command authorities due to him being a mutant, of course (or even) over Whites. And this was written in the 1960s in a time in the USA there still was the racial segregation in full swing.All other non whites within the fictional Terran future society got treated as full humans too, many of them were described as high ranking military officers or scientists, in the series, the Terrans “produced” more subspecies, more “races” with green, slightly blueish and other skin colors too.All Terrans were treated as equals within their ranks in the military part and in the civilian life. In the fictional 2040 Solar Empire racism among the humans was extinct. Mind you, written in the early 1960s BEFORE! Star Trek.And with women in position of true authority (unlike Uhura of Star Trek who was treated more like a glorified secretary than a full officer within the series production) like the second wife of Perry Rhodan, Mory Rhodan-Abro, the kind-of president of one of the mostly autonomous colonial provinces of the Solar Empire, the Plophosian state or Thora da Zoltral, a female ship commander and first wife to Rhodan.In the early 1960s durign the era in Germany (west) in which the Nazi-era wasn’t as far back in history as it is to us today, Jews were written as likeable characters with avoiding the stereotypes about them. For instance, there were Jews as respected military officers.Islam in this time was a non-issue since the (western) Germans weren’t really aware about this religion, so it got ignored (and not due to a “politically correct” thing).In the real world, the series due to its nature of a partially utopist military science fiction (a bit like TOS era Star Trek with a positive message about a peaceful and peacefully united mankind who has to defend itself against enemies) was considered “fascist” by the German leftist since military things, so short after WW-II got frowned upon. The very few vocal Rightwingers on the other hand called the series a communist thing.Once in the mid 1960s, a German TV program named “Monitor” produced a laughable misinterpretation about the series.The Foot Notes and further explanations.In Italic Real world perspective things are described.(1) The Empire of the Arkonides is called “Tai Ark’Tussan” = Greater Arkon Empire. It spans over a quart of the Milky Way galaxy and has more than 50′000 Solar System under its direct rule.The capital system and the capital worlds, three in the numbers.- One for their living and self representation.- One for the trade.- One for the military industrial complex.All of them put on the same orbit around the host star forming the corners of an evenly sided triangle. Called “Tiga’Ranton” (Three Worlds). Their artificial origin got denied by later Imperial propaganda to give the illusion, the Arkonide gods (1a) favored the Arkonides by creating them in such an extraoridinary solar system.The language is called “Same Arkon Trona” = “Listen to Arkon speaking”.The currency of the Arkonides is the Cronnor, mostly an electronic cash but still available as cash in form of round coins with a hole in it to stack them on special staffs.The Arkonides themselves are described as Skandinavian in their facial features but with a tanned oriental skin (if they not delve into the aristocratic lifestyle to avoid direct sunlight to become more pale) and as a pseudo-Albinsim white hairs and a red hue in the iris.They lost the Appendix vermiformis at the end of their Caecum.They have a part in their brain which can be activated and after this, this extra-sense works like a kind of organic computer which communicates via a kind of telepathy with the bearer of this extra sense. Often these extra senses have their own sarcasm mode often activated.The one of Atlan often calls him a “fool” if he does something the extra sense considers stupid.(1a) The She’Huhan, the Star Gods, twelve in number, six women, six men. In addition, there’re twelve heroes, one is named Tran-Atlan. These twelve Heroes often are acting on behalf of the gods and the protection of the Arkonides. (16a)(2) The last newly developed science space craft with some prototype technologies aboard.(3) Ka’Marentis = roughly a States secretary of Science, Research & Development.(4) Vere’Athor = A Fleet or Squadron Captain.(5) The Mehandor, relatives and an offspring nation of the Arkonides.(6) The Ara, another relatives and offspring nation to the Arkonides.(7) Gor’Ranton = World of War, totally covered in ground shipyards, fortifications, space ports, development centers without any surviving original fauna and flora, a true horrifying nightmare to environmentalists.(8) Named “Plucky” in the English language issues.(9) In the early 1960s issues Venus was described as a jungle planet according to the then still state of the art knowledge about this planet. Later, after the discovery of the true nature of Venus, the authors retconned the hospitality of Venus as the result of a terraforming program or flat out ignored it.