The literary creation of the figures of Yudhisthira and Arjuna in the Mahabharata was likely a response to the historical example of Ashoka’s crisis of conscience.
In 'Ashoka', Patrick Olivelle writes that the social groups encompassed by Ashoka's notion of dharma were mostly familial or broadly within the family orbit.
Ajatshatru transformed a small village called Paligrama into a city by fortifying it. But it was his son Udayin who made it the seat of Magadhan power and a hub of trade and culture.
Racism is a problem for privileged mainlanders only when it's meted out to them abroad. In their own backyard, it's normalised as 'I was just kidding. Chill yaar'.
Orders issued by Army Headquarters reassign key operational commanders and senior intelligence officials, including the head of DGFI, the country’s premier military intelligence agency.
The author has a very simplistic views and unscientific assumptions of these three characters and their stories. His lack of knowledge of Bhagwat Geeta and Ashoka is even baffling. We have more evidence now to prove : I) Asoka was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war.
II) Bhagwat Geeta teaches to fight within your self fist than with an external enemy, that’s why no King or political movement after the Mahabharata used the holy book as the reason to wage a war on someone (like Quran has been used by some in our times) III) the author’s simplistic position on Brahminism (read Sanatana Dharma / Hinduism) is inherently against non -violence and Buddhism is fundamentally non- violent doesn’t hold true even a common question test: was there no war between the Buddhist kings in the entire South East Asia and in the middle east? If Hindu philosophies are the source of violence than how come the Buddhist philosophy that is rooted in Bhartiya Darshan and has so much in common with the Indian worldview, where did the non- violence as a concept to Buddhism came from?
These are just a few questions that one can ask and understand how the author has a quite a narrow understanding of Bhartiya itihasa and Dharshans.
For a long time, Hindus were considered by westerners as wimps due to their peaceful disposition and broad tolerance. The Hindu way of life and philosophy were targeted as reasons for many ills in the country. Today the condition is reversed, India and Hindus are assertive and proud. And we get articles like this, which like to portray that Hindu texts urge violence over non-violence. Seriously, that too after Japan, Cambodia, Kissinger, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine, Gaza
What a load of nonsense! It is well accepted by historians that the period of Mahabharata is before the time of Ashoka. Even works before Ashoka cites Mahabharata.
Moreover, glorification of Ashoka was take up by leftist historians neglecting glaring facts from his own inscriptions. Once the conquest was over, he wanted peace to sustain his kingdom. So he took up this so that people will not revolt.
So odd that that a scholar like Patrick Olivelle actually holds such outdated views about Ashoka and Mahabharata
The author has a very simplistic views and unscientific assumptions of these three characters and their stories. His lack of knowledge of Bhagwat Geeta and Ashoka is even baffling. We have more evidence now to prove : I) Asoka was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war.
II) Bhagwat Geeta teaches to fight within your self fist than with an external enemy, that’s why no King or political movement after the Mahabharata used the holy book as the reason to wage a war on someone (like Quran has been used by some in our times) III) the author’s simplistic position on Brahminism (read Sanatana Dharma / Hinduism) is inherently against non -violence and Buddhism is fundamentally non- violent doesn’t hold true even a common question test: was there no war between the Buddhist kings in the entire South East Asia and in the middle east? If Hindu philosophies are the source of violence than how come the Buddhist philosophy that is rooted in Bhartiya Darshan and has so much in common with the Indian worldview, where did the non- violence as a concept to Buddhism came from?
These are just a few questions that one can ask and understand how the author has a quite a narrow understanding of Bhartiya itihasa and Dharshans.
For a long time, Hindus were considered by westerners as wimps due to their peaceful disposition and broad tolerance. The Hindu way of life and philosophy were targeted as reasons for many ills in the country. Today the condition is reversed, India and Hindus are assertive and proud. And we get articles like this, which like to portray that Hindu texts urge violence over non-violence. Seriously, that too after Japan, Cambodia, Kissinger, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine, Gaza
What a load of nonsense! It is well accepted by historians that the period of Mahabharata is before the time of Ashoka. Even works before Ashoka cites Mahabharata.
Moreover, glorification of Ashoka was take up by leftist historians neglecting glaring facts from his own inscriptions. Once the conquest was over, he wanted peace to sustain his kingdom. So he took up this so that people will not revolt.
Author’s propaganda is very clear here.