Talk:Shakya

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vasishta

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@117.198.118.116: I will add these corrections asap. Antiquistik (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Levman (2014) is the source for the first point that you have an issue with:

• 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."

The meaning is clear: the Shakyas were composed of an aristocracy of primarily Indo-Aryan origin who held the title of khattiyas and a subjugated populace of primarily indigenous Munda origin who were relegated to the class of suddas.

As for the second point that you have an issue with, the sources are given in the citations.

If you have any problem with any of that information, then you need to be able to provide your sources that counter the already cited sources' claims. Otherwise, there is not much that either of us can do.

Antiquistik (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Being non-Vedic does not automatically qualify them as non-Indo Aryan. This is a misconception created by early western scholars and right-wing Hindus. None of these scholars have been able to provide solid evidence of them being Munda. The Ikshvaku lineage has been mentioned in texts, and many scholars agree that the real Vedic people were only the Purus. The Ikshvaku were originally a non-Vedic Indo Aryan group. It is a mistake to believe that all Indo Aryan people were Vedic. This is a common mistake. If you look at the reasons given by some politically motivated scholars that the Shakya were Munda, you will see that their so-called evidence is really pure conjecture that is politically motivated. 47.150.110.53 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess you are saying that the Buddha's last name was not Gotama. The name Gotama is not of Munda origin, and why would people use a linguistically foreign name as their family name? Later, due to religious influence of Buddhism some people might have changed their names but usually that does not include last names for the most part. In which early Buddhist text is Munda mentioned? Early Buddhist texts are very clear that the Sakyas and the Kaliya were Katiya(warrior caste). How could the Sakya then have been Munda who today are not considered from that caste? If on the other hand you want to say that the early text which are our only real sources are false, then it begs the question as to where you get your information or the scholars you follow. As soon as The Buddha became historical thanks to the Ashokan pillar, everyone in the region is trying to claim descend from him. This is not the way to provide accuracy. 47.150.110.53 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Are Shakya's from Indian Subcontinent

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)

Sharma and Thapar are Indians. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed whole section

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)

I see an explanation in their edit-summary; you don't? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Kshatriya

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 and NoahBarrett: please stop reverting, and start discussing. As far as I can tell from the article, the Shakyas regarded as kshatriyas to fit them into the varna-system, yet were not an integral part of that system. To call them kshatriyas in the lead, without further explanation, is WP:UNDUE; it suggests they fully belonged to the Vedic society, which obviously wasn't the case. Given the Buddha's reinterpretation of Vedic ideology, that's quite relevant. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I was going to raise this in the edit war section of Wikipedia if my edits were going to be reverted again. Also , Buddhist Suttas such as the Ambattha Sutta have the foremost members of the caste system, that is the Brahmins, consider the Shakyas as Violent/Primitive etc , which is mentioned in Levman's article. I did leave this particular citation of Levman in my last edit as well:

"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."

Bodhiupasaka (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)