Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c11: Chapter VII. Sec. i. The Concept of Dharma

The Mauryan Polity c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Sec. i. The Concept of Dharma

c11.1

No question is more difficult to answer than the question—what is the true concept of *dharma* as understood and realised in the epoch of Hindu India? This question has been raised by a number of distinguished scholars, but it is still a problem requiring a definite answer.

c11.2

(As a tentative definition *dharma* may be taken to mean the totality of duties expected of every individual to his family, community, country, and God.) The Vedas were believed to be revealed texts, and are still so believed, and hence whatever is ordained in them is absolute truth which ought to be pursued even at the sacrifice of one’s life. The doctrines and rules found scattered in these works of high antiquity came to be generally known as the vedic *dharma*. It is also known as the *śrauta dharma*. These were in a highly technical language, the interpretation of which required special skill and expert knowledge. Hence the ancient sages and seers of this land felt called upon to impart this hidden knowledge to the masses by reducing them to an easily understandable style. This was the attempt of the different authors of the *Dharmasūtras* and the *Dharmaśāstras*. When these, what are now called Brahmanical codes, became popular, the *smārta* *dharma* became the accepted and accredited *dharma* for both the ecclesiastic and the laity. While the *vedic dharma* was essentially religious, the *smārta dharma* constituted visible lay elements, though the religious element was still predominant.¹ From the statement that the *vedic dharma* was religious, it must not be taken that no lay element was in it. It was there but not predominating.

c11.3

¹ See Vāyu Purāṇa, Ch. 57, st. 39-46.

Smārta dharma

c11.t1.1

The *smārta dharma* or the *dharma* of the Law-codes was, then, an analysis of the symbolic *dharma* of the Vedic texts. The classification was secular and religious as well. But according to the old conception, nothing was purely secular, for the latter bore the tinge, a distinct tinge of religion to support it. The *dharma* of the Law-codes may be reduced broadly to two divisions: the *rājadharma* and the *prajādharma*, in other words, the duties of the state and the duties of the subjects. The *prajādharma* was the following of *svadharma* by every individual member of the society according to the rules prescribed. These came to be known as the *sanātana dharma*, the *dharma* for all times and for all places. The *rājadharma* came in to aid the progressive march of this *sanātana dharma* into accomplishment, by clearing the roads which lead to it, of the weeds and thorns, which might otherwise hamper the welfare and happiness of the world. Notwithstanding the trifle differences in doctrines these *dharmas* were common to orthodox as well as to heterodox sects prevalent then in the land, like the Buddhists, the Jains, the Ājivikas and others.

The dharma of Buddhism

c11.t2.1

Perhaps what the late Professor Rhys Davids meant in speaking for the *dharma* of Buddhism is equally applicable to the Brahmanical notion, and may we add, even Jaina conception. "*Dharma* is not simply law but that which underlies and includes the law, a word often most difficult to translate and best rendered by truth or righteousness."¹ It is a difficult and intricate labour to attempt anything like a distinction as regards the conception of *dharma* according to the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jaina literature. In fact there is a significant statement in the *Aṅguttaranikāya*² according to which the *dharma* to the Buddha was the *dharma* formulated by the ancient seers and sages, like Devala and Asita. It is the correct estimate of Prof. Keith who remarks "Nor in choosing the term *dharma* for the system, was Buddhism without *Upaniṣad* precedent; the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka*³ tells that Brahman created the *Dharma* than which nothing is higher, and the *Mahānārāyaṇa*⁴ asserts that the whole universe is encircled by the *dharma* than which there is nothing harder to describe."⁵ The concept of *dharma* can generally be viewed from two standpoints, namely, the standpoint of ethics and that of the doctrine. Examined under these particulars the coincidences are something striking, something phenomenal, that they defy a student of comparative religion to draw any line of demarcation.

c11.t2.2

¹ *Buddhism*, p. 45.

c11.t2.3

² II, p. 51.

c11.t2.4

³ I, pp. 4-14.

c11.t2.5

⁴ Bk. XXI, ch. 6.

c11.t2.6

⁵ *Religion and Philosophy of the Veda*, Vol. II, p. 550.

Views of Dr. Jacobi

c11.t3.1

The ripe scholar Hermann Jacobi who is competent to speak with authority on these matters has justification for holding the opinion which we quote below:

c11.t3.2

"From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Jaina monk it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. It may be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikku who himself was but a copy of the Sannyāsin. This suggestion is not a probable one, for, there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Jainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists."¹ We see that the germs of dissenting sects like those of the Buddhists and the Jainas were contained in the institute of the fourth *āśrama*, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects; therefore Buddhism and Jainism must be regarded "as religions developed out of Brahmanism, not by a sudden reformation, but prepared by a religious movement going on for a long time."²

c11.t3.3

¹ Jaina Sūtras, Pt. I, Intro., p. 29. S.B.E., Vol. XXII.

c11.t3.4

² Ibid., p. 32.

