Talk:Devaraja

This article obviously needs work but this is better than nothing for the time being. I don't know why the page was deleted earlier. Consider this bit a weak stub and improve upon it if you'd like.

I've tried to elaborate and perfected the article. It is not just a Cambodian kingship concept, it has wider distribution and meanings. More contributions are welcome.Gunkarta (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This may help. - Windows72106 (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This article cites many recent sources (as Vickery) but actually expresses an old interpretation of devaraja (by Coedes), which latest authors have largely questioned. Moreover calling it a "Hindu-Buddhist cult" is PURE INVENTION. Please provide sources of known authors which connect devaraja to other "kingship concepts", as the book cited as source appears purely speculative from its abstract, maybe belonging to the trend of Greater India (Majumdar etc.), as this (Abhinav Publications). (--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW a casual query on Google Books could support any statement, but if you can't find similar statements on Chandler, Higham or Vickery, or more general works like Tarling and A New History of Southeast Asia there's should be a reason, isn't it? E.g. see Higham or this. Even speculative correlations between dhamma-raja and deva-raja have not to be presented as historiographical, 'cause they are not.--Shivanarayana (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just added some common references and remove "Hindu-Buddhist cult" sentence, as some source quotes it was more likely that the cult grow from the combination of Hinduism and native element (possibly ancestral cult). The most established interpretation of this concept mainly took Coedes' opinion, feel free to add criticism or opposing views such as Vickery's, maybe in separated section. Gunkarta  talk  10:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't speak of "southeast asia". At least you rectified the "hindu-buddhist" absurd claim, thanks (sorry for the summary, I didn't see you've already deleted it). The most recent mainstream historiographical interpretation is roughly this.--Shivanarayana (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to say Coedes' work is "the most established interpretation", as every specialized source of some value has largely acknowledged different interpretations, from Filliozat, Mabbet and Kulke onward (this is Legge's essay, a fundamental source on indianization debate, BTW). And they count much much more than some "mr.Fic" or "mr.Sengupta". It's clear to me that if you want to use these as main sources (inserting Britannica for minimal or neutral issues), there's something deeply wrong.--Shivanarayana (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before, feel free to add other well-referenced opinions, theory or interpretations, if their scholarly interpretations counts more. I just add "Fic" to convey Indonesian perspective. This article welcomes attention and positive contributions.Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

To take stock of the situation

1. In the main sources for SEA history devarāja is a term strictly related to Khmer Empire, more precisely to K.235 inscription (Sdok Kok Thom), see above, A new history of SEA and Mabbett
2. Britannica or other generalist encyclopedias could still relate Coedes' interpretation, which was largely questioned in the last 50 years (see above) and currently considered outdated, but refer strictly the same meaning of the term
3. every widening of its use, correlation with other terms (e.g.dhammaraja, see this from former thai minister) or other people's history (e.g.Sailendra) is at least speculative (sometimes notional) and rely on minor/local sources, which often serve the big POV issues of the area (indian, indonesian, thai: whatever you want). We cannot give them a relevance they don't have!

So if there's a WP article named devarāja, it has to be primarily centered on K.235 inscription and its interpretations by historians (as Britannica does!), instead it refers to a wider concept on very poor basis. "Adding" meanings is not automatically good and if some "new meaning" replaces "the real meaning" then there's something wrong. It's not about "please add your interpretations", it's about "please pull out the weeds".

When I read it, I found an article with an incipit which appeared fictional (indobuddist and southeastasian concept????), mainly based on an obscure source: "George Cédes and Ananda Coomaraswamy made astute observations on the cult of deified royalty in South Asia for the first time" (ahem LOL! please let me see where Coedes writes about devaraja in the entire South Asia): astute indeed! @Gunkarta: I thank you for some corrections but at present it's still full of highly speculative and poorly referenced prittle-prattle (and no, we don't have to "convey Indonesian perspective", as it is highly POV assuming Java kingdoms as "the fundamental promoter of Khmer empire" or something like that, giving even greater weight and adding delusive meanings to outdated literal interpretation by Coedes on Jayavarman II as a former royal hostage at Java court: we're not writing some tv script).

NB very bad thing such absurd, POV and poorly referenced claims spread in other articles--Shivanarayana (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

PS regarding divinization of LIVING javanese rulers, see this, this and even Kulke: it seems to begin in XIII century. About the origins of devaraja cult every main (old) author had his own (pure) speculation AFAIR: Coedes suggested a chinese origin, Filliozat a south indian, others an indigenous one (following Mus). Bosch suggested Java in the thirties, following literal interpretations of K.235, but nowadays it is largely acknowledged that direct relations between khmer and Java refer to a later period (when the stele was carved, see the "extremist" interpretation by Vickery). Sanjaya erected his sacred linga in 732 but AFAIK there's no mention of some devaraja cult in his inscriptions: what are the basis of mr.Fic's statements? Sanjaya and Sailendra are possibly the "indobuddists" the article talked about but, as I hope to have largely demonstrated, devaraja in the main sources refers specifically to K.235, so this has to be the main content of the article. --Shivanarayana (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)