Talk:Lalitaditya Muktapida

Surely not history. But for genuine history all is there in the Rajataringini.

Lalitaditya muktapinda was a kayastha Maharaja of kashmir from karkota vansh ..don't blv in misguide info .He is the Alexander of India from karkota kayastha vansh.

Kayasthas in Kashmir

By asvaghasakayastha is meant in the Rajataringini an official who keeps the account of the fodder for the horses and person's caste. Durlabhvardhana the father of Muktapida was an asvaghasakayastha. Indeed. Might be mentioned that by Kayastha in the Rajataringini is clearly meant an official and not a caste. For example the Rajataringni informs us that Bhadresvra, an Aramika (Vegetable Gardner), who due to his caliber rose to the in the bureaucracy, was then was referred to as a Kayastha. This is the credible data.He is Kayastha and Kayastha is a part of Brahmins.

At the time that Rajtarangini was written, Kayastha was not a separate caste anywhere in India, not even in the plains of North India. Kayasthas were simply a class of Brahmins who took up administrative work. It's the same class which later evolved into the Kayastha caste like elsewhere in India.(Awadhi (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)) Wikipedia seems to be specialised in manufacturing history and creating a confusion. Neither will work in India. We also know who is behind this. The dates of Lalitaditya's reign are accurate as given by Kalhana. His conquests are corroborated by the credible Chachnama and Al-beruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.240.106 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of Kalhana-The authentic Chronicle of that period in Persian language namely, Chachanamah the history of Sind which was translated into Persian from Arabic originally written in Arabic by Kazi Ismail informs us about the military might of Muktapida. Ismael was appointed as the first Kazi of Alor by Mahamed-bin-Qassim the Arab conqueror of Sind. Then the Arab Ali of Kufah translated this history into Persian. In this authentic classic it is mentioned that the Dahar the Brahmin king of Sind had earlier threatened Mahamed-bin-Qassim by mentioning via a letter, "If I had sent against you Rai Jaisiah who is the most victorious of all the rulers on the face of the earth and who can wreck vengeance on the strongest men of age, or the king of Kashmir who is the mighty possessor of a crown, kettle drums and standards, on whose royal threshold the rulers of Hind have placed their heads, who sways the whole of Hind and even the country of Makran and Turan, whose chains a great many noblemen and grandees have willingly placed on their knees..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4804:8EA4:60A2:64EE:F5DC:7FC7 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

off-topic debate

Kayastha caste is older that Brahmin 'caste'. This person Awadhi is trying to subvert the historical fact by replacing Varna with caste. Varnas were only four, whereas castes have been hundreds. Hence, Kayastha caste and Brhamin caste originated at same time from Brahmin Varna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:9B4:489:2936:5DF7:2209:79C5 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Kayastha caste in ancient Kashmir existed and migrated to other parts of the country with later expansions of administrative system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note must be taken of the fact that Kalhana's credibility is further confirmed by the authentic history of Sindh Chachnama written during that period, on Lalitaditya it mentions, "If I had sent against you Rai Jaisiah who is the most victorious of all the rulers on the face of the earth and who can wreck vengeance on the strongest men of age, or the king of Kashmir who is the mighty possessor of a crown, kettle drums and standards, on whose royal threshold the rulers of Hind and even the country of Makran and Turan, whose chains a great many noblemen and grandees have willingly placed on their knees..." This is how powerful Lalitaditya was during that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.111.90 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The above epic is authentic and you are deliberately ignoring and removing it. One has to go by genuine history and history of convenience based on an agenda.

Kashmir is typically Central Asia and we find no mention of the Kayastha caste. In the Rajataringini what is clearly meant by a Kayastha is a worker and doing administrative work never a caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.100.220 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

what do you mean Kashmir is typically Central Asia? It's still a part of the Indian subcontinent, and with a rich Hindu past. Kings from Kashmir ruled areas across the subcontinent -- from Afghanistan to Bengal. And as far as kayasthas being no more present there, its obvious, Most Hindus, except Pandits, have been killed, converted to Islam or have fled the valley. Btw, at that time, across India, there was no Kayastha caste. Kayasthas were just a class of Brahmins then, whether in Kashmir or Punjab or UP. Kayasthas evolved as a separate caste much later, probably after the Islamization of Kashmir. Many Bengali Kayasthas (like with the surname Dhar) trace their origins to Kashmir and report that their ancestors fled Kashmir from Islamic genocide. (Awadhi (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC))

Indeed Kashmir is Central Asia and truly Kashmiris Central Asian Aryans. This is the crown of ancient Aryavarta of which regions of modern Afghanistan were a part. The real problem in Kashmir is to get POK back to Bharat. When India finds a good leader this shall be done. It By Kayastha in the Rajataringini is evident meant a chap of the bureaucracy and never a caste. meant an official and not a caste. For example, Rajataringini informs us that a person by the name of of Bhadresvra, an aramika (a vegetable gardner), who via his ability after entered the the bureacracy and then was referred to as a Kayastha. One of the most powerful kings of ancient Aryavarta. Its a doubt that in Kashmir there never was a Kayastha king. ,but may be because kayasthas are also one of the ancient aryans tribe and as evidence through his father, Durlabhvardhana was known as an ashwa-ghas kayastha. Some ancient books also states that he was of kayastha Origin. In other regions of India the Kayastha caste is present. It is a good and respected caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.13.43 (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Its misleading to say that there was no Kayastha caste in Kashmir. The Kayasthas were originally a section of the Brahmins who took up writing and administration as a profession. It was so across North India, from Kashmir to Kanyakubj. At the time of King Lalitaditya of Kashmir, Kayasthas were in the stage of being formed into a separate caste from the Brahmins, but, not yet totally separate. Though, they had now emerged as a separate class from the Brahmins. And, therefore, the King is described in various ancient Kashmiri texts as a Brahmin, Kayastha and a Kayastha-Brahmin. It was so across North India. Most Bengali Kayasthas, e.g., have much recent origins in Brahmins from far off places like Rajasthan, Gujarat and Kashmir.

The confusion will arise if you compare the then Kayastha-Brahmins of Kashmir with today's Kayasthas of North India. Because, today's Kayasthas are a distinct Caste, altogether, through a socio-political process that took place after the rule of Kashmiri Kayasthas. But, its from that very Brahmin-Kayastha class that today's Kayastha caste has emerged.

Kalhana in his Rajtarangini clearly not only talks about a powerful Kayastha class, but also about their rivalry with the Brahmins. This rivalry exists till date in the rest of India, and in Bengal reached its climax some 700 years ago.

What exactly happened to the Kayasthas of Kashmir is still a mystery though. There are evidences that many migrated to other parts of India after the Islamic invasion. Most probably perished or converted to Islam.

A British historian (I don't remember the name) claimed the Srivastava Kayasthas of today are descendants of one such clan of Brahmin Kayasthas from Srinagar, Kashmir (Srivas means resident of Sri(nagar)). (Awadhi (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

If Kayastha only referred to the Bureaucratic post, then the King would not be referred to as Kayastha, least of all his descendants, after he left bureaucracy and became a king.

In fact, Kayasthas were part of the Brahmin caste, when they fled Kashmir -- although, Brahmins were keen to disown them, due to rivalry (as still happens with several other Brahmin groups). This Brahmin politics was an important reason in the downfall of Kashmir to Islam.

Many Bengali -- and even Rohingya Hindu Kayasthas carry the Kashmiri Pandit surnames, e.g. "Dhar" and claim that their ancestors fled from Kashmir due to Islam. (Awadhi (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC))

And no, Kayasthas are not older than Brahmins. There is no mention of Kayasthas in the ancient Vedic texts. They are amongst the castes that emerged in the post Vedic period along with Khatris, Rajputs, etc. (Awadhi (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC))

Kashmiri writer Kshemander, in his book Kala Vilas, links the Kayasthas with Chitragupta, saying that this time is a man, he is the ocean of rivers, he is also a hypocrite. He alone killed many enemies If truth is to be believed then it is the Kaal Purush who establishes religion from time to time. Also, in his book Narmala, he has told about the standard of living of Kayasthas. श्याम सुन्दर चतुर्वेदी (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup

Apparently this article has had some editing to improve it, but it's not entirely thematically coherant at the moment. It needs to be reviewed by someone with a background in the subject to straighten things out. It also needs sources. --Lendorien 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Chachnama

Dear Foreigners,However, credible sources such as the reliable Chachnamah reinforce the views of Kalhana. As per Chachanamah which was written in that period by Kàzí Ismáíl who was appointed the first Kází of Alór by Muhammad Kásim after Sindh was conquered by the Arabs, Dahar threatened Kasim with the following letter, "If I had sent against you Rai Jaisiah who is the most victorious of all the rulers on the face of the earth and who can wreck vengeance on the strongest men of age, or the king of Kashmir who is the mighty possessor of a crown, kettle drums and standards, on whose royal threshold the rulers of Hind have placed their heads and who sways the whole of Hind and even the country of Makran and Turan, whose chains a great many noblemen and grandees have willingly placed on their knees...".

