This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mayasutra (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 23 April 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:46, 23 April 2016 by Mayasutra (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Kshatriya
I refer to RajKris's points on Kshatriya Talk page. The contention is about the intro.
The previous intro (by me) was like this:
Kshatriya, from (holder of) Kshatra (rule or authority), is one of the four varnas (social orders). The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Aryan society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya. However, the term Kshatriya is used to indicate second of the four great Hindu castes. Traditionally, Kshatriya constitute the ruling and military elite, as outlined by the dharmashastras such as the Laws of Manu. They were in charge of the protection of the society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime.
RajKrish changed the intro to the current one below:
Kshatriya, from (holder of) Kshatra (rule or authority), is one of the four varnas (social orders) of the Hindu society. The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Vedic society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya.. Traditionally, Kshatriya constitute the ruling and military elite. They were in charge of the protection of the society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime.
Here the contention is based on 2 terms elaborated under ISSUES section:
1) The usage of "Hindu Society"
2) The usage of "Indo-Aryan".
ISSUES
Issue 1 (universal usage of 'Kshatriya')
According to RajKris, anyone who is a ruler / chieftain is a kshatriya. Please refer to the ritual status of kshatriyas outlined in dharmasutras, which was explained to Rajkris earlier on my talk page. The term Kshatriya originates in Sanskrit literature and belongs to Indo-Aryans or Aryans (as they claimed themselves to be). The self-appellation "arya" or "aryan" was used all thru the vedas. For example, in Samaveda 1.5.3 Agni was born to "give the Arya strength", in Rig 1.103.3 Indra is asked to "cast thy dart knowing at the Dasyu and increase the Arya's might and glory", in Rig 6.18.3 Indra tamed the Dasyus and singly subdued them for the Arya, in Rig 1.77.3, Agni is praised by "pious Aryan tribes", and so on. The dharmashastras also use the word aryan for themselves. For example: in Manusmriti 4.175 the brahmana must delight in conduct "worthy of an Aryan".
According to dharmashastras, each varna had to follow certain rituals, based on religious principles, which were abiding and unchangeable. One such ritual is Upanayanam (a must to be considered a twice-born Kshatriya). According to Apasthamba dharmashastra, a Kshatriya is to be initiated in summer at age 11, as opposed to a Brahmana boy in spring at age 8, and Vaishya in autumn at age 12. From link provided for Apastamba dharmashastra, you can read about items associated with a kshatriya (type of girdle, staff, etc), and various rituals a Kshatriya had to perform (some of which signify his occupation and need for strength). In Manusmriti's namadeya (naming ceremony), a Kshatriya's first name must denote power and a Shudra's name something contemptible (Manusmriti 2.31). Manusmriti also gives upanayanam for a Kshatriya at age 11 (manusmriti 2.36). From this link you can read various rituals a Kshatriya had to perform. Everything was decided as per dharmashastras (life, marriage, inheritance, occupation, etc). According to Vashista a Brahmana can have 3 wives, a Kshatriya 2 wives whilst Vaishyas and Shudras can have 1 wife. Read marriage rites, inheritance laws of Kshatriyas according to Vashista dharmashastra Also read laws, rituals, customs, which a Kshatriya had to follow in Baudhayana dharmashastra.
The Aryan or Indo-Aryan were a specific linguistic group with their own culture / religion. Varna terms and dharmasutras belong to that culture. If Rajkris assumes the dharmasutras are universal and the term kshatriya can be applied to any ruler /chieftain of any culture or religion, he needs to provide proof for the same. It is apparent, RajKris does not get it. Now on the Kshatriya Talk page, he repeats the old argument, albeit in a different way, and says "Kshatriya def is linked to Dharmashastra(written by Brahmins) is pov". So he needs to prove
(1) the term Kshatriya was used in dravidian and other linguistic groups; and
(2) that people of dravidian and austro-asiatic linguistic groups followed the same culture / religion / rituals as Indo-Aryans.
- In Kshatriya talk page, I have provided refs regarding what is Kshatriya (that is a social class to which all Hindu rulers belongs to). Can you please refs which state that kshatriya was first mentioned in Dharmashastra and only such books can be used to define what is Kshatriya. Fyi, Varna is just 'an ideal moral archetypes' written by Brahmins in order to define & control the Hindu society. Reality was different. I will provide a list of refs regarding this asap.Rajkris (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Kshatriya talk page (Kshatriya List topic).Rajkris (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Issue 2 (Changing 'Aryan' to 'Vedic')
In this sentence, please go thru references I gave. All references use the term "Indo-Aryan". Hence it would be right to use the term "Indo-Aryan" or "Aryan" Society:
The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Aryan society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya.
As the Kshatriya article explains, the term 'Kshatriya' was not used in the vedic period. Instead the term 'Rajanya' was used. The term Kshatriya was used during the period when the brahmanas (sacrificial texts) were composed (with competition between rajanya and kshatriya); after which Kshatriya completely replaced Rajanya, and finally became a fixed feature in the dharmashastras. Hence it is wrong to change 'Aryan' to 'Vedic' as Rajkris has done; as it implies in vedic period itself society was already organized into 3 varnas. Please revert the sentence back to 'Aryan' or 'Indo-Aryan'.
- The word Vedic may not be appropriate but the word Aryan neither because its meaning is a bone of contention & misunderstanding (see Britannica: . We must not use in order to avoid confusion among readers. I am in favor of removing this text & explain it in the core of the article.Rajkris (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ambedkar (1946). Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, p.146
- Manilal Bose (1998). Social and Cultural History of Ancient India, p.32-33.
- Bujor Avari (2007). India: The Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Sub-Continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200, p.74
- ^ Oxford Dictionary entry: Noun a member of the second of the four great Hindu castes, the military caste. The traditional function of the Kshatriyas is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime.Origin: late 18th century: from Sanskrit kṣatriya, from kṣhatra 'rule, authority' Cite error: The named reference "Oxford Dictionary" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- Ambedkar (1946). Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, p.146
- Manilal Bose (1998). Social and Cultural History of Ancient India, p.32-33.
- Bujor Avari (2007). India: The Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Sub-Continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200, p.74
- Ambedkar (1946). Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, p.146
- Manilal Bose (1998). Social and Cultural History of Ancient India, p.32-33.
- Bujor Avari (2007). India: The Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Sub-Continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200, p.74
Issue 3 (On "Hindu Society"):
Please refer to the etymology of hinduism with note 12 which says
..the term 'Hindu' was used in Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts in contrast to 'Yavana' or Muslim as early as the sixteenth century
Evidently, the term 'Hindu' is a recent one. Several communities claimed to be Kshatriya in the colonial period. They contested such claims in court; to which effect, several books and caste puranas were written. They did so despite the fact that they did not follow the religion of Smartism / Smritis (dharmashastras). Instead Brahmins and British both imposed Dharmashastra laws on all Indians thru the Anglo-Hindu law. In order to avoid being dubbed Shudras, Indians of different faiths, religions and cultures, claimed to be Kshatriyas or Vaishyas.
Colonial period politics is a contentious controversial issue. Even today, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have their own faith systems or religions, yet are classified as 'Hindus'. Smartas make an erroneous claim that they see "universal oneness in all gods". A Smarta worships only his Shanmata deities. A Smarta does not worship Singa bonga, a tribal god. Nor does his religion (Smartism) provide ritualism or ritual procedures for worship of Singa Bonga. Also read (in note 12) Gavin Flood's explanation
"The '-ism' was added to Hindu in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans".
The term 'Hindu' is a controversial contentious one. Therefore it is not correct to use the term "Hindu Society" as Rajkris has done.
- As I stated earlier in Kshatriya Talk Page, other academical sources use the term Hindu when then talk about Kshatriya. What you are trying to do here is rewrite the definition of Kshatriya based on your POV that is: Hinduism should be defined based on Brahmanical pov. Fyi, 'Dravidian' word was first used by an English scholar during Colonial Era. If we were to follow your pov regarding the~usage of Hindu then we should apply the same rule to Dravidian... Anyhow, it is not you who decide such a thing but academical sources.Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Issue 4 (On oxford dictionary reference):
I provided the complete entry for this citation which stated,
"a member of the second of the four great Hindu castes, the military caste. The traditional function of the Kshatriyas is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime.Origin: late 18th century: from Sanskrit kṣatriya, from kṣhatra 'rule, authority'
Oxford dictionary says origin of the word Kshatriya is late 18th century. Plus, historically caste and varna are two different units of social organization (caste predates varna); yet from brahmanical pov they are one and the same (in their culture and literature such a differentiation does not exist. To them, varna is by birth, so is (the right to) an occupation (caste)). So the claim of Oxford dictionary that varnas are castes is not on the mark either. Anyways, if this reference is to be retained, I suggest the 18th century point must be mentioned in the article.
--Mayasutra (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Carvaka
There is a RFC at the talk page of Carvaka, you might be interested in it. --Rahul (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring on India - October 2014
You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate comments, WP:CIVIL policy of wikipedia
@Mayasutra: This] is inappropriate behavior on wikipedia. Calling someone "childish" and making snarky personal attacks on article talk pages is not constructive. Please review WP:TPNO as well as WP:CIVIL, and respect community agreed guidelines on civility and proper use of article talk pages. Repeat of such behavior may invite an administrative review of your editing privileges. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please follow what you preach. You cannot extrapolate as you wish. I could do the same for your insulting remarks on claiming to threaten. Take care of your behavior and stick to the topic. It is obvious you are getting personal because you know Gonda is wrong in claiming mA in Sanskrit is mother and linking the root ma to maya without basis.--Mayasutra (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra