What's new

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

Not like Ashoka but Chnadragupta Mourya...
 
. . .
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.

Please look at references, texts and research, and stop depending on folk tales and idle speculation.

Asoka's empire not only held its own against kingdoms and people who conquered India from the mountains of the north-west through to Varanasi, and to the whole of western India including Gujarat, northern Maharashtra and southern Rajasthan; certainly the whole of Malwa, and up to Ujjain. This happened long after his reign, and after his dynasty had been replaced.

There is no proof other than Buddhist propaganda that he 'renounced' anything. Not only did he consolidate the country's safety and peace, he also kept things safe for his successor and into the dynasty that succeeded the Mauryas. How long is he supposed to have held India safe? How long was India safe under the Guptas? Or under Harshavardhana? Or under the Rajputs? Or under the Mughals?

As I said, stop believing in grandmother's tales.
 
.
1.Asoka ascended the throne after killing 99 brothers and a huge bloodbath he ordered. Thence he became a pacifist. Let us see if Butcher Modi also embraces pacifism.

2.Btw, there are already talks among RSS/VHP cadre to replace Aska's chakra on the tiranga with BJP's lotus which has religious association to the Hindus.
Thanks for the lulz.:omghaha:
 
.
I am aware.
Which is why I mentioned that today the result of the evolution of that complex inter-relationship is that Hindus and Buiddhists are almost the same with difference only in name. The philosophies are the same. Most Hindus consider Budhists as Hindus only.

There are huge differences; I am surprised that you find differences only in name. The philosophies are radically different. Finally, while Hindus may think of Buddhists as Hindus, the basis for this is nebulous. And in addition, Buddhists don't consider Hindus as Buddhists. Does that say anything to you?

You might like to read von Stietencron on Hinduism; a good place to do that is "Hindu Myth, Hindu History: Religion, Art and Politics".
 
.
There are huge differences; I am surprised that you find differences only in name. The philosophies are radically different. Finally, while Hindus may think of Buddhists as Hindus, the basis for this is nebulous. And in addition, Buddhists don't consider Hindus as Buddhists. Does that say anything to you?

You might like to read von Stietencron on Hinduism; a good place to do that is "Hindu Myth, Hindu History: Religion, Art and Politics".

Actually, to my consternation, after reading von Stietencron, I found that he was effectively saying the same thing as the Indic-wallahs have been saying, and that I've been fighting. So I don't agree entirely with von S either. But you might find it fun. His analysis is very sharp.
 
.
Sure, Just Kalinga, Chola and few small pockets left.
Capture.PNG
 
.
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.

You are going into unknown waters like you always do.

First Learn Something before responding to me ..First 'Puranas' were written around(according to even your favorite) indologists very late to arrival of even buddhism(and jainism arrived before buddha).






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.

Thats why i said you are going into unknown waters,Shaivaite and Vaishnawas are later developed concepts ,at the time of buddha these concepts were not developed,Buddha and Jinas took most of their concepts from then available philosophies which were mostly vedic and post vedic (some like charavakians also existed).

They rejected many things but they remain within fold of indian viewpoint,just like indian 'darshans' which developed post buddhism .

Dharma karma nyaya gatha aryatva ,even demigods in many occasions are mostly same ,Religion was not the concept prevalent at that time ,people change there 'matta[viewpoint]' in seconds.


However that mostly changed when arab invaders came 7-8th century ..





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.

What that has to do with my post?
 
.
1.Asoka ascended the throne after killing 99 brothers and a huge bloodbath he ordered. Thence he became a pacifist. Let us see if Butcher Modi also embraces pacifism.

2.Btw, there are already talks among RSS/VHP cadre to replace Aska's chakra on the tiranga with BJP's lotus which has religious association to the Hindus.
WoW that's baloney.No one wants to change dharma chakra on flag.Smoking pot?
 
.
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.


Brilliantly put! I couldn't have put it in better words... Sometimes, we give in into a hype of righteousness so much that it makes us rather weak and that's exactly what was the problem with many of ancient Indian kingdoms.

No, we should never ever allow ourselves to be walked all over by the barbarians from outside who give two cahoots for righteousness!!!
 
.
This is a very late development. The inclusions are different from region to region. Look it up; you will get a surprise.

That only happened because people confused the Planet god Buddh for Gautama Buddha.
 
.
So in essence, he is asking Modi to become Buddhist?

Modi should convert to Islam and make India an Islamic state..that would be the best thing.

Why don't you convert to Buddhism of your ancestors and bring peace to your country??

Islam has failed to unite you guys.
 
. .
@Chinese-Dragon , if you don't believe compare the concepts of karma,reincarnation etc.

Did you see the video I posted? Clearly there are huge similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism, since they come from the same Vedic philosophy.

I know all about reincarnation, karma, etc. My own family are Chinese Buddhists.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom