1. Ashoka converted to Buddhism in his 4th regnal year. ( Sri Lankan Buddhist Sources). 2. Ashoka fought Kalinga war in his 8th regnal year. (Ashoka Rock Edict No. 13). Thereby, Ashoka was already Buddhist at the time of Kalinga war.
I read it in a book that the earliest of Emperor Devanampiya's edicts (mostly the minor ones) were composed between the 10th and 11th year of his reign. So if we consider that..... Wouldn't that "2 years ago" mean the 8th-9th year of his reign ? I don't know but I am extremely fascinated by Asocan history and would like to know more about it.
@@JayVardhanSingh The Land of Seven Rivers is an oversimplified, inaccurate history of India with a pronounced nationalistic tilt (Sanyal seems to believe in the Out of India theory, though he is not confident enough to proclaim this outright). His writing is substandard and lacks the nuance essential to good history. (I would recommend John Keay's India: A Brief History for an unbiased, accessible, almost poetically written history of India)
I am no Sir. Please call me Jay. 😅 About your question I primarily relied on Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas, for the translation of Ashokan edicts. On the other hand, my arguments here are influenced by India: A sacred geography.
Books like the "Early History of India" by Vincent Smith in 1920 and the "Age of the Nandas and the Mauryas" by K.A. Nilakanta Sastri in 1952 were responsible for popularising this misconception. Both of these historian believed that Ashoka's Dhamma and Buddhism are the same. From this assumption they concluded that Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the Kalinga war. Recent Scholarship on Ashoka has questioned this assumption. Now most scholars believe that Ashoka Dhamma is not related to Buddhism. Although, it does contain some elements of Buddhism but to characterise it as same as Buddhism would be wrong.
About the textual sources, it is true that they were written well after Ashoka's reign. But apart from these sources, there aren't any other textual sources which historians are aware of. I agree that there will always be doubt about how correct these sources are, but we have to rely on the sources which we currently have to construct history. What we can do is use all the available sources and cross-check them. Here I have tried to do so, by using both the Ashokan inscriptions and Textual Sources to make my point.
Is thir any word in any of the inscription related to "conversation".... In that time different sects exited...in a family if father followed one sect ,,his son or wife followed different sect of thir choice..
Ashokavadana is part of Divyavadana. But in this case, I have treated it as a separate text because the story of Ashoka appears multiple times Divayavadana.
First of all, I appreciate for your work! Here, I've something to say method is not applicable in Dharmic tradition Western scholars put it the way like '' Baptism '' Buddha dharma by then was a heterodox school of Vedic Dharma which is why neither inscriptions nor Dharmic text mention '' conversion of Samraat Ashok '' Dhanyavad in addition
In Ancient India any Maharaja has to do Ashwamedh yagya for declaring himself as Chakravarti Samrat.... So did Ashoka has done such yagya Or not? So if he has done then he might was following the Raj dharma if not then how come the whole of Bharat varsh accepted him as Chakravarti Samrat? Also the inhuman war that he has imposed on Kalinga for his selfish gains and profit for gaining control on ports in East coast may have created a sense of fear and rebellious voices from many kingdoms throughout Bharatvarsh and particularly from kingdoms in TriKalinga region and neighborhood such as confederacy of Nagavanshis of Vindhyatabi. Is Ashoka conversion and making his ideology as state religion was to put an end to rebellion by many Kings and dynasties who don't accept him as Samrat? Also, this may considered as crime in those days for whom who don't accept his ideology and newly developed faith as state religion. Many kings throughout Bharatvarsh can consider this as a dual personality of the self proclaimed Samrat and who ever tried to oppose then those kings may have been removed my the samant ( governors) appointed by the Ashoka in many provinces of the different Kingdoms. I have raised some of the questions, I require those answer. Kindly put some lights on it.
He must have done it cause of parampara Look modern day Europe Roman Christianity shaped it So somehow Buddhism was more of system to be a civilization N yagyas the anciemt ways to find divinity
For Kalinga War, we have overwhelming evidence to show that the war really happened. I am making a video on the reasons that led to Kalinga war, so do watch it.
I think ashok or many many kings adopted bhuddism as some group ism in bharmins some choose bhuddism and some were follow strict vedic culture and some were started their own interpretation of vedic culture this has lead to many hindu kings to choose bhuddism but word conversion is bad as in those times there was no conversion they just follow anything which lead to higher stuff .
Ashok is birth from only Buddhist after kalinga war he stopped war because of descruction of People deadth and animals . Kalinga was independent state .in nanda empire kalinga was control of nandas empire .but when the time chandragupta maurya period and bindusara period kalinga was not in control of them so Ashok decided to invade kalinga . Because it was independent state. If we got All ashok 84000inscrptions we will get the clear information about samart Ashok
It is also the case that Ashoka and his fake story that he converted to Buddhism after Kalinga war and gave up on violence,was propagated Nehru and Nehruvian Socialist historians ,and look I'm not blaming or hating Nehru for he did ,from his point of view what he did was right ,look India had just emerged as nation after centuries of colonial rule and we were a very diverse nation ,so he needed a hero who will be respected by all in this diverse country,and Ashoka fitted that image perfectly as he was one of the earliest emperor of Bharat and was the one ruled most of Bharat in its entire history and he was also not an outsider like Mughals etc. So it makes sense why nehru and Nehruvian Socialist historians would make this story about Ashoka so that nation can unite behind him,you can argue if he did right or wrong by changing history,I'm not a big fan of Nehru actually I'm a critical towards him ,but here what he did was understandable.
If u have question let me clear you... buddhist born in buddist family are " le buddhist " They have to perform meditation and may be some rituals to become complete buddhist which is not overnight work.. Plus he is not a hindu king or hindu empire before conversion most important point... And from where u get divyavadana in sanskrit plzz can u give me reference or source bcz sanskrit was not developed at that time..... Nice video and info too
"sanskrit was not developed at that time". What? The Naneghat inscription by queen Nayanika of Satavahana was in Sanskrit, including the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana and Ghosundi-Hathibada. Panini, who created modern Sanskrit predates Mauryan Empire. And the Vedas use an older version of Sanskrit than Panini.
@@Kumarsharma5954 I literally listed you the earliest sanskrit inscriptions. "garbage facts". for someone making such bold comments you didn't post one proof whatever you posted and even ignored my own comment. Ashoka's conversion to buddhism is popularized by buddhist sources themselves yet you are claiming he was born to a "buddhist family". "Plus he is not a hindu king or hindu empire before conversion most important point". Your most important point does not need a proof it seems. considering the attrocities he commited to ajivika since his asscension, he was definitely not an ajivika like his father bindusara. neither did any jain sources made claims of him being a jain.
@@witchilich I'm saying nagari lipi sanskrit was not there before 9 century AD...... Buddhist hybrid sanskrit was developed by bhikshu himself from 1 or 2 century AD
@@Kumarsharma5954 you are making less sense the more you talk. there are so many sanskrit inscriptions before 9th century AD. What does Nagari script have to do with "sanskrit was not developed at that time"? Here in Odisha Sanskrit is written in Odia script. In South Indian states Sanskrit is written in native dravidian scripts. Some sounds used in vedas like the "hard la" is not even present in Nagari script and its derivations.
Actually he wasn't that hardcore of a Buddhist, what i mean to say is he was quite accommodating of other faiths as well which is clear in his inscription where he appoints Minister's for the welfare of Sangh(Buddhist), Brahmin ( Hindu), niganth( jain) and aajivikas
Yes, Buddhism has no Gods. Ashoka said about Devas. Devas are creatures of heavens in Buddhist cosmology. Ashoka's title was 'Devanampriya Piyadasin'. He also sent part of his title to Sri Lankan king Thissa. After King Thissa converted to the Buddhism, He became King Devanampiyathissa.
@@Vajra98Ashokavadana also mentions that, after his conversion to Buddhism, Bindusara's son Ashoka issued an order to kill all the Ajivikas in Pundravardhana, enraged at a picture that depicted Gautama Buddha in a negative light. Around 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect were supposedly executed as a result of this order.
Edict 13 clearly states that "after the kalingas had been conquered, the beloved of the gods came to feel a strong inclination towards Dharma, a love for dharma and for instruction in Dharma." Therefore there's definitely a hint of an evidence right there, which cannot be dismissed.
The use of Dharma here isn't specifically for Buddhism. There're many scholars who argue that by Dhamma, Ashoka is talking about a moral order not a particular religion.
I am Indian from Hindu 👪 bro Ashoka The Great is Buddhist before kalinga war he didn't practice Brahmanism at all he stopped which is associated with Vedic religion actually.
Misleading. The repeated use of the word “conversion” is the narrator’s own bias. Evidence merely shows that Ashoka became an actively practicing Buddhist at some point in his reign by joining a Sangha. The entire Mauryan dynasty was born in the Buddhist religion. The princes did not become monks or join Sanghas as a rule. Just as most people of that time did not become monks and join sanghas. The line between being a Buddhist and being a Buddhist monk should not be blurred. Buddhism had totally replaced Sanatan Dharma by the 3rd Century BCE and was itself eclipsed by Varnashram Dharma from the 2nd Century AD.
Errata: At 2:01, it should be Sasaram minor rock edict (Shahbad, Bihar) in place of Bhabra edict (Bairat)
1. Ashoka converted to Buddhism in his 4th regnal year. ( Sri Lankan Buddhist Sources).
2. Ashoka fought Kalinga war in his 8th regnal year. (Ashoka Rock Edict No. 13).
Thereby, Ashoka was already Buddhist at the time of Kalinga war.
Yes u are right but u need to understand that they all are " Le buddhist " Just bcz they are born in buddhist family only
Can you tell me where can you read these sources?
Source trust me bro
@@gm-so2ld Ashoka and his edicts, Page 85.
@@gm-so2ldThe name Sri Lankan text is Ashokavandana.
Some things came to know about Ashoka at the first time even I'm also history teacher, V. Usefull video
Dear Jay, please make some content on gurjara pratiharas, rashtrakutas and palas of Bengal. As well as on Vardhan Dynasty.
Yes, will do so soon after completing the Gupta History
I read it in a book that the earliest of Emperor Devanampiya's edicts (mostly the minor ones) were composed between the 10th and 11th year of his reign. So if we consider that..... Wouldn't that "2 years ago" mean the 8th-9th year of his reign ? I don't know but I am extremely fascinated by Asocan history and would like to know more about it.
Ashokas first wife Maharani Devi was a buddhist. Before Ashoka became king he lived in the Ujjin
Excellent knowledge of history 👍👍👍👍
I will post this video in my Facebook wall mentioning ur work.. Thanks
No problem. And thanks for informing me.
Once again an excellent video, can you suggest some good and authentic books of Indian history. Thanks
Thank you, Sanjeev Sanyal's Land of the Seven Rivers is a good book to start with.
@@JayVardhanSingh The Land of Seven Rivers is an oversimplified, inaccurate history of India with a pronounced nationalistic tilt (Sanyal seems to believe in the Out of India theory, though he is not confident enough to proclaim this outright). His writing is substandard and lacks the nuance essential to good history. (I would recommend John Keay's India: A Brief History for an unbiased, accessible, almost poetically written history of India)
@@sagnik3556 out of India is nationalistic? Even though the theory is older than India as a nation itself? Lol
3:02 for further info 13th Rock eddict in Shabaz garhi
Miracle miracle 🙌🙌🙌
i am getting addicted to your videos
Explained Fabulously
Sir can you share the book references used in this?
I am no Sir. Please call me Jay. 😅
About your question I primarily relied on Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas, for the translation of Ashokan edicts. On the other hand, my arguments here are influenced by India: A sacred geography.
@@JayVardhanSingh Thanks Jay 🙏
Thank you 😎😎
Nicely explained!
This means billions of Indians and millions of Odias were told lies about the role of the Kalinga war in Ashok's conversion to Buddhism.
I think before kalinga war the ashoka is ajivik because they believe in niyati.. means jo huva woh sahi huva like approach
Fun Fact: Kalinga War is the only war in Indian History, where normal people/commoner were attacked.
Who said 😂??
Akbar massacred 30,000 civilians at Chittor.
@@gokulrenjith2738 Indian Kings ka context inherent tha bhai. Ab tu Mughal ko Indian Kings Manta hai to baat dusari hai.
*That we know of*
Because not patronised (sponsered) poet of any King will dare to write the evil deeds by the king
Great work
Thanks
What religion ashoka believe before Buddhism
Then who and how made the story that the Ashok converted to Buddhism?
Books like the "Early History of India" by Vincent Smith in 1920 and the "Age of the Nandas and the Mauryas" by K.A. Nilakanta Sastri in 1952 were responsible for popularising this misconception. Both of these historian believed that Ashoka's Dhamma and Buddhism are the same. From this assumption they concluded that Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the Kalinga war.
Recent Scholarship on Ashoka has questioned this assumption. Now most scholars believe that Ashoka Dhamma is not related to Buddhism. Although, it does contain some elements of Buddhism but to characterise it as same as Buddhism would be wrong.
@@JayVardhanSingh Ashoka was always a Buddhist. There was no Hinduism at the time of Ashoka.
@@SandeepVerma-bf1ry 😂😂 fool !!
@@Rajvardhantiwari1103 keep moving keep moving
@@SandeepVerma-bf1ry what is Vedic culture ? Not Hinduism
The sources mentioned here ( literary sources) are mainly written after the period of Asoka. So how can we clearly assume that it is factual...
About the textual sources, it is true that they were written well after Ashoka's reign. But apart from these sources, there aren't any other textual sources which historians are aware of. I agree that there will always be doubt about how correct these sources are, but we have to rely on the sources which we currently have to construct history. What we can do is use all the available sources and cross-check them. Here I have tried to do so, by using both the Ashokan inscriptions and Textual Sources to make my point.
Very informative video.. 😊😊
Thanks a lot
Is thir any word in any of the inscription related to "conversation"....
In that time different sects exited...in a family if father followed one sect ,,his son or wife followed different sect of thir choice..
no, there's no such word present
Is Ashokavadana and Divyavadana are different?what is the difference between them
Ashokavadana is part of Divyavadana. But in this case, I have treated it as a separate text because the story of Ashoka appears multiple times Divayavadana.
@@JayVardhanSingh which was the Buddhist sect ashoka followed??
@@ayush7745 Possibly Hīnayāna
He was a Buddhist before Kalinga war
Tq
First of all, I appreciate for your work!
Here, I've something to say
method is not applicable in Dharmic tradition
Western scholars put it the way like '' Baptism ''
Buddha dharma by then was a heterodox school of Vedic Dharma which is why neither inscriptions nor Dharmic text mention '' conversion of Samraat Ashok ''
Dhanyavad in addition
Haha. He just mentioned sereval budhdhist sources talking about ashok becoming budhdhist after a miracle performed by the monk.
@@ramparmar3805 I commented one year ago. One year ago my perception was different from that of today.
Yeah, you're right.
😄
@@MrSoothsayer 😂😂👍
In Ancient India any Maharaja has to do Ashwamedh yagya for declaring himself as Chakravarti Samrat.... So did Ashoka has done such yagya Or not? So if he has done then he might was following the Raj dharma if not then how come the whole of Bharat varsh accepted him as Chakravarti Samrat? Also the inhuman war that he has imposed on Kalinga for his selfish gains and profit for gaining control on ports in East coast may have created a sense of fear and rebellious voices from many kingdoms throughout Bharatvarsh and particularly from kingdoms in TriKalinga region and neighborhood such as confederacy of Nagavanshis of Vindhyatabi. Is Ashoka conversion and making his ideology as state religion was to put an end to rebellion by many Kings and dynasties who don't accept him as Samrat? Also, this may considered as crime in those days for whom who don't accept his ideology and newly developed faith as state religion. Many kings throughout Bharatvarsh can consider this as a dual personality of the self proclaimed Samrat and who ever tried to oppose then those kings may have been removed my the samant ( governors) appointed by the Ashoka in many provinces of the different Kingdoms. I have raised some of the questions, I require those answer. Kindly put some lights on it.
He must have done it cause of parampara
Look modern day Europe Roman Christianity shaped it
So somehow Buddhism was more of system to be a civilization
N yagyas the anciemt ways to find divinity
Ashoka was a traitor.He invaded Kalinga ,looted and this propagonda was made that he suddenly became good.
Traitor ka matlab bhi pata h?
Traitor Kaise huwa bhai?
Traitor to whom?
Did kalinga war really happened?or is it also a misconception?
For Kalinga War, we have overwhelming evidence to show that the war really happened. I am making a video on the reasons that led to Kalinga war, so do watch it.
@@JayVardhanSingh yes I will
Thank You.
Yes 13 wall inscriptions of Ashok
I think ashok or many many kings adopted bhuddism as some group ism in bharmins some choose bhuddism and some were follow strict vedic culture and some were started their own interpretation of vedic culture this has lead to many hindu kings to choose bhuddism but word conversion is bad as in those times there was no conversion they just follow anything which lead to higher stuff .
Ashok is birth from only Buddhist after kalinga war he stopped war because of descruction of People deadth and animals . Kalinga was independent state .in nanda empire kalinga was control of nandas empire .but when the time chandragupta maurya period and bindusara period kalinga was not in control of them so Ashok decided to invade kalinga . Because it was independent state. If we got All ashok 84000inscrptions we will get the clear information about samart Ashok
But why was this misleading theory of Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism after Kalinga war propagated?
To damage the image of Hinduism i guess
It is also the case that Ashoka and his fake story that he converted to Buddhism after Kalinga war and gave up on violence,was propagated Nehru and Nehruvian Socialist historians ,and look I'm not blaming or hating Nehru for he did ,from his point of view what he did was right ,look India had just emerged as nation after centuries of colonial rule and we were a very diverse nation ,so he needed a hero who will be respected by all in this diverse country,and Ashoka fitted that image perfectly as he was one of the earliest emperor of Bharat and was the one ruled most of Bharat in its entire history and he was also not an outsider like Mughals etc. So it makes sense why nehru and Nehruvian Socialist historians would make this story about Ashoka so that nation can unite behind him,you can argue if he did right or wrong by changing history,I'm not a big fan of Nehru actually I'm a critical towards him ,but here what he did was understandable.
Because Hindus wanna claim they had a great empire like other empires
sanjeev sanyal
If u have question let me clear you... buddhist born in buddist family are " le buddhist " They have to perform meditation and may be some rituals to become complete buddhist which is not overnight work.. Plus he is not a hindu king or hindu empire before conversion most important point... And from where u get divyavadana in sanskrit plzz can u give me reference or source bcz sanskrit was not developed at that time..... Nice video and info too
"sanskrit was not developed at that time". What? The Naneghat inscription by queen Nayanika of Satavahana was in Sanskrit, including the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana and Ghosundi-Hathibada. Panini, who created modern Sanskrit predates Mauryan Empire. And the Vedas use an older version of Sanskrit than Panini.
