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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sakya (tribe). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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
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)
There is still some problems with this article, for example: Sun worship Edit The Shakyas worshipped the Sun-god, whom they considered their ancestor,[14] hence why the Shakya kṣatriya clan claimed to be of the Ādicca (Āditya in Sanskrit) gotta,[15][16] and of the Sūryavaṃśa ("Solar dynasty").
Since when did the Shakyans become Kshatriyans ? I thought it was already made clear in the article that they are of mixed descent and followed non vedic culture, and hence did not subscribe to the Vedic Social Hierarchy. The historcal Buddha never referred to himself or his clan as Kshatriyas in any Buddhist texts. At most he referred to himself as Shakyamuni(Sage of the Shakyas), not Kshatriyamuni, and others depicted in the Buddhist texts referred to him as Sakkhiyaputto(Son of the Shakyas).
And in which Buddhist text does it state they were of Suryavansha lineage etc and had a gotta/gotra ? Again , it was already made clear that the Shakyas were non vedic not only by scholarly articles, but also in both Buddhist and Vedic Texts and also in the Wiki article as well. Bodhiupasaka ( talk) 07:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Are Shakyas from Indian Subcontinent or EU, USA. All sources for Shakya Clan Article are From USA or EU. Why are there not Indian Subcontinent's Historians research is included. Or All about Indian Subcontinent is know by Researchers from EU and USA. PawanShakya1 ( talk) 10:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok bye this my last msg on Wikipedia PawanShakya1 ( talk) 11:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The antiquistik guy removed a whole section for no reason 2003:C0:6F40:6C7A:848C:BD17:634D:A4E4 ( talk) 09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Bodhiupasaka may have a point here diff. It's questionable if the shakyas were within the Vedic fold - and a whole tribe belonging to the same varna is impossible. And Baroni is not the best source here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Bodhiupasaka ( talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sakya (tribe). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
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
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)
There is still some problems with this article, for example: Sun worship Edit The Shakyas worshipped the Sun-god, whom they considered their ancestor,[14] hence why the Shakya kṣatriya clan claimed to be of the Ādicca (Āditya in Sanskrit) gotta,[15][16] and of the Sūryavaṃśa ("Solar dynasty").
Since when did the Shakyans become Kshatriyans ? I thought it was already made clear in the article that they are of mixed descent and followed non vedic culture, and hence did not subscribe to the Vedic Social Hierarchy. The historcal Buddha never referred to himself or his clan as Kshatriyas in any Buddhist texts. At most he referred to himself as Shakyamuni(Sage of the Shakyas), not Kshatriyamuni, and others depicted in the Buddhist texts referred to him as Sakkhiyaputto(Son of the Shakyas).
And in which Buddhist text does it state they were of Suryavansha lineage etc and had a gotta/gotra ? Again , it was already made clear that the Shakyas were non vedic not only by scholarly articles, but also in both Buddhist and Vedic Texts and also in the Wiki article as well. Bodhiupasaka ( talk) 07:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Are Shakyas from Indian Subcontinent or EU, USA. All sources for Shakya Clan Article are From USA or EU. Why are there not Indian Subcontinent's Historians research is included. Or All about Indian Subcontinent is know by Researchers from EU and USA. PawanShakya1 ( talk) 10:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok bye this my last msg on Wikipedia PawanShakya1 ( talk) 11:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The antiquistik guy removed a whole section for no reason 2003:C0:6F40:6C7A:848C:BD17:634D:A4E4 ( talk) 09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Bodhiupasaka may have a point here diff. It's questionable if the shakyas were within the Vedic fold - and a whole tribe belonging to the same varna is impossible. And Baroni is not the best source here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Bodhiupasaka ( talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)