Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Untitled
Kind Attention Dbkasar
I seriously have no clue as to where you get the sources of your scholarship. Some of your claims are too hilarious even to comment on.
Shivaji descended from the Mewar rajput lineage. (which was opposed by the brahmins in pune,because of a power struggle)
In a letter written by Shahaji to Shivaji, the first sentence he writes is "We brave Rajputs..."
Anyways ,
Well you may continue basking in whatever kind of Kshatriya past glory. make up anything you want,Do whatever you want..This wikipedia is a joke..Anyone can manipulate facts over here.
and just a bit of advice..Find an alternate career .Noone shall take you seriously as a historian.
or go find a worthwhile purpose in life. If you are a true Kshatriya/Rajput/maratha , do something so that others call u one.. Protect someone weaker than you, or fight for someone who cannot fight for themselves or wipe someone's tears....that is the true kshatra dharma, then you wont need to prove anything on any internet site.
best regards, (Son of kurus 12:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
I think you need DS:> According to vedas Brahmanas evolved from mukha(mouth),kshatriya from chest(vaksha),vaishya from abdomen,and shudra from feet of the creator.
Do you always come with the purpose of presenting such wrong scatter-brain info.?
According to the Purusa-Sukta hymn in the Rig Veda,
"The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced."
DS:> If we look at the ancient regions inhibited by human beings,they were europe,middle east,and Africa.The concept of world was limited around middle east and civilisation prospered in and adjoining regions.It is highly possible matching with geneology and anthropological evidences that migrants of higher parts of europe(mukha) were called brahmanas,lower part of europe(chest)were called kshatriya,mixed inhabitants of middle east (arabia),were called vaishya,feet of the creator was africa from where ancient migrants came to india were called shudras(The word itself seems to be derived from sud or sudan.
How is this in any way relevant to the Kshatriya page?! as if, Kshatriyas could be isolated somehow to the european belt alone... ridiculous!
As much as it maybe difficult, pls. attempt some kind of real value at this page.
Suryabandhu
_______________________________________________________________________________________
DS:> I am putting these two people (sk and suryabandhu)in my iggybin.
You don't have that luxury I'm afraid.
DS:> I don't think they are contributing anything here
Come on, after your great self has contributed such world-historical theories as Buddha being a Black and unsupported statements of Rajputs beings bastards, who can match that amount of calibre here?! Pls. Pls. all accolades to you. Grab 'em.
DS:> they are merely engaged into personal attacks of low level.They have accused me of chicanery while they themselves are thoroughly engaged in the same.
Don't deny you've systematically tried to put down the Kshatriyas, and I wonder what you are still doing on this page, with such motives!
And I have already dared you to state where I have engaged in any deception. Merely throwing about your muddy words can't make them stick.
DS:> I HAVE NEVER EDITED MY PAST COMMENTS.
Well, there's no way of knowing, and it doesn't matter. Fact is, its only after your ignorance was displayed for all to see, certain passages suddenly started disappearing...
DS:> I am not the person who wrote-Because people had forgotten their caste identity during buddhist era, it allowed brahmanas to implant rajputs as kshatriya-Though I must say the view has got credibility.
Same difference; when you believe it.
DS:> Regarding act of cowardice.Any third person who is watching activities on this page should know who is the coward.I need not proove it to these two people who have exposed themselves of what they are and what loophole vision they have about other communities.
No, just setting straight the kind of bad disinformation spewing from you.
DS:> These two people are merely here for RAJPUT cause and has nothing to do with kshatriya debate.
And I suppose you do, having contributed nothing but cock-eyed dabber-jabber about black buddha and other such irrelevant poo-poos.
DS:> I would advise wikipedia to cross check all the references made by them because it is highly probable that they have manipulated even the citations of scriptures.
Unlike your unbacked comments stooping on its knees to date, ALL my citations and remarks are quoted with proper references and sources.
Now scram and don't come back!
Suryabandhu
________________________________________________________________________________________
Attempt to discover origin of people
According to vedas
Brahmanas evolved from mukha(mouth),kshatriya from chest(vaksha),vaishya from abdomen,and shudra from feet of the creator.
If we look at the ancient regions inhibited by human beings,they were europe,middle east,and Africa.The concept of world was limited around middle east and civilisation prospered in and adjoining regions.It is highly possible matching with geneology and anthropological evidences that migrants of higher parts of europe(mukha) were called brahmanas,lower part of europe(chest)were called kshatriya,mixed inhabitants of middle east (arabia),were called vaishya,feet of the creator was africa from where ancient migrants came to india were called shudras(The word itself seems to be derived from sud or sudan.
Yes there were racial differences between people of different caste and they were of different complexions too as endorsed by scriptures. DS
Dear editor 1.Manushmriti has been dated differently by different sources.although it claims to be smriti(Recollections of past)supposedly said by first man on earth,Manu,it contains description of people who originated much later.many people believe it was written during the era of islamic invasion,its sanskrit too matches with textbook version ,not in tune with vedic sanskrit,besides its vocabulary includes words which came to be used much later. 2.I am putting these two people (sk and suryabandhu)in my iggybin.I don't think they are contributing anything here they are merely engaged into personal attacks of low level.They have accused me of chicanery while they themselves are thoroughly engaged in the same.I HAVE NEVER EDITED MY PAST COMMENTS.I know someone is doing it and I had put my apprehensions much before.Of course someone is doing it,maybe for good ,I must say,otherwise they were more ascerbic on these two people.I am not the person who wrote-Because people had forgotten their caste identity during buddhist era, it allowed brahmanas to implant rajputs as kshatriya-Though I must say the view has got credibility.Infact I entered this page much after seeing sk mentioning caste and clan of buddha from buddha's point and got engaged in personal attacks started by sk.Contrary to general belief here I am not either Vishal dudhane who never came back here again to back his views. 3.Regarding act of cowardice.Any third person who is watching activities on this page should know who is the coward.I need not proove it to these two people who have exposed themselves of what they are and what loophole vision they have about other communities.These two people are merely here for RAJPUT cause and has nothing to do with kshatriya debate.I would advise wikipedia to cross check all the references made by them because it is highly probable that they have manipulated even the citations of scriptures. Ds
________________________________________________________________________________
To the anonymous(Anon.) poster below inserting views at the dead end of this page:
Anon: > The question of usage of "rajputra" as a description in literary works is not in question.
The main article says "never" which is a blatant error, irrespective of the nature of usage.
"There has been a lot of confusion on the Rajputs. This word was never before used by any Indian kshatriya before the fall of Harshavardhana's empire well after 600 A.D. It was first used in the northwest of India by neo-kshatriya clans who claimed to be agnivanshi kshatriyas,..."
Its only after I pointed out!, you have proceeded on to add proper specifications. Do make the needful corrections on the main page.
Anon: > Ramayana NEVER uses Rajput as a 'self descriptive caste designation' which is how it was used in western India only after the fall of Harsh Vardhana -- as most kshatriyas simply called themselves kshatriyas or by their clan names-- Sakya, Maurya etc..
1. I never said anything to that effect. I said, "usage of the word Rajput like a common word of conversation of those periods..."
2. It depends on whether one sees the Rajanya of the Purusa Sukta hymn of the RV as a caste designation or not.
Anon: > The word "rajputra" is used as a word for young princes, this is not a designation for any king. For any king to call himself a "rajputra" is ridiculous.
Again, I made no comments on the characterization of its usage, but just to the ridiculous, absolute, and incorrect "never before used by any Indian Kshatriya before Harsha" comment made by you.
But now that you bring it up, I don't see why it would be 'ridiculous' for a King to call himself a rajputra? Depends on how you translate the word.
Suryabandhu
___________________________________________________________________________
The article main page continues to present unscholarly "opinions" as facts, such as the following rant by some charlatan;
"There has been a lot of confusion on the Rajputs. This word was never before used by any Indian kshatriya before the fall of Harshavardhana's empire well after 600 A.D. It was first used in the northwest of India by neo-kshatriya clans who claimed to be agnivanshi kshatriyas,...", etc.,
...when one need only to look up the Bala Khanda section of the Ramayana, Chapter 24 to find the usage of the word Rajput like a common word of conversation of those periods, and the Ramayana dates back to 7500-5500 B.C:
"aarohatu bhavaan naavam raajaputra puraskR^itaH |
ariSTam gacCha panthaanam maa bhuut kaala viparyayaH || 1-24-3"
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga24/balaitrans24.htm
To the annihilation of all mediocrity!,
Suryabandhu
_________________________________________________________________________________________
DS: > Both of you have not answered a single question
On the contrary, all your braindead statements have been addressed line by line, and thought by thought, which is more than what I can say of your own dastardly style of ignoring even the simplest questions put at you. And that too, questions after your own words!, not any general knowledge! If you are really sincere, go ahead and ask them again! And since when did you start asking questions, instead of making, and might I add, "only making" attrocious claims without viable proof all throughout this page!
DS: > you people think if you paste a lot of link and confuse people with bulk of informations which are all irrelevant will make you winners.
you think if you a paste a lot of link and confuse people with bulk of trash theories which are all irrelevant will make you winner.
DS: > Further you are giving bulk of irrelevant informations.You can't countervail QUALITY with QUANTITY.
Further you are giving bulk of irrelevant informations. You can't counteract FACT with unbacked ignoramus REPETITIONS.
DS: > The chargesheet you have made against my name includes even the comments posted by others.
State which ones.
DS: > I didn't start the Buddha debate I saw something written by SK (Shonan Talpade)quoting Buddhist sources which mentioned his caste and clan, he/she (I believe all his posts are feminine) had answered to someone(It was not my comment)but I was skceptical about it.