This is not the USA than you can plant dAta and brainwash people. This is India and our history is in firm ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.230.53 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies, especially regarding WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia does not belong to any country and the real or assumed nationality of the editors is immaterial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Karkota Empire, India (derived).jpg

I'm removing this unsourced map. It is not supported by the Rajatarangini or Hermann Goetz' analysis which tries to prove the historicity of the Rajatarangini account, let alone more reliable sources which tend to dismiss Kalhana's account as legendary. Feel free to add it back with a source. utcursch | talk 22:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just found out that this map is close to the one depicted in A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Although the borders don't match exactly, it's a fair representation. I'll add it back to the article with the source. utcursch | talk 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How articles are showing word INDIA in prebritish era, when India as such never existed .

How come , you have mentioned that , "Prithvirāja III (reign. c. 1178–1192 CE ), popularly known as Prithviraj Chauhan or Rai Pithora in the folk legends, was an Indian king from the Chahamana (Chauhan) dynasty. He ruled Sapadalaksha, the traditional Chahamana territory, in present-day north-western India. He controlled much of the present-day Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi; and some parts of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. His capital was located at Ajayameru (modern Ajmer), although the medieval folk legends describe him as the king of India's political centre Delhi to portray him as a representative of the pre-Islamic Indian power.". This pre-islamic term in the article, as India has never been an islamic county even under mughal rulers also. Why don't you write Prithvirāja was kind before mughal dynasty. And how can you use word INDIA when no such countrt ever existed before British rulers. You can simply write name of Kingdom he invaded or places , as each Kingdom was a proclaimed country with no conection to each other at all .

Razishahid (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RANT

Lalitadiya muktapida

Leakha hua 110.224.243.92 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Lalitaditya Muktapid, the great king of the Kayastha dynasty. Some brahmins who fled their land and women at the rate of Muslim invaders, today their descendants are becoming cowards. श्याम सुन्दर चतुर्वेदी (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RANT

Right info

Kayastha karkota vansh ke mahan raja the Lalitaditya ..mislead kr rhe ho shrm ny aati I respect Brahmins but kuch tum jaise tucch chutte putte kuch ny kr paoge ..sudhr jao 2409:4063:4C8F:F62E:93CF:6:5850:DBBA (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RANT

Kayastha

Lalitaditya Muktapid was a great emperor of the Kayastha clan. श्याम सुन्दर चतुर्वेदी (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RANT

Caste

Lalitadity Kayastha was the king of Karkota dynasty lalitadity was rular of Kayastha dynasty 2409:4053:D18:9357:0:0:4408:310C (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Lalitaditya muktapida is pure brahmin duralbhvaradhan is purohit brahmin and he is founder of karkota dynasty Nikhil chande (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:RANT

Lalitaditya muktapida was kayastha bramhakshtriya

Lalitaditya muktapida was kayastha bramhakshtriya he was chitragupta vanshi Aryan shrivastava kayastha (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed mention of Tang dynasty in the lead

for example, the Tang dynasty chronicles present him as a vassal of the Tang emperor.

the above sentence has been removed since calling him a vassal of another king without any sources cited in the lead will impact the crediblity of the article. ChandlerMinh (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The content is sourced in the article body, and the lead is a summary of the content sourced in the article body, per WP:CITELEAD. utcursch | talk 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Account states him as a 'King' supporting the Chinese, no where mentions him a 'Vassal' of Chinese. The text means the Chinese king Accepted his 'Kingship'. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. You removed the lead by claiming it as an unreliable source. As long as you didn't prove the unreliability, you can't remove a sourced part claiming it is unreliable. Especially denying well written books by authors like Sen Tansen. And for the quote see this excerpt quoted from the source:After having established this kingdom, I have submitted to the Heavenly Qaghan along with other vassals..... Clear statement of vassal have been seen. Please make sure having a good reading before removing a subject. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Mis interpretation of the letter, read the next few lines of the context : Elated by Lalitaditya's offer of support, the Chinese emperor

praised the Kasmiri king and bestowed the title of "King" on him

praised the Kasmiri king and bestowed the title of "King" on him. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

We have found another source, see here. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing on that link Shakib ul hassan (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Check this, the title is "Confusion with primary source" Imperial^[AFCND] 11:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Explaintion. No primary sources allowed

I am removing the additions made by user named 'Imperialavicinto' something like that on Basis original research and use of primary sources.

