Asoka and the Jains
Asoka and the Jains
Malcolm made a reference to Asoka executing thousands of Jains. Never heard that before. Further reference?
Re: Asoka and the Jains
Aśokāvadāna, but this is mixing Ājīvakas and Jains and is more legendary than historical. After Aśoka heard of someone bowing to an image of a naked Buddha, yakṣas from under the earth brought him before Aśoka and he then ordered all Ājīkas be put to death. The number given is 18000.
A separate but similar passage occurs where he orders the heads of Jains, but instead of giving a number, it is said that his own brother, Vitāśoka, was beheaded after being mistaken for a Jain due to his tattered appearance. After which the king regretted and rescinded his order.
As for the number, every time Arhats are mentioned, they are given as 18000. This, combined with the duplication of the story, and the yakṣas involvement, make this somewhat hard to accept as a hard historical fact, but they form an important part of a narrative.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
There is a mistake in the text, but it is clear that Jains were the intended targets of the purge.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
The Chinese, which is from an earlier recension than that on which Strong based his translation, just has tīrthika (外道) for the first order. The second order is specifically for Nigranthas. I think that the ajīvika order is an interpolation and it originally had nothing specified.
From a historian's perspective, using the Aśokāvadāna for the historical truth is really a waste of time. The whole Puṣpamitra fiction is enough fabrication to discount the entire book as pure fiction. Buddhists and Jains go back and forward with accusations in various texts. In fact, as far as what can be established by the edicts alone, Aśoka himself was supportive of Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanism and Ajīvikism.
From a historian's perspective, using the Aśokāvadāna for the historical truth is really a waste of time. The whole Puṣpamitra fiction is enough fabrication to discount the entire book as pure fiction. Buddhists and Jains go back and forward with accusations in various texts. In fact, as far as what can be established by the edicts alone, Aśoka himself was supportive of Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanism and Ajīvikism.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
Yes, after a certain point in his reign. But the Avadana records that he was a tyrant, very cruel, and explains the reason for his softening to be the execution of his brother.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
This is kind of like using the Bible for historical inquiry. It can give us a comprehensive and understandable narrative, but we can't confirm any of it. Some sources say Aśoka killed 99 of his brothers. Still yet, there are historians who suggest that Vitāśoka is actually the same as Aśoka, but as a Jain. In order to put to rest the theory that Aśoka was a Jain, or sympathetic to the Jains, this story of the death of Vitāśoka came about.
I found Thapar's methods suspect in a few of her books, but when she writes about Aśoka I think she expresses a realistic amount of scepticism about the traditional narratives. But we can probably say that the Kaliṅga war did occur. As for whether he killed other groups or 99 of his brothers, I think it is a given that kings at that time were brutal, but the details are impossible to know for sure without corroboration. King Aśoka may have been more brutal than even Ajātaśatru, but Ajātaśatru killed his father so he committed one of the five heinous crimes. Both, by all accounts, eventually supported Buddhists and were of service to the sangha.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
This is debatable, actually. He didn’t actually slay Bimbisara, rather, Bimbisara starved to death. As Ajatashatru attained stream entry, etc., according to some accounts, it’s questionable if he committed an uninterruptible deed, and is a topic of debate among Tibetan scholars.
As far as Ashoka goes, I think it certainly plausible that early in his conversion he may have engaged in sectarian violence, despite his later turn toward tolerance.
Re: Asoka and the Jains
It's plausible, no doubt.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:16 amThis is debatable, actually. He didn’t actually slay Bimbisara, rather, Bimbisara starved to death. As Ajatashatru attained stream entry, etc., according to some accounts, it’s questionable if he committed an uninterruptible deed, and is a topic of debate among Tibetan scholars.
As far as Ashoka goes, I think it certainly plausible that early in his conversion he may have engaged in sectarian violence, despite his later turn toward tolerance.
As for Ajātaśatru, the Buddha seems to suggest that he is not directly responsible to clear his mind, but by most accounts, regardless of whether it was one of the five grave crimes, he does still have to go to hell. The Sūtra on King Ajātaśatru's Questions on the Five Heinous Crimes (T508), for instance, clarifies that due to his remorse and rootless faith, his time in hell is like a bouncy ball—it falls only to rise as soon as it lands. After that, he's born as a deva for multiple lives until he attains Pratyekabuddhahood—I believe this understanding is also reflected in the Theravāda scholarship on the topic.
Of course, there's a further Mahāyāna tradition regarding Ajātaśatru. The Nirvāṇa sūtra essentially clarifies that rootless faith is a vision of Buddha-nature that is granted by the Buddha. The Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana clarifies that, after being taught to overcome his doubts by Mañjuśrī's teaching, he gains a prediction of full Buddhahood, along with his son Candragrīva. I am currently translating this and will publish it in due course.