Rejection of the Marian empire

Rejection of the Marian empire

Why the Maurya Empire fell?

After the death of Ashoka / Ashoka, the decline of the Maurya dynasty was increasingly sharp. A clear reason for this was the succession of weak kings. Another immediate reason was the division of the empire two. There was no division, Greek attacks could be repaid so that the Mauris could be given a chance to re-establish some degree of their previous power.

A lot has been written about the fall. Harprasad Sastri argues that the rebellion by Pushyamitra was a result of the Brahminic reaction against the Jena policies of Buddhist policies and his heir to supporters of Ashoka. Tilting themselves on this thesis, some retain the idea that due to the following reasons the Brahminic reaction was responsible for the decline.

Prahibitino's killing of animals offended the Brahmins because animal sacrifice was honored by them.
Divya-Dayan book refers to the oppression of Buddhists by Pusyamit Mitra.
Ashoka claims that he exposed Buddha's (Brahmins) because the false gods know that Ashoka was not well disposed towards Brahmins.
Capturing power over Pushyamitra Sunga shows the victory of Brahmins.
All these four points can be easily rejected. Ashoka's compassion towards animals was not decided overnight. Replication of animal sacrifice increased for a long time Even Brahmins gave it to the book of Divya Dwana, but during the time of Bhramititra Sunga it could not be believed that the Sanchi and Barat Stupas had been completed. Perhaps the impression of the persecution of Buddhism was created by the attack of Menander, which was a Buddhist. Unfortunately, the word 'buddheva' has an incorrect meaning because it is meant to be taken in the context of any other phrase. In this way, there is nothing to do with Brahmanism in this word. Fourth, the victory of Pushyamitra Sunga shows that the last ruler of Maurya was an incompetent ruler because he was overthrown in the presence of his army, and it had nothing to do with Brahminic reaction against the protection of Ashoka's Buddhism. Apart from this, the fact that a Brahmin was the Chief Commander of Maurya Ruler, prove that Maurya and Brahmin were on good terms.

After all, the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism in India was completely communal and never more than the difference between biology and Vaishnavism. The uniqueness of religious principles is a semitic concept, which was unknown for India for a long time. Buddha was seen in his lifetime, and later a Hindu saint and incarnation and his followers were another sect in the great Aryan tradition. Ashok was a Buddhist like Harsha was a Buddhist, or Kumarpal was a Jain. But in the thought of people of the day, he was a Hindu king after one of the recognized sects. Their inscriptions bear sufficient strength with the fact. While their principles follow the stupid path, their gifts are similar to Brahmins, Shramans (Buddhist priests) and others. Adoption of his name is Namita Priya, beloved of the Gods. Which god? Certainly the gods of Arya Dharma Buddhism did not have their own gods. The idea that Ashoka was a type of Buddhist Constantin that was rejecting himself against idol worship, is a complete misunderstanding of the conditions of India. Asoka was a kind or a Buddhist Constantine who was rejecting himself against idol worship, there is a complete misunderstanding of the conditions of India. Ashoka was essentially a Hindu, because in fact he was the founder of the sect on which he was.


Raychowdhury also rejects Shastri's arguments. The empire was much reduced and there was no revolution. Kill the Maurya King, while he was reviewing the army's points for a palace, not a revolution. The organization was ready to accept any person who could promise a more efficient organization. Besides, if Pushyamitra was actually a representative of Brahminical reaction, then he was with neighboring kings.