Asoka killed 99 brothers to get the throne | Fact or Myth ? | A Debate - Page 6

Created

Last reply

Replies

53

Views

34.3k

Users

15

Likes

131

Frequent Posters

RadhikaS0 thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 9 years ago
#51

Originally posted by: minnie2308

Abhay... I was wondering if I must watch this show or not and then I saw your post and now its decided that I will watch😆

apart from the fact that my favs, Radhika, Kaana, Madday are loitering around in this forum😉😆
Hmm.. let me read all you wrote and then come back...


Hi Minnie

Good you are watching Ashoka :) I watch in fits and starts only 😆

Hope to read more of you here :)
history_geek thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 9 years ago
#52

Originally posted by: love_chitra

I found this is Wikipedia...
Bindusara's death in 272 BCE led to a war over succession. According to Divyavandana, Bindusara wanted his sonSusimato succeed him but Ashoka was supported by his father's ministers, who found Sushim to be arrogant and disrespectful towards them.[14]A minister named Radhagupta seems to have played an important role in Ashoka's rise to the throne. The Ashokavadana recounts Radhagupta's offering of an old royal elephant to Ashoka for him to ride to the Garden of the Gold Pavilion where King Bindusara would determine his successor. Ashoka later got rid of the legitimate heir to the throne by tricking him into entering a pit filled with live coals. Radhagupta, according to the Ashokavadana, would later be appointed prime minister by Ashoka once he had gained the throne.




This is in sync with the legends. Thanks for sharing. :)

history_geek thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 9 years ago
#53

Originally posted by: chicksoup



But is that not possible? Akbar did have a problem having children, I believe...I am speaking from what little I have seen in the serial. Didn't follow it too avidly. It is definitely possible for a man to father 100 sons...and more, so long as there are willing women. I suppose the sons born by the concubines would not be considered princes and therefore not real sons. Thanks for that info on sisters.

@ TM,

Very interesting discussion. I guess all religions do that to glorify their patrons and founders- it is only human. I thought Ashoka embraced Buddhism after the ravages of Kalinga War...(I am yet to read up on Ashoka beyond what fascinated me as a child.)...so it was a change that came within him that made him seek the answer and he found it in Buddhism... I guess the religion was lucky to find a patron in him.

On the weapons...interesting. Wonder how this will play out in the show. It is definitely a symbolism when they talk about him praying for the weapon..thought provoking.😊



About Akbar - The problem was something different. :)
His kids died early due to some problems, which included conspiracies of, probably his own folks and also due to high infant mortality rate perhaps. His chroniclers have given this a divine touch and have explained that it was due to blessings of a Sufi saint that he could get his surviving kids.

@Bold..
This is true, completely agreed. And this phenomena is not only related to Asoka, but to medieval history also.
Akbar patronised Jains and they have left such a glorious account of Akbar in their Sanskrit accounts, giving a divine touch to him and have tried to show that they were the ONLY ones he patronised.
Even Aurangzeb, whose name has become synonymous with orthodoxy and persecution of Hindus, etc. has been hailed in those temple inscriptions where he donated land for temples.

So, this thought of yours is very true and clearly articulated. An excellent point!

About Asoka embracing Buddhism - It has been argued that he turned to Buddhism 2 years before the war of Kalinga. I am reading more about this.

Thanks for these interesting points.! Keep sharing your thoughts. :)

RadhikaS0 thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 9 years ago
#54
Abhay
i also came across this point recently that Ashoka turned a Buddhist 2 years before the war of Kalinga. But that for these 2 years, he was "lukewarm" to Buddhism and may have adopted it purely for political reasons. After he saw the aftermath of the Kalinga war, then he turned to Buddhism for real.

Don't know how far this is true.

point 1 is that Ashoka too then used religion as a political tool initially till he really changed for the better, much like Akbar.

point 2: i am beginning to wonder just how brutally horrifying the Kalinga war must have been if it could force a warrior-king to rethink his principles and ideology.

point 3: Ashoka used his edicts to spread awareness of his reforms and to encourage people to live a righteous life. His edicts do not actually propagate Buddhism per se; they simply suggest to people to adopt a righteous way of life. So, though he adopted Buddhism, he didn't force it down the throats of his people.

point 4: Ashoka's edicts speak almost naturally, as if they were the personal speech of Ashoka himself. None of the stylization of the inscriptions of other rulers is present in these edicts. It makes me wonder how simple Ashoka must have been to adopt a simple, direct approach in talking to his people way back then instead of letting his officers issue standardized, hard to understand and full of flowery text, messages.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".