Talk:Ashoka
|
|
Ashoka, the organization and the Ashoka Tree can be moved into new pages.
Jay 13:51, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
Minor edit, added some cross references in the section on the Ashoka Tree. rossum
The dates are confusing. It says Ashoka reigned from 273-232 BC and his father Bindusara ruled from 269-232 BC. The dates are clashing and are almost the same. Also 230 BC says, Ashoka died in the year 230 BC. So the dates are all in a mess. Jay 17:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
vegetarianism
you say that most indians 'voluntarily' became vegetarians. that makes no sense. this guy is a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people. then he suddenly says 'ok everyone be a vegetarian'. and you are calling that their 'free will'? more like they were scared s@#$less.
now, if you have some proof, id like to see it. but i would like to see some proof of this.otherwise it seems more NPOV to simply say that indians converted to vegetarianism under his rule.
but that in and of itself seems very amazing. do you have any proof that there was a mass switchover?
- I am not aware of any such proof; I am also not aware of your idea that people were scared of him throughout his rule; he was certainly a brutal person in the early stage of his life (and earned the ignoble title Chanda Ashoka - Murderer Ashoka), but during his later tenure he came across as a well loved king, and earned the title Priyadarshi.
- In any case,
- * the article does not provide any proof of a mass swithover to vegetarianism
- * there is no way to determine whether the switchover, if it occured at all, was voluntary or not
- In the interests of NPOV, we should probably just say that "he promoted the concept of vegetarianism", and leave it at that. --ashwatha 06:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ashoka
He also made hospitals for humans & supplied medicine for them too.
Ashoka propagating Mahayana ?
Ashoka make Theravada as his State religion, sent his son (A Theravada monk) to Sri Lanka to propagate Buddhism. If Ashoka was propagating Mahayana as some Mahayanist claimed, Sri Lanka, Burma & Thailand will be Mahayanis by now. Gee....why Mahayanist did not adhere to "Refrained from False speech" precept? Seem to me twisting some fact was their hobbies.
- I agree. Never seen Ashoka mentionned as a Mahayanist. However, technically, it seems Ashoka is not exactly Theravada as well: during his council, the orthodox faith of Buddhism was named as Vibhajyavada (Distinctionist), admitedly belonging to the "Sthavira" tradition (KEOWN, Dictionnary of Buddhism). Should this be mentionned in the article? User:PHG Sep 13, 2004
Sthavirada, Vibhajyavada & Theravada was the same school, western scholars already agree on this, u can check other commercial encyclopedia Britanica, Encarta & etc....
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552895_2/Buddhism.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sthaviravada+Theravada
Vibhajyavada=Distinctionist? Was that mean Analysis=Separationist since in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Analysis
1 : separation of a whole into its component parts 2 a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture 4 a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations b : a statement of such an analysis 5 a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse
- Maybe you have to go to more specifically Buddhist sources to research these distinctions. The Oxford Dictionnary of Buddhism (by KEOWN, 2003) says in its Sthavira article: "The Theravada school of Buddhism claims direct descent from Shtaviras, but although they share the same name (Thera and Shtavira being the Pali and Sanskrit forms of the same word meaning "elder") there is no evidence that the Theravada school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occured at the Council of Pataliputra".
- Regarding "distinctionism", it is a specifically Buddhist term, which is used to translate "Vibhajayada", and also sometimes historicaly to qualify the Buddha. It apparently means distinction between the two extremes and the search for the "Middle way". According to the same dictionnary: "The Vibhajjavada, "The Dictinctionists", is a school of early Buddhism belonging to the "elder" Shtavira tradition, which at the council of Pataliputra in c. 250 BCE was adjudged to embody the orthodox teachings of the Buddha". Best regards. User:PHG 13 Sep, 2004
Dear User:Shubhajeet roy,
the website u provided (http://www.buddha101.com) was redirected to http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/ which was a personal website. The content inside the website cleary shown the author was a biased Mahayanist. To be technicaly correct i use the name "Vibhajyavada" which was a School name created & approved at the Third Council under the patronage of Ashoka. regards
Dear PHG,
"Vibhajjavada" was a Pali word, the Pali language was currently used by Theravadins as their religious language. No other Buddhist sect use Pali. Pali is based on a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that was probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time. It currently no longer used as a common spoken langauge in India. If u wana know the true meaning of a Chinese word, will u ask a Chinese or a Japanese to translate the word correctly, even thou the Japanese may had learned Chinese at University Of Tokyo and created his own Chinese Dictionary?
Here was meaning of "Vibhajjavada" from Theravadins themself:
http://watthai.net/bluws/ebud/ebdha136.htm "Vibhajjavada, the "Doctrine of Analysis" or the "Religion of Reason" though the two terms are identical." by Maung Kyauk Seinn, Burma
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/councils.html "The members of this Council also gave a royal seal of approval to the doctrine of the Buddha, naming it the Vibhajjavada, the Doctrine of Analysis." by Venerable Dr. Rewata Dhamma, Sri Lanka
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/way_of_mindfulness.htm "The Buddha is the Master of analytic knowledge and his doctrine is called the Teaching of Analysis [vibhajjavada]." by Soma Thera, Sri Lanka
http://www.dailynews.lk/2003/11/24/fea06.html "Buddhism is a doctrine of analysis ('Vibhajjavada')" by Aryadasa Ratnasinghe, Sri Lanka
Other buddhist sect may argue about the true meaning of "Vibhajjavada", but it will be just like a Japanese arguing about the true meaning of a Chinese word with a Chinese from mainland China.
regards
- Thanks for the nice discussion. Maybe an ethymologist could help clarify this? Meanwhile a pali cannon site says: "vibhajja-váda. 'analytical or discriminating doctrine' is an early name for the original Buddha doctrine" [1] (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vibhajja_vaada.htm). Isn't this a good formulation? Regards :-) User:PHG 13 Sep 2004
'analytical' and 'discriminating doctrine', it clearly have 2 different meaning. But during the 3rd council it was mean to be 'analytical'. It is also a concept still promoted by Theravada....the concept of 'Analytical'. Unless the early name for the original Buddha doctrine was also 'Discriminating doctrine'. Anyway i will include the ethymology into "Vibhajjavada". regards
Some additional info to prove that Asoka did not propagate Mahayana.
1) Here an excerpt from a commercial encyclopedia (Microsoft Encarta):
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552895_2/Buddhism.html
"The third council at Pataliputra (present-day Patna) was called by King Ashoka in the 3rd century bc. Convened by the monk Moggaliputta Tissa, it was held in order to purify the sangha of the large number of false monks and heretics who had apparently joined the order because of its royal patronage. This council refuted the offending viewpoints and expelled those who held them. In the process, the compilation of the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) was supposedly completed, with the addition of a body of subtle philosophy (abhidharma) to the doctrine (dharma) and monastic discipline (vinaya) that had been recited at the first council. Another result of the third council was the dispatch of missionaries to various countries."
Did Mahayana have Abhidharma?
2) Mahayana did not mentioned the Third Councils held by Asoka:
http://www.thebuddhistsociety.org.uk/early_indian.htm
"There is said to have been a famous council held by Emperor Ashoka. For me this used to be a kind of marker in Buddhist history, but the Northern (Mahayana) tradition doesn’t mention it"
3) Indian Scholar (Dr. Radha Banerjee) said Asoka was Theravadins.
http://www.ibiblio.org/radha/rpub003.htm
" During the time of Emperor Ashoka (3rd cent. B. C.). The Buddhist church witnessed severe schism and it was divided into several sects. The emperor, an ardent leader of the Theravada school, convened another Council (the third) to finally settle the Tipitika according to the school he himself adhered to. When his son, Mahindathera, and daughter, Sanghamitta, led a mission to Sri Lanka, they carried with them the oral Tipitika to that country."
Kalinga War
I can't make sense of this paragraph in the article:
- Ashoka, baffled at this defeat, attacked with the greatest invasion ever recorded until then, with 1 million infantry and 200,000 mounted cavalry. Kalinga could not match Ashoka's numerical strength, so both men and women and everybody from peasants to craftsmen joined in the fight. But they were no match for Ashoka's brutal strength. The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: the Vedas say that at least 600,000 men were killed on the Kalinga side and 10,000 from Ashoka's army; thousands of men and women were taken as slaves.
One million infantry? That makes no sense - the number is preposterous. Do we have any proof to substantiate that claim? The reason it sounds preposterous to me is that the whole of the modern Indian Armed Forces in the 21st century have just over 1 million personnel! And that includes the airforce and the navy - The whole of the Indian Army in the 21st century does not have 1 million people working in it - that makes it very hard for me to believe that Ashoka's army could have had even more soldiers, over 1 million soldiers, 2300 years ago.
600,000 killed on the Kalinga side - to the best of my knowledge, Ashoka's own edicts mention the number dead as "one hundred thousand". Do we have any proof of 600,000 that would justify overriding what Ashoka himself claimed? Even the 100,000 number on the edicts is supposed to be exaggerated, according to some historians.
The paragraph also mentions that the Vedas claim the above number. My knowledge is limited here - I concede that there are sections of the Vedas that were composed as late as Ashoka's period (and even later), but do the Vedas really document the Kalinga war and other aspects of Ashoka's life that this article draws to? --ashwatha 06:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
reply to ashwatha
monsieur ashwatha, exaggerated or not,the point is that Emperor Ashoka commanded a territory more than the present boundaries of India...and it was the first organised armed force in the history of India...and given the rock edicts plus Buddhist texts plus the folklore,the numbers did exist!! If we ever were to put into question the historical annals just because we had some contemptible personal indigestion problems,well then,nothing would be believed?!! Did you know,in the Mahabharata,there were 18 divisions in all total;11 with the Kauravas and 7 with the Pandavas:each division consisted of 2000 elephants,5000 horses,10,000 foot soldiers..!! Why,you wouldnt believe that either!! because you think they were all primitive half-monkeys and half savage.wouldnt and couldnt belly the fact that they were a lot scientifically advanced...more than us,to be precise...
Why then,you wouldnt believe that Napoleon usurped to power to launch Europe's first biggest war,that Hitler commanded an army that had no competition which exceeded 20,00,000 soldiers at the start of 1941..because all of that stupid statistics comes from a stupid piece of paper...and from a dwarf of a country called Germany.
Why then,you wouldnt believe that The Pyramids of Giza,the underwater temples of Japan dedicated to Krishna and some Aztec Temples in America....all were made precisely and accurately based on the astronomical positions of Orion and other constellation as they were on 10,500 B.C......what?! you couldn't gulp that!! i would rather suggest that you rather propel up your meagre knowledge and start taking some digestive tonics.Plus,even if you cannot digest.....it doesnt matter!!
- First of all, stop foaming at the mouth; I never said anything about Giza or Germany or Japan or America or Napoleon or Hitler. Or the Mahabharata. Or anything about anyone being primitive or half monkeys or half savages. Go back and read my comments.
- I asked a question about what sources we had to substantiate the numbers. If you have any proper sources, all you have to do is to provide those sources. I have no problem believing stuff with the right sources. Instead, you are way out of the line flying into a rage, accusing me of things that I have never said and assuming implications I have never made. Please don't make meaningless personal attacks. --ashwatha 03:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
reply to ashwatha
--Shubhajeet roy 17:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)monsieur ashwatha, exaggerated or not,the point is that Emperor Ashoka commanded a territory more than the present boundaries of India...and it was the first organised armed force in the history of India...and given the rock edicts plus Buddhist texts plus the folklore,the numbers did exist!! If we ever were to put into question the historical annals just because we had some contemptible personal indigestion problems,well then,nothing would be believed?!! Did you know,in the Mahabharata,there were 18 divisions in all total;11 with the Kauravas and 7 with the Pandavas:each division consisted of 2000 elephants,5000 horses,10,000 foot soldiers..!! Why,you wouldnt believe that either!! because you think they were all primitive half-monkeys and half savage.wouldnt and couldnt belly the fact that they were a lot scientifically advanced...more than us,to be precise...
Why then,you wouldnt believe that Napoleon usurped to power to launch Europe's first biggest war,that Hitler commanded an army that had no competition which exceeded 20,00,000 soldiers at the start of 1941..because all of that stupid statistics comes from a stupid piece of paper...and from a dwarf of a country called Germany.
Why then,you wouldnt believe that The Pyramids of Giza,the underwater temples of Japan dedicated to Krishna and some Aztec Temples in America....all were made precisely and accurately based on the astronomical positions of Orion and other constellation as they were on 10,500 B.C......what?! you couldn't gulp that!! i would rather suggest that you rather propel up your meagre knowledge and start taking some digestive tonics.Plus,even if you cannot digest.....it doesnt matter!!
(I don't respect this guy's opinion. Way too many exclamation marks to be taken seriously
--a third party observer)
Glorified
I have done some research on Ashoka, and I think that this article glorifies him.
He had a second motive in promoting peace in his kingdom: he was worried about a rebellion. He had seen small-scale revolts when he was young, and he controlled a giant kingdom -- it was in his best interests to keep control.
Ashoka was not a complete vegetarian. He was self-serving in the names he took, and the edicts he commissioned as monuments to his peaceful ways. He was intolerant of religions other than his own.
---
I know this goes against what a lot of people believe in deeply, and I don't have the expertise to go around editing the article myself. It's just something I think we should watch for.
(Keep in mind that I am agnostic and have no religious bias.)
Buddhist Ashoka?
My understanding is that most modern historians do not believe that Ashoka actually converted to Buddhism. He seems to have been a supporter of Buddhism, but also of a number of other teachings (including Jainism), and to have encouraged official tolerance throughout the realm. Most of the sources that indicate that he converted to Buddhism come from the Theravada, which obviously has some interest in depicting him as a Buddhist supporter. Furthermore, even if he was a lay Buddhist supporter, that would not necessitate him being 'exclusively' a Buddhist in the modern understanding- support for religious teachings was quite flexible in the Indian world of the time. Do we have some non-Buddhist sources that make remarks as to his religious identification?
From: Asoka and the Missionary Activity of the Buddhists by Stefan Anacker, collected in Buddhism: A Modern Perspective, Charles Prebish, ed.: "The great question mark regarding Asoka is how we can tally the traditional Buddhist accounts of this great Indian king, marking him as perhaps the most forceful ruler in terms of his service to the religion, with the accounts left by Asoka himself in his various rock and pillar edicts - accounts which seem to place no special emphasis on Buddhism."
This seems to argue that there is not non-Buddhist attestation to Asoka's conversion to Buddhism, much less making Buddhism anything like a state religion. If these assertions are made on the basis of a particular account, or folk tradition, they should be identified as such to preserve NPOV. --Clay Collier 22:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. The Edicts of Ashoka, written by Ashoka himself, do claim his following of Buddhism: "Piyadasi, King of Magadha, saluting the Sangha and wishing them good health and happiness, speaks thus: You know, reverend sirs, how great my faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha is. Whatever, reverend sirs, has been spoken by Lord Buddha, all that is well-spoken." Minor Rock Edict Nb3 (Piyadasi is the name taken by Ashoka in these Edicts). It cannot be excluded of course that he also respected other religions, especially in light of his appeal for tolerance. PHG 00:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That edict makes it clear that Ashoka was a supporter and admirer of Buddhist teachers and teachings, but still does not establish his 'conversion', much less the more difficult to support assertion that he made Buddhism a state religion. There is one edict that indicates that Ashoka worshiped at the site of the Buddha's birth. There is also an edict that says that Ashoka sent his representatives to work among various different religious groups (the 7th Pilar Edict). This seems to contradict the assertion that Buddhism was a state religion. There's also the fact that while Dhamma is referenced many times in the Ashokan inscriptions, it is generally described in general terms of positive moral conduct. Some have interpreted this to mean that Ashoka was using the fact that Dhamma (Dharma) is a widely-used term in the South Asian context, and as such was attempting to encourage good behvaviour without establishing any particular religious program. Looking at S. Dhammika's translation of the Edicts ([available here (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel386.html)]), I can see evidence to support the assertion that Ashoka himself was a Buddhist- though it isn't a slam dunk case- but little to support the idea of Buddhism as state religion. --Clay Collier 01:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
For clarity
I suggest some minor grammar edits for clarity. In Conquest of Kalinga, starting at the end of the second paragraph, should "diktat" be dictate? And in the next sentence tactic was likely intended where it say "tact". At the end of the article, should "British Imperial India" be "the British Empire" or "The British East India Company" or .. ? --Ben Knowles 17:46, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed tact and changed the last sentence of the article. Diktat is actually used correctly (see here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diktat)); it's just not common vocabulary. Maybe a link to the Wiktionary is in order? --Clay Collier 10:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)