Jump to content

Talk:Nanda dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nandvanshi)

October 2024

[edit]

@Edasf: The source supporting the para here, clearly mentions Hinduism not Brahmanism. The excerpt from the source being - "During the period of the Nanda Dynasty, the Hindu, Buddha and Jain religions had under their sway the population of the Empire". Not sure why are you edit warring. If necessary we can seek a WP:CONSENSUS here, with other users. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk I am not edit warring,Here is a line on Historical Vedic religion#Brahmanism "The post Vedic period of Second Urbanisation saw decline of Brahmanism.And also "the conquest of eastern empires of Magadha by Nandas and Mauryas threatened patronage of Brahmins.This led Brahmanism to redevelop itself giving rise to contemporary Hinduism". Edasf (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf: That statement - "giving rise to contemporary Hinduism", proves what's already mentioned in the article and the source above. Besides it is a longstanding sourced content in the article. Would require consensus for changes. Pinging @Utcursch:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: That contemporary word refers to today not that period.Anyways I support having a consensus. Edasf (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, excerpts from another source - Bronkhorst (page 30,31) - explains that the creation of Nanda Empire, followed by the Maurya, "signalled the end of traditional Vedic society"; "Without regular and systematic support from the rulers, the vedic ritual tradition was threatened"; "Vedic Brahmanism, if it wanted to survive at all, had to reinvent itself" and "rulers from Magadha, far from Vedic heartland, probably accelerated the decline", ergo a gradual shift from "Brahmanism" to "Hinduism" (contemporary/comtemporary-like), the gist of which is nicely summarized in Nanda_Empire#Religion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FylindfotberserkI still can't understand what will be benefit by keeping word Hinduism here. While on many other articles like Chandragupta Maurya and so on it has been removed since a majority of scholar consider modern Hinduism and Brahmanism as different.I will like to see @Utcursch's opinion here. Edasf (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources say so. The first source mentions Hinduism and the second is clear about the shift/deviation from Brahmanism/Vedism during Nanda and Maurya era. Neither we nor the sources are equating Brahmanism with Hinduism, apparently you are getting confused here. Also Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources here per WP:UGC. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FylindfotberserkIm not using any article as sources.I suggest you see Maurya Empire#Religion(I'm linking it because its supported by reliable sources).I want to mention that Hindu synthesis began around after Mauryan period so theres nothing such in Nanda period then why is there such mention.Also,many authors have mistakely get confused between both since Brahmanism was previously used for Hinduism as whole.We should wait for @Utcursch before reaching conclusion.I suggest you invite more editors for consensus. Edasf (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Edasf is right here, and that we need a better source; in the 4th century BCE, there was no "Hinduism" yet. ergo a gradual shift from "Brahmanism" to "Hinduism" applies to a later period. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The excepts in green I posted from Bronkhorst (pg 30,31) do support a gradual shift/dilution of orthodox Vedism/Brahmanism into something "more encompassing" because of Magadhan influence, though it itself does not explicitly mention the Hinduism part (atleast not in these pages). That's another source for another paragraph. My primary concern here is to enforce WP:V WP:NOR (the basis of Wikipedia), as well as WP:STABLE, which were disregarded by Edasf's changes to sourced content. Since we are at it, I'd like to ping a few people @PadFoot2008, LukeEmily, Adamantine123, and Ratnahastin:. Any changes agreed upon here would require overhaul of relevant section/paragraphs instead of mere changes to existing sourced content turning parts into WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on Nanda Empire and religion are poor: "Hinduism," "Brahmanical Hinduism," "Brahmanism." Bronkhorst does not argue that Brahmanism turned into "Hinduism" overnight; that was a centuries-ling process. See Roots of Hinduism. I've discussed this issue several times before; see:

"Hinduism," as a synthesis of Brahmanical ideology and orthopraxis with a wide variety of non-Vedic local religious traditions simply didn't exist in the 4th century CE. The conquest of the Brahmanical homeland by the Mauryan Empire, and the thread Buddhism posed to Brahmanism, was one of the reasons for the advent of the 'Hindu synthesis'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember mentioning "Brahmanism turned into "Hinduism" overnight" using Bronkhorst as a source. I said, they do support a gradual shift/dilution of orthodox Vedism/Brahmanism into something "more encompassing", alluding to Hinduism. Besides the part that Bronkhorst sources doesn't mention Hinduism, another source is used. Please read my comments. Anyway, as I said before, my primary concern is to uphold WP:V and WP:NOR (as well as WP:STABLE). But since, a discussion has started, people can build a consensus here. Suggestion - let's not link discussions on modern people here, though I understand why you posted this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly mentions the existence of the Hindu, Buddha and Jain religions during the Nanda period. Perhaps, modern Hinduism didn't exist then, but earlier forms of it, prior to classical Hinduism, certainly did. PadFoot (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FylindfotberserkI understand your point about OR. Bronkhorst, Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism:
  • p.15: "The Nandas are remembered for their anti-brahmanical stance, and we will see that the Mauryas appear to have followed them in this, too."
  • p.20: "We should not however forget that we have no reason to think that any of the Nanda and Maurya rulers discriminated against one or more of the religions of Greater Magadha. The only religion on which restrictions were imposed, at least by Aśoka, perhaps also by his predecessors and successors, may well have been Brahmanism."
Bronkhorst certainly doesn't use the term "Hinduism" to refer to Vedic-Brahmanical oriented religion of this period.
@PadFoot2008: The "earlier form of [Hinduism]" wasn't Hinduism, but Brahmanism. One source, by an unknown M. D. Chande, using inexact nomenclature, doesn't change that. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: "Bronkhorst certainly doesn't use the term "Hinduism"" ← I already mentioned that multiple times before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Anyway, we won't find better sources, I'm afraid; Bronkhorst is quite good, actually, but speaks about the religion of the emperors. What the common people believed - can we really know? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a little bit further; Chande also authored Indian Philosophy in Modern Times, in which he states at p.29 that Thilak's theory of the 'Arctic Home in the Vedas' is a "near acceptance among scholars." And p.38: "The Vedic texts could be fixed to as back as 8000 years BC." Not the kind of author we're looking for here... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Chande; he's obviously not WP:RS, in contrast to Bronkhorst. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly dont see any further arguments in keeping word Hinduism here.Thanks @Joshua Jonathan for removing it and clearing all. Edasf (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: While I agree with your stance on "Chande", you should have waited for a few days atleast per WP:CONSENSUS, before overhauling the section and the infobox. It is not even 24 hours and only 3 people engaged in the discussion (Padfoot made a single comment). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 15:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Empire → Nanda dynasty – It was a dynasty of another empire, it can confuse the average reader. It is also in cordance with 1)Haryanka DYNASTY 2) Shishunga DYNASTY JingJongPascal (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal Perhaps I will support you but not for your reason Edasf«Talk» 11:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanda_dynasty&oldid=1259139451"