@@witchilich show me the inscription and then tell me this garbage facts.....
@@Kumarsharma5954 I literally listed you the earliest sanskrit inscriptions.
"garbage facts". for someone making such bold comments you didn't post one proof whatever you posted and even ignored my own comment.
Ashoka's conversion to buddhism is popularized by buddhist sources themselves yet you are claiming he was born to a "buddhist family".
"Plus he is not a hindu king or hindu empire before conversion most important point". Your most important point does not need a proof it seems. considering the attrocities he commited to ajivika since his asscension, he was definitely not an ajivika like his father bindusara. neither did any jain sources made claims of him being a jain.
@@witchilich I'm saying nagari lipi sanskrit was not there before 9 century AD...... Buddhist hybrid sanskrit was developed by bhikshu himself from 1 or 2 century AD
@@Kumarsharma5954 you are making less sense the more you talk. there are so many sanskrit inscriptions before 9th century AD.
What does Nagari script have to do with "sanskrit was not developed at that time"? Here in Odisha Sanskrit is written in Odia script. In South Indian states Sanskrit is written in native dravidian scripts. Some sounds used in vedas like the "hard la" is not even present in Nagari script and its derivations.
Sanskrit text in 2nd AD ??? R you sure??? Pls check it out
Yes it is the oldest language in the world duh.
In his edicts, Ashok calls himself देवनमप्रिय or the beloved of the gods. Buddhism is godless. If he was Buddhist then what gods was he referring to?
Actually he wasn't that hardcore of a Buddhist, what i mean to say is he was quite accommodating of other faiths as well which is clear in his inscription where he appoints Minister's for the welfare of Sangh(Buddhist), Brahmin ( Hindu), niganth( jain) and aajivikas
Devas.
Yes, Buddhism has no Gods. Ashoka said about Devas. Devas are creatures of heavens in Buddhist cosmology. Ashoka's title was 'Devanampriya Piyadasin'. He also sent part of his title to Sri Lankan king Thissa. After King Thissa converted to the Buddhism, He became King Devanampiyathissa.
@@Vajra98Ashokavadana also mentions that, after his conversion to Buddhism, Bindusara's son Ashoka issued an order to kill all the Ajivikas in Pundravardhana, enraged at a picture that depicted Gautama Buddha in a negative light. Around 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect were supposedly executed as a result of this order.
Buddhism is agnostic not atheist philosophy
Edict 13 clearly states that "after the kalingas had been conquered, the beloved of the gods came to feel a strong inclination towards Dharma, a love for dharma and for instruction in Dharma." Therefore there's definitely a hint of an evidence right there, which cannot be dismissed.
The use of Dharma here isn't specifically for Buddhism. There're many scholars who argue that by Dhamma, Ashoka is talking about a moral order not a particular religion.
@@JayVardhanSingh thank you for responding. Valid observation.
@@JayVardhanSingh Buddhism is not a religion.Its teaching of Buddha I e., Dhamma
Ashok never converted to Buddhism..he was inspired but not converted ..it is a misconception spread by British and leftist authors ..
He was
Lol,Hindu kids?
@@terraminsan7392Hindus are more matured than you haters
I am Indian from Hindu 👪 bro Ashoka The Great is Buddhist before kalinga war he didn't practice Brahmanism at all he stopped which is associated with Vedic religion actually.
Misleading. The repeated use of the word “conversion” is the narrator’s own bias. Evidence merely shows that Ashoka became an actively practicing Buddhist at some point in his reign by joining a Sangha. The entire Mauryan dynasty was born in the Buddhist religion. The princes did not become monks or join Sanghas as a rule. Just as most people of that time did not become monks and join sanghas. The line between being a Buddhist and being a Buddhist monk should not be blurred. Buddhism had totally replaced Sanatan Dharma by the 3rd Century BCE and was itself eclipsed by Varnashram Dharma from the 2nd Century AD.