Talk:Shakya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Nepal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This 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. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 

Suryavamsha does not imply sun-worship.[edit]

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

RfC about adding content I see as pertinent[edit]

Are my changes "junk" as Illuminaati states, or do I have a right as a Buddhist scholar to add content to this article? Scottahunt (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview of edits and reverts[edit]

Scottahunt made three large additions to the article:

  • 1. 04:31, 19 March 2017, edit-summary: "Using many citations in support, clarified that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, and that Suddhodana was not a king, the Buddha therefore could not be a prince. Citations given for each statement. Please do not undo!".
Scottahunt changed
"The best-known Shakya was Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the elected leader of Shakya Republic. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula."
into
"The best-known Shakya was Siddhartha Gautama Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha is often referred to as a prince, but this is a questionable title given that he was the son of Śuddhodana, an elected leader (not a king) of the Shakya republic. The Shakya republic was an oligarchy according the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Apart from the major states, there also were many smaller oligarchies, such as those of the Koliyas, Moriyas, Jnatrikas, Shakyas, and Licchavis"),[1] according to Stephen Batchelor who refers to Shakya (using the alternative spelling of Sakiya) as "a proud oligarchic republic,"[2] according to Gyan Swarup Gupta ("Buddha was the son of the head of the Shakya oligarchy"),[3] according to Jayant Gadkari (stating that the Kosala attack on Shakya "was to put an end to that oligarchy"),[4] according to Professor Kurt Spellmeyer ("The best word, then, to describe the Shakyas’ government might not be 'republic' at all. 'Oligarchy' may be a more accurate choice: rule by the elite"),[5] according to Pankaj Mishra ("the Buddha was most likely not a prince, but a member of a republican oligarchy"),[6] according to Dr. Herbert Greoger and Luigi Tenkler ("oligarchic Republic of Shakya in North India"),[7] and according to Kenneth Pletcher (specifically referring to Shakya and other named states, "the fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable").[8]"
This was reverted straight-away by Illuminaati, edit-summary "@Scottahunt: removed 'prince', added oligarchy // provoide proofs via citations not via actual writing of unnecessary content"

References

  1. ^ "India - Early Vedic period". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  2. ^ Batchelor, Stephen (2015). After Buddhism. Yale University Press. pp. Chapter 2, Section 2, 8th Paragraph. ISBN 978-0-300-20518-3. 
  3. ^ Gupta, Gyan Swarup (1999). India From Indus Valley Civilisation to Mauryas. South Asia Books. p. 183. ISBN 978-8170227632. 
  4. ^ Gadkari, Jayant (1996). Society and Religion. South Asia Books. p. 101. ISBN 978-8171547432. 
  5. ^ Spellmeyer, Kurt (Spring 2017). "Is the Dharma Democratic?". Tricycle Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  6. ^ Mishra, Pankaj (2010). An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 153. ISBN ASIN B003YJEXLQ Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). 
  7. ^ Groeger1, Trenkler2, Herbert1, Luigi2 (2005). ""Zen and systemic therapy: Similarities, distinctions, possible contributions of Zen theory and Zen practice to systemic therapy."" (PDF). Brief Strategic and Systematic Therapy European Review. 2: 2. 
  8. ^ Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India. Rosen Education Service. p. 64. ISBN 978-1615301225. 
  • 2. 19:55, 23 March 2017, edit-summary "In the spirit of cooperation, and without reply to my Talk post, I have tried to clarify what I think the contributor meant by Buddha abdicating his throne and passing the lineage to his son. I have also referenced the Buddhism section and quoted it."
Scottahunt changed
"The best-known Shakya was the Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula."
into
"The best-known Shakya was the Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. According to one viewpoint, and hagiographic legend, Siddhartha had been a prince but he renounced his title and succession to the throne passed to his son Rāhula. The related Wikipedia article on Buddhism, also notes that "scholars such as Richard Gombrich consider this a dubious claim because a combination of evidence suggests he was born in the Shakyas community – one that later gave him the title Shakyamuni, and the Shakya community was governed by a small oligarchy or republic-like council where there were no ranks but where seniority mattered instead.[1] Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."[2][3]"

References

  1. ^ Gombrich, Richard (1988). Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge. pp. 49–50. ISBN 0-415-07585-8. 
  2. ^ Gombrich, 1988, pp. 18-19, 50-51
  3. ^ Tropper, Kurt (2013). Tibetan Inscriptions. BRILL Academic. pp. 60–61, with footnotes 134–136. ISBN 978-90-04-25241-7. 
  • 3. 20:36, 23 March 2017, edit-summary "Added sentence on Shakya government and provided citations."
Scottahunt added:
"Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council that chose its leader.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Gombrich, 1988, pp. 49-50
  2. ^ Batchelor, Stephen (2015). After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age. Yale University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0300205183. 
Scottahunt added:
  • "The raja, once chosen, would only take office upon the approval of the King of Kosala. While the raja must have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, backed by the power of the King of Kosala, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the santhagara, in which, though open to all, only members of the warrior class ("rajana") were permitted to speak. Rather than a majority vote, decisions were made by consensus.[1]"
  • "The Shakyas were by tradition sun worshippers.[2][3] In fact, they called themselves Ādicca nāma gottena ("kinsmen of the sun")[4] and descendants of the sun. As Buddha states in the Sutta-Nipāta, "They are of the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth."[5][6] As noted by scholar Stephen Batchelor:

    Their folk religion involved the propitiation and supplication of local spirits (yakkha) at moundlike shrines (cetiya) and the veneration of trees enclosed by wooden railings.[7] They would have taken for granted the widespread belief in the cycle of rebirth driven by the force of former acts (karma), which formed part of the indigenous beliefs of the people of the eastern Gangetic basin. Their notion of rebirth would have been the more intuitive reflex of agriculturalists whose lives were tied to the cycle of rural existence than the kind of elaborated theory found in Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist literature that developed in subsequent centuries.[8]

    It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans. Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born. However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture."[9] Purportedly, many Shakyans joined people from other regions and became followers of the Buddha during his lifetime, and many young Shakyan men left their homes to become monastics.[10][11]"

References

  1. ^ Schumann, 2016, p. 18
  2. ^ Ikeda, Daisaku (2012). Living Buddha: An Interpretive Biography. Middleway Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-9779245-2-3. 
  3. ^ Batchelor, 2015, Chapter 2, section 1, paragraph 10
  4. ^ Nakamura, Hajime (2000). Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts, Volume 1. Kosei Publishing Company. p. 124. ISBN 978-4333018932. 
  5. ^ Batchelor, 2015, Chapter 2, section 2, paragraph 2
  6. ^ Norman, K.R. (2001). Group of Discourses (Sutta Nipata). http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/SuttaNipata_Norman_1997-2001.pdf: Pali Text Society at Oxford. p. 51. ISBN 0860133036. 
  7. ^ Nanamoli and Bodhi (2005). Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: Translation of Majjhima Nikaya. Wisdom Publications. p. 104. ISBN ASIN: B003XRDC2K Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). 
  8. ^ Batchelor, 2015, Chapter 2, section 1, paragraph 10
  9. ^ Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011). Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. BRILL. p. 1. ISBN 978-9004201408. 
  10. ^ Sangharakshita (2004). Buddha's Victory. Windhorse Publications. p. 47. ISBN 978-0904766509. 
  11. ^ Datta, Nonica (2003). Indian History: Ancient and Medieval. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (India) Pvt. Ltd. p. 90. ISBN 978-8179910672. 

Illuminaati reverted then three times:

  • 03:45, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "ADDED - Sakya/Sakiya ; some scholars; / REMOVED - abdicated the throne / do not add unnecessary information; keep it precise and to the point. Provide proofs via citations rather than actual writing of junk data on page."
  • 13:23, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "User @scottahunt seems to be working on some person vendetta; addding unnecessary/junk data"
  • 15:32, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "Continuous vandalism by user Scottahunt. Reverting back to original version (02:44, 21 March 2017‎ Teishin) till Scottahunt is able to get consensus on his edits."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

Furthermore, I do not understand the criticism that this "is not a research paper." Please kindly look at the Talk section and my edits and help provide me another perspective on what is happening here. I'm very willing to discuss the merits of anything and everything that I add/change in this article. Thank you kindly!

  • I asked Illuminaati to reply to the Talk topic and please clarify his statement that "because Buddha left to start a religion and abdicated the throne, his lineage continued with his son Rahula." Since Iluminaati failed to provide clarification, I kept his statement, trying to make it read more clearly,

According to one viewpoint, and hagiographic legend, Siddhartha had been a prince but he renounced his title and succession to the throne passed to his son Rāhula.

UPDATE: I am pleased that this sentence above was removed altogether. As a result, there was no need for the following insertion from the article on Buddhism.

  • I then added several sentences from the editorially-protected Wikipedia article on Buddhism. Specifically, I added these which are directly taken from the Buddhism article:

The related Wikipedia article on Buddhism, also notes that "scholars such as Richard Gombrich consider this a dubious claim because a combination of evidence suggests he was born in the Shakyas community – one that later gave him the title Shakyamuni, and the Shakya community was governed by a small oligarchy or republic-like council where there were no ranks but where seniority mattered instead.[11] Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."[12][13]

UPDATE: An editor removed this change above, and rightly so. It was no longer needed when the sentence above was removed.

  • I also included a new section on the Religion of the Shakya people, which I believe is relevant and useful. I'll put it here because he'll probably delete it shortly.

The Shakyas were by tradition sun worshippers.[28][29] In fact, they called themselves Ādicca nāma gottena ("kinsmen of the sun")[30] and descendants of the sun. As Buddha states in the Sutta-Nipāta, "They are of the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth."[31][32] As noted by scholar Stephen Batchelor: QUOTE Their folk religion involved the propitiation and supplication of local spirits (yakkha) at moundlike shrines (cetiya) and the veneration of trees enclosed by wooden railings.[33] They would have taken for granted the widespread belief in the cycle of rebirth driven by the force of former acts (karma), which formed part of the indigenous beliefs of the people of the eastern Gangetic basin. Their notion of rebirth would have been the more intuitive reflex of agriculturalists whose lives were tied to the cycle of rural existence than the kind of elaborated theory found in Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist literature that developed in subsequent centuries.[34] END QUOTE It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans. Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born. However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture."[35] Purportedly, many Shakyans joined people from other regions and became followers of the Buddha during his lifetime, and many young Shakyan men left their homes to become monastics.[36][37]"

I also added more information about the Government of the Shakya people, which I also think is highly relevant:

"Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council of the warrior and ministerial class that chose its leader.[19][20][21][22]" I also added, "By the time of Siddharta's birth, the Shakya republic had become a vassal state of the larger Kingdom of Kosala.[23][24] The raja, once chosen, would only take office upon the approval of the King of Kosala. While the raja must have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, backed by the power of the King of Kosala, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the santhagara, in which, though open to all, only members of the warrior class ("rajana") were permitted to speak. Rather than a majority vote, decisions were made by consensus.[25]"

I provided citations from top-notch scholars. But Illuminaati simply deletes my edits every time, now saying they are junk.

Scottahunt (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Comment: User Scottahunt seems to be working on some personal agenda. Claiming yourself to be Buddhist scholar does not give you right to make one sided changes. I will review your other changes as well soon. The article on it's previous form (before you started vandalism) was based on consensus of all the contributors working on this page. Scottahunt ! since your are hell bent on proving that you are an acclaimed Buddhist scholar, why you don't you share your address proof, so that we can come and personally verify the legitimacy of your credentials ! Illuminaati (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: User Illuminaati I do wish you the best and once again ask for a discussion rather than harsh words and unwarranted accusations. I don't understand the need for your personal attack on me. The charge of "vandalism" is completely without merit. Please list your evidence supporting your claim. I have attempted to contribute content with adequate citations to notable scholars. Of course I cannot make "one-sided changes!" My changes can and should be improved by the community. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. In fact, the latest contributor seems to have done a very good job improving your contributions and mine. I tried to engage you in conversation about your statement "because Buddha gave up his throne to start a religion, his lineage continued through his son Rahula." That sentence to me was unclear, potentially misleading, and also not supported by the evidence that the republic was not a monarchy. You could have clarified and discussed. But any changes I made (including significant information about Shakya government and religion) you simply deleted without discussion, calling my content "junk". I never referred to your contributions with such rude characterization. Let's try to be factual here. Please provide your evidence that I am "hell bent on proving [I am] an acclaimed Buddhist scholar." Where did I ever demonstrate being "hell-bent" on anything, and where did I say I'm an acclaimed scholar? If you have no evidence to support your bold accusation, please retract your statement. Also, please clarify your request for me to "share [my] address" so that you "can come and personally verify" as this sounds like you are saying you want my home address so you can come and confront me, which would be in my mind a threat that violates standards and laws. Your harshness has made my Wikipedia experience a negative one, which is quite sad to me.Scottahunt (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that Scottahunt's addition are properly sourced; yet, the phrasing is not optimal. Addition no.1 needs copy-editing; the long list of sources and quotes should be in a note, not in the text. Addition no.4, about the religions, begs for verification. Yet, the info on the oligargy seems fine now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Joshua Jonathan for taking time to thoughtfully review this material. I appreciate your kind collaboration and suggested improvements. Just so I understand, which is addition no. 1? Are the "long list of sources" still in the body of the latest version of the article? Also, I'm very happy to improve the section on Religion. Can you provide further guidance on the latest text in the article that you feel needs more citations or revisions? I think every sentence in that section has a citation to a scholar. But I can certainly add more! I can jump right on it. Thanks again! Scottahunt (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the current contents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Scottahunt, I did not spend much time looking into your edits but the content you added appears useful and the sources appear reliable. I agree with JJ, some corrections may be needed. I have seen neither junk contributions nor vandalism. JimRenge (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you JimRenge. I appreciate your time and guidance. Please let me know which corrections are needed. I would be happy to make them so that we can improve the article.Scottahunt (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: User Scottahunt is working on propagating a certain specific agenda and providing references that support his viewpoint. Maybe he is doing this unknowingly or maybe he is just acting.
1. The content for what he is arguing for has hundred different viewpoints available on google.
2. Also, he keeps adding unnecessary details in the top intro section itself. His style of writing content is extremely bad, so much for being a scholar ! Instead of writing precise info and proving them with citations, he writes the whole citation itself. What will you do next, copy-paste a whole book ?
3. His addition on religion section is another cunning tactic of propagating his personal viewpoint. Someone needs to review that.
4. And Scottahunt ! regarding threat, I guess you haven't heard the word Sarcasm. If I would want something like that then I would just track your IP address and its router hops (and don't worry proxies are not so trace-less as their sellers make you believe) that's more than enough the info anyone would need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talkcontribs) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Illuminaati (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
What is this "certain specific agenda"? Either you explain, or stop being disruptive. The accusation of vandalism is misplaced.
ad1. Scottahunt gave verifiable info from reliable sources; if you think there is other relevant info, provide it, with sources, but don't just suggest that his info incorrect.
ad2. His writing-style is not optimal, but can be improved by some copy-editing by other editors.
ad3. Again: what is this "propagating [of] his personal viewpoint"? So far, you are the one who is in for review.
ad4. That sounds like a threat!
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please let me explain several things. Until 8 days ago, I was in holy Buddhist robes as a bhikkhu; until two weeks ago I was in a Thai forest monastery in Rayong, Thailand, where I was submersed in Pali and Thai. I had to give up holy robes to tend to family. With some free time I decided to try to contribute to various WP articles about Buddhism. I never could have imagined having this negative experience, but I thank Illuminaati for reminding me about dukkha and moha, and I return lovingkindness in place of his insults. This is just an article, words on a digital screen; there is no need for wild accusations, bullying, and threats. Such behavior is shameful, but of course it has become commonplace in the world. Thank you Joshua Jonathan for joining me in the call for evidence, and for stating what I hope is now plain to see: it is Illuminaati who is acting inappropriately. Regarding whether I've ever heard of sarcasm, yes, I have. And I do not believe it is useful or appropriate here. And when you add bravado (we'll come to your house and check your credentials!) it is not simply sarcasm, it is classic bullying behavior. Furthermore, he now states the specific means he could use to carry out some unlawful act, which is another bullying tactic. His emotional responses are not commensurate with the situation at hand, and are, in fact, excessive. I don't need to contribute to Wikipedia and subject myself to this unwarranted behavior. Lastly, my alleged sub-optimal writing style was likely a reaction to having every contribution deleted by Illuminaati, and in any event does not warrant abuse. Scottahunt (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate JJ stepping in and resolving the situation. Thank you, @Scottahunt, for your efforts to improve the article. @Illuminaati: in the future, I would urge you to avoid personal attacks and instead seek to cooperate with others to improve edits. This is intended in a positive spirit; I'm sure you have many good contributions to make. Clean Copytalk 15:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: From what I can see here, Scottahunt's edits appear reasonable and sourced, whereas Illuminaati's reversions and commentary appear to be bullying, obstructive, inappropriate and abusive. I don't know enough about the topic to give an informed opinion about the content in question but, as an uninvolved editor, I would suggest Scottahunt's edits be restored to the article and Illuminaati's behaviour be referred to an administrator for further action. — OwenBlacker (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) via the Feedback Request Service
  • I looked at Scottahunt's sources and they were high quality sources (Yale University, etc.). . He is also cordial in his relations with others. I also found a number of search results of Google books indicating the throne in question was abdicated. [1] Therefore, I believe the benefit of the doubt should be given to Scottahunt and his version sould be allowed to stand. My only advice to Scottahunt is to avoid asserting personal expertise. Let your work stand by itself. If it is quality work, you needn’t mention any expertise you may or may not have.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oligarchy[edit]

Okay, let's try.

Scottahunt's additions:

The best-known Shakya was Siddhartha Gautama Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha is often referred to as a prince, but this is a questionable title given that he was the son of Śuddhodana, an elected leader (not a king) of the Shakya republic. The Shakya republic was an oligarchy according the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Apart from the major states, there also were many smaller oligarchies, such as those of the Koliyas, Moriyas, Jnatrikas, Shakyas, and Licchavis"),[1] according to Stephen Batchelor who refers to Shakya (using the alternative spelling of Sakiya) as "a proud oligarchic republic,"[2] according to Gyan Swarup Gupta ("Buddha was the son of the head of the Shakya oligarchy"),[3] according to Jayant Gadkari (stating that the Kosala attack on Shakya "was to put an end to that oligarchy"),[4] according to Professor Kurt Spellmeyer ("The best word, then, to describe the Shakyas’ government might not be 'republic' at all. 'Oligarchy' may be a more accurate choice: rule by the elite"),[5] according to Pankaj Mishra ("the Buddha was most likely not a prince, but a member of a republican oligarchy"),[6] according to Dr. Herbert Greoger and Luigi Tenkler ("oligarchic Republic of Shakya in North India"),[7] and according to Kenneth Pletcher (specifically referring to Shakya and other named states, "the fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable").[8]

References

  1. ^ "India - Early Vedic period". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  2. ^ Batchelor, Stephen (2015). After Buddhism. Yale University Press. pp. Chapter 2, Section 2, 8th Paragraph. ISBN 978-0-300-20518-3. 
  3. ^ Gupta, Gyan Swarup (1999). India From Indus Valley Civilisation to Mauryas. South Asia Books. p. 183. ISBN 978-8170227632. 
  4. ^ Gadkari, Jayant (1996). Society and Religion. South Asia Books. p. 101. ISBN 978-8171547432. 
  5. ^ Spellmeyer, Kurt (Spring 2017). "Is the Dharma Democratic?". Tricycle Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  6. ^ Mishra, Pankaj (2010). An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 153. ISBN ASIN B003YJEXLQ Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). 
  7. ^ Groeger1, Trenkler2, Herbert1, Luigi2 (2005). ""Zen and systemic therapy: Similarities, distinctions, possible contributions of Zen theory and Zen practice to systemic therapy."" (PDF). Brief Strategic and Systematic Therapy European Review. 2: 2. 
  8. ^ Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India. Rosen Education Service. p. 64. ISBN 978-1615301225. 

The best-known Shakya was the Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. According to one viewpoint, and hagiographic legend, Siddhartha had been a prince but he renounced his title and succession to the throne passed to his son Rāhula. The related Wikipedia article on Buddhism, also notes that "scholars such as Richard Gombrich consider this a dubious claim because a combination of evidence suggests he was born in the Shakyas community – one that later gave him the title Shakyamuni, and the Shakya community was governed by a small oligarchy or republic-like council where there were no ranks but where seniority mattered instead.[1] Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Gombrich, Richard (1988). Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge. pp. 49–50. ISBN 0-415-07585-8. 
  2. ^ Gombrich, 1988, pp. 18-19, 50-51
  3. ^ Tropper, Kurt (2013). Tibetan Inscriptions. BRILL Academic. pp. 60–61, with footnotes 134–136. ISBN 978-90-04-25241-7. 

My suggestion, which can be used to copy wholesale or in part:

The Shakya republic was an oligarchy[note 1]

Notes

  1. ^ See:
    • Encyclopedia Britannica: "Apart from the major states, there also were many smaller oligarchies, such as those of the Koliyas, Moriyas, Jnatrikas, Shakyas, and Licchavis."[1]
    • Stephen Batchelor refers to Shakya (using the alternative spelling of Sakiya) as "a proud oligarchic republic."[2]
    • Gyan Swarup Gupta: "Buddha was the son of the head of the Shakya oligarchy."[3]
    • Jayant Gadkari states that the Kosala attack on Shakya "was to put an end to that oligarchy."[4]
    • Professor Kurt Spellmeyer: "The best word, then, to describe the Shakyas’ government might not be 'republic' at all. 'Oligarchy' may be a more accurate choice: rule by the elite."[5]
    • Pankaj Mishra: "the Buddha was most likely not a prince, but a member of a republican oligarchy."[6]
    • Kenneth Pletcher, specifically referring to Shakya and other named states: "the fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable."[7]

References

  1. ^ "India - Early Vedic period". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  2. ^ Batchelor, Stephen (2015). After Buddhism. Yale University Press. pp. Chapter 2, Section 2, 8th Paragraph. ISBN 978-0-300-20518-3. 
  3. ^ Gupta, Gyan Swarup (1999). India From Indus Valley Civilisation to Mauryas. South Asia Books. p. 183. ISBN 978-8170227632. 
  4. ^ Gadkari, Jayant (1996). Society and Religion. South Asia Books. p. 101. ISBN 978-8171547432. 
  5. ^ Spellmeyer, Kurt (Spring 2017). "Is the Dharma Democratic?". Tricycle Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2017. 
  6. ^ Mishra, Pankaj (2010). An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 153. 
  7. ^ Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India. Rosen Education Service. p. 64. ISBN 978-1615301225. 


Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Gombrich, 1988, pp. 18-19, 50-51
  2. ^ Tropper, Kurt (2013). Tibetan Inscriptions. BRILL Academic. pp. 60–61, with footnotes 134–136. ISBN 978-90-04-25241-7. 

I've re-inserted this info as notes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scottahunt's reply: Your changes Joshua Jonathan are very good and I thank you. For the record, my inclusion of the long list of citations in was not truly a problem with my writing abilities, but rather was due to the fact that Illuminaati continually deleted the word "oligarchy" and summarily dismissed the change as "junk", while steadfastly insisting on his sentence that Buddha gave up his throne and the lineage continued with his son Rahula. I have learned from you to use the Notes section instead. Thank you! Scottahunt (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Illuminati's reply:

  1. I am fine with current version.
  2. A few people need to review the Religion section.
  3. I did not approve of Scottahunt's way of writing. His way was confusing to an average user, who will just leave the article instead of reading through all the contradictions.
  4. Your method of adding it in notes section, I totally agree with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talkcontribs) 21:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see that everybody can live with the current version. "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." ([[2]]) Moving quotes to the notes section was a good idea; thank you JJ. I have reduced the number of quotes in the notes section by summarizing. I hope this is no problem. JimRenge (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity[edit]

I have read the given source, along with contrary views in the source, both of which is based on vague speculation and are not "conclusions". Yet, introduction emphasizes on their "sythian" Iranian origin, which is against the traditional views. We have actual Buddhist textual* evidence to refute such claims. Scythians were no-where near Eastern Ganages Basin in Vedic period. They appear only in North-West in post-Asokan era.

I have moved it to new section, along with additional source. MayurQ (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin and MayurQ, I have reverted back to the original version as it was there. Please talk in facts as to why "scythian" origin can be added or cannot be added. I am leaving "scythian" origin view in the article as of now since Teishin has talked with other community members on this talk page for adding that. But I also believe that the provided evidence is not enough. Maybe MayurQ can shed some more light on this topic. Illuminaati (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Illuminaati: Thank you, One of his source claims Sakya and Sakyamuni is not mentioned in Pali canon and that its later addition from bactria. However, Tripiṭaka (Pali Canon) mentions both Sakya and Sakyamuni various times. Tripiṭaka Palicanon texts are available online, here are few examples.

"pavaro manujesu, sakyamunī bhagavā katakicco; Pāragato balavīriyasamaṅgī, taṃ sugataṃ saraṇatthamupehi"
"ñeyyadhammaṃ paṭivijjhitvā sabbaññutaṃ patto sakyamuni bhagavā. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā – ‘‘Na me ācariyo atthi"
"nappatirūpaṃ, yadime sakyā ibbhā santā ibbhā samānā na brāhmaṇe sakkaronti, na brāhmaṇe garuṃ karonti, na"
"saṃvāsakaraṇato lokamariyādaṃ chindituṃ, jātisambhedato vā rakkhituṃ sakkuṇantīti sakyā . Sākavanasaṇḍe nagaraṃ"

Another source has counter views to such claims as well but i would like point out here in talk page regarding the mound/stupa, as Buddhist "stupa" mounds is pointed out as Sythian origin. However, this mound-burial practice has existed since Vedic times, and has evolved. Vedic Satapatha Brahmana mentions round-mound "Smasana" burial being more common in Eastern region.

The mound-burial rite of the Vedic Aryans on the basis of Rigveda (10. 14-18), Atharavaveda (18. 1-4), Shatapatha Brahmana (13.8), and a number of later texts (Caland 1996; Pandey 1982: 190-210; Simirnov, Yu. 1997: 127-137).

Early Burial rites : Pitramedha barrow mound.

"The Vedic Aryans cemeteries were situated remote from the settlements. Around the grave a circular or rectangular stone enclosure was built, and above it a barrow was erected (the rite of Pitrmedha). A pit grave served as a home for the dead, and was sometimes supplied with a framework of logs. The Aryans used both cremation and inhumation. If inhumed, the dead were buried in the flexed position, with the head turned to the west. But cremation was the predominant custom (Puhvel 1981:409; Pandey1982; Jones-Bley 1997: 198; 2002). The ashes were brought to the grave in a vessel (Kumbha). After the cremation the bones were taken from the ashes and washed in water and milk: "We now leave thee here rest in peace with water and sweet milk", and then the remains were placed in clothes ; "may he enjoy the grace of gods when putting together the parts of his body" (Caland 1986: 104). Vessels accompanied both cremations and inhumations."[1]

Two types of Smasana-mound burials, mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. Parimandala (round burial) practiced by Easterners (Prachyah).

"It may also be noted that in referring to the ancient tradition of the funeral mounds the Satapatha Brahmana has noted two architectural, viz. square (Catuhsrakti) and round (parimandala) forms for a burial mound, and it is especially recorded that the monuments of the easterners (prachyah) were circular." [2]

Buddhist Cetiya/Stupa is derived from Vedic Parimandala burial.

"It may be Surmised to have emerged from the earthen funerary mounds (Smasana) under which accordion to the Vedic ritual, the ashes of the dead were buried. It is relevant to note that the Satapatha Brahamana significantly says that the Prächya make their Smasana circular (Parimandala) in shape. Aapart from an identity in respective designs and uses, the connection of Buddhist stupas with the Vedic smasana mounds becomes further evident from the regular shafts of brick filled with clay that have been discovered in two or the earliest stupas known in India, namely those at Piprahwa and Bhattiprolu, such shafts being reminiscent of the wooden posts which were erected according to Vedic usage in the centre of funerary mounds."[3]

Much of the views regrading Sythian origin are based on speculation, not textual evidence. It should be considered for removal.

References

  1. ^ Efimovna Kuzʹmina, Elena (2007). The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Boston: Brill. p. 339. 
  2. ^ Sharana Agrawala, Vasudeva (1965). Indian Art: A history of Indian art from the earliest times up to the third century A. D. Prithivi Prakashan. p. 124. 
  3. ^ Kumar, Raj (2003). Essays on Indian Art and Architecture. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House. p. 71. ISBN 81-7141-715-9. 

Getting the ethnicity material out of the introduction and into a separate section on ethnicity seems fine. It is indeed not crucial to the introduction. However, there is not agreement with MayurQconclusions about ethnicity. One cannot just handwave "speculative" as a way of suppressing information. The sources cited are qualified and have supported their theories. Perhaps the solution is to add more information supporting the opposing theories? In this regard it would be useful to link to materials online readers could access. Illuminaati

if you're going to make claims, provide references to support them. My reading of the Buddhist sutras on the issue matches what Beckwith says. The description of Shakyamuni's appearance and the fact that his ethnicity is constantly being mentioned points to his being of Scythian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teishin (talkcontribs) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Illuminatti People come to Wikipedia to learn. Let them learn that scholars are debating the issue. It is inappropriate for you to decide for them. My view is that the traditional view is no less "speculative" that what you are objecting to. Teishin (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin and MayurQ : Both the views have been moved to a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talkcontribs) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: You said : "The description of Shakyamuni's appearance and the fact that his ethnicity is constantly being mentioned points to his being of Scythian descent." That is your opinion, as nothing about his appearance points him to being "Scythian" in Pali texts but a Kshatriya. The fact that your Beckwith source claims earliest recorded evidence of Buddha is not Shakya or Shakyamuni but "His personal name, Gautama, is evidently earliest recorded in the Chuang-tzu, a Chinese work from late fourth to third centuries BC." already contradicts his own claims, considering "Gautama" is Vedic Brahamanical gotra, there is no going around that. Vansh/Gotra (clan/lineage) constantly being mentioned does not say much, it's common feature in all Dharmic religions. Only thing Indo-Aryans and Scythians have in common is origin in Eurasian steppes, but "Indo-Scythians" were not in Eastern Ganges basin in Vedic period, nor did they follow Buddhism when they first arrived to South Asia. Jayarava Attwood in source has already pointed out criticism of their claims, I have nothing more to add. MayurQ (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@MayurQ: No, that is not my opinion. That is Beckwith's evidence and conclusion. My opinion is that Wetzel's and Beckwith's analyses are relevant, important, and should be presented. I do not follow your argument about the Chuang-tzu. Why don't you come up with something from Attwood to add to the section to bolster the counter-position you support rather than trying to censor the position you dislike?Teishin (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: Beckwith does not come to that conclusion based on his "appearance". Beckwith uses Hellenistic Greek sources (Pyrrho of Elis; Megasthenes etc) as better sources for understanding early Buddhism and Iron Age India than the Pali canon, the bedrock of Buddhist scripture. He is scholar in Chinese, not in Pali or Sanskrit. Additionally, he claims early Chinese texts (Chuang-tzu 4th/3rd BC) make no mention of Sakya or Sakyamuni but rather Buddhas personal name "Gautama" Buddha. As far as Vedic texts goes, "Gautama" is a Brahamin gotra. MayurQ (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, he only mentions Central Asia in context of Scythians, not 'Northern Iran'. You seem to have confused with his term North Iranic (dialect spoken by eurasian steppe nomads in Iron age) for geography in modern Iran. Adding Central Asia instead. MayurQ (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@MayurQ: You appear to have an axe to grind. You are misrepresenting Beckwith's arguments. I am not here to argue with you about the ethnicity of the Shakya; I am here to argue against your desire to censor scholarly analyses that you don't like. I am trying to work out an accommodation where this is recognized as a controversy and you get to cite the arguments sources you think are good, allowing Wikipedia users to see those and those of Wetzel and Beckwith so that they can make their own judgments about the controversy. Teishin (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My primary area of interest is in the ancient Greek philosophies of life. Its not a controversy, you're making it out to be. It's Beckwiths words regrading (Chuang-tzu 4th/3rd BC) and how he dismisses Buddhist Pali Canon and instead relies on Pyrroho & Megasthenes, not mine. I'm done here. MayurQ (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: How was that Shakya/Gautama irrelevant? It's important to point out why Buddha is called Shakyamuni, referring his clan and Gautama referring to his lineage. Your edit of this sentence to "Indo-Scythians were known in South Asia in Middle Kingdome period" it makes no sense, yes we are aware they were here in Middle Kingdom, post-Mauryan empire. Indo-Scythians were not here during Vedic period. They also followed Scythian religion until their conversion to Buddhism in South Asia during post-Mauryan Middle Kingdome era. MayurQ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MayurQ: Gautama is a descendent; he is not part of the origins. This section is about origins. That's not to say that it is not important. It's covered in the 3rd paragraph at the beginning of the article. The point is that it doesn't belong in this section. I note here that you joined Wikipedia as an editor specifically to make edits on this subject and you have provided no other edits to the project except for repeatedly undoing work here and inserting your own opinions and editorializing. I keep trying to find ways to accommodate the directionality of your intentions short of the censoring and editorializing that is repeatedly going on with your edits, but I do not feel this is being reciprocated. Above you said you were "done here", but you have continued with your efforts. Please dissist. Teishin (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


I added the following, not realizing it was adequately covered earlier:
The Shakya consider themselves to be Kshatriya of Gautama lineage, descendants of the legendary king Okkaka (Ikshvaku), the grandson of Vivasvan (Surya), the solar deity .[1][2] Pali canon traces Gautama lineage to Rigvedic sage Angirasa.[3][4]
If any of this is useful, it could be merged with the appropriate section. Repeating it in two sections is unnecessary, as a recent editor noticed. Clean Copytalk 01:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Titled to be more relevant for the contents. 2) Made counter view to be more clear. I do not think this topic needs any further discussion. @Teishin:, your edits were welcomed, but the cited material is more of a analytical speculation made by just 1 or 2 people based on circumstantial data collected. This cannot be given more weightage than tons of other historical sources scattered around on google itself. Illuminaati (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Illuminaati: thank you for your efforts to find an appropriate title and wording, but in the midst of a discussion in which many points of view have been put forward, it's always dangerous (and a little cocky) to assume that one's own contribution to is the last word.
In particular, so far as I can tell, your claim of a contradiction is not supported by the book cited; it is your conclusion that the two pieces of information contradict one another. This is considered WP:Original research in Wikipedia, and is not acceptable as part of an article. I tagged the sentence accordingly. Clean Copytalk 10:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Illuminaati: :@Clean Copy has articulated the issue well. You claim there are "tons of other historical sources" but you don't provide any. Teishin (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Teishin: You said : "Gautama is a descendent; he is not part of the origins." Gautama refers to his gotra lineage, not his first name (Siddhartha). Do you know what gotra (Sanskrit: Gotra, Pali: Gotta) is? and how it works? That's why i dint bother discuss this with you since you assumed it simply refers to his name. Your primary interest is Pyrrhonism, not Buddhism, explains why you don't know what that would be.
@Clean Copy: That was not covered in other sections, neither Gautama or Agirasa. It should be pointed out in origins theory. Buddha is known as Gautaman Buddha for a reason. MayurQ (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
OK - thanks! Clean Copytalk 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@MayurQ: Then the way you formulated your sentence was misleading, as that's not how it would seem to me that most people would understand it.

@GlynClarke: If you have references for additional origin theories, do add them with citations. This is the section for *the* theories. There is no other section on this page for theories. Therefore this section is not for "other" theories. Adding "other" is editorializing. Teishin (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: Maybe you are blind, maybe biased or maybe just flat-out retard. The whole article talks about solar lineage, ikshvaku etc with citations. - GlynClarke

Please keep it civil and (re)read Wikipedia's policy on Personal attacks. Clean Copytalk 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@GlynClarke: I agree with your change of the section title to "Ethnicity". It was that previously, as it is here in on the Talk page, but if I recall correctly it was MayurQ who objected to it. Teishin (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@GlynClarke: Ethnicity is not appropriate term here, they were not an "ethnic group". But, a Shakya CLAN (Sanskrit: Kula) of Kahsatrya Gotama lineage. "Origins theory" is appropriate with Pali Shakyan textual views, along with Scythian scholarary views as neither of those texts and theories have general consensus among scholars.MayurQ (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@GlynClarke: Also, please refrain from calling others names, that was inappropriate.MayurQ (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: Take note of their repeated vandalism of the page.MayurQ (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@MayurQ: Perhaps there needs to be one section on lineage and one on ethnicity. One can find sources that agree with GlynClarke that the Shakya are a race, which makes them an ethnic group. Here's an example: http://www.archivum.kcst.hu/studies/articles-05.pdf Teishin (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: Shakya = Clan (kula). Gotama = Lineage (gotra/gotta). Nothing in Sanskrit or Pali literature translates these two terms as "race", not an appropriate term either. Also, "solar race" is not a term in Sanskrit or Pali, it's "Suryavansha", which literally can be brokwn down into Surya(sun) + Vansha (clan-dynasty). Your archivum source is a tibetian legend, not pali. MayurQ (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@MayurQ: Additional sources supporting GlynClarke's view http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakya . It does seem that GlynClarke has a point about separating the lineage discussion from this material. There's also the issue about whether they should be called a "tribe" rather than a "clan" as some sources say that they were a tribe that was subdivided into several clans. Teishin (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: Jati = Tribe, Gana=Tribe. Kula = Clan. Nothing in texts suggest they were "Jati". We know what these terms translates to exactly from Vedic to Buddhist texts, differentiates between clan (kula) and Jati (tribe). MayurQ (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin: @MayurQ: @Illuminaati: @Clean Copy: :

  1. The view of aligning Shakya with scythian is just a speculation based on circumstantial data, as anyone reading the cited material could easily tell.
  2. the title should more appropriately use the word "other" as in "other theories of origin" , because the most widely accepted notion of solar lineage has already been stated and cited multiple times in various sections of the article
  3. @MayurQ:: stating the widely accepted notion and then countering it with half-baked scythian theory gives scythian theory equal opposing weightage which it does not deserve. That's why I added your comments on gotra in correct section. ---- GlynClarke

@GlynClarke: re #1 you are editorializing. Why don't you find some sources that support your opinion rather than engaging in this edit war? Re #2, this has already been discussed. You can't have an "other" without there being an "other" in the first place.

@Teishin: : you are the one who is actually editorializing, you are the one who is actually edit-warring. And regarding "other" as I said N number of times, at main body of article itself contains citations of the most widely accepted notion of solar lineage and hence there is no point of saying that again with your full-of-speculation theory. @MayurQ: @Illuminaati: ---- GlynClarke

@GlynClarke: I understand that there's the legend about mythical solar deity origins, and I agree that this is worthwhile information, but mythological stories about descent from gods are not qualitatively of the same order as scholarly research. Teishin (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@GlynVlarke: We had something similar to that title before and was discussed ex: "other theories" etc but wait for others to pitch in. @Teishin: Yes, the mythical solar deity dynasty also appears in Hinduism/Jainism and is still common claim among Kshatriyas in South Asia etc but Gotama gotra and it's ancestor Angirasa is not deity but finds mention in Rigveda texts, in 'family' books. MayurQ (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have filed a request for dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Shakya.23Ethnicity_discussion @GlynClarke:, @MayurQ:, @Illuminaati:, @Clean Copy:, @68.33.74.235:, @117.192.211.41: Teishin (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion[edit]

A volunteer moderator is conducting moderated discussion of the content dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please take discussion of the content dispute to DRN. Be civil and concise (whether here or there). Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of the discussion is to resolve the content differences and improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Buddha shakya[edit]

Gautam buddha was best guru in the world Nikhil shakya (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mahavamsa (II, 1-24)
  2. ^ Edward J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha p. 6
  3. ^ Ganga, Bahadur, Kapoor, Gautami, Himmat, Subodh (2002). The Indian Encyclopaedia: Gautami Ganga -Himmat Bahadur (Volume 9 ed.). New Delhi: Cosmo Publication. p. 2677. ISBN 81-7755-257-0. 
  4. ^ Edward J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha p. 22