(10) Born as Mascaren Atlan da Gonozal in earlier than 8000 BCE on Arkon. He was the crown prince of the Arkonide Empire during the early epoch of the war with the hydrogen-methane breathing Maahks.His mother chose the name Atlan after the Arkonide figure of their religion (1a). The father favorited Mascaren. Later, Atlan went with the name his mother gave to him.He had to oversee the disposal of a corrupt solar system administrator within a remote Solar System called Larsaf System (11).Some colonists had to be resettled since they didn’t took the jungle conditions on Larsaf II too well and on a larger island between some continents on Larsaf III, an island named after him, “Atlantis”.Here, he had to defend this solar system against an interdimensional phenomenon after he got an immortality device by the same superintelligence which granted Rhodan and his trusted men and women the prolonged life span.During these events he as the sole Arkonide survivor got stranded on the third world of this system.This world became known as Terra and Atlan, the loner of Time, assisted mankind in secret to achieve space flight over the millennia. Between each of his time he was awake, he slept in a cryostactic suspension sleep.In 1971 after the manned moon mission of Rhodan, Atlan witnessed the tensions of the power blocks and feared the nuclear war. To avoid to became a war victim, he returned to his sub-maritime fortress and ordered the computer systems to wake him up after 70 years. He mistyped something and got awaken a year earlier.(11) Named after an Arkonide explorer named Larsaf Larsa.(12) MdI = Meister der Insel = Masters of the Island, the small ruling caste of the Andromeda galaxy which terrorizes this “island” in the space already for more than 30 millennia. The most dangerous enemy so far.Their leader was Factor I, the “Lemurian” female Mirona Thetin. To discover some anti-MdI conspiracies, she played the mild mannered good hearted Tamar (16b) of the Sulvy-Tamanium who even contacted the Terrans and invited them to her alleged home world on which her propaganda was highly successful since the Sulvy-Tefrodians genuinely loved her ruler for being an “enemy to the MdI”. Mirona Thetin kept her identity as the true cold hearted, aggressive and power lusting ruler of the MdI a top secret, not even the other MdI knew her true identity.The other MdI’s were:- Factor II, Trinar Molat, a ascetic looking man with black hair and white strains who was the deputy “leader” after Factor I. Had pedophile tendencies.- Factor III, Proht Meyhet, a stronger built gray haired New-Lemurian. He often played the jovial one, was the fairest among this circle of extremely violent and criminal individuals, almost a true states man and once captured Mirona Thetin the most important “enemy of the MdI” among the Tefrodians.- Factor IV, Miras Etrin, a young looking New-Lemurian who wanted to become Factor I instead of Factor I.- Factor V, Nevis Latan, mostly responsible for intertemporal activities.- Factor VI, Toser Ban, a man who liked to preach and brag about the power of the MdI.- Factor VII, Regnal Orton, a man whose demeanors were ice cold, he spoke with a lowered voice, his underlings should struggle to truly understand what he wished for.Originally there were six more MdI but they discovered the true identity of Factor I and in a “night of the knives” Factor I killed them off after “he” learned about this.Trinar Molat once tried to figure it out during the Terran-MdI war but Factor I coldly remembered him in the history about the other now dead MdI. He then had his “oh crap” moment and refrained from other attempts to ask Factor I about “his/her/it” true identity.The original Factor XIII, Comden Partan survived the interstellar kill impulse and became an important mysterious figure in the Perry Rhodan universe.(13) Positronisch Biologische Lebensformen = Positronic Biological Life forms. A species of cyborgs once an enemy to the Terrans and all other sole organic life forms which got liberated from the influence of a malevolent sub-Computer-system. After this, the Posbi became incorruptible loyal allies to Terra and the USO.(14) These hydrogen-methane breathing aliens originated from the Andromeda Galaxy, here, they got forced to flee from the Lemurians and immigrated to the Milky Way Galaxy. Here, they once became the enemies of the Arkonides and thanks to a weapon handed over tot he Arkonides by this superintelligence, the Arkonides repelled the Maak and forced them to flee back to the Andromeda galaxy.They developed a culture based on emotionless logic (Even much more extreme than the Vulcans in the Star Trek universe).Maahks are an egg laying species whose femals lays nine eggs per reproduction cycle. The Maahks originally intended to make use of this extreme reproduction rate to become a kind of zerg rush towards the Tefrodians, the most important slave nation to the MdI but the Masters of the Island ten thousands of years ago countered it.The MdI developed the Multi Duplicator (a kind of star trek like replicator) with which they could mass produce Tefrodian and other fully grown up soldiers from a carefully chosen template elite soldier with the knowledge and memory of the original one, reprogrammed to be totally loyal, ensured by microchip in the brain of these Duplicates which could detonate if such a Duplicate ever becomes illoyal, observed by a vast interstellar surveillance computer network.These Duplicates never suffered cloning degeneracy since the MdI and their trusted Tefrodian servants used the original data from the subatomic scanning and duplicating process stored on digital memory cards (envisioned in the early 1960s!).Even a small Duplicator facility in the size of an industrial quarter of a 21st century with let’s say 30 duplicators like within cities like Munich or New York could mass produce thousands of these soldiers per day and the MdI had millions of these small facilities at their hands as well as planet sized Multi-Duplicator forge world which could even mass duplicate (replicate) star ships, weapons, computers and other devices and raw materials used in combinations too dangerous to be duplicated.So, the MdI mastered to become the Zerg Rush to the Maahks who intended to become this to the MdI and Tefrodians.(The cloning of the clone army in Star Wars II - Clone Wars worked extremely slow in comparison to what the MdI have mastered and the Duplicates were already fully developed when leaving the Duplicator)(15) Gigantic 3.5 meters tall and 2.5 meters wide six limbed black skinned beings which are best described as living battle fortresses with superhuman speed, strength, agility, stamina and even outfitted with a second brain which is a kind of biological supercomputer.Once they were a brutal warrior species, later they became a peaceful society of highly individualistic scientists.(16) Kar’Tamanon = The Great Tamanium, an empire of more than 100′000 star systems sparsely spread over the whole Milky Way Galaxy in a time the Lemurians, their founders were the only powerful space faring nation in the Milky Way.Only vaguely known to the Lemurians, a million years earlier, a devastating galactic war wiped out every then existing every species which technologiy was more developed than in Terras history during the late 20th century.The Kar’Tamanon was separated into 111 star provinces.The Lemurians itself looked like a mixture between modern Terran Asian-Indians, Scandinavians, had mostly black hair, a tanned skin, their fashion had something Indian oriental and some terms of their language seemed like a call forward to some Indian terms.(16a) The Arkonide religious myth based on the religion their indirect forefathers, the Lemurians developed. Here, for instance, the hero Tran-Atlan still was named Dar-Tranatlan. In the Lemurian myth, the Vehrato, the savior was more important than later to the Arkonides.(16b) The Lemurians had a ruling caste of Tamarons, a kind of ministers. 50 for the original home-world Lemur with three voices in the overall Lemurian ruling council. The 111 provincial governors were called Tamars and had one voice in the overall ruling council of the Lemurians.(17) They ruled over the Virthanium (named after the “official face” of the Tefrodian Empire, the “Virth of Tefrod”), the Tefrodian Empire consisted of more than 30000 solar systems forming a ring around the Andromeda galaxy core and like with their Lemurian predecessors they divided their empire into 111 star provinces still called Tamanium.After the war between their masters, the MdI (12) and the Terrans and allies the Maahk partially took revenge on the Tefrodians who were the highest ranking among the nations in the Andromeda Galaxy. Many Tefrodians fled to the Milky Way galaxy forming new Tefrodian empires. Those who remained in the Andromeda Galaxy mastered to came to peaceful terms with the Maak and formed a renewed Kar’Tamanon.The Tefrodians looked like Lemurians.By the way, after the centuries long process of “interracial” marriage and reproduction, the Terra born Terrans approached the visual appearance of their own Lemurian ancestors again thus only saving some vestigial elements of the former “races” like slanted eyes, strongly curled hair, some blue eyes or some Scandinavian faces or subsharan African lips and so on, sometimes mixed in one individual.As you see, even at the beginning and with every of the now more than 3000 issues all the civilizations, mostly the Arkonides and Lemurians had been described in an incredible level of details. Well, the Halutians, the Posbi, the Ilt (the peoples of Gucky), the Maahk, the Ferrons, the Yülzisch, the Swoon, the Frequency Monarchy, the different super intelligences and so on were described in a rich level of detail too.Here, as announced, the links for further reading and references. Most of them are in German, Google Translate is your friend.Perrypedia: Here, you can use the built in API to Google Translate to translate the sites into the languages the languages shown on the country flags like in the article about the Crest III - Perrypedia one of the space crafts described in the series. Here, you can find a link to one of the many graphics. CREST IV - Ultraschlachtschiff der GALAXIS-Klasse.Here’s another cutaway graphic: Perry Rhodan Risszeichnung Band 2375 The Jupiter Class space vessel Leif Erikson III and/or IV.Or this: Multifunktionsarmband - Perrypedia and here’s the graphic. Perry Rhodan Risszeichnung Band 2299 A wristband device described in the real world 2003 which can be described as a call forward to our real world smartwatches like the Apple Watch.And here’s the English language mainline Wikipedia article: Perry Rhodan - Wikipedia.Here’s the official homepage of the Pabel Moewig Verlag KG, in German: PERRY RHODAN.Oh, and here: Series: Perry Rhodan in EnglishAnd here: Perry Rhodan as described in TV-Tropes.And now this: https://www.perryrhodan.us With even more summaries and descriptions in English.And here is this: 'Perry Rhodan'.Well, this was just a “teeny tiny” glimpse into this vast fictional universe written over a time span of 58 years on more than 3000 issues of the main series and the Atlan spin off and hardcover books and computer games, a failed movie adaption in the 1960s which “of course doesn’t exist ;-)” and all the fan sites, fan fics, some of them supported by the authors and the authors and Pabel-Moewing Verlag KG supports many fan projects and the authors sometimes even incorporates some promising ideas provided by the fans.One wishes that Paramount Pictures (with Star Trek) would do such a good cooperation with the fans.