Let's start with the problems . User has added a primary source (in the form of letter) in tansen sen book as our cite . These is clearly a violation of wikipedia policies. Wikipedia only accept modern as well as secondary sources using primary sources as our basis.

In our entire context , tansem sen has no where denoted the word ' vassal ' or subordinate for lalitaditya . Tansen sen interpretation is completely different which is used by editor here

'Elated by Lalitāditya's offer of support, the Chinese emperor praised the Kaśmīri king and bestowed the title of "King" on him.At the same time, perhaps encouraged by Lalitāditya's willingness to assist Chinese military action in the Gilgit region, Tang forces launched a series of offensive raids on the Tibetans aimed at recap- turing Little Palür that, in 737, had capitulated to the Tibetans. '

The editor has used his own interpretation and used the primary source which was the letter in this case , to publish his own conclusion ,which is clearly not allowed in wikipedia WP:RS.

About the second book as a citation and they mythical claim of participation in talas , it is a museum catalogue , I have no idea how it was used in the first place here.

Additionally , there are various new scholars, who have interpreted our primary source in a different way , but since it's not the topic of discussion i won't add here. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, User:Summerkillsme makes a compelling case, that they have removed what appears to be WP:Original synthesis of WP:Primary sources from the page. FTR, primary sources are not disallowed on Wikipedia; they are allowed under some circumstances and with restrictions. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the community has agreed that we stick to reporting what independent, reliable secondary sources say about a subject. Where primary sources disagree, stating the scholarly disagreement (perhaps in a note) is often a useful way of allowing both perspectives to be seen by our readers. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting this: Lalitaditya Muktapida is a completely new subject to me and I believe there's an extraordinary opportunity for a Good-class or Featured-class page distinction (starting with this much fine material). If the editors on this page could work out these minor (but essential) disagreements, this could be a terrific article! It's very good now. I suggest we disagree wildly on this talk page so that we may find agreement for our readers on the pagespace. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks , I indeed agree on your statement , this article has very good potential , specifically with all the new scholars opinions and articles on it .

Though here The problem with the user is that he has essentially used a primary source used by tansem sen to make his conclusion , completely different than what the actual author said . Summerkillsme (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Summerkillsme, you can clearly see that there are modification displayed on the letter, which you may claim as the Primary source. As you can see the modification which describes the case, it is a secondary source. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

dont try to act smart , it is essentially a tang era primary source which tansem has mentioned btw , it just a translation of Chinese to English doesn't make it a secondary source. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You made a personal attack here. The letter have been explained by the author. So it is no longer a Primary source. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry but it was not meant to be personal attack.

Anyways in my first comment i have pasted the tansem sen statement there on primary source. What you are adding is essentially your own conclusion on that tang era letter Summerkillsme (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not completely a letter. You can clearly see the author modifying the letter, explaining it to the readers. That makes a it a secondary source. You can express your concerns here. Try not to remove information which is already cited. It could be considered as Vandalism if your edits fails to prove good faith. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

i think you don't have gotten it ., author hasn't, he clearly mentions it as translation tang era chronicle of Kashmiri letter , which author cited (obviously translated to English).

Actual thoughts of tamsen is written below

'Elated by Lalitāditya's offer of support, the Chinese emperor praised the Kaśmīri king and bestowed the title of "King" on him.At the same time, perhaps encouraged by Lalitāditya's willingness to assist Chinese military action in the Gilgit region, Tang forces launched a series of offensive raids on the Tibetans aimed at recap- turing Little Palür that, in 737, had capitulated to the Tibetans. '

You simply used that letter to make your own conclusion which is not allowed.

Plz check BusterD (talk) Statement in same thread. Summerkillsme (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thats not a primary source and I hope @BusterD returns to this discussion.

I have found another source of Karkota/Lalitaditya being the vassal of the Chinese emperor. Check this excerpt from "Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement" Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan. Hence, I hope you revert your revision by yourself so that I can add this as an additional source. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I knew you were going to Google this and from somewhere get another one .

Though first resolve this shall we

Your current edit is indeed based on a primary source only.

You claim that author has modified it for readers but he himself didn't mentioned it anywhere.

Infact he says letter is of Kashmiri envoy to tang and then he cited it from ' Xin tang shu' only which he gave in citation which is indeed a primary source only

So yeah your current edit was your own conclusion and something which was not supported by secondary source and violates wikipedia policy.

