Talk:Niyogi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is better not to mention the sub divisions in Niyogi. The sub-division may not be on strong base. Pasrticularly in Andhra this kind of encroachment/grabbings are common not only real properties but community. Since ages Niyogis are recognized as most important in state craft. They served as Prime Ministers in so many royal courts. Base level administration of old kingdoms is dependent on Noyogis. My particular doubt is why Niyogi are seperately kept in the society so far. No marriages with other brahmin sects, even no common daining.
This kind of prohibition in my openion is that these people not aboriginal sect. So to safeguard the speciality certain rtestrictions were imposed in the above circumstances.
Here i am more particulary asking the brothern to enlight me the reasons behind the restrictions. Why other people so eager to establish rlations with this particular sect.
The word niyogi refers to what? Niyogi is a seperate entity for ages not known. There are some stories that are not purely dependable. however the recognition as seperate entity started at earliest mellinium. It may bve from Krithayuga as Bhargava Rama a great warrior and Agasthya and Koundinya so on... But these Rishis are common for other sects of brahmins.
Why this sect elected state-craft, war field and service as their livelyhood.
all are invited for discussion.
send your openions to my id chandavaramr@yahoomail.com
[edit] eligibility for priestly service
in the following source, [1] http://www.vedah.net/manasanskriti/Brahmins.html#Brahmins_of_Andhra_Pradesh it clearly states that The Niyogis are considered to be eligible for priestly service. But they will never either accept a religious gift or partake of Sraaddha food (food given to Brahmins duiring the death related rituals). but this article states that niyogis are not.--Irutavias 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sistikaranam
I am a sistikaranam myself and I believed that we are kayashtas but this article clubs us with Niyogis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.215.157.190 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The surnames and inline citations
Is there really necessary to list all those surnames in the article? And, also, some more inline citations would be good. AKoan (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)