4 ms·

The interactions between the Indian and Greek civilizations during the fourth century BCE and later have been quite well studied, and what the article describes

The interactions between the Indian and Greek civilizations during the fourth century BCE and later have been quite well studied, and what the article describes is not surprising. For some context, the emperor Ashoka, scion of the Maurya empire, consolidated various smaller republics into an empire that covered most of Afghanistan and North-West Pakistan of today. These areas bordered the regions that were controlled by the Greeks at the time. Ashoka's time was one of consolidation and relative peace, people were more mobile, trade and cultural exchange flourished. This article [1] sheds a little more light on the story. In fact, the visual image & depictions of the Buddha had significant Greek influence, the first images of the Buddha apparently surfaced outside India centuries after his death. The common depiction with curly hair was most probably not what the historical Buddha looked like [2]. [1] https://archive.is/eNYCm https://archive.is/eNYCm [2] https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/05/15/what-did-the-buddha-really-look-like/ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/05/15/what-did-the-bu...

0xDEF 3y ago
The Maurya empire covered all of modern day India/Pakistan except the southern most part (Kerala and Tamil Nadu).
sprkv5 3y ago
Ashoka was anything but peace-loving before the Kalinga war, the bloodiest war fought on the subcontinent. It was because of this war, Ashoka converted to Buddhism.
- cubancigar11 3y ago
  He was Buddhist before Kalinga war. His conversion to Buddhism is after Kalinga war is later invention to promote Buddhism.
  - sprkv5 3y ago
    That would indeed be a bad look for a Buddhist, to fight such a violent war. Any sources which specifically say he was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war?
    - cubancigar11 3y ago
      I should not have spoken so authoritatively. I can't edit my comment now, but the links are on wikipedia itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Kalinga_war_and_conversion_to_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Kalinga_war_and_convers... "On the other hand, the Sri Lankan tradition suggests that Ashoka was already a devoted Buddhist by his 8th regnal year, converted to Buddhism during his 4th regnal year, and constructed 84,000 viharas during his 5th–7th regnal years.[89] The Buddhist legends make no mention of the Kalinga campaign.[91] Based on Sri Lankan tradition, some scholars, such as Eggermont, believe Ashoka converted to Buddhism before the Kalinga war.[92] Critics of this theory argue that if Ashoka were already a Buddhist, he would not have waged the violent Kalinga War. Eggermont explains this anomaly by theorising that Ashoka had his own interpretation of the "Middle Way".[93] Some earlier writers believed that Ashoka dramatically converted to Buddhism after seeing the suffering caused by the war since his Major Rock Edict 13 states that he became closer to the dhamma after the annexation of Kalinga.[91] However, even if Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the war, epigraphic evidence suggests that his conversion was a gradual process rather than a dramatic event.[91] For example, in a Minor Rock Edict issued during his 13th regnal year (five years after the Kalinga campaign), he states that he had been an upasaka (lay Buddhist) for more than two and a half years, but did not make much progress; in the past year, he was drawn closer to the sangha and became a more ardent follower.[91]" On the contrary, Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism after Kalinga war is told in Ashoka's edicts, which I think is just too convenient. But then, Sri Lanka has had historical wars with Hindu kings from India, so that is there... At the end, I should not have spoken so authoritative.
hackernewds 3y ago
The article you linked is full of inaccuracies > Most modern scholars believe he was most likely born sometime around 480 BC or thereabouts in Śākya Gaṇarājya, an oligarchic state in the northern Indian subcontinent and he most likely died sometime around 400 BC or thereabouts. Siddhartha Gautama was born in present day Nepal, in the city of Kapilvastu in the Lumbini region. There are archaeological remains of the palace where he was born along with scriptures explicitly matching the origins and design. The article also goes to great lengths to emphasize a lot of details are nebulous, however they are documented well since the Buddha was a royal prince. For that reason not sure where the idea that the depiction of Chinese Buddha should be accurate is insinuated either.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  additionally this history is supported by the Ashoka stamba erected at the historical birth site of the Buddha in Kapilvastu, Nepal as well. you will find though a recently inaugurated Kapilvastu city in India, and one can speculate around why :)
- sdeer 3y ago
  Śākya Gaṇarājya translates to English as Shakya Republic and that is actually correct. Kapilavastu was the capital of the Republic/Oligarchy of the Shakya clan. Buddha's father was the elected chief at the time of his birth. This is why one of his epithets is Shakyamuni ("muni" means sage so sage of the Shakyas.) Strictly speaking Buddha was not a royal price but scion of an aristocratic family. As a comparison think of someone born in a patrician family of Rome when his father is a Consul of Rome. The Wikipedia article has good details about the Shakyas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > Strictly speaking Buddha was not a royal price but scion of an aristocratic family. Is that so? It was propheised at his birth (so the legend goes) that he would either become an enlightened teacher, or a "wheel-turning" world monarch (chakravartin). That doesn't prove he wasn't a royal prince, but then I guess I'm not sure exactly what a "prince" is.

0xDEF 3y ago

The Maurya empire covered all of modern day India/Pakistan except the southern most part (Kerala and Tamil Nadu).

sprkv5 3y ago

Ashoka was anything but peace-loving before the Kalinga war, the bloodiest war fought on the subcontinent. It was because of this war, Ashoka converted to Buddhism.

cubancigar11 3y ago
He was Buddhist before Kalinga war. His conversion to Buddhism is after Kalinga war is later invention to promote Buddhism.
- sprkv5 3y ago
  That would indeed be a bad look for a Buddhist, to fight such a violent war. Any sources which specifically say he was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war?
  - cubancigar11 3y ago
    I should not have spoken so authoritatively. I can't edit my comment now, but the links are on wikipedia itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Kalinga_war_and_conversion_to_Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Kalinga_war_and_convers... "On the other hand, the Sri Lankan tradition suggests that Ashoka was already a devoted Buddhist by his 8th regnal year, converted to Buddhism during his 4th regnal year, and constructed 84,000 viharas during his 5th–7th regnal years.[89] The Buddhist legends make no mention of the Kalinga campaign.[91] Based on Sri Lankan tradition, some scholars, such as Eggermont, believe Ashoka converted to Buddhism before the Kalinga war.[92] Critics of this theory argue that if Ashoka were already a Buddhist, he would not have waged the violent Kalinga War. Eggermont explains this anomaly by theorising that Ashoka had his own interpretation of the "Middle Way".[93] Some earlier writers believed that Ashoka dramatically converted to Buddhism after seeing the suffering caused by the war since his Major Rock Edict 13 states that he became closer to the dhamma after the annexation of Kalinga.[91] However, even if Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the war, epigraphic evidence suggests that his conversion was a gradual process rather than a dramatic event.[91] For example, in a Minor Rock Edict issued during his 13th regnal year (five years after the Kalinga campaign), he states that he had been an upasaka (lay Buddhist) for more than two and a half years, but did not make much progress; in the past year, he was drawn closer to the sangha and became a more ardent follower.[91]" On the contrary, Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism after Kalinga war is told in Ashoka's edicts, which I think is just too convenient. But then, Sri Lanka has had historical wars with Hindu kings from India, so that is there... At the end, I should not have spoken so authoritative.

hackernewds 3y ago

The article you linked is full of inaccuracies > Most modern scholars believe he was most likely born sometime around 480 BC or thereabouts in Śākya Gaṇarājya, an oligarchic state in the northern Indian subcontinent and he most likely died sometime around 400 BC or thereabouts. Siddhartha Gautama was born in present day Nepal, in the city of Kapilvastu in the Lumbini region. There are archaeological remains of the palace where he was born along with scriptures explicitly matching the origins and design. The article also goes to great lengths to emphasize a lot of details are nebulous, however they are documented well since the Buddha was a royal prince. For that reason not sure where the idea that the depiction of Chinese Buddha should be accurate is insinuated either.

hackernewds 3y ago
additionally this history is supported by the Ashoka stamba erected at the historical birth site of the Buddha in Kapilvastu, Nepal as well. you will find though a recently inaugurated Kapilvastu city in India, and one can speculate around why :)
sdeer 3y ago
Śākya Gaṇarājya translates to English as Shakya Republic and that is actually correct. Kapilavastu was the capital of the Republic/Oligarchy of the Shakya clan. Buddha's father was the elected chief at the time of his birth. This is why one of his epithets is Shakyamuni ("muni" means sage so sage of the Shakyas.) Strictly speaking Buddha was not a royal price but scion of an aristocratic family. As a comparison think of someone born in a patrician family of Rome when his father is a Consul of Rome. The Wikipedia article has good details about the Shakyas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > Strictly speaking Buddha was not a royal price but scion of an aristocratic family. Is that so? It was propheised at his birth (so the legend goes) that he would either become an enlightened teacher, or a "wheel-turning" world monarch (chakravartin). That doesn't prove he wasn't a royal prince, but then I guess I'm not sure exactly what a "prince" is.