Coming back to your new source, I myself has good amounts of authors who says otherwise , but don't bring for this ongoing debate. Summerkillsme (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, its never a debate. Its always a conversation. See you on the noticeboard. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, may I know the reason for the revert? Imperial^[AFCND] 17:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that should not be seen as debate, but as a clash of ideas. We are all working together for a common outcome. We each have our own view of where the page should go. This is awesome. It's never about who's right. The problem is that smart people often disagree. Disagreement is a healthy state on Wikipedia. It's a sign more than one somebody cares about the subject matter's presentation. I always try to cool down discussion if possible, because often the disagreement itself is significant enough for coverage inside the page. For my part, I'd like to see each good-faith contributor's point of view put forth (without comment about the other editors' POV). Make the case. But with no illusions about our goal, which is ever page improvement. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest one way of approaching this is to avoid personalizing others. As opposed to utilizing the second person (you, you), let's keep the discussion in the first person (IMHO, by my reading, I believe) or even better in the third person ("User:ImperialAficionado's position seems to be...", or "User:Summerkillsme's assessment of sources is..."). There's no reason to bang at another while striving for a higher understanding to present to our readers. Getting this right is a big thing and important to everybody on Wikipedia. I urge participants in this discussion to demonstrate the collegial approach which is ALWAYS NECESSARY when we're bound to disagree. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD, thank you for your kind advice. And I would like to know the reason why @User:TrangaBellam reverted my edit because, I already got a warning for breaking 3RR. So if I know the reason for the reversion, I can work on it. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

But here you are in discussion. So thank you. Talking about stuff is usually superior to NOT doing so. I see User:TrangaBellam has made only two edits since your ping. A little patience is also welcome. The subject has been dead for over a thousand years. And this is quite a compelling story/legend, worthy of best efforts. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am waiting for the reply. This much time for reasoning a revert, where the citations have already provided? Imperial^[AFCND] 11:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD, @TrangaBellam, I am still waiting for that reply :-). Imperial^[AFCND] 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam- Pinging as a reminder that I am still here for the discussion. I am pretty sure that you are not WP:NOTHERE. Imperial^[AFCND] 11:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What changes you wish to make the current version? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See this primary sources were not cited, but a letter was quoted with "Quote" template. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You can restore the letter as long as you do not tweak the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate it? Lalitaditya being the vassal of Chinese has been reported by Ronald M. Davidson in Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement. And the lead should cover the status of a person. How does that became a "tweak"? Imperial^[AFCND] 14:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The second line of our article is The Tang dynasty chronicles present him as a vassal-ally of the Tangs. Which is all good; that is, I merely oppose the wiki-voice assertion about him being a vassal of the Tangs without any attribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Attribute caste?

Pinging @Utcursch, not sure if we should include the caste of Lalitaditya Muktapida in the lead. See rev history of the page. Caste/religion should be mentioned in the lead? Afterall there could be clash within it, which can already be seen in the article itself. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention the caste at all, and even if it did, a news article is not an acceptable source for a history article. utcursch | talk 22:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Lalitaditya was a Kashmiri Brahmin King. The Kayastha is not seperate caste it is come from Brahmin

Stop stealing the Brahmin and Kshatriya personalities. Do not seperate Kayasth from Brahmin.

This is not Pokemon(catch them all ) game.

Understood you history fabricators Rsviklzzz (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Lalitaditya Muktapida was a kashmiri brahmin not kayastha, Here is the sources.

Historically, Lalitaditya Muktapida and the Karkota dynasty are identified as Kashmiri Brahmins belonging to the Karkone (administrative) class. According to the Nilamat Purana, their lineage traces back to Maharishi Kashyap, the progenitor of Kashmir, placing them within the Kashyap Gotra. While they performed the duties of a Kshatriya (warrior-king), their roots remained Brahminical, as the term "Kayastha" in early Kashmiri records refers to an administrative office (such as Asvaghasakayastha) rather than a distinct caste group. Nish13150 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Lalitaditya Muktapida was a brahmin

Historically, Lalitaditya Muktapida and the Karkota dynasty are identified as Kashmiri Brahmins belonging to the Karkone (administrative) class. According to the Nilamat Purana, their lineage traces back to Maharishi Kashyap, the progenitor of Kashmir, placing them within the Kashyap Gotra. While they performed the duties of a Kshatriya (warrior-king), their roots remained Brahminical, as the term "Kayastha" in early Kashmiri records refers to an administrative office (such as Asvaghasakayastha) rather than a distinct caste group. ~2026-23006-64 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)