Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.s37: Aśoka's Dharma

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.s37

Language: English

c11.s37.32 — 4 parts

Aśoka's Dharma

c11.s37.1

Aśoka's Dharma is primarily ethical social conduct and it includes even the animal kingdom within the scope of its all-embracing benevolence. We read at the end of the Minor Rock-Edict (Yerraguḍi) ‘Obedience must be rendered to mother and father, likewise to elders ; compassion should be shown towards men ; the truth must be spoken ; these moral virtues (*dhamma-guṇā*) must be practised....Pupils should respect their teachers in accordance with the ancient rule (*porāṇā pakiti*)’³. Again in the third Rock Edict : ‘Meritorious (*sādhu*) is obedience to mother and father. Liberality (*dānam*) to friends, acquaintances, and relatives, to Brāhmaṇas and Śramaṇas is meritorious.

c11.s37.2

³ ASI. 1928-29 pp. 165-7. cf. Brahmagiri N-P (Hultzsch p. 178).

c11.s37.3

Abstention from killing animals is meritorious. Moderation in expenditure and moderation in possessions are meritorious¹. Emphasis is laid on qualities of mind (*bhāva śuddhi*) in the Seventh Rock-Edict : ‘But even one who practises great liberality but does not possess self-control, purity of mind, gratitude, and firm devotion, is very mean².’ Proper treatment of serfs (*dāsa*) and servants (*bhataka*) is particularly mentioned in the eleventh and thirteenth Rock Edicts³. The Second Pillar-Edict contains this striking and comprehensive statement of the emperor on Dharma : ‘To practise morality is meritorious ; but what does morality include ? It includes few sins, many virtuous deeds, compassion, liberality, truthfulness and purity. The gift of spiritual insight (*cakkhu-dāna*) also has been bestowed by me in many ways⁴.’

c11.s37.4

¹ Hultzsch p. 5 RE. III D. cf. RE IV C.

c11.s37.5

² ib. p. 14 VII E.

c11.s37.6

³ ib. p. 19 XI C : p. 47, XIII G.

c11.s37.7

⁴ ib. p. 121, PE II B-D cf. PE VII EE, which with following HH forms a fairly complete account of Dharma.

c11.s37.8

The promotion of toleration and harmony among different religious sects and of kindness towards animal life were two particular aspects of Dharma to which Aśoka gave very special attention. The twelfth Rock-Edict sets forth the principles of religious toleration in very clear terms and constitutes one of the noblest documents of human history and we are justified in citing the edict in full⁵.

c11.s37.9

⁵ ib. p. 21.

c11.s37.10

“King Devānāmpriya Priyadarśin is honouring all sects (*pāshaṇḍas*) : both ascetics and householders ; both with gifts and with honours of various kinds he is honouring them. But Devānāmpriya does not value either gifts or honours so highly as this viz., that a promotion of the essentials (*sāra-vṛddhi*) should take place. But a promotion of the essentials is possible in many ways. But the root is this, viz., guarding one’s speech (*vaco-gupti*), i.e. that neither praising one’s own sect nor blaming other sects should take place on improper occasions, or that it should be moderate in every case. But other sects ought to be duly honoured in every case.

c11.s37.11

“If one is acting thus, he is both promoting his own sect and benefiting other sects. If one is acting otherwise than thus, he is both hurting his own sect and wronging other sects as well. For whosoever praises his own sect or blames other sects—all this out of devotion to his own sect, (i.e.) with the view of glorifying his own sect,—if he is acting thus, he rather injures his own sect very severely.

c11.s37.12

“Therefore concord alone is meritorious, (i.e.), that they should both hear and obey each other’s morals (Dharma). For this is the desire of Devānāmpriya, (viz.) that all sects should be full of learning (*bahuśrutāḥ*), and should be pure in doctrine (*kalyāṇāgamāḥ*).

