Talk:Ashoka

Bias in the sources of information section?

Quite apart from the "alternate interpretations of epigraphic evidence" section that has already been called out as single-source, I'm concerned about the tone of the section "Sources of information". The whole section is overly focused on calling out which of the evidences are unreliable. There are very reliable sources too in plenty (as far as possible for a >2000 year old historical figure). Asokan edicts are unreliable because they could be propaganda, Buddhist legends are unreliable because religion, sure. But why call into question whether hospitals were built or not? There are far more sources that say hospitals were built by Asoka than the studies that say "we can't be sure". The Britannica encyclopaedia entry for hospitals mentions Asokan hospitals in 230 BCE.

Above, I see that someone tried to add details about how positively he was perceived, only to be called "puffery".

There is a possible political bias here. There have been movements to discredit the contributions of non-Hindu rulers in India's history, trying to parlay that into a contemporary political divide. The wiki page for Asoka needs to be spared this treatment.

Teal Drinker (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ashoka's religion before his "conversion"

@PadFoot2008: regarding your conviction that Ashoka converted from "Hinduism" diff, previously, at Talk:History of Hinduism#Periodisation, we've discussed when Hinduism came into existence. The Hindu synthesis developed between 500-200 BCE and ca. 300 CE, as explained by Hiltebeitel and Larson; at Ashoka's time there simply was no "Hinduism" yet. We don't even mention his 'pre-Buddhist religion' in the Wiki-article, obviously because we don't know what it was. Several Buddhist sources refer to him as a Brahman, or Brahmanistic, which is historically viable:

• Giancarlo Bosetti (2023), ASHOKA: Ancient Rocks Teaching the Art of Discussion'x. In: Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations, SpringerLink: "convert from Brahmanism";
• Deepika Deshwal, Dhamma, Buddhism & Ashoka: An analytical study:

Both the cutting-edge and the traditional translators differ in regards to the individual religion of Ashoka. In addition, Buddhist texts additionally give some different speculations about the individual religion of Ashoka. Previously a few researchers put that Ashoka was a Brahmanist or Jainist and not a Buddhist [...] the researchers again called attention to that in the records of Buddhaghosa, Ashoka was referenced as "Brahmana Bhatto" or the disciple of Brahmanism. The “Samanta – padasiaka” likewise verifies the way that Ashoka was a Brahmana. As indicated by Kalhana, Ashoka was a devotee and admirer of Master Shiva. Later the Ceylonese accounts portrayed that initially Ashoka was a Brahman however later transformed into a Buddhist and paid visits to the Buddhist people group or the Samghas. Thusly the contemporary chronicled records affirm Ashoka as a Brahman.

Note that Bindusara was also called "Brahmana Bhatto." Devotion to Shiva does not automatically mean "Hinduism," even not when a few sources refer to his previous religion as "Hinduism," which obviously betrays a lack of understanding on their part. If you think this is incorrect: on what contemporary sources do they base their statement that Ashoka converted from "Hinduism"? Which "Hindu"-tradition specifically? And why not Brahmanism, which is an obvious choice of patronism? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
PS: responding to my statement "Hinduism" did not exist at that time, despite some authors mistakingly calling Brahmanism "Hinduism" diff with that's your opinion diff is flimsy; it's not 'just another opinion', it is based on what experts say, not on some passing remarks which suit a, sorry to say, preconceived opinion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Hinduism" (from "Hind") is an exonym used to refer to the ancient as well as the modern religion, so you would not find ancient Indian sources on it. The beliefs you refer to as "Brahmanism" is only a stage in the development of Hinduism, which I've already provided sources for in the discussion you mention above, which you casually chose to mention as "erroneous" or say that the authors have a "lack of understanding", again which is your own opinion. PadFoot (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Hinduism" is used by some authors to refer to 'the ancient religion', that is, Brahmanism. As I've explained to you, most authors regard Brahmanism as one of the predecessors of "Hinduism," not as the ancient variant of modern Hinduism. Calling Brahmanism "only a stage in the development of Hinduism", that's an opinion, and an anachronism. "Brahmanism" is not "Hinduism." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Shall we stop reverting back and forth the sock's message, and consider the possibility of adding "Brahmanism," if properly sourced, and with the nuance of 'supporting" or "sponsoring"? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly relevant sources for Brahmanism:

• Patrick Olivelle (2024), Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King, Yale University Press - p.58 refers to Brahmanism, but I can't access the full page via Google, unfortunately... P. 101, about his 'conversion', refers to neither Brahmanism nor Hinduism, as far as I can see;
• Nayanjot Lahiri (2015), Ashoka in Ancient India, Harvard University Press - p.135? 'Brahmanical faith"
• John S. Strong (1989), The Legend of King Aśoka: A Study and Translation of the Aśokāvadāna, Motilall - doesn't seem to metion what he was converted from;

Looking for "converted from":

• Paul Williams (2005), Buddhism: Buddhist origins and the early history of Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia, Taylor & Francis - p.55, "converted from his former evil ways"
• Aruna Deshpande (2013), Buddhist India Rediscovered, "converted from Candasoka (cruel Ashoka) to Dhaammasoka (religious minded Ashoka)"