Typical like a fucked coward, I see you have manipulated the page and erased out the original comments made by YOU here stating that Buddha was a Negro, and aries means Horse and other such ridiculous half baked remarks. Shonan replied to this. YOU started the Black Buddha rubbish. I guess its too much to expect from you to act like a MAN and stand up to what you said, seeing the spineless limbless swine you are, you erase your own comments and then want to stand tall... what Hunch-backed-cock-eyed cowardice!; as if cowardice wasn't qualitative enough... one "has to" countervail Quality with Quantity! in the case of DS! Irony.
And before commenting on another's posts and daydreaming if they are feminine or masculine, first check the size and colour of your own liver! Sure resembles a chicken from where I stand.
"Skeptical"??? You wrote: "1.There is absolutely no proof that Buddha was indian.all ancient statues shows him with negroid face."
Funny.
> I am sorry if you could not understand few of my words(Did you look into dictionary for checking the spells??????HA HA HA.....)
The Dictionary wouldn't have any of your "spells"! Believe me...
It doesn't take too much to figure out, the reason for your god awful diction and grammar is from your using a translation software site to convert your statements from your native tongue to english.
> Scythian Group (which is different from Aryan group).So Rajputs are not Aryan.Still objection??????
Yes. What is Aryan to you?
> Mahabharata was written during Gupta period.It mentions more verses than it itself claims to be containing,how can't you rule out wilful insertions and deletions by some vested interest
Manushmriti in 1300AD(aaa...............h),people inserted too many things based on their perceptions during that time.the code remained unwritten for a long time and the bundle of brahminical bias was blamed on Manu. Which version of vedas you are referring?????
Aryans came with Rigveda Yajurveda from a different race.
Somveda came during the time of Krishna(He says I am Somveda among vedas)Atharvaveda was creation of saka Maags(their sun preists)
Puranas are self contradicting,full of anamolies....Better rely on scientific research work.the answewr to who the kshatriya is lies in the question who brougt the concept(it is related to reich)
That's just a convoluted way of saying you don't accept the Vedas as a credible source AFTER SK and I showed the notion of Kshatriyas dating back to them. Sir Risley's data only show a later advent and admixture of Scythians into the Rajput fold. Even "scientific work" cannot deny the existence of noble Kshatriyas since the composition of the RV/YV. Neither can you.
A last point. It doesn't matter if you cannot own up to the things you said, and you go about manipulating this page, saving your hide (and a hide is all you have, nothing beneath! - and you may have such miniscule victories, you poor thing), but at your expense, atleast, what a real Kshatriya was could be expounded for the benefit of everyone else. I may even have to thank you for that!
203.101.38.156 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Suryabandhu
___________________________________________________________________
Dear SK and Suryabandhu
Both of you have not answered a single question and perhaps you people think if you paste a lot of link and confuse people with bulk of informations which are all irrelevant will make you winners.No, all the comments you have posted against my name are not mine.fine if you have answered them but don't blame it on me.Further you are giving bulk of irrelevant informations.You can't countervail QUALITY with QUANTITY.The chargesheet you have made against my name includes even the comments posted by others.I didn't start the Buddha debate I saw something written by SK (Shonan Talpade)quoting Buddhist sources which mentioned his caste and clan,he/she(I believe all his posts are feminine) had answered to someone(It was not my comment)but I was skceptical about it.I am sorry if you could not understand few of my words(Did you look into dictionary for checking the spells??????HA HA HA.....) About Moolchand Chauhan he has written in his book The above data, taken from one of the greatest anthropologists to have ever set foot in India, Sir. Risley So his source is authentic.He has not only shown in his research work that phylogenetically,socially and anthropologically Rajputs belong to Scythian Group (which is different from Aryan group).So Rajputs are not Aryan.Still objection?????? But you say Moolchand is a Fraud,so Risley too is a Fraud.You doubt the ability of Todd and Cunnigham too.All your reasoning is based on citations from here and there(you load a lot of them with no analysis at all).Are you aware Mahabharata was written during Gupta period.It mentions more verses than it itself claims to be containing,how can't you rule out wilful insertions and deletions by some vested interest Manushmriti in 1300AD(aaa...............h),people inserted too many things based on their perceptions during that time.the code remained unwritten for a long time and the bundle of brahminical bias was blamed on Manu. Which version of vedas you are referring?????
Aryans came with Rigveda Yajurveda from a different race. Somveda came during the time of Krishna(He says I am Somveda among vedas) Atharvaveda was creation of saka Maags(their sun preists) Puranas are self contradicting,full of anamolies. Better rely on scientific research work.the answewr to who the kshatriya is lies in the question who brougt the concept(it is related to reich) DS
Part I
A Review.
In order to put down Kshatriyas, DS,
1) has to put down the Rajputs ---> for which he concocts the theory, "Rajputs are bastards tagged and invented by wicked Brahmins"; and,
2) has to put down Buddha ---> for which he concocts a "Black Buddha" theory;
Interestingly, DS operates on a looped-perversion. In order to show 1), he really needs 2). So that he can say the following -
"Due to conversion during Buddhism, many had given up their caste identities allowing Brahmin priests to convert neo-kshatriyas like the Rajputs as the new warrior clans."
Meaning, his ill logic works like this:
- Buddha was a Black, and therefore the "real" Buddhism preached against the caste-system.
- Because Rajput-ancestors were among the converts to this Black Buddhism, the "real" Rajputs had no caste or distinction, in short, no identity.
- Because they had no identity, they were bastards given the status of Kshatriya by oppressive Brahmins whose religion was opposed by the Black Buddha.
- Thus these Rajputs are not "real" Kshatriyas.
- Thus Kshatriya itself is a Brahmin invention.
Nice! Try! (lol, how much this DS has accomplised with his looped-perversion!)
Try! Again!
- - -
Part II
A Brief.
To those who do not understand the basic meaning of a Brahmanical "rite":
"...We begin with the necessary human condition in its search for a point of departure: religious man desires to know that he is on firm ground in his cosmic orientation, that he relates to the sacred or to ultimate being from a base or foundation that defines his condition. From the termini technici of brahminism..., we might... begin with a word..., pratistha, literally "standpoint", as "basis", foundation" or ultimate "ground". The common formula declares that "x" rite or god or abstract power is that in which "y" (man or any other cosmic entity) finds its support and upon which it is ultimately grounded. ...Section one of the tenth chapter of the Pancavimsabrahmana contains a constant refrain, occurring as seven of its twenty one verses, asserting that one "who knows this" possesses both a "support" (ayatana, literally he is ayatanavat) and "connections" (bandhuta).
...With the terms pratistha and ayatana designating respectively the cosmic "ground" and the cosmic "situation" undergirding time and space we recognize the semantic area of "support" already implicit in the cosmogonic declaration quoted (RV 10.90.16): dharman, the primordial cosmic law arriving with the exemplary first sacrifice, is literally the primary "support". The existential religious condition is never absent.
For example, the opening lines of the Aitareya-brahmana, concerned with the details of the offering made during the diksa, contain an almost casual aside to explain the offering: one who thinks of himself as groundless (yo 'pratisthito manye-), who considers himself as lacking such cosmic support, will be regrounded or re-established by means of the rite.
...Eliade has stressed on The Sacred and the Profane;
"For religious man, space is not homogenous; he experiences interruptions, breaks in it; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others... if the world is to be lived in, it must be founded."
And again, as in the AB. 6.8.5 passage cited..., this liturgy turns immediately to the broader dimensions of the sacrifice (yajna) in connection with Prajapati's cosmogonic structure in time and space, demonstrating that on the plane of individual human concern just as in the general sphere of cosmic entitites, "what is to become 'our world' must first be 'created' and every creation has a paradigmatic model - the creation of the universe by the gods." (ib., Eliade)
Occasionally ayatana and pratistha strengthen one another, as in TB. 3.11.7, a speculation by the Katha school on the building of the naciketa fire-altar: "He who knows the cosmic ground, the cosmic situation (of the naciketa-cayan), becomes one who has a cosmic ground, a cosmic situation" (...ayatanam pratistham veda ayatanavan bhavati gacchati pratistham...).
Two other words in this semantic area, less frequently applied in brahmanism but both occurring in the Rgveda, are dhaman, "abode, residence, domain", like ayatana often indicating the proper "seat" of the gods or the ritual fires, and gadha, "ford", presenting the image of firm "ground" in a situation of flux, an image frequently adopted in later Indian soteriological expressions.
...In SB. 11.1.8.2-4 Prajapati projects an image of himself which "is" the sacrifice (atmanah pratimam asrjata yad yajnam) and by this sacrifice (etena yajnena) he redeems himself from the gods (devebhya atmanam nirakrinita).
...The kshatriya varna, according to the Purusa-sukta cosmogony, proceeded from the arms of the dismembered sacrifice-person, just as the brahmana derived from his mouth. In the ritual reconstitution of that person, the mahavedi understands the two "arms" of the sacrifice to be the marjaliya fire (the projection of the daksinagni) and its symmetrical correspondent on the northern border, the agnidhriya (SB.3.5.3.4).
...The southern or prophylactic fire, a defense, like the kshatriya varna itself, against the quarter of demons and death, is the daksinagni, as the midspace or atmosphere, located between the other two fires (grhapatya -cooking/household fire corresponding to the vaisya class, the earth, and the ahavaniya - the offering fire corresponding to the brahmana class, the heaven).
...Thus the yajaman and divine cosmic being has not only a fire for a mouth, out of which proceeds brahman, but also two fires for the force (ksatra) of his arms." [In the Image of Fire, David Knipe]
- - -
Part III
Meaning.
Its frequently alluded that the Rajputs are not "real" Kshatriyas because they were merely "baptized" by wicked brahmins, and so on.
The function of a brahmana (he who transmits Brahman), was to establish an ayatana for everything. By recognizing "dharman as the primary support", he undertook the task of a concordance between the Kshatriya and the Primal One. By means of rite, he brought into harmony, each thing, into its own nature. To what was groundless, he gave a ground. This grounding is called giving a "status". Status [standig] means "to stand in one's own soul". The brahman thus transmitted the Brahman.
I understand in this way, the common folklore of Sage Vasishta initiating the Agnikula Rajputs from a Yajna, after the destruction of all Kshatriyas at the hands of Parasurama :
Legendary Origin of the Warrior Clans
http://www.udaipur.indiainformation.com/tourist/mountabu.htm
"The legend has it that Parshurama, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, killed the Kshatriya (warrior) caste 21 times over to avenge the death of his father who was murdered by some kshatriyas. Great disorder soon ensued from the lack of warriors and the want of a strong arm. Mankind did not have a protector it could turn to, no one to fight the demons. The gods were determined upon the recreation of the kshatriyas. They came to Mount Abu to ask sage Vasistha to restore the situation and regenerate the warrior race. It was then that Vasistha sat at here at Mount Abu and performed great yagna (fire scarifice) to create warriors who would rid the earth of the demons.
The fire foundation or the agnikund was purified with water from the river Ganges, sacrificial rites were performed and after a protracted debate it was resolved that Indra, the king of gods, should initiate the work of Recreation. Indra made a figure with grass, purified it with the water from Ganges and threw it into the sacred fire and chanted mantras. A figure slowly emerged from the flame, bearing a mace in his right hand, and exclaiming, "Mar! Mar!" (kill, kill). He was called Paramara, and Abu, Dhar and Ujjain were assigned to him as a territory.
Next it was Brahma (the Creator of the universe) who made an image and threw it into the fire pit. What emerged was a figure armed with a sword in one hand, the Vedas in the other, wearing a sacred amulet around his neck. He was named Solanki or Chalukya, and Anhulpur Patum was appointed to him. Rudra (a prototype of Shiva associated with Storm, aka the Howler) formed the third. The image was sprinkled with the water of the Ganges, and thrown into the pit. On incantations being read, a black ill-favored figure arose, armed with a bow. His foot slipped when he set out to battle the demons, and so he was called the Pratihara, and placed as the guardian of the gates. He had the Nouangul Marusthali (nine habitations of the desert) assigned to him.
The fourth clan was formed by Vishnu (the Preserver of the universe), and an image bearing his likeness issued forth from the flames. Like Vishnu, this figure had four arms, each having a separate weapon and was called Chauhana or the `four armed’. The gods bestowed their blessing upon him and gave him Makavati as a territory."
Thus, the groundless had to be regrounded, and by means of rite, a brahman transmitted the Brahman of Kshatriyahood, kindling only what was "already inherent" - because, the Brahman can be transmitted only if a concordance existed in the first place!
Meaning, what DS calls "neo-Kshatriyas" and "christened Rajputs by wicked oppressive Brahmins" are really, "real" Kshatriyas.
A real Rajput or Kshatriya already has a "concordant" bandhuta with "That", irrespective of the Priest; so, sometimes he is ayatanavat and initiates himself (like Buddha), sometimes he is brought into initiation like naciketa. It makes no difference. Because that concordant is already in him.
Away with the fallacy of Rajputs being mere "christened neo-Kshatriyas" by "wicked brahmins"!
- - -
Part IV
DS: > The word Kshatriya finds its root in Bhagwad Gita .Lord Krishna was the propounder or Prophet of this religion .Earlier version was Rajnya .We found many races vying for this title nowadays.It is rather ridiculous for Krishna prounded this religion based on karma or work philosophy.All those who claims to be ORIGINAL kshatriya should look deep inside and try to find out what they are trying to claim.Their claim itself reveals that they had been conferred such a title at some point of time and that too in KALIYUGA for the Philosophy of Gita was prounded at the battlefield at the end of Dwapar.Soon after Lord Krishna declared the start of kaliyuga.So All these Rajputs,Khatris etc. etc. etc. should boldly bear in mind their claim of being kshatriya means descendant of our great Rajnya lord Rama is fake one.Being Kshatriya -very well indeed if you are -does not mean you people are descandant of that great race.All these existing Kshatriya(should I say recognised ones) were made based on the philosophy of Gita and never try to befool others that you people are carrying their genes.All of you are mere creation of Brahmanas otherwise why should yoy accept their authority.Original Rajnya was supreme and was considered incarnation of God and were worshipped too like lord Rama or Krishna .The same is not true with these Rajput Kings.
So not true!!!
Kshatriya does not have its root in the Bhagavad Gita; it goes farther back than that!
There is a line in the Yajur Veda connecting the Kshatriya with the Rajanya, which reads:
"BRAHMANE BRAHMANAM,KSHATRAYA RAJANYAM"
["The person who is desirous of knowledge should go to a scholar and the person desirous of valiance should go to a Kshatriya."]
http://www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda4.htm
The whole verse reads:
Brahmane brahmanam ksatraya rajanyam marudbhyo vaisyam tapa se sudram (Yajurveda XXX, 5)
So "Kshatriya" was intimately connected with the Rajanya since then, and is not the invention of any wicked brahmin.
Now, in the Yajur Veda, 3,iii. 4. 8, there is a fantastic Kshatriya-like description of the Rastrabhrts as follows:
[Note keywords: "kingdom", "force", "coming into order", "four descended from the rishis" (like the legend of the Agnikula Rajputs), "the quarters" (like the Daksinagni description excerpted above, in Part II from Knipe's book)...]
"They should be offered for one who desires the kingdom; the Rastrabhrts are the kingdom; verily with the kingdom he wins the king dom for him; he becomes the kingdom. They should be offered for oneself; the Rastrabhrts are the kingdom, the people are the kingdom, cattle are the kingdom, in that he becomes the highest he is the kingdom; verily with the kingdom he wins the kingdom, he becomes the richest of his equals. They should be offered for one who desires a village; the Rastrabhrts are the kingdom, his fellows are the kingdom; verily with the kingdom he wins for him his fellows and the kingdom; he becomes possessed of a village [1]. He offers on the dicing-place; verily on the dicing-place he wins his fellows for him, and being won they wait upon him. They should be offered on the mouth of the chariot for him who desires force; the Rastrabhrts are force, the chariot is force; verily by force he wins force for him; he becomes possessed of force. They should be offered for him who is expelled from his kingdom; to all his chariots he should say, 'Be yoked'; verily he yokes the kingdom for him [2]. The oblations of him whose realm is not in order are disordered; he should take off the right wheel of his chariot and offer in the box; so he puts in order his oblation, and the kingdom comes into order in accord with their coming into order. They should be offered when battle is joined; the Rastrabhrts are the kingdom, and for the kingdom do they strive who go to battle together; he for whom first they offer prospers, and wins this battle. The kindling-wood is from the Madhuka tree [3]; the coals shrinking back make the host of his foe to shrink back. They should be offered for one who is mad; for it is the Gandharva and the Apsarases who madden him who is mad; the Rastrabhrts are the Gandharva and the Apsarases. 'To him hail! To them hail!' (with these words) he offers, and thereby he appeases them. ...the Rastrabhrts are pre-eminence, the mound is pre-eminence; verily by pre-eminence he makes him pre-eminent among his equals. (The offering) is of four Çaravas in size; verily he finds support in the quarters; it is made in milk; verily he bestows brilliance upon him; he takes it out, to make it cooked; it is full of butter, for purity; four descended from Rsis partake of it; verily he offers in the light of the quarters."
Another citation,
YV, 3,iii. 4. 6.
"What the gods did at the sacrifice, the Asuras did. The gods saw these overpowering (Homas), they performed them; the rite of the gods succeeded, that of the Asuras did not succeed. If he is desirous of prospering in a rite, then should he offer them, and in that rite he prospers. In that the All-gods brought together (the materials), the Abhyatanas are connected with the All-gods; in that Prajapati bestowed the victories (Jayas), therefore the Jayas are connected with Prajapati [1]; in that they won the kingdom by the Rastrabhrts, that is why the Rastrabhrts (supporters of the kingdom) have their name. The gods overpowered the Asuras with the Abhyatanas, conquered them with the Jayas, and won the kingdom with the Rastrabhrts; in that the gods overpowered (abhyátanvata) the Asuras with the Abhyatanas, that is why the Abhyatanas have their name; in that they conquered (ájayan) them with the Jayas, that is why the Jayas have their name; in that they won the kingdom with the Rastrabhrts, that is why the Rastrabhrts have their name. Then the gods prospered, the Asuras were defeated. He who has foes should offer these (offerings); verily by the Abhyatanas he overpowers his foes, by the Jayas he conquers them, by the Rastrabhrts he wins the kingdom; he prospers himself, his foe is defeated."
Now consider:
"Several theories have been proposed by various scholars for the etymology of the words "Maratha" and "Marathi". One theory holds that a reference to a clan known as "Rāshtrika" in some of Ashoka's inscriptions alludes to a people of the deccan who were progenitors of the marathi-speaking (and maratha) people; that the later "Mahārāshtri" Prakrit, a dialect of Sanskrit, is associated with these people; and that the word "Marāthi" is a derivation of the word "Mahārāshtri". This theory does not address the deeper root of the word "Rāshtrika" and its use in reference to a specific people in south-central India; it may be noted in this connection that the word "Rāshtra" is literally "nation" in Sanskrit, "Rāshtrika" meaning "national"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha
If the above theory of the Rashtrikas is correct, I believe it must have some continuation from the Rastrabhrts of the Yajur Veda;
"rashtrabhrt: Who scrutinize men: lit. scrutinizer of the people; he who looks after the order of the country." (Atharva Veda VI, 118)
Rastrabhrt was also a rite, meant for "holding of the realm"
On the Marathi talk page, is written, Maratha derives from Marhatta -
"Marhatta breaks into Marya(young warriors-Rigveda)and hatt/hath(army)and maha means great and rathi means charioters.In brief , these both words denote the same meaning.Marathas ,rather entire population of Maha rashtra worships a local deity 'Khando_ba', also known as 'Malhari-Martand'.People believe that he is incarnation of lord Shiva.Khanda is same as Skanda , son of Lord Shiva.Champa Shashti of Khando_ba and Skanda Shashti both are the same and falls in Margshirsh month .Now see that in honour of Khando_ba fast is observed on Sunday.In rural areas of Maratha countryside. Sunday is called as Adit_war and not Ravi_war.Eight Adityas are mentioned in Rigveda.Martand is one of them.Even today in Kashmir there is Martand temple for sun worship.Now from these larger tradition of society it is very clear that these people are directly connected with Rig-veda."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maratha
That reference to the "Marya" of the Rig Veda may also be behind the legend of the Rajputs;
In the legend,
"Indra made a figure with grass, purified it with the water from Ganges and threw it into the sacred fire and chanted mantras. A figure slowly emerged from the flame, bearing a mace in his right hand, and exclaiming, "Mar! Mar!" (kill, kill). He was called Paramara..."
So there is a trace going like...
Rajanya, Kshatra, Rastrabhrts, Marya, par-Mar(Rajput), Mar-atha, mar-jaliya fire, Mars...
- - -
Part V
Conclusion.
1. The word Kshatriya goes back to the RV and YV.
2. Rajputs are not bastards; no brahmin-wamin theory, and Buddha was certainly no woolly-haired anti-Brahmanical Black.
3. I would say Rajput identity has traces from the RV.
4. This statement made by you, DS ---> "So All these Rajputs,Khatris etc. etc. etc. should boldly bear in mind their claim of being kshatriya means descendant of our great Rajnya lord Rama is fake one.Being Kshatriya -very well indeed if you are -does not mean you people are descandant of that great race.All these existing Kshatriya(should I say recognised ones) were made based on the philosophy of Gita and never try to befool others that you people are carrying their genes."
... is utterly ridiculous and ill-biased.
61.247.248.184 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Suryabandhu
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr.Truth-shall-win,
you wrote-- 1.I am not satisfied with your logics,the dreadlock of shadhus are different from Buddha's woolen hair.Anybody can notice that .Buddha's hair are aboringal,do you think sculptors who made it were fools who could not differentiate between dreadlock of sadhus and aboringal woolen irs.#http://www.askasia.org/AsianArt/slideshow.htm go through this link and better decide for yourself.
1)I think the word you mean is Logic..theres no plural of logic. A person like you who knws 3-5 european languages should know this basic. The above link that you gave is actually contradicting your own ridiculous claims about buddha having "wooly" hair ! and i quote from there-----Hair The Buddha's hair is usually depicted in the form of "snail-shell" curls. Monks have shaven heads, but according to legend, when the Buddha cut his hair, the uncut portions snapped into these curls and he never had to cut his hair again.
2.you wrote -- Shame on you.Such a nice work based on genetic data deserves respect from all quarters no matter what your faith or believe is.should i tell now who is calling names?????It only shows you have no respect for scientific proofs and rather you want to stick to your rubbish beliefs.
That person Moolchand Chauhan...which university is he affiliated to..where did he conduct the so-called genetic tests and scientifc research.Which scientific journal/magazine or book is his findings recorded in. may i remind you wikipedia demands content that can be VERIFIED and is from REPUTED SOURCES.
3.you wrote--- What will you gain by calling me a Dalit(I am helpless here I can't disprove it on internet,and why should I,it gives double the fun-standing for dalit cause is a task much holier and prestigious than quarelling for such trivial issues like kshatriya,secondly it has fun of stabbing the enemy right into his chest ,I believe you feel like that dalits questioning my origin And by the way in what way I am self flattering.I have never uttered a word about myself
Mr.truth-shall-win..I think you should learn to read who is posting what here. I don't really care if your Shudra or Jain Maratha or Napoleon. Please learn to read first then come and argue.
5.You wrote - I am not sure what you meaneither my english is crepe or yours.If you are asking for if they are vansh kul or gotra then I can answer it.They are vamsha Bir Gurjara clan is House of churu and Abhira clan I am not sure now but can tell you after referring some sources(You too can make some effort -believe me you will find them I am not lying about anything).
Mr. Truth-shall-win, The word you mean is "crap"..not crepe.
secondly I know whats vansh. I was asking WHICH vansh do they belong to ?
You wrote---Is english your first language?(Are you of british origin??????)
I admit it is my third language(phps fifth should I tell you I know three other european languages)
Well sir, To be honest , your english is very horrible.You make basic spelling mistakes, your grammar is equally erroneous.So its very hard at times to understand what you want to discuss. Since we are communicating in the english language and not "3 other " european languages.I urge you to be more lucid.
Mr.truth shall win...All of your ridiculous arguments have been successfully rebuffed so far .By suryabandhu and Myself.
All of them.
So to put it short.I wonder who's being rigid and shameless ?
warm regards Son of Kurus.
P.S-- Have you found the reference as to in which Hindu scripture is it written that "Rajputs are bastards" ? when you do find it..Please let me know.haha
DS: > 1) This tradition would justify the portrayal of Buddha with woolly hair. ..."The religion of Buddha, of India, is well known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered through Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips and curly hair of the African."
2)...The well-known aspects of Buddhism and its companion, yoga, are all simply Egypto-Nubian priesthood practices, meditation, and...
3) About comments being posted that all bodhisatva were Kshatriya or Brahmin- it was rather other way round all of them either became or at least aspired to become kshatriya or brahmins in recontructed Hindu society ,hence they started propagating this myth and it were they who made fictitious stories of Buddha's life.
A.K.Coomaraswamy debunks all those three ridiculous remarks:
"Here, however, we are concerned with the symbolic or aniconic method, which was at one time so universal, at least in orthodox and official circles, as to constitute by itself a complete artistic vocabulary and an iconography without icons. Of the symbols in use, those found on the punch-marked cpins and early cast and struck coins include several hundred varieties; but some are much commoner than others.
Amongst these symbols, some of the commonest are the bull, caitya-vrksa, mountain with one or several peaks, river, solar symbols (several varities, all wheel-like), "nandi-pada", trisula, swastika, lotus, bow and arrow.
M.Foucher has rightly observed that the beginnings of Buddhist art are characterized by the use of some of these symbols and one or two others; and that they were used to designate the presence of the Buddha in the story-telling reliefs of Bharhut and Sanci, where no anthropomorphic representation of the Master can be found..."
So,
1. Older than the anthropomorphic images of Buddha, are the Buddhist symbols as icons that "were used to designate the presence of the Buddha",
2. The list of these oldest recurring symbols bear NO "Africoid" resemblance - thus proving, the OLDEST spirit and image of Buddha was very much of an Indo-Aryan Kshatriya,
3. The use of the "bow and arrow" icon especially clear indicate his khattiya origin and nature.
Next.
- - -
"Inasmuch as neither the Upanishads nor Buddhism nor Jainism, considered in their original character as systems of thought, contemplated the worship (puja) of any personal deity, it may well be asked how it came to pass that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism alike became "idolatrous" religions. The answer to this question was admirably expressed by Jacobi (Gaina Sutras) over forty years ago. "I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or Jainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay community, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, when the religious development of India found in Bhakti the supreme means of salvation.
Iconolatory, ritual, devotion, profound preoccupations of the popular Indian non-Aryan consciousness (nagas/yaksas), made of Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism what they are, and that is something other than they were in their intellectual inception. The sculptures themselves bear witness to the power of the spirit of devotion."
So, what Buddhism/Buddha WERE in their originality was "other than" what common people carved them out to be out of devotion. The two MUST NOT be confused!
- - -
> India had long associated the attainment of higher stations of consciousness and the perception of ultimate truths with the practice of disciplined meditation, and had long been familiar with ascetic teachers. When a Buddha image was required, he would naturally be represented either as an adept or as a teacher; conceptions that immediately connote, in the one case the cross-legged seance, hands at rest in the lap, and abstracted gaze directed toward the tip of the nose, in the other, the same seance, but with the right hand raised, the lest resting on the hip, and a more active demeanor.
The practice of yoga is older, of course, than Buddhism or Jainism and neither of these religions did more than adopt and adapt the existing technique of contemplation. A beautiful description of the seated yogi will be found in the Bhagavad Gita VI, 10-21; condensed as follows:
"Abiding alone in a secret place, without craving and without possessions, with thought and self controlled, he shall take his seat upon a firm seat, neither over-high nor over-low making the mind single-pointed, with the working of the intellect and senses held in check, with body, head and neck maintained in perfect equipoise, looking not round about him, so let him meditate, and thereby reach the peace of the Uttermost Abyss; and the likeness of one such, who knows the boundless joy that lies beyond the senses and is grasped by intuition, and who is free from longing for all desirable things, is that of a lamp in a windless place, that does not flicker."
A briefer description will be found in the canonical Buddhist Digha Nikaya, sutta 22:
"And how, O monks, does a monk live, observant of the body?
"Whereas, O monks, a monk, retiring to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to some other uninhabited spot, sits him down cross-legged, with body erect and contemplative faculty intent... training himself to be conscious of all his expirations and inspirations."
That takes care of your point 2) that yoga was simply Egypto-Nubian priesthood practice, or that Buddha derived it from there. lol...
- - -
"Great differences are found too in the treatment of the hair. In Gandhara the hair is generally thick and undulating and the usnisa is either covered by the hair or replaced by a kind of chignon. In Mathura, however, both Buddha and Jina images are represented at first with a spiral protuberance which is a lock of hair and not an usnisa; later the whole head and hair are covered with small short curls, and this type after the second century becomes the almost universal rule, the only example of the smooth head dating from the Gupta period being the Mankuwar image 448/9 A.D. In Gandhara, as the process of Indianization of the type proceeds, the flowing locks are restricted and by gradual transitions come to conform to the Indian curly formula. Both types, the early single spiral and the later multiplicity of short curls seem to reflect, though in different ways, the tradition of the Nidanakatha that when the Bodhisattva shore his locks, his hair "was reduced to two inches in length, and curling from the right, lay close to his head, and so remained as long as he lived." [The Origin of the Buddha Image, A.K.Coomaraswamy, http://www.attan.com/buddha%20image.pdf]
Meaning,
1. Buddha wasn't the "only" one to be sculpted like that, Jina was too...,
2. Not any "woolly hair", but curls, and,
3. Your pithy bullshite "reasonings" have been irrecoverably bulldozed.
MORE ARSENAL PLEASE!
Its New Years!!!
A toast to the noblest Kshatriya nation on the planet - ARYAVARTA!
61.247.240.176 20:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu
___________________________________________________________________
DS: > Buddhism appeared in India during the sixth century B.C.E. and came in the form of a protest against Hinduism.
"My teachings are [to be called] Brahmayana (path to Brahman/the
Absolute)" [SN 5.5] -Gotama Buddha
Buddhism was and is a refined continuation of the earliest Vedic thought; it merely combatted the superfluous elements of that Hinduism where 'puja' began to take over, as opposed to the Original brahmanical one of 'yajna'. I hope that nuance is clear. Still, lets make it more so.
"Become Brahman" is the goal of Buddhism, is the meaning of the Buddha, the Tathagata. Correcting the fallacy that Buddhism is somehow adverse to "Hinduism"... (www.attan.com)
[DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'."
[DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.”
[DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!”
Regarding the issue on Caste, Buddhism and the Vedas and Vedanta taught the same thing, namely -
[Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).”
[It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.”
Another caste-context;
[SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’."
[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”
- - -
> Buddhism opposed the arrogance of caste, and preached tolerance.
The issue on how caste was connoted in Buddhism is similar to the Upanishads, as quoted above. One need only refer to the Bhagavad Gita to reflect on Krishna's sayings with Buddha's “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” Buddha reflects the sentiment and morality of the proper Brahmanical Hinduism.
What is this "arrogance of Caste" then...;
"Beyond the ancient division into castes, Buddhism affirms another that, deeper and more intimate, mutatis mutandis, is not unlike the one that originally existed between the Aryans, those "twice-born" (dvija) and other beings! on one side stand the Ariya and the "noble sons moved by confidence," to whom the Doctrine of Awakening is accessible; on the other, "the common men, without understanding for what is saintly, remote from the saintly doctrine, not accessible to the saintly doctrine; without understanding for what is noble, remote from the doctrine of the noble ones, not accessible by the doctrine of the noble ones." If, on the one hand, as rivers "when they reach the ocean lose their former names and are reckoned only as ocean, so the members of the four castes, when they take up the law of the Buddha, lose their fanner characteristics"-yet on the other they form a well-defined company, the `"sons of the Sakiya's son." We can see that the effective aim of Buddhism was to discriminate between different natures, for which the touchstone was the Doctrine of Awakening itself: a discrimination that could not do other than stimulate the spiritual bases that originally had themselves been the sole justification of the Aryan hierarchy. In confirmation of this is the fact thaf the establishment and diffusion of Buddhism never in later centuries caused dissolution of the caste system-even today in Ceylon this system continues undisturbed side by side with Buddhism; while, in Japan, Buddhism lives in harmony with hierarchical, traditional, national, and warrior concepts. Only in certain West-ern misconceptions is Buddhism--considered in later and corrupted forms-presented as a doctrine of universal compassion encouraging humanitarianism and democratic equality." [Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening]
"Siddhattha has so little sympathy for the masses that in one of the oldest texts he speaks of the "common crowd" as a "heap of rubbish," where there takes place the miraculous flowering of the Awakened One." [ib.]
Tolerance:
Again, Buddha only reflects the spirit of the purest Aryan Hindu thought...
"In serving a man, if for this service one becomes worse, not better, this man, I say, one ought not to serve. In serving a man, on the other hand, if for this service one becomes better, not worse, this man. I say, one ought to serve" [Buddha, ib.]
- - -
> Diop has suggested that:
"It would seem that Buddha was an Egyptian priest, chased from Memphis by the persecution of Cambyses. This tradition would justify the portrayal of Buddha with woolly hair.
Oh really?!
1) If Buddha preached compassion, why was he persecuted?
2) And more importantly, if Buddha was "chased away", what kind of "Buddha" was he?!!! LOL,
I'm glad then such a kind of "Bubbha" SHOULD BE of NEGROID ORIGIN!
- - -
> Gerald Massey recorded that:
"It is not necessary to show that the first colonisers of India were Black, but it is certain that the Black Buddha of India was imaged in the Africoid type.
Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME Buddha had "woolly hair". Even then;
READ CAREFULLY. MASSEY ONLY SAYS THAT THE BUDDHA WAS "IMAGED" IN THE "AFRICOID TYPE"; HE DOES NOT SAY, BUDDHA WAS A BLACK! That's a big difference. Massey was trying to show, based on the Buddha statues that the PEOPLE WERE BLACK, NOT THAT BUDDHA WAS BLACK! YOU HAVE HIS LOGIC REVERSED!! In other words, he was arguing for the presence of Black inhabitants in the country, not that Buddha was a black native! Do you understand? (Pls. attend some classes in reading-comprehension.)
In Thailand, he is imaged in the east-Asiatic type. In the Gandhara period, in a Hellenistic type. So on. That doesn't make Buddha a Thai or a Hellene!
Besides, Massey himself is forced to admit there - the uncertainty of Blacks being the FIRST COLONISERS - and therefore, meaning, the "oldest" Buddha WAS NOT a "black buddha".
- - -
> In the Black [African] god, whether called Buddha or Sut-Nahsi, we have a datum. they carry in their color the proof of their origin. The people who first fashioned and worshipped the divine image in the Africoid mold of humanity must, according to all knowledge of human nature, have been Africans themselves. For the Blackness is not merely mystical, the features and the hair of Buddha belong to the Black race."
Still going with the "assumption" of "woolly hair" (which I will set straight),
Massey is talking of the DATUM OF THE BLACK PEOPLE! - he says the way the Buddha was fashioned shows that the PEOPLE WERE BLACK, NOT THAT BUDDHA HIMSELF WAS A BLACK! STUPID.
61.247.240.176 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu
____________________________________________________________________
THE BUDDHA AND BUDDHISM IN INDIA
Buddhism appeared in India during the sixth century B.C.E. and came in the form of a protest against Hinduism. Buddhism opposed the arrogance of caste, and preached tolerance. It should not be surprising, then, that it developed a large and rapid following in the regions of India where the Blacks had survived in substantial numbers. On the emergence of Buddhism in India, Diop has suggested that:
"It would seem that Buddha was an Egyptian priest, chased from Memphis by the persecution of Cambyses. This tradition would justify the portrayal of Buddha with woolly hair. Historical documents do not invalidate this tradition...There is general agreement today on placing in the sixth century not only Buddha but the whole religious and philosophical movement in Asia with Confucius in China, Zoroaster in Iran. This would confirm the hypothesis of a dispersion of Egyptian priests at that time spreading their doctrine in Asia."
Dr. Vulindlela Wobogo, another scholar, has observed that:
"Manifestations of the Buddha in Asia are Black with woolly hair. They all appear to be Egypto-Nubian priests who fled Egypt...The priests carried their spiritual knowledge but lost much of the scientific knowledge for obvious reasons. The well-known aspects of Buddhism and its companion, yoga, are all simply Egypto-Nubian priesthood practices, meditation, and...the belief that one could attain a god-like state if the soul was liberated from the body through knowledge and denial."
In a monumental two volume work entitled A Book of the Beginnings, originally published in 1881, Gerald Massey recorded that:
"It is not necessary to show that the first colonisers of India were Black, but it is certain that the Black Buddha of India was imaged in the Africoid type. In the Black [African] god, whether called Buddha or Sut-Nahsi, we have a datum. they carry in their color the proof of their origin. The people who first fashioned and worshipped the divine image in the Africoid mold of humanity must, according to all knowledge of human nature, have been Africans themselves. For the Blackness is not merely mystical, the features and the hair of Buddha belong to the Black race."
In the first volume of his massive text Anacalypsis, Godfrey Higgins wrote that:
"The religion of Buddha, of India, is well known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered through Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips and curly hair of the African."
About comments being posted that all bodhisatva were Kshatriya or Brahmin- it was rather other way round all of them either became or at least aspired to become kshatriya or brahmins in recontructed Hindu society ,hence they started propagating this myth and it were they who made fictitious stories of Buddha's life.
DS,
You write: > do you think sculptors who made it were fools who could not differentiate between dreadlock of sadhus and aboringal woolen hairs.http://www.askasia.org/AsianArt/slideshow.htm# go through this link and better decide for yourself.
Are you a retard?! That same link you give, gives this foll. reasoning for that Gupta sculpture -
"Hair The Buddha's hair is usually depicted in the form of "snail-shell" curls. Monks have shaven heads, but according to legend, when the Buddha cut his hair, the uncut portions snapped into these curls and he never had to cut his hair again."
How desperate you are to show Buddha was Black, I almost pity you.
Don't waste band-width talking crap; answer clearly the questions put at you - such as
1) Citations for rajputs were bastards
2) What were the teachings of the Black Buddha???
3) Proof of negroid origins of his clan/ancestry
or, have the decency to be quiet.
You further wrote: > 3.you wrote- That's an example of how a vain, paranoid, self-flattering Dalit thinks! He assumes the rest of the world too will behave as narrow-minded like him...
What will you gain by calling me a Dalit
SK didn't write that! I did. You boast of knowing 3 additional European languages!, when you cannot even plainly differentiate between who's saying what! What's the matter with you?
Also, Napoleon being a Rajput would be a thousand times more probable theory than Buddha being Black!
203.101.36.84 13:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu
________________________________________________________________
Sk
1.I am not satisfied with your logics,the dreadlock of shadhus are different from Buddha's woolen hair.Anybody can notice that .Buddha's hair are aboringal,do you think sculptors who made it were fools who could not differentiate between dreadlock of sadhus and aboringal woolen hairs.http://www.askasia.org/AsianArt/slideshow.htm# go through this link and better decide for yourself. 2.you wrote who the f**k is this Moolchand Chauhan... Shame on you.Such a nice work based on genetic data deserves respect from all quarters no matter what your faith or believe is.should i tell now who is calling names?????It only shows you have no respect for scientific proofs and rather you want to stick to your rubbish beliefs.
3.you wrote- That's an example of how a vain, paranoid, self-flattering Dalit thinks! He assumes the rest of the world too will behave as narrow-minded like him... What will you gain by calling me a Dalit(I am helpless here I can't disprove it on internet,and why should I,it gives double the fun-standing for dalit cause is a task much holier and prestigious than quarelling for such trivial issues like kshatriya,secondly it has fun of stabbing the enemy right into his chest ,I believe you feel like that dalits questioning my origin And by the way in what way I am self flattering.I have never uttered a word about myself 4.Check history I have not edited even once on the front page.Against modern descendants there exists two names -Khatri(perhaps disinterested in this discussion) and Rajput(trying to prove it by hook or crook) 5.You wrote -Regarding your abhira and bir gurjara clan.....do they have a gotra, a vansh..a kul ? I am not sure what you meaneither my english is crepe or yours.If you are asking for if they are vansh kul or gotra then I can answer it.They are vamsha .
Bir Gurjara clan is House of churu and Abhira clan I am not sure now but can tell you after referring some sources(You too can make some effort -believe me you will find them I am not lying about anything)
6.Is english your first language?(Are you of british origin??????)
I admit it is my third language(phps fifth should I tell you I know three other european languages)
7.About my mental capabilities and my attitudes
I am flexible enough to accept the truth not rigid like you.Maybe I have little knowledge compared to some genius but definitely not an idiot -as you are trying to brand me.
8.I don't want Dalits should be abused here(no i am not among them but I do have respect for all kind of people).If you can't tolerate them,it is because of your unhealthy upbringing.Better try to mould yourself 9.Lord Krishna was a Rajput---I have heard Napolean Bonaparte was a Rajput too.I think you would be having logic for that too .Why not at least give it a try you will find it somehow.
wish you best of luck Ds
__________________________________________________________________
DS,
You write: > Which other sadhu,Rishi etc. has been shown with woolen hair...
"Vedic scriptures provide the earliest known written evidence of dreadlocks. Their exact date of origin is still in dispute, ranging from to 5000 BCE to 1500 BCE. The dreadlocked Vedic deity Shiva and his followers were described in the Vedic scriptures as "jaTaa", meaning "wearing twisted locks of hair", probably derived from the Dravidian word "caTai", which means to twist or to wrap.
Shiva takes the weight of the mighty Ganges in his locks and imprisons her. She is released through the locks of his hair, which prevents the river's force from destroying earth, and the waters bring purification to the planet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadlocks
Pic. of contemporary Sadhus with dreadlocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sadhus.jpg
If you still want to push the Black Buddha theory, then show evidence of the negroid origins of his clan and ancestry. Explain the preachings of this supposedly "original buddha"! I suppose he spoke of the great 8-fold Africo-magga!, lol.. and all the Aryan teachings are conspiracies by "impure people" to rule over "pure people", LOL
Even by iconic representation, your claims have been proved false.
DS: > I know you people are contemplating attack on me
---> That's an example of how a vain, paranoid, self-flattering Dalit thinks! He assumes the rest of the world too will behave as narrow-minded like him...
DS: > sakas of Rajasthan were chritened Rajputs
Who says they were "christened"? Quote a source.
203.101.36.171 09:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu, a Samsaptaka
____________________________________________________________________
Dear DS
1)yes Krishna was a Rajput.
2)who the f**k is this Moolchand Chauhan...what are his credentials ,qualifications and identity ?
3)Rishis,sadhus were not specifically depicted in Indian sculpture and architecture.
4)Your wrong again..Rajputs dont claim descendancy from ancestors in Rajasthan , but from the source of the absolute brahman ( and I'm not talking about the priest caste ) enshrined in the forces of the sun,moon and fire.
5)Regarding your abhira and bir gurjara clan.....do they have a gotra, a vansh..a kul ?
6)I'm not guessing your origin..I have better things to do. Although i think I know what you are or who you are. I think your identity is Vishal Dudhane or you'r the person who has the email address dbkasar@yahoo.com who cares....
..and noone( specifically me ) is least interested in "attacking" you. You'r too paltry for anyone's assault.
7)Its not "sonan"..Its shonan.And I didnt" admit"..i signed my name.So who's the coward..me or you ,who are hiding your identity .hahaha
8)Are you stupid as well as blind or is english your third language. Do I have to post things 10 times before they go into your thick skull.
I gave you the webpage called Red rajputs, then
This is what you wrote--->I went through the link forwarded by you,the quotation(Kshatriyas are red) allegedly from Mahabharata is actually from Rigveda.The writer need to dig more.I have seen many Rajputs like other castes and races they too are red,fair skined and even blacks(are they shudras)
so i told you that the webpage doesnt mean that Rajputs are red in actual physical colour and this is what I replied-->There is no mention of any word "kshatriya" in the rigveda or any of the other 3 vedas like you said.....Anywhere in any of the 4 vedas. Lets see you find the word kshatriya in any of the vedas..haha.' The colours mentioned do not attribute to skin colours by the way..The attribute to basic natures and proclivities of the 4 castes.
Then i further explained to you-->Lord Ram and Lord Krishna were of shyam-varna ( dusky skin colour )..and they were aristocracy..Lord Ram was a Raja..and Lord Krishna was a Rajput..skin colour has nothing do with caste.I think your very badly confused.
and you were also wrong abt the quote being from the rigveda.
I think you have serious mental issues pal..go see a psychiatrist...LOL brahmins exposing rajputs...
exposed for what..your stupid illogical arguments. You have been unable to rationalise , link together or even justify any of your preposterous claims. After effectively been rebuffed..you resort to name-calling...wild allegations and spouting utter nonsense.
I'm bored of you. Judging by your lack of knowledge, the simple grammatical errors you make and the quality of your scholarship , i must assume that you are poorly educated and full of bias.
I shall always check on the main page to delete any of your nonsense you may attempt to write therein.
still found the citation ? reference on the "rajputs are bastards" in hindu scriptures. Give me which veda or shastra or puran is it in..the chapter and the verse. once again I repeat...do u know the sanskrit term for "bastard" ?
so who's the bastard then...The rajputs as you claim or You..who are scared to give out your identity.
now get lost.
regards, Son of Kurus. 220.227.238.195 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________
Dear SK
Are you Joking
1.You say Krishna was a Rajput(What new theory you want to give now)and who will believe you.You seem to grab best of whole world Krishna,Rama and even saka heritage(I went through the Moolchand Chauhan's research work).But truth can be on one side only. 2.Which other sadhu,Rishi etc. has been shown with woolen hair.Can't you note the difference between dreadlock and woolen hair.Or are you just trying to befool everyone here.Anyway he had no Rajput connection. 3.Why all Rajputra in whole of India claim descendancy from their ancestors in Rajasthan-what is so special about Rajasthan???? 4.You have still not answered origin of Abhira and Bir Gurjara clan of Rajputs.How come these people supposedly from other castes became Rajput. 5.My other allegations about Muslim(Mughal)-rajput nexus has been endorsed by Rajput writer Moolchand Chauhan. 6.Keep on guessing my origin-I am not what you think ok.I will not disclose it either because I know you people are contemplating attack on me.It is you who have put your origin in question,why discuss mine it is none of your business. 7.So you have admitted you are SONAN TALPADE.The way you logged in as Sk and the way you are TRYING to feign ignorance about having forwarded the link of asiatic society research and then shifting to other side quickly.It was I who told you Rajputa are of all colour.And the claim that Rajputs are red was made by Sonan Talpade.Who now is signing as SK-in the shameless and cowardice manner.Sonan Have you edited your comments too on discussion page????? I shall have to check history. 8.I am not prejudiced about any community(believe me not even about Rajputs)but you people are full of bias and prejudice perhaps towards everyone and sparing Brahmanas only(Are you afraid they will expose your true origin someday.) 9.About my being Dalit .No I am not but sorry can't prove it here(Ha ha ha).But I believe they are smarter people in comparision to Rajputra.Mahatma Gandhi called them Harijan in the same fashion sakas of Rajasthan were chritened Rajputs(not rajen or raja)by wicked brahmanas so that they can be degraded at some stage later on.However Dalits threw away this term smartly but rajputras are still sticking to it. -DS(I have committed I will sign like it now)
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr.Truth-shall-win,
Please sign up and create an account in wikipedia. and If you could sign your posts at the end, it would be nice.
For the last time,Your wooly-fooly-phooly hair theory of buddha is not a negro style of hair..Its what hindu sadhus and holy men and sages and rishis have been wearing from time immemorial. its called dreadlocks in english or jaata in Hindi. have a look at this webpage..this is an example of what dreadlocked hairstyle is. (The picture of the western man is just an example..else tomorrow you'll claim that i posted a webpage saying buddha wore a black t-shirt.lol) http://perfectdreadlocks.com/images/dreds.jpg
Understood...how many times do you want to discuss on this. If you dont understand english, perhaps I should post in marathi ?
and about other topics....kindly dont twist them.
This is what you wrote--->I went through the link forwarded by you,the quotation(Kshatriyas are red) allegedly from Mahabharata is actually from Rigveda.The writer need to dig more.I have seen many Rajputs like other castes and races they too are red,fair skined and even blacks(are they shudras)
and this is what I replied-->There is no mention of any word "kshatriya" in the rigveda or any of the other 3 vedas like you said.....Anywhere in any of the 4 vedas. Lets see you find the word kshatriya in any of the vedas..haha.' The colours mentioned do not attribute to skin colours by the way..The attribute to basic natures and proclivities of the 4 castes. Lord Ram and Lord Krishna were of shyam-varna ( dusky skin colour )..and they were aristocracy..Lord Ram was a Raja..and Lord Krishna was a Rajput..skin colour has nothing do with caste.I think your very badly confused.
so kindly stop eel-wriggling and stick to your guns.
2) You still haven't mentioned your reference on the "rajputs are bastards" in hindu scriptures. Give me which veda or shastra or puran is it in..the chapter and the verse. once again I repeat...do u know the sanskrit term for "bastard" ?
(smile)
you wrote---what more can be expected from impure people.I had told you earlier -rest I will tell you later. I will give you many links so that something enters your mind (still I am so patient with you.
Whats left for you to tell ?..All your arguments and logic has been disproved so far Lol.. But I admire the way you still stand with your chest out.You are a really funny guy ! So far, like a true rajaputra ,I've pissed all over your anti-rajput firecrackers. You still want to persist..Fair enough....but have the gumption to stand up to your arguments and premises.
But that is what Rajputs are supposed to be (right)...and what/who are you by the way...can u be brave enough to answer?
you wrote--->(still I am so patient with you.)
dear Mr.pure-people are you BY ANY CHANCE..giving me a threat ?
Shonan Talpade, Son of Kurus
Mr. DS,
I think its quite obvious that its Shonan Talpade who wrote as Son of Kurus.
You say: > The logic which U think i have implanted was actually pushed by ST(Plz go through his comments earlier and it is his/her work (i am not sure of sex he/she belongs to).
I did go through his posts and that's how I quoted his statements which show your miscomprehension. Its YOU that falsely misunderstood things and then talked about hares and wolves and what not.
You are free to make your point by quoting his exact words, though I am sure you can't, because he said no such thing as you imply.
DS: >By the way you may keep on guessing my origins
Not interested. By the way you may still keep on producing those citations which say Rajputs are bastards...
DS: > i am always open for discussion
What discussion??! What's left to discuss? Your points have all been met with a clear-cut reply.
61.247.243.25 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu, a Samsaptaka
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Sk
Is it you or sonan talpade (who left the board or obtained new login in cowardice manner ).The logic which U think i have implanted was actually pushed by ST(Plz go through his comments earlier and it is his/her work (i am not sure of sex he/she belongs to).By the way you may keep on guessing my origins,I am not Dalit anyway,but even if you call me so it won't affect me.It shows your bias against Dalits only.i am always open for discussion .
you may call me DS (Accepted)
To the Dalit Satyamevajayete (hereafter DS),
DS: > It was you who quoted citation from rigveda in manipulated form
Son of Kurus (SK) did no such thing.
> You yourself claimed rajputs are kshatriya because they are red
and then contradicting it yourself...
What Rubbish! This was his exact quote:
"That the Kshatriyas of ancient India are identical in ethnic characteristics with the Rajputs of today." The Red Rajputs are the descendants of the solar race, a race of kings, of mystical men who not only could learn of mystic occultism but could also fight and rule, which is contrary to the regulation for the Brahman."
You must be mentally-challenged to suffer from such a reading-comprehension; YOU interpreted the phrase "Red Rajput" as red in colour only. SK merely set YOUR OWN misunderstanding straight by saying, "The colours mentioned do not attribute to skin colours by the way..The attribute to basic natures and proclivities of the 4 castes."
Please maintain the decency to argue fairly, or is that too much to ask?
DS: > what more can be expected from impure people...
And who are "pure people"? Define.
DS: > http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Buddha%20the%20African.htm
plz go through these... links and try to see what are the physical features of Buddha in ancient sculptures.As the time passed by every race ,including indians,tried to attribute their physical characters to Buddha. now follow this link http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/photos/round_the_world_trip/buddha_head_overgrown_with_tree_roots_wa.html
...ever wondered why everywhere he is shown in woolen hair .I tell you whereas all other negroid feature replaced with time ,this one remained as mark of buddha to remind generations later of his origins. I hope something could enter your mind
I hope something enters yours!, like this passage -
"In 1819, in the Journal des Savants, the French Sinologue Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat refuted this hypothesis, which he judged to be contrary not only to plausibility, but also to the epithets traditionally attributed to the Buddha, and particularly to his hair, by the traditional Sanskrit vocabulary.[34] In any case, the idea of a "Black Buddha" continued to spread for at least a decade.[35] It was still sufficiently present in memories in 1850 that Eugène Burnouf, whose work was foundational to the scientific analysis of the Buddhist phenomenon, went to the trouble of specifying, in his study "On the Thirty Two Characteristic Signs of a Great Man," that analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan terms describing the Buddha's hair, his tightly ringed locks, and the darkness of his complexion, do not allow us "to conclude so quickly that the founder of Buddhism belonged to the Negro race."[36] Not without irony, he concluded his analysis a few pages later: "We are presently in a position to appreciate the correctness of the inductions that a few scholars early in this century reached from the appearance of the hair on the statues of Buddhas. These statues, no more than the written authorities that describe them, do not tell us of kinky hair, but rather of curly hair, two things that are sufficiently dissimilar that they should not be confused."[37]
Nothing seemed to stand in the way of the many combinations of these myriad possibilities. It would have been possible, for example, to envision that the Buddha was an Ethiopian who went to Egypt to read the Pentateuch, who left there to go to Japan, passing through India on his way, where the earliest Greeks had gone to seek the first seeds of their knowledge from him. This combination is not a whimsical invention. We find under Diderot's pen, in the many articles from his Encyclopédie where the teachings of the Buddha are referred to, a quite similar melange of elements that not only erudition, but also simple good sense show to be irreconcilable."
http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/droit_cult.html
Black Buddha is a debunked thesis, and as it should be, considering such works were produced by amateur historians and archaeologist in the old days, and since then, new archlg. findings have changed facts.
DS: > I tell you whereas all other negroid feature replaced with time ,this one remained as mark of buddha to remind generations later of his origins.
LOL, I suppose there are sculptures and murrals of Buddha's father and mother being Negroes as well!
Where and what are the teachings of this negro Buddha, pray tell?!
Fact is, the argument is correct in the reverse of what you said; "what seems like" a Black Buddha is an acculturation of aboriginal people's imagination to our real Aryan Buddha.
Your artifact comes from the Dvaravati period, 9th century.
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/buddha.htm
And that same Dvaravati period also shows Buddha WITHOUT kinky hair, the "one negroid mark of Buddha to remind generations of his origin"! :
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/7905/davati.htm
Some of the oldest representations of Buddha:
Birth of Buddha, 2ND century AD, Gandhara, Kushan Period
http://w3.salemstate.edu/~ckramer/birth.html
First Sermon in Deer Park, 2ND century AD, Gandhara, Kushan Period
http://w3.salemstate.edu/~ckramer/1sermdeath.html
Seated Buddha, early 2nd century AD, Mathura, Kushan Period
http://w3.salemstate.edu/~ckramer/seated1.html
Gandhara Buddha, around 150 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SB3.JPG
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/uploads/post-2-1093706482.jpg
And lastly, look at this Gandhara Buddha, 1-2 AD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dc/BuddhaHead.JPG/220px-BuddhaHead.JPG
NOT kinky hair, but WAVY!
For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_art
Your claims are false, fraudulent, and ridiculous.
Also, you wrote: > "Rajputra or Rajput has been used derogatorily as a term for bastard sons of kings in our scriptures,do you want to deny it."
Do you want to back that up before you start to anal-ize and all?, because I can tear your vapid insinuation even before you start it.
Virya, for example, means "virile semen"(Mbh.), but to those have proper functioning brains and are not complete morons, Virya thus means valour, manliness, strength, splendour, lustre, dignity. Virya-je (born of semen) would thus mean 'born with strength and valour'.
Rajas, retas, etc. should be taken and understood in a similar vein, and not that they were "bastard sons". Idiot.
61.247.244.233 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu, a Samsaptaka.
To some anonymous poster who wrote this : > The link forwarded by someone(apparently rajput)about buddhist seems to be an ad for amazon.com.what is this i went through itand found i need to pay .
Whaaaaat??????????? It wasn't a charity organization?! Amazon.com should be extremely surprised to hear that!!!
Anonymous: > Rajput again seems extremely intolerant to questions.
Yea, I suppose someone tells you are the son of bastards and claims that is a fact quoted in the ancient scriptures, and when asked to produce those citations, Dalit quite cowardly turns a blind eye, spewing all sorts of rubbish all over the place - yea, I suppose Rajput was the one intolerant to questions!!! Get real.
I can appreciate your point of view on the Sakas.
61.247.244.233 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu
_________________________________________________________________
The link forwarded by someone(apparently rajput)about buddhist seems to be an ad for amazon.com.what is this i went through itand found i need to pay .Plz don't put advertising links here.I have also seen the drama here between rajputs and some other persons trying to prove and disprove kshatriya status of rajputs.Is this the way to resolve the issue.and someone ,Rajput again seems extremely intolerant to questions.This is not the way to resolve issues.let me forward you the link establishing scythic origin of Rajputs and many otherslike(jats,Gurjars,Yadvas etc.)by none other than Rajput himself -Mr.Mulchand Chauhan .Why Rajputs treat Sakas as inferior race.sakas were no way inferior to aryans and their achievement outnumbers that of Aryans-does people discussing here know it.They were challengers of Brahmanical authority and Atharvaveda is considered to be saka creation.Goths-european wing of sakas have influenced German history.Their script is till day known as Gothic.Sakas were on conquest to win the whole world and assert their authority over aryan ones.Aryan Kshatriya were subdued by them because they were no match for these sakas.Let us not hate them because of ignorance. http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html
________________________________________________________________
Dear self-proclaimed son of kurus(should I say Duryodhanaputra)
First of all I have never reffered to dalitastan.org,maybe you are reffering to it.It was you who quoted citation from rigveda in manipulated form(I used Kshatriya term to convince you only but it seems you know the rajnya-anyway it is not Rajputra).You yourself claimed rajputs are kshatriya because they are red and then contradicting it yourself.Your case is Hunting with wolves and running with hares.
But that is what Rajputs are supposed to be (right).I knew you will come up these filthy remarks (what more can be expected from impure people).I had told you earlier -rest I will tell you later. I will give you many links so that something enters your mind (still I am so patient with you).now follow this link http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/photos/round_the_world_trip/buddha_head_overgrown_with_tree_roots_wa.html It gives you even camera situations .And now come to the point-ever wondered why everywhere he is shown in woolen hair .I tell you whereas all other negroid feature replaced with time ,this one remained as mark of buddha to remind generations later of his origins. I hope something could enter your mind
_________________________________________________________________
Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalising any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.
He was unknown to us till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previleges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
All self respecting indians are asked to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be in the petition.
Thanks everybody
Sisodia
_________________________________________________________________
Dear mr.truth-shall-win,
Most definitely, I shall answer all that you have asked me( to the best of my knowledge)and in a most decent manner. First of all let me add that most of your incorrect and confused knowledge of history and culture comes from a website called dalitstsan something. An anti-hindu An anti-Rajput ,anti-brahmin Anti-India website which operates from bangalore,India. I'll make one thing clear ..the references and citations of such biased and ignorant websites is utterly useless and are not fruitful for a discussion. for.eg--If such a website says that "billions of shudras were killed by brahmins in vedic times"..we cannot accept such an argument for basic reasons of logic.
1) I went through your buddha was african webpage. Allow me to comment. firstly the person who wrote that is a black power african person called Runoko rashidi who has absolutely no qualifications for historical and archaelogical comments. So its understandable that he would want to claim all important historical figures ( including siddhartha the buddha ) as african and shudra. something like orthodox muslims claiming that most of the prophets and holy men of the world were sent by Allah. These kind of theories cannot be accepted. Where is the limit to this nonsense..tomorrow someone will claim that dinosaurs first ruled this earth and buddha,jesus,christ,allah and Krishna are incarnations of dinosaurs.
incredible !
Just for your information.
The foremost researcher on buddhism so far in the world was a Prof Hajime Nakamura (1912-1999).
He has statistically proven that almost all of buddhas sangha were kshatriyas and brahmins (99 % of the sangha..there was just one sudra in the sangha..a barber named upali. Buddha clearly favored the Kshatriyas and brahmins)...and Nakamura was a japanese and one of the most respected scholars of buddhism till date.So there's no question of pro-brahmin or pro-kshatriya bias.
You may care to have a look at this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8120802721/qid=1108865703/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5327109-5164020?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
The negro looking face shown on the webpage you posted here is most definitely not a representation of buddha. It has no reference to where it was found..which museum it is kept now in...etc etc. I can make a similar face out of plaster of paris colour it black ..take a photo and put it on a negro supremacy website.The other photos too are also clearly manipulated on photoshop or similar rendering software.
LOL..i have a ganesh idol in my home made of black stone..so what would I infer from that ..Ganesha of the hindu pantheon was a negro ?..or negroes have descended from elephants. Please dont be ridiculous.
Yes I agree with your view that statues are made in the likeness of the people of the regions. E.g Japanese,Chinese ,Tibetan and Korean statues of buddha have oriental features etc Indian ones have indian features etc. then it that case ..we should refer to texts and scriptures.
for 200 years after the buddhas death..his image was only representational...e.g..an empty throne..footprints..a swastika in a lotus flower etc etc..then his first statues as such began being created around 150 AD.That was known as Gandhara style. Later on came the Mathura style. In brief...so to find an answer We look to the earliest texts..The buddhist nikayas !. They clearly describe the historical buddha having Indo-Aryan features. NOT negroid.
this is THE LARGEST website on buddhism on the net. www.attan.com and from that website..you may care to have a look at this book http://www.attan.com/buddha%20image.pdf Perhaps your misconceptions about buddha being a negro will be removed once and for all.
2)you wrote--->I went through the link forwarded by you,the quotation(Kshatriyas are red) allegedly from Mahabharata is actually from Rigveda.The writer need to dig more.I have seen many Rajputs like other castes and races they too are red,fair skined and even blacks(are they shudras)
There is no mention of any word "kshatriya" in the rigveda or any of the other 3 vedas like you said.....Anywhere in any of the 4 vedas. Lets see you find the word kshatriya in any of the vedas..haha.
The word used is "rajanya"..in the purusha shukta hymn(10.92) of the Rigveda. Rajanya=Royal (Indo-Aryan aristocracy)of which the rajputs are descendants.
The colours mentioned do not attribute to skin colours by the way..The attribute to basic natures and proclivities of the 4 castes. Lord Ram and Lord Krishna were of shyam-varna ( dusky skin colour )..and they were aristocracy..Lord Ram was a Raja..and Lord Krishna was a Rajput..skin colour has nothing do with caste. I think your very badly confused.
3)Which buddhists allege that Rajputs are the progeny of Chengis khan ?..The Ambedkar variety of buddhists .hahaha.... Babar was the third or fourth generation after Chengis Khan and after Timur Lang. Chengis Khan was not a muslim ,he was a pagan mongol..towards the end of his life, he may have converted to tibetan buddhism.
and regarding your babur gets invited by rana sanga ?!?! thats totally incorrect ! Now Babur was having sleepless nights because of Rana Sanga, the rajput ruler of Mewar. Babur sent about 1500 choice cavalry to attack Sanga. These were butchered by Sanga's rajputs. Babur wanted to discuss peace terms. For discussions Sanga sent his general Silhadi (Shiladitya). Babur won this general by promising him independent kingdom. Silhadi came back and reported that Babur did not want peace and he wanted to fight. Battle of Khanwa started on March 17, 1527 and Babur's army was being knocked out of the field and victory was certain for Sanga. At this juncture Silhadi and his army left the field and this tilted the war in favor of Babur and he won. [See Annals and Antiquities of Ancient Rajasthan: James Tod. ISBN 8170691281]
So allow me to express this most "decently"....Your knowledge of history is pretty fucked up pal.
Noone disagrees that a few rajputs may have been traitors...so were some sikhs and so were many marathas. Nothing is perfect.
In his New History of India, Stanley Wolpert wrote "The Rajputs were the vanguard of Hindu India in the face of the Islamic onslaught."
ok.
and I'm still waiting for your reference on the "rajputs are bastards" in hindu scriptures. Give me which veda or shastra or purana is it in..the chapter and the verse.
In terms of knowledge ..you'r an amateur....do you even know the sanskrit word for "bastard" ?
99 % of your knowledge is based on a mixture local anti-upper caste rumours,hearsay, you'r own biased reasoning and some agenda you have.
I have no objection to you posting your make-believe shit some place else..but dont try it here. All people are not suckers to believe anything.
understood ?
regards,
Son of Kurus 12:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Mr Rajput
Shall you ever learn decent ways of communicating.Plz answer following questions too.
1.How come Abhira and bir gurjara clan exist among Rajputs.Do you want to suggest Abhirs(also known as Ahirs among local people)came to be known so after serving under these Rajputras or do you want to say Gurjaras emerged after serving under Bir gurjars.
Nobody would buy your logic for history of Abhira predates even Aryan ones and Gurjar history is at least prior to rajputs.
2.You are so fondly quoting Buddhist scriptures,do you know ,Budhists allege that Rajputs emerged as progeny of Chengese Khan,and joined hands with Mughals who also claimed lineage through him.Rana Sanga had invited Babar and had great expectations from him (why so?)which were denied to him later on .Rajputs became helping hands and most trusted partner during Mughal rule. 3.The illegitimate claim of Rajputs of being legitimate Kshatriya is due to their proximity to power during Mughals and endorsement by english who wanted similar help from them and enforcement by Brahmanas (may be this was the only way hinduism could have survived)
http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Buddha%20the%20African.htm http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shaka.shtml plz go through these two links and try to see what are the physical features of Buddha in ancient sculptures.As the time passed by every race ,including indians,tried to attribute their physical characters to Buddha. Rest I will tell you later. I went through the link forwarded by you,the quotation(Kshatriyas are red) allegedly from Mahabharata is actually from Rigveda.The writer need to dig more.I have seen many Rajputs like other castes and races they too are red,fair skined and even blacks(are they shudras)Ha Ha ha.
- → Go to Archive 1