Talk:Ashoka/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jay

Ashoka, the organization and the Ashoka Tree can be moved into new pages.
Jay 13:51, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Atheism?

What is going on with the comment about certain Greek rulers converting to Atheism, and Greeks in India spreading Atheism? More explanation and references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.102.24 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

ashok

He also made hospitals for humans & supplied medicine for them too.its nt ashoka bt ashok .

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)

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.

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)

Reply to Wandering Star

Eating meat is not immoral to Hindus too. It was only immoral to Jains. Even today Hindus eat meat, they only avoid beef. Even the well known Hindu monk Vivekananda ate meat. Shaan1616 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

My World History Textbook claims that Asoka did convert to Buddhism, however I would like to point out that Buddhist teachings do support religious tolerance, so Asoka sending people to work with other faiths would not contradict the establishment of Buddhism as a state religion.PonileExpress (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (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); it's just not common vocabulary. Maybe a link to the Wiktionary is in order? --Clay Collier 10:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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.

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

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

"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.

Further to the movie poster featuring kareena kapoor & shah rukh khan

Please remove these to a seperate page with a link to it instead, these lesser beings do not deserve to be on the same page as 1/3 of "The Greats" in history of Mankind,

I'm asking nicely, don't force me to make another movie (Any movie will be better without Kareena Kapoor), and put more random people pix up here ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.100.218 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here, I have small confusion. It is generally believed that Ashoka converted to Buddhism after Kalinga war. But from my history professor, I have a document, which is basically an edict, which actually proves that Ashoka was a supporter of Buddhism even before he entered into the Kalinga war. I dont have a scanned copy of it to upload. I am sure someone else more knowledgeable, should be able to shed more light on this. :Mohankmurthy (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sent a message to User:Chakrashok who seems knowledgeable content-wise to work with trimming and prioritizing the info here. David Souther (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Great"

Why is this article not titled simply Ashoka?Proabivouac 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 {{otheruses2|Ashoka}} 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 {{otheruses2|Ashoka}} at the top. Rares (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the article is so messed up?

The article need improvement. All the sections are so random. It don't looks like a biography of a person. Kindly give your opinion and let me know people who are interested in improving it. Manoj nav (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree...there is no, at this time..mention of his military activity....if someone came looking for information on him,,,,this article seems limited to his religious activity. No mention of Kalinga, even? Gingervlad

68.116.70.12 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)gingervlad

(small) improvement

That pillar at Lumbini should be mentioned, too, [2].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.229 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashoka

[3] has this been him, too?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.206 (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

"As the news of the unborn heir to the throne spread, Prince Susima planned the execution of the unborn child; however, the assassin who came to kill Devi and her child killed his mother instead"

It is not clear whose mother got killed. If I take the rules of English then the assassin killed his own mother but that's absurd. did he kill is own mother, or the unborn child's mother, or Ashoka's mother, or Susima's mother. Please make the sentence clear

Secondly there is nothing in the article to suggest that the unborn baby was the heir to the throne. There is a gap here that needs addressing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.100 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be overhauled

This article has several major problems currently. Beginning with Chakrashok, sections have been tacked on to the end without regard to grammar or relevance. They are poorly worded, grammatically incorrect, and not in a format befitting Wikipedia. It began on December 23, by the aformentioned Chakrashok, but other users have continued in the same fashion. Overhauling is needed, so unless anyone says otherwise I will proceed with deleting the sections in question.rcduggan (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on it ;) David Souther (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not best one in form or shape but is better than any other imformation about Ashoka on internet

I am not much happy , that this article is not very accurate in shape , not very sublime in form .But ( i have to say ) this is much better and clear than any other existing article on Ashoka the great specially on internet . I am also very thankful that many donater are adding very important information about this Emperor but they should use the currect grammer n neat phrases . This article is enwiding day by day but the construction should be best .In the world of wikipedia better is not enough.I think rcduggan deletation is not important as that of re-evaluation. This article should be best not better only. divinstephen1

Divinstephen1 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While I acknowledge your effort to improve the page on Ashoka, there are a few things I take issue with. First of all, Divinstephen1, you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with the English language. Do not take this personally, please, but it shows on some of your edits. There are numerous grammatical mistakes, the article becomes progressively less articulate as one scrolls down, and much of the later content is of questionable relevance. I also notice the flood of unregistered IP address users changing this page. Further investigation reveals that most of them are from the exact same street address in New Delhi. These same people also have a substandard command of English, which contributes to the sloppiness of this article. rcduggan (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Asoka.jpg

The image File:Asoka.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

some of the introduction is puzzling one

This article is sublime but the introductory part is some what puzzling rather confussing, I think confussing part is:-

Although there are many inscriptions of Ashoka, no coins which can be confidently linked to him have been found. This may be linked to the fact that his contemporary and neighbour Diodotus I has numerous coins but no inscriptions. Moreover, the Kandahar bilingual inscription clearly indicates that Ashoka was the ruler of this area but the coins point to Diodotus-I as the ruler. Dr. Ranajit Pal attempts to resolve the problem by suggesting that Ashoka was the same as Diodotus I

as many historian assert that Diodotus I is a greek king(Seleucid Empire) unlike Asoka ( who is a Mauryan Indian king).

So I ask to readers and volunters to give justice to this confusing introduction.

chakrashok —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakrashok (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rejoice! Rejoice!

Nothing can be further from the truth as the assertion in this article that Asoka was headquartered in modern Bihar. The confusion created by Ranajit Pal has now been cleared by the learned editor. See however, the article entitled "An Altar of Alexander Now Standing Near Delhi", Scholia, vol. 15, p.78-p.101 where Asoka's face has been confused with that of Diodotus-I. See also the comment on Pal's work by the learned scholar T. McEvilley in Pal's website [4]. Mejda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mme Sonia Gandhi may be the most powerful Indian political leader today and she is an Italian by birth. Is there any contradiction here? Are you not aware of the fact that one of Chandragupta's wives was a Greek (or Macedonian)princess? This makes it likely that Ashoka was a half-Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

historical image should be used

I think Ashoka's image should be taken from Ashoka sculpture from http://www.ranajitpal.com/ Inscribed Portrait of Asoka from Kanganhalli caves (Courtesy ASI) karnataka state , that will make this article more reliable n historical.

This article should be applied by Protection policy because of vandalism

friends Ashoka the great article is constantly vandalized and demoralized by users like 75.43.218.211 and 71.190.171.32 , plz do some thing to save this important documents from the satanic hands of vandals. wqwqwqwq 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)rajvaddhan

As of the past 50 edits, I haven't seen either of those ips, or any other vandalism. Must have passed. David Souther (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many images

I'm thinking there are too many images, including many duplicate images. Overall, this reduces the readability of the article without adding any truly compelling new information. To that end, I'll be removing 1/3 to 1/2 the images after I finish copy editing. David Souther (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked some of the images and placement. I like them a lot better. I'm finished with the copy editing. I'm now going to cut a couple sections from the article. This will be my last edit of the night, so revert if it's too much. I'll let it sit for a day or two, see what happens, and then try to rewrite the introduction. David Souther (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ok , i have a solution about this problem , the related images which are nessesary but are with a great quaintity are to be added to galley like wat vihara.again thank u David South for very appropriate modification.

rajvaddhan —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I like it, rajvaddhan. Looks great. David Souther (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Madhav Kondvilkar Monologue

I don't have a problem with the monologue as part of the article, but I think two things need to happen. First, since the monologue was undoubtedly not given in English, the English translation should reflect the level of language Ashoka used in his native tongue. Second, the translation should be sourced. If anyone can add a reference to a translation by a qualified individual, that would be excellent. Otherwise, I'll probably talk again about reducing the amount of monologue in the article. Actually, on second thought, it might be better to move the majority of the monologue to the quotations section, reducing the amount in the main biography itself. David Souther (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no one's mentioned anything, I'm going to move it. I'd still like a reference on it, as well. David Souther (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop cult section

I removed the following from the pop cult section of the article.
* [[Air India]]’s early [[Boeing 747]] aircraft has been named after Emperor Ashoka. * Asoka appeared as one of the two leaders of India (the other Indian leader being the [[Gandhi]]) in the 2005 [[turn-based strategy|turn-based strategy computer game]] [[Civilization IV]].
There is at least one editor who thinks they are needed. I tried to contact the editor, but have received no response. Since there is a disagreement, I moved the two to the talk section so it can be debated. --OrbitOne (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

i think its essetial that , emperror ashok how is famous in modern age in games and in air india. so i have readded to this. and there is no need to deleate it from popular culture.(talk)wqwqwqwq 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree, which is why I moved it to the talk section so it can be discussed, because I do not understand why you think it is essential, but I am willing to hear why you think it is.

I think game references should be removed from most articles, because while a historical figure can be relevant to a game, a game might not be relevant to the historical figure. Also, one can amass a long list of references to games for weapons, cultures and people. Such lists would degrade the readability and quality of articles. What makes one or another game more or less relevant to any article? I cannot quantify or qualify any game as more relevant than any other game, so my position is either all games must be included or none should be mentioned. Therefor, to preserve the quality of articles, none should be mentioned unless the relevance of the game can be both qualified and quantified.

The reference to the airline is also lacking in context. Is there a certain point or ideal the airline is representing by assuming the emperor's icon? --OrbitOne (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Until you are willing and able to dedicate enough time to engage in a discussion about the relevance and contextual merits of both the game and the airlines use of Ashoka, I will remove both references and let them stay in the talk page. I hope you respect my edit of the page and understand that the value of either reference can only be explained to me by engaging me in a discussion here. --OrbitOne (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I disposed of the popcult section. But, I also will move an uncited reference to talk.

One of Japanese rock musician Miyavi's most recognizable tattoos (on his upper right arm), is claimed to mean, Asoka.^[1]

--OrbitOne (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical sources' properization

long live wikipedia ! wikipedians !n jimmy wales !!! good morning all helpers and (even) vandals both (new and old)(why not ) of wikipedia, equally welcomed, i am (rajvaddhan) thanking for ur continous help [sometime (help?)] , so friend i am here now asking u for the beautification of the content of historical sources of artilce ashoka the great for... 1)historical sources should be differentiated by a)eastern sources -eg. Edicts of Ashoka, Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa and b) western sources -eg. James Prinsep , British archaeologist sir John Hubert Marshall etc. ; it will clearly help to gernral readers/ historians, scholars of wikipedia to understand rather to comprehend this interesting and sublime article on this superbeing ashoka 2)in eastern sources there should be neat and short (rather very short)summary of the sources thou Main articles: Edicts of Ashoka, Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa is there to direct link so i am searching and toiling for that now; plz all are free to help me on that matter , any body is free to help on this issue to beautify this article and perticularly wikipedia .good health n wealth for all both wikipedians and non wikipedians.

i have created some work on eastern sources and western soureces with short summary , but dipavamsha narration is very short. wqwqwqwq 09:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) --rajvaddhan (talk

Image.

The current image reads 'modern reconstruction' - reconstructed from what? I suggest that, if no reasonable image can be found, it's better to go without one than to use this one. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(To the IP re-adding the image) Could you please explain why this image is appropriate? It is clearly not of Ashoka; the provenance of the image is unexplained; and 'modern reconstruction' is unexplained (who reconstructed it, what was it reconstructed from, and why is this reconstruction worth preserving). Right now, the image could be a portrait of anybody, living or dead. We can't just add any portrait to the page, there must be sufficient reason to add it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

image added hi friends , long live wikipedia n wikipedians . so friend regentspark , thanks for ur alertness and ur sensativeness about the image of emperor ashok. 1)friend the added image is not the actually image of the king ashoka its a reconstruction based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chakravatin.JPG sclupture , andhra pradesh, india. 2)in the age of ashoka no photographer , painters, portrait designers were available so available image of ashoka is taken from site http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatlkings/ashoka/ashoka.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatlkings/ashoka/page7.htm&usg=__-64RbjuiFes3EQbw897GFylY-GU=&h=216&w=150&sz=10&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=SCRR-DI26XrDkM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=74&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dashoka%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 and http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://cromos-e-cadernetas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ashoka.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cromos-e-cadernetas.com/%3Fm%3D200902&usg=__Mmk4dETodzEo_ONLpYVIDgCmnxU=&h=446&w=500&sz=23&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=fvXVEqUEXi9RzM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dashoka%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 . 3) so many great human being like jesus , buddha, moses , etc had the images from artistic or some impressionistic opinion-based 4)and the added image honestly accepts that this image is a recontruction and not a photograph or original one 5)added image is accepted by all langage including french , hindi, marathi, so on 6)this image has its back ground with ashok mudra/ sinhamudra/ lion capital of ashoka which is ashokan symbol of sovernity so kind friend this image is appropriate and important for this valuable article rajvaddhan —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your explanation. However, I still don't see how this image is germane to the article. It may be based on the sculpture at [5] but (a) the face is missing in that sculpture and (b) who painted this image and why the painting is important is unclear. The Jesus article, for example, uses a 6th century mosaic representation of the person. (The Buddha article has an image of unclear importance as well and that image should be deleted). Perhaps there are some historical images of Ashoka that are valuable and can be used here. Or perhaps you can use the chakravatin jpg rather than some uncertain derivative of it. We should try to use images that have some significance and, if no such image can be found, it is better not to use any image at all. An encyclopedia deals with facts. Hope this helps. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I wish to jump in and add an argument in favor of that image. Even 4th century images of Jesus will be artistic renderings of a description passed down orally. The accuracy of such renderings are therefore highly questionable. Thus, an image made in the 4th century and an image made today are equally valid to an article about Jesus. There are even grounds for using an image of a black Jesus. Therefore, if Jesus may have an image based on inaccurate mosaics based on an oral tradition, so may this article the same. The image is valid. --OrbitOne (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

info. about old age and actual administration

117.200.195.237 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)hi friends, this article has no infor. about emeror ashok's old age and administraion system . i am collecting material on that , any body welcome to help me on that matter.rajvaddhan

asoka the king of india

does any one know about asoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.102.126 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to information given about Southern Kingdoms

It is sought to claim that Asoka was strong enough to crush the Southern Kingdoms but he never attacked them. Not true. The Cholas, Pandyas, Keralaputras among the Southern Kingdoms were both philosophically as well as religiously advanced during Ashoka's time. We have to remember for certain, Ashoka did defeat his adversaries in part of South India of what is modern Karnataka and Andhra. The fact is he did not defeat the Cholas, Pandyas, Keralaputras while his daughter and son went to Tamiraparani or Sri Lanka and spread Buddhism in that country. Based on this let us stay neutral and not suggest or speculate if at all Ashoka was strong enough to defeat the southern kingdoms when he openly acknowledged them to be (1) outside the territory controlled by him and (2) on friendly terms with his domains. Let us not speculate as to whether he could defeat them or vice versa. The Pandyas have a history older than that of Ashoka and seem to have originated around 500 BC. The Cholas originated around 300 BC as acknowledged in Wikipedia itself, though they are commonly believed to have originated around 500 BC along with the Pandyas only. That both these empires lasted till 1280 AD (Cholas) and 1450 AD (Pandiyas) is a testament to their overall strength and resilience of tiding over their adversaries over the centuries. Yes, so praise Ashoka genuinely, but stop making superlative presumptions. Other characters in history also merit equal importance and respect.

Srirangam99 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cholas, Pandyas, Cheras and Sri Lanka were NOT Mauryan tributaries

According to generally accepted history the Tamil kingdoms comprising of Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras were not under Mauryan rule and were not their tributaries. Sri Lanka was also never conquered by the Mauryan empire. Ashoka sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to propagate Buddhism but did not conquer or subdue Sri Lanka.

Here is a source that says the advances made by Bindusara were resisted by the Chola king Ilamcetcenni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilamcetcenni

Also refer to this Ashoka edict cited in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyaputra

  Ye Ca anta ata Choda, Pandiya, Satiyaputo, Ketalaputo, Tam bapanni, Antiyogo naama, Yonalaja

Meaning - Everywhere in the conquered dominions of king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods, and the dominions on the borders as those of the Chola, the Pandya, the Satiyaputra, the Cheralaputra, Tamraparni, the Yavana King named Antiyoka and the other neighbouring kings of this Antiyoka...

This clearly establishes that the Tamil kingdoms (Chola, Pandya, Satiyaputra and Cheralaputra), Sri Lanka (Tamraparni), Greek territories (Antiyoka) were outside Mauryan rule/supremacy, though there were religious, cultural and trade contacts.

The map of the Mauryan empire is a good contribution by User: Vastu, but in the absence of valid sources please do not deviate from generally accepted history. If you have a valid source, cite that in your claim that these were Mauryan tributaries. If not please correct it. Shaan1616 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

bla bla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.2.226 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Was Ashoka the Great of Persian Descent?

According to several sources, Ashoka,the Great was of Persian/Parsi (Zoroasterian) descent. he was inspired by Cyrus the Great and established a similar kind of tolerance in his empire. He was also so inspired by Cyrus and Darius that he adopted their royal emblem - the Lion-- and built lion capitals all over India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.154.199.192 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Contents of rock and pillar edicts

There are 14 rock edicts and 7 pillar edicts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilinglife.sirohi (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Kalinga war, discrepancy in numbers with main article on Kalinga war

For example this article quotes a figure of 10000 (ten thousand) casualties on Ashoka's side, whereas the main Kalina War article gives a number of 100000 (one-hundred thousand). Several other figures are also different. Can someone please resolve the discrepancies either here or in the main Kalinga War article?192.12.78.250 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the kingdom Kalinga wrongly linked to the present province Kalinga in Philipines

the link for 'Kalinga' under Rise to Power (secdond paragraph, second line) is wrong. It links to the province in Philipines. It should link to the ancient kingdom Kalinga in India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_(India)

Garg Preeti (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, couldn't find. why don't you try correcting it yourself. Arjun^codename024 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

THE WHOLE DATING SYSTEM OF THE MAURYAN DYNASTRY IS WRONG ! BASED ON CERTAIN CONCRETE EVIDENCES WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT DATING SYSTEM.

Since this is the date that determines the entire Indian history is based on, we have to identify correctly who was the Chandragupta at the time of Alexander who met Megasthenes. Chandragupta Maurya is Indian King who renounced his empire and became jain monk , he went to Shravanbelagola in karnataka and died as simple man.

Megasthenes story

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called "Sandrocottus". He was stationed in "Palimbothra", the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian). When European Indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful.

How Chandragupta Maurya was Equated with Sandrocottus – Sheet Anchor Chronology. Sir William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War according to Indian accounts because of his Christian faith which told him that Creation took place at 9-00 a. m, on 23rd October 4004 BC. He tried to search the Greek and Roman accounts. These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.

Jones picked up one of these three names, namely, Sandrokottas and found that it had a sort of phonetic similarity with the name Chandragupta of the Puranic accounts. According to the Greek accounts, Palibothra was the capital of Sandrokottas. Jones took Palibothra as a Greek pronunciation of Pataliputra, the Indian city and capital of Chandragupta. He, then, declared that Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts is Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranas. Jones died just a year after this declaration and possibly before his death, could not know that Puranas have another Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty.

Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proved and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece belonging to third century BC who were contemporary to Asoka.

In the Greek accounts, Sandrokottas of Palimbothra is described as a contemporary of Alexander of Macedonia who invaded India during 327 BC to 323 BC This decides the approximate date of Chandragupta Maurya. Princep's research decides the approximate date of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya as in 3rd century BC Both these dates were adjusted with the reign periods of the three successive Magadha kings, Chandragupta, Bindusara and Asoka of the Maurya dynasty given in the Puranas. Thus, the date c. 320 BC was fixed as the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

Max Mueller, in 1859 AD, finalized this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya and declared c. 320 BC, the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya as the Sheet Anchor of Indian history. M. Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangani of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply from him. Smith's Chronology: Historian V. A. Smith took the chronological identity asserted by the predecessors in this historical hierarchy as the basis for further calculation of the exact dates of the different dynasties that ruled over Magadha after and before the Mauryas. He took the aid of numismatics in addition to epigraphy. He could not however get over, as if by compunction, to follow the Puranas in the enumeration of the kings and their dynasties. But he reduced their reign periods. The total reduction done by these British scholars, from Jones to Smith, comes to 1300 years according to some Indian chronologists.

Indian View Chandragupta Maurya did not meet Megasthenes 1.Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya

2.He makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya.

3. Indian historians have recorded two Chandr aguptas, one of the Maurya dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta' s son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.

4.The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

5. Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

6.The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE

7.According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

8.Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta Maurya and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.

9.The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

10.To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.

No Concrete Proofs: The Western scholars and their followers in India have been all along insisting on concrete evidence for ancient Indian chronology but they themselves have not been able as yet, to furnish any such evidence for the sheet anchor.

All the evidence supplied so far is conjectural. No numismatic or inscriptional proof is available for the date. Same was the condition at the time of V. A. Smith. He had written, "Unfortunately, no monuments have been discovered which can be referred with certainty to tile period of Chandragupta Maurya and the archaeologist is unable to bring any tangible evidence afforded by excavations."

Pandit Bhagavaddatta seems to have studied the fragments of Megasthenes in more detail than those who decided the identity. On the basis of Megasthenes's statements, he has arrived at the following conclusions. "Yamuna was flowing through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura. The kshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas. Their king was Chandraketu. The capital Paribhadra was near to Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga." He further states, "Pataliputra cannot be written as Palibothra in Greek because 'P', in Patali is written in Greek as English 'P', only ; then why 'P', in Putra is changed to 'B', in Greek? There is no instance where Sanskrit 'P', is changed to Greek 'B'." Putra cannot be Bothra.

Conclusion Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of Megasthanese was not Chandragupta Maurya

Saikat m77 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)MODA SATTVA Saikat m77 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)30-JULY-2010

Edit request from Shubhashishbehera, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the people killed from ashoka's army from 10,000 to 100,000 in the article Conquest of Kalinga. Because it is written in the main article of conquest of Kalinga.

Shubhashishbehera (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ashokarajasutra

In the Chinese Tripitaka there are 2 texts giving accounts of the life of King Ashoka: the Ashokavadana (discussed in article) and the Ashokarajasutra or Sutra of King Ashoka, translated by Samghapala in 512 CE. This second Eastern historical source is not mentioned in the article but has been translated into English as The Biographical Scripture of King Ashoka by Li Rongxi, published 1993 by the Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley CA.

One very uncharacteristic episode of Ashoka's later career as recorded in Chapter 3 (p.58-59) is the persecution of "nirgranthas" and "heretics" by mass slaughter after it was brought to his attention by "a Buddhist disciple" that these people had created and were worshiping "a naked god painted in the image of a Tathagata." This may reflect the introduction of Jain images of Tirthankaras as nude figures with the ushnisha. This episode occurs during his pious dealings with the Buddhist Sangha, who apparently remained silent about it. The Ashokavadana does not mention the episode, but it should be noted that both texts are of Indian origin.

64.90.143.2 (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Samgwan Spiess

Edit request from 69.226.224.146, 28 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Kalinga link should be the below, no way Ashoka went to the Luzon island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_%28India%29 69.226.224.146 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Algebraist 13:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hvskyhawk, 8 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Sir John Hubert Marshall's (1876-1958) chief archaeological work was done in Taxila between the years 1913 and 1934, not in Sarnath and Sanchi as claimed in the article.

Hvskyhawk (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)hghghghghghghghghghghghghghghgh

H.G. Wells quotation errors

The quotation from H.G. Wells has serious errors. I have a copy of the 1920 edition of The Outline of History, and it reads like this:

"Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history, their majesties and graciousnesses and serenities and royal highnesses and the like, the name of Asoka shines, and shines almost alone, a star." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.131.15 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Understanding what "the spreading of Dhamma to the Greeks" means

It is a common misunderstanding, as pointed out by Vivekananda among others, to translate Dhamma as religion. If you make this mistake, Ashoka's edicts can be quite misunderstood, as seems to be the case in this article.

There are three distinct things: 1. Spirituality 2. Dhamma or Dharma 3. Religion.

One and two can be commonly shared by people practicing various religions and it helps to become familiar with the spiritual practices and Dhamma practices of all the religious traditions in the world.

So, what is Dhamma? The Sanskrit word literally means "that which holds the society together" In Sanskrit : "Dharayati Sa Dharma: "

Respecting your parents and teachers is a common theme of all the great religious practices of the world. Some of the Ashoka' edicts are quite worthwhile for all of us to consider. The idea of "treating servants and employees well, " protecting endangered animals and forests", and "not bragging about your religion and learning and respecting the good points of all other religions", for example.

So, when he says that the Greeks are now following Dhamma, he does not say that they have now become Budhhists. In fact, what he wanted was for people to follow their own religion but with added Dhamma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvaidya (talk • Pvaidya (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

^ Transcript of the question panel held at Anime Matsuri on April 10, 2009 MIYAVI Q&A. Retrieved on: 2009-04-17

Writing Style

After having read the initial paragraphs, and moving onto the Conquest part of the article, I just have to say that there's a sudden loss of quality. It's very obvious that it's been written by someone who intends to portray written accounts as true (as opposed to simply referring to the written accounts). There's an odd mix of using complicated, old fashioned terms (kith and kin, for one) mixed with some odd sentence structures that indicate that the writer is not a native English-speaker. It just doesn't come off as encyclopedic. - Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.146.186 (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Narayanam5, 25 December 2010

1st page------------------------------------------------------------

(1) In the web site of Ashoka in wikipedia: it is true that the paragraph in this website in the top of this page ie> even before biography,the 3rd paragraph it used to be the follwing paragraph of HJ wells book paragraph. Please keep it back there. It is the most important paragraph. Several historians referred to this persons HJ wells in this book regarding Ashoka. A great emperor of all time in the history of the world. Please keep it back as the third paragraph as usual as before(even before biographysection), so that at a first glance his greatness will be known to the readers . The paragraph to be rewritten there ino the top of the page in the above specified location is :

Renowned British author and social critic H. G. Wells in his bestselling two-volume work, The Outline of History (1920), wrote of emperor Ashoka: In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves 'their highnesses,' 'their majesties,' and 'their exalted majesties' and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day.

2nd change-----------------------------------------------------------

(2) In the History of Buddhism Ashoka is considered just after Gautama Buddha.[citation needed]. This statement do not require citation as dalialama also acknowledged regarding this in the acknowledgements in the asoka hindi movie and also mainly buddha envisaged the birth of ashoka and regarding his matter of spread of buddhism. So plese remove this [c.itation required]. Just keep it as "In the History of Buddhism Ashoka is considered just after Gautama Buddha".

3rd change---------------------------------------------------------

(3) it used to be in the top of this "ashoka" web page in the baove specified location ie> even before biography section: there used to be this paragraph:

"even after 2000 years, his influence can still be seen in asia specifically in indian subcontinent."

Please Keep this paragraph back there becasue this is the sureshot inference from HJ wells book and also some more popular historians books regarding ashoka. Please keep this paragraph back there.

Narayanam5 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done We have a policy that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Your first requested change would have disrupted the neutral point of view by substituting a glowing biography from an outdated history. Your second request is inaccurate because we do require citations for such statements, all material such as this must be properly verified. Your third change cannot be made withour reliable sources. Wells' history isn't a reliable source for this (it is outdated). Them From Space 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. on the top of the picture on the right side, it says Mauryan Samrat. Sanskrit words, as far as i know, don't end in consonants so it should be Samrata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

A couple of suggestions for addition:

a. I feel that it is important to note that most of the evidence of Ashoka came from Sri Lankan Buddhist chronicles unearthed in the 19th century. Thus, despite the epithet 'the Great' of Asoka, India's historians had obscured Asoka's existence until this time (I do not have on-line resources to support this, but Sri Lankan historians should chip in).

b. In the famous monologue of Asoka, there is one phrase of significant import that the present block obscures:

"If this is my Dharma, what is Adharma?"

Dharma and Adharma are hard phrases to translate, but still the question is worth reproducing as it has deep linkages with the Arjuna Vishada (Arjuna's Despondency) thesis that was inspired by this dwandwa monologue. Arjuna Vishada was the kernel of the Bhagavat Gita, believed to be an attempt by Vedic traditionalists to arrest large-scale abandonment of the Vedic religion in favour of Buddhism, Jainism and other faiths such as the 'Bhakti' movement.

The article isn't protected, so go ahead and make the changes yourself. Bearing in mind WP:V, of course! --rgpk (comment) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit of prudence in historical assumptions

I have not gone through the whole article. I write from the general feel of the theme. It could be in consonance with the generally accepted version of King Ashoka (the great).

Living in India and understanding the local social compulsions and the mentality, I feel that the common view about Ashoka could be a duped view. It could very well be like discovering India after about 2000 years and finding that it was a welfare state, while Britain was a Capitalistic nation. So, the direct understanding would be that in India, the government took care of the people; there were free schools, free hospitals, public transportation and everything else, while in Britain the people were intolerably looted by the capitalists, and suffered heavily.

Ashoka can easily be described as a King who instead of taking care of the national administration, took interest in religious pursuits, travels and building up monuments eulogising himself. I am witness to the frenzy for putting up boards, stones and other monuments shown by various administrative and political functionaries in current day India. He called himself the ‘Devanampriya’, the beloved of the Gods! Well, at best, a unilateral claim, that should not be swallowed bait, hook, line and sinker.

Moreover the claim that he set up hospitals and other public institutions is also a thing to be scrutinised. For, it is the native officialdom that is to run these institutions. What would be their behaviour to the common person who approaches them for services? Well, since almost all the languages in India have a stinging feudalism in them, pejorative to the lower man, it is only common sense to understand that their behaviour to them would have been suppressive.

Then I remember reading about the Mahapatras (the ministers) of Ashoka, who were given blanket powers over their fiefdoms. When they visited the villages over extended periods, each house in the village had to take care of their one day’s needs. In a feudal language nation, imposing officials over household can be a terrifying event. I remember reading that in Taxila, the villagers revolted against them. Then the ‘Great’ King Ashoka sent his army to crush the revolt. Well, it really is just like the tactics of modern-day Indian administration.

I also remember reading that King Ashoka was murdered by his own minister. Is it a fact? How did Ashoka die? Was it of natural causes?

Well, the things I have mentioned here, the revolt, and the death, are they mentioned in the article? Or could I be wrong in my remembrances. As to H G Wells’ opinion on Ashoka, it can be a very unintelligent one. For, even now most Britons cannot understand the reality of the feudal tones of Indian social communication. H G Well also suffers from this un-understanding. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

inscriptions of asoka

there is an information in this article that asoka had 33 inscriptions , in the eastern sources paragraph.but i have a doubt that there is only 14 of them found by the historians .i just want to know that is the information verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirban1993 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2011

I saw that -- I'm not sure how they came up with 33 -- I'm only seeing 14 major edicts, two Kalinga edicts, three minor rock edicts, seven pillar edicts, and two minor pillar edicts, which is only 28. Then again, there are supposed to be some edicts on boulders as well, so five more would bring the total up to 33. Banaticus (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about Mir Rukum Stupa at Nawabshah in Pakistan. There appears to be no stupa now. But it appears that a tomb for some Mir Rukun was constructed some thousand years ago by using the bricks of the ancient stupa. Further details are available in Wikipedia article on Nawabshah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banda.krishna (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of Kings

I don't think the quote supports kingly conversion -- I think it's only listing the kings who rule the areas where people converted. Banaticus (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Ashoka to "Ashoka the Great"

If Alexander’s Wikipedia page name includes “the Great” than Ashoka’s Wikipedia page must include “the Great”! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt.Sumit (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia admins clearly abuse their power by changing articles as they wish. it should be changed or boycott the wikipedia. Avaloan (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashoka is called Ashoka the Great its not a Honorific reference

Princeton.Edu

[http://www.amazon.com/Ashoka-The-Great-Wytze-Keuning/dp/8129117320 Wytze-Keuning]

Buddhist Encyclopedia

I quoted these sources of foreign authors to refrain from bias . Modern History is anglosaxon, as English Monarchy has amounted to nothing .Great care has been taken to discredit others i.e Chengis Napoleon .

If these changes are not constituted will be forced to change it myself . And "NO" I really dont care about sanctity of Wiki , thats hilarious to even consider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.39.24 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Ashoka The Great → Ashoka – The article was originally at Ashoka but had been moved here without consensus to push a POV. That being the case, reverting the move by way of G6 is a possibility. However, that way lies a possible edit war. See also this notice at ANI. Hence, I'm opening this discussion partly to clarify the community consensus and establish a permanent name for this article. Claret Ash 00:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Britannica, Encyclopedia of World Biography, World Encyclopedia, and Columbia all use the proposed form. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and A Dictionary of Buddhism both say Aśoka, but that certainly doesn't support the current title. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across the latter spelling, too, in my copy of The Penguin encyclopedia of classical civilizations. It appears to be a style thing with some publishers. Formal versus simple transliteration. Claret Ash 04:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't needed. Articles must stay at their current title first, then the requirement is that those who want to move it must propose the move to the new name. The default is to leave the article in its current state unless consensus clearly shows that a change is appropriate and desired. If Avalaon wants to argue for some version of "Ashoka the Great", it's xyr responsibility to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Common name. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Common name Ashoka.Pernoctator (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article should be renamed to "Ashoka the Great". it's totally unfair and disgrace to a great emperor. the references which use the title "Ashoka the Great" http://www.woofiles.com/dl-283035-uZTl0dLU-file.txt http://nirmukta.com/2010/01/10/how-ashoka-the-great-gave-brahmins-the-gift-of-a-song-with-which-they-conquered-india/

consider for renaming the the title of the "Ashoka" article to "Ashoka the Great" it's not a matter of how majority of people in here believe. it's a matter of how people try to change the history with their corrupted power. no wonder why most of colleges/ universities banned wikipedia as a reference source. it's obvious. there are a ton of bigots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaloan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

None of those, nor the ones you put on my talk page, count as reliable sources. Note the references given above in the closed discussion are major, international encyclopedias. Again, we're looking for journal articles, history books published by major reliable academic presses, etc. Also, please do not call other people "bigots", that's a violation of WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Many other kings more exposed to British studies have ingrained titles viz Cyrus and as aforementioned Alexander.

In Hindi, he is always referred to as 'Ashoka Mahaan'

Pokedora (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Asoka's Queen.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Asoka's Queen.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Asoka's Queen.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding Ashoka's vegetraniam

With reference to Ashoka's promotion on Vegetranian diet, it is in conflict with available information. In book Ashoka by Charles Allen, chapter "Thus Spake King Piyadasi, Page 172 of harcover e dition. It seems according to Dhammika's translation of RE1 that Asoka himself was not able to give up vegetarian diet. 202.179.92.106 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Vikas 12/04/2012

Edit request on 23 July 2012

Emperor Ashok was most probably a Jain king.

This is highly debatable. Whatever he was, after the war, he was NOT a standard practicing Hindu anymore, that is fairly certain, and all Historian agree there. What they disagree is his religion, options are Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, a mis-mash from all. Nmondal (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious reason is, what he has written in his "edicts" across India - they all speak of Jain values. Also, his father and grandfather were well known Jains. Chandragupta, his grandfather even gave up his kingdom to become a Jain monk. There is every reason to assume that he was raised in the Jain faith and followed it to the end.

Vegetarian Emperor His famous edits exhorting his subjects to vegetarianism and banning hunting etc shows clear Jain leanings. There is nothing Buddhist about these edits. His non-violence and desire to see all animals safe was / is a uniquely Jain phenomena. Even now, Jains donate vigorously to animal hospitals and often pay large sums of money to rescue animals from abattoirs.

At that time, Hindus and Buddhists both ate meat ! There is nothing in literature of either religion that speaks of vegetarianism at that stage in it development. Indeed, the last meal of the Buddha was pork ! The only religion to be totally against meat eating or killing of animals was Jainisum.

There was nothing uniquely “Ashokan” about his social welfare activities - such things as digging wells, planting trees etc. were the normal social activities for all kings, aristocrats and wealthy people in the past. Indeed, such actions were done than and now to earn merit in this life and the next. Ashoka’s own edicts admit that these acts were a continuation of what others had done in the past.

Royal monks spread Buddhism His son and daughter who became Buddhists – Mahindra and Sanghamitra - were children of a Buddhist queen – hence it is perfectly understandable that they would have great affinity for the religion of their mother. There is no reason to assume that just because they were Buddhist, that their father was one too !

They could have gone to Shri Lanka for several reasons. Apart from the desire to spread the religion, they could have gone to escape the court rivalry at the imperial capital. Though the son of his first wife, Mahindra may have had other brothers who were more qualified to take the title of “heir-apparent”. Ashoka himself was the youngest son who killed all his step-brothers to become the emperor. Fearing for his own life, Mahindra could have taken holy order and emigrated to escape court jealousies and fate that often befell royal siblings who did not succeed to the throne.

As Buddhism and Jainism were rival religions at the time, it is more than probably that a prince / princess from a Jain family may be considered a “rebel” by becoming a Buddhist. In the tight knit world of court protocol, this was probably the safest form of rebellion possible, followed by a quick permanent trip abroad.

The Emperor may have given his tacit approval for such an emigration to keep peace in his household. Emperor was well aware of the blood bath that ensued when he took the throne by force and would have approved any method possible to avoid the same fate for his children.

Princely monks and nuns would have been welcome in the satellite / neighbouring kingdoms for two reasons. One, because it gave them a piece of Imperial celebrity of their own ! The heady prestige of such personages living in your care would have been an honour they would have treasured for sure. Two, you never know when you can use such priceless guests as bargaining chips for international politics.

Foreign Missions Ashoka, like all great kings, than and now, send out political and religious missions to extend their sphere of influence. There were many religious orders included in these foreign missions. For example, the religion of Mitra - which became very popular in the Roman empire and at one time eclipsed the rise of Christianity. There was no similar popular support for Buddhism in the Western kingdoms. However, Eastern kingdoms welcomed Buddhist and Hindu teachers and wove their own native legends in to the .rich tapestry of lore imported from India.

Royal embassies were probably accompanied by a retinue of different people, priests & monks of various denominations, politicians, merchants, scholars and adventurers. They all went with the Imperial envoys as a way of getting free protection on route to foreign countries. At a time when prestige was of paramount importance, travelling with the official embassy also gave people the chance to shine in the reflected glory of the Imperial entourage. British businessmen and missionaries did it very effectively when visiting far flung corners of the empire and when visiting the native rulers !

Than, as now, studying and collecting plants from around the world for health and commercial benefits was a state policy. The British botanists were only following in the footsteps of earlier ancient collectors like Ashoka.

Medical centres were opened by Ashoka in foreign countries to spread the herbal lore of India. Even now, one of the first things a missionary organisation does is to open a hospital. This is the most non-controversial method of extending your sphere of influence into foreign territory. Than, as now, medical assistance is given free or at nominal cost to attract the host population to come to your medical facility. It is a classic political stratagem and would have been part of his foreign policy.

Kaling Conversion Emperor Ashok’s conversion after the terrible Kaling war is a popular tale and one that has lost nothing of its magic by being retold by Bollywood aswell.

However, how much of is this real ?

If indeed the conversion of the Emperor was genuine, he would have returned the kingdom to its ruling council (it was a democratic state) straight away ! But records do not mention that – hence the depth of the remorse is doubtful !

Ashokan conquest of Kaling completed the last piece in the Imperial puzzle, bringing in a last chunk of independent India into his ancestral empire. There was little for him to conquer now apart from the southern most tip of India. Not being densely populated, it may not have been worth the trouble of conquest !

Indeed, the Kaling conversion is recorded only in Shri Lankan scriptures and especially Mahavamsha. As it is highly pro-Kaling, it is understandable if Kaling’s loss of sovereignty is mourned loudly in the book. All wars are brutal. Lives lost, people killed, property damaged and splitting up of families are common enough results of war – any war. If indeed the Emperor was truly appalled at the site of massacre after the great war, he would have turned to his non-violent Jain faith for answer rather than go to Buddhism.

Symbols on the Ashokan capital

Animals – Lion is a Hindu symbol of kingship. Lion is the identifying symbol of Mahavir the 24th and final exponent of the Jain philosophy. Deer is the animal most commonly associated with the Buddha.

So the use of Lions on his pillar’s capital can not denote Buddha in any way. It has be a Hindu or Jain symbol. The Lion on the capital is not a tame, demure lion but one that has barred its teeth, ready to show any aggressor how strong it can be. This is not the symbol of a monk-monarch. It is an obvious and open invitation to see the imperial might of a vigorous empire that is more than capable of protecting itself.

Elephant is synonymous with kingship in the South-East Asia. Mahavir and Buddha’s mothers had dreampf of elephants. It is a common enough a dream of good luck and auspicious sign.

Bull, horse, lion and elephant are all symbols of royalty. They denote duty / dharma, steadfastness, speed, strength, valour and vitality.

These symbols are not exclusive to Buddha or the dreams his mother had. Even Mahavir’s mother had similar auspicious animals and objects come to her in her dream. If indeed he was Jain, there is every reason to assume that he associated these symbols with Jainism and not Buddhism.

Dharma Chakra The Chakra on the Ashokan capital is a classic symbol of a “Chakravarti” king – ie a king who literally commands the wheel of time ! Only an emperor, whose rule was obeyed far and wide, could claim to be a Chakravarti – someone who is in command of his own destiny and the destiny of the world !!

The Chakra on the capital is most probably the symbol of royalty and hence the symbol of the emperor being a Chakravarti.

Dharma Chakra would be out of place on a royal / imperial capital.

Close association with the religious orders All rulers like to be associated with popular religious order. Religion and religious leaders can be powerful mediators between kings and people. Religious institutions control a vast amount of money, land, support of the masses and are very adept at spreading ideas and thoughts. As a result, kings naturally like to have some say in how these popular institutions are run.

Emperor Ashoka, seeing how Buddhism was gaining ground took great interest in its running and made sure he was at the helm of change that was taking place in that religion.

Than, as now, rulers and politicians are often invited to attend large conferences, religious conferences in particular. It is more than probable that the Buddhist council of abbots decided to invite the Emperor to attend to increase their prestige and garner state support. Religious leaders often petition the state for financial support, tax benefits and land grants. Inviting kings, aristocrats, landed gentry, wealthy businessmen and local leaders is often in the interest of the religious institutions. It is the done thing even now and I am sure inviting the Emperor was a strategic move to gain his support. If abbots and monks could prove that the Buddha himself had predicted the coming of the Emperor, all the better ! They even quoted Buddha saying that the Emperor would build 84,000 stupas in his memory ! This from a man who did not believe in being worshiped in any way what-so-ever !!

The abbots obviously succeeded in getting royal support for some of their plans and the Ashoka must have given permission and some donation towards their aims. Emperor was even invited to lay the foundation stone for a major new stupa at Sanchi. As always, the good and the great are often invited to lay the foundation stone, inaugurate functions and officially open new building. The plaque may say so-and-so graced that occasion, but it does not mean that so-and-so paid for the building ! Similarly, it is more than possible that the Emperor laid the foundation or approved the plans of the stupa, he may have even given a large donation, but there is no need to assume he paid for the whole project !! However, historians seem to constantly think history and modern life exists in two different dimensions and often ignore the obvious by sticking to “absolute” interpretations of things they read.

DharmaAshoka People across the world honour their parents or ancestors by joining their names with those of their forbearers. Even in modern USA, there are plenty of people with “Jnr” in their name – basically designating their name to be the same as their father’s. Often in Europe the name of the parent (male/female) or grandparent is used as the middle name of the child.

Similarly Emperor Ashoka used his mother’s name to designate whose son he was ! DharmaAshoka – son of Dharma. Emperor Bindusara had many wives and hence many children. Ashoka and VittAshoka were the sons of his minor queen Dharma. Emperor Ashoka wanted to assert the importance of his linage, paternal and maternal and hence called himself DharmaAshoka Bidusara Maurya.

In the Indian context, Dharma means duty and hence a king / Emperor wishing to assert his credentials as the rightful, diligent, law-abiding ruler would use the title “Dharma” along with his name.

Edicts do not say Emperor was Buddhist ! None of the edits mention the Emperor as being Buddhist ! Yet, the British, and later the socialist government researcher of India, insist he is Buddhist ! The Emperor mentions Shramans, Bharhmins and Ajivikas. He does not align himself to either of them in totality. Being a political creature, he keeps his options open and shows himself to be even handed. Ashokan edicts are found at places sacred to all the religious sects of the time. Yet, current crop of history books insist he was Buddhist !!

It is curious that without any concrete proof the Emperor is declared to be a Buddhist. The British obviously had a political and evangelical reason for doing this, but it is amazing that the socialist government and its researchers carried on in the same vein without doing any independent research of their own. Sadly, they are continuing to do this !

Ashok / Devanampriya / Priyadarshi Infact, the title and name of the king in the edicts is Devanampriya (beloved of the Gods) or Priyadarshi (he who sees everyone with affection). As far as I know, the name “Ashoka” is not mentioned in any of them !! It is only by looking at the Buddhist king lists and comparing names that the British scholars deduced Emperor Ashoka to be the same as the Priyadarshi of the edicts !!

The British could never pronounce the names of places or people with true accuracy. 150 years ago, it was even worse ! The British translation of the original text is sometimes ambiguous. It is desperately in need of an over-haul.

Indeed, the Pali version of the name is often written in English writing as Piyadasi ! This is a female name ! So, was the Emperor of the edicts male or female ? Was the king the one and the same or different ?

The king list, the edicts, the contemporary records of scriptures and references in court documents of other neighbouring kingdoms need to be re-examined to establish true facts about Emperor Ashoka / Devanampriya / Priyadarshi.

I am sure much research needs to be done to confirm “facts”.

©Bhagwat Shah

Advertisement Ladies Vs Ricky - One man cons 4 ladies. Know more

Opening para

Presently it contains these two sentences, in relatively quick succession: "The empire had Taxila, Ujjain and Pataliputra as its capital." and "His reign was headquartered in Magadha (present-day Bihar)." Not at all clear what the second statement means unless the first is incomplete.--Sarabseth (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The main capital or the head-quarters of the Mauryan empire was Pataliputra, which was situated in the ancient Magadha kingdom. The city is now called Patna which is the present day capital of the state of Bihar. Since the Magadha kingdom expanded into an empire under the Mauryan rule, it appears that two provincial capitals were also established to take care of the interests of the empire. Prince Ashoka was also deputed by his father to Ujjain to take care of Central India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banda.krishna (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Title "Samrat"

The title Samrat (as a translation of English Emperor) is modern. It was unknown in ancient India, in fact unknown before the British period. The local rulers under the sovereign king were term "mandalika" rulers.Malaiya (talk)

You got any sources? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Conversion of Asoka

Highly arguable and debatable. The eminent historians are not on agreement, and therefore, may I request to change the title from "Conversion to Buddhism" : "Patronising Buddhism". Nmondal (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

moved - please put your comments/new sections in chronological order

Ashoka and Buddhism

Read Historian R. Thapar's Book given there. It's an argument, not an assertion. There is no God in Buddhism but Ashoka called Himself as the "Beloved of the Gods". [6] Read this to know that there is no God or Gods in Buddhism. Ashoka's personal religion is very doubtful and that must be clearly stated. I'll wait for your reply. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) / (copied from my talk page JimRenge (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I have reverted your edit because it was unsourced and did not appear to be appropriate in an encyclopedia. JimRenge (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct revert. "There is no God in Buddhism" is a personal opinion, and, at this place, WP:OR, since it provides an interpretation of Asoka's statement. By the way, plenty of gods in Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong or may not be, but When did Buddha or Buddhism promote the concept of God? Buddha left the question on God extremely vague and refused to accept a Supreme Creator. In early Buddhism there was no concept of God before they got split in two main branches much later. At the time of Ashoka, there was no GOD in Buddhism, forget about having "Gods". Later, some Devas and Supernatural Beings came, but that's a different issue. BTW, I would like to have your response on this. Thank youGhatus (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, "promote the concept of God". That's something different. Well, according to Buddhist cosmology, people may be reborn as gods... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: There are always gods in Buddhism. And Buddha talks about gods all the time in Pali Canon.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The highest stage of Buddhism is "Moksha/ Nirvana" or "Emancipation". After "Moksha", no one can re-born.Even the stories of Jataka ( The "alleged" reincarnations of Lord Buddha) are highly contested and go against the teachings of Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha denounced ignorance and superstitions, hence the stories of mythology or cosmology or "may be born" have no place in Buddhism, surely not at the time of Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE. Regards, Ghatus (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of Tantra? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus:The Pali Canon talks about various planes of existence, Brahmas, Mahabrahma etc. Gods (devas) were always a part of Buddhism. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:"Tantra" is a Vedic product later adopted by other Indian religions.It's a different issue. It involves "Tantrics" or "the lords of Tantras". It's a kind of ritual. There was NO "Tantra" in Buddhism promoting "GOD" or "GODS" between 6th century BCE to 3rd century BCE.(At the time of Ashoka"). If you know any, please let it be known and do not confuse 2nd century CE Buddhist tantras ( from when deities came to Buddhism after the first split) with 3rd century BCE Buddhism during Ashoka. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I will be highly grateful if you name any Pali text propagated by Lord Buddha or during the time of Ashoka that sopke or promoted "GOD" or "GODS". Regards,Ghatus (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ghatus, it doesn't matter. The line is about Asoka. But what do you consider Mara to be? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Excuse me but are you serious? When did Mara become "GOD" or "GODs". Who propagated the fantasy "stories" of Mara, Lord Buddha? BTW, You just name a SINGLE Buddhist God between 6th century BCE and and century BCE. It will clear all doubts. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Various Brahmas for example. You can read this and this.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Thank you. But, I did not get anything between 6th century BCE and 2nd century BCE. Which Brahmas? When written? Written by whom? You need to understand that Buddhism was a reaction and rejection to corrupted version of Aryan Religions, rituals and Gods. Hence, Lord Buddha can't support something against which He Himself revolted. Many century later, all these practices got hold of Buddhism like many other religion with which Buddha had nothing to do when He preached it in the 6th century BCE or at least till 2nd century BCE. Regards, Ghatus (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Those links talk about the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon reflects the earliest form of Buddhism. Did you even click on the links? Also Buddha never rejected Vedic rituals. In fact his funeral was done by Brahmins. One scholar says "Early Buddhist and even Mahayana monks in general did not officiate funerals. This practice was supposed to be up to Brahmins." VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:1)Tell me which Buddhist GOD or GODS Ashoka believed or Lord Buddha believed? Just name Him or Them. BTW, Buddha or Ashoka believed in no Brahmas. Even deity came much later.

Read this:-http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_2_RELIGIONS/Buddhism.htm

"Buddhism does not have a God. But many Buddhists keep images of Buddha. Buddha is not seen as the first prophet of the religion, but as the fourth prophet of the religion." It actually neither accepts nor denies God.

2)Buddhism was a reaction and rejection to corrupted version of Aryan Religions, rituals and Gods.

Ghatus (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I already answered you several times. You are free to believe what you wish. There is a difference between God (Creator) and gods (devas).VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What is God to monotheist religion is same as Gods (Devas) to polytheist religions. "Devas" mean"Gods/Creators" in Sanskrit.Do not provide funny logic. Ghatus (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Devas die and have rebirth. They are nothing like a Creator. Deva does not mean Creator in Sanskrit. There is no creation or beginning in Dharmic systems. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:Aryan religion or modern day Hindu religion has three main branches- Atheism (no God), Monotheism (one supreme God and hence others supernatural beings are not equal to Him) and Polytheism (more than one God). As I Said earlier, in polytheism GODS are considered supreme creators and immortals. Do confuse monotheism with polytheism. BTW, you are yet to tell me which GOD or GODS of Buddhism Ashoka believed. Don’t deviate from the main point.Ghatus (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: How can devas be creators if they were previously born as humans etc? Does that mean you are a Creator? Ashoka believed in asuras, devas and brahmas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: In polytheist religion, Devas(GODS) are considered immortals from time immemorial but in Monothism, they are considered mortals and subordinate to the Supreme Creator. Do not confuse. There is also an Avatar( who can be born and die) concept. And, if Ashoka believed in asuras, devas and brahmas as you said, he can not be a Buddhist as I suggested earlier. Two can not go together. I think you have understood your fault. Regards,Ghatus (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus:In Buddhism, devas die. All Buddhists, from Theravada to Dzogchen, believe in asuras, devas and brahmas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: There was no "GOD" in Buddhism between 6th century BCE and 3rd century BCE during the time of Ashoka. All other stuff came later being highly influenced by the Aryan Religions.Ghatus (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Devas, asuras and Brahmas were always in Buddhism. See the Pali Canon. Its a central teaching of the Buddha. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kalinga War

There is no depiction of the Kalinga Ruler at times of the Kalinga War. History is either misrepresented or deliberately destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.97.171 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

This edit request to Ashoka has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

consort Asandhimitra should be included in wife column and not seperately 182.58.191.249 (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done the references I can find say she was the chief consort (agramahisi), not a wife. If you have a reliable reference for wife, please cite it - Arjayay (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Devanagari discussion moved from User talk:RegentsPark

Hi, I think your this edit was not according to WP:INDICSCRIPT. It says, we should not keep indic script in lead of the article, but we can keep native name in infobox. There are numerous articles where indic script is used in infobox. You should delete indic script from current lead of that article and should keep it in infobox. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 02:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right (sorry about that). Go ahead (but - perhaps - exclude the samrat part?). --regentspark (comment) 02:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Even if we decide to include an Indic script in the infobox, why devanagiri in particular? It doesn't have link with Ashoka (for whom the relevant language/script would be Magadhi Prakrit/Brahmi) and doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Samrat Ashok is equivalent to english Ashoka the Great. Devanagari script is important because he is from Indian subcontient, if we write his name in Pali or Sanskrit which were the languages of his era, still it uses "devanagari" script. Moreover, infobox already includes "Samrat" word in English, so no harm in adding in native language too. It is common name. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Samrat is not part of Ashoka's native name and neither is it a direct rendering of the name in English. Also, didn't we get rid of 'the great' by consensus a while ago? Abecedare, devanagri is never of encyclopedic value, not even for geographic names. But that's not a fight I'm willing to take on. :)

Who says "great" is not part of name? I'm planning to start move discussion for Ashoka and Akbar to Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great. Because these two kings are most famous from South Asia and commonly referred with these name. If we see other emperors, we already have pages named Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great etc. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about 'most famous'. You'll need to show that these are their common names (see earlier discussion on this page). --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a knee-jerk association of anything in "ancient India" with Sanskrit, and anything in Indian subcontinent with Devanagiri. But as I said above neither of those associations are true for Ahoka, who is closely associated with the Brahmi script and Magadhi Prakrit. Indeed his edicts are the foundational texts attesting those two, and allowing their decipherment. So if you can find how "Ashoka" is spelled in Brahmi script, that may indeed be a trivial but delightful addition. Devanagiri is really irrelevant. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Human3015 can come up with an explanation as to why a devanagiri version of Ashoka.is encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 03:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read Ashokavadana which is one of primary source available on Ashoka's life, was written in Sanskrit. We are using what is relevant here in form of "native name". There are many primary sources on Ashoka available from historic period which are written in devanagari. Moreoever, Pali language which is main buddhist language in which many sources available on Ashoka also uses Devanagari script. So we can;t say devanagari is not related to him. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 03:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthashastra which precedes Ashoka, related to Maurya empire and his father "Chadragupta" was written in Sanskrit. So we can't say "Devanagari" script is something unrelated or alien to Ashoka. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 03:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And this dispute is precisely one of the reasons for the introduction of INDICSCRIPT in the first place. For that reason, I am de-scripting. We and the (mostly English-speaking) readers can live without it. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Infoboxes have the same "weight" as lead sections due to their positioning. There is also no consensus above for including Devanagari and, indeed, there are suggestions that it is a misrepresentation in some way. Little is lost by leaving it out - this is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia. By the looks of it, Devanagiri is no more appropriate than, say, Greek. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: You are on 3rr, kindly note that, there is no consensus regarding "devanagari" should not be in infobox. Only consensus exists is there should not be devanagari in lead. So kindly don't impose your opinion on others. We should go by Wikipedia policies. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue of what script might be acceptable is slightly different from whether a script should be there at all. The main thrust of my removal is the consensus that Devanagiri is inappropriate, which people above have suggested and with which I agree. There is, of course, also a difference between a policy and a guideline. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have given explaination above regarding how "devanagari" is relevant here. At least let the people reply. No one was even looking at this article when indic script was wrongly there in lead for so long time. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That no-one mentioned the misrepresentation for ages is another reason why INDICSCRIPT was introduced - too few people understand what is going on but the potential to misinform is huge. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself here. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why only Devanagari? Why not Greek, Aramaic or even Telugu? You see the problem here Human3015? The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Why you think that "the great" is unsourced or uncommon? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding indic script, its ok, I just wanted some more people to get involved in this discussion. If people have so much problem regarding "devanagari with Ashok" then we can remove it. I was just reverting because above 2 admins didn't reply to my last comment when we were in discussion. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just take a look! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I didn't say that "the great" was unsourced. I did say that "Ashoka" was how he is commonly named rather than "Ashoka the Great" (which should be evident from a look at most reliable sources). The latter has been included in the lead and, IMO, needs no repeating in the rest of the article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's just keep the devanagiri out for now. Native name is useful when a local name differs from the English name, something that is not true in this case. Also, as others have pointed out, devanagari is not the only candidate script (Brahmi or Pali would be age appropriate but there are several contemporary candidates including oriya and telegu). --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted in the lead (or perhaps elsewhere) that there exists book sources which spells the subject's name other than Ashoka. Vincent Arthur Smith's biography of him gives his name as Asoka. Solomon 7968 08:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: You can read IAST. Asoka is according to IAST, actually it should be "Aśoka" not "Asoka". And pronunciation of "Aśoka" is "Ashoka" because in IAST, ś means sh. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 08:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the actually it should be "Aśoka" part. If you look at the index file there is no diacritic in the book scan. So are you suggesting V. A. Smith erred here? Solomon 7968 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

you can see printing quality of that book. It is book of old era, printed in 1920, I don't think so printers of those era had alphabet "ś" in it. Maybe because that alphabet was not there in printer they printed it as "Asoka". You can see Encyclopedia Britannica which I found on quick search. We can get more scholarly sources if we search. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 08:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Ashoka was a Jain by birth, later converted to Buddhism as per Thomas. [ref] by Lewis Rice -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I have made the edit and added ref. SpacemanSpiff, please review.

1889 is completely outdated. I remember once reading that Ashoka did not so much convert to Buddhism, but propagated 'dharma' in general. Unfortunately, I've no idea anymore which source that was... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking for sources; see Mookerji Radhakumud, Asoka p.71 note 1. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The source you shared also says that he was a Jain. Are you saying to use a newer source or denying the fact that he was jain. I am confused -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The source says he was a Buddhist '...although there is a view that he was a Jain'. That is not the same as saying he was a Jain. --regentspark (comment) 20:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, it gives perception that being a Jain earlier (which is actually an "extremist" non-violent religion) Ashoka killed thousands of people and later he converted to Buddhism to spread Peace and Non-violence. I think there is no need to mention it in infobox. Ashoka was not Jain at least by his virtues.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Killing is only mentioned for kalinga war. As a ruler he has been depicted as a kind and quite secular one. He also founded a group of some kind of ministers or something which kept harmony among religions as per the book. I read the book, and everywhere it says he converted to Buddhism. But it doesn't speak about from which religion did he converted to Buddhism. Can you please help me find such a ref? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Please think about how much WP:OR you packed into that comment! Certainly not a good example to set for newbies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I regret for that comment. I usually comment with sources but sometimes it happens while making quick comment. I thought most of things in my comment are of common knowledge. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 22:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link to the book cited by Lewis Rice- [Jainism or The early faith of Asoka] by Edward Thomas- Nimit (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's too old a source. We should be looking for recent sources. --regentspark (comment) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That books shows that author Thomas Edward (naturalist) was died in 1886. Frankly speaking most of the facts regarding Ashoka's life were established in early 20th century. Even most of excavation for finding Lion Capital of Ashoka were done in early 20th century. So Thomas' theory maybe based on sources available at that time, many edicts of Ashoka were found later. Still we can't deny Thomas entirely, but we need recent commentary by well known historian on Thomas' book. Well known historian from 20th century or 21st century should confirm findings of Thomas, then we can write that in article. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 01:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, most sources do say "Buddhism," but some (most?) say that his main concern was with 'dharma', to provide a common ideology/"religion" to his empire. By the way, "dharma" is a better term in Indian context than "religion", isn't it? Buddha-dharma, Jain-dharma, whatever, as long as people live in peace and don't fight the emperor. It seems to me that we shouldn't fix it, at least not in the info-box. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting book. But Buddhism as an off-shoot of Jainism? It's not nonsense, given the close similarities, but it's also not a 'standard POV', I think.

Anyway:

page 24 of the article on Ashoka's faith (p.55 of the running numbering) says "the omission from their lists of the name of Asoka, a far more powerful monarch than his grandfather, and one whom they would reasonably have claimed as a potent upholder of their faith".
Next follows a discussion of the meaning of "Brahmanic,", introduced with the following remark: "The testimony of Megasthenes would likewise seem to imply that Chandra Gupta submitted to the devotional teaching of the sermdnas, as opposed to the doctrines of the Brahmans." (p.24/55)
he further states: "We may conclude, for all present purposes, that Vindusara followed the faith of his father, and that, in the same belief - whatever it may prove to have been — his childhood's lessons were first learnt by Asoka." (chips, which page? I scrolled further...)
Next follows a very extensive and detailed analysis of the rock-edicts and of coins (why do some people think that 'all' Indological studies are slobby and biased? Never read real studies, I guess)
Next my pfd-reader fails... But anyway, what a study! Yes, Ashoka may have been a Jain in his youth; unfortunately, I can't read the conclusions. But an impressive study it is!

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Ashoka was least bothered about his religion. He was an "astute" ruler, not a saint. He preached a combination of philosophies and morals. He used horses for courses. As in modern History, We should also move away from "Black & White" concepts as there are different shades of gray.[7][8] Ghatus (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, why are we citing 1889 works for history, or even assigning religions to these historical figures. As JJ and Ghatus say, the actual picture is much more complicated than a simple X was a Buddhist (or Jain) or violent/non-violent. See for example, Strong, John S., The Legend of King Asoka: A Study and Translation of the Asokavadana. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014 (orig published 1984), from which I quote (pages 3-4):

Precisely what Asoka meant by Dharma has been the subject of much debate. In Buddhist circles, the word means the Buddha's Teachings-his doctrine-and it is thus widely supposed that this event marked Asoka's conversion to the Buddhist faith. More generally, however, Dharma can be translated as law, duty, or righteousness, and as such it has many overtones in Indian religion. However he intended it, in his edicts, Asoka seems to have been obsessed with Dharma. The Asokan state was to be governed according to Dharma. The people were to follow Dharma. Wars of aggression were to be replaced by peaceful conquests of Dharma. Special royal ministers were charged with the propagation of Dharma. True delight in this world came only with delight in Dharma, and the old royal pleasure-tours and hunts were replaced by Dharma-pilgrimages. From these and other indications, we may say that Dharma seems to have meant for Asoka a moral polity of active social concern, religious tolerance, ecological awareness, the observance of common ethical precepts, and the renunciation of war.

There is much more in the book about how the legend of Asoka was shaped over the centuries (don't take the above extract as the summary of the work). Just because a religious tradition says that a historical figure converted to their religion, we don't have to state it as a fact, but follow (modern) historians in presenting the nuanced picture. Editors should also take a look at Chandragupta Maurya, which has similar sourcing and POV issues. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

- +1. This is one of the reasons why adding infobox to historical/contentious figures is generally not a good idea. It adds nothing and confuses the readers. Solomon 7968 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see https://books.google.co.in/books?id=WzEzXDk0v6sC page 42-44 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Glasenapp's book, originally published in 1925, is not an acceptable source for actual history, but is a dated but standard work for what Jains's believe. It is also clear in stating that Jain accounts for most of the Maurya rulers, are "fabulously embellished stories of later authors, which do not sometimes harmonise with reports coming from other sources". Even with respect to Ashoka, who Glasenapp considers an exception, there is no claim in the source that he was a Jain or converted to Jainism, but only that he was perhaps influenced by Jain thought and treated Jains humanely. Btw, even the last point is disputed, at least by Buddhist sources. For example, Strong mentions the following episodes described in Ashokavadana,

Or again, later on, [Ashoka] flies into a fury and has eighteen thousand heretics killed as a punishment for the misdeed of one of them. In a related episode, he locks a Jain layman and his family inside their home, sets the place on fire, and then launches a veritable pogrom against the Jains, setting a bounty on the head of any heretic.

...and these are actions that supposedly happened after the Kalinga war and Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism (Strong suggests that such episodes were included in the text as an expression of Buddhist "apprehension toward the institution of kingship"). This again illustrates why we should not be cherry-picking from or citing millennia-old ideological accounts from primary Jain/Buddhist/... sources and presenting them as historical facts. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Revert Reason

Please explain the reason for this Kautilya3 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason is in the edit summary. Did you read it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ban on cattle slaughter

If you follow the references for the ban on cattle slaughter, the source literally says "... Moreover when King Asoka made Buddhism the state religion about 250 B.C., he did not specifically prohibit common-cattle slaughter or beef eating..." https://books.google.com/books?id=JwGZTQunH00C&lpg=PA519&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false The wiki article says the exact opposite. Can we please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukund13 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. utcursch | talk 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Liked by his FatherKiron007 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Although the historical fiction Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat displays a very unique and special bond between Samrat Bindusar and Ashoka, the truth is that the king had no soft corner for Ashoka. In fact, according to the chronicles since Ashoka was not a good looking boy, he was looked down by his own father. However, Ashoka made his own spot among his brothers by his exceptional valour, skills and courage.

[1] Transcript of the question panel held at Anime Matsuri on April 10, 2009 MIYAVI Q&A. Retrieved on: 2009-04-17

[1]