Talk:Ashoka the Great
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ashoka, the organization and the Ashoka Tree can be moved into new pages.
Jay 13:51, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Name
This name was used on his rock edicts: King Priyardarshi. I thought it might be included, but didn't want to do it and ruffle feathers in case I'm wrong :)
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)
Is that image really of asoka? it looks distinctly persian and it seems unlikely that persians would have made an image of him considering he was born well after Alexander's conquests.
Ashoka is also a brilliant and prolific global nonprofit organization located in Arlington Virginia USA, a global association of leading social entrepreneurs. Currently listed under 'Ashoka: Innovators for the Public' and 'Wealth of the Poor™ Program'. There really should be information about it on this page also. What does one do at wikipedia when one name has multiple possible entries? Anyhow, you'll know how to address this I am sure.
[edit] Maps?
Despite the written description, it might be nice to have a visual description of the scope of his reign. - Ashi Starshade 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've added one; there are also Image:Maurya_india.png and Image:Karta_maurya.jpg on commons. --Εξαίρετος (
msg) 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] ashok
He also made hospitals for humans & supplied medicine for them too.its nt ashoka bt ashok .
[edit] 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]. 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."
-
- A couple of tidbits to add to the discussion:
- (i) The new Sutras of the Mahayana were not written until around the 1st CE. Mitchell states that Asoka supported the Vibhajyavadins (a sect within the Sthahaviravadans) at the Third Council (Mitchell, Donald W. Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 69). I think we can assume from the combination of these two facts that he was a supporter of what later became the Theravadins.
- (ii) Minor point of interest: one of my professors who has travelled in and studied Sri Lanka extensively told me that they worship Avalokiteshvara, a Mahayana Bodhisattva, there, although he goes by a different name. Just an aside. Joechip123 06:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
Does this claim that ashoka was intolerant to other religions than his own have any basis.if he was intolerant how come he did not massacre hindus and drive hindusim out of india the way sungas did with buddhism when they took over power from mauryas....
as far as controlling rebellions and all that goes , whats so special that it needs mentions.thats obvious even today.most countries though claim free speech subjugate political opposition.
"ashoka was not a complete vegeratian"...funny aint it.whats "complete vegetarian" u are either vegetarian or non vegetarian ---
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.)
Allow me to quote directly from Buddha's Sermon at Benares. "Anger, drunkenness, obstinacy, bigotry, deception, envy, self-praise, disparaging others, superciliousness, and evil intentions constitute uncleanliness; not verily the eating of flesh."
Eating meat is immoral to HINDUS, not to Buddhists. If Ashoka ate meat after his conversion to Buddhism, so what? Also, please sign your posts by typing four tilde marks at the end. Wandering Star 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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]), 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)
[edit] 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); it's just not common vocabulary. Maybe a link to the Wiktionary is in order? --Clay Collier 10:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of the lion picture
This image was removed from our site about 12 months ago when we were unable to establish copyright. We do not own the copyright of this image and are unsure of its origin. Please ensure that it remains removed from Wikipedia.
[edit] Names are wrongly spelled
Sanskrit is a phonetic language Change Mahinda and Sanghamitta To Mahindra and Sanghamittra
then when you read it in english you pronounce it just like in sanskrit!!!
- Mahinda and Sanghamitta are not incorrect Sanskrit spellings, but rather correct Pali spellings. Since the Ashoka legend is most prominent among the Theravada, information about him and his family has generally been recorded in Pali rather than Sanskrit. The Pali spellings and pronunciations are the ones most commonly used in scholarly resources about these two individuals. --Clay Collier
[edit] Confusing Sentence
From the 2nd last paragraph of the 'Rise to Power' section:
- Prince Susima planned the execution of the unborn child; however, the assassin who came to kill Devi and her child killed his mother instead.
Who exactly was killed? Susima's mother? Devi? Devi's mother? The assassin's mother? I'm not familiar enough with the particular part of the legend to fill in the blank, and the sentence seems a little confusing. Can anyone clarify? --Clay Collier
[edit] "Conversion" to Buddhism
Was there any strong line dividing Buddhism from "Hinduism" in those days. Ashoka did transform himself in accordance to the teachings of Buddha, but was there any explicit conversion? His edicts, for example, show that he highly revered brahmins. deeptrivia (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Movie Poster
Shouldn't the movie poster be removed as it doesn't add anything important to the article and it was also a historically innaccurate film anyway, also the poster looks somewhat weird as it is with Kareena Kapoor looking like she in the wrong time era and Sharukh depicting Ashoka wearing klingon garb.
[edit] New "Controversy" section
I've just done a minor copyedit to this section. No citations are provided for its allegation, and these are needed: I hope someone will supply -- there are plenty... That said, yes this point has been very controversial: the only way of preventing the section from becoming a meaningless & endless "religion thrash", then, is to be very careful about both NPOV and [citation needed]. Over-generalized statements, too, need to be avoided: such as,
- "scientifically it has been proved that the process of psychlogical change in humans is very very slow."
-- which I've just deleted -- no, some psychological change in humans is very slow, but other change, from precisely things such as trauma and religious "conversion" incidents, has been shown to be very rapid, in fact. If you're going to put such generalizations in, at least add cites... But this sort of broad & sweeping statement just is going to excite unrelated controversy: best to keep "controversy" as close to the subject of the article as possible.
Ashoka's "conversion" has many very interesting parallels to similar incidents of "seeing the light" in the Christian tradition -- St. Augustine, St. Paul, Emperor Constantine many others -- and in many other religions. That comparative point might be expanded, here.
--Kessler 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy? No Controversy at all about Ashoka.
This whole article is as unhistorical as the picture of Ashoka that accompanies it. The spirit of description is medieval, as it is based mainly on unreliable texts, not archaeology. The moderator has deleted the controversy section and is simply not interested in discussions and is refusing even to report divergent views which have been considered to be important by much better informed scholars. This is plain misuse of power. I can mention in passing that even renowned scholars like Prof. N.G.L. Hammond, editor of the Cambridge Ancient History and Prof. John Keay, whose book is cited in this article, have written about the problems in Jones' idea. Some other SOAS scholars have also highlighted that Gotama may have been from Seistan.Mount Khajeh. There is much discussion on Susima. Has anyone heard about Abd Susim who is known from arcaheology? Blessed are the British who taught us that Ashoka and Chandragupta are from Patna. R. Thapar also wants us to believe this. Is there any archaeological proof of this? Any inscription, statue, coin belonging to him that has been found at Patna? Also why this idiotic picture of Ashoka when inscribed statues of him have been found from Kanganhalli? Would D. Chakrabarti, of Cambridge University or Prof. Thapar of JNU kindly explain why no such statue has been found from Patna? Another Cambridge Prof., F. R. Allchin, has advised for more digging at Patna. Have we not been digging there for nearly a century? What have we found? Who ruled Arachosia? The Kandahar edict seems to indicate that Ashoka was the master of this area, whereas the numerous coins of Diodotus-I found here shows that he was the ruler. Why does Ashoka not mention Diodotus-I who should have been his neighbour? Prof. Thapar says that the Greeks and Romans did not refer to Ashoka? Is this not absurd considering the fact that Ashoka sent emissaries to distant corners of the earth? Is it possible that they used another name not Ashoka or Piadassi? The names of two of his biographies, Ashokavadana and Divyavadana may suggest that Deva was his name. incidentally in Persian language Devanam has the same meaning as Devadat(Nam=dat=law). In an edict he says that his predecessors were also Devamnampiyas which shows that it was not a title but a family name. Can Prof. R. Thapar or D. Chakrabarti kindly explain why there are no coins of a great emperor like Ashoka whereas his neighbour Diodotus is famous for his coins? Sir George Mcdonald writes that Diodotus'coins are mostly from the Rawalpindi area which was definitely under Ashoka. In the Nittur record Ashoka calls himself king of Pathavi? Is this an allusion to Parthia which was mentioned as Parthava in the Achaemenian records? Here again he seems to clash with Diodotus-I who probably ruled Parthia. Diodotus-I was a feared warrior who, as his title Soter suggests, became a saviour. The title was not only used by Diodotus himself, even centuries later other kings referred to Diodotus as a Soter. This is also hinted by Justin's reference to him as Theodotus which is branded as a mistake almost as a matter of habit. Ashoka also had a violent early record and killed Susima and many others before he became a missionary. Incidentally in some of the manuscripts of the Sanskrit drama Mudrarakshasa Parthivo Rantivarma takes the place of Chandragupta. This can only mean that Rantivarma was a name of Chandragupta. Was he a Parthian? H. C. Seth once suggested that Sashigupta was the same as Chandragupta (Sashi=Chandra). It has to be remembered that the Parthian empire at one stage included parts of India.The Rajatarngini says that Chandragupta's great grandfather was Shakuni. Were not the Arsacids of Parthia called Arshakuni? The first Arsaces appears sometimes a Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian and sometimes even as a descendant of the Achaemenids wrote Sir George McDonald in the Cambridge History of India. Curiously the same appears to be true of Ashoka. The Mauryas are said to be related to the Nandas and Darius_II was called No(n)thos. Lastly even R. Thapar writes that he could have been a cousin of Antiochus. This makes it even stranger that the Greeks did not notice him. The Arsacids were the rulers of Parthia and R. Ghirshman writes that the name Arsakes was also written as Assak. This may indicate that the name Assak was changed to Ashoka so that it appears meaningful to his Sanskrit/Pali speaking subjects. Mejda, 7th march 2007.
