Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 02/26/2017 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Marriage is supposed be a union of souls not a union of maya. It's about spiritual companionship, and provides a Gurmat-sanctioned way to control kaam. This is the Sikh basis for marriage bhenji, not all these superfluous secular determinations of ownership, inheritance, legitimacy of children etc. All these financial concerns are the things that destroy marriages, not the things that preserve them. There's an old adage about never going into business with a friend - seems to me like an even worse idea to enter into what is essentially a business contract with your spouse. I understand that what you're saying is the way the real world works though, and that is precisely the reason why I have no intention of getting married.
  2. 2 points
    Guru ji went to battle as a youth thus his name from Tyag Mal to Teg Bahadur...but his true essence was to be tied to Akal Purakh's charan
  3. 2 points
    I didn't mean to sound blunt. Take it as brotherly advice. When you reach mahapurash status in every respect, then use that term to your heart's content. Otherwise it just comes across as faux-humility when the sentiment being expressed a few seconds earlier was anything but.
  4. 1 point
    Looking through historical paintings related to Punjab, in general, and Sikhs, in particular, I have encountered a turban style that looks like the patkas/keskis that small kids war but also has some similarities with dumallas. This style can be seen from very early Sikh paintings of the Gurus and also in late British paintings. The turban helmet of the Sikhs was also based on this style. I think that it stopped being used in the 1850s because the triangular shaped turban; that actually had developed as a cover for the smaller turbans; became immensely popular.
  5. 1 point
    How chilling to learn he asked them about their visa status before returning later to shoot them. If that isn't calculated I don't know what is.
  6. 1 point
    People don't like many things. It is our duty to face them up.
  7. 1 point
    Indeed. Copies usually had the usual addition of colours. For example, you can see the person in the same pose, same facial features but the garb would be changed. Instead of light colours, that were used in the prototypes, they added more bright ones. However, that also depended on the painting material the artist had. Living on hills meant shortage of material. That's why Sikh Empire era paintings had more colours. Maharaja Ranjit Singh gave patronage to many Pahari artists, giving birth to an artistic renaissance. Too bad, after the British, all that went lost. Now, we have to base on SGPC commissioned art, which has no resemblance to the beautiful traditional "desi" art.
  8. 1 point
    I'm no expert obviously, but I suspect that may be the reason why Pahari art can at times appear rather generic - the subjects always appear in the same sorts of garb, positions and poses. Perhaps they were intended for easy reproduction. And as reproductions become more prominent, artists may have wanted to insert details here and there marking the pieces as their own.
  9. 1 point
    And that above is the kind of thing why people think you're a fake. A perfect example.
  10. 1 point
    Gur-Prassad is the answer. To say that anyone else has the power of control to free you from these things is a lie. Also even if you win the people battle; (or your aromantic/asexual), you will have to stop being attracted to other stuff as well to actually win, (the battle is much more complicated than stop pretending that you don't like someone). This gives a better explanation.
  11. 1 point
    Modern style Mughal miniatures are directly related to purataan art. There are many original paintings that have lot of similarities with the ones you posted. Artists usually copied older paintings, adding more colours
  12. 1 point
    https://i.reddituploads.com/e84325f74e9740168676ea1d7b322629?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=251a6e21e78c02893bd0123ee98112c6
  13. 1 point
    Maybe the people who are like what you've described above will go down in droves if 5hit ever hits the fan, they'll be on the front lines because they've been pushed as some sort of token by outsiders, maybe other more intelligent, realistic and circumspect types will survive. Let's grow a silent, smart majority. We can't do much about the guileless type that get carted out and given megaphone for mass consumption, but people at ground level can make a big difference, without all the pulava. Look at how the bottom classes have totally changed the direction of so-called, modern progressive nations like England and the US. We can do the same. We've just got to be resolute and strong.
  14. 1 point
    I am not for or against earrings, but I am against us being ignorant about our history. Not everything we hear from kathavachaks are true. We have to do our own research and gain knowledge about these type of things.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    All that I'm saying is that I personally believe that certain things that were non-issues for our Sikhs ancestors in the past, have now become big issues in the community. I think a perfect example of this is earrings. Now, I'm not a fan of grown blokes wearing earrings because it often makes them look like fags (in the day and age and the cultural context I'm in anyway) but again, from what I see, our ancestors (including Amritdhari ones) didn't have any issues with this. It's the same with using what I'd call 'Indic' imagery/metaphors in art (but what has now become specifically 'Hindu' as opposed to Indic). This is so common in old Sikh culture and iconography and no-one gave it a second look, but post annexation, we've got uncomfortable with such stuff. Look at helmets too. Prominent Singhs used to wear these to battle on top of their dastaars but somehow, this was forgotten post-annexation and only 'rediscovered in the last few decades when surviving examples popped up in exhibitions and private collections. Just making the point that things have changed. I'm not saying for the better or worse. But things have definitely changed, and the main catalyst for this change was British rule over Sikhs.
×