Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions c8.s1.43

c8.s1.43

With regard to the various circumstances referred to in the above summary. The king, in the thirteenth Rock Edict, had proclaimed that remorse on account of the slaughter and devastation that attended his conquest of Kalinga, which was effected in the ninth year of his reign, had made him resolve for the future to maintain peace and devote himself to religion. At length he became a Buddhist—and he here says that during the time when he was an upāsaka (or lay disciple) he did not put forth much effort. But more than six years before our present inscriptions, he entered the sangha (or sacred order) and vigorously exerted himself. What ensued from these special efforts has been stated above, but the sentence is elliptic and not over clear. It is generally agreed, however, and there can be no question, that the reference is to the Brāhmans, who are designated throughout Hindu literature by several terms which mean “gods on earth.” As M. Senart says: “After his conversion the king proceeded to deprive the Brāhmans of the almost divine prestige they enjoyed throughout the whole of India.” Their authority being rejected, their gods were also deposed. That it was to Buddhism the king was converted there can be no doubt. Previous to this change of faith he was apparently a Jain. Akbar’s minister Abul Fazl says in the *Ain-i-Akbari* that Aśōka introduced Jainism into Kashmir, and this is confirmed by the *Rāja-tarangini*, the Brahmanical history of Kashmir. That he was a Jain has also been deduced from his edicts.¹ But some are of opinion that he followed the Brāhman creed. His conversion at length to Buddhism was not signalised by persecution of his former co-religionists, but by inducing a revolution throughout India in the public estimation of them. In short, the members of the Order no doubt took advantage of the king’s presence and adhesion to influence him to depose their rivals, whether Brāhmans or Jains, from their former pre-eminence. This action of his does not invalidate the express injunctions to toleration contained in so many of his edicts, wherein he inculcates more than once the duty of reverence to and the bestowal of alms upon both Brāhmanas and Śramanas. Toleration was denied only to their false claims. On the other hand, it would be strange if no trace whatever could be discovered of the resentment which would naturally be evoked by so powerful though silent and peaceful a revolution in time-honoured beliefs. And we may perhaps find a trace in the fact that Devānāmpriyaḥ, as one word, is explained by Kātyāyana in the Vārttikas to Pāṇini as synonymous with *mūrkha*, a fool! This was a very characteristic retaliation, if so meant, and the use of the word thus authorised has come down even to the present time, and is common, I am told, at all events among the Brāhmans.²