Asoka killed 99 brothers to get the throne | Fact or Myth ? | A Debate - Page 2

Originally posted by: MaddyO

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Abhay😃😃I am so glad to see your post here. </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Wonderful blog, as usual you have dug up rare archives and so many different sources.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I don't think Ashoka could have killed 99 brothers for getting the throne. For simple reason if one prince was on killing spree of 99 others they wouldn't wait around to be killed! They were also royal blood with I am sure their own influences and power centers. </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">It is possible that Ashok might have killed Sushim or RG did it by trickery. Sushim was the eldest and a clear rival. Ashok could never have been able to rule in peace if Sushim was around. Maybe few others who supported Sushim.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">It seems Ashok was coronated 4 years after Bindusaar's death. Here there are two possibilities,</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The throne tussle went on for long, with some brothers declaring support to Sushim, some to Ashok. Ashok achieved full control in 4 years</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Or</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Ashok became Samrat after Bindusaar's death, he gained complete control but the coronation ceremony "actual Vidhivat Rajyabhishek" was done after 4 years, so created this confusion. Those days auspicious period would be considered, could be it was advised to wait for 4 years.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I don't think religion could have changed Ashok. He deeply regretted the Kalinga war bloodshed and the brutality and that changed his thinking. He maybe turned to religion for the answers AFTER renouncing "himsa".</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I find it hard to believe that a person can just let go of the teachings that have shaped his personality for almost 30+ years, yes he can seek solace or embrace new thought processes, without totally abandoning the old persona and teachings. They might have combined in his personality.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">It is hugely to his credit that he changed himself when he was under no compulsion to. He had become the most powerful man, he changed himself.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Thanks to CAS and you, we are now thinking about him 2400 years later and trying to learn about his magnificent reign which encompassed from Afghanistan to Bangladesh to almost entire India.</font>

Medha, even if 99 slew is true, I am not sure if Ashoka would have cut one after the other. Maybe they would have been executed at one go or so. Likewise the 500 ministers - imagine him chopping one after the other. Anyway I do not believe the killing in either case. Sushim elimination possible, but all doubtful.

Abhay, I even have a basic contention.
I am not willing to buy the 100 sons itself in the first place... Maybe that was cooked up as well.

Even Akbar with a 5000 harem did not have 100 sons so technically am not willing to buy that point.

Originally posted by: chicksoup

That was a thoroughly researched article, and a pleasure to read. Thank You for it.

I don't know if it is a fact or myth. But it does seem possible to me...He could easily have had 100 brothers...I imagine the number must have been more than 6, considering concubines would have given sons too. Considering there was no contraception, that many pregnancies are possible by a single sperm donor😉.

So, if Ashoka had 100 brothers, did he kill 99 of them? I find that possible too...I am guessing there was an army formed by these brothers against him and he vanquished them all.

My Q is, if at all there were 100 brothers, how many sisters did Ashoka have? Biologically, I am sure there was at least one sister if there were 100 brothers. May be they were not considered worth mentioning.😕

Probably there were only 6 children from the queens.

Just reading your post and I posted the other way round. I am not sure of the 100 siblings itself in the first place.
Sisters - the edict talks about his sisters, so more than one sister atleast as I understand.

Originally posted by: Kaana

Medha, even if 99 slew is true, I am not sure if Ashoka would have cut one after the other. Maybe they would have been executed at one go or so. Likewise the 500 ministers - imagine him chopping one after the other. Anyway I do not believe the killing in either case. Sushim elimination possible, but all doubtful.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Abhay

This is an extremely well-researched and well-presented post about the manner in which Asoka became the Mauryan emperor.

I do feel convinced that greater weightage should be given to Asoka's rock edict. The man who documented much of the important events of his reign as well as his vision for the future of the Mauryan empire would most certainly have mentioned at least in passing how he ascended the throne if it had been unusual in any way.

