WikiProject iconNepal B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia: History B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).

Suryavamsha does not imply sun-worship.

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 Scytian theory

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)[reply]

Vandalism?

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will correct these pages as soon as I can. Antiquistik (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed the source; placing the Buddha in the sixth century BCE is outdated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2022

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)[reply]

Support: The article is only titled 'Shakya', but goes on to use Sakya in the body copy. Tertiary literature and its sources seem to be supportive of a move. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed information

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)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Perhaps something - pertaining to Pali and its scripts - that may you know about/have some thoughts on. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bodhiupasaka: I have corrected these issues. Let me know if there are any remaining, and I'll correct them too. Antiquistik (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Bodhiupasaka: @117.198.118.218: I have corrected the section about the "non-Vedic Indo-Aryan religion."
However, as to the mention of khattiyas/kṣatriyas, I am referring to:
  • Levman, 158-159: "Social class is another example of the difference between the indigenous peoples and the incoming Aryans. The Buddha did not subscribe to the validity of the Aryan fourfold social class system (brāhmaṇa-khattiya-vessa-sudda) for it was not part of his ethnic heritage. The non-Aryan, indigenous clans were segregated by being assigned to sudda (slave, servant) status, while some, who cooperated with the Aryans, were sometimes made khattiyas (Fick 1920, 12–13; Dutt 1960, 52; Pande, 1974, 262–63; Deshpande 1979, 297; Thapar 2002, 148)."
  • Levman, 162: "Establishing the Buddha’s social space and time is critical to understanding his appeal. He was, in effect, at the ‘middle way’ or juncture between two cultures, the colonizing Aryan vaidikas (Vedists) and the colonized indigenous peoples."
I read these as stating that the Shakyas consisted of a largely Munda population with an acculturated Indo-Aryan ruling class. Of course, I may well have misinterpreted it, in which case I am willing to add further corrections if I indeed misread Levman.
Concerning the mythological founder of the Shakya clan, I would have to note that Okkāka/Ikṣvāku was claimed as a legendary ancestor by numerous clans and tribes, some of which were definitely Indo-Aryan, such as the rulers of Malla and Kosala, which were in Greater Magadha, but also among populations who did not live in Greater Magadha, such as the king Trasadasyu of the Rigvedic Puru tribe who lived in Sapta Sindhu, and the Assakas and Mulakas who lived in the Deccan. Meaning that claiming Okkāka/Ikṣvāku as legendary ancestor was not an isolated phenomenon limited to the Shakyas, and it was in fact part of a larger pattern in Iron Age South Asia. In this context, I will also have to ask for some analysis on this trend, because something is amiss here in limiting this to the Shakyas. Antiquistik (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Antiquistik: Hello. Source you added was from her 1978 book, she has different opinions in her 2013 book. She only mentions name is derived from saka (to be able) and Saka tree (does not specific if it's teak or sala tree in her books) (page 397) whle Levman thinks it's either teak or sala. About sibling marriage, she mentions it was symbolic rather than literal sibling marriage (page 397/219). Also only Levamn speculates if it's teak or sala. While Christopher Hrynkow identifies it with sala since it's associated with both birth and death of Buddha. Also, the term is ultimately related to Proto-Indo-Aryan/Old Sanskrit Shakha - see also - wiktionary - śākhā - (needs to be expanded) also from Douglas Q, Adams (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture p. 208. .117.198.118.116 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@117.198.118.116: I will add these corrections asap. Antiquistik (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@117.198.118.116: I have added the corrections. However Thapar says "Sibling incest was also a symbolic form of social demarcation, where those of high social status had a marriage pattern which was denied to those of lesser status. It suggests a diffusion of power within a small social group, as distinct from the larger clan," and calls only the allusion to twin marriage in the ancestral myth as symbolic. I read these two sentences as her saying that the Shakyas did indeed practice sibling marriage. Antiquistik (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories