Talk:Kshatriya: Difference between revisions
Ikonoblast (talk | contribs) response |
Son of Kurus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Hinduism}} |
{{WikiProject Hinduism}} |
||
I have removed the title of "dhangar" as part of Kshatriya communities , since the related wiki link to them ambiguously state that they are shepherds and peasant which is not equal to kshatriya--[[User:Son of Kurus|Son of Kurus]] 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== '''Archived Pages''' == |
== '''Archived Pages''' == |
Revision as of 19:23, 21 July 2006
Hinduism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
I have removed the title of "dhangar" as part of Kshatriya communities , since the related wiki link to them ambiguously state that they are shepherds and peasant which is not equal to kshatriya--Son of Kurus 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Archived Pages
Archiving The Old Page
I have archived the old discussion page as the size was longer than is preferable. You can find it by clicking the above link. For furthur discussion, please post here. -- Shishir Rane 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Non Indian Kshatriyas
I have also added some more clans of Non-Indian Kshatriyas. -- Shishir Rane 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
New Comment
I fully agree with SK comment-this wikipedia is a joke.First Rajputs introduced their version of origin from fire and now marathas have come with their version of cock and bull stories.I neither agree with the content on maratha origin nor will buy the logic that all modern kshatriya are of recent origin- Mr Rane/Dudhane do you mean to say all past kshatriya disappeared from earth,where did they go-blown with the wind. DS
I think more discussion is required on kshatriya descendants issue.list is too long and contains castes which has no history of war.One is not kshatriya merely because names suggest it or someone is engaged in some sort of samskara.List banks too much upon Rajputs not being Aryans. DsHolywarrior 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Anon(24.193.79.118 )need to justify edits on talk page here.It is not fair to add some community or delete without citing reasons for it. DS Holywarrior 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
could someone please clarify a doubt i have about yadavs. In south india they are classified as sudras. I know that they claim kshatriya status as chandravanshis. they claim that Krishna was a yadava so they are also kshatriyas. but from my understanding of the Krishna story he was not born a Yadava. He was born a Kshatriya that was raised amongst the Yadavas in order to protect him from his uncle who was trying to Kill him. So he in not directly related to them. so how can the entire community claim to be Kshtriyas just because they adopted one kshatriya.?
Dear Anonymous There are no actual yadavas in south india.There are people who claim to be yadav on the basis of their descent through Yadava empires in south india who themselves were north indian settlers.Yadvas in north too were called sudras in census conducted by Francis Buchanan in 1883 who gave kshatriya status to Rajputs only(which is highly disputed now).Other censuses were free to all and they refused to elevate their caste status because of aspiration of getting benefits of remaining low.Another query of yours regarding Krishna.krishna was a yadav first and anything later .Many people because of ignorance think he was brought up by yadavs only.No even though child swapping theory itself is disputed his parents named vasudeva and deviki too were yadavs.Claim is not based on the facts you are saying.They do have unparalleled and unmatched record of ruling by many kings of yadava clan (whom mahabharata too declared to be extinct and buddhist scriptures tells us they were living in kaliyuga too).It is more difficult to establish your sudra claim on yadavs.If you can you will be appreciated.Remember No scripture till date has called them so.If you have one to name you will be appreciated.Yeah chandravanshi claim is flawed I too think they are neither chandravanshi nor suryavanshi they are simply yaduvanshi.Some scriptures called them chandravanshi because of their proximity to kurus.Another Flaws and Fraudulent claims are mostly from communities who divide themselves among both.One such notorious ones are Rajus.Could you plz throw some light on their shady claims I do have as little knowledge about them as you have about yadavs.Cheers. DS
DS I agree with you people who claim to be belonging to both suryavanshi and chandravanshi are really notorious.I see only Marathas listed in that category are having war history ,perhaps Rajus too have but others like Khatri and many others don't have any war history nor they are counted among Martial races of india.Particularly Khatris are known as mercantile caste.There should be some logic for claiming kshatriya status.
Kshatriyas are Sudras
You know i was shocked when i read in a book that the Brahmins never accepted any other Kshatriya clans but Rajputs as Kshatriyas. They say that in the Kali Yuga there are only Brahmins and Sudras. No wonder the Marathas, Nairs, Reddys etc are called Sudras. Mad tho
- Most of these Brahmanas were sidelined during Budhhist era and they started siding with Mlechhas during Islamic era/Post Budhhism,declaring Kshatriya to be extinct.Later these Mlechha claimed themselves to be Brahman/Kshatriya.Holy---+----Warrior 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)