Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Maurya and Shunga Art c11: VIII. Asokan Ideology and Śuṅga Background

Maurya and Śuṅga Art c11

Language
English

Contents

VIII. Asokan Ideology and Śuṅga Background

c11.2

The understanding of the aesthetic ideology of Mauryan art and its significance may perhaps be further helped by bringing it into comparison with the art of the Śuṅga period, chronologically the closest in succession.

c11.3

A few facts and factors are worth taking into consideration.

c11.4

It has been contended that the dismemberment of the Maurya empire was brought about by a reaction promoted by the Brāhmaṇas, and the assasination of the last Maurya monarch by Puṣyamitra Śuṅga was but the successful culmination of a revolution fostered and engineered by the Brāhmaṇas.⁶⁸ Equally forcefully has it been argued that the ascription of the dismemberment of the Maurya empire to a hypothetical Brahmanical revolution is without any objective basis in facts.⁶⁹ This is not the place to go into the details of the contention and counter-contention, but I wonder if the main point in the controversy has not often been missed. I have already hinted at the fact that Maurya administration was a highly centralised and bureaucratic one and with its emphasis on a highly efficient espionage system, its monopolistic economic policy and its authoritarian social and religious ideology, it easily lent itself to the despotic will of the monarch on the throne and no less to the coercive and oppressive interference of wicked official agents. The humanism and benevolence of Aśoka were hardly any guarantee against the evils such a centralised and authoritarian government tended to foster. There can be no doubt that the government and its administration weighed heavily on the subjects and they resented it. The ‘Divyāvadāna’ expressly refers to two open rebellions at Taxila, once during the reign of Bindusāra, and again in the reign of Aśoka, and on both occasions the immediate cause alleged was the tyranny of the wicked ministers.⁷⁰ The evidence of Asokan epigraphs seems to suggest that official mal-administration was widely prevalent and it is not unlikely that there were rebellions at Ujjain and Kalinga as well.⁷¹

c11.5

But official mal-administration was more a symptom than a cause; the disease lay in the socio-political outlook of Mauryan imperialism and in the administrative machinery which happened to be the outward manifestation of that outlook. The sixteenth century Tibetan Lāmā Tāranātha seems to suggest that Bindusāra had to suppress a general revolt "of the nobles and kings of sixteen towns,"72 while the 'Gārgī Saṃhitā' refers pointedly to the oppressive rule of some later Maurya monarchs. Śāliśuka, a descendant of Aśoka, was compelled to abdicate the throne in favour of his elder brother on account of the terrible tyranny he used to inflict on his subjects. Indeed, he has been described as an 'adhārmikaḥ' in the guise of a 'dharmavādī.' 73 The same text has a veiled reference to Aśoka as 'mohātma' or 'fool' and a scarcastic allusion to his 'dharmarājya.' 74 While there is nothing to indicate that royal tyranny and official oppression were in any way directed against the Brāhmaṇas in particular, there is evidence to show that the people in general smarted under both and had hardly any love for the dynasty and its court and administration. The ascription of the term 'asura' to the Mauryas by certain Epic and Purāṇic authors can not be lightly brushed aside on the ground that the writers were Brahmanical and the Mauryas Buddhists. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the first two Maurya emperors were Buddhists. It seems rather that much of the veiled hatred and contempt with which later writers view the Mauryas may have been due to their being exponents of a personal culture-ideology that was largely foreign to the people in general, especially of the Madhyadeśa, and of a socio-political outlook dominated by personal will. Maurya art is but one expression of that culture-ideology and of that essentially personal social outlook. Maurya official mal-administration and infliction of personal royal will are also but symptoms of these two fundamental characteristics. I wonder if the rebellions alluded to in the ‘Divyāvadāna’ and Asokan epigraphs were not basically due to these causes, and if the Śuṅga coup d'etat an expression of the smouldering resentment amongst a large section of the people which was seized on by the Maurya official Puṣyamitra who happend to be a Brāhmaṇa and acted like an adventurer. In any case the fact remains, as I shall presently try to demonstrate, that the art of the Śuṅga period that chronologically speaking follows closely on the art of the Maurya court and which from the point of view of subject-matter and iconography is Buddhist reflects more of the mind, tradition and culture-ideology of the larger section of the people than Maurya art was capable of. Indeed, Śuṅga art, formally and spiritually, is practically a negation of all that Maurya art stands for; they are different in motive and direction, in their form, technique and significance. It is not unlikely therefore that during and after the Mauryas a silent revolution was gradually making itself felt against all that the Mauryas and their court stood for; but this reaction, it must be remembered, had nothing to do with the Brāhmaṇas as such. If anything, it was from the point of view of Śuṅga art, the assertion of the tribal and primitive elements of a culture against the domination of a dynasty and court largely under the influence of a foreign culture-complex, or more correctly speaking, within the orbit of an international West-Asiatic culture-complex. In politics it took the shape of popular revolts in the provinces against official maladministration and finally in a military coup that supplanted the Maurya court and dynasty in the centre.

