Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s1: Section 1. Asoka after the Kalinga War

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c15.s1

Language
English

Contents

Section 1. Asoka after the Kalinga War

c15.s1.1

*Chakkavattī ahuṁ rājā Jambusaṇḍassa issaro*
*muddhābhisitto khattiyo manussādhipatī ahuṁ*
*adaṇḍena asatthena vijeyya paṭhaviṁ imaṁ*
*asāhasena dhammena samena manusāsiyā*
*dhammena rajjaṁ kāretvā asmiṁ paṭhavimaṇḍale*
—*Aṅguttara Nikāya.*

c15.s1.2

We have already seen that the Kaliṅga war opened a new epoch in the history of Magadha and of India. During the first thirteen years of his reign Aśoka was a typical Magadhan sovereign—the inheritor of the policy of Bimbisāra, of Mahāpadma and of Chandragupta—conquering peoples, suppressing revolt, annexing territory. After the Kaliṅga war all this is changed. The older political philosophy which tradition associates with the names of Vassakāra and Kauṭilya gave way to a new statecraft inspired by the teaching of the sage of the Śākyas. Before proceeding to give an account of the remarkable change we should say a few words about the religious denominations of India and the condition of society during the reign of the great innovator.

c15.s1.3

In the days of Aśoka the people of India were divided into many sects of which the following were the most important:—

c15.s1.4

1. The orthodox *Deva*-worshippers.¹

c15.s1.5

¹ Among the *Devas* worshipped in the Maurya period, Patañjali makes special mention of Śiva, Skanda and Viśākha.

c15.s1.6

2. The *Ājīvikas* or the followers of Gosāla Maṅkhaliputta.² 3. The *Nirgranthas* or *Jainas*, *i.e.*, the followers of Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta who is commonly called Mahāvīra or Vardhamāna.

c15.s1.7

² This teacher was born in Saravaṇa, probably near Sāvatthī or Śrāvasti. Jaina writers represent him as a person of low parentage and of contemptible character. The attitude of Buddhist authors is also not friendly. In reality he was one of the leading sophists of the sixth century B. C., and, for a time, was a close associate of Mahāvīra. According to the Ājīvika belief as expounded in the *Sāmañña phala Sutta* "the attainment of any given condition, of any character, does not depend on human effort (purisa-kāre). There is no such thing as power or energy, or human strength or human vigour (purisaparakkamo). All beings...are bent this way and that by their fate (*niyati*)." (*Dialogues*, Pt. I, p. 71; Barua, *The Ājīvikas*, 1920, p. 9). An *Ajīvaparivrājaka* appears as a court astrologer of Bindusāra in the *Divyāvadāna* (pp. 370 ff.). A tax on "*Ājīvakas*" is referred to in an inscription of the twelfth century A.D. (Hultzsch, SII. I. 88) showing that the sect flourished in S. India even in that late age. See also A. L Basham, *The Ajīvikas*.

c15.s1.8

4. The followers of Gautama Buddha Sākyamuni.

c15.s1.9

5. Other sects alluded to in Pillar Edict VII.

c15.s1.10

In Edict IV we have the following account of the prevailing state of society: "for a long period past, even for many hundred years, have increased the sacrificial slaughter of living creatures, the killing of animate beings, unseemly behaviour to relatives, unseemly behaviour to Brāhmaṇas and ascetics (*Śramaṇas*)."¹ Kings used to go out on so-called *Vihāra yātrās*² in which hunting and other similar amusements used to be practised.³ The people performed various ceremonies (*maṁgala*)⁴ on occasions of sickness, weddings of sons,⁵ the weddings of daughters, the birth of children, and

c15.s1.11

¹ *Cf.* Ajātaśatru's treatment of Bimbisāra, Viḍuḍabha's massacre of the Śākyas, Udayana's cruelty towards Piṇḍola, and Nanda's haughty demeanour towards Chāṇakya.

c15.s1.12

² Tours of pleasure, *cf.* Kauṭilya, p. 332. *Mahābhārata*, XV. 1. 18:

c15.s1.13

³ R. Edict VIII.

c15.s1.14

⁴ For "*Maṁgala*" see also *Jātakas* No. 87, and No. 163 (*Hatthi-maṁgala*), and *Harsha-charita*, II (p. 27 of Parab's edition, 1918).

c15.s1.15

⁵ For *Āvāha* and *Vivāha* see also Mbh., V. 141. 14; Kauṭilya, VII, 15.

c15.s1.16

*Vihārayātrāsu punaḥ Kururājo Yudhishṭhiraḥ*
*sarvān kāmān mahātejāḥ pradadāv-Ambikāsute.*

c15.s1.17

departure on journeys. The womankind performed many, manifold, trivial and worthless ceremonies.¹

c15.s1.18

¹ R. Edict IX.

c15.s1.19

From the references in the Edicts to Brāhmaṇas, Kaivartas (of *Kevaṭa bhoga*) and Śramaṇas, *Bhikshu* and *Bhikshuṇī-Saṁghas* it may be concluded that *Varṇa* (social gradation) and *Āśrama* (stages of socio-religious discipline) were established institutions. The position of the slaves and labouring poor in general (*dāsa*, *bhataka*) was, in some cases at any rate, not enviable. Women had to tolerate the *purdah* as well as polygamy. Ladies of the harem were under special guards (*stry-adhyaksha*). As will be seen in the following pages, the policy of Aśoka in regard to social matters was, in the main, one of mitigation and not, except in respect of certain kinds of *Samāja* and sundry obnoxious practices, of radical reform.

The Change of Aśoka’s Religion

c15.s1.t1.1

Aśoka had doubtless inherited the traditional devotion of Hindu kings to the gods (*devas*) and the Brāhmaṇas and, if the Kāśmīra chronicle of Kalhaṇa is to be believed, his favourite deity was Śiva. He had no scruples about the slaughter of men and animals: “formerly, in the kitchen of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King each day many hundred thousands of living creatures were slaughtered to make curries.” The hecatombs of thousands of men and women sent to their doom during the Kaliṅga war have already been mentioned. The sight of the misery and bloodshed in that sanguinary campaign made a deep impression on him and awakened in his breast feelings of *anusochana*, “remorse, profound sorrow, and regret”. About this time he came under the influence of Buddhist teaching. We read in Rock Edict XIII “after that, now that the Kaliṅgas had been annexed, began His Sacred Majesty’s zealous practice of the Law of Piety (*dhramaśīlana*), his love of that Law (*dhramakamata*), and his inculcation of that Law (*dhramanuśasti*)."¹

c15.s1.t1.2

¹ The view held by some wellknown writers that the conversion of Aśoka took place *before* the Kaliṅga war rests on the evidence of the *Mahāvaṁsa* (Ch. V) and on certain assumptions, *viz.*, that Aśoka's *dhramakamata* became *tīvra* (intense) immediately after the Kaliṅga war (there being no interval) and that Aśoka was indifferent during the period of Upāsakatva (when he was only a lay disciple) which, therefore, must have preceded the Kaliṅga war, immediately after which his devotion became *tīvra*. But the so-called indifference or want of activity is only relative. On the other hand, the supporters of the new theory have to explain why a recent convert to Buddhism should engage in a sanguinary conflict involving the death of countless *Śramaṇas*. Why again do the Minor Rock Edicts refer to contact with the *Saṁgha*, and not the Kaliṅga war, as the prelude and cause of more intense activity? It is to be noted that activity in the period of Upāsakatva is also described as *parākrama*, though it was surpassed by the greater energy of the period after contact with the Holy Order. Note also the explicit reference to *dhramakamata* as the result of the annexation of Kaliṅga *sometime after* (*tato pachhā adhunā*) the war. The use of the expressions *tato pachhā* and *adhunā* suggests that an interval supervened between the war and the intensity of Aśoka's *dhramaśīlana* and *dhramakamata*. Moreover, we learn from the Minor Edicts and Pillar Edict VI that pious proclamations began to be issued a little more than 2½ years after Aśoka became an *Upāsaka* and 12 years after his coronation. This would place his conversion a little less than 9½ years after his *Abhisheka*, *i.e.*, a little less than 1½ years after the Kaliṅga war.

c15.s1.t1.3

Although Aśoka became a Buddhist² he was not an enemy either of the *Devas* or of the *Brāhmaṇas*. Up to the last he took pride in calling himself *Devānampiya*, beloved of the gods.¹ He found fault with unseemly behaviour towards Brāhmaṇas² and inculcated liberality to the same class. He was perfectly tolerant. "The king does reverence to men of all sects."³ He reprobated *ātmapāsaṃḍa-pūjā*, honour to one's own sect, when coupled with *para-pāsaṃḍa-garahā*, disparagement of other sects. That he was sincere in his professions is proved by the Barābar Cave Dedications to the *Ājīvika* monks. His hostility was chiefly directed not towards the *Devas* and the Brāhmaṇas, not even towards *Varṇāśrama*, but the killing of men in war and *Samājas* (festive gatherings), ill-treatment of friends and acquaintances, comrades and relatives, slaves and servants, the slaughter of animals in sacrifice, and the performance of vulgar, useless and offensive ceremonies.

c15.s1.t1.4

² *Śākya* (Rūpnāth), *Buddha Śākya* (Maski), *Upāsaka* (Sahasrām); see Hultzsch, CII, p. xliv. *Cf.* also Kalhaṇa, *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, I. 102ff. That Aśoka did become a Buddhist admits of no doubt. In the Bhābrū Edict he makes an open confession of his faith in the Buddha, the *Dharma* (Doctrine) and the *Saṁgha* (Order of Monks). He called the Buddha *Bhagavat*. He went on pilgrimage to the places of the Blessed One's nativity and enlightenment and worshipped at the former place. He declared that whatsoever had been spoken by the Buddha, all that was quite well spoken. He also believed in the cult of the "former" Buddhas. He took much interest in the exposition of the Buddhist Doctrine so that it might endure long. As to the *Saṁgha* he kept in close touch with it since his memorable visit to the Fraternity a year or so after his conversion. He impressed on the clergy the need of a correct exposition of the true doctrine and appointed special officers to busy themselves with the affairs of the Brotherhood. He also laid emphasis on *Vinaya-samutkarsha* and took steps to maintain the integrity of the Church and prevent schism within its fold.

c15.s1.t1.5

¹ The title is reminiscent of the age of Hammurabi (Camb. Anc. Hist. I, p. 511).

c15.s1.t1.6

² Edict IV.

c15.s1.t1.7

³ Edict XII.

The Change of Foreign Policy

c15.s1.t2.1

The effect of the change of religion was at once felt in foreign policy. The Emperor declared that "of all the people who were slain, done to death, or carried away captive in Kaliṅga, if the hundredth part or the thousandth part were now to suffer the same fate, it would be a matter of regret to His Sacred Majesty. Moreover, should any one do him wrong, that too must be borne with by His Sacred Majesty, so far as it can possibly be borne with." In Kaliṅga Edict I, the Emperor expressed his desire that the unsubdued peoples in the frontiers of the imperial dominions (*Aṃtā avijitā*) "should not be afraid of him, that they should trust him, and should receive from him happiness not sorrow." The chiefest conquest in the Emperor’s opinion was the conquest by righteousness (*Dhamma-vijaya*). In Edict IV he exultingly says, “the reverberation of the kettle-drums (*Bherīghoṣo*) has become the reverberation of the Law of Piety (*Dhammaghoṣo*).” Not content with what he himself did he called upon his sons and even his great grandsons to eschew new conquests—*putra papotra me asu navam vijayam ma vijetaviyam*. Here we have a complete renunciation of the old policy of military conquest or *Digvijaya* and the enunciation of a new policy, viz., that of *Dhammavijaya*.¹ The full political effects of this change of policy became manifest only after the death of Aśoka, *perhaps even after the 27th year of his consecration*. From the time of Bimbisāra to the Kaliṅga war the history of India was the story of the expansion of Magadha from a tiny state in South Bihār to a gigantic Empire extending from the foot of the Hindukush to the borders of the Tamil country. After the Kaliṅga war ensued a period of stagnation at the end of which the process is reversed. The empire gradually dwindled down in extent till it sank to the position from which Bimbisāra and his successors had raised it.

c15.s1.t2.2

¹ The Aśokan conception of *Dhammavijaya* was similar to that described in the *Chakkavatti Sīhanāda Sutta*, “conquest not by the scourge, not by the sword, but by righteousness” (*Dialogues of the Buddha*, Part III, p. 59). It was different from the Hindu conception explained and illustrated by the *Mahābhārata* (XII. 59, 38-39), the *Harivaṁśa* (I. 14.21), the *Kauṭilīya* (p. 382), and the *Raghuvaṁśa* (IV. 43). Attention may be invited in this connection to a Statement of Arrian that “a sense of justice prevented any Indian king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India” (*Camb. Hist. Ind.* I. 321); M‘crindle, *Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian*, 209. Incidentally it may be pointed out that the discourse entitled the *Chakkavatti Sīhanāda* (*Lion Roar of the Chakravarti* or emperor who ‘conquers by righteousness’) possibly affords a clue to a proper appreciation of the famous Sarnath Capital with its *Chakra* and crowning lions. *Cf.* also *Rāmāyaṇa* II. 10.36: *Yāvadāvartate chakram tāvati me vasundharā*, IC, XV, 1-4, p. 179f.

c15.s1.t2.3

True to his principle Aśoka made no attempt to annex the frontier (*Prachaṁta*, *aṁta*, *sāmanta*, *sāmīpa*), kingdoms, *viz.*, Chola, Pāṇḍya, Satiyaputra, Keralaputra Tambapaṁni (Ceylon) and the realm of Aṁtiyako Yonarāja, who is usually identified with Antiochos II Theos, King of Syria and Western Asia. On the contrary, he maintained friendly relations with them.

c15.s1.t2.4

The Chola country was drained by the river Kāverî and comprised the districts of Trichinopoly and Tanjore. We learn from a South Indian inscription¹ that Hara, *i.e.*, the god Śiva, asked Guṇabhara (Mahendravarman I, Pallava), “How could I, standing in a temple on earth, view the great power of the Cholas or the river Kāverî?” When Pulakeśin II Chalukya strove to conquer the Cholas “the Kāverî had her current obstructed by the causeway formed by his elephants.” The Chola capital was Uraiyūr (*Sanskrit* Uragapura) or Old Trichinopoly.² The principal port was at Kāviripaṭṭinam or Pugār on the northern bank of the Kāverî.³

c15.s1.t2.5

¹ Hultzsch, *SII*, Vol. I, p. 34.

c15.s1.t2.6

² Aelian, however, has the following reference to the realm of Soras (Chola?) and its chief city: “There is a city which a man of royal extraction called Soras governed at the time when Eukratides governed the Bactrians, and the name of that city is Perimuda (city of Perumal?). It is inhabited by a race of fish-eaters who go off with nets and catch oysters.” For Uragapura in Cholika Vishaya, *see Ep. Ind.*, X. 103.

c15.s1.t2.7

³ For the early history of the Chola Kingdom and other Tamil states *see CHI*, Vol. I, Ch. 24; Smith, *EHI*, Ch. XVI; Kanakasabhai Pillay, *Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago*; Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Beginnings of South Indian History and Ancient India*; K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, *The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom*, *The Colas*, *etc.*

c15.s1.t2.8

The Pāṇḍya country corresponded to the Madurā, and Tinnevelly districts with perhaps the southern portions of Rāmnad and the Travancore Cochin state. It had its capitals at Kolkai and Madurā (*Dakshiṇa* Mathurā). The rivers Tāmraparṇî and Kṛitamālā or Vaigai flowed through it. Kātyāyana derives Pāṇḍya from Pāṇḍu. The Pāṇḍus are mentioned as the ruling race of Indraprastha in the *Mahābhārata* as well as in several *Jātakas*,¹ Ptolemy (cir. 150 A. D.) speaks of the country of the *Pandoouoi* in the Pañjāb. There can be no doubt that Pāṇḍu was the name of a real tribe or clan in northern India. Kātyāyana's statement regarding the connection of the Pāṇḍyas with the Pāṇḍus receives some support from the fact that the name of the Pāṇḍya capital (Madurā) was identical with the famous city of Mathurā in the Sūrasena country which, according to Epic tradition, was the seat of a family intimately associated by ties of friendship and marriage with the Pāṇḍus of Indraprastha. The connection between the Pāṇḍus, the Sūrasenas and the Pāṇḍyas seems to be alluded to in the confused stories narrated by Megasthenes regarding Herakles and Pandaia.²

c15.s1.t2.9

¹ I find it difficult to agree with Dr. Barua, *Inscriptions of Aśoka*, Part II (1943), p. 232, that the "line of Yudhishṭhira"...that ruled at Indraprastha in the Kuru country "has nothing to do with Pāṇḍu's eldest son."

c15.s1.t2.10

² Ind. Ant., 1877, p. 249.

c15.s1.t2.11

**Satiyaputra** is identified by Mr. Venkatesvaraiyar³ with *Satya-vrata-kshetra* or Kañchīpura. But Dr. Aiyangar points out that the term *Satya-vrata-kshetra* is applied to the town of Kāñchī or a part of it, not to the country dependent upon it. There is besides the point whether *vrata* could become *puta*. Dr. Aiyangar supports Bhandarkar's identification with Satpute. He takes Satiyaputra to be a collective name of the various matriarchal communities like the Tulus and the Nāyars of Malabar.⁴ According to Dr. Smith⁵ Satiyaputra is represented by the Satyamaṅgalam Tāluk of Coimbatore. Mr. T. N. Subramaniam⁶ prefers Koṅgunāḍu ruled by the *Kośar* people famous for their truthfulness. Mr. K. G. Sesha Aiyar¹ takes Satiyaputra to be the equivalent of Atiyamān, chief of Kutiraimalai with his headquarters at Takaḍūr, now in Mysore. Mr. P. J. Thoma, however, gives reasons for identifying it with “Satyabhūmi” of the *Kēralolpatti*, a territory which corresponds roughly to “North Malabar including a portion of Kasergode Tāluk, South Canara.”²

c15.s1.t2.12

³ *JRAS*, 1918, pp. 541-42

c15.s1.t2.13

⁴ *JRAS*, 1919, pp. 581-84.

c15.s1.t2.14

⁵ *Aśoka*, Third Ed., p 161

c15.s1.t2.15

⁶ *JRAS*, 1922, 86.

c15.s1.t2.16

¹ *Cēra kings of the Sangam period*, 17-18, cf, now N. Sastri, ANM, 25.

c15.s1.t2.17

² JRAS. 1923, p. 412, B. A. Saletore is, however, inclined to disparage the authority of the *Keralolpatti* (*Indian Culture*, I 668). But Kirfel points out (*Die Cosmographie Der Inder*, 1920, p. 78) that Satiya (variants Satīratha, Sanīpa) finds mention in the list of southern Janapadas, along with the Mūshakas, in the Jambukhaṇḍa section of the *Mahābhārata* (Bk. VI.). For other views see Ind. Cult., Vol. II, 549 ff.; *Aiyangar. Com. Vol.*, 45-47. Mr. M. G. Pai suggests that 'Satiya' corresponds to Sāntika of the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, 58.37, and the *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, xiv, 27, and included South Kanara. Cf. Setae of pliny. (Bomb, Gaz. Gujrat, 533).

c15.s1.t2.18

**Keralaputra** (Ketalaputo or Chera) is “the country south of Kūpaka (or Satya), extending down to Kanneti in Central Travancore (Karunagapalli Tāluk). South of it lay the political division of Mūshika.”³ It was watered by the river Periyar, perhaps identical with the Churṇī of the *Arthaśāstra*⁴ on the banks of which stood its capital Vañji (near Cochin) and at its mouth the seaport of Muziris (Kranganur).

c15.s1.t2.19

³ JRAS, 1923, P. 413.

c15.s1.t2.20

⁴ P. 75. Cf. *Suka saṁdesa* (Aiyar, *Cera kings*, 94).

