02-12-2007, 04:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been more then 100 Chauhan inscriptions and copper plates discovered so far. Not a single one mentions them to be Agnivanshi.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am well aware of the fact that early ChAhamAna inscriptions do not mention the agni-bhU myth. But this is also true for early paramAras who are considered agni-kula par excellence. In bhoja's inscriptions times we do not encounter any account of the agnikula myth at all. There is an early inscription that states that the paramAras are of the clan of rAShTrakUTas. The original point in my post was not to get into the veracity of whether a clan is originally termed agni-bhu or not at the first point of reference-- it is clear that even paramAra-s were not originally mentioned as agnikula in inscriptions. Of course for the other other inscriptional evidence for them being agnikula is lacking. I was only pointing out in the original post that not all clans are called agni-bhu, but only the above named subset. So the sweeping claim that all rAjpUts were elevated kShatriya-s (as implied by the agni-kula myth) is not valid.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Chauhan Gotracharya: Samved, Somvansh, Madhyandini Shakha, Vatsa Gotra, Panch Parvar....
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->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.
I am well aware of the fact that early ChAhamAna inscriptions do not mention the agni-bhU myth. But this is also true for early paramAras who are considered agni-kula par excellence. In bhoja's inscriptions times we do not encounter any account of the agnikula myth at all. There is an early inscription that states that the paramAras are of the clan of rAShTrakUTas. The original point in my post was not to get into the veracity of whether a clan is originally termed agni-bhu or not at the first point of reference-- it is clear that even paramAra-s were not originally mentioned as agnikula in inscriptions. Of course for the other other inscriptional evidence for them being agnikula is lacking. I was only pointing out in the original post that not all clans are called agni-bhu, but only the above named subset. So the sweeping claim that all rAjpUts were elevated kShatriya-s (as implied by the agni-kula myth) is not valid.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Chauhan Gotracharya: Samved, Somvansh, Madhyandini Shakha, Vatsa Gotra, Panch Parvar....
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->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.