c11.6

Since Maurya art is the product of the imperial court and personal will of Maurya monarchs, it may be worthwhile to turn to what Aśoka says in his remarkable royal edicts in respect of the social outlook and attitude of the people over which he ruled, for therein may be found the key to Maurya art-ideology. In Rock edict One the mighty monarch commands: "Here (i. e. in the locality of the edict) no sacrifice shall be performed by immolating a living thing whatsoever and no festive gathering held. King Priyadarsin, Beloved of the gods, sees many faults in (such) a gathering. There are, however, certain festive gatherings approved as good by king Priyadarsin..."⁷⁵ In Rock Edict Four he continues: "To-day by the practice of piety on the part of King Priyadarsin, Beloved of the gods, the sound of the drum has become the sound of the doctrine; such as could not be (increased) in the past, during many hundred years, by exhibiting to the people the sight of (celestial) mansions, the sight of (celestial) elephants, and host of fiery and similar other celestial forms, has been increased to-day by imparting of instructions in the Law of Piety by King Priyadarsin..."⁷⁶ In Rock Edict Nine the king discourses: "There are people who perform various auspicious rites in times of illness, or on occasions of marriage of sons and daughters, or on those of birth of sons, or in setting out on a journey to a distant place,—on this and on (similar) other occasions the people perform various auspicious rites. Here particularly the womenfolk perform many and diverse, minor and meaningless rites. If the auspicious rite is to be performed (it should be noted that) such a rite produces small fruit..."⁷⁷

c11.7

The prohibition of sacrificial slaughter is perfectly understandable, though there can be no doubt that it was specifically directed against secular Brahmanism. But Aśoka's ordinance in respect of the general prohibition of 'samājas' inspite of his considering some 'samājas' beneficial reveals his attitude towards popular gatherings and social festivities. Almost invariably associated with 'utsava', 'samājas' afforded the opportunity for the display along with other things, of some of the popular arts, namely ‘gīta’ or songs, ‘nṛitya’ or dances and ‘vādita’ or instrumental music, as we have it in the Hātigumphā inscription of Khāravela. Indeed, all authorities agree that the ‘samāja,’ inspite of its objectionable features, was a sort of a national institution; Kautilya even enumerates ‘utsava’, ‘samāja’ and ‘vihāra’ as the three important national institutions that a conqueror must respect.⁷⁸ If such is Aśoka’s general attitude towards popular gatherings and social festivities his attitude towards popular demonstrations of religion is still more revealing. “Bherīghoso aho dhammaghosho” does no longer mean that the reverberation of the war-drums has become the reverberation of Law. Wickramsinghe and Barua have convincingly proved that the entire passage in its context has nothing to suggest that Aśoka turned a pacifist by abandoning all aggressive militarism. Indeed, “the sound of the drum” says Barua, “symbolises the popular religious demonstration, and that of piety, the ‘dhammānusathi’. It was by means of moral instructions that Aśoka claims to have obtained results that could not be achieved by the age-old traditional method in the past, during many hundred years. In other words, here Aśoka’s intention is to compare and contrast the effects of the two methods, one, the time-honoured method of popular religious demonstrations, and the other, the new method of moral instructions adopted by him.”⁷⁹ Amongst the age-old methods of popular religious demonstration were such things as ‘vimāna-darsanā hasti-darsanā agikhamdhāni cha añāni cha divyāni rūpāni’ which were showed to the people. A mass of literature has grown round the interpretation of these terms, but all authorities agree that actual presentations or visual representations were made of processions of chariots, elephants, bonfires, illuminations etc. “The main device”, again says Barua, “as might be inferred from the Achchharā verses in the ‘Samyutta Nikāya’ and the prescriptions in the ‘Arthaśāstra’ was the ‘yātrā’ or ceremonial procession organised on the pattern of royal processions to the pleasure garden composed of chariots, elephants, horses, ships, palanquins, drummers, singers, dancers, torch-bearers, actual or artificial, portable picture-galleries, and the like.” The portable picture-galleries are mentioned as ‘caraṇa-chitras’ which the Buddha highly speaks of and consisted, according to Buddhaghosha, of pictures of happy and unhappy destinies of men after death with appropriate labels attached to them and shown in portable galleries.⁸⁰ It can be well imagined that these ‘caraṇa-chitras’ were nothing else than ‘lekhya-chitras’ as distinguished from ‘lepa-chittas’ of Pāli and ‘lepya-chitras’ of Sanskrit tradition. Indeed, both ‘lekhya-chitras’ and ‘caraṇa-chitras’ are the same as the ‘paṭa-chitras’ or scroll-paintings of later date, the traditional vehicle of popular Indian religious and cultural education. The passages quoted above if anything show beyond doubt that Aśoka was not in favour of such methods of edification of religion, and adopted a different method altogether. Rock Edict Nine throws further light on his attitude towards the religion and culture of the people. Therein he clearly expresses himself against folk religious rites and practices, the ‘vratas’ of mediaeval and present day, of evident ethnic and primitive significance.

c11.8

⁸⁰ [Footnote text not present on this page]

c11.9

It is now clear that Aśoka and presumably the later kings of the Maurya dynasty were all averse to popular demonstration and representation of religion as well as of folk socio-religious rites and practices. Without doubting the sincerity of his concern for the welfare of the people or the efficacy of his methods it may reasonably be argued that what he did was to emphasise some of the universal ethical concepts of religion which he sought to inculcate amongst his people by mandates and ordinances, by the regulation of piety, in his own words, and by persuasion, as he says in Pillar Edict Seven.⁸¹ There is no doubt that his methods precluded any opportunity for the display of the arts of the people; indeed, abstract ethical concepts can not by themselves offer subjects or ideas for visual representation. Aśoka's ethical ordinances therefore took the shape and form, so far as art is concerned, of monumental pillars of piety, and in the sphere of administration, of the appointment of Dharmamahāmātras and the proclamation of the Law of piety. This he himself makes clear in Pillar Edict Seven. The pillars of piety are therefore nothing else than expressions of his imperial will and might. Aśoka's personal attitude thus clearly explains why we have no continuous narration nor representational scenes of the nature of Barhut in Maurya court art, and why whatever narrative reliefs we have in the latter takes a quality and character that we observe on the Sarnath abacus. The reference to ‘vimāna-darsana’, ‘hasti-darsanā’ etc. and their interpretation in the light of Buddhist and Brahmanical literature, and the use of portable picture-galleries or ‘lekhya’ and ‘charaṇa-chitras’ clearly suggest that such narration and representation in art were a common and ancient practice. But Maurya art did not take into cognisance this current art tradition of the people or the one practised in wood and other materials for making images of the hieratic pantheon referred to in a number of early Sanskrit and Pāli texts. Indeed, Aśoka preferred representation in art of royal or religious or auspicious symbols, just as he preferred inculcation of ethical concepts, to popular representation of religion. The elephants, ‘white’ or the ‘best’ or the ‘all white, the procurer of happiness of all world’, or the lions or bulls that crown the monumental pillars may in the light of Buddhist texts and tradition be reasonably interpreted as mere suggestions or symbols of either the Buddha or the Śākyasiṃha, or of auspicious signs, or of guardians of human destiny.

