Talk:Maga Brahmin

there was a clearer and tighter version of this article here, perhaps we should revert to that, or at least remove all the unsourced additions. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Overhauled

(moved from user talk page)
Dear FullStop, First of all i appreciate your afford. I have some issue regarding changes. Maga of india and magiof iran is same. Please check this link [[1]] specially point 28. ref: Books:

1. ‘Indo-Iranian relations’ by Dr. Tara Chand, p 4.
2. ‘India and Iran: A Dialogue’, paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra.
3. `The History of the parsees of India’ paper by P.P. Balsara.

Hope you will do need full. --Devessh S N Bhatta (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

1. that link does not say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same". Moreover, not only is that statement incorrect for formal reasons, even when two words have a common origin, they do not necessarily have the same meaning.
2. you copy-pasted those "books" from the bibliography of the page you linked. It is not legitimate to cite sources that you do not yourself possess. You must cite the sources that you are using, not the sources that someone else is using.
   Even so, no scholar in his right mind will ever say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same", and to illustrate that neither the link nor its sources say that, here is a breakdown or what they are being cited for:
   • ‘Indo-Iranian relations’ by Dr. Tara Chand, p 4. is being cited for
     The Maga priests were the famous Magoi or Magi – Zoroastrian priests who spread the worship of fire and Sun and erected temples at Taxila and Multan.
     The context of this sentence is that Samba was cured by those priests. There is no suggestion that they are Maga Brahmins. Indeed, the sentence says (in bold face!) that they were Zoroastrian priests. Note also the use of the Greek words being applied to Zoroastrian priests.
     Even the Sakaldwipiya myth says the Maga Brahmins came from Shakdvipa (not Taxila/Multan!), and Samba invited the Sakaldwipiya some time after he had been cured.
   • ‘India and Iran: A Dialogue’, paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra.is being cited for the assertion that "There were Sun temples on the banks of Yamuna."
     Again, no suggestion that "Maga of india and magi of iran is same"
   • `The History of the parsees of India’ paper by P.P. Balsara.
     is being cited for the assertion that "The Maga Brahmins ... were of Iranian origin."
     We already know that, and the article says so in the very first sentence of the "Origin myth" section. Again, this source does not say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same."
     It so happens that I own a copy of this source, which is a harcopy of a lecture, and in which Balsara (besides actually discussing "The History of the Parsees of India") briefly touches on Zoroastrian contact with India prior to the coming of the Parsis. Balsara cites the Maga Brahmins as an example such Zoroastrian contact. This is the only thing that the linked article is citing him for.
3. Finally, the word 'magi' is English, from Greek 'magoi'. The Greek 'magoi' represents a Greek *perception* of a Zoroastrian priest. What the Greeks understood by the word is not the same as the Avestan magu. Neither the Greek nor the Avestan word has the same meaning as the Sanskrit 'maga', which refers to a Hindu Brahmin.

As I said earlier... Even when two words have a common origin, they do not necessarily have semantic equivalence (i.e. the meaning expressed by those words is not the same). In this case, you have 3 different ideas, of 3 different religions, of 4 different cultures, of 5 different eras and of 2 different continents.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the Maga priests who arrived in India had an affiliation with Zoroastrianism. However note that that ancient center of Zoroastrianism was in Balkh in northern Afghanistan, even though it flourished in Persia. Perhaps in future I will dig out the references. The survival of Zoroastrianism in Afghanistan, even in Kashmir, is attested by Dabestan-e Mazaheb Malaiya (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"verse gallery"

what is it with the "quoting by png" here?? Images like Image:Shakdvipa Vishnu Purana.PNG are supremely pointless. If you want to cite a Puranic verse, first of all state which verse it is (Purana, chapter, verse). Then, if desired, transliterate it in IAST (in this case, śākad[v]īpastu maitreya kṣirodena samāvṛtaḥ 2.4.71ab[2] "friendly Shakadvipa is surrounded by the milk-ocean" (I supose kṣiroda is a mistake for kṣīroda, but its hard to be sure without secondary sources)), or if you absolutely must, give it in Devanagari (that is, actual Unicode characters, not an image file). --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Biblical magi

This section really does appear to be completely off-topic (as tagged). If it isn't then the article must be amended to show why it is related. We have the article magus to discuss the topic in detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And is another one of the unsourced editions Dab mentions. I think we should go back to an earlier version. Doug Weller (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I made copyedits in the lead so you might want to use my version of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a flakey edition that dab himself reinstated. The one prior to that, though perhaps inaccurate for other reasons, is not altogether overloaded with bull, speculation and synth. It was also in English. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ahem, in my defense, I have since removed the magi stuff. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, removal would not have been necessary if it (and much other stuff) hadn't be re-added en-block in the first place. There are also traces of magi snot that remain; e.g. "Maga is the term applied to Zoroastrian/Mazdayasti priests. Balkh in Bactria (Afghanistan) was a major center of Zoroastrianism." or "'Few people have been more closely related in origin and throughout history than the people of India and the people of Iran' – Jawahar Lal Nehru" or that "... descendants of Jarasabda(viz.Jalagambu, Jarasastra, evidently Zoroaster)" etc.

But thats only half of it, and continues in the "Comprehensibility" section below. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensibility

The article still has a long way to go if it is to be understood by people unfamiliar with the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

if in doubt, cut it out. It has long become clear that the original author had no clue what he was doing, and no sources to speak of to base his stuff on. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the second section on the Purana to be under the same heading as the first. Re Zoroastrianism: I can understand that a community now known as the Parsees came into India as Zoroastrian refugees following the expansion of the Muslim empire into Persia. But does this community claim to be descended from them? Surely they are saying that 1) that they do indeed have Iranian roots but 2) their community was in India many centuries before the rise of Islam. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose they have thought it through really. They just know they are ancient magi. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are the "Sakaldwipiya Kings" known to have existed in ancient or recent history? Also, is any of the sources cited reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly dubious that Sakaldwipiya brahmins are supposed to have been kings of Ayodhya. After all, brahmins are priests and kings are kshatriyas, aren't they? Needs verification. Mihira is indeed just a loan from Persian into Sanskrit, meaning "sun" (Mihr being a Persian solar deity). I note we have Mers (sigh, another crappy Indian caste article), this time a kshatriya clan, also deriving their name from the Perisan word. I find it perfectly credible that the bhojaka should be mentioned in a Kadamba inscription (although plausibility doesn't equal verification) -- bhojaka are already known from Classical Sanskrit texts as "a class of priests (or Sun-worshippers, supposed to be descended from the Magas by intermarriage with women of the Bhoja race" (Monier-Williams). It is generally plausible that the current gotras etc. have their origins in the early medieval period, so that isn't too tall a claim. The literature cited is, of course, highly dubious and difficult to verify, with the exception of the ISBNed Cort (2001) and Singh (1998). --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This, like the "Comprehensibility" issue (and all other issues recently raised here on talk), derive from a July 20 bulk re-addition of bad text from some version prior to a cleanup on May 22.

The article (as it stands now) is shot through and through. The atrocious English alone makes it hard going, and the ad-nauseum repetitions are no help. For example the first two longish paragraphs of the 'Bhavishya Purana' section each say exactly the same thing, and which are again exactly the same as what most the 'Mahabharata' section says. (btw: there is no Mahabharata chapter:verse pointer provided). Besides, having another source that say the same thing could easily have been incorporated as "The doctrinal basis for that assertion is Bhavishya Purana 133 and Mahabharata XYZ, which may be summarized as follows:"

--

Anyway, the text needs to go back to the last sane/comprehensible version (e.g. of July 19), with selective and judicious re-addition of legitimate content thereafter (alternatively, one might also find that no legitimate content is actually missing). Also, en-block re-addition (or the edits thereafter) screwed up the structure, for example the beginning of the 'Bhavishya Purana' section is now out of context.

The "Comprehensibility" issue (as also the issue of spurious kings, magi, and all the other nonsense) would be moot if the article goes back to here.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rewound to the 19 July version and then incorporated applicable changes that were made in the interim. Apologies in advance if I have missed anything. Wading through the reams of speculations, inductive reasoning and umpteen reiterations of the origin myth was not fun, neither today nor the first time around. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

looks good. If you're still in the mood, why not attack the Ancient India and Central Asia and Kambojas cans of worms next? --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul and update?

Can somebody work on this page? There seems to be few objective resources on the internet that detail the history of Sakaldwipiya. I know many would appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.91.97 (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

about suryadvijas!

• Wot gotras do suryadvijas belong?
• wot about Bengali daivajna n Acahrya brahmins?

Nijgoykar (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason for removal of VADHYAR!!

This is about the removal of the name Vadhyar from the list![3]

• As far as my research ... no shakadvipis are found in the south.. accept Goa Maharashtra!

No such references are found in any book.. nor it is quoted by any scholar! There is a group of Brahmins called as Sagardvipi in the south.. but they trace their origin to Srilanka n not Scythia. As far as the names Vadhyar is concerned,its not found any Vrahmins of Kerala,neither Namboothiris,nor Embranthiris nor the Paradeshi Brahmins of Kerala.

• Another issue is,this article stresses more on wot is mentioned in the Hindu doctrines(which makes it make sound like a myth than reality)and not on their actual origin: NO mention of Saka,Scythia,Indo-scythians in the article.

Nijgoykar (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Perhaps Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission/The Vepachedu Educational Foundation is sufficient for the material copied form that source (see bottom of particle for link), but I found "installation of the Surya images should be made by the maga, as they were the first to worship the divinity." at [4] - I think other text is from there also. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Versions

Old versions of this page are much more informative, better written, and cleaner. Why and how did that change? I'm no Wiki pro, but if someone with more Wiki skill could take a look at the pages from several years ago and compare to today and maybe improve the page, it would be very appreciated. It is sorely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.86.92 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

KERALA GANAKA

GANAKA community in Kerala belong to Sakaldwipiya, They are the descendent of Sakaldwipiya Brahmins. For more details refer the book. Global Encyclopaedia of the Brahamana Ethnography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.188.101 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Samba account

One of the main sources of information is the Bhavishya Purana. Malaiya (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bhavishya Purana account is taken from the Samba Purana. The account is also given in other Puranas and in Mahabharata, and is mentioned in some inscriptions.Malaiya (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Expanded article

I will expand the article in the next couple of years. There are numerous sources, regard both the historical/archaeological sources and modern communities. I have seen many of them. Malaiya (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)