This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baidya 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:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. 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 sanctioned. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey Satnam2408, please share the full quote along with context for your recent addition of content! Thanks. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
"There had been some controversy regarding the social status of the Baidyas in connection with the question of precedence in the arrangement of castes as made by Risley in his caste precedence list. The matter was of great importance to the Baidya community at large and demanded a speedy solution upon a rational basis. It should therefore be settled by a reference of texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka about the unquestionable authority as well as by a consideration of their character and occupation in recent times. As regards their origin, Manu states- From a Brahmin on a legally married woman of Kshatriya class is born a son called Murdhabhishikta; from a Brahmin on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Ambastha; from a Kshatriya father on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Mahisya; from a Kshatriya father on a Sudra wife is born a son called Ugra; and from a Baisya on a Sudra wife is born a son called Karana (Kayestha). The term “Baidya” did not occur anywhere in the texts. They were however identical with the Ambasthas. Being once born of their mothers, they become twice born by being invested with the sacred thread. For this reason, the Ambasthas were Dwijas and were called Baidyas. The terms Baidyas and Ambastha were therefore synonymous denoting the same caste. Thus the renewed interest in recovering old genealogies and editing and publishing became an integral aspects of caste politics in Bengal." I have added under WP:NPOV. As you know, in similar caste articles, multiple varna statuses are included, including their Shudra and Dwija statuses, but here the scope is limited. The varna status is merged with origin and history. Furthermore, there are too many Shudra remarks(20 to 21 times) , which is again an exception. I am trying to add neutralizers (if available in reliable sources). Thanks. Satnam2408 ( talk) 08:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Satnam2408 ( talk) 04:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)The Baidyas had been referred in the Brahmanical texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka as offspring of a Brahmin father and a legally married Vaisya mother. Apart from these sacred texts, which assigned to them a very high origin, there arose a strong consideration in favour of their social status from their name, character and occupation which gave a fairly accurate clue to their caste and establish their precedence over the Kshatriyas. The words “Brahmin” and “Baidya” came from the Sanskrit roots signifying knowledge, whereas the word Kshatriya by its derivation simply gave an idea of physical force. As the names implies, the function of a Brahmin or a Baidya was evidently to cultivate knowledge, while that of a Kshatriya was to cultivate valour. In course of time, Brahmins who were the sole repositories of all kinds of knowledge found it rather expedient to divide labour amongst themselves and to delegate to the Baidyas, who were evidently regarded as one of their branches and were considered to be fit recipients of sacred knowledge, the function of studying the sacred science of medicine called Ayurveda and of teaching and explaining the same to others. As there were however no Kshatriyas in Bengal and as the Rajputs claimed to be the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas of classical tradition it is necessary to compare them with the Rajputs of the Bengal Presidency.
— Bhaumik, Sudarshana (2022-08-26). The Changing World of Caste and Hierarchy in Bengal: Depiction from the Mangalkavyas c. 1700–1931. Taylor & Francis. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-000-64143-1
Bhaumuk, after equating Baidyas with Ambasthas, has asserted that certain Smriti texts grant them "Dwija" or twice-born status.
Hey, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and LukeEmily, I have added Bhaumik after removing redundancy and getting acceptance from two other senior and experienced editors. As I have proposed in the above section, I have studied and added some relevant interpretations for which I have gained access. Thanks, — Satnam2408( talk) 14:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
— Satnam2408( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[...] The Dharmasutras, Smritis and the works discussed earlier record a mixed caste, termed Amvashtha, who, according to Manu, practised the art of healing. Brihaddharma purana mentions them only as a group to study Ayurveda, to be in the manufacture and distribution of medicines. While Usanas and Brahmavaivarta purana distinguishes the Vaidika or Vaidya from the Amvashtha, the Skanda purana and Brihaddharma identifies the two. The identity of Vaidya and Amvashtha has been generally assumed throughout the mediaeval period.
— Saha, Sanghamitra. A Handbook of West Bengal. International School of Dravidian Linguistics. p. 57. ISBN 978-81-85692-24-1.