[edit] Suggestions
I don't support the excising of the information, but I feel we should get more info from Buddhist oriented sources or Jain sources to make it bigger. Because it does seem as though there is not much detail about Ashoka and Buddhism and Ashoka the conqueror, and the same in the Maurya Empire - at the moment there is lots of information about the Greek connection, which inherently there is nothing wrong, but it may give the impression that Ashoka was a Greek reprentative or something - it just feels a bit too oriented on his bloodline and not what he nor the Mauryans achieved. In any case it was interesting that I got Mahinda (his son, who brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka) and Moggaliputta-Tissa (his spiritual adviser) to DYK in the week leading up to the locking - could we put more stuff about Buddhism into the articles to balance it out as well as his stuff about the Kalinga conquest etc. The Greek stuff is still interesting of course and I don't see a reason to cull it unless there is POV or weaselly stuff compromising it. Anything this old, of course cannot be certain, so as long as we give both a fair hearing then it should work out OK. This could be an interesting case as I am interested in learning more about Asoka. Perhaps I can find more about his Indian activity (religion and miltary) to balance it out. Tell me what you think. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "The Great"
Why is this article not titled simply Ashoka?Proabivouac 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The name in other scripts
At date of writing, the name is reproduced in Devanagari, Telegu, and Greek scripts. Now it is common in articles on India to reproduce the name in one relevant script; Devanagari should be sufficient. I've removed Telugu and Greek. The Devanagari does not have anything for 'the Great', this should be mentioned. Imc 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect or confused transliterations of the name?
From the opening section, it is unclear what names or words are being transliterated, Prakrit or Pali. e.g. in this block,
- Devānāmpriya (Devanāgarī: देवानांप्रिय)/Devānaṃpiya
Does the Devanagari text correspond to the first Prakrit name or the second Pali name?
Imc 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirection and disambig page
I think there are uses of Ashoka that deserve being highlighted as the Ashoka page redirects to the article about Ashoka the Great.
I think we should start a discussion on whether the page Ashoka should redirect to the Ashoka (disambiguation) page rather than to Ashoka the Great page. I agree that the article about the Emperor is the most commonly searched, but I believe that other uses of Ashoka are very significant: for instance, if you google Ashoka the Great, there are about 800,000 results. If you google Ashoka organization (see ashoka.org), you get 278,000. That is quite significant. Plus, if you look at the disambig page, there are a lot of other uses that are important - the tree, the films, the figures. This is compounded by the fact that Ashok also redirects to Ashoka the Great.
Another problem with the Ashoka page is that it has hundreds of other pages linking to it; in almost all cases the page referenced is really the article about the emperor. These links need to be fixed regardless of whether the Ashoka page redirects to Ashoka the Great or to Ashoka (disambiguation).
Either way, for now I have added
to the article to allow incoming users to see what these uses are as they go to the Ashoka page, while it continues to redirect to Ashoka the Great.
Can someone with more experience cite some guidelines here and give some suggestions? Rares (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand of the guidelines, there should be either: -- the disambiguation page at Ashoka, with Ashoka (disambiguation) redirecting to it OR
-- the article on the emperor (primary topic) at Ashoka, with
at the top.
Rares (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
