Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c8.s5: Maurya Dynasty, B.C. 320 to 180.

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c8.s5

Language
English

Maurya Dynasty, B.C. 320 to 180.

v1.c8.s5.1

The case was widely different with the Maurya dynasty, which was certainly one of the most brilliant, and is fortunately one of the best known, of the ancient dynasties of India. The first king was Chandragupta, the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, to whom Megasthenes was sent as ambassador by Seleukos, the successor of Alexander in the western parts of his Asiatic empire. It is from his narrative—now unfortunately lost—that the Greeks acquired almost all the knowledge they possessed of India at that period.¹ The country was then divided into 120 smaller principalities, but the Maurya residing in Palibothra (Pâtaliputra)—the modern Pâtna—seems to have exercised a paramount sway over the whole. It was not, however, this king, but his grandson, the great Asoka (b.c. 262 to 225), who raised this dynasty to its highest pitch of prosperity and power. Though utterly unknown to the Greeks, we have from native sources a more complete picture of the incidents of his reign than of any ancient sovereign of India. The great event that made him famous in Buddhist history was his conversion to that faith, and the zeal he showed in propagating the doctrines of his new religion. He did, in fact, for Buddhism, what Constantine did for Christianity, and at about the same distance of time from the death of the founder of the faith. From a struggling sect he made it the religion of the State, and established it on the basis on which it lasted supreme for nearly 1000 years. In order to render his subjects familiar with the doctrines of his new faith, he caused a series of edicts embodying them to be engraved on rocks near Peshâwar, in Gujarât, in the valley of the Dûn under the Himâlayas, in Hazâra, in Katak and Ganjâm, in Mysore, and other places. He held a great convocation or council of the faithful in his capital at Pâtaliputra, and, on its dissolution, missionaries were sent to spread the religion in the Yavana country, whose capital was Alexandria, near the present city of Kâbul. Others were despatched to Kashmîr and Gandhâra; one was sent to the Himawanta—the valleys of the Himâlaya, and possibly part of Tibet; others were despatched to the Mahâratta country, and to Mysore, to Vanavâsi in Kanara, and to Aparântaka or the north Konkan. Two missionaries were sent to Suvarnabhûmi, now known as Thatun on the Sitang river, in Pegu, and, tradition says, his own son and daughter were deputed to Ceylon.² All those countries, in fact, which might be called foreign, were then sought to be converted to the faith. He also formed alliances with Antiokhos the Great, Antigonos, and with Ptolemy Philadelphos, Alexander of Epeiros, and Magas of Cyrene, for the establishment of hospitals and the protection of his co-religionists in their countries. More than all this, he built innumerable topes or stûpas and monasteries all over the country; and, though none of those now existing can positively be identified as those actually built by him, there seems no reason for doubting that the sculptured rails at Bodh-Gayâ and Bharaut, the caves at Barâbar in Bihâr, some of those at Udayagiri in Katak, and the oldest of those in the Western Ghâts were all erected or excavated during the existence of this dynasty, if not under himself. These, with inscriptions and such histories as exist, make up a mass of materials for a picture of India during this dynasty such as no other can present; and, above all, they offer a complete representation of the religious forms and beliefs of the kings and people, which render any mistake regarding them impossible.¹ It was Buddhism, but without a deified Buddha, and with Tree and Serpent worship cropping up in every unexpected corner.

v1.c8.s5.2

¹ For this period, *see* M'Crindle's 'Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian' (1877); the 'Invasion of India by Alexander the Great' (1896); and 'Ancient India as described in Classical Literature' (1901).

v1.c8.s5.3

² All these particulars, it need hardly be said, are taken from the 12th and 15th chapters of the 'Mahâwansa,' which relates the traditions of a time six centuries and more before its composition.

v1.c8.s5.4

¹ ^1 For fuller information about Asoka reference may be made to Edm. Hardy’s ‘König Asoka,’ and V. A. Smith’s ‘Asoka, the Buddhist Emperor of India.’

v1.c8.s5.5

There is certainly no dynasty in the whole range of ancient Indian history that would better repay the labour of an exhaustive investigation than that of these Maurya kings. Not only were they the first in historical times who, so far as we know, united nearly the whole of India into one great kingdom, but they were practically the first who came in contact with European civilisation and Western politics. More than even this, it is probably owing to the action of the third king of this dynasty that Buddhism, from being the religion of an obscure sect, became, at one time, the creed of so large a proportion of the human race, and influenced the belief and the moral feelings of such multitudes of men in Asia.

v1.c8.s5.6

It is to this dynasty, and to it only, that must be applied all those passages in classical authors which describe the internal state of India, and they are neither few nor insignificant. Though the Hindûs themselves cannot be said to have contributed much history, they have given us, in the ‘Mudrâ-Râkshasa,’² a poetical version of the causes of the revolution that placed the Mauryas on the throne. But, putting these aside, their own inscriptions supply us with a perfectly authentic contemporary account of the religious faith and feelings of the period; while the numerous bas-reliefs of the rails at Bodh-Gayâ and Bharaut afford a picture of the manners, customs, and costumes of the day, and a gauge by which we can measure their artistic status and judge how far their art was indigenous, how far influenced by foreign elements. The dates of the kings of this dynasty are also approximately known, and the whole framework of their history depends so completely on contemporary native monuments, that there need be no real uncertainty regarding any of the outlines of the picture when once the subject is fairly grasped and thoroughly handled.

v1.c8.s5.7

² ^2 Wilson’s ‘Hindu Drama,’ in his ‘Works,’ vol. xii. pp. 151 *et seqq.*, edition 1871.

v1.c8.s5.8

It is the firmest standpoint we have from which to judge of Indian civilisation and history, whether looking to the past or to the future, and it is one that gives a very high idea of the position at which the Hindûs had arrived before they came practically into contact with the civilisation of the West.

Cites (5)