Professional Documents
Culture Documents
presence of Buddhism in these areas, the later dying out of the religion in
India could have resulted in it being lost for ever. In particular, Asoka sent
his own son and daughter, Prince Mahinda and Princess Sanghmitra, to
Sri Lanka, where they converted the king to Buddhism, and turned the
island into a stronghold where the religion could thrive, despite it's allbut-demise in much of Asia.
Asoka also did much for the reputation of Buddhism, in the respect
that he dealt with the problem of monks and nuns in the Sangha who
joined for purely material reasons, such as the shelter and food that was
provided free of charge, and made for an easier life than having to work
for one's own upkeep. By forcing these parasitic monks and nuns to
leave, via means of the Third Buddhist Council, he preserved the
integrity of the Sangha, and ensured that Buddhism would spread and
ensure its long term survival, and not waste its resources on those who
were only involved for personal gain.
b) Asoka was not a good Buddhist. Discuss.
(10 marks)
While the work of emperor Asoka was undoubtedly paramount to
Buddhism's long term survival, it could be argued that perhaps due to his
past, or because the values he spread were not strictly Buddhist, that he
was not as good as he is often seen to be.
To decide whether Asoka was indeed a good Buddhist, it must be
asked what is meant by the term 'good'. On one side of the argument, it
could be said that the work he did for the spread and recognition of
Buddhism makes him without doubt a good follower of the religion.
Asoka's support of concepts such as metta (lovingkindness), karuna
(compassion), and ahimsa (non-violence), while no doubt helping the
welfare of his empire, could be seen as not unique to Buddhism, and
therefore his actions as specifically a good Buddhist, as opposed to
merely a pacifistic leader, are questionable. By using the term 'good
Buddhist', it is implied that he did something or things which went above
and beyond the call of his religion, whereas some may argue that he was
simply fulfilling his duties, and was not in fact a particularly extraordinary
Buddhist at all.
It could be strongly argued that some of the perhaps unintentional
side effects of Asoka's spread of Buddhism mean that he was not a good
follower. The king of Sri Lanka reportedly said that non-believers were
little more than animals because of their alternative faiths, which while
not a directly result of Asoka's work or orders, could reflect badly on him,
to the extent where he was not considered a good Buddhist.
Perhaps the strongest argument against Asoka's place as a good
Buddhist is the distinct lack of any mention of him in Theravadin
chronicles, as noted by Richard Gombrich in his book Theravada
Buddhism. If this absence does indeed prove that his most well known
contribution is indeed not his at all, then he is of little relevance to
Buddhism's early spread, and is not so much of a saviour for the religion
as is widely believed.
My personal opinion is that while Asoka's past should certainly not
be overlooked, his contribution to the spread of Buddhist values around
Asia is invaluable, although as mentioned above, I believe that he was
simply fulfilling his religious duty, and was not a Buddhist that stood out
from the rest, and perhaps is only recognised specifically today because
of his high political status.