Head of Sri Lankan Buddhist group calls on Modi to rule India like Ashoka

[Yeti]

@janon I will give you a perfect example, my parents generation love Gandhiji as does my grandfather but go ask youngsters growing up in Gujarat they will love Modi ji more.

Modi's speech he gave in Guj about putting Gandhiji behind us was well received!

 

[arp2041]

No way!!! Ashoka's pacifism, saintliness and self-imposed guilt made him so weak that his empire collapsed.

Not in hell.

He should rule like Chandragupta Maurya. The conqueror. The bringer of justice. The leader of the people. The destroyer of those who invaded India then.

I have said it again & again, Modi is the Chandragupta Maurya of Modern India..........& Amit Shah The Chanakya!!

Thank you, Sir. The entire exercise of inviting SAARC leaders is aimed at obtaining an image cleansed of blood. It should worry all S Asians that BJP is led by this Butcher rather than men of the caliber of Yashwant Sinha or Jaswant Singh, my favorite politician in SA.

we give two hoots about who are your favorite poltician Mr. Professional.

The Narendra Modi is the PM of India. Jump in BoB if you don't accept that but the FACT will remain a FACT.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Didn't Ashoka become a buddhist?

Looks like some folks down south got on the hype wagon.

And Ashoka was barbaric lunatic before he converted to Buddhism. He probably continued to be a barbaric lunatic after wards too.

He was apparently a conventional Hindu; his grandfather was possibly guided by Kautilya, who was possibly the author of the Arthashastra.

There are no records of his fighting any wars after the Kalinga war, so I am not sure what you mean by barbaric lunatic.

Has a nice ring to it, though.

Yes, and it was his patronage that led to the very wide spread of Buddhism. The entire subcontinent and many parts of south and east Asia became Buddhist, until the subcontinent again reverted to hinduism later. But the influence of Buddhism runs deep in the hinduism that followed.

Where did you get this from? Highly exaggerated and incorrect.

 

[janon]

Where did you get this from? Highly exaggerated and incorrect.

Which part of it? The extent of the spread of Buddhism, or Ashoka's role in that, or the influence of Buddhism on hinduism?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Buddhism and Hinduism are quite similar in basic philosophy,actually many in india considered themselves both pre arabic invaders .

You are getting into very deep waters.

Buddhism (and Jainism) were reactions to the kind of religious practice prevalent within the various branches of Hinduism around the Puranic period and after, during the time of the Mahajanapadas. They preached a completely different approach to what the priests taught at that time.

However, Buddhism shared many basic religious and theological concepts with Jainism and with certain aspects of Hindu philosophical writings. Certain aspects, not all; the Saivites, the Vaishnavas and the Shaktas have completely different concepts and ideas of what happens to the soul when the body dies, and what is the ultimate aim of human existence, and about the hereafter. Similarities are found when we look through the Upanishads, and similar bodies of philosophical speculation.

Buddhism was very widely followed in south Asia between 600 BC, perhaps 500 BC, and 1200 AD. It was patronised in the north by Asoka among the Mauryas, possibly by some of the Indo-Greek, the so-called Bactrian Greek kings, by the Kushanas, by the Ephthalites and by Harshavardhana, and the Pala kings of Bengal. For the interested, there is a similar list available of Deccan and south Indian dynasties who favoured Buddhism. Even at its peak, however, it did not entirely replace Hinduism, but co-existed with it, and competed with it.

There was a major revival of Hinduism around 800 AD, and Buddhism steadily lost ground after that. However, the death blow came with the Slave Dynasty rule in north India, which saw large-scale destruction of Buddhist monasteries, seminaries and 'universities', as well as the mass slaughter of Budddhist monks and nuns.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Indirect message to Modi by Buddhists to work towards Akhand Bharat!

 

[takeiteasy]

what happened to the Buddhists of older times? whether they were forcedly converted back to Hinduism or naturally assimilated back?(to Hinduism). I've seen some Hindus keeping Buddha pictures in their houses. anyways, Shiva Sena= Bodu Bala Sena - the influence of RSS is going global!

 

[Joe Shearer]

I've also read that he renounced violence and war after he became a buddhist, is it true?

We get this from Buddhist scripture, particularly from the Sinhala accounts of the origins and growth of Buddhism. The Buddhist clergy always conflated his imperial policy with his personal beliefs, in a propagandist attempt to show that he was Buddhism incarnate as a ruler, and had no thought or belief or policy outside those dictated by the precepts of Buddhism.

This is hugely doubtful. He adopted and promoted certain practices, but he was an emperor, and a very effective one, with a peaceful, uninterrupted rule. It was not until the Mauryas had declined and fallen, and their successors the Sungas had taken over, that the first foreign invasions, by the Bactrian Greeks, started. Considering that the Bactrian Greeks were there from the time of Alexander onwards, were in fact the colonisers left behind by Alexander in the cities he founded, and that they were spearheads of the Seleucid Empire, which clashed with Chandragupta, Asoka's grandfather, quite clearly Maurya military power was effective and strong, including during the reign of Asoka. It is not insignificant that he may have spent some time as Viceroy during his father's reign, at Taxila, which overlooked the threatened borders, or that his pillars appear well outside the present day boundaries of political India as well.

He did not fight any aggressive wars. He probably did not need to. But it is highly unlikely that he retired the Army and hoped that invaders would be stopped by the power of prayer.

No way!!! Ashoka's pacifism, saintliness and self-imposed guilt made him so weak that his empire collapsed.

Not in hell.

He should rule like Chandragupta Maurya. The conqueror. The bringer of justice. The leader of the people. The destroyer of those who invaded India then.

We can do without this kind of bad history, with no basis in fact.

Hindus regard Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu

This is a very late development. The inclusions are different from region to region. Look it up; you will get a surprise.

 

[Skyline]

Meaning of "Dharma Ashoka" is different than just "Ashoka".

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer Meet our resident historian.

I read those and slunk away in silence. There are some situations which I can't handle.

Who is this cock?

Its the same thing.
Hindus and Budhists have 99% same philosophies. Maybe as one poster said that modern Hinduism revival happened in a way that embraced Budhist philosophies. Now infact Hindus consider Budhism to be a sub branch of Hinduism.

I agree, but you should, at least personally, be aware of the long and very complex inter-relationship, including the phases of bitter mutual hostility.

Obviously, in any civilized nation he would have been hanged by his balls, but hindutvawaadis worship him here, the breakup of India under this butcher is now a forgone conclusion

Very interesting and informative.

Could you kindly give me a short list of civilised nations where they hang people by the balls? What do these civilised nations do for women?

Which part of it? The extent of the spread of Buddhism, or Ashoka's role in that, or the influence of Buddhism on hinduism?

Asoka's role in the spread of Buddhism. This was a spread that lasted centuries, and spread over a hugely longer period than Asoka's rule. He is primarily associated (by Sinhala scripture) with sending a Buddhist mission to Sri Lanka.

 

[Joe Shearer]

what happened to the Buddhists of older times? whether they were forcedly converted back to Hinduism or naturally assimilated back?(to Hinduism). I've seen some Hindus keeping Buddha pictures in their houses. anyways, Shiva Sena= Bodu Bala Sena - the influence of RSS is going global!

It is worth remembering that even during the height of Buddhist patronage by the state, and the percentage of south Asians who followed the Buddha and his teaching, that daily life and the religious rituals of daily life continued to be conducted by Brahmin priests. I believe - and this is an incorrect answer even as I write it - that the broad path followed was the assimilation back into Hinduism.

Actually, this is a very unsatisfactory answer, and all I can say in partial mitigation is that if you really, REALLY want, I can write at length about this process. But it will take time; we are effectively talking about perhaps 1,800 years of history.

 

[Ayush]

actually,his ideology became weak.
war was a necessary survival tool those days,and is still valid now..

 

[arp2041]

& the stage is set in Patlipura!!!

 

[Tshering22]

We can do without this kind of bad history, with no basis in fact.

I was referring to the whole renunciation concept as an emperor. It is never justice to your subjects. Consolidating the country's safety and peace is not enough alone. To maintain that is a ruler's duty. Pacifism is no answer to that. Kalinga war may have softened him but it doesn't mean renouncing the way of a ruler without enthrusting the duty of taking care of people to a responsible ruler next.

Please look beyond references, texts and researches and understand the meaning of what I say.

 

[Contrarian]

I agree, but you should, at least personally, be aware of the long and very complex inter-relationship, including the phases of bitter mutual hostility.

I am aware.
Which is why I mentioned that today the result of the evolution of that complex inter-relationship is that Hindus and Budhists are almost the same with difference only in name. The philosophies are the same. Most Hindus consider Budhists as Hindus only.