Musketeer

Pānchāla Brāhmana

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Time_bok Yupp forgot to add it. Thankyou.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

Two more reliable and early sources that mention Tulsidas as a Kanyakubja Brahmin.

Encyclopedia Brittanica - 9th Edition 1885
F. E. Keay - A History of Hindi Literature 1920.
Atleast 8 sources that predate Mool Gosai Charit fraud, mention him as a KKB.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

Not really. Tulsidas was a Kanyakubja Brahmin, as mentioned in earliest of the sources. i.e. Bhaktamal by Tulsiram Agrawal(1856) and Frederic Growse(1882).

Ramchandra Shukla is no authority here.

Let's debunk Saryupareen claim briefly. 👇

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

Grierson, too, would probably have identified Tulsidas as a KKB had he not been swayed by the absurd argument that Tulsidas could not have been a KKB because he begged for a living. Exceptions can always exist.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Time_bok He claims to be descendant of Vishwamitra yet spreads falsehood about him just for kanging. What can we expect from such beings. Meanwhile Shankaracharya -- https://t.co/OtzzASZ0qe

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@ViratThe44791 No proofs and strong reasoning for Sarwariya other than fraud documents.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

Not really. Tulsidas was a Kanyakubja Brahmin, as mentioned in earliest of the sources. i.e. Bhaktamal by Tulsiram Agrawal(1856) and Frederic Growse(1882).

Ramchandra Shukla is no authority here.

Let's debunk Saryupareen claim briefly. 👇

[Thekausikeya @Thekausikeyas]

Tulsidas being a Saryupareen Brahmin is a widely accepted fact, as noted by Acharya Ramchandra Shukla.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas Sure

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix Why would I believe a traumatized suar like you claiming Vedic Vishwamitra wasn’t a Rajanya and differed from the Puranic one when no Acharya ever said that and there are evidences contradicting it? You are just a Kanger, that too retarded one.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix Why would I believe a traumatized suar like you claiming Vedic Vishwamitra wasn’t a Rajanya and differed from the Puranic one when no Acharya ever said that and there are evidences contradicting it? You are just a Kanger, that too retarded one.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @GreyWare0 There is no consensus. Shukla is no authority on Tulsidas especially when majority other scholars don't agree.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix Trust me bro with an emoji to hide the cry.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas Not true bhai

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas Says who?

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @GreyWare0 Mool Gosai Charit was first published in 1982 Vikram Samvat(1926 AD). VERY RELIABLE JEEVNI🙏
Kek how you so cleverly chose to dox the begging argument.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@vns_indra1818 @Thekausikeyas Ye book publish hi Vikram Samvat 1982(1926 AD) me hui ye bata ke that it was written by Beni Madhav Das. Peak fraud.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @GreyWare0 Exactly koi fark noi padta, There is no authentic, universally accepted biography of Tulsidas. This is quite similar to the Soron records identifying him as Sanadhya. These are equally unreliable, fabricated traditions, much like the Mool Gosai Charit.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix They are late 19th and early 20th cen texts and most scholars take them with caution. The earliest text I have foud identifying Tulsidas's subcaste is Tulsi Ram Agarwal Bhaktmal (1854), and Raja Pratap Singh's Bhaktakalpadrum (1866). Rajapur was basti of KKB Dubes.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

@Thekausikeyas @hindupheonix This was first published in 1982. Mool Gosai Charit is a Fraud document. Already debunked.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

Not really. Tulsidas was a Kanyakubja Brahmin, as mentioned in earliest of the sources. i.e. Bhaktamal by Tulsiram Agrawal(1856) and Frederic Growse(1882).

Ramchandra Shukla is no authority here.

Let's debunk Saryupareen claim briefly. 👇

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

After conducting an extensive investigation in and around Rajapur, the Mishra Bandhus concluded that Tulsidas was a Kanyakubja, as the entire locality was inhabited by Kanyakubja Dwivedis (Dubeys), while no Sarayupareen Dubeys were found in the vicinity.

[Musketeer @Chaltmkc]

The claim that Tulsidas was Sarayupareen rests on the misconception that even Saryuparins won't accept. Grierson, following Pt. Sudhakar Dwivedi, argued that since Tulsidas survived by begging, he could not have been KKB, as KKBs despised accepting alms while Saryuparins don't.