c11.10.1

Curiously enough Śuṅga art that immediately follows the art of the Mauryas is clearly a negation of the Maurya attitude. The reliefs of Barhut provide more than anything else an illuminating commentary on contemporary Indian life and attitude towards life as conceived and planned in early Buddhism. From this scheme ‘samājas’ or festive gatherings were not excluded; indeed, there are scenes in which dancing, singing and instrumental music are presented in all their ‘ravishing joviality’ in which all the elemental forces, all kinds of life and all classes of beings participate and lend their forms to them. The lower bas-relief of the outer face of the Prasenajit pillar, for example, has a scene with the inscription “Sādika-sammadam turam devānam - the jovial ravishing music of the gods, gay with dramatic acting,” and illustrating the dances of four heavenly dancers Alambushā, Miśrakeśī, Padmāvatī and Subhadrā. All of them, according to Puranic classification, belong to ‘laukikī’ or anthropomorphic class and to ‘mauneya’ i.e. representing a class of temptress of the saintly ascetics. Indeed, the Alambushā Jātaka gives an alluring description of the beauty, charm and position of the achharā or apsarā Alambushā; she is said to have been selected from among two and half crores of heavenly courtesans as one capable of testing the virtue of the great ascetic vow.⁸² But this is only one of many such scenes of festive gatherings including that of the Chuḍamaha festival.

c11.10.2

Nor were ceremonial religious processions as a method of popular religious education abandoned. The reliefs of Barhut portray many such popular demonstrations of religion in which chariots, elephants, horses, luminous celestial sights etc, find their proper place. Indeed, one can not help thinking that such demonstrationstions showing actual or artificial representation of ‘vimānas’, ‘hastis’, ‘agikhamḍhas’ and other ‘divya rūpas’ etc. were actually practised for the edification of the people, which is very usual in all popular anthropomorphic religions. One of the medallion-carvings of Barhut depicts the Bodhi tree of “Bhagavato Vipasino”; according to Buddhaghosha’s description, one reads in the story of luminous celestial groves like Chitralatā, Nandana etc. which were sighted by the people.83 Another scene depicts the story of the flight of five ṛishis during the Śākya plough festival. According to the ‘Lalitavistara’ the sudden arrest of the progress of the ascetics in flight was due to the overpowering majesty, of the Bodhisattva in the forest grove beneath. The story relates that the Bodhisattva appeared to the ascetics as a luminary shining with light emitting from his body, and to Suddhodana, as a fire issuing from a mountain peak and glorious like a lamp.84 These fires and luminous celestial forms are nothing but the ‘agikhamḍhāni’ and the ‘divyāni rūpāni’ of the Asokan edict.

c11.10.3

I am even inclined to think that the various miracles of the Buddha portrayed in the reliefs are also nothing but celestial forms referred to by the Mauryan monarch and which he was so much averse to. We have seen above that popular religious demonstrations included the exhibition of ‘charaṇa-chitras’ or portable picture-galleries and that the ‘charaṇa-chitras’, according to Buddhaghosha, were pictures of happy and unhappy destinies of men after death with appropriate labels attached to them. I would consider that the reliefs of Barhut whether in rectangular panels or in medallions are nothing but ‘charaṇa-chitras’, with appropriate labels, translated into stone, and hence not portable. And, is it contrary to facts to suggest that the Jātaka scenes depicted are nothing but lively pictorial records of the happy and unhappy destinies of men after death? Besides, the method of the arrangement of the various scenes depicted on the upright pillars and posts of the gates and the railings, i.e. their general layout in square or rectangular panels, one below the other, in more or less continuous narration, can not but invariably suggest similar arrangement of scenes in ‘caraṇa-chitras’ or ‘paṭa-chitras’ of later folk pictorial tradition. One may go still further and argue that the top horizontal panels of the gate with their sides rolled up at the two ends are nothing but adaptations in stone of ‘paṭa-chitras’ spread out for exhibition with their sides rolled up.

c11.10.4

It may therefore be safely assumed that such horizontal and vertical panel arrangement of scenes in continuous narration at Barhut and later on at Bodhgaya, Sanchi and elsewhere was directly adopted from scroll-paintings of popular and tribal tradition. It is thus clear that Śuṅga religious and cultural ideology as evidenced in the sculptures of Barhut was unlike that of Aśoka; indeed it was more popular in character and more collective in its aim and origin.

c11.11

It is well known that primitive Buddhism incorporated a large portion of the faiths, beliefs and practices of the un-aryan aboriginal tribes of the Madhyadeśa and Eastern India. Elements of totemistic, animistic and shamanistic beliefs and practices can be traced from the worship of the Bodhi trees of the seven Buddhas to the worship of heroes and of funerary mounds, from the cult of the ‘nāga’ or serpent to that of the ‘yakshas’ or malevolent demi-gods. Indeed, the Jātakas which reflect the popular side of Buddhism are replete with traces of tribal cults. All these primitive and tribal beliefs and practices of local origin were cleverly woven into the texture of a highly intellectual and rational scheme of doctrines which were Aryan in origin and character. The metaphysical and psychological basis in other words, of the Buddha’s doctrinal scheme transformed the tribal and regional cults of the Madhyadeśa and Eastern India into a universal and common religion of the people. Aśoka does not seem to have understood this popular social significance of Buddhism. At any rate he does not seem to have cared about it; neither his edicts nor Mauryan court art seem to have felt its impress. Ethnically Mauryan court art as seen in the Sanchi and Sarnath lions is pre-Aryan, but not wholly indigenous. Like the art of the pre-historic Indus Valley it shares in a common West-Asiatic culture-heritage which is presumably the product of the fusion of more than one ethnic factor and in which the aboriginaly Indian plays its part no doubt. The most important contribution of this West-Asiatic culture to Indian art is naturalism which is lively and dynamic in the art of the Indus valley, but by the time it reached Maurya court art it had practically assumed a compact, hard and stagnant character. The Aryan intrusion had already made itself felt for more than a millenium when the Mauryas were on the throne, and a new ethnic structure was being slowly built up all over Northern India with more or less pronounced difference of ethnic accents in the different ethnic zones of this vast sub-continent. This difference was presumably due to the degree and extent of incorporation of the new element on the one hand and the strength and tenacity of the pre-Aryan elements on the other. Mauryan court art, in any case, does not seem to have felt the impress of this great new factor in the ethnic and hence in the social character of the country. It would seem that this was due more to the personal outlook of Aśoka and the general phil-Hellenism and phil-Achaemenism of the Mauryan monarchs. The edicts of Aśoka seem to suggest that there was a living art and a potent aesthetic ideology amongst the people in general which found expression through popular religious demonstrations and popular religious rites and practices, through the ‘lepya’, ‘lekhya’ and ‘caraṇa-chitras’ and auspicious ceremonial observances. It may also be assumed that besides paintings and drawings in two dimensions, there must have also been current the practice of working in reliefs and in the round, in the age-old Indian materials of clay, cloth, straw, wood and metal. Barua has collected a number of literary references to such practices (JISOA, XI, pp. 65-68). The two figures in gold from Lauriya and Piprahwa may also be cited as instances on the point, I have already tried to suggest that the art of the Śungas as evidenced at Barhut is nothing but the fixation of this basically tribal and primitive art of the people in permanent material, i. e. stone.

Linked texts (10)