Talk:Shakya

India: History Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

As far as I know Saka (Scythian) and Shakya (the Buddha's tribe) are totally unrelated, although both were probably Indo-Aryan (since the Shakya were Kshatriya). I have never seen anywhere a connection between the two, appart from some vague suggestions from time to time. I really don't think the articles should be merged. PHG 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. It would be more appropriate to mention in this article somewhere, that some people think there is a connection; but hold off on any merge until that is more definitely established. Codex Sinaiticus 11:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be merged with anything. It's an interesting and encyclopedic subject—principally because it's a tribe that produced one very famous members—that we don't happen to have much information on at the moment. Let's keep it as a stub and wait for someone to expand it (if we're not going to expand it ourselves). - Nat Krause 14:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, it is written: "Other experts say the controversial idea that Many thousand years ago, before the Aryan invasion, the land which is now called "India" was the land of the black-, brown-, and yellow-skinned people. They were the people of Negroid and Mongoloid stocks. After the Ariyan invasion about 2,000 B.C., these native people who were defeated were called "Milakkha" by the Aryans." Probably this is it, but the Aryan invasion it has been proved false by many scholars, and taking this into account we have to keep in mind the following facts:

Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to propagate a version that has no scientific basis.

The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological. The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition. The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means 'Noble' and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition:

“mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah“

An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as:

“arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah“

Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone. The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:

“praja arya jyotiragrah” ... (Children of Arya are led by light) RV, VII. 33.17

The word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya, according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or the Manusmriti (X.43-45):

But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants - the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas.

Two points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold had nothing to do with race, birth or nationality; it was due entirely to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people from the southwest of India and the South.

For more details and facts which shows that the theory of the Aryan invasion is false, you can check the article "The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India" by David Frawley in the next link: http://www.sol.com.au/kor/16_01.htm

In the Wikipedia's article "Indo-Aryan Migration" under the title "Material Archaeology" it says:

"The Indo-Aryan migration is dated subsequent to the Mature Harappan culture and the arrival of Indo-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent dated during the Late Harappan period. Based on linguistic data, many scholars argue that the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced to India in the 2nd millennium BC. The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into India is that this first wave went over the Hindu Kush, forming the Gandhara grave (or Swat) culture, either into the headwaters of the Indus or the Ganges (probably both). The language of the Rigveda, the earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit is assigned to about 1500-1200 BC."

Well, actually it is unknown the language of the Indus Valley Civilization as their scripture have not been yet decoded, and cannot be assumed that, due to linguistic data, Indo-Aryan languages (that should be called Indo-European languages) were introduced to India in the 2nd millennium BC, taking into account only the Rg Veda to assert it. Even, in the same article "Indo-Aryan Migration" it says under the title "History and political background" it says:

"[...] The Indus Valley civilization (IVC) was discovered in the 1920s. The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of "advanced" Aryan people on a "primitive" aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic "barbarians" on an advanced urban civilization. [...] The decline of the IVC at precisely the period in history for which the Indo-Aryan migration had been assumed provides independent support of the linguistic scenario. This argument is associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of a warlike conquest, and who famously stated that "Indra stands accused" of the descruction of the IVC. [...] Most recent studies in the end of 20th century and beginning of 21st century, by various geneticists, however, do not indicate a significantly large migration of population since at least 10,000 years. These studies are exactly in line with the theory of the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization because of change in geological and climatic conditions in the Indus Valley around 1900 BC, resulting in a gradual movement of the Indus Valley population towards the more well-watered areas of Haryana and Gujarat, and subsequently to the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in the east, indicated by recent discoveries of Indus Valley type small townships in Gujarat and Haryana in India."

It could be also assumed at ease that the people of the Indus Valley Civilization were also Indo-European. Also, the Indus Valley Civilization should be called as well as Sarasvati Valley Civilization, due to last investigations on this subject. There are many things unknown to us about early Indian Civilization, but it has been proved scientifically that the Theory of Aryan invasion of India is false. I recommend for people interested on this subject to update their knowledge at the light of the last investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.141.9 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they're one and the same. Both refer to one and same caste. The sanskrit pronounciation of the words is also same.

I am afraid that it is not such a widely held view that the Buddha was of Scythian descent, although "Shakya" is indeed phonetically very close to "Saka" or "Shaka", and the Buddha's belonging to the Kshatriya class indeed might point to Central Asian warrior-class origins. It might be considered as a supposition/theory, but this has never been firmly proved. Mention of this connection could be made in the content of the article (s), but it does not justify merging the two as if it was an undisputed fact. PHG 12:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well as someone who has elementary knowledge of sanskrit, shakya indeed means capable in Sanskrit but i'm afraid shakya is wrong redering of word saks in English. Infact both spelling are way off the actual pronouciation. Buddha is known as Shakmuni in sanskrit and Shuk means Scythian. AMbroodEY 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed some material without citations from the article. In the first case, there is a citation listed, but the source only shows the meaning of the word "śakya", not its connection to the Śākya people.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name is derived from the Sanskrit word śakya which means capable, able.^[1]

Shakyas are a high-caste group of Newar. All of them are Buddhists and perform high rituals of Buddhism. Many Vihars and Buddhist monuments are created or maintained by them. Most of them live in Kathmandu valley of Nepal.

The introduction paragraph is unreadable to a person that would actually come to this page for information. And experts don't need to come to this page. Try a rewrite without jargon, and constant references to ancient names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the sanskrit version of the English word Shakya used? This article is in English, not sanskrit. Besides that point, the article's title is Shakya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this line "The Hindu Puranas mention Shakya as a king of Ikshvaku dynasty, son of Sanjaya and father of Shuddhodana.[4]" meant to say "The Hindu Puranas mention Shakya as a kingdom of Ikshvaku dynasty, son of Sanjaya and father of Shuddhodana.[4]"? I am under the impression that this article is about the realm, not about people named Shakya throughout history.