There has always been this question mark as to whether Bindusara wanted Asoka to be his heir, esp after reading the Asokavadana, wherein it is mentioned that Bindusara was repulsed by Asoka's looks. So Prof. Chatterjee's notes that indeed Asoka was the chosen heir and not Susima is heartening to discover.

Just recently, we saw how Akbar's sons and grandsons struggled to ascend the throne after him. Now we see how Asoka was also depicted in the Buddhist / Tibetan legends to be involved in a power struggle with his brothers for the throne. Power seems to be the ultimate goal in any period. Still, while I can accept that Mughals inherited their ruthless streak from their Central Asian ancestors, I find it hard to accept that Asoka could be so ruthless for power. It is one thing to kill the enemy, and another to kill one's own family. It does seem to be an exaggeration of the negative traits of Asoka to show the calming influence of Buddhism on him later on.

Similarly, you have mentioned that an ascetic predicted that Asoka would support only Buddhism and destroy other "heretic" sects. This too seems to be an exaggeration to me. Some kind of negative propaganda by rival sects to depict Asoka's devotion to Buddhism as some kind of fanaticism, which it was not.

Thanks so much for such an in-depth analysis of the topic! :)

Radhika,

Thanks for this detailed response. You have touched upon a variety of topics here. I lost a long reply i typed, writing it again, though some points i can not remember this time.

One thing which appears clear after reading those Sanskrit / Pali / German, etc. scans on blog is - These sources have given a kind of divine touch to the story. Take an instance - When Bindusara sends Asoka to quell the rebellion with so much affection and gives him supreme powers to control the four organs of army, then why that army is not given the weapons to fight by our dear Emperor Bindusara ? And, why is Asoka "made to pray" to the Gods to give weapons to his army ? And, suddenly the weapons came out from inside the earth. :-P

These things are sans logic also - Isn't it strange that someone gives you the command of entire army but not assign any weapon to that army ? It's like, our entire army personnel are placed on the border to fight the enemy, but they are not given any weapons in their hands. Imagine the situation. This 'story' almost made a mockery of the wisdom of Bindusara and does not seem probable at all.

There are more such things which can be ascertained after reading the scans. I have not yet posted some other texts as the post would have been long and might get boring, so left it as i wanted this post to be short.

Struggle for throne has been a common feature throughout our history. You've pointed correctly about one of our very own medieval empire.

Lastly, the bit about destroying other sects is also rejected by scholars. If we read the translation carefully, the text says - "The ascetic made a prophecy that Asoka will associate himself ONLY with Buddhism and destroy other sects."

From this 2 things arise -
First, it was a prophecy.
Second, it says Asoka will associate himself ONLY with Buddhism.

Now, these things are again contradicted by Asoka's own rock edict which was posted on the blog where he says, along with his brothers and sisters, the Dhamma officers are also deputed to take care of Kambojas, Brahmans, Greeks, etc..

Even the contemporary Jain literature does not project Buddhism/Asoka as a "threat" to them. If anyone has contrary information then please share here.

This propaganda seems to be the creation of Buddhist texts only, not of rival accounts. The Buddhist texts, it seems, try to show that he lacked all morality before being a Buddhist. In his edicts this does not seem to be the case.

From whatever i have read till now, i could not find this mention of destroying sects after sects as said by Buddhist literature, in the "rival" sects' texts..

Hope i covered all the points.
Thanks again for the fantastic response.

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.

Originally posted by: Kaana

Just reading your post and I posted the other way round. I am not sure of the 100 siblings itself in the first place.
Sisters - the edict talks about his sisters, so more than one sister atleast as I understand.

Loved the blog..that was well researched..appreciate your efforts to collect the facts regarding this topic..

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😆

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...

Hey Minnie,how have you been? It's just awesome to see many of of us back again in a forum. Just jump into CAS! It's fun, as of now the sensible historical show if am right... Sensible in context, as CVs will always be CVs.