
According to the Hindu code of Manu (Hinduism), a Kshatriya is a member of the military or reigning order, the second ranking caste of the India ''Varna (caste)'' system of four castes, the first being the Brahmin or priestly caste, the third the Vaishya or mercantile caste and the lowest the Shudra. In Nepal the Kshatriyas are known as Chhetris. Sanskrit ''kṣatriya'' is derived from ''kṣatra'' "dominion, power, government" and ultimately from a root ''kṣi'' "to rule, govern, possess". In early Vedic civilization, the warrior caste was called ''rājanya'' rather than ''kṣatriya'', an adjective to ''rājan'' "ruler, king" from a root ''rāj'' "to rule", cognate to Latin ''rex'' "king" and German language ''Reich'' "empire". In India, the period after the Epic Age or the Later Vedic Age (roughly 1000 BC to 600 BC) was marked by the rise of numerous small kingdoms. The rising popularity and aspirations of the Brahmin priests began to collide with the authority of the Kshatriyas, who formed the ruling class of each kingdom. The struggle involved the Kshatriya nobility and the Brahman clergy in all the Indo-Aryan regions from Iran to northern India. Some Khatris of the Punjab believe that they are descended from the original Kshatriya families of ancient times. In the Punjab, the name ''khatri'' is the Punjabi dialect for the Sanskrit word ''Kshatriya''. The modern Khatri is less in the role of a farmer, and more often a businessman, government worker, landlord, military officer or soldier. In modern India, caste is determined by familial inheritance, but not all present members of Kshatriya castes are necessarily descended from the Vedic Kshatriyas. Many historical rulers came from other castes, or were descended from non-Hindu foreign conquerors, and were either granted ''de facto'' Kshatriya status by virtue of the power they held, or they created fictionalized family histories to connect themselves to past Kshatriya rulers. The Maratha ruler Shivaji was from Kshatriya origins: his mother was a Yadava and father was a minister general, a Kunbi kshatriya. The caste system spread, along with Hinduism, throughout India and into southeast Asia, but not necessarily by immigration; peoples with non-Vedic origins may have adopted the vedic castes as they acculturated into Hinduism. For instance, the Sakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Paradas etc were the foreign invaders from north-west but were finally assimilated into the Indian community as Kshatriyas (Ref: History and Culture of Indian People, The Vedic Age, pp 286-87, 313-14). See also: [http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/07/07/stories/2002070700310400.htm]. The modern representatives of the ancient Kambojas still live as Kambojas in greater Panjab, and the Kamoz/Camoje/Kam in Nurestan province of Afghanistan. The Kamboj are noted for their contribution in agriculture and military fields. The Rajputs of Rajasthan and northern India also claim to be the ''bona fide'' descendants of the Vedic Kshatriyas. The history of the Rajputs before c. 1000 CE is obscure, and historians have speculated on Rajput origins; some understand them to be relatively direct descendants of the Kshatriyas, while others favor a hybrid origin, wherein Kshatriyas mixed with the descendants of invading warrior tribes from the northwest. This is supported by the Agni Purana which contends that the Rajputs were born from the fire which resides in Mt. Abu in Northwestern India after the supposed "destruction of ancient Kshatriyas". The Rajputs themselves usually do not take kindly to the hybrid theory: traditionally, they view themselves as the only surviving pure Kshatriyas, claiming also that originally, this was the highest caste in the Hindu caste system, going back to an Indo-Aryan patriarchal system where the king or dominant warrior was at the apex of the social framework. However, the Rajputs distinctly belong and are located only in the northwest, betraying their origins as being one of the mixed clans of foreign invaders such as the Huns. In addition to the Marathas, there are other Kshatriya communities in India, such as the Kunbis, Kurmis, Yadavs, Janjuas etc. that were likely members of other agrarian clans which were the original source of all martial traditions and the original source of kings of Bharat. The word "earth" in Sanskrit (''Prithvi'') itself is named after King Prithu, who tamed the earth to make it fertile. King Janaka and Buddha's father both had to perform ceremonies dealing with farming. These agrarian clans are probably the original Vedic kshatriyas. 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. See also: ''Hinduism, Varnas, Caste, Brahmin, Vaishya, Shudra,Untouchable, Aryan invasion theory'' Caste Warriors Hindu law
==Why Kshatriya was the "highest caste"== *(The information in this section was added by an anonymous user who deleted earlier comments. I've reverted this page so that the earlier comments are preserved (in the section "Objections to Kshatriya as "highest caste") and I'm pasting in this section the anonymous comments that replaced them. This is in the interest of having a complete discussion on the matter and not losing anyone's input. --User:LeeHunter 13:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I am at a loss for words to understand how westerners can act with such authority regarding aspects of Indian culture. regarding the original caste system.....The position of the Kshatriya in earlier times as compared to now has been clearly mentioned and described. The explanation, context etc has been clearly mentioned . The socio-political changes as well as the spiritual context both have been given. now scripturally ---the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad , "This knowledge of the absolute brahman spirit has never before dwelt in any Brahman priest," that Krishna, the great King and Sage, was a Kshatriya, while next comes Buddha, admitted by the Hindus to be an Avatara, who was also a Kshatriya, all being held by him to be Rajputs. Krishna traced his doctrine from the Kshatriya Manu through a line of Rajarshis or Rajanya sages. This is in the Bhagavad-Gita, where the last personage named in the line is Ikshvaku, of whose race was Buddha. Hence he ascribes the spirit of the Upanishads and of Buddhism to the mystical genius of the Rajanya race On this we have in the Upanishads these words: "The Brahman sat at the foot of the Kshatriya." This upholds the spiritual dignity of the Rajanyas, who are the Kshatriyas and the Red Rajputs. From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:---( Part 1 chapter 4 , 11 ) In the beginning this (the kshatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman, one only without a second. He, being one, did not flourish. He projected, further, an excellent form, kshatriyahood—those kshatriyas (rulers) among the gods: Indra, Varuna, Soma (Moon), Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu (Death), and Isana. Therefore there is none higher than the kshatriyas. Thus at the Rajasuya sacrifice, the brahmin sits below and worships the kshatriya. He confers that glory on kshatriyahood alone. :* the Upanishads are later than the Vedas :* the Upanishads "anarchic" in the sense that they try to take away the "spiritual monopoly" from the Brahmins. The passage you cite attacks the Brahmins exactly because they were the highest caste: they try to say something shocking. It they would say: "Never was Brahman in a Shudra", people would shrug. But by saying "never was Brahman in a Brahmin, i.e. the highest caste", they are revolutionary. :* this discussion belongs on Varna (caste), or Upanishads. :* I retained your "apex of society" sentence, putting it in perspective by saying that this is what the Rajputs claim. Secondly Another ridiculous theory that has been posted here is that the Rajputs are descendants of HUNS ?! ?!? ?!? ?!? ! :well, I removed the Huns, while retaining the two possibilities (hybrid vs. pure kshtriya). A british scholar Col.Tod who originally propunded this 'Theory' admitted himself that this was just a theory. There has been no concrete evidence for the same. Charles Johnston, a member of the Royal Academy of Science and retired from the British Civil Service of India studied rajput ethnicity in the MOST detail and Johnston's ethnological deduction , published in a journal in 1893 ,is as follows: "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 priest. and lastly regarding the knowledge of the sanskrit language... I really dont know which webpages are you good people getting your 'vast ' knowledge of sanskrit from ? ? how many here have actually studied sanskrit ? I really have no comment on that . :this from somebody who says ''kshatriya comes from the sanskrit root word 'kshetra' '' :-) maybe I should dig up the pertaining Panini-Sutras to convince you? :there are two roots ''kSi'': one meaning "rule" is a seT root, belonging to the first present-class. The other meaning "settle, inhabit" contains true -y- and belongs to second and sixth present-class. ''kSatra'' "dominion" derives from the former, ''kSetra'' "field" from the latter. User:Dbachmann someone wrote:------------- "Without objective accuracy, it is easy to blur the line between myth, prejudice and historical scholarship." I agree totally. This is not about some nationalistic bravado or cultural jingoism as is claimed, but rather an objective understanding of the truth. If all you folks are connected with wikipedia,I would be more than glad to stop posting here, The original intent was to undo the damage done by false and erroneous posts. I request that this practice of armchair intellectualism be discarded and at the least, explanations and understandings about OUR culture and OUR religion be left to us. thanking you, with best regards, A RAJPUT. :Dear Rajput. Thanks for finally giving some feedback. I am a westerner: "tribally" I would probably be Alamanni :-) Now, I wouldn't dream of claiming any inherent competence on editing an article on Alemans because of that. Do you see where I'm getting at? You need to do research and to state your sources regardless of your ancestry. Now, since you came up with some references here, I encourage you to try to ''neutrally'' work them into the article, rather than just shouting your opinion all over it. User:Dbachmann 09:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Objections to Kshatriya as "highest caste"== somebody anonymously keeps adding that the kshatriya were "originally" the highest caste. I removed this when NPOVing the article, but now it's back, and in boldface. It seems this opinion is held by the Rajput or something, but I know of nothing that would warrant this belief. Now if this person would at least give a ''source'' to support this. Heck, we can even put, "the Rajput of Rajasthan have a tradition that the kshatriya were on top" or something. Until we arrive at such a version, I encourage passers-by to remove this. I have no intention of baby-sitting this article, or any article beleaguered by nationalistic crackpots, for that matter. Let me just say, if you are the person adding this, kindly give your source. Ah, and it's okay to remove the bold type, too. If you are just a friendly wikipedian, do the article a favour and remove any "kshatriyas rule!" stuff ;-) -- User:Dbachmann 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I'm in agreement with this point, and encourage the person doing the anonymous changes to discuss their point of view here rather than just editing the article. --User:IlyaHaykinson 17:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I've added a hidden comment to the code directing that person to this page. They may not be aware of the Discussion feature. --User:LeeHunter 18:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) ---- This article is very erroneous and lacks any merit. It exhibits little knowledge of the language "sanskrit" and ancient Indic texts and archeological artifacts (physical evidence). Although the author wants to avoid the context of an obsolete hypothesis that is ironically called Aryan Invasion _Theory_, the article's speculative conclusions are based on exactly the unscientific and unsound phenotype (not genotype) and phonetic (not linguistic) correlations that the Aryan Invasion Theory was based on. The Sanskrit word "kSatriya" is derived from "kSatra" (defense, power, rule of a territory), "kSatriya" means "dedicated or related to "kSatra". Similarly the word "brahmana" or brahmanya" means "dedicated to the knowledge of Brahma". Heirarchy was not the determinant. Even the teachers (AchArya)of martial arts or weaponry were known as the "Brahman", but the practitioners of martial arts or defense were "kSatriya". So dharma (or duty") were different according to the profession. ParaSurama or DroNa were Brahmana, the teachers (AchArya) of Taxila were the brahmana. The professional responsibilities defined the four "varna" of brAhmana, kSatriya, waiSya, and sudra. In Sanskrit, there are two words "varna" and "jati", the former is the most ancient and does not translate into the english word "caste". It reinforces another confusion where Brahminical revival (around 10th century)is confused with the spiritual and social context of the ancient word "brahma" and the professional association of the "brahmana". "-put" in "Rajput" is not a sanskrit suffix for son. Raj-put originated from the word Rajputana (a mixed word variation from the sanskrit word rAjasthAna, the region of royal palaces). The word is not ancient and has no reference in the Vedic texts. The aspect of Indo-european migration is very complex: one has to address the controversial and unexplained origin and distribution of the Phoenician as well. Phoenician context can complicate the misinformed hypothesis on "assimilation" of the pagan. Vedanta and Vaiseshika branches of Hindu philosophy have hardly any similarity with the "pagan" and were part of the ancient Vedic tradition. Buddhists mathematicians and philosophers relied on the early abstract philosophies of the Hindu Vedic/Tatric tradition. Without objective accuracy, it is easy to blur the line between myth, prejudice and historical scholarship. ==Rajput Origins== Dear Mr Dbachmann, I appreciate your knowledge on Indiology and indeed much of the information you wrote is quite accurate,but you still havent removed the references connecting rajput lineage to the Huns and that we are descended from the invaders who attacked India from the northwest. So I am deleting that myself, if there's no objection. You gave the reference of the manu smriti for the hierarchy of races and castes. Thats excellent..BUT theres a slight problem....the Manu smriti is a law book .Its not a religious treatise. actually nowhere in the hindu scriptures will you find the superiority of any caste over the other. if you give me the example of the Purusha shakta of the rigveda, it outlines the function..not the hierarchy of the castes.races Its by spiritual and mystical right that the Kshatriya was on the top of the society ( which I was 'shouting' about all this while.) secondly, sir, If i may say so..most of the information that you have posted here are direct copy pastes of other webpages. I can prove it to you,sentence by sentence with the corresponding website/page that you have copy pasted from.(if you wish) e.gs..britannica encyclopaedia etc. I dont know about copyright violations etc, but this doesnt reflect well with your own view of objective and sincere research. Thirdly, Your borrowed claim that the Rajputs have obscure ancestry beyond 1000AD in the kshatriya webpage..is..(if i may use the word )in utter ignorance. The Mewar Line goes up to the Era of Lord Ram (around 5000 BC ) if that is imaginable and conceivable by western society. They even have records which i believe arent doctored by any brahmins as in Shivaji's case. They are kept in the archives of Udaipur palace in rajasthan till date. Mr Dbachmann,I frankly dont know and dont care about the allegmanic race...but I respect people who are aware of their own roots. my regards to you. And sir thank you very very much :) ..i know my own lineage..descended from King Prithu of the vedic age around 700 BC. we dont need to prove such things..its only the limited western mind, which doesnt think its evolutionarily,socially and chronologically possible due to its own conditionings. Mr. Dbachmann, it was nice having a discourse with you ( which i cant say for the other belligerent, internet-learnt morons here ). my best regards, your friendly neighbourhood rajput chauvinist. K V S J. : dear KVSJ -- first of all, you seem to think that I am responsible for this entire article. I did however only contribute to the etymological section, and thus became involved in the "Rajput dispute". While other parts of the article (including the Huns bit and anything that may have been (legally) copied from the 1911 britannica) was not written by me at all. You will get a clearer picture of who wrote what by utilizing the "history" page. Please understand that a Wikipedia article is the result of a complicated interaction of several contributors (including you, since you decided to add and to remove information) :Others of your points concern the aims (and style) of WP articles. It is, for example, not acceptable to put entire paragraphs in boldface ("shouting") just to emphasize them. Such paragraphs will almost without fail be removed after a short time. Concerning your convictons about remote history and the "western mind": It is certainly possible to express them all under appropriate headings, but, since WP is a "western style" encyclopedia and not Hindu scripture, they will have to be ''qualified'': i.e. You will have to say "according to such and such a tradition/scripture" and may then go on to quote whatever that tradition tells us. You may ''not'', however, remove conflicting statements from other sources. WP does not aim to decide on a certain truth, but is content to ''report'' different, possibly conflicting views, including western ones. I do not know the background about the "Hunnic" issue, but if there is a scientific view that claims hunnic incursions to Rajasthan, you may not simply remove it, even if your tradition rejects such a view. We call this "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV), i.e. the attempt to give different views equally fair expression without the attempt to decide the matter. This is in itself scientific "western" procedure, so I am afraid that "eastern" traditions will necessarily acquire a somewhat folkloristic touch on WP, but they may by all means be duly expressed. User:Dbachmann 14:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Kshatriya was the "highest" caste? == Hi what I have learnt in my secondary school history lesson is that the Kshatriyas were originally in the highest caste in the Early Aryan period and after that, the Brahmins became the highest caste. That's what my textbook wrote and my teacher said that too. :they taught you that, in Singapur? See Rajput, it would certainly be what people learn in school in Rajasthan. You should check you textbook for references, so we can include those. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 10:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Kshatriya:
Kshatriya
Kshatriya
Kshatriyas
Kshatriya_dharma
Kshatriya