c15.s1.t2.21

Ceylon was known in ancient times as Pārasamudra⁵ as well as Tāmraparṇī (Greek Taprobane).⁶ Taṁbapaṁni, *i.e.*, Tāmraparṇī is mentioned in Rock Edicts II and XIII of Aśoka. Dr. Smith lately¹ took the word to mean not Ceylon but the river Tāmraparṇī in Tinnevally. He referred to the Girnar text “*ā Tambapaṁni*” which according to him indicated that the river was meant, not the island. Now, in Edict II the phrase “*ā Tambapaṁni*” comes after Ketalaputo and not after Pāḍā. The expression “Ketalaputo as far as the (river) Tāmraparṇī” is hardly appropriate because the Tāmraparṇī is a Pāṇḍyan river.² We, therefore, prefer to take Tāmraparṇī to mean Ceylon. Aśoka’s Ceylonese contemporary was Devānaṁpiya Tissa whose accession may be dated about 250 or 247 B.C.

c15.s1.t2.22

⁵ Greek *Palaesimundu*, see Ray Chaudhuri, *Ind. Ant.*, 1919, pp. 195-96, commentary on the *Kauṭilīya*, Ch. XI; *Rāmāyaṇa*, VI, 3, 21 (Laṅkā described as *sthitā* “*pāre samudrasya*”). On reading Law's *Ancient Hindu Polity* (p. 87 n.) I find that the identification was also suggested by Mr. N. L. Dey. The equation Pārasamudra = Palaesimundu is not less plausible than the equations Sātavāhana = Sālivahana; Katāha = Kaḍāram = Kiḍāram = Kantoli (pace Dr Majumdar, *Suvarṇadvīpa*, 56, 79. 168).

c15.s1.t2.23

⁶ For other names of Ceylon see “*Megasthenes and Arrian*” published by Chuckerverty and Chatterjee, 1926, p. 60 n. For a short history of the island see *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, Chap. XXV, and IHQ. II. 1. p. 1 ff. According to tradition recorded in the *Dīpavaṁsa* and the *Mahāvaṁsa* the first Aryan immigrants were led by Prince Vijaya of Lāḷa, whom the chronicles represent as a grandson of a Princess of Vaṅga. The identification of Lāḷa is, however, open to controversy, some placing it in Gujarāt, others identifying it with Rāḍha or Western Bengal. Barnett may be right in his assumption that the tradition of two different streams of immigration was knit together in the story of Vijaya. See also IHQ, 1933, 742 ff.

c15.s1.t2.24

¹ *Aśoka*, 3rd Ed., p. 162.

c15.s1.t2.25

² Even those who prefer to see in the passage a reference to a kingdom in the Valley of the Tamraparṇī river, have to prove that such a kingdom did exist in the Maurya age apart from “Pāḍā” and Taprobane, and to explain the particular way in which it is mentioned in Edict II.

c15.s1.t2.26

Aśoka maintained friendly relations not only with the Tamil powers of the south, but also with his **Hellenistic frontager**, Antiochos II Theos, king of Syria and Western Asia (B.C. 261-246); and even with the kings the neighbours of Antiochos, namely, Ptolemy II, Philadelphos, king of Egypt (B.C. 285-247); Magas, king of Cyrene in North Africa (who probably died not later than B.C. 258)³; Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia (B.C. 277 or 276-239); and Alexander who ruled over Epirus (B.C. 272-*c.*255) according to Norris, Westergaard, Lassen, Senart, Smith and Marshall.⁴ Beloch and Hultzsch, however, suggest¹ that Alikasudara of Edict XIII is the comparatively insignificant ruler, Alexander of Corinth, the son of Craterus (B.C. 252—*cir.* 244) and not Alexander of Epirus (272—*cir.* 255), the son of Pyrrhus.

c15.s1.t2.27

³ Tarn, *Antigonos Gonatas*, p. 449 f.

c15.s1.t2.28

⁴ *Monuments of Sāñchī*, I, 28 n.

c15.s1.t2.29

¹ JRAS, 1914, pp. 943 ff. *Ins. of Aśoka*, xxxi.

c15.s1.t2.30

Though Aśoka did not covet the territories of his neighbours, there is evidence that he gave them advice on occasions, and established philanthropic institutions in their dominions. In other words, he regarded them as objects of spiritual conquest (*Dhamma-vijaya*).

c15.s1.t2.31

"My neighbours, too, should learn this lesson."²

c15.s1.t2.32

² M. R. Edict I.

c15.s1.t2.33

"Among his frontagers the Cholas, the Pāṇḍyas, the Satyaputra, the Ketalaputra as far as Tāmraparṇī, Antiochos, the Greek king, and even the kings the neighbours of that Antiochos, everywhere have been made healing arrangements of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King."

c15.s1.t2.34

In Edict XIII Aśoka declares that the "conquest of the Law of Piety,......has been won by His Sacred Majesty......among all his neighbours as far as six hundred leagues, where the king of the Greeks named Antiochos dwells, and beyond (the realm) of that Antiochos (where dwell) the four kings (*rājāno*) severally Ptolemy (Turamāyo), Antigonos (Aṁtekina), Magas (Maga or Maka), and Alexander (Alikasudaro)—(likewise) in the south (*micha*), the Cholas and the Pāṇḍyas as far as Tambapaṁni......Even where the envoys (*dūtā*) of His Sacred Majesty do not penetrate,³ those people, too, hearing His Sacred Majesty's ordinance based upon the Law of Piety and his instruction in the Law, practise and will practise the Law."¹ Buddhism doubtless made some progress in Western Asia and influenced later sects like the Manichaeans. But Greeks apparently were not much impressed by lessons on non-violence. When the strong arm of Aśoka, "who possessed the power to punish inspite of his repentance," was withdrawn, the Yavanas poured once more into the Kābul valley, the Pañjab and the *Madhya-deśa* and threw all the province into confusion. The southern missions were more successful. Curiously enough, the Ceylonese chronicles do not seem to refer to the envoys sent to the independent Tamil and Hellenistic kingdoms² but name the missionaries sent to Ceylon and **Suvaṇṇabhūmi** (Lower Burma and Sumatra). The Ceylonese mission was headed by prince Mahendra who secured the conversion of Devānaṁpiya Tissa and many of his people. No direct reference to Suvaṇṇabhūmi occurs in the Edicts hitherto discovered.

c15.s1.t2.35

³ Have we here a reference to countries like Suvaṇṇabhūmi named in the list of territories to which missionaries were sent according to the *Mahāvaṁsa*?

c15.s1.t2.36

¹ From Buddhism in Western Asia, see Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, II. 378; and Alberūnī, p. 21; *JRAS*, 1913, 76; M'Crindle, *Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature*, p. 185; Eliot, *Hinduism and Buddhism*, Vol. III, pp. 3, 450 f; cf. Smith, *EHI*, 4th ed., 197; Burlingame, trans, *Dhammapada Commentary*, Introduction.

c15.s1.t2.37

² Mention is however made of the Yona country along with Kasmīra, Gandhāra and Himālaya (Geiger, 82). This Yona territory is perhaps to be identified with the homonymous land in the Kābul valley associated with Kamboja and Gandhāra in the Aśokan Inscriptions. But reference in a vague way to the Levantine world is not completely ruled out. The Deccan lands mentioned in connection with the traditional missionary activity of the Aśokan age include Mahiśamaṇḍala, Vanavāsa (in the Kanarese area), Aparāntaka (on the west coast), and Mahāraṭṭha (Mahārāshṭra) in the upper valley of the Godāvarī.

The Change in Internal Policy

c15.s1.t3.1

The effects of Aśoka's change of religion after Kaliṅga war were felt not only in foreign policy but also in internal affairs. The principal objects of his complaint according to Rock Edict IV and the Kaliṅga Edicts were:

c15.s1.t3.2

1. The sacrificial slaughter (*ārambho*) of living creatures.
2. Violence (*vihiṁsā*) to animate beings.
3. Unseemly behaviour to (*asampratīpati*) to kinsmen (*jñāti*)
4. Unseemly behaviour to *Brāhmaṇas* and *Śramaṇas*.
5. Maladministration in the Provinces.

c15.s1.t3.3

According to Rock Edict I, Aśoka saw much offence not only in the sacrificial slaughter of animals, but also in certain *Samājas* or festive gatherings which, as we learn from the *Kauṭilīya*,¹ were often witnessed by kings and emperors.² The *Samāja*, says Smith, was of two kinds. The popular festival kind accompanied by animal fights, heavy drinking and feasting, including much consumption of meat, was necessarily condemned by Aśoka, as being inconsistent with his principles. The other kind, the semi-religious theatrical performance, sometimes given in the temples of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, was apparently not included among offensive *Samājas*. Dr. Thomas³ describes the disapproved *Samāja* as "a celebration of games or contests taking place in an arena or amphitheatre surrounded by platforms (*mañcha*) for spectators (*prekshā*)." This kind of (*Samāja*) is apparently referred to in the following lines of the *Virāṭa parva* of the *Mahābhārata*:—

c15.s1.t3.4

¹ p. 45.

c15.s1.t3.5

² For the holding of *Samājas* in Magadha and in neighbouring countries see *Vinaya*, IV. 267; *Mahāvastu*, III. 57 and 383.

c15.s1.t3.6

³ JRAS., 1914, pp. 392 ff

c15.s1.t3.7

*Ye cha kechinniyotsyanti Samājeshu niyodhakāḥ*.⁴
"Those combatants who will take part in wrestling in the Samājas."

c15.s1.t3.8

⁴ *Virāṭa*, 2, 7.

c15.s1.t3.9

*Tatra Mallāḥ samāpetur digbhyo rājan sahasrasaḥ* *Samāje Brahmaṇo rājan tathā Paśupater api* *Mahākāyāḥ Mahāvīryāḥ Kālakanjā ivāsurāḥ.*¹

c15.s1.t3.10

¹ *Virāṭa*, 13, 15-16.

c15.s1.t3.11

"O king, there arrived, by thousands, boxers from all quarters, in that festive gathering in honour of Brahman as well as Paśupati (Śiva). They possessed gigantic bodies and immense strength like the Titans styled Kālakañja."

c15.s1.t3.12

The harmless *Samāja* is well illustrated by the gathering in the temple of the goddess of learning referred to in Vātsyāyana's *Kāmasūtra* (*Pakshasya māsasya vā prajñāte' hani Sarasvatyā bhavane niyuktānāṁ nityaṁ Samājaḥ*). According to Hultzsch the harmless *Samāja* refers to edifying shows.²

c15.s1.t3.13

² See also IHQ, 1928, March, 112 ff.

c15.s1.t3.14

Aśoka determined to put a stop to the practices, referred to above, which he did not approve. At the same time he sought to improve the moral and material condition of the people to such an extent as to effect the "association of gods with men".³ He did all this "in order that he might discharge the debt (which he owed) to living beings (that) he might make them happy in this (world) and (that) they might attain heaven in the other (world)." The means employed to achieve this object may be classed under four heads :

c15.s1.t3.15

³ *Cf.* Minor Rock Edict I. *Cf.* The description in the *Harivaṁśa* of a prosperous realm where (*rājye mahodaye*) gods and men dwelt together (*Bhavishyaparva*, Ch. 32.1) "*Devatānāṁ manushyānāṁ sahavāso' bhavattadā.*" Hultzsch, however, compares (xlv) *Deva* with *Divyāni rūpāṇi* of Rock Edict IV.

c15.s1.t3.16

1. Administrative reforms.

c15.s1.t3.17

2. Dissemination of instructions in the *Dhamma* (Law of Piety or Duty).

c15.s1.t3.18

3. Benevolent activity; promotion of the welfare of man and beast.

c15.s1.t3.19

4. Religious toleration and prevention of schism in the Buddhist church.

Administrative Reforms

c15.s1.t4.1

In the first place, Aśoka instituted the Quinquennial and Triennial *Anusaṁyāna* or Circuit of the *Yutas*, *Rājūkas* *Prādeśikas*, and *Mahāmātras*. Jayaswal and Smith¹ were of opinion that the whole administrative staff from the Rājūkas and the Prādeśikas down to the *Yutas* could not possibly have gone on circuit at once every five years. They interpreted the term as signifying a regular system of transfers from one station to another. But there is nothing in the text to show that *all* the officers were required to go on circuit *at once*. The *anusaṁyāna* of the *Yutas*, *Rājūkas* and *Prādeśikas* was quinquennial and was mainly intended for propaganda work. The *anusaṁyāna* of the *Mahāmātras* was specially instituted for the purpose of checking miscarriage of justice, arbitrary imprisonment and torture in the outlying provinces (Kaliṅga, and the Ujjayinī and Takshaśilā regions).

c15.s1.t4.2

¹ *Aśoka*, 3rd edition, p. 161; Mr. A. K. Bose (IHQ, 1933, 811) takes *anusaṁyāna* in the sense of 'a court-house or a citadel.' But the epic reference to *puṇyatīrthānusaṁyānam* (Mbh. i. 2, 123), 'going forth to holy places of pilgrimage,' suggests that the interpretation proposed by Kern and Bühler is the one least open to objection. See also Barua, *Aśoka Edicts in New Light*, 83 ff.

c15.s1.t4.3

Secondly, Aśoka created a number of new posts, *e.g.*, *Dharma-mahāmātras* and possibly *Dharma-Yutas*.² The *Dharma-mahāmātras* were given a protective mission among people of all sects including the Brāhmaṇas and the Nirgranthas or Jainas, and among the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gandhāras, Riṣṭikas and all the Aparāntas. "Among servants and masters, Brāhmaṇas and the wealthy(*Ibhyas*),¹ among the helpless and the aged, they are employed in freeing from worldly cares their subordinates (in the department) of the Law of Piety. They are also employed on the revision (of sentences of) imprisonment or execution, in the reduction of penalties, or (the grant of) release, on the grounds of motive, having children, instigation, or advanced years...At Pāṭaliputra and in all provincial (*bāhira*) towns, in the family establishments of the king's brothers and sisters, as well as of other relatives, they are everywhere employed." The *Dharma-mahāmātras* were further engaged everywhere in the imperial dominions (*vijita*) or indeed in the whole world (*Pṛithivī*) as known to the Mauryas, among the *Dharma-yutas* with regard to "the concerns of the Law, the establishment of the Law, and the business of almsgiving." The border countries (*deśa*) were placed under the special care of the *Āvutikas*.²

c15.s1.t4.4

² *Dhammayuta* may not be an official designation. It may mean simply 'one devoted to Dhamma' (morality, righteousness). *Cf.* Bhandarkar, *Asoka*, 2nd ed., pp. 311, 343.

c15.s1.t4.5

¹ We have here a reference probably to the fourfold division of society into Brāhmaṇas, Kshatriyas or nobles (*Ibhyas*), Vaiśyas (*Aryas*), and Sūdras (*Bhaṭa*).

c15.s1.t4.6

² Cf. Hultzsch, *Aśoka*, 100 n 7.

c15.s1.t4.7

The emperor was naturally anxious to keep himself fully informed without delay about all public affairs, specially about the doings of the *Mahāmātras* on whom the success of his mission mainly depended. He, therefore, gave *special directions to the Paṭivedakas* or Reporters that when a matter of urgency committed to the *Mahāmātras* and discussed in the *Parishad* or Council occasioned a division of opinion or *nijhatī* (adjournment?)³ he must be informed without delay.

c15.s1.t4.8

³ For procedure in cases of disputations in an Assembly see also *Jaim. Up. Br. III*. 7.6. Can *Nijhati* imply reference to the *Upadrashtṛis* hinted at in the Brāhmaṇa passage? The help of *Upadrashtṛis* was invoked by the Kuru-Pañchālas to arrive at a satisfactory agreement or understanding in case of dispute. (Cf. also Barua, *Aśoka Edicts in New Light* p. 78.)

c15.s1.t4.9

It is apparent from the Kaliṅga Edicts and Rock Edict VI that Aśoka kept a watchful eye on the *Mahāmātras* especially on those who administered justice in cities. But he was more indulgent towards the *Rājūkas* for whose intelligence he apparently entertained great respect. To the *Rājūkas* "set over many hundred thousands of people" the emperor granted independence in the award of honours and penalties in order that those officials might perform their duties confidently and fearlessly. He wanted, however, to maintain some uniformity in penalties as well as in procedure. For this reason he issued the following rule :—

c15.s1.t4.10

"To condemned men lying in prison under sentence of death a respite of three days is granted."

c15.s1.t4.11

Lastly, Aśoka issued certain regulations restricting slaughter and mutilation of animals, and up to the twenty-seventh year of his coronation effected twenty-five jail deliveries. This suggests, as has been pointed out by Hultzsch, that the emperor used to proclaim an amnesty to criminals at almost every anniversary of his coronation.

Measures adopted to disseminate Instructions in the Law of Piety

c15.s1.t5.1

Though himself convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, of the efficacy of worship at Buddist holy places, of the necessity of making a confession of faith in the Buddhist Trinity, of keeping in close touch with the Buddhist Order of monks and maintaining its discipline and solidarity, Aśoka probably never sought to impose his purely sectarian belief on others. He attempted, however, to put an end to practices and institutions that he considered to be opposed to the fundamental principles of morality which, according to him, constituted the essence of all religious. The prospect that he held before the people at large is not that of *sambodhi* (or of *nirvāṇa*) but of *svarga* (heaven) and of mingling with the *devas*. *Svarga* could be attained and the gods could be approached by all people, high or low, if only they showed *parākrama*, zeal, not in adherence to a sectarian dogma or the performance of barren ritual (*maṁgala*) but in following the ancient rule (*porāṇā pakitī*), the common heritage of Indians of all denominations, *viz*., “obedience must be rendered to parents and elders ; firmness (of compassion) must be shown towards living creatures ; truth must be spoken ; these same moral virtues must be practised. In the same way the teacher must be reverenced by the pupil, and fitting courtesy should be shown to the relatives.” In Edict XIII we have the following : “hearkening to superiors, hearkening to father and mother, hearkening to teachers (or elders), and proper treatment of friends, acquaintances, comrades, relatives, slaves¹ and servants, with steadfastness of devotion.” Edict VII lays stress on “mastery over the senses, purity of mind, gratitude, and steady devotion”. In the Second Pillar Edict it is declared that the Law of Piety consisted in *Apāsinave*, *bahukayāne*, *dayā*, *dāne*, *sache* *sochaye*, “little impiety, many good deeds, compassion, liberality, truthfulness, purity”.

c15.s1.t5.2

¹ For the question of slavery in Maurya India, see Monahan, *Early History of Bengal*, pp. 164-65. It is to be noted that Aśoka did not abolish slavery, just as he did not do away with caste or *purdah*. He simply wanted to mitigate the rigours of the existing social polity.

c15.s1.t5.3

In the Pillar Edicts again prominence is given to self-examination and spiritual insight. Towards the end of his career Aśoka seems to have been convinced that reflection and meditation were of greater efficacy than moral regulations. But the need for such regulations was keenly felt by him in the early years of his reign.

c15.s1.t5.4

We learn from Minor Rock Edict I that for more than two-and-a-half years Aśoka was a lay disciple (*Upāsaka*). During the first year he did not exert himself strenuously. Later on he seems to have *entered*¹ the *Saṅgha* and begun to exert himself strenuously.² He issued the famous proclamation, "Let small and great exert themselves," and caused to be engraved the imperishable record of his purpose on the rocks and upon stone pillars wherever there were stone pillars in his dominions.

c15.s1.t5.5

¹ "Approached," according to Hultzsch, in whose opinion the two-and-a-half years of *Upāsakatva* include the period which followed his "visit" (not "entry") to the *Saṅgha*. The view that Aśoka actually joined the Holy Order is, however, supported by I-tsing who mentions an image of Aśoka dressed in the garb of a Buddhist monk (Takakusu, *I-tsing*, 73). That rulers and statesmen could be monks as well, even in early times, appears probable from Lüders Ins. No. 1144 which refers to a *Śramaṇa mahāmātra* of Nāsik in the days of the early Sātavāhana king Kṛishṇa, *Cf.* Milinda, IV.6. 49 (ref. to a Śramaṇa King); Geiger, trans., *Mahāvaṁsa*, 240 (Kuṭakaṇṇa Tissa).

c15.s1.t5.6

² Rock Edict IV has been interpreted by scholars to mean that Aśoka sought to promote the observance of the Buddhist doctrine by exhibiting spectacles of aerial chariots (*Vimānadasanā*), of elephants (*Hastidasanā*), masses of fire (*Agikhaṁdhāni*) and other representations of a *divya*, i.e., divine (not terrestrial) nature. Dr. Bhandarkar (*Ind. Ant.*, 1912, p. 26), refers to the Pāli *Vimānavatthu* which describes the splendour of the various celestial abodes (Vimānas) in order to induce listeners and spectators to live good and unblemished lives, and thereby attain to these. Aśoka is said to have made representations of these Vimānas and paraded them in various places. *Hasti*, according to Dr. Bhandarkar, is *Sveto hasti*, i e., Buddha himself who is also described as "*Gajatama*," i.e., Gajottama, the most excellent elephant. As regards *Agikhaṁdha* (*Agniskandha*) Dr. Bhandarkar draws our attention to *Jātaka* No. 40 which refers to a blazing fire-pit created by Māra on the surface of which the Bodhisattva strode and gave a bowl to a hungry *Pachcheka Buddha* and extolled alms-giving. Hultzsch suggests that *Hasti* may refer to the vehicles of the four "*Mahārājas*" (*lokapālas* or guardians of quarters). He takes *Agikaṁdha* to refer to 'radiant beings of another world' while Jarl Charpentier (*IHQ*, 1933, 87) understands it to mean piles of (hell-) fire. The interpretation of Hultzsch accords better with the testimony of the commentary on the *Rāmāyaṇa* (II. 68. 16) which explains *divyāni* as *viśishṭa devatādhishṭhitam*. The celestial elephant figures prominently in the Tārāvaloka story of the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara* (Penzer, VIII. 131), and Mountain of fire, *ibid* 50, 51; III. 6, 17; Cf. also *aggi-khando* in *Jataka*, VI 330, Coomaraswamy in B. C. Law. vol. I. 469; Note the *Sutta* referred to in Geiger, *Mahāvaṁsa*, trans. pp. 85, 110. The passage containing the words *Vimānadasanā, Hastidasanā, etc.* has been explained differently in *A Volume of Indian Studies presented to Professor E. J. Rapson*, p. 546 f. According to the interpretation that finds favour with some writers, the spectacles in question were exhibited not by Aśoka but by previous rulers to the accompaniment of the sound of drums. But thanks to Aśoka “the sound of the bheri had become the sound of *dharma*,” that is to say instruction in dharma took the place of martial music that used to be heard on the occasion of pompous shows of edifying subjects in bygone times. What former kings could not accomplish by gaudy spectacles, was achieved by Aśoka by the simple unostentatious teaching of the true Doctrine. The *bheri* was now used to announce the king’s rescripts on morality, cf. the Yerraguḍi copy of the Minor Rock Edict—*Rājuke ānapitaviye bherinā jānapadaṁ ānāpayisati raṭhikānaṁ cha* (*Ind. Culture*, I, p. 310; IHQ, 1933, 117).

c15.s1.t5.7

Aśoka at first utilised the existing administrative machinery for religious propaganda.¹ He commanded his Council (*Parishad*) to inculcate the *Dharma* on the subordinate officials styled *Yutas* and ordered the latter as well as the higher officials styled *Rājūkas*, and *Prādeśikas* to inculcate the same while they set out for tour (*anusaṁyāna*). The *Dharma* which they were to preach was explained thus: “An excellent thing is the hearkening to father and mother²; an excellent thing is liberality to friends, acquaintances, relatives, Brāhmaṇas and ascetics; excellent is abstention from the slaughter of living creatures; excellent is small expense with small accumulation.”

c15.s1.t5.8

¹ According to one view Aśoka sent special missionaries styled *Vyuṭha* to expound his teaching. The interpretation of *Vyuṭha* as missionary was suggested by Senart and accepted by Smith (*Aśoka*, Third Ed., p. 153 Dr. Bhandarkar takes *Vyuṭha* or *Vivutha* to mean “officials on tour.” Hultzsch thinks that *Vyuṭha* refers to Aśoka himself while he was on tour (p. 169, note 8). The word has also the sense of dawn, day-break, day, in other words, it has a chronological significance. Other interpretations are also suggested by scholars. The least plausible is the one offered by Dr. Barua (*D. R. Bhandarkar* volume, 369.) who finds in the expression reference to the copies of the particular proclamation sent forth from the capital.

c15.s1.t5.9

² Cf. *Sigālovāda Suttanta* (*Dialogues of the Buddha*. III, 173 ff).

c15.s1.t5.10

When he had been consecrated thirteen years, Aśoka created the new officials called *Dharma-mahāmātras* who were specially entrusted with the work of "*dhammādhi-thāna*" and "*dhammavadhi*", *i.e.*, the establishment and increase of Piety.

c15.s1.t5.11

While his officers were busy preaching the new Gospel, the emperor himself did not remain idle. Already in his eleventh regnal year he had "started on the path" leading to *Sambodhi* (*ayāya Sambodhim*)¹ and commenced the tours of Piety (*Dhamma-yātā*) in the place of the old tours of pleasure (*Vihāra-yātā*). In the tours of Piety this was the practice—visiting ascetics and Brāhmaṇas, with liberality to them; visiting elders, with largess of gold; visiting the people of the country or perhaps rural areas (*Janapada*) with instruction in the Law of Piety, and discussion of that law. The memory of a pious tour in Aśokas twenty-first regnal year² (B. C. 249 according to Smith) is preserved by the Rummindeī and Nigālī Sāgar epigraphs in the Nepalese Tarai. These records prove that Aśoka visited the birth-place of Gautama and paid reverence to the *stupa* of Konākamana, one of the former Buddhas.³

c15.s1.t5.12

¹ Some scholars take *Sambodhi* to mean 'supreme knowledge'. But Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar contends that *Sambodhi* is equivalent to the Bodhi Tree or the Mahābodhi Temple at Bodh Gayā. According to the *Divyāvadāna* (p. 393) Aśoka visited Bodhi in the company of the *Sthavira* or Elder Upagupta (Hultzsch, CII, xliii).

c15.s1.t5.13

² Were these tours decennial?

c15.s1.t5.14

³ He had enlarged the stupa of Konākamana six years earlier, but the personal presence on that occasion is by no means clear.

c15.s1.t5.15

In 242 B.C., according to Dr. Smith, Aśoka issued the Seven Pillar Edicts which contain, among other things, a review of the measures taken during his reign for the "promotion of religion, the teaching of moral duty".

Benevolent Activity, Promotion of the Welfare of Man and Beast

c15.s1.t6.1

Aśoka abolished the sacrificial slaughter of animals, offensive *Samājas* and the massacre of living creatures to make curries in the imperial kitchen. Rock Edict VIII refers to the abolition of the *vihāra-yātrās* or tours of pleasure in which hunting and other similar amusements used to be practised. Pillar Edict V contains a code of regulations¹ restricting the slaughter and mutilation of animals. Dr. Smith points out that the prohibitions against animal slaughter in this edict coincide to a considerable extent with those recorded in the *Arthaśāstra*.

c15.s1.t6.2

¹ *Dhamma-niyama*, cf. Patañjali I, I, I.

c15.s1.t6.3

The emperor established healing arrangements in two kinds, namely, healing arrangements for men and healing arrangements for beasts. Medicinal herbs also both for men and for beasts, wheresoever lacking, were imported and planted. Roots also and fruits,² wheresoever lacking, were imported and planted. On the roads wells were dug probably at intervals of 8 *kos*, flights of steps built for descending into the water, and banyan trees and mango groves planted for the enjoyment of man and beast.

c15.s1.t6.4

² *Cf.* reference to figs in Bindusāra's correspondence with Antiochos.

c15.s1.t6.5

Pillar Edict VII refers to the employment of superior officers (*Mukhyas*) in the distribution of alms, both the emperor's own and those of the queens and princes. One of the Minor Pillar Edicts refers to the donations of the second Queen Kāruvākī,³ mother of Tīvara: "whatever gift has been given here by the second Queen—be it a mango-garden, or pleasure-grove (*ārāma*) or alms-house (*dānagṛiha*) or aught else—is reckoned as proceeding from that queen."

c15.s1.t6.6

³ Dr. Barua suggests the identification of this lady with Asandhimittā of the *Mahāvaṁsa* and the *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī* (*Indian Culture*, I, 123). The suggestion, though ingenious, is hardly convincing.

c15.s1.t6.7

Mention may also be made of remission of taxes by the emperor himself, *e.g.*, in Lumminigāma, and money-grants (*hiraṇṇapaṭividhāna*) to old men. The people of *janapadas* (districts), doubtless including the *grāmas*¹ (villages), were also sought to be benefited by the grant of autonomy and the establishment of uniformity of punishment and procedure (*daṇḍasamatā* and *vyāvahārasamatā*) as well as diffusion of moral instruction (*dhramanusasti*).

c15.s1.t6.8

¹ References to *grāmas* are found in the compounds *Lummini-gāma* and *āma-kapota* (Pillar Edict V).

Religious Toleration and the Prevention of Schism in the Buddhist Church

c15.s1.t7.1

In Rock Edict XII the emperor declares that he "does reverence (*Pūjā*) to men of all sects (*Pāsaṁdāni*) whether ascetics (*Pavajitāni*) or householders (*Gharastāni*) by gifts and various forms of reverence". That he was sincere in his professions is proved by the Barābar cave dedications in favour of the Ājīvika ascetics, who were more closely connected with the Jainas than with the Buddhists.

c15.s1.t7.2

The emperor only cared for the "growth of the essence (*Sāra-Vaḍhi*) of the matter in sects". He says that "he who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendour of his own sect, in reality by such conduct inflicts the severest injury on his own sect." Concord (or concourse, *Samavāyo*) is praised by him as meritorious (*Sama-vāyo eva sādhu*).

c15.s1.t7.3

Just as Aśoka tried to secure concord among the various sects, so he wanted to prevent schism within the Buddhist church. Tradition affirms that a Buddhist Council was convened at Pāṭaliputra in the seventeenth year of his reign for the purpose of suppressing heresy and making a compilation of the true Buddhist doctrine (*Saddhammasaṁgaha*). The Sārnāth Edict and its variants may perhaps be regarded as embodying the resolution of this Council.¹

c15.s1.t7.4

¹ Smith, *Aśoka*, third, ed., p. 55.

Aśoka as a Builder

c15.s1.t8.1

The gift of cave dwellings to the Ājīvika monks affords us a glimpse into another side of Aśoka's activity. As late as the fifth century A.D., sojourners in Pāṭaliputra were struck with wonder at the magnificence of the emperor's architectural achievements. Tradition credits him with the construction of a splendid palace besides numerous relic mounds, monasteries and temples. He is actually known to have enlarged the *stūpa* of Konākamana, a 'former Buddha' and a predecessor of Śākyamuni. He also set up 'pillars of morality' *Dharma-stambhas*. Modern critics are eloquent in their praise of the polished surface of his columns and the fine workmanship of their crowning sculptures.²

c15.s1.t8.2

² For Aśoka's achievements in the domain of art, see Smith, *HFAIC*, 13, 57 ff.; *Aśoka*, pp. 107 ff; CHI, 618 ff; Havell, ARI, 104 ff, etc.

Character of Aśoka. His Success and Failure

c15.s1.t9.1

Aśoka is one of the most interesting personalities in the history of India. He had the energy of a Chandragupta, the versatility of a Samudragupta and the catholicity of an Akbar. He was tireless in his exertion and unflagging in his zeal—all directed to the promotion of the spiritual and material welfare of his people whom he looked upon as his children. His illustrious grandfather was accustomed to dispose of cases even when indulging in the luxury of a massage of the limbs. Similarly, Aśoka used to listen to reports about the affairs of his people even while 'he was eating, in the harem, in the inner apartment, at the cowpen, in the palanquin and in the parks'. The great soldier who had brought under subjection a huge territory unconquered even by his ever victorious grandfather, could, at the same time, argue points of doctrine and discipline with a fraternity of erudite monks. The statesman who could pilot an empire through the storm and stress of a war that involved the death and deportation of hundreds of thousands of men was, at the same time, capable of organizing religious missions the sphere of whose activities embraced three continents, and transforming a local sect in the Ganges Valley into one of the great religions of the world. The man who penetrated into the jungles of the Nepalese Tarai to pay homage to the birth-place of the Buddhas, bore no ill-will towards the descendants of their Brāhmaṇa and Jaina opponents, and granted cavedwellings to the adherents of a rival sect. The king who undertook tours with the object of granting largesses of gold to Brāhmaṇas and Śramaṇas, admitted to office Yavanas in whose country there were neither Brāhmaṇas nor Śramaṇas. He preached the virtues of concord and toleration in an age when religious feeling ran high and disruptive influences were at work within the fold of the Jaina and Buddhist churches. He preached nonviolence when violence in war, religious ritual, royal pastime and festive gatherings was the order of the day. He eschewed military conquest not after defeat but after victory and pursued a policy of patience and gentleness while still possessed of the resources of a mighty empire. The forbearance of this strong man was only matched by his truthfulness, and he describes in burning words which no Kaliṅga patriot could have improved upon, the terrible misery that he had inflicted on a hapless province. The example of Dharmāśoka, the pious king, exercised an ennobling influence on posterity. In the second century A.D. Queen Gautamī Balaśrī takes pride in the fact that her son was “alien to hurting life even towards an offending enemy” (*Kitāparādhe pi satujane apānahisāruchi*). Even in the fifth century A.D., the rest-houses and free hospitals of Magadha excited the wonder and admiration of foreigners. The benefactions of Dharmāśoka were a source of inspiration to royal personages as late as the time of Govindachandra of the Gāhaḍavāla dynasty.

First 123 of 137 passages. Read on

Linked texts (35)