Jump to content

Talk:Kshatriya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.71.122.243 (talk) at 02:26, 31 May 2022 (→‎Thapar dominated article is shallow and one-sided). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adding Citations where applicable and modifying unsourced statements.

Just adding citations where I can and making sure sentences reflect sources:

Change (add a citation and modify sentence): The administrative machinery in the Vedic India was headed by a tribal king called Rajan whose position was not hereditary.

to: The administrative machinery in the Vedic India was headed by a tribal king called Rajan whose position may or may not have been hereditary.[1]


Change (add a citation and modify sentence): The king was elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti) which included women.

to: The king may have been elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti), which included women.[2][1]


Change (add a citation): Some scholars consider the Purusha Sukta to be a late interpolation into the Rigveda based on the neological character of the composition, as compared to the more archaic style of the Vedic literature.

to : Some scholars consider the Purusha Sukta to be a late interpolation into the Rigveda based on the neological character of the composition, as compared to the more archaic style of the Vedic literature.[3]


Change (add a citation) : the Purusha Sukta was supposedly composed in order to secure Vedic sanction for the heredity caste scheme.

to : the Purusha Sukta was supposedly composed in order to secure Vedic sanction for the heredity caste scheme.[3]

I made the requested changes. But note that sources from 1957 may not reflect modern scholarship's views. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Dimadick. I'll try and see if there are any recent sources as well. Also, it appears you've made a small typo in the sentence "TThe king may have been elected in a tribal assembly (called Samiti), which included women.". You've put two 'T"s by mistake. It would be great if you could fix that! Aathish S | talk | contribs 08:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Renou, Louis (1957). Vedic India. p. 130.
  2. ^ Shori, Maj Gen A. K. "Fifth Shade : Rama as A King". Seven Shades of Rama. Notion Press. ISBN 978-93-84391-74-4.
  3. ^ a b Jamison, Stephanie W.; Brereton, Joel P. (2014). The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-0-19-937018-4.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

183.83.138.230 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I dont know how this happened but great job Wikipedia and thanks for everything

 Not done: thanks! if you'd like to edit this page, feel free to activate an edit request.  melecie  t - 09:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is Kshatriyas?

Who are kshatriyas 2409:4073:82:1169:0:0:791:70AD (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Jeenwal gotra lies in khastriya caste. Please add this in the list 117.97.240.3 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thapar dominated article is shallow and one-sided

Regarding term क्षत्रिय. The entire article is basically Thapar's and orientalist's one-sided point of view. 1. Absence of etymological and evolutionary change aspect of the term renders the discussion misleading. 2. Vedic and Shraman thoughts were fundamentally parallel streams. The Hindu (or the more modern usage Sanatan dharm) syncretization of Shraman philosophies into their Vedic-cum-mythology dharm must not subsume the meaning of term in Shraman dharm, which seems to precede Vedic dharm in India. 3. Caste have not been part of Shraman dharm, and Vedic weaponization of caste affects the meaning and usage of the term. 4. Shramans opposed caste system and priesthood or any other occupation has never been hereditary in Shraman practice and ideology. Now consider this totally misleading quote - "Even among Hindu societies they were sometimes at rivalry with the Brahmins, but they generally acknowledged the superiority of the priestly class.[15]". There were no religion, group, sects equating to "Hindu societies". Is this about Shraman rivalry? Did Shramans acknowledge the superiority of Brahmins over them? It's a stench of unbearably shallow orientalism here. Many Shraman monks were also practitioners of martial arts and so were warrior too but in defensive way. 5. Vedic tradition slowly weaponized caste system and untouchables were considered outside their dharm. There was no such concept in Shraman dharm. 6. When Shraman people say that their Arihants and Tirthankars were क्षत्रिय, it has no caste co-relation, rather it indicates the practice and profession of their family or clan. 173.71.122.243 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]