c11.s37.13

“And those who are attached to their respective sects ought to be spoken to as follows : Devānāmpriya does not value either gifts or honours so highly as this, (viz.) that a promotion of the essentials (*sārvaddhi*) of all sects should take place. And many officers are occupied for this purpose, (viz.) the Mahāmātras of morality, the Mahāmātras controlling women, the inspectors of cowpens, and other classes of officials. And this is the fruit of it, (viz.) that both the promotion of one’s own sect takes place, and the glorification of Morality (*Dharmasya ca dīpanā*).”

c11.s37.14

The universality of Aśoka’s toleration, and his realisation of the limits set by common human nature to the success of his policy are best seen in his words in the seventh Rock-Edict¹ : ‘King Devānāmpriya Priyadarśin desires that all sects may reside everywhere. For all these desire both self-control and purity of mind. But men possess various desires and various passions. Either they will fulfil the whole or they will fulfil only a portion (of their duties)’. Some more details regarding the particular sects and the attention given to them by Aśoka’s officials are vouchafed by the Seventh Pillar-Edict, and these have been noticed already in connection with the duties of the various classes of Mahāmātras².

c11.s37.15

¹ *ib.* p. 14 VII A-D. cf. PE. VI D-E. *ib.* p. 129 :

c11.s37.16

² *Ante* p. 225 and n. 2.

c11.s37.17

In the ninth Rock-Edict Aśoka deprecates the observance of vulgar and useless (*kṣudra* and *nirarthaka*) ceremonies, particularly by women on sundry occasions as during illness, at marriage or child-birth, when setting out on a journey and so on. He wants such fruitless *mangalas* to be reduced to a minimum and that people should devote themselves more and more to the real *mangala* which is the practice of Dharma¹.

c11.s37.18

¹ Hultzsch pp. 38-9. Jayaswal shows that Mangalas often involved sacrifices of birds and beasts (JBORS. iv pp. 144-7).

c11.s37.19

That men should treat animals kindly and not inflict pain on them unnecessarily was as much the concern of Aśoka as that they should preserve concord among themselves. He became a wholehearted adherent of the doctrine of *ahiṃsā*, and devised several regulations for the encouragement of its practice and the prevention of cruelty to animals. In the first Rock-Edict Aśoka forbids the slaughter and sacrifice of animals in his territory and the holding of all *samājas* (festive gatherings) except those considered meritorious by him. He also states that whereas formerly hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day in the royal kitchen for the sake of curry (*sūpārthāya*), only three animals were slaughtered at the time the edict was being issued, viz., two peacocks and one deer, but even the deer not regularly, and that in future even these animals would not be killed². Aśoka, it will be noticed, does not impose any restrictions on others which he does not put upon himself, and in this edict we seem to find what was perhaps the most decisive step in the acceptance of vegetarianism by considerable sections of the Indian population outside the Jaina community. The prohibition of animal sacrifice has been viewed by some writers as a measure of intolerance directed against Brahmanism; doubtless Vedic sacrifices involving the killing of live animals fell under the prohibition, and to that extent it must count as virtually a hindrance to the practice of Vedic religion; but its importance is easily exaggerated. The primacy of Vedic religion in all India was by no means as well assured in Aśoka's time as it became since; the followers of Vedic religion were themselves debating if the time had not come for a change in sacrificial practice giving up the immolation of live victims; and in any case the number of such sacrifices would never have been very great as the smallest *paśuyāga* is a costly business, and the practical inconvenience caused by the prohibition would have been very little; lastly, for every victim in a brahminical sacrifice, there would have been hundreds of victims sacrificed in the worship of lesser godlings by the mass of the populace who were still largely addicted to relatively primitive types of worship, and the prohibition affected them much more than the upper strata of society and religion. Likewise the *samājas* that were prohibited were occasions for the slaughter of numerous animals for feeding the large numbers that gathered together and made merry on such occasions ; there was another type of *samājas* approved of Aśoka where semi-religious theatrical and other shows like representations of aerial chariots, of elephants, of *agniskandhas* and other divine figures, instructed and edified the assemblies, and these were actively encouraged¹. All the prohibitions of the First Rock-Edict had therefore no other object in view than to minimise the destruction of animal life.

c11.s37.20

² Hultzsch p. 2.

c11.s37.21

¹ Cf. Smith, *Aśoka* (3) p. 159 and RE. IV B, Hultzsch p. 7.

c11.s37.22

The second Rock-Edict details the arrangements made by Aśoka within his empire and beyond its borders for the convenience of man and beast ; they consisted primarily in the provision of medical treatment (*cikitsā*) and gardens of medicinal herbs (*oshadhini*) beneficial to both. This provision was made in the words of the Edict, ‘everywhere in the dominions of King Devānāmpriya Priyadarśin, and likewise among his borderers such as the Choḍas, the Pāṇḍyas, the Satiyaputa, the Ketala puta, even Tāmraparṇi, the Yona king Antiyoka, and also the kings who are the neighbours of this Antiyoka.’ The location of Satiyaputa has not yet been satisfactorily settled²; but Ketalaputa, for which we have Keralaputra in Mānsehrā, is doubtless the Malabar country. Besides medical aid being made available everywhere, wells with flights of steps leading to the water were caused to be dug at intervals of eight *kos* (nine miles) along the roads, and banyan trees and mango groves planted for the use of cattle and men ; and numerous drinking-places (*āpāna*) were also established in addition³.

c11.s37.23

² Smith's latest surmise on Satiyaputa viz., that ‘in all probability it is represented by the Satyamangalam Taluk or sub-division of the Coimbatore district’, and the reasons urged by him in favour of it (*Aśoka* 3 p. 161) can hardly be accepted. D. R. Bhandarkar's reference to the current Maratha surname Sātpute sounds more convincing, but Aśoka's Satiyaputa was a kingdom definitely somewhere in South India, and so far as I can see nowhere in Mahārāṣṭra. Cf. Hultzsch p. 3 n. 7 See also ‘South India and Ceylon’ post.

c11.s37.24

³ RE. II D (p. 4) : PE VII R-T (pp. 134-5) and II E, (p. 121).

c11.s37.25

Aśoka suppressed the time-honoured institution of the Royal Hunt¹ of which we get a detailed account from Megasthenes. The final development of Aśoka's policy of *ahiṃsā* took the shape of a very elaborate code of regulation and restriction of the slaughter and mutilation of birds and animals. This code, which is set forth in the fifth Pillar-Edict ends by mentioning the twenty-five annual releases of prisoners that had already taken place. In both respects, Aśoka seems to have amplified the traditional practices known to the *Arthaśāstra* and mentioned there particularly in the chapters on the Superintendent of slaughter-houses and on the pacification of newly conquered territory². Aśoka's code begins with the absolute prohibition of the slaughter of a long list of birds and animals which among others includes parrots, bulls set at liberty³, and she-goats, ewes and sows either with young or in milk, and their young ones which are less than six months old. It continues; 'Cocks must not be caponed. Husks containing living animals must not be burnt. Forests must not be burnt either uselessly or in order to destroy living beings. Living animals must not be fed with other living animals.' After this catalogue of total prohibitions, there follow restrictions to be observed on specified holy days making up a good fraction of the year : 'Fish are inviolable, and must not be sold, on the three *Cāturmāsīs* and on the Tiṣya full-moon during three days, (viz.) the fourteenth, the fifteenth and the first *tithi*, and invariably on every fast day. And during these same days also no other classes of animals which are in the elephant-park (*nāga-vana*) and in the preserves of the fisherman (*kaivarta-bhoga*), must be killed.' Lastly the castration of bulls, he-goats, rams and boar was forbidden on all holy days, and so too the branding of horses and bullocks, practices which Aśoka did not consider it practicable to prohibit altogether. Though based on ancient tradition, this code bears on it the impress of Aśoka's mind, and it applied to the whole of his empire. Its strict enforcement in all its details must have been found difficult; but, though no sanctions are stated in the Code, as in the Arthaśāstra, it was certainly much more than the expression of pious wishes on the part of the emperor, and must have gone far towards the realisation of the practical objects Aśoka had in view; the rules were only elaborations of practices already well known in the land, and they could not have been felt as a vexatious interference with the details of daily life.

c11.s37.26

¹ RE. VII A-D, Hultzsch p. 37.

c11.s37.27

² Hultzsch pp. 127-8 and n. 8 on p. 128. Also *Arthaśāstra* II 26, and XIII 5.

c11.s37.28

³ Evidently other bulls and cows are not included in the protected list : all cows and bulls are so included in the *Arthaśāstra* which lays down : *Vatso vṛṣo dhenuścaīṣām avadhyāḥ ghnataḥ pañcāśatko daṇḍaḥ, kliṣṭaghātam ghātayataśca* i.e. calves, bulls and cows shall not be slaughtered. Whoever kills them or causes them to be killed with torture shall be fined fifty Paṇas'. Opinion on beef-eating was apparently in a fluid state in the Mauryan epoch, and while the *Arthaśāstra* forbids it, Aśoka's edict does not appear to do so. See also Hultzsch p. 127, n. 8, and Smith's *Aśoka* 3 pp. 206-7.

c11.s37.29

The Dharma of Aśoka was thus a practical code of social ethics, and had little to do with religion or theology as such; and the emperor showed in many ways that he attached the greatest importance to the practice of the virtues he commended to his subjects. He lays stress on śīla (conduct); points out how easy it is to fall into evil ways and how difficult it is, particularly for the highly placed, to be always well-behaved. He deprecates evil passions like fierceness, cruelty, anger, pride, envy, and warns all against being led to commit evil deeds by the force of such passions. He praises dhammadāna (the gift of morality) as the highest of gifts, and exhorts friends and relations, even neighbours, to practise mutual help by telling one another as occasion demanded: 'This is meritorious, this ought to be done.' He recognises the immensity of the task of the moral regeneration of a whole nation, and says in the epilogue to the fourteen Rock-Edicts: 'My dominions are wide, and much has been written, and I shall cause still more to be written. And some of this has been stated again and again because of the charm of certain topics and in order that men should act accordingly'. And he recognises the superiority of conversion due to moral education to administrative regulation as a means of moral upliftment, and avers his faith in the Seventh Pillar-Edict: 'Now this progress of morality among men has been promoted by me only in two ways, viz. by moral restrictions (dhamma-niyama) and conversion (nijhati). But among these two, those moral restrictions are of little consequence; by conversion, however, morality is promoted more considerably'. Above all he reinforced his exhortations by his untiring personal example; he gave up the traditional pleasure tours (vihārayātras) in which royal hunt was included, and substitued dharmayātras (tours of morality) in their place, and explained their object thus: ‘On these tours the following takes place, (viz.) visiting Brāhmaṇas and Śramaṇas and making gifts to them, visiting the aged and supporting them with gold, visiting the people of the country, instructing them in morality, and questioning them about morality’¹. And he repeatedly expresses the hope that his sons and grandsons will follow his steps in promoting morality among men.

c11.s37.30

¹ For emphasis on śīla RE. IV H, F : difficulty of practising virtue RE. V B-C, PE I C; for the high in particular RE. X E-F. Easy to sin RE. V G : evil due to passions PE. III F; Dharmadāna praised RE. IX J-L; B, D., E. epilogue RE. xiv : restriction vs. conversion PE. VII J-NN : Dharmayātras RE. VIII A-D. Sons and grandsons RE iv F, V E, VI M. Further the following passages are also of interest : PE. VI B stating that engraving of Dhamma-lipis began in thirteenth year after abhiṣeka : ib. C. on king’s attention to his relatives : PE VII J-L and P on active preaching of morality among the people.

c11.s37.31

Aśoka, then, was a great monarch whose reign constitutes one of those ‘rare and lightning epochs’ in the annals of nations when a people is vouchsafed a glimpse of happiness, perceived, if not possessed. His greatness lay in his early and clear realisation of the values of human life, and in his endeavouring strenuously throughout his life to rouse India to listen to the call of moral life she received through him. He did much for Buddhism, and his memory has been kept green through the ages in all the vast lands where Buddhist tradition has prevailed to this day; towards the close of the thirteenth century A. D., the Burmese recognised an old Caitya in Bodh Gayā as one of the 84,000 caityas built by Siri Dhammāśoka when 218 years of the era of the Lord Buddha had passed away³.

c11.s37.32.1

But was Aśoka monk and monarch at the same time? Did he accept the position and exercise the duties of the Head of the Buddhist Church? Is it correct to describe his activity as ‘not so much that of a pious Emperor as of an archbishop possessed of exceptional temporal power’³? Such statements derive little support except from false analogies and wrong interpretations of the inscriptions of the reign. Aśoka’s edicts, great as is their value, are not concerned with public affairs, but only with one aspect, though indeed a very important one, of Aśoka's work as ruler—the promotion of Dharma. They are in fact what he calls them, Dharma-lipis. And this Dharma, though inspired by Aśoka's conversion to Buddhism and coloured by the practical ethics so characteristic of that faith, was hardly more distinctive of Buddhism than of any other Indian faith. Again, a church in the strict sense of the term, organised on hierarchical lines, and owning allegiance to a central authority, the Buddhist Saṅgha was not; there was no room for the Head of the Church in an organisation which comprised an infinite number of independent vihāras which were united in their professing a common faith in the triratna (Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha), but regulated themselves each according to their own views of Dhamma and Vinaya.

c11.s37.32.2

Aśoka's letter to the Saṅgha (the Calcutta-Bairat inscription or Bhābrū edict as it is called) commending seven scriptural passages to them, far from asserting royal authority, is couched in the most respectful terms and ends with the statement: 'I desire, sirs, that many groups of monks and many nuns may repeatedly listen to these expositions of Dhamma and may reflect on them. In the same way both laymen and laywomen should act. For the following purpose, Sirs, am I causing this, to be written, (viz.) in order that they may know my intention'¹. Surely this expression of opinion on the part of the great king, coming from him at the conclusion of his study of Dhamma, with the aid of the Saṅgha and the reflection that followed upon it, would have been received with all the respect it merited; but this is hardly an instance of the use of authority of any kind, royal or ecclesiastical. The edict on Saṅghabheda can with better justice be regarded as use of royal authority, for in plain terms it orders the officials of the civil administration to see that within their respective jurisdictions all schismatic monks are expelled from the Saṅgha, compelled to wear white robes, and driven to live in places not suited for the residence of monks (avāsa)². But here the authority of the king was obviously invoked by the Saṅgha which had recently experienced great difficulty by the intrusion of undesirable elements within its fold;

c11.s37.32.3

a Council had been held and a fresh settlement of the affairs reached; not feeling equal to the task of securing its proper observance without the aid of the secular arm, the Saṅgha appealed to the State for aid, and got it; the assistance which Aśoka gave to the Saṅgha in such circumstances, he would have given to any other corporate body which suffered similarly at the hands of assailants from outside. Lastly the evidence for Aśoka's taking orders is very meagre. The phrase *Saṅgham-upa-i* in the Minor Rock-Edict is too vague to convey the precise idea of ordination (*pabbajjā*) which must have been well established by Aśoka's time. And the situation of a king turning monk while retaining the life and prerogatives of royalty is incompatible with all our notions of ancient monachism. And the *Mahāvaṃsa* says that in his message to the king of Ceylon Aśoka said that he had become ‘lay-disciple in the religion of the Śākya son’¹. And barring the vague phrase in the Minor Rock-Edict there is no other evidence in favour of Aśoka's ordination than that centuries afterwards I-tsing records his having seen an image of the emperor in monastic robes. This image may be satisfactorily explained in one of two ways: either Aśoka may have worn the robes of a monk whenever he visited the Saṅgha for listening to the exposition of Dhamma, an act of courtesy to the members of the Saṅgha which was commemorated by such an image;

Linked texts (2)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Pillar Edicts of Aśoka (Edicts I–IV) (ed. Bühler 1894) — Prakrit

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.s37: Aśoka's Dharma

Contents

Aśoka's Dharma

Linked texts (2)