Nepal B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
India: History B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shakya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The kshatriyas (warrior caste) can broadly be divided into two. some dynasties claim descent from the sun. (suryavamsha) other dynasties claim descent from the moon. (chandravamsha) The sun was only one of the hindu pantheon, equally revered by all branches.
Here is another article in the wikipedia which also contains the word suryavamsha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasishta
Levman on Witzels Shakya and Sakas.
"Michael Witzel believes that the practice of incest marriage is an Iranian (Zoroastrian) custom and that the Buddhist Sakya clan ‘cannot be separated from the designation of the northern Iranian Śaka that entered India only after c. 140 BCE, via Sistan (Saka-stāna) in southern Afghanistan’. He is referring to what are commonly known as the Indo-Scythians who apparently enter India several centuries after the Buddha. In Witzel 1997, 312–313, he suggests that the Sakyas may be a non-orthoprax Indo-Aryan tribe from northern Iran who ‘then constitute an earlier, apparently the first wave of the later Śaka invasions from Central Asia’. The origin of the Sakyas is however, ‘not as clear’ as that of the Malla and Vṛjji who he feels are Indo-Aryan in origin, but also not orthoprax (312), represent-ing, along with the Sakyas, a ‘last wave of immigration which overran northern India in Vedic time’ (1989, §10.3, page 237). The evidence for this final wave is however, very slim and there is no evidence for it in the Vedic texts; for their western origin, Witzel relies on a reference in Pāṇini (4.2.131, madravṛjyoḥ) to the Vṛjjis in dual relation with the Madras who are from the northwest, and to the Mallas in the Jaiminīya Brāhamaṇa (§198) as arising from the dust of Rajasthan. Neither the Sakyas nor any of the other eastern tribes are mentioned, and ofcourse there is no proof that any of these are Indo-Aryan groups. I view the Sakyas and the later Sakas as two separate groups, the former being aboriginal."
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/17899 pg 166.
I have included this source under Sythian source now. 117.198.118.95 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Joshua Jonathan:, I want to bring to your attention that this page has been completely reformed by someone. Please take note of this. 117.198.115.170 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Antiquistik: - Hello. Your use of old source "Sharma 1968" on several pages and with claims of Vaidehas, Licchavikas, Mallakas, Shakya whos "original homeland was in the western regions" is very bizarre since even by textual sources of Sanskrit/Pali literature they are mentioned/grouped as "Easterners". There is no "original homeland" in the western south asia of these tribes. Recent works by Bronkshorst, Romila Thapar, Levman do not place their origins in the west either.
We are aware of Indo-Aryan migration but these names and tribes emerged much much later. These tribes are native eastern Indo-Aryans as noted by Bronkshorst and Romila Thapar, their tribal identity and culture emerged in the east, reason why they are seen as "easterners" by western Indo-Aryans in literature.
This is same as claiming Pitsh, Gauls, welsh tribe as "original homeland" in eastern europe steppe, when they are from western europe and their tribal identity formed there.
Bronkhorst, Thapar have addressed these issues repeatedly in : "Greater Magadha Studies in the Culture of Early India By Johannes Bronkhorst · 2007" and "The Past Before Us By Romila Thapar · 2013"
Entire Videha page is sourced from "Sharma 1968" with brahmanical legend of Videah king Māthava - Recent work by Bronkhorst and Witzel have pointed out regrading Videha Mathava legend :- "This is not a legend of the Indo-Aryan settlement of the east in (early post-Rgvedic) tribes but it is a tale of sanskritization, of the arrival of Vedic (Kuru-Panchcala) orthopraxy in the east" (page 7)
@Joshua Jonathan:, @Kautilya3: - Hello, please look into these edits. There is considerable use of old source and odd claims of "original homeland" in western south asia for these eastern indo-aryan tribes. 117.198.116.172 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that Shakya be renamed and moved to Sakya (tribe). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)) . Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. |
Shakya → Sakya (tribe) – The Pali name Sakya is used in the majority of contemporary writing, both academic and non-academic, pertaining to this tribe, while the Sanskrit form Shakya is less often used. This is visible in the list of sources used for this article, where the majority spelling is the Pali rather then the Sanskrit one. The name of the entry should therefore accurately reflect this use of the tribe's name. This would also facilitate searches by individuals, given that they would likely be more familiar with the Pali spelling that is the most prevalent form of the name used in contemporary writing. Antiquistik (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent changes to this page, now insinuate that the shakyans are an indo aryan tribe with Vedic religion being stated as one of the faiths being followed in their republic. All of this is disputed information and the "Non Vedic Origins" section has been completely removed which had references from multiple authors including Bronkhorst. This is blatant POV pushing. The page must be restored to the version thats on or before the 11th of May.
On a lighter note, someone please remove the devanagari transliterarion for the corresponding Pali words. The script was never historically used to write Pali.
The current changes would simply mislead readers. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Antiquistik, I'm sorry but I still can't help but think that this is a work of original research and not something that is directly referenced from the authors that were quoted such as Levman. It is claimed that the Shakyans followed an "Indo Aryan" religion which was non vedic . Which other Indo Aryan religion, may I ask, made it all the way to Eastern India besides Vedic religion ? The new edits state that Shakyas are an "Non Vedic Indo Aryan Group". But the abstract of one of the references of Levman states otherwise: " In this article we examine 1) The longstanding hostility between the IA immigrants and the eastern ethnic groups, especially the Buddha's Sakya clan. 2) The Sakyas' socio-political organization, religious and cultural values which differ significantly from those of the immigrants. 3) The concept of the which was likely an historicization of an indigenous Indian belief. 4) Indigenous belief structures like serpent- and tree-worship and the culture of sacred groves, and 5) Indigenous funeral rites in the story of the Buddha's parinibbana. " It is clear the author never considered Shakyas to be Indo Aryans. Even Levman states that the founder of the Shakyas are of Munda origin. So how could they be Indo-Aryan ? The Non Vedic subsection should not be under culture, it should be a whole new section for the Shakyans are considered to be of non vedic "origin" by other authors/scriptures. It is because the origin of the Shakyans is disputed by multiple authors and also by Vedic and Buddhist scriptures that even the opening of the wiki article should not go on to falsely state that Shakyans are Indo aryans , for it will mislead readers. It's for the best this article goes back to it's 11th May Edit.
In a lighter note thank you for removing the Devanagari Transliteration. The use of Devanagari makes no historical sense for writing Pali. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Antiquistik, once again thank you for making changes to the Article. However there are still some additional issues, namely in the "The Assembly" subsection which starts off with "Shakya Ksatriya clans". I'm not sure how the cited author came to the conclusion that Shakyas were Ksatriyans given the fact that even the EBT's whose oral author is considered to be Gotama Buddha himself have never attested such a notion. In the Pali Canon, for example, the Buddha never referred to himself as a Kshatriya/Khattiya. He called himself Shakyamuni(Sage of the Shakyas) not Kshatriyamuni. And other figures in the eaely scriptures referred to Gotama Buddha as Sakkhiyaputto(Son of the Shakyas) and never as a Khattiya. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bodhiupasaka: I agree with the fact that it should be reverted back to May 7th edit by @Joshua Jonathan: if possible or reviewed further since Antiquistik reformed the entire page with without much discussion. @Joshua Jonathan: Among edits, he has removed your edit "The Shakyas were an eastern sub-Himalayan ethnic group on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the eastern Gangetic plain in the Greater Magadha cultural region" I will be restoring this for obvious reasons since they lived in Greater Magadha cultural region with other eastern tribes. He has also removed Romila Thapar and Levman sources regarding Shakya etymology deriving from saka trees. He does not seem to be aware of recent scholarly works and he is asking to be corrected here, that's why suggest it should be looked into. 117.198.118.218 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)