[alex_smart]

>The reasons why the Earth was "burdened" is up for interpretation.

So, the source does not support your claim in any way, by your own admission?

The source is pretty much just reiterating the Gita's line: Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself.

>But wiping out all the "fallen" kshatriyas is one of the traditionally understood purposes for the Krishna incarnation.

Traditionally according to who? I have not heard this interpretation even once, and you have failed to procure a source.

[naravara]

> So, the source does not support your claim in any way, by your own admission?

You could just read it yourself and see that it does say he was there to wipe out the Kshatriyas. What's up for interpretation is what "burdened" means. You will find most religious texts leave many things like this up for interpretation because they're the outputs of evolving, oral traditions and not fixed technical manuals.

> I have not heard this interpretation even once

Then I have serious doubts as to how knowledgable you are on the subject. This is given as the central reason for the events of the Mausala Parva and why the hunter who ends up killing Krishna is held blameless for simply executing the last step in Krishna fulfilling his Dharma. The whole of the Mahabharata is about the concept of yagna/sacrifice, the eradication of the old to make way for the next Yuga.

[alex_smart]

> Then I have serious doubts as to how knowledgable you are on the subject

Let me remove all your doubts and assure you that I have absolute no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, apart from what comes from being born in a not-particularly-religious Hindu family. I never claimed any special knowledge nor do I need any to be able to verify your claim.

You are making a straightforward, factual claim that it is the accepted view that the whole purpose of Krishna was to wipe out the Kshatriyas. I am not even asking you to establish that this is the accepted view, which is your full claim. I am just asking for one source that reiterates the same view.

[alex_smart]

> You could just read it yourself and see that it does say he was there to wipe out the Kshatriyas.

I have skimmed through the article several times and I could not find anything suggesting that. Can you please quote the relevant sentence/paragraph from the article?

[naravara]

It's not an 'article' it's a transcription of a book. There are multiple pages. https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/11/1/

[alex_smart]

>It's not an 'article' it's a transcription of a book. There are multiple pages.

Forget linking to the right chapter of the book, you had not even linked to the right book. How did you expect anyone to verify your claim!?