— Satnam2408( talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)We have then Vaidyas and Ambasthas in Bengal, but the former as a caste name is not found earlier than the 12th century. The Bhatera C.P. of Isanadeva refers to his minister Banamalikara as Vaidyavansa-pradipa. According to Usanas, as we have stated already, Vaidyaka is called a Bhişak, born of a Brahmana male and a Ksatriya female. Though a professional class in the beginning, Vaidyaka or Bhişak became in course of time a caste name at least before the close of the 12th century. We have, however, early reference to the Vaidyas as a caste name in some South Indian records of the 8th century, and it appears that at least Vaidya, if not Bhişak, stands as a caste name in Assam earlier than that of Bengal. Closely connected with the Vaidyas are the Ambasthas, and though Brahmavaivarta Purāņa distinguishes the two, according to both the Skanda and the Brhaldharma Puranas, both of them are identical. In the Dharmasastras, the Ambastha is found to have been born of a Brahmaņa male and a Vaiśya female, and Manu describes the art of healing as his profession. It is possible that the Vaidyas of Bengal were closely connected with the Ambastha.
— Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. p. 207-208.
Footnote 1 — written by me — went,
Baidya authors of 19th and 20th century claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste. They [such descriptions] cannot be located in currently available [extant] manuscripts.
Satnam2408 added a {{cn}} tag — my source was Majumdar (1941; p. 590) — and citing a couple of fringe sources, went on to add in Wikivoice —
[T]he Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha as equal.
In short, an 180° inversion is achieved; nice! So, we have someone who have not even read all the sources already cited in this page but is hellbent on scraping the barrel to push forward fringe caste-revisionist claims — while I have forgot to cite Majumdar in the footnote, the particular work is cited in the body about a dozen times. TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
"The Usanas Smriti refers to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brāhmaņa male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka. A mythical account of the origin of the Vaidya caste is given in Brahma-vaivarta Purăņa, as noted above, and also in a passage, which is said to be a quotation from Skanda Purāņa, but does not actually occur in the printed text. The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Purana. Ambashtha as the name of a mixed caste, born of a Brahmana father and Vaisya mother, is well known, and occurs in [...]. "Manuscript" is a broad term, as Mazumdar is talking about the printed version of the Skandha Purana that was available at that time. Smriti texts have some dissimilarities in context in different versions. For an example, the Manusmriti itself has multiple recensions. A specific segment is missing in the Bombay recension of the Manusmriti. We can't assume from what perspective Mazumdar has mentioned it. Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line
The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Puranawhich again validates my information. Do you have any other source that explicitly mentions that the Skandha Purana has no such information regarding the equivalence of Vaidya and Ambastha? — Satnam2408( talk) 13:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line-- Yes, he is - in good faith - reproducing what Baidya authors claimed in their tracts. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Baidya authors of the 19th and 20th centuries claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste, as mentioned in the footnote a. Have I missed something? — Satnam2408( talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
− | The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, the Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha | + | The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, a passage believed to be a quote from the Skandha Purana (not found in the printed text as mentioned by Mazumdar) considers Baidya and Ambastha to be identical. |
Can I use the source?:- Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. To get more context, you can go through Talk:Baidya#Newly added content. Thanks, — Satnam2408( talk) 04:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Footnote c which follows the line "The community claims a descent from the semi-legendary Ambashthas, mostly believed to be of Kshatriya origin in Hindu scriptures, but such connections are tenuous" goes,
Nripendra K. Dutt, Pascale Haag as well as Poonam Bala concur that the terms were synonymous. Jyotirmoyee Sarma hypothesizes both groups might have followed the same profession and eventually merged into one. Dineshchandra Sircar and Annapurna Chattopadhyay express skepticism on the connection but consider Sarma's hypothesis to be plausible. Projit Bihari Mukharji, however, rejects such an equivalence and notes "Ambastha" had meant different things in different contexts across the history of India; it was always a post-facto label claimed by different groups in their reinvention of themselves. R. C. Majumdar rejected such an identification, too.
Satnam2408, what allows Bhaumik to stand above all these scholars (esp. Mukharji) and gain a citation in the body itself? TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baidya 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:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. 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 sanctioned. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey Satnam2408, please share the full quote along with context for your recent addition of content! Thanks. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
"There had been some controversy regarding the social status of the Baidyas in connection with the question of precedence in the arrangement of castes as made by Risley in his caste precedence list. The matter was of great importance to the Baidya community at large and demanded a speedy solution upon a rational basis. It should therefore be settled by a reference of texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka about the unquestionable authority as well as by a consideration of their character and occupation in recent times. As regards their origin, Manu states- From a Brahmin on a legally married woman of Kshatriya class is born a son called Murdhabhishikta; from a Brahmin on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Ambastha; from a Kshatriya father on a legally married wife of the Baisya class is born a son called Mahisya; from a Kshatriya father on a Sudra wife is born a son called Ugra; and from a Baisya on a Sudra wife is born a son called Karana (Kayestha). The term “Baidya” did not occur anywhere in the texts. They were however identical with the Ambasthas. Being once born of their mothers, they become twice born by being invested with the sacred thread. For this reason, the Ambasthas were Dwijas and were called Baidyas. The terms Baidyas and Ambastha were therefore synonymous denoting the same caste. Thus the renewed interest in recovering old genealogies and editing and publishing became an integral aspects of caste politics in Bengal." I have added under WP:NPOV. As you know, in similar caste articles, multiple varna statuses are included, including their Shudra and Dwija statuses, but here the scope is limited. The varna status is merged with origin and history. Furthermore, there are too many Shudra remarks(20 to 21 times) , which is again an exception. I am trying to add neutralizers (if available in reliable sources). Thanks. Satnam2408 ( talk) 08:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Satnam2408 ( talk) 04:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)The Baidyas had been referred in the Brahmanical texts like Ushana and Yajnabalka as offspring of a Brahmin father and a legally married Vaisya mother. Apart from these sacred texts, which assigned to them a very high origin, there arose a strong consideration in favour of their social status from their name, character and occupation which gave a fairly accurate clue to their caste and establish their precedence over the Kshatriyas. The words “Brahmin” and “Baidya” came from the Sanskrit roots signifying knowledge, whereas the word Kshatriya by its derivation simply gave an idea of physical force. As the names implies, the function of a Brahmin or a Baidya was evidently to cultivate knowledge, while that of a Kshatriya was to cultivate valour. In course of time, Brahmins who were the sole repositories of all kinds of knowledge found it rather expedient to divide labour amongst themselves and to delegate to the Baidyas, who were evidently regarded as one of their branches and were considered to be fit recipients of sacred knowledge, the function of studying the sacred science of medicine called Ayurveda and of teaching and explaining the same to others. As there were however no Kshatriyas in Bengal and as the Rajputs claimed to be the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas of classical tradition it is necessary to compare them with the Rajputs of the Bengal Presidency.
— Bhaumik, Sudarshana (2022-08-26). The Changing World of Caste and Hierarchy in Bengal: Depiction from the Mangalkavyas c. 1700–1931. Taylor & Francis. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-000-64143-1
Bhaumuk, after equating Baidyas with Ambasthas, has asserted that certain Smriti texts grant them "Dwija" or twice-born status.
Hey, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and LukeEmily, I have added Bhaumik after removing redundancy and getting acceptance from two other senior and experienced editors. As I have proposed in the above section, I have studied and added some relevant interpretations for which I have gained access. Thanks, — Satnam2408( talk) 14:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
— Satnam2408( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[...] The Dharmasutras, Smritis and the works discussed earlier record a mixed caste, termed Amvashtha, who, according to Manu, practised the art of healing. Brihaddharma purana mentions them only as a group to study Ayurveda, to be in the manufacture and distribution of medicines. While Usanas and Brahmavaivarta purana distinguishes the Vaidika or Vaidya from the Amvashtha, the Skanda purana and Brihaddharma identifies the two. The identity of Vaidya and Amvashtha has been generally assumed throughout the mediaeval period.
— Saha, Sanghamitra. A Handbook of West Bengal. International School of Dravidian Linguistics. p. 57. ISBN 978-81-85692-24-1.
— Satnam2408( talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)We have then Vaidyas and Ambasthas in Bengal, but the former as a caste name is not found earlier than the 12th century. The Bhatera C.P. of Isanadeva refers to his minister Banamalikara as Vaidyavansa-pradipa. According to Usanas, as we have stated already, Vaidyaka is called a Bhişak, born of a Brahmana male and a Ksatriya female. Though a professional class in the beginning, Vaidyaka or Bhişak became in course of time a caste name at least before the close of the 12th century. We have, however, early reference to the Vaidyas as a caste name in some South Indian records of the 8th century, and it appears that at least Vaidya, if not Bhişak, stands as a caste name in Assam earlier than that of Bengal. Closely connected with the Vaidyas are the Ambasthas, and though Brahmavaivarta Purāņa distinguishes the two, according to both the Skanda and the Brhaldharma Puranas, both of them are identical. In the Dharmasastras, the Ambastha is found to have been born of a Brahmaņa male and a Vaiśya female, and Manu describes the art of healing as his profession. It is possible that the Vaidyas of Bengal were closely connected with the Ambastha.
— Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. p. 207-208.
Footnote 1 — written by me — went,
Baidya authors of 19th and 20th century claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste. They [such descriptions] cannot be located in currently available [extant] manuscripts.
Satnam2408 added a {{cn}} tag — my source was Majumdar (1941; p. 590) — and citing a couple of fringe sources, went on to add in Wikivoice —
[T]he Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha as equal.
In short, an 180° inversion is achieved; nice! So, we have someone who have not even read all the sources already cited in this page but is hellbent on scraping the barrel to push forward fringe caste-revisionist claims — while I have forgot to cite Majumdar in the footnote, the particular work is cited in the body about a dozen times. TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
"The Usanas Smriti refers to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brāhmaņa male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka. A mythical account of the origin of the Vaidya caste is given in Brahma-vaivarta Purăņa, as noted above, and also in a passage, which is said to be a quotation from Skanda Purāņa, but does not actually occur in the printed text. The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Purana. Ambashtha as the name of a mixed caste, born of a Brahmana father and Vaisya mother, is well known, and occurs in [...]. "Manuscript" is a broad term, as Mazumdar is talking about the printed version of the Skandha Purana that was available at that time. Smriti texts have some dissimilarities in context in different versions. For an example, the Manusmriti itself has multiple recensions. A specific segment is missing in the Bombay recension of the Manusmriti. We can't assume from what perspective Mazumdar has mentioned it. Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line
The former distinguishes Vaidya from Ambashtha, but the latter identifies the two, as is the case also in Brihad-dharma Puranawhich again validates my information. Do you have any other source that explicitly mentions that the Skandha Purana has no such information regarding the equivalence of Vaidya and Ambastha? — Satnam2408( talk) 13:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Despite mentioning the absence in the printed text, Mazumdar claims in the very next line-- Yes, he is - in good faith - reproducing what Baidya authors claimed in their tracts. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Baidya authors of the 19th and 20th centuries claimed Skanda Purana to have a description of the Baidya caste, as mentioned in the footnote a. Have I missed something? — Satnam2408( talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
− | The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, the Skandha Purana considers Baidya and Ambastha | + | The Ushana Smriti mentions a caste of physicians called Vaidyaka or Bhisak and distinguishes them from the Ambastha. However, a passage believed to be a quote from the Skandha Purana (not found in the printed text as mentioned by Mazumdar) considers Baidya and Ambastha to be identical. |
Can I use the source?:- Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. To get more context, you can go through Talk:Baidya#Newly added content. Thanks, — Satnam2408( talk) 04:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Footnote c which follows the line "The community claims a descent from the semi-legendary Ambashthas, mostly believed to be of Kshatriya origin in Hindu scriptures, but such connections are tenuous" goes,
Nripendra K. Dutt, Pascale Haag as well as Poonam Bala concur that the terms were synonymous. Jyotirmoyee Sarma hypothesizes both groups might have followed the same profession and eventually merged into one. Dineshchandra Sircar and Annapurna Chattopadhyay express skepticism on the connection but consider Sarma's hypothesis to be plausible. Projit Bihari Mukharji, however, rejects such an equivalence and notes "Ambastha" had meant different things in different contexts across the history of India; it was always a post-facto label claimed by different groups in their reinvention of themselves. R. C. Majumdar rejected such an identification, too.
Satnam2408, what allows Bhaumik to stand above all these scholars (esp. Mukharji) and gain a citation in the body itself? TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)