According to the Hindu code of Manu (Hinduism), a Kshatriya is a member of the military or reigning order, the second ranking caste of the India ''Varna (caste)'' system of four castes, the first being the Brahmin or priestly caste, the third the Vaishya or mercantile caste and the lowest the Shudra. In Nepal the Kshatriyas are known as Chhetris. Sanskrit ''kṣatriya'' is derived from ''kṣatra'' "dominion, power, government" and ultimately from a root ''kṣi'' "to rule, govern, possess". In early Vedic civilization, the warrior caste was called ''rājanya'' rather than ''kṣatriya'', an adjective to ''rājan'' "ruler, king" from a root ''rāj'' "to rule", cognate to Latin ''rex'' "king" and German language ''Reich'' "empire". In India, the period after the Epic Age or the Later Vedic Age (roughly 1000 BC to 600 BC) was marked by the rise of numerous small kingdoms. The rising popularity and aspirations of the Brahmin priests began to collide with the authority of the Kshatriyas, who formed the ruling class of each kingdom. The struggle involved the Kshatriya nobility and the Brahman clergy in all the Indo-Aryan regions from Iran to northern India. Some Khatris of the Punjab believe that they are descended from the original Kshatriya families of ancient times. In the Punjab, the name ''khatri'' is the Punjabi dialect for the Sanskrit word ''Kshatriya''. The modern Khatri is less in the role of a farmer, and more often a businessman, government worker, landlord, military officer or soldier. In modern India, caste is determined by familial inheritance, but not all present members of Kshatriya castes are necessarily descended from the Vedic Kshatriyas. Many historical rulers came from other castes, or were descended from non-Hindu foreign conquerors, and were either granted ''de facto'' Kshatriya status by virtue of the power they held, or they created fictionalized family histories to connect themselves to past Kshatriya rulers. The Maratha ruler Shivaji was from Kshatriya origins: his mother was a Yadava and father was a minister general, a Kunbi kshatriya. The caste system spread, along with Hinduism, throughout India and into southeast Asia, but not necessarily by immigration; peoples with non-Vedic origins may have adopted the vedic castes as they acculturated into Hinduism. For instance, the Sakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Paradas etc were the foreign invaders from north-west but were finally assimilated into the Indian community as Kshatriyas (Ref: History and Culture of Indian People, The Vedic Age, pp 286-87, 313-14). See also: [http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/07/07/stories/2002070700310400.htm]. The modern representatives of the ancient Kambojas still live as Kambojas in greater Panjab, and the Kamoz/Camoje/Kam in Nurestan province of Afghanistan. The Kamboj are noted for their contribution in agriculture and military fields. The Rajputs of Rajasthan and northern India also claim to be the ''bona fide'' descendants of the Vedic Kshatriyas. The history of the Rajputs before c. 1000 CE is obscure, and historians have speculated on Rajput origins; some understand them to be relatively direct descendants of the Kshatriyas, while others favor a hybrid origin, wherein Kshatriyas mixed with the descendants of invading warrior tribes from the northwest. This is supported by the Agni Purana which contends that the Rajputs were born from the fire which resides in Mt. Abu in Northwestern India after the supposed "destruction of ancient Kshatriyas". The Rajputs themselves usually do not take kindly to the hybrid theory: traditionally, they view themselves as the only surviving pure Kshatriyas, claiming also that originally, this was the highest caste in the Hindu caste system, going back to an Indo-Aryan patriarchal system where the king or dominant warrior was at the apex of the social framework. However, the Rajputs distinctly belong and are located only in the northwest, betraying their origins as being one of the mixed clans of foreign invaders such as the Huns. In addition to the Marathas, there are other Kshatriya communities in India, such as the Kunbis, Kurmis, Yadavs, Janjuas etc. that were likely members of other agrarian clans which were the original source of all martial traditions and the original source of kings of Bharat. The word "earth" in Sanskrit (''Prithvi'') itself is named after King Prithu, who tamed the earth to make it fertile. King Janaka and Buddha's father both had to perform ceremonies dealing with farming. These agrarian clans are probably the original Vedic kshatriyas. 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. See also: ''Hinduism, Varnas, Caste, Brahmin, Vaishya, Shudra,Untouchable, Aryan invasion theory'' Caste Warriors Hindu law
Kshatriya
==Why Kshatriya was the "highest caste"== *(The information in this section was added by an anonymous user who deleted earlier comments. I've reverted this page so that the earlier comments are preserved (in the section "Objections to Kshatriya as "highest caste") and I'm pasting in this section the anonymous comments that replaced them. This is in the interest of having a complete discussion on the matter and not losing anyone's input. --User:LeeHunter 13:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I am at a loss for words to understand how westerners can act with such authority regarding aspects of Indian culture. regarding the original caste system.....The position of the Kshatriya in earlier times as compared to now has been clearly mentioned and described. The explanation, context etc has been clearly mentioned . The socio-political changes as well as the spiritual context both have been given. now scripturally ---the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad , "This knowledge of the absolute brahman spirit has never before dwelt in any Brahman priest," that Krishna, the great King and Sage, was a Kshatriya, while next comes Buddha, admitted by the Hindus to be an Avatara, who was also a Kshatriya, all being held by him to be Rajputs. Krishna traced his doctrine from the Kshatriya Manu through a line of Rajarshis or Rajanya sages. This is in the Bhagavad-Gita, where the last personage named in the line is Ikshvaku, of whose race was Buddha. Hence he ascribes the spirit of the Upanishads and of Buddhism to the mystical genius of the Rajanya race On this we have in the Upanishads these words: "The Brahman sat at the foot of the Kshatriya." This upholds the spiritual dignity of the Rajanyas, who are the Kshatriyas and the Red Rajputs. From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:---( Part 1 chapter 4 , 11 ) In the beginning this (the kshatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman, one only without a second. He, being one, did not flourish. He projected, further, an excellent form, kshatriyahood—those kshatriyas (rulers) among the gods: Indra, Varuna, Soma (Moon), Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu (Death), and Isana. Therefore there is none higher than the kshatriyas. Thus at the Rajasuya sacrifice, the brahmin sits below and worships the kshatriya. He confers that glory on kshatriyahood alone. :* the Upanishads are later than the Vedas :* the Upanishads "anarchic" in the sense that they try to take away the "spiritual monopoly" from the Brahmins. The passage you cite attacks the Brahmins exactly because they were the highest caste: they try to say something shocking. It they would say: "Never was Brahman in a Shudra", people would shrug. But by saying "never was Brahman in a Brahmin, i.e. the highest caste", they are revolutionary. :* this discussion belongs on Varna (caste), or Upanishads. :* I retained your "apex of society" sentence, putting it in perspective by saying that this is what the Rajputs claim. Secondly Another ridiculous theory that has been posted here is that the Rajputs are descendants of HUNS ?! ?!? ?!? ?!? ! :well, I removed the Huns, while retaining the two possibilities (hybrid vs. pure kshtriya). A british scholar Col.Tod who originally propunded this 'Theory' admitted himself that this was just a theory. There has been no concrete evidence for the same. Charles Johnston, a member of the Royal Academy of Science and retired from the British Civil Service of India studied rajput ethnicity in the MOST detail and Johnston's ethnological deduction , published in a journal in 1893 ,is as follows: "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 priest. and lastly regarding the knowledge of the sanskrit language... I really dont know which webpages are you good people getting your 'vast ' knowledge of sanskrit from ? ? how many here have actually studied sanskrit ? I really have no comment on that . :this from somebody who says ''kshatriya comes from the sanskrit root word 'kshetra' '' :-) maybe I should dig up the pertaining Panini-Sutras to convince you? :there are two roots ''kSi'': one meaning "rule" is a seT root, belonging to the first present-class. The other meaning "settle, inhabit" contains true -y- and belongs to second and sixth present-class. ''kSatra'' "dominion" derives from the former, ''kSetra'' "field" from the latter. User:Dbachmann someone wrote:------------- "Without objective accuracy, it is easy to blur the line between myth, prejudice and historical scholarship." I agree totally. This is not about some nationalistic bravado or cultural jingoism as is claimed, but rather an objective understanding of the truth. If all you folks are connected with wikipedia,I would be more than glad to stop posting here, The original intent was to undo the damage done by false and erroneous posts. I request that this practice of armchair intellectualism be discarded and at the least, explanations and understandings about OUR culture and OUR religion be left to us. thanking you, with best regards, A RAJPUT. :Dear Rajput. Thanks for finally giving some feedback. I am a westerner: "tribally" I would probably be Alamanni :-) Now, I wouldn't dream of claiming any inherent competence on editing an article on Alemans because of that. Do you see where I'm getting at? You need to do research and to state your sources regardless of your ancestry. Now, since you came up with some references here, I encourage you to try to ''neutrally'' work them into the article, rather than just shouting your opinion all over it. User:Dbachmann 09:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Objections to Kshatriya as "highest caste"== somebody anonymously keeps adding that the kshatriya were "originally" the highest caste. I removed this when NPOVing the article, but now it's back, and in boldface. It seems this opinion is held by the Rajput or something, but I know of nothing that would warrant this belief. Now if this person would at least give a ''source'' to support this. Heck, we can even put, "the Rajput of Rajasthan have a tradition that the kshatriya were on top" or something. Until we arrive at such a version, I encourage passers-by to remove this. I have no intention of baby-sitting this article, or any article beleaguered by nationalistic crackpots, for that matter. Let me just say, if you are the person adding this, kindly give your source. Ah, and it's okay to remove the bold type, too. If you are just a friendly wikipedian, do the article a favour and remove any "kshatriyas rule!" stuff ;-) -- User:Dbachmann 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I'm in agreement with this point, and encourage the person doing the anonymous changes to discuss their point of view here rather than just editing the article. --User:IlyaHaykinson 17:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I've added a hidden comment to the code directing that person to this page. They may not be aware of the Discussion feature. --User:LeeHunter 18:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) ---- This article is very erroneous and lacks any merit. It exhibits little knowledge of the language "sanskrit" and ancient Indic texts and archeological artifacts (physical evidence). Although the author wants to avoid the context of an obsolete hypothesis that is ironically called Aryan Invasion _Theory_, the article's speculative conclusions are based on exactly the unscientific and unsound phenotype (not genotype) and phonetic (not linguistic) correlations that the Aryan Invasion Theory was based on. The Sanskrit word "kSatriya" is derived from "kSatra" (defense, power, rule of a territory), "kSatriya" means "dedicated or related to "kSatra". Similarly the word "brahmana" or brahmanya" means "dedicated to the knowledge of Brahma". Heirarchy was not the determinant. Even the teachers (AchArya)of martial arts or weaponry were known as the "Brahman", but the practitioners of martial arts or defense were "kSatriya". So dharma (or duty") were different according to the profession. ParaSurama or DroNa were Brahmana, the teachers (AchArya) of Taxila were the brahmana. The professional responsibilities defined the four "varna" of brAhmana, kSatriya, waiSya, and sudra. In Sanskrit, there are two words "varna" and "jati", the former is the most ancient and does not translate into the english word "caste". It reinforces another confusion where Brahminical revival (around 10th century)is confused with the spiritual and social context of the ancient word "brahma" and the professional association of the "brahmana". "-put" in "Rajput" is not a sanskrit suffix for son. Raj-put originated from the word Rajputana (a mixed word variation from the sanskrit word rAjasthAna, the region of royal palaces). The word is not ancient and has no reference in the Vedic texts. The aspect of Indo-european migration is very complex: one has to address the controversial and unexplained origin and distribution of the Phoenician as well. Phoenician context can complicate the misinformed hypothesis on "assimilation" of the pagan. Vedanta and Vaiseshika branches of Hindu philosophy have hardly any similarity with the "pagan" and were part of the ancient Vedic tradition. Buddhists mathematicians and philosophers relied on the early abstract philosophies of the Hindu Vedic/Tatric tradition. Without objective accuracy, it is easy to blur the line between myth, prejudice and historical scholarship. ==Rajput Origins== Dear Mr Dbachmann, I appreciate your knowledge on Indiology and indeed much of the information you wrote is quite accurate,but you still havent removed the references connecting rajput lineage to the Huns and that we are descended from the invaders who attacked India from the northwest. So I am deleting that myself, if there's no objection. You gave the reference of the manu smriti for the hierarchy of races and castes. Thats excellent..BUT theres a slight problem....the Manu smriti is a law book .Its not a religious treatise. actually nowhere in the hindu scriptures will you find the superiority of any caste over the other. if you give me the example of the Purusha shakta of the rigveda, it outlines the function..not the hierarchy of the castes.races Its by spiritual and mystical right that the Kshatriya was on the top of the society ( which I was 'shouting' about all this while.) secondly, sir, If i may say so..most of the information that you have posted here are direct copy pastes of other webpages. I can prove it to you,sentence by sentence with the corresponding website/page that you have copy pasted from.(if you wish) e.gs..britannica encyclopaedia etc. I dont know about copyright violations etc, but this doesnt reflect well with your own view of objective and sincere research. Thirdly, Your borrowed claim that the Rajputs have obscure ancestry beyond 1000AD in the kshatriya webpage..is..(if i may use the word )in utter ignorance. The Mewar Line goes up to the Era of Lord Ram (around 5000 BC ) if that is imaginable and conceivable by western society. They even have records which i believe arent doctored by any brahmins as in Shivaji's case. They are kept in the archives of Udaipur palace in rajasthan till date. Mr Dbachmann,I frankly dont know and dont care about the allegmanic race...but I respect people who are aware of their own roots. my regards to you. And sir thank you very very much :) ..i know my own lineage..descended from King Prithu of the vedic age around 700 BC. we dont need to prove such things..its only the limited western mind, which doesnt think its evolutionarily,socially and chronologically possible due to its own conditionings. Mr. Dbachmann, it was nice having a discourse with you ( which i cant say for the other belligerent, internet-learnt morons here ). my best regards, your friendly neighbourhood rajput chauvinist. K V S J. : dear KVSJ -- first of all, you seem to think that I am responsible for this entire article. I did however only contribute to the etymological section, and thus became involved in the "Rajput dispute". While other parts of the article (including the Huns bit and anything that may have been (legally) copied from the 1911 britannica) was not written by me at all. You will get a clearer picture of who wrote what by utilizing the "history" page. Please understand that a Wikipedia article is the result of a complicated interaction of several contributors (including you, since you decided to add and to remove information) :Others of your points concern the aims (and style) of WP articles. It is, for example, not acceptable to put entire paragraphs in boldface ("shouting") just to emphasize them. Such paragraphs will almost without fail be removed after a short time. Concerning your convictons about remote history and the "western mind": It is certainly possible to express them all under appropriate headings, but, since WP is a "western style" encyclopedia and not Hindu scripture, they will have to be ''qualified'': i.e. You will have to say "according to such and such a tradition/scripture" and may then go on to quote whatever that tradition tells us. You may ''not'', however, remove conflicting statements from other sources. WP does not aim to decide on a certain truth, but is content to ''report'' different, possibly conflicting views, including western ones. I do not know the background about the "Hunnic" issue, but if there is a scientific view that claims hunnic incursions to Rajasthan, you may not simply remove it, even if your tradition rejects such a view. We call this "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV), i.e. the attempt to give different views equally fair expression without the attempt to decide the matter. This is in itself scientific "western" procedure, so I am afraid that "eastern" traditions will necessarily acquire a somewhat folkloristic touch on WP, but they may by all means be duly expressed. User:Dbachmann 14:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Kshatriya was the "highest" caste? == Hi what I have learnt in my secondary school history lesson is that the Kshatriyas were originally in the highest caste in the Early Aryan period and after that, the Brahmins became the highest caste. That's what my textbook wrote and my teacher said that too. :they taught you that, in Singapur? See Rajput, it would certainly be what people learn in school in Rajasthan. You should check you textbook for references, so we can include those. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 10:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
K
KA | KB | KC | KD | KE | KF | KG | KH | KI | KJ | KL | KM | KN | KO | KP | KR | KS | KT | KU | KW | KX | KY | KZ |Words begining with Kshatriya:
Kshatriya
Kshatriya
Kshatriyas
Kshatriya_dharma
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