Jainism and Buddhism, only monastic sects

c11.t4.1

This means that the Vedic doctrines and ethics formed the convenient model for the Jainas and the Buddhists to copy. As a matter of fact, in the period of which we are now speaking, there were no religious systems, such as Jainism and Buddhism, though one cannot deny that there were monastic sects embracing the ideas and ideals inculcated by the founders, Mahāvīra and Gautama. These monastic sects had not yet spread to the extent so as to assume the dimensions of what one may ordinarily understand by the term religion. Elsewhere this point has been examined¹ in extenso, and suffice it to say here that the history of Buddhism in the Mauryan epoch was still the story of the monastic sect looking for royal patronage and affording no locus standi to a lay man. If at this time Buddhism did not attain the status of a religion in the technical sense of the term,² it then naturally follows that Aśoka’s conversion to that faith becomes a fiction. For, the examination of Aśoka’s religion much depends on the evidential conclusion of the larger question whether there is justification for the assumption that Buddhism had been recognised as a religion, different from the established religion of the land. And yet we have strange, but as we shall soon point out, incredible stories about Candragupta becoming a Jaina, and Aśoka turning now to Jainism, and now to Buddhism.

c11.t4.2

¹ See the author's article on 'The Early History of Buddhism in India,' Bombay Hist. Society, Vol. II, pt. 1.

c11.t4.3

² Kern, Manual of Ind. Buddhism, p. 50.

Sec. ii. Dharma and the State

Religion and politics

c11.s1.t1.1

Before we actually enter into the subject of the religion of the Mauryas, personal religion as well as state religion, it would be better if we would try to understand and realise the exact position of the Mauryan state in relation to dharma. A state and its institutions are, if judged by modern notions of polity, secular. They aim at human welfare, moral and material. But the concept of dharma connotes a religious significance that permeates the whole. Did religion, then, function in politics? Did religion largely guide and control the state policy and administration? These are indeed questions which require a satisfactory answer. It must be taken as a matter of fact that religion, to the extent it meant dharma, law and morality, exercised a moderate and healthy influence on ancient Indian polity and politics. It had a smoothening effect on the machinery of administration. Dharma, doctrinal or ethical, was considered to be the eternal law as against the man-made law of our legislature.

Ancient conception of law

c11.s1.t2.1

The ancient Indian conception of law was that it was something superhuman, and something transcendental. A great amount of sacredness was attached to it, not only by the people but also by the ruler with the result that law became the king of kings,¹ the kṣatra of the kṣatra. According to the Vedic tradition, which was handed down in unbroken succession, there is nothing higher than dharma, the observance of which will tend to universal moral welfare, and righteousness of a general kind. If we are to accept the definition of the term by the philosopher Kaṇāda that dharma is the source of material welfare in this world and spiritual welfare in the other,² then it is easy to realise the full import attached to it especially by the reigning sovereigns of the land. If the state emerged from a well-established society for the welfare of that society, and if the state represented the common will of that society, by upholding principles which tended to the common good and the common welfare, (the *yogakṣema* of the Hindu literature),¹ then necessarily that institution which we call state, must take cognisance of the social order, peculiar to that society, and function in such a way that that social order is maintained intact, and that an orderly progress is the ultimate result.

c11.s1.t2.2

¹ Bṛhad. Up., I-IV, 11-14; Chānd. Up., 11-23, 1-2.

c11.s1.t2.3

² Vaiśeṣika Sūtras 1, 1-2.

c11.s1.t2.4

¹ See in this connection the interpretation of the phrase *ityai artham* occurring in the *Ṛg Veda* in the *Economiques et Politiques Dans L'Inde Ancienne*, by H. C. Joshi, pp. 17-18 (Paris, 1928).

c11.s1.t2.5

With this end in view ancient Indian writers on polity rightly based their theories of state and its institutions on the lines of the *dharma* of the land. It proved an effective check on the arbitrary conduct of the monarch. For, the latter was expected to rule and reign according to the established law of the country. Transgression of that law would lead in the first instance to revolt from people, and ultimately to revolution and anarchy, disturbing the peace and security of the people.

c11.s1.t2.6

The primary function of the state was, according to the *Arthaśāstra*, the upkeep of the social *sthiti* or in other words, the maintenance of the social order. Society, in those days was divided into castes and orders, the castes being an economic classification on the principle of the division of labour. Castes were, therefore, so many occupational groups with this peculiar difference that these occupations were to be deemed hereditary. Viewed from an economic point of view the motive for this classification cannot be questioned, for, it drove the last nail into the coffin of economic ills.

c11.s1.t2.7

The competitive principle, as we experience to-day, produces more of evil than good. This was avoided by the principle known as *svadharma*, so much insisted on by Indian writers, secular or religious. This is the very principle on which the author of the *Arthaśāstra* has worked out the theory of the State. The *svadharma* of the king is to endeavour and protect the people according to *dharma* or law.¹ And the fruit of such *svadharma* is the attainment of heaven. This is exactly what the authors of the *Dharmasūtras* and *Dharmaśāstras* have prescribed.² The *Arthaśāstra* clearly states that the social polity, entitled *varṇāśrama dharma*, and the prosecution by the king of his duty demanded that the castes and the orders did not err from the ordained path, but pursued the path of *dharma* by sticking on to their own duties. This shows that the state punished that member of the society who gave up his own *dharma* and interfered with the *dharma* of the other communities. In a word the state expected every citizen to discharge his obligations according to the *dharma* of his caste and order.

c11.s1.t2.8

¹ Bk. III, ch. 1.

c11.s1.t2.9

² Āp. II, pp. 25-15; Baud. 1, 18, 1; Manu, VII.2; Yāj., I-335, etc. Also the article on '*Dharmaśāstra* and *Arthaśāstra*' by Dr. Winternitz, in *Sir Asutosh Memorial Volume*, Patna, esp. pp. 31-32.

c11.s1.t2.10

*The doctrine of Trivarga*

c11.s1.t2.11

We thus gather that the *dharma* of the state was to see that the respective *dharmas* of the people were followed and to exercise the rod of punishment towards him or her who would misbehave. Hence the *Mahābhārata* views the *dharma* of the state or the *kṣatra dharma* superior to all other *dharmas*.³ *Dharma* then, is the composite expression which, if properly analysed, will be the means for and the end of the progressive realisation of the *trivarga* or the *muppāl* of Tamil literature. This term is significant in more than one respect. It includes *dharma*, *artha*, and *kāma*. In other words every citizen of the state, whether male or female, was to pursue his or her *dharma*, which was the *svadharma* or the peculiar duties which he or she owed to the society at large. In performing these duties, let him or her use *artha* and *kāma*, so far as they help him or her to realise this object, namely, the fulfilment of his or her obligations. Over-indulgence would lead to the misuse of power with the result that there would be a conflict as regards the relations which exist among these three factors of life. The object underlying the principle of *trivarga* is the attainment of the last aim in life, namely, *mokṣa* or salvation, one form of which is heavenly bliss in after life. Life to the ancient Hindus of all faiths including the Buddhists and Jainas was a race to be run and the goal was absolute freedom from the fetters of the mundane world. The people required material comforts and welfare so as to realise this end. Towards this end the state came to function by looking after their material and moral welfare. These are exactly the motives which underlie the political philosophy of the *Kauṭalīya*. Kauṭalya envisages a social order of castes, and pinning his faith in the *trivarga* and the *caturvarga*, he prescribes means and methods by which the social order should be maintained. The means and methods laid down are *dharmaic* in the sense that they help the people to realise their chief aims in life. It is reasonable to assume that this idea must have profoundly influenced the administration of the first Mauryan emperor and his son, not to speak of Aśoka.

c11.s1.t2.12

³ Śānti 64, 6; 62, 30; 63, 29.

c11.s1.t2.13

*Sec. iii. AŚOKA'S DHARMA*

c11.s1.t2.14

*The practical aspect*

c11.s1.t2.15

The *dharma* of Aśoka's inscriptions has a twofold aspect—the practical and the doctrinal.¹ Under the first category come:

c11.s1.t2.16

¹ See Mookerjee, *Aśoka*, p. 194.

c11.s1.t2.17

1 Dutifulness (*śusrūṣā*) to parents.²

c11.s1.t2.18

² R.E. III, IV, XI, XIII and P.E. VII

c11.s1.t2.19

2. Reverence to elders³ and teachers.⁴

c11.s1.t2.20

³ R.E. IV.

c11.s1.t2.21

⁴ R.E. XIII, P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.22

3. Dutifulness towards superiors⁵ *aghrabhūti*. The rendering of this term as 'men of high caste, or pay' is not convincing.

c11.s1.t2.23

⁵ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.24

4. Regard for Brahmans and Śramaṇas⁶ (*saṃpratipatti*). The term Śramaṇa means ascetic in the broad sense. It does not mean, as has been taken by almost all scholars, heretical sects of ascetics. Śramaṇa in Sanskrit literature of the period of our study is an equivalent and synonym for the *parivrājaka*, whatever might have been its meaning in later times. This *parivrājaka* is the Hindu Sannyāsin of the orthodox type. The term has been unfortunately taken to mean Buddhist and Jaina monks. But more of this later on.

c11.s1.t2.25

⁶ R.E. IV, P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.26

5. Regard for family relationships.⁷ 6. Kind treatment of slaves (*dāsa*) and servants (*bhaṭaka*).¹

c11.s1.t2.27

⁷ M.R.E. II, R.E. IV, and XIII.

c11.s1.t2.28

¹ R.E. IX, XI, XIII and P.E. VII. ² P.E. VII. ³ R.E. XIII. ⁴ R.E. III, VIII, IX and XI. ⁵ R.E. III and XI. ⁶ R.E. VIII. ⁷ R.E. III, IV, XI and P.E. VII. ⁸ R.E. IX. ⁹ *Corpus*, p. 176. ¹⁰ R.E. IV, P.E. VII. ¹¹ R.E. XIII. ¹² P.E. II and VII. ¹³ P.E. II and VIII. ¹⁴ P.E. II and VIII.

c11.s1.t2.29

7. Kindness to the poor and the suffering (*kapa-na-valāka*).²

c11.s1.t2.30

8. Regard for friends, relatives, and others.³

c11.s1.t2.31

9. Gifts (*dānam*) to Brahmans and ascetics.⁴

c11.s1.t2.32

10. Gifts for friends (*mitra*), acquaintances (*saṃstuta*), and relations (*jñāti*).⁵

c11.s1.t2.33

11. Gifts of wealth to the aged.⁶

c11.s1.t2.34

12. *prāṇānāṃ anārambha*⁷ translated as ‘abstention from slaughter of living beings,’ *pāṇeṣu sayamo*⁸ translated as ‘restraint of violence towards living beings.’ Again in M.R.E. (II) there occurs *prāṇeṣu drahyitavyam*.⁹

c11.s1.t2.35

13. Non-injury to living beings (*vihimsā bhū-tānām*).¹⁰

c11.s1.t2.36

14. *Sava-bhūtānāṃ achhatim*¹¹ or non-violence towards all creatures.

c11.s1.t2.37

Thus the practice of *dharma* involved virtuous qualities of *dayā* or sympathy,¹² *dāna* or gifts, *satya* or truthfulness¹³ *śaucam* or purity of mind and body,¹⁴ mārdavam or kindliness,¹ sādhutā or goodness,² apavyayatā and apabhandata or economy in expenditure and in saving,³ samyama or restraint of the senses,⁴ bhāvaśuddhi or honesty of purpose,⁵ kṛtajñatā or gratefulness,⁶ dṛḍhabahktitā or abiding loyalty⁷ and dharmarati or morality in act and deed.⁸ To these are added also dharma-kāmatā or a desire to act righteously, parīkṣā or confidence in ones' own self, śusrūṣā or dutifulness, bhaya or fear of wrong action, and utsāha or enthusiasm.⁹ While the positive aspect of Aśoka's dharma consisted in doing good things,¹⁰ the negative aspect constituted in apariśravam or not doing evil deeds¹¹ generally caused by a host of dispositions like rage, cruelty, wrath, pride, and envy.¹²

c11.s1.t2.38

¹ R.E. XIII P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.39

² P.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.40

³ R.E. III.

c11.s1.t2.41

⁴ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.42

⁵ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.43

⁶ R.E. VII.

c11.s1.t2.44

⁷ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.45

⁸ R.E. XIII.

c11.s1.t2.46

⁹ P.E. I.

c11.s1.t2.47

¹⁰ bahūni kayānāni, P.E. II. Corpus, pp. 120-121.

c11.s1.t2.48

¹¹ R.E. X.

c11.s1.t2.49

¹² P.E. III, see Mookerjee, Aśoka, p. 71.

The doctrinal aspect

c11.s1.t3.1

In the category of the doctrinal aspect of Aśoka's dharma the doctrine of toleration occupies the first place. Every man was allowed religious liberty so far it did not undermine the social order. The next was that special care was taken to promote the noble virtues of all his subjects irrespective of their faith. The term kalāṇāgama of the inscriptions may be equated with the kalyāṇaguṇa of the Hindu literature.¹³

c11.s1.t3.2

¹³ See Bhagavad-Gīta, Chap. VI, st. 40; R.E. XII (Girnār), Corpus, pp. 20-21.

c11.s1.t3.3

Aśoka’s special insistence on the moral and ethical relations¹ among men and women because of the fleeting nature of life, has been taken by some scholars to mean that Aśoka had no respect for the rituals and ceremonials pertaining to the religion of the land. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Aśoka condemned them. Insistence on a general principle is not the negation of the existing practices. For example, the Bhagavad Gītā which insists on the svadharma so much in all its eighteen chapters concludes by saying “Give up all dharmas. Identify yourself with me. I shall emancipate you from the bondage of all sins.” On this account can we say that the Gītā teaches here against the practice of dharmas and prescribes giving them up? Certainly not. This is exactly the position with regard to the moral precepts of the Aśokan inscriptions.

c11.s1.t3.4

¹ R.E. IX.

c11.s1.t3.5

The third was the principle of an all round exertion² as prescribed in the Arthaśāstra. In the opinion of the Kauṭalīya, utthāna is the chief requisite of a monarch. One should exert oneself and cultivate this habit even though one has to sacrifice other qualities (sarvam parityajya). Likewise Aśoka simply glorifies active exertion, but does not recommend a serious giving up of other things.

c11.s1.t3.6

² R.E. X., See the Mahābhārata, Śānti, 57, 14-15.

c11.s1.t3.7

Fourthly, the term dharmadāna³ simply means gift to really deserving persons. Dāna is indeed one of the cardinal principles of the Hindu sanātana dharma; and various restrictions are ordained in the Dharmaśāstras regulating dāna or gift. The law-books do not advise any indiscriminate gift. They draw a line of demarcation between righteous gifts and unrighteous gifts. Aśoka wished that the gifts went for a worthy cause. Charitable and religious institutions were abundant in those days, and no wonder that the state patronised all creeds by helping them. Hence the *stūpas*, *caityas*, and other monuments were raised by the kings of the land whatever be their religious conviction.

c11.s1.t3.8

³ R.E. XI.

c11.s1.t3.9

Fifthly, there are other and similar doctrines such as the doctrine of *dharmavijaya*.¹ The phrase *dharma-vijaya* commonly translated into ‘the conquest by morality’ occurs in the thirteenth Rock Edict, immediately after describing the consequences of the Kaliṅga rebellion where there was heavy slaughter of men including innocents. Those who advocate Buddhism as the faith of Aśoka believe that the emperor susbtituted the ‘conquest by morality’ for the ‘conquest by arms’.² This is interpreted so as to suggest that Aśoka gave up his arms and became a monk, and again the same principle found acceptance with his vassals and neighbours. The general belief, that the preaching and practice of simple virtues like *ahiṃsā* constituted the *dharmavijaya* of Aśoka, is difficult to be accepted for the following reasons:—

c11.s1.t3.10

¹ See above p. 128.

c11.s1.t3.11

² See *Corpus*, Intro., p. 53.

c11.s1.t3.12

1. The Mauryan empire consisted of different peoples and tribes professing different faiths and creeds, and to them the cult of *dharmavijaya* in the sense of complete disarmament as is alleged could not have appealed.

c11.s1.t3.13

2. The Edicts mention that envoys were sent to various kingdoms, which fact shows, if anything at all, that there were extensive international relations between the empire and the frontier as well as the neighbouring kingdoms.

c11.s1.t3.14

3. There is no testimony to believe that Ptolemy, Antiochus, Antigonus, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus preferred ‘conquest by morality’ to conquest by arms. More unconvincing is that the peoples and states outside the pale of the empire like the Coḷa and the Pāṇḍya accepted this cult.

c11.s1.t3.15

4. Aśoka feels satisfied that he has succeeded everywhere by extending the dharmavijaya, but adds that that satisfaction is of little consequence since his goal is the attainment of heaven. If dharmavijaya means ‘conquest by morality’, there is no occasion for Aśoka’s remark that dharmavijaya is of little consequence and the heaven is of much consequence and that is to be won by peaceful means and will be more stable and more effective. To achieve this a separate department was instituted and it was manned by officers called dharma-mahāmātras. Anything relating to this department was prefixed by the term dharma, such as dharma-lipi, dharma-gosha, dharma-maṅgala, dharma-sambandha, etc. Though the details of this department are not found in the Kauṭalīya, yet there is mention in it of some kind of that institution. But Kauṭalya’s recommendations are to a large extent creative and aid to spread a moral atmosphere and a moral force in the administration of the land. In fact, it is laid down that it is the duty of the best of kings to aim at the practice and observance of such moral virtues and qualities. Though this was expected of all the Kṣatriya monarchs, yet those who were occupied more with wars and foreign policy, could have had no time to attend to the internal progress on peaceful lines.

c11.s1.t3.16

6. According to the *Arthaśāstra* the expression *dharmavijaya* is a political term of much significance. There are three kinds of conquering monarchs—the righteous conqueror, the greedy conqueror and the demon-like conqueror. Of these the righteous conqueror is content with mere obeisance which is the acknowledgment of his overlordship¹ by other kings and chieftains.¹ Aśoka who indulged in *asuravijaya*, as for instance, in the Kaliṅga war, took to *dharmavijaya*.²

c11.s1.t3.17

¹ Gaṇapati Śāstri ed., Vol. III, p. 155. See also *Nayacandrika* comm., p. 213, Pun. Sanskrit Series, No. IV.

c11.s1.t3.18

² See for a parallel Yudhiṣṭhira's feeling after the Kurukṣetra incarceration in the *Mahābhārata*.

c11.s1.t3.19

7. This position is confirmed by the Edict itself. "Even (the inhabitants of) the forests which are included in the dominions of Devānāṃpriya, even those he pacifies and converts (instructs?). And they are told of the power to (punish them) which Devānāṃpriya (possesses) in spite of (his) repentance, in order that they may be ashamed (of their crimes) and may not be killed."³

c11.s1.t3.20

³ *Corpus*, p. 69, R.E. XIII, Shāhbāzgārhī.

c11.s1.t3.21

This means that (the forest tribes who were independent or semi-independent, Aśoka was afraid, might or might not acknowledge his overlordship. Hence *dūtas* were sent to them with instructions that, if they did not do obeisance, they would be attacked and killed. This explains unmistakably that Aśoka did not relinquish conquest by arms, for does he not say that he still possessed power to attack them? This is exactly the Kauṭalīyan policy of *dharmavijaya*.⁴ 8. That same Edict of Aśoka instructs that his successors should not abuse their power and engage themselves into deadly wars actuated by the land-grabbing ideal. But, if certain states showed cause for provocation, Aśoka was for engaging in righteous war, where mercy would be shown and light punishment be awarded. Thus runs the Edict: (His successors) "should not think that a fresh conquest ought to be made (that) if a conquest does please them, they should take pleasure in mercy and light punishments, and (that) they should regard the *dharma-vijaya* (conquest by morality) as the only (true) conquest".¹ It is therefore inferable that both the vassal and the independent states felt the might of Aśoka’s arms fully and acquiesced in his overlordship. Hence the proclamation that the whole world has been won over by means of *dharmavijaya*.²

c11.s1.t3.22

⁴ For similar ideas see the Pallava inscription published on p. 51, *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. V.

c11.s1.t3.23

¹ *Corpus*, p. 70.

c11.s1.t3.24

² *ye se(la)dha etakenā hoti savā vi(ja)ye piti-ase(se), Corpus*, p. 46.

c11.s1.t3.25

Aśoka who realised this point of view gave up further pursuit of territorial acquisitions and devoted his full attention to the promotion and prosecution of *dharma*.

c11.s1.t3.26

Attainment of heaven, the end and aim of life

c11.s1.t3.27

What were the guiding motives which impelled these monarchs of old to cling to this ideal? As has been already said, in those days the people believed, just as we do, in *svarga* or heaven, and the end and aim of life was supposed to be the attainment of that heaven. He who could not go to heaven would be condemned to the tortures of hell. Men feared hell and longed for heavenly enjoyment. It was a common belief shared both by the ordinary and aristocratic classes. So far as the Hindu king was concerned there were only two courses open to him to realise this end. One was to fight in the open field and heroically fall in battle. The other was to protect the people and administer justice according to dharma and thus earn heaven by well merited action in this world. The latter course appealed to Aśoka more effectively. "In this scheme of values he considered the other world as of supreme consequence and as the objective of life."¹ In the Rock Edict (X) there is the plain declaration as to why he was doing all that; it is all for the happiness in the next world.² In the Rock Edicts (VI), he re-affirms this by repeating once again that the one great obligation on the part of the ruler is to act in such a manner as would tend to the common good of the world.³

c11.s1.t3.28

¹ R.E. XIII; Mookerjee, Aśoka, p. 75.

c11.s1.t3.29

² Cp. R.E. IV and P.E. IV.

c11.s1.t3.30

³ nā(sti)hi kāmatara(ṃ)sarva-loka-hitatpā, Corpus, p. 12.

c11.s1.t3.31

These sentiments and beliefs are more characteristic of the Brahmanical Hinduism. A student of Sanskrit literature knows that most of the ideas that find expression in the Edicts are in no way new but are found scattered in ancient Hindu literature, especially the didactic epics. The dharma entrusted to the Kṣatriya is something real and fruitful, testifying to one's own self, stable, and tending to the common good.⁴ Perhaps parikṣa in the Edicts stands for ātmasākṣikam of the Śānti parvan, and mahāphala is the phala bhūyiṣṭha of the verse referred to above.

c11.s1.t3.32

⁴ pratyakṣaṃ phalabhūyiṣṭhamātmasākṣikamacchalam| sarvalokahitaṃ dharmaṃ kṣatriyeṣu pratiṣṭhitam|| —Śānti, 63, 5.

c11.s1.t3.33

The *utthānam* and *arthasamtīraṇā* which are said to be the roots of the administration in Edict (VI) are equivalent to the Sanskrit *utthānam* and *arthasamhitānam*. They are the main prescriptions of the Kauṭalīya and the epics. Bhīṣma in addressing Yudhiṣṭhira on the kingly duties says: “Oh Yudhiṣṭhira, you must ever cultivate exertion. Even gods do not help business (*artha*) of those kings devoid of activity.”¹ The *Arthaśāstra* contains similar prescriptions.² In fact Kauṭalya speaks of these as the essential requisites for a government to conduct itself to the satisfaction of its subjects. Much stress is indeed laid on the requisite *utthānam* by the author of the *Arthaśāstra*, for, on it depends the prosecution of state business. These prescriptions show that in the field of political administration as in others Aśoka was merely following the Kauṭalīyan tradition. We may now conclude this portion with Professor Kern’s remarks: “Nothing of Buddhist spirit can be discovered in his state policy. From the very beginning of his reign he was a good prince.”³

c11.s1.t3.34

¹ utthānena sadā putra prayatethā Yudhiṣṭhira| nahyutthānamṛte daivam rājñāmartham prasādhayet|| —Śānti, 55, 14.

c11.s1.t3.35

² “arthasyamūlam utthānam”, Bk. 1, ch. 19.

c11.s1.t3.36

³ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. V, p. 275. See also Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 77-81, where J. Muir gives an analysis of the essay of Prof. Kern on Aśoka’s religion. Cp. *J.R.A.S.*, XII, pp. 238-50, where H. H. Wilson discusses the religion of Aśoka; *J.B.B.R.A.S.*, 1850 and 1853; Burnouf, *Lotus de la Bonne Loi*, Vol. I, Paris, (1925), Appendix X, pp. 628 ff.

Sec. iv. Personal Religion of Candragupta Maurya

c11.s2.1

The above discussion leads us on to the consideration of the personal religion of the chief Mauryan monarchs, and to the consideration whether the embracing of a faith by a king did prejudicially affect the state policy and practice during that period and after. Despite all progress of modern science it is an intricate task to attempt to define the term religion. It is a curious fact that everybody speaks of religion, but nobody is prepared to furnish us with the full meaning connoted by it. The fact is that no two thinkers of any nationality have agreed on a common definition of the term. Hence the term religion like our own popular term *dharma* is used in different senses. This is clear from a reference to the New Oxford Dictionary. It is a point of dispute whether ethics, metaphysics, doctrines, etc., form part of religion. It is a general notion that the kernel of religion consists in the belief in the existence of a personal Supreme God. If this is accepted can we speak of Buddhism as a religion? If it is no religion, then, what is it? Can we compare it to Theism which is reckoned to be a doctrine? If the question how far Buddhism is a religion still looms large in the province of hot controversy, much more was it so when the Buddha sowed the seeds a few centuries before the Christian era.

Buddhism, a child of Hinduism

c11.s2.t1.1

"Buddhism began as a child of Hinduism."¹ So long as it continued to be so pursuing its own philosophic speculation without encroaching upon the region of other sects, and other faiths, it secured the patronage of the state to whatever faith the king at its helm might have personally belonged. Hence it flourished for some centuries in the land of its birth. But it disappeared from the country because it became by slow but sure degrees a misguided child of Hinduism. In other words, when it assumed later on the garb of a serious rival and made an onslaught on its parentage by disowning its vital principles and tenets, the energy of its youth became extinguished. The old parent however was too strong to be supplanted. The result was Buddhism found shelter in countries outside India, though it left behind remnants of it, here and there, in its native home.

c11.s2.t1.2

¹ Gour, *Spirit of Buddhism*, p. 413.

c11.s2.t1.3

*Jainism, a doctrine, not a religion*

c11.s2.t1.4

The same observation is true of another child of Hinduism, namely, Jainism. The influence and range of Jainism were much less than those of Buddhism. The followers of this sect did not seem to have spread beyond the confines of Bihar and Ujjain at the commencement of the Mauryan epoch, though there is testimony to show that towards the end of the reign of Candragupta there was a Jaina migration to South India. In spite of the seeming influence of this movement Jainism was still a sect not in conflict with the settled religion of the land. Jainism was a doctrine, but not a religion. Perhaps it is the correct estimate of the writer who, speaking of the time of Khāravela,¹ remarks "Jainism was yet more of a philosophy than a religion of dissenting Hindus".²

c11.s2.t1.5

¹ 173-160 (B.C.).

c11.s2.t1.6

² J.B.O.R.S., Vol. III, p. 447.

Some assumptions

c11.s2.t2.1

Among the various kings of the Mauryan dynasty we have some authentic records of Candragupta Maurya, Aśoka, and Daśaratha. A critical examination of the documents pertaining to these monarchs leads us to the conclusion somewhat different from what has been generally accepted.

c11.s2.t2.2

Historical investigations have laid bare new materials to reconstruct the history of Ancient India though imagination still plays a significant role owing to the paucity of materials. In spite of a century and more of research we are not yet able to get at plain and reliable history, and one has need to seek the aid of imagination as well. Hence some possible and some probable theories and assumptions are set afloat in the wide sea of India's past. One such assumption is that Candragupta died a Jaina ascetic while Aśoka ended his career as a Buddhist monk. Among the old school of German historians, Lassen, who still holds the field as an acknowledged authority, gives it as his opinion that the Mauryan empire began with a Brahmanical reaction.¹ The Nandas had misused their authority and power so much that both the śāstra and śastra fell into desuetude, and king Dharma seemed transplanted from his exalted throne. Hence Cāṇakya, well-known as Kauṭalya, assisted Candragupta in effecting a revolution. The attempt proved fruitful. The Mauryan dynasty was established. There can be little doubt that Candragupta must have invoked further the assistance of Cāṇakya to guide him in the administration of the empire by awarding to him the office of Chancellorship. From the extant *Arthaśāstra*, of which he was the author, it is transparent that the public religion of the state as well as the personal religion of the Emperor were the same, namely the Brahmanical religion.

c11.s2.t2.3

¹ *Int. Alt.*, II, pp. 209-11.

Evidence of the Arthaśāstra

c11.s2.t3.1

It has been pointed out elsewhere that the *Arthaśāstra* belonged to the school of early Hinduism when the Vedic modes of worship were still extant and when the Vedic sacrifices and rites were yet common.¹ Though it is impossible to build anything like a theory on the disputed phrase *śākyājīvikādīn* still there are scholars who wish to speak of the influence of Buddhism and even Jainism in the *Arthaśāstra*.² There was very little influence, if there was any influence at all. There is no denying the fact that religious speculation was rife in this age owing to the expansion of the philosophic sects of the dissenting Hindus. The prohibition of the *Kauṭalīya* in regard to householders from taking the fourth *āśrama* or *sannyāsa*³ under penalty of punishment may go to prove the fact that the Maurya state extened so much patronage to the members of the ascetic sect by providing for free boarding and perhaps lodging, that every householder found the ascetic life more attractive and more advantageous than that of a family life (*samsāra*) with all its obligations and responsibilities. There are other circumstances in the book to warrant the belief that indiscriminate *sannyāsa* was the order of the day, and that, when once an ascetic did not find it profitable, he turned back to the mundane world. Him the state provided with some means of livelihood by employing him to set purposes, such as to act as a *cāra*, a *gūḍhapuruṣa*. The fact again that Kauṭalya wrote for his king (*narendra*), and the statement that the king gave audience to ascetics, physicians, *ācāryas*, and others from the chamber of the sacred fire (*agnyāgāra*) are further proofs that Candragupta was out and out Brahmanical in his religion. Heretics and members of dissenting sects were also shown due consideration by the state; and toleration was the principal doctrine, in matters religious and social.

c11.s2.t3.2

¹ See *Z.I.I.*, Vol. VII, pt. 2.

c11.s2.t3.3

² See *J.R.A.S.*, 1929.

c11.s2.t3.4

³ Bk. I, ch. 19.

c11.s2.t3.5

According to Tāranātha, the Tibetan historian, Cāṇakya continued to be the chief minister of Bindusāra, son and successor of Candragupta.¹ If this tradition has any basis at all, it must be admitted that the same policy must have been continued and that Bindusāra’s religion must have been the established religion of the land. This is further corroborated by the *Mahāvaṃśa*.

c11.s2.t3.6

¹ See also *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*, ed. Jacobi, p. 62.

Identification of Prabhācandra

c11.s2.t4.1

In his work on *‘Jainism or the Early Faith of Aśoka,’* Thomas says: “the testimony of Megasthenes would likewise seem to imply that Candragupta submitted to the devotional teachings of the Śramaṇas as opposed to the doctrines of the Brahmanas,”² and remarks that Candragupta and his successors Bindusāra, and Aśoka, at least in his early years of his reign, were Jainas, and that it was Aśoka who introduced Jainism in Kashmir as the *Rājatarangiṇī* would have it. The theory that Candragupta adopted the Jaina faith seems to have won the general approval of scholars interested in the subject.¹ The distinguished Mysore Archæologist Rao Bahadur R. Narasimhacāriar (now retired) who has reopened the question after Lewis Rice; and has examined it in the light of literary and other evidences, concludes "the evidence may not be quite decisive, but it may be accepted as a working hypothesis until the contrary is proved by future research."² This theory is built upon two lines of evidence, one that of Megasthenes and the other that of the literary tradition embodied in the sacred books of the Jainas. The latter version seems to have been based on the inscription No. 1 at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa.

c11.s2.t4.2

² P. 23.

c11.s2.t4.3

¹ Jayaswal, J.B.O.R.S., III, p. 452; Smith, Early History, p. 154; C. J. Shah, Jainism in North India, pp. 135-138.

c11.s2.t4.4

² P. 42, Epigraphia Carnatica, Vol. II.

c11.s2.t4.5

It would not be out of place to examine here what is contained in the inscription and what is in the legends. The inscription under notice mentions a Bhadrabāhusvāmin and a Prabhācandra. Lewis Rice ingeniously identified this Prabhācandra with Candragupta Maurya saying that that was the clerical name assumed by him after he became convert to the Jaina faith. Another circumstance in this connection is that this Prabhācandra is called an ācārya or a teacher. This identification of Prabhācandra with Candragupta Maurya is unconvincing, for different reasons.

c11.s2.t4.6

First, Prabhācandra was a Jaina teacher of equal celebrity as the Śrutakevalin Bhadrabāhu.

c11.s2.t4.7

Secondly, a chronological examination of the date of Bhadrabāhu does not fit in with the time of Candragupta Maurya.¹ Dr. Jacobi's researches have led him to assign 170 A.V. as the year of Bhadrabāhu's death.² This works up to 297 B.C., which is generally accepted as the last year of Candragupta's rule and death.³ If this date is accepted and if both Bhadrabāhu and Candragupta died in the same year, no reasonable time would have been assigned to go to the distant Mysore province, and to become a convert and a reputed teacher of the Jaina faith. The legends containing this tradition are those found in the *Br̥hatkathākośa*, *Bhadrabāhucarita*, *Munivamśābhyudaya*, (a Kaṇṇaḍa work c. 1860), and the *Rājāvalikathe* (another Kaṇṇaḍa work of the 18th century). The accounts which find mention in these works do not agree in details. The *Rājāvalikathe*, for example, speaks of a Bhadrabāhu and a supposititious grandson of Aśoka, Candragupