06-09-2008, 11:03 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are three Asokas in the history whose identity has to be
established:
1. The Mauryan king Asoka vardhana, as described in Puranas. I am not
sure if anything was told about Asoka vardhana by puranas, even though
he has ruled the longest in his dynasty
2. The Bauddhist king Asoka(Tissa?) as described in the various
Buddhist and Jain works. Clearly, they try to mostly identify Asoka
with with Asoka Vardhana but it is possible that the writers are
confused since these works were composed centuries after Asoka
3. Priyadarsi, the king of edicts who was supposed to be dear to the
gods and of course, just once he calls himself Asoka (in the edict of
Maski)
Apart from this, we have in a minor way, the Asoka from Raja
tarangini, which is perhaps the most authentic work.
In any case, we see that all the three kings differ in their nature
and dating.
The full name of Asoka Vardhana, a princely name is not mentioned
anywhere else - either in non puranic sources or the edicts. While
so0mebuddhist literature does identify the lineage of asoka as mauryan
and name his father as bindusara(as did the puranas), largely the name
of the father of asoka keeps changing in this literature. Even where
it is identified with Mauryan Bindusara, the writers must have got
confused.
The king of edicts is a totally different person from the Asoka of
buddhist literature. That both are buddhists is the only common point.
There is no Kalinga war mentioned in the buddhist literature. The
asoka of Buddhists was a cruel sadist who was brought to the path of
Buddhism by various monks as soon as he has taken over or at best, 4
years after his coronation. After his conversion, Asoka was intolerant
of other religions and killed even his own brother, whom he has spared
earlier, suspecting that he is following a heretic Buddha school.
One of the above kings is so ugly that the name priyadarsi is a
misnomer.
On the other hand, the edicts clearly mention that the king has taken
to Buddhism in the 8th year of his coronation, following the war of
Kalinga. He was highly tolerant of other religions, advising his
people to respect brahmins and he has made donations to ajivakas in
the 12th/13th year and perhaps, in 19th year of his coronation, which
is much later to his conversion.
The king of edicts is clearly highly tactful and diplomatic, never a
sadist. He was a shrewd and ambitious ruler- he annexed Kalinga only
to have control of sea faring business routes. He has used religion as
a matter of tool to discipline people, most of the important edicts
being in the gold bearing areas of India. His repentance may be more
of a farce since the famous edict announcing his remorse was never
found in Kalinga or the area around it. Not just this, his hypocracy
is clearly mentioned in the likes of edicts where he confesses that he
continued to eat meat, even as he entreated others, including the
staff and other residents of the Royal palace to convert to
vegetarianism. That most of his tactics are to get the maximum out of
trade routes is very obvious. That kings concentrated highly on trade
routes is a trade mark of around Guptan kings.
(The deterioration of such concentration in Harsha's time has led to
decline of cities on one hand and increase in self reliance of
villages. This has proved to be a heavy hurdle for further
economic/urban development)
If you follow the traditionalists' chronology, we can say that Asoka
vardhana was existing much earlier to Greek invasion. Also, the
traditionalists identify Sandrocottus with Chandra gupta I. This will
make the Asoka of Edicts a king around the times of Guptans,as pointed
by his way of dealing.
Thus, clearly Devanam piya/piyadarsi who have inscribed all the famous
edicts is not a Mauryan king. There are many other arguments in favor
of this statement.
Kishore patnaik<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
established:
1. The Mauryan king Asoka vardhana, as described in Puranas. I am not
sure if anything was told about Asoka vardhana by puranas, even though
he has ruled the longest in his dynasty
2. The Bauddhist king Asoka(Tissa?) as described in the various
Buddhist and Jain works. Clearly, they try to mostly identify Asoka
with with Asoka Vardhana but it is possible that the writers are
confused since these works were composed centuries after Asoka
3. Priyadarsi, the king of edicts who was supposed to be dear to the
gods and of course, just once he calls himself Asoka (in the edict of
Maski)
Apart from this, we have in a minor way, the Asoka from Raja
tarangini, which is perhaps the most authentic work.
In any case, we see that all the three kings differ in their nature
and dating.
The full name of Asoka Vardhana, a princely name is not mentioned
anywhere else - either in non puranic sources or the edicts. While
so0mebuddhist literature does identify the lineage of asoka as mauryan
and name his father as bindusara(as did the puranas), largely the name
of the father of asoka keeps changing in this literature. Even where
it is identified with Mauryan Bindusara, the writers must have got
confused.
The king of edicts is a totally different person from the Asoka of
buddhist literature. That both are buddhists is the only common point.
There is no Kalinga war mentioned in the buddhist literature. The
asoka of Buddhists was a cruel sadist who was brought to the path of
Buddhism by various monks as soon as he has taken over or at best, 4
years after his coronation. After his conversion, Asoka was intolerant
of other religions and killed even his own brother, whom he has spared
earlier, suspecting that he is following a heretic Buddha school.
One of the above kings is so ugly that the name priyadarsi is a
misnomer.
On the other hand, the edicts clearly mention that the king has taken
to Buddhism in the 8th year of his coronation, following the war of
Kalinga. He was highly tolerant of other religions, advising his
people to respect brahmins and he has made donations to ajivakas in
the 12th/13th year and perhaps, in 19th year of his coronation, which
is much later to his conversion.
The king of edicts is clearly highly tactful and diplomatic, never a
sadist. He was a shrewd and ambitious ruler- he annexed Kalinga only
to have control of sea faring business routes. He has used religion as
a matter of tool to discipline people, most of the important edicts
being in the gold bearing areas of India. His repentance may be more
of a farce since the famous edict announcing his remorse was never
found in Kalinga or the area around it. Not just this, his hypocracy
is clearly mentioned in the likes of edicts where he confesses that he
continued to eat meat, even as he entreated others, including the
staff and other residents of the Royal palace to convert to
vegetarianism. That most of his tactics are to get the maximum out of
trade routes is very obvious. That kings concentrated highly on trade
routes is a trade mark of around Guptan kings.
(The deterioration of such concentration in Harsha's time has led to
decline of cities on one hand and increase in self reliance of
villages. This has proved to be a heavy hurdle for further
economic/urban development)
If you follow the traditionalists' chronology, we can say that Asoka
vardhana was existing much earlier to Greek invasion. Also, the
traditionalists identify Sandrocottus with Chandra gupta I. This will
make the Asoka of Edicts a king around the times of Guptans,as pointed
by his way of dealing.
Thus, clearly Devanam piya/piyadarsi who have inscribed all the famous
edicts is not a Mauryan king. There are many other arguments in favor
of this statement.
Kishore patnaik<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->