Talk:Chitpavan Brahmins/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Skanda Purana in Origin section

• Since Sahyadrikhanda is an interpolation, then why it's information is being even used in first place? Agletarang (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not passing any judgement on the veracity of any Hindu text, only mentioning what some modern scholars opine. Nor are we saying that this is definitely the origin - we are only stating what the scripture says about them. Different people have different opinions. For example, orthodox religious people may not believe that anything is interpolated. And perhaps not every scholar thinks that there is interpolation. Almost every Hindu scripture (with a few exceptions) has additions and changes over years. The scriptures play a very important role in the caste system. Scholars like Lars Fogelin and others believe that Puranas are not 100% mythology. They are historical+mythological but because of the mythological(or supernatural) elements added, they become difficult to interpret. That is why WP has a policy of WP:PRIMARY for using such texts in articles - we cannot quote directly from Puranas (unless the wiki page is about the scripture itself). But we can give the interpretation by a modern scholar.LukeEmily (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote from Skanda Purana:

It is considered as a living text, which has been widely edited, over many centuries, creating numerous variants.

Quote from Sahyadrikhanda:

One of its interpolated versions from 1700CE contains the legend of the origin of the Brahmin identities like Chitpavan Brahmins and Saraswat Brahmins while deliberately slandering authentic Brahmin communities like Karhade Brahmins.

Quote from outside:

The Brahmans of the day are charged, in the Prabhu chronicles, with having interpolated new verses into old Puranic and other books like the Sahyadri Khanda, for the purpose of lowering the status of the Prabhu caste.

References

Why should we consider it due? Dympies (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies:, are you serious by giving some 1800s and 1900 references? We are editors, not researchers to decide validity of reliable sources. That would be WP:OR We are not using Sahyadrikhanda . We are using a modern interpretation of the currently accepted version thats available today which is a perfectly valid reference. This is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. Did you even bother reading my previous reply? Please do not do this for everything you find objectionable.LukeEmily (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to include everything from RS. Considering the contentious nature of the origin section, WP:DUE becomes even more important. What do you say, Jonathansammy? Is this Skanda Purana's interpretation due enough for the Origin section? Dympies (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It is the *only* Purana that discusses the Brahmin castes of western India and has been mentioned by several sources. We are not supposed to cherry pick based on contentious/non-contentious either. This should not be used as an excuse to remove contentious stuff. Wikipedia is uncensored so contentious or not is irrelevant. For contentious (btw, i dont think it is contentious - are you saying being fishermen is bad?) stuff we need a high quality source - which Deshpande is. Also, although we dont have a requirement for every single statement to be covered by multiple sources, the Parshuram story and the story about their origin is discussed in many sources so by definition it is WP:DUE. You had removed some edits from this page with false edit summaries. I am asking you again not to be persistantly disruptive - as you know you have been topic banned from another place. You also do not seem to know much abput this topic as you do not realize that Skanda Puran does not discuss Saraswat Brahmins(of the north) but GSBs whose brahmin heritage has been challenged by Deshastha Karhade and Koknastha Brahmins. Please check their occupations of GSB on their page.LukeEmily (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at this thesis by Urmila Patil [1] and decide how much weight to be given to the Sahyadrikhand account on the origins of various brahman communities. Madhav Deshpande was on her dissertation committee. He covers this topic as well but the thesis has additional depth. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The thesis does not change anything. Madhav Deshpande gives a summary of the topic in a published peer-reviewed journal unlike the thesis which is research and has a POV. Secondly, Patil's thesis has mistakes as pointed out by S.L.Levitt. And it mentions Skanda Puran anyways. @Jonathansammy and Dympies:, google books "chitpavan sahyadri khanda" and see how many google hits of academic sources you get. Dympies, beware of WP:CANVASS. LukeEmily (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies:, let us make this simple. If you find other secondary sources published as journals or books that discuss other Brahminic scriptures(other than Sahyadrikhanda) that list the origins of Chitpavans, please give the quotes and sources here so we can add them to the page and decide how much weight to give each of them. OK? I will wait for your sources at the level of Madhav Deshpande. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: At present, there are two sources. One discusses fishermen theory while the other discusses foreigner theory and both cite the same Skanda Purana. Both of them are contradictory. Needs an explanation. Dympies (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Dympies Sahyadrikhanda is a relatively recent regional addition to the Skanda purana.That aside, purana can not be considered as historical sources. Having said that, I am OK with mentioning Sahyadrikhanda in the origin as long as the word Myth is used in the description.Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Henn on Sahyadrikhanda:

Only a few archival sources are available today that give detailed evidence about the pre-Portuguese history of the Goan people and their village and religious culture. One resource is the Sahyadri Khanda of the Skanda Purana, or "Book of the Western Mountains," an apparently recently organized and somewhat deficient edition of disparate texts (Levitt 1977; Figueiredo 1963)-the earliest ones of which date to the fifth and the latest to the thirteenth centuries (Levitt 1973: 82, 87)-that tell the mythological story of the people of the Konkan and Goa (Cunha 1877; Gaitonde 1972). An especially relevant example is the story of the migration of the Saraswat branch of the Panca Gauda Brahmans of North India to Goa. The mythical hero of this story is Parashurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, who, enraged by a misdeed of King Kartavirya, perpetrates a massacre among the Kshatriya. The hero then begs the sea-god Varuna for land or, according to another version, claims the land of Konkan and Malabar himself from the ocean by blows of his magical axe, in order to bestow it to Brahmans in expiation for his cruel deed (Walker 1983: 2:190; Doshi and Shirodkar 1983: 54). More precisely, the Sahyadri Khanda accounts for sixty-six Gaud Saraswat Brahman families who Parashurama had brought from Trihotra, the modern Tirhut in western Bengal, to settle in Goan villages.....Facilitated by its enormous size and amorphous structure, the Sahyadri Khanda, however, has become the subject of contested interpretations. Modern scholars have questioned the "myth of the northern descent" of the Gaud Saraswat Brahman, arguing that their origins instead come from local priests who, at some point in history, gained Brahmanhood (Kosambi l962] 1992: 166).

So, one thing is clear. Most modern scholars consider Sahyadrikhanda as a mythical text with little to no historic value. A similar Parshuram myth has been narrated in the khanda in order to justify the presence of Goud Saraswat Brahmins. Considering this, we should discuss this khanda in a very brief para without giving it undue weightage. Etymology is a very important thing; both versions ("pure of mind" and "pure from the pyre") should be mentioned. After discussing it, we may state that the authenticity of Sahyadrikhanda is questionable and modern scholars don't approve of it. We should remove M.M Deshpande source considering that he is a Maharashtrian Brahmin and his writings can't be treated as neutral. Also, we should use the term "shipwrecked sailors" rather than fishermen as used in some other reliable sources. LukeEmily, please go ahead and rephrase the para. Dympies (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Deshpande is not necessarily a Maharashtrian brahmin surname.Deshpande was a title of district or county level revenue officials during Deccan sultanate and Maratha eras. You can find that surname amongst CKP, Deshastha brahmin (Kannada or Marathi speaking), Karhade brahmin, and GSB communities. M.M Deshpande, I believe is a GSB. Best regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

M.M Deshpande's caste is irrelevant. I knew one of his relatives in the west personally(also with the same last name) and I think the scholar is a Deshastha Brahmin but I never asked so I am not sure. I have lost touch with her. Dympies, by saying We should remove M.M Deshpande source considering that he is a Maharashtrian Brahmin and his writings can't be treated as neutral., you are questioning a modern scholar and that is not an editors job. You are clearly POV pushing and doing WP:OR. Dympies your reasons for removing the source are invalid. The secondary source is reliable and high quality and that is what matters. see Baidya as an example. If you have sources with other opinions, you can add them if you want as I have already said. The Deshpande source is very high in quality, accuracy etc. and will not be removed. It is published in a scholarly journal and goes into tremendous depth of the scripture, unlike others that simply make passing remarks. It is important for etymology. LukeEmily (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, in your last edit, you didn't address my concern about fishermen. Now the question has arisen if the Sahyadrikhanda really says fishermen. Probably, you need to add some more citations for its support. Also, you didn't add the term myth while most sources do call it a myth. Bifurcating the existing Origin section into Origin and Etymology isn't a good idea as both are inter-related. A very little authentic stuff exists on the origin of Chitpavan Brahmins. The present Origin section begins with Bene Israel theory but that too is related to the Sahyadrikhanda myth. Let me try something.

And please remember WP:CIVILITY and refrain from accusing others of pov pushing. I have been constantly making efforts to improve this article because there is a large scope. Ideally, the caste of Deshpande should not be discussed but there is a contradiction in his interpretation of Sahyadrikhanda and we should not forget that Maharashtrian Brahmins have a long history of inter-caste rivalry. You know this isn't the first time that the caste of author has been questioned on this talk page. Dympies (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies:, Please quote the sentence above that was uncivil. The POV was for Patil's paper. The fishermen legend is accurate. We dont need more references due to the high quality of the source but I will give you some other sources on the talk page that discuss the fisherman origin. But they are unnecessary on the article page. Criteria is that the quality of the source should be high. BTW, neither fishermen nor jewish nor foreign is derogatory. What is probably derogatory is that the entire caste was cursed by Parshuram for being unethical. The author has translated the sanskrit scripture and has actually given analysis of some verses. No reason to doubt Deshpande, even if he is an orthodox Deshastha Brahmin- he has studied it in depth and published in a peer reviewed journal. BTW, the fishermen origin was also referred to in a 1915 speech, and it is mentioned by Karve, Shrikant Talageri, etc. Also, foreign and fishermen are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Deleting and questioning high quality references, using false edit summaries, false section names (synthesis in so and so section when there was not) is not helping edit a page, I would call it disruption. Where was the caste of the source (author) in a peer reviewed discussed? But getting back on topic, I think the etymology and origin should be seperate. What is unique is that this caste has no visible presence before the Peshwas. Very hard to explain. Even marathas/Kolis had a presence. Anyway, I will quote even some Raj era and later references on the talk page for the fishermen legend.LukeEmily (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dympies, Some other sources(including some Raj era sources mentioned FYI only) mentioning fisherman legend(these are not needed on main page as Deshpande is very high quality as per WP:HISTRW). Giving some Raj era sources to show that this was well known and not a 21st century discovery by Dr.Deshpande:

• A 1911 speech delivered at Benaras (source: The Depressed classes of India, pg 168 )

Our modern leaders may not feel strong enough to wield the powers of a Parashuram who raised by a single touch of his fingers a whole tribe of fishermen inhabiting the Konkan Coast into the Chitpavan Brahmans of today, as detailed in the Sahyadri Khanda of the Skanda Parana

• Gandhi and Godse by Koenraad Elst, 2001 pg 11:

  She(Iravati karve) also mentions an alternative theory of the caste's creation viz Parashurama simply taught 60 fishermen families Brahmanical rituals(p 22), apparently reflecting their lowly status in the eyes of the Deshastha Brahmins.

• The Aryan invasion theory Shrikant G. Talageri 1993

  There is another version according to which Parsuram initiated into Brahminhood a group of 60 families of fishermen. Disregarding the miraculous elements , the purport of this myth is clear : the ancestors of the Chitpavan Brāhmaṇas were foreigners washed ashore after a shipwreck , and never really accepted as proper Brahmans for a long...

• By Ways of Bombay(pg 98) - S. M. Edwardes (Raj era) given to show that the legend was also known to the British.

  And it came to pass in the fullness of time, as the Sahyadrikhand tells, that Parashurama called all Brahmans to a great festival in the new land which he had created between the mountains and the sea, But the twice-born hearkened not to his words ; whereat the God waxing wroth determined to create new Brahmans who would not turn a deaf ear to his counsel. Revolving this decision in his heart he walked down to the shore, and there in the seaward-gazing burningground he met a stranger-people, white-skinned, blueeyed, and fair to look upon, and asked them who they were and whence they came. "Fishermen (or hunters) are we," they answered, "and dwell upon the seashore, sixty families of us in all." And the God was pleased with them and raising them to the rank of Brahmans, divided them into fourteen "Gotras," and made them a solemn promise that should they ever call him to mind in any real emergency he would come to their assistance. So they dwelt for many a day, waxing by the favour of God both numerous and learned, until by they hearkened into evil counsel and called upon the God without just reason. And He, when he learned what they had done, was exceeding wroth and cursed them, dooming them to sorrow and to the sevice of other men so long as the sun and moon should endure. Thus the Chitpavans gained their Brahmanhood, but lost their right to superiority in that they flouted the promise of their God.

Thanks , LukeEmily (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, would you please address the issue raised by Jonathasammy here? Dympies (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies:, sure. @Jonathansammy:, I did not understand the issue. Please can you clarify your concern? The citation is already provided. The quote on page 40 says "He refers to another work titled Sadbodhacintāmaṇi published by the community of goldsmiths in Bombay which evidently contains similar chapters ascribed to the Sahyādrikhaṇḍa.". Goldsmith caste of Bombay would mean Daivadnya. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:, @Dympies:, Can you assume that Goldsmiths in Bombay were Daivadnya? Wouldn't that be original research? Comments please. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK there was only one community of Goldsmiths and they were called Daivadnya Brahmin. If there are other castes that I am not aware of that are also Goldsmith castes, we can change it to "community of goldsmiths".LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:, @Dympies:, I recommend you change it to "community of goldsmiths" . Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

I want to add what their distinct eye color and their population</ref> VisitedEveryStateinIndia (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not add information of phenotype in ethnic/regional/caste/tribe articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

I want to add “social mobilisation of chitpavans according to many authors after gaining military power”.Madhwahari (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)