Erza Scarlet

Data Analyst at S&P Global.
Sorry guys, I'm less active on X because of work and studies too.
Hope you understand.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

BABAF-JOTOM

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@abhichauha91971 @NigerianThakurs It's a badge of honour to be abused by colonialists.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

Go to https://t.co/KeVuJZ9nwc and take your test on your political Leaning.

I'm a Centrist 😅

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@Kirttivarman @Scion_of_Agni Yes. Some even shamelessly glorify K2as because they harmed KPs too.
Although both Mullahs and Pongas are our enemies only, but Mullahs are a larger menance. We should always remember it.

[KT @scionofkalhans]

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗚 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗪𝗢𝗡'𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗣 𝗛𝗢𝗪𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚.

When a person's white lies are exposed in daylight, his brain comes up with all the copes that can be accommodated against the peril. According to this masturbater, the meaning of the so-called “Śloka” is crystal clear. And how's that? Sāyaṇācārya accepts the role of Parabrahmā, whose cheap imitations are brāhmaṇas in flesh. Had Sāyaṇācārya accepted the so-called imaginary proposition you're making, he wouldn't have had to resort to statements like “ ब्राह्मणशरीरे परब्रह्मण आविर्भावविशेषः” & “ यत्परं ब्रह्म तदात्मना ” where he clearly drew a line between ordinary Brāhmaṇas and the Supreme Ātman who is referred to here. The same conclusion was given way back in 600–700 CE by Sureśvarācārya and his disciple Sarvajñātma. Now, is the meaning of the word “Brahmā” solely confined to a priest? Nope. As per Sāyaṇācārya's own commentary, the word Brahmā means “Veda” itself, as stated in his commentaries on Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.2.12) and in the commentary on Aindrābhiṣekya in Aitareya Brāhmaṇam.

The word Brahmā has been taken to mean the Vedas themselves. Now this retard, however, once again defied Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, and everything laid down in the Śāstras by alluding to an almighty restriction such as caste?! Are you perhaps dumbfck 😂😂? If that's how you wanna play, then Supreme Brahmā is actually a Kṣatriya: “ ब्रह्म सत् क्षत्रमुच्यते ” ( AV 10.2.23 ). The Para-Brahmā manifests in the lineage of Rājanyas: “ सो ऽरज्यत ततोराजन्यो ऽजायत ॥ ” ( AV 15.8.1 ), and he (Brahmā) is the father who is called a Kṣatriya: “ उत पुत्रः पितरं क्षत्रमीडे ज्येष्ठं ” ( AV 5.1.8 ). For all the worthless chest-thumping on Matsya Purāṇa (his whole post is irrelevant to the topic), I will attach an additional post below to put your sorry ass out of misery. After this, the Gandu asks:—
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗵𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲!!”
When the whole context is of puroḍāśa offerings, what's the need to even mention Brāhmaṇas separately when they aren't even concerned here? Most of all, the meaning of the Vedas cannot be taken against them (Vide: Śaṅkarācārya Gītā Bhāṣya 18.66). The Vedas clearly dictate that the Rājanya was not born from any Brāhmaṇa; the birth of the Rājanya was through the arms of Puruṣa. Thus Manu says: “ लोकानां तु विवृद्ध्यर्थं मुखबाहूरुपादतः । ब्राह्मणं क्षत्रियं वैश्यं शूद्रं च निरवर्तयत् ॥ ३१ ॥ ”. So juxtaposing meanings out of context won't help your cause. The freebooter then goes on to spam meaninglessly in an attempt to establish his near-diminished proposal, yet failed miserably when he couldn't answer after I showed him Brahmā being referred to as a separate entity through whom Brāhmaṇas themselves were born. Namely, in the following five Śruti-vākyas we see a clear difference between “Brahmā” and “Brāhmaṇas”:

> ब्रह्म ब्रह्मण उज्जभार मध्यान् ( AV Paipa. 5.2.3 )
> ब्रह्मणो जाता ऋषयो ब्रह्मणो राजन्या उत्त । ब्रह्मेदं ब्रह्मणो जातं ब्रह्मणो ऽविष्या अन्नम् ।।९ ।। ( AV Paipa. 8.9.9 ).
> भूरिति वै प्रजापतिः । ब्रह्माजनयत भुव इति क्षत्रं स्वरिति विशमेतावद्वा इदं सर्वम् । ( SB 2.1.4.12 )
> ब्र॒ह्म॑ प॒दवा॒यम॑स्य॒ ब्राह्म॑णो॒ अधि॑पतिः । ( AV Sauk. 12.5.4 )
> भूतानां ब्रह्मा प्रथमोऽथ जज्ञे तेनार्हति ब्रह्मणा स्पर्धितुं कः ॥ ( AV Sauk. 19.22.21 )

[ 1/3 ]

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@Kirttivarman The myth of false superiority they have is because of their servitude towards British, out of whose mercy they got some institutions.
Even that will fade away, considering East is developing too,now.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@priestlyclass One more is common sense.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@shagun_cha16380 They're no allies of UCs. For them all Indians are same.
https://t.co/1ROi8x9Fsc

[Jaisal Singh @Jaisal_Jam]

@KaizenX001 being non rajth i am not Interested in this unionism nor I understand this but this raj rjpt hate is just out of inferiority complex nothing else;
critic might be on feudalism like sociological disciplines but how on marital alliances btw elites?😭

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@indrokashyapa @sristi82708 V1s spread more hate than vice versa.
They even target women of every clan of ours.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@indrokashyapa No. They're not referred as Vipra. But as one who bestows joy to vipras. We have already refuted such word gymnastics.
Whereas them explicitly claiming lineage from sun and lord Ram is present.
Same as Pratihars too, they claim lineage from Lakshman.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@indrokashyapa No. They have always called themselves kshatriyas but never declared themselves Brahmins explicitly.
By wording manipulations even Jat, gujjars claim Sisodiyas, but it doesn't change the truth.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@__shivv_09 What did he prove there ? Nowhere that maid is proven to be a Rajput woman.
Nor were Rajputs ever servants or slaves.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@entropied2223 Well, that's not something to flex on.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

Again spamming debunked crap.
What to expect from fake Chalukya larpers anyways.
https://t.co/HZTaRoPb19

[The Chalukya @The__Chalukya]

Shrivastavya was a rajput funded historian. So obviously he had much knowledge about rajput cocubines of Marathas.

Those were rajputs who themselves informed Shrivastavya about rajput cocubines of Marathas.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@__shivv_09 Again spamming debunked crap. What to expect from fake chalukya larpers though.
https://t.co/HZTaRoPb19

[🌗 Daśārhadyumna (दशार्हद्युम्न) 🌓 @dasharhadyumna]

Mahadji Scindia's mother Chimabai was a maid.

Jayappa Scindia's widow Sakhubai in her letter dated March 15, 1764 to Peshwa Raghunathrao Bhat calls her a "Dasi" and complains that now she will have to serve a Dasi due to Mahadji.

Source: Selections from Peshwa Daftar Vol. 29

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@MadhavVaruna How many times you'll spam debunked crap
https://t.co/J89zJ5CjBQ

[🌗 Daśārhadyumna (दशार्हद्युम्न) 🌓 @dasharhadyumna]

Interesting how much BS the yellow books of Marathis spread and how much circlejerk they indulge in.

One might be inclined to call their entire history a grand circlejerk promoted by the Hindu Nationalist political apparatus.

1st Book is by a Marathi Sahityakar from 1940.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@Baaghi_india @keep52away @little_17flex @Nikhil_Indian7 @raviparmarIN @NeerajKanojia16 @speak000000 @jat_devta @JAT_SAMAAJ @X @SanjayK39569626 How many times you'll spam debunked crap
https://t.co/J89zJ5CjBQ

[🌗 Daśārhadyumna (दशार्हद्युम्न) 🌓 @dasharhadyumna]

Interesting how much BS the yellow books of Marathis spread and how much circlejerk they indulge in.

One might be inclined to call their entire history a grand circlejerk promoted by the Hindu Nationalist political apparatus.

1st Book is by a Marathi Sahityakar from 1940.

[Erza Scarlet @Jacklev24]

@entropied2223 They live in delusion that Mughals were that capable to destroy Hindus politically, socially or culturally.
No ! They were just another rulers like many other rulers who ruled and died. They're literally in slums of Kolkata today.