A lot of sources mention either "comverted from Brahmanism" or converted from Hinduism," but the real point seems to be that he, as a military conqueror, 'converted' from agressive militarism to dhamma-minded ruler, a 'chakravartin'. Conversion from either Brahmanism or Hinduism seems to be conjunction; the real point is that he, as emperor, changed his fundamental stance. Somehow, "Religion: Buddhism" doesn't seem to be entirely correct either. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, your arguments somewhat convince me that we should rather not add his former religion (the religion he practiced prior to Buddhism) to the infobox. We should probably add an editorial note in the religion parameter that his former religion should not be added to avoid dispute. However, I want to state here that I do not refute the usage of the term Brahmanism as used by scholars. However, scholars often use the term Brahmanism to refer to an older form of the Hindu set of beliefs, distinct from the modern Hindu religion. See these sources for instance:

• Gavin Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrit, though developing in Indo- Aryan speech communities of northern India, rapidly lost their moorings in any local tongue and spread to establish transregional literary cultures primarily in association with Brahmanical Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
• Nanditha Krishna, Hinduism and Nature, Brahmanical Hinduism spread vigorously in the Western Ghats from 400 CE, and readily integrated primitive local cults; in turn, the locals were also attracted by the Hindu pantheon and adopted it, 56 especially as they came with a structured pantheon of gods and a distinct hierarchy.
• Mark Juergensmeyer; Wade Clark Roof, Encyclopedia of Global Religion: Volume 1, Such an understanding of scripture, involving two alternative yet still intertwined views on authority, has allowed Brahmanical Hinduism to be incredibly dynamic and creative in how it deals with challenges both within and outside itself
• Roshen Dalal, Hinduism, Brahmanism: A term which refers to the early stage of Hinduism, a period before the word Hindu became common
• Peter Harvey, Buddhism, He lived his life in a religious context in which an early form of Hinduism, generally known as 'Brahmanism' or 'Vedic religion', was of considerable influence.
• Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, By the sixth century BC, Brahmanism, the Vedic phase of Hinduism, was well established throughout India. The Brahmins were able to dictate how the gods should be worshiped
• N. Subrahmanian, Hinduism at the Crossroads of History, In the earliest phase of Hinduism, which could be termed either Brahmanism or Vedism, an integrated system of religion, worship and the pantheon existed; the changes in that system thereafter occurred under compulsive

PadFoot (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusion reigns... Anyway, maybe we should even add a note that, while Ashoka may have been a lay Buddhist, his real emphasis was on dharma, that is, righteous living, and that he converted from a militaristic stance to a peacefull stance. But that may be quite nuanced, and I lack the background-knowledge to write such a note properly. By the way, he also seems to have supported the ajivikas, also after his 'conversion'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, you can add it. PadFoot (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

NB:

• Flood:the first quote is from Rich Freeman; Flood is the editor. Freeman uses the phrase "Brahmanical Hinduism" only once, and does not explain it, but obviously refers to "Brahmanism" around ca. 500 BCE, as the developed form of the Vedic religion;
• Krishna: "Brahmanical Hinduism" at 400 CE is early Hinduism, not Brahmanism kf the late Vedic period;
• Jurgensmeyer and Roof: editors; author is David Fowler. "Brahmanical Hinduism represents the elite, lettered, and pan-Indian religious culture of the Sanskrit language [...] is a scholarly construct"; this seems to be akin to Michaels' "Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism," and may not be exactly the same as 'historic Brahmanism' (hence the phrase 'historic');
• Dalal: ambigious; Flood and other authors also describe Brahmanism in their treatment of the history of Hinduism;
• Harvey: inexact; Brahmanism at ca. 500 BCE predates Hinduism proper, that is, the Hindu synthesis;
• Corduan: same as Dalal and Harvey;
• Subrahmanian: idem.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

I want to edit the page of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka the great and provide it with all necessary royal titles of the emperor which are missing here 2A00:20:B28E:16BF:2655:2CEF:4C16:BB5E (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 20:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ashoka as Emperor of Magadha

Why have we mentioning Ashoka as Emperor of Magadha since its unnecessary and against WP:Commons.And for those citing there's a source please see example of Qing Dynasty where its emperor is called as Emperor of Qing despite the fact that all Chinese monarchs called them Emperor of China.Even Qing s even call them as Chinese Empire. Pinging notable editors @PadFoot2008 @Joshua Jonathan @RegentsPark Edasf (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your comparison is flawed. There was no 'emperor of China'. The Chinese emperors themselves as just 'Emperor' or Huangdi, not of a specific domain. This wasn't the case here, and Ashoka was mentioned in his inscriptions as the emperor of Magadha. We are simply mentioning the title he used, as is the common convention. Also, there is no policy called WP:Commons. Commons is a Wikimedia project. I believe you might be referring to WP:COMMONNAME, however, that too refers to the article titling policy and not what is in the article body or in the infobox. PadFoot (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)