A 🧵 on debunking the myth of Rajputs being mentioned as a caste of mixed origin in Parasara Smriti, Skanda Purana & Brahmavaivarta Purana.
To begin with Parasara Smriti, it's a code of laws stated to be followed in the Kaliyuga. But how much of legitimacy and authenticity the scripture really holds?
According to non-aryan pretenders, Parasara Smriti holds the opinion that Rajputs is a caste of mixed origin, i.e., son of a Vaisya father and Ambashtha mother is a Rajput (वैश्यादंबष्ठकन्यायां राजपुत्रः प्रजायते)
But the main thing is that this particular stanza doesn't even exist in whole of Parasara Smriti. This stanza is nothing but an interpolation of recent times, premeditatedly done to relegate the Rajputs.
Talking about Sahyadri Khand of Skanda Purana which according to many, mentions Rajputs again a caste of mixed origin, being the son of a Kshatriya father and a Shudra mother.
Sahyadri Khand is a part of Skanda Purana which deals with the topic of Deccan India and in that part, a caste by the name Rudgepoot (रजपूत) is mentioned.
This Rudgepoot is mentioned as a son of Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. But the stanza which deals with this topic doesn't mention Rajputs (राजपूत) but a different caste Rudgepoot (रजपूत).
Both the Rajputs (राजपूत) and Rudjepoot (रजपूत) are totally different from one another, and Sahyadri Khand mentions nothing about the origin of Rajputs of North India.
These Rudgepoots can still be found in Maharshtra, they're known by the name “Pardesis”. These Rudgepoots or Pardesis are the descendants of North Indian Rajputs who came to Deccan during Mughal invasion in search of military service & married local woman from Maharashtra.
This also establishes the fact that the Kshatriya father of this Rudgepoot caste in Skanda Purana is none other than the Rajputs of North India and Rajputs are blue blooded Kshatriya only.
To add more, a Purana mentioning about a mixed caste that originated in the 16th century questions its credibility and itself proves the fact that this Purana as a whole isn't a reliable source of information.
Again to add more, if Sahyadri Khand specifically deals with the matters of Deccan, how the Rajputs of North India can be stereotyped as a caste of mixed origin?
And at last, we have Brahma Khand of Brahmavaivarta Purana which is alleged to mention a Rajput/Rajputra as a son of Kshatriya father and Karana mother.
The historicity, authenticity and credibility of this Purana as a whole is a matter of concern among every Indian and Foreign scholar and none of them is ready to accept that it's a reliable source of information.
Most of the sections of this Purana are regarded as an interpolation of later times. Also, different manuscripts of this Purana contains different number of chapters and stanzas.
Brahmavaivarta Purana is not even fit to be called a Purana.
Besides this, this Purana also container many degrading verses for Sri Radha and also potrays her relation with Sri Krishna as a completely different one, which is a clear blasphemy of Hindu deities.
Icing on the cake is that this Purana is heavily influenced by the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu which proves this Purana is no older that 16th century.
Brahmavaivarta Purana is contradictory to itself. At one side it claims Rajputra to be a caste of mixed origin and on the other side, it mentions Rajpura as a noble class. Hence this Purana isn't a trustworthy source.
One question, why is there so much dissmilitude in the caste of its parents with father's caste is changing from Kshatriya to Vaishya and mother's caste is Ambashtha, then Shudra and then Karana somewhere else?
So here it can be concluded that Rajputs are not mentioned as a caste of mixed origin in Hindu scriptures and someone claiming to dEbOnK this is just wh0re-crying with ad hominem.
End of this thread.
End of this thread.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...