If Ashoka had not converted to Buddhism

[KS]

Re: Does anybody like emperor Ashoka ??

very truely someone ( a colonel rane writing in a marathi book on india's wars ) has said---'' why is it that all the mahatmas of the world had to be born into this country only . that is truely our nation's misfortune !! "

 

[KS]

mind you, pushamitra himself became a patron of buddhism later! the guptas, palas and harshas would all be buddhist kings. the satavahanas, hindu brrahmins, were also buddhist kings! the cycle never got completed. hinduism never got to enjoy royal patronage again.

Thats wrong. the Guptas were by and large patrons of Hinduism who also had a tolerant view on Buddhism including their greatest Samudragupta.

And you are completely forgetting the southern kingdoms which rooted out buddhism and jainism and were patrons of Hinduism.

Anyway I dont think that is relevant to the topic in hand as all were Indian religions and ashdoc's reply almost mirror's my would-be reply to your reply to my post.

 

[Tshering22]

Ashoka misunderstood the meaning of Buddhism. Though he refrained from unjust violence which is good, he renounced a well-built empire which if he and his descendants had maintained, we'd be having an India the size of China today.

 

[maomao]

Ashoka misunderstood the meaning of Buddhism. Though he refrained from unjust violence which is good, he renounced a well-built empire which if he and his descendants had maintained, we'd be having an India the size of China today.

Bro you always hit the bulls-eye!

I wish Ashoka would have adopted Bushido rather than become a peacenik! It would have annihilated barbaric cults which originated latter!

 

[Tolaha]

Thats wrong. the Guptas were by and large patrons of Hinduism who also had a tolerant view on Buddhism including their greatest Samudragupta.

And you are completely forgetting the southern kingdoms which rooted out buddhism and jainism and were patrons of Hinduism.

This was probably the case only in the Tamizh territories. Even in Tamil territories there were brief periods of non-Shaiva/non-Vasihnava rule. Kalabhras (who probably were Jains or Budhists from Karnataka, ruled for a few centuries). Sangam literature describes this period as the dark age! Even the kings who came after the Kalabhras (Pallavas/Pandyas?) initially followed similar religious philosophies.

Buddhist and Jain rulers were not an exception in Andhra and Kannada regions.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Buddhism is not a pacifist religion. It has a political component favorable for imperialism. The highly organized 'peaceful' Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka and Myanmar are testament to this fact.

IMO Downfall of Mauryan empire is simply a case of Ashoka's successors being incompetent

@diesel @ashdoc

 

[parijataka]

^^^
A snippet in one comment about `turning the other cheek` relating to Buddhism - this is something that Christianity preaches not Buddhism.

 

[devgupt]

No empire in the world survives forever - what survives is its legacy - we don't have Roman empire, yet what we know today as the western world is based on that civilization.Military conquests don't forge a nation or define a civilization , they are first and vital step indeed but that's it - the first step.
And in that sense the cultural impact of Ashoka was far greater for his legacy has survived and continues to inspire large parts of Asia.

What would have happened had he remained 'ChandaAshoka'? To guess answer to this question - look at Chengiz Khan - what is his legacy?He built a great empire but there was no cultural bond to hold it and it crashed. The empire of 'ChandaAshoka' (as he was known before conversion and he had worked hard to earn that title!!) would have crashed similarly.

 

[Phenom]

Buddhism had already been well established in India before King Ashok

SO It is quite possible that some other king or Ashok's Descendents would have embraced Buddhism

This is a fact that often gets overlooked.

In our romanticization of Asoka we often forget that his decision to embrace and spread Buddhism may just have been a practical step. By that time, Asoka has conquered most of India, then he needed to find a way to secure and unify a diverse civilization, with no unifying factor.

I think what Asoka did may have been very similar to what Constantine did with Rome and Christianity. During Constantine reign in Rome, Christianity was the fastest growing religion across a huge and diverse empire and it was leading to civil strifes between Christians and Pagans. Constantine deiced to embrace Christianity and tried to unify Rome under the Christian banner.

It possible Asoka may have been trying the same thing few centuries earlier. Buddhism was growing fast across the country and there was no other unifying factor in the Mauryan Empire, so he may have decided to make Buddhism state religion and spread it across his empire in the hope of creating a common bond.

Unfortunately for him, the local resistance to Buddhism was much more than the pagan resistance to Christianity, so the gamble didn't work.

 

[warriorextreme]

Hinduism we see today is nothing like pre jainism and prebuddhism period..Hinduism today has influence of both these religions...
Ashoka did not stay true to the reason for which he converted to Buddhism...He ordered massacre of jainis/ajivikas..

 

[civfanatic]

Hinduism we see today is nothing like pre jainism and prebuddhism period..Hinduism today has influence of both these religions...
Ashoka did not stay true to the reason for which he converted to Buddhism...He ordered massacre of jainis/ajivikas..

Highly unlikely. The only source of this comes from Ashokavadana, which is not considered a reliable historic source (it is full of exaggerations and fabrications). The same source also states that Sungas (successors of Mauryas) massacred Buddhists.

From Ashok's own inscriptions it is clear that he is anti-sectarian rather than a zealot. Oppressing other sects would have been counter-intuitive for the ruler of a vast and diverse empire. Ashok's objective first and foremost was to promote a sense of ideological unity among his subjects, not alienating them through religious fanaticism.

 

[warriorextreme]

Highly unlikely. The only source of this comes from Ashokavadana, which is not considered a reliable historic source (it is full of exaggerations and fabrications). The same source also states that Sungas (successors of Mauryas) massacred Buddhists.

From Ashok's own inscriptions it is clear that he is anti-sectarian rather than a zealot. Oppressing other sects would have been counter-intuitive for the ruler of a vast and diverse empire. Ashok's objective first and foremost was to promote a sense of ideological unity among his subjects, not alienating them through religious fanaticism.

Reliable or not is speculative..but it exists...I believe in this and I also believe that Pushyamitra Sunga massacred Budhists and converted Budhist stupas into temples..

 

[Virendra]

Oppressing other sects would have been counter-intuitive for the ruler of a vast and diverse empire.

Isn't Aurangzeb a good example?

 

[civfanatic]

Reliable or not is speculative..but it exists...I believe in this and I also believe that Pushyamitra Sunga massacred Budhists and converted Budhist stupas into temples..

You can believe whatever you like, but most historians do not accept this view because there is very little basis for it.

Isn't Aurangzeb a good example?

Yes, he lost his empire due to his religious bigotry.

 

[Virendra]

So Aurangzeb was being counter intuitive ?

 

[civfanatic]

So Aurangzeb was being counter intuitive ?

Of course.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

"If Ashoka never converted"! Frankly Ashokas choice was made far before his time when Chandragupta converted to Jainism and set the president of being a pacifist, Ashoka was perhaps a prisoner of trends and only a copy cat and tried to walk his grandfathers foot steps. He had no choice really, perhaps Chandragupta was so venerated it became a social trend for him to change his philosophy to pacifism to be seen as equal to his Great grandfathers selfless demeanor. Most of what Ashoka did was to ape his grandfather.

We make no choices and there are no choices, This is like asking why did i end up in Chennai and do business when everyone else is working and end up an Atheist just like my grand dad? well frankly i had no choice my grandfather started it.lol. We have no say, we control nothing. Everything you do is a reaction, there is no action, pure action or spontaneous action, whether you choose to read this and respond or not respond it will still be a reaction to this. There is no way out of it, you make no choice. Even if you are dumb and just wondering what is he saying, it is a reaction to what i just said.

Frankly i am interested in what about "if you where born a White british dude" would you have better self-esteem or be happier with the British empire history or still be a miserable troll on the net typeing your opinion in the middle of the night in depressingly cold british winter? lol

Frankly i suggest "what if you lost couple of pounds, had a plastic surgery and bleached your ugly indian skin and get over yourself. Would long dead Ashoka of 300BC matter then? or is that for another topic.

 

[civfanatic]

Aryaputra, why are you ashamed of your "ugly Indian skin"? Samraat Ashok was of the same complexion. The opinions of the fair-skinned mlecchas do not matter. Circumstances will soon change.

@Godless-Kafir

 

[warriorextreme]

"If Ashoka never converted"! Frankly Ashokas choice was made far before his time when Chandragupta converted to Jainism and set the president of being a pacifist, Ashoka was perhaps a prisoner of trends and only a copy cat and tried to walk his grandfathers foot steps. He had no choice really, perhaps Chandragupta was so venerated it became a social trend for him to change his philosophy to pacifism to be seen as equal to his Great grandfathers selfless demeanor. Most of what Ashoka did was to ape his grandfather.

We make no choices and there are no choices, This is like asking why did i end up in Chennai and do business when everyone else is working and end up an Atheist just like my grand dad? well frankly i had no choice my grandfather started it.lol. We have no say, we control nothing. Everything you do is a reaction, there is no action, pure action or spontaneous action, whether you choose to read this and respond or not respond it will still be a reaction to this. There is no way out of it, you make no choice. Even if you are dumb and just wondering what is he saying, it is a reaction to what i just said.

Frankly i am interested in what about "if you where born a White british dude" would you have better self-esteem or be happier with the British empire history or still be a miserable troll on the net typeing your opinion in the middle of the night in depressingly cold british winter? lol

Frankly i suggest "what if you lost couple of pounds, had a plastic surgery and bleached your ugly indian skin and get over yourself. Would long dead Ashoka of 300BC matter then? or is that for another topic.

As per my knowledge Chandragupta became jain and disowned his crown...not like ashoka who was still a ruler after converting to buddhism...
I have also read somewhere that ashoka gave his empire to his jain kids(from his jain wife) while he sent his buddhist kids to srianka and other south east asian regions..

 

[kayal]

Ashoka is arguably the greatest emperor of India. Great conqueror. ?

Rajendra Cholan I and some of his heirs conquered more territoris that Asoka

He would probably have invaded south India and may be united entire subcontinent as one and spread the cultural influence of north towards the south and may be left a lasting effect of a linguisitic and cultural unity?

WROMG. The combined armies of the 3 Tamil dynasties gathered somewhere in today's Andhra and spies told Asokan of it. No foreign army has EVER defeated the combined Tamil army of the 3 dynasties. NEVER EVER$.