02-12-2007, 04:29 PM
Hauma,
Yes I knew it from your initial response that you are not supporting the agni kula legend.
I replied just to make it more emphatic that wrong history can sometimes take a life of its own which in turn is exacerbated by our own "educated" (read JNU and the like ) historians who tow the western line as if they are still colonial slaves and when the "real historians" publish in vernacular languages they are considered "Not peer reviewed"!
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Note if Chauhans were Fire born there Gotra would have been Vashist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not necessary that if some one is termed agni-kula their gotra automatically becomes vasiShTha. The rules for kShatriya as per the gotra-pravara section of the kalpa sUtra is clear. If he does not remember or have an original gotra he takes that of his brahminical Acharya for ritual purposes. We do find clans called agni-kula having other gotras because of their Acharyas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. I was just pointing out that since Chauhans have Vatsa Gotra, if they had connection with Rishi Vashishta, they would have potentially used Vashisht Gotra.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle of 16th century work, Prithviraj Raso is the first time Chauhans are mentioned as Agnivanshi. (Only a small kernel of this work is accurate).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are possible earlier reference in the for this-- a bhaviShyata purANa recension that dates earlier than 16th cent for certain, perhaps around 1200s. Of course one can argue interpolation and the like but definitely it seems to have entered the bhaviShyata purANa recension before 1500. The agnikula myth itself is fairly old because we see it in padma-gupta's account though in that the chAhamAnas are not mentioned. At least in the Khichi-chauhan version of the myth we find chAhamAnas mentions as the primary heroes of the agni-kula who finally destroyed the mlechCha-dAnavas. So it means by the medieaval period this idea had gained wide acceptance.
[right][snapback]64305[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly so, but Hammira Mahakavya was written under the auscpices of the Tomar Rajput king of Gwalior in 15th century A.D. and this writer had no idea about the Agnikula legend and ofcourse the earlier Prithviraj Vijay is silent about it too.
-Digvijay
Yes I knew it from your initial response that you are not supporting the agni kula legend.
I replied just to make it more emphatic that wrong history can sometimes take a life of its own which in turn is exacerbated by our own "educated" (read JNU and the like ) historians who tow the western line as if they are still colonial slaves and when the "real historians" publish in vernacular languages they are considered "Not peer reviewed"!
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Note if Chauhans were Fire born there Gotra would have been Vashist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not necessary that if some one is termed agni-kula their gotra automatically becomes vasiShTha. The rules for kShatriya as per the gotra-pravara section of the kalpa sUtra is clear. If he does not remember or have an original gotra he takes that of his brahminical Acharya for ritual purposes. We do find clans called agni-kula having other gotras because of their Acharyas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. I was just pointing out that since Chauhans have Vatsa Gotra, if they had connection with Rishi Vashishta, they would have potentially used Vashisht Gotra.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle of 16th century work, Prithviraj Raso is the first time Chauhans are mentioned as Agnivanshi. (Only a small kernel of this work is accurate).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are possible earlier reference in the for this-- a bhaviShyata purANa recension that dates earlier than 16th cent for certain, perhaps around 1200s. Of course one can argue interpolation and the like but definitely it seems to have entered the bhaviShyata purANa recension before 1500. The agnikula myth itself is fairly old because we see it in padma-gupta's account though in that the chAhamAnas are not mentioned. At least in the Khichi-chauhan version of the myth we find chAhamAnas mentions as the primary heroes of the agni-kula who finally destroyed the mlechCha-dAnavas. So it means by the medieaval period this idea had gained wide acceptance.
[right][snapback]64305[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly so, but Hammira Mahakavya was written under the auscpices of the Tomar Rajput king of Gwalior in 15th century A.D. and this writer had no idea about the Agnikula legend and ofcourse the earlier Prithviraj Vijay is silent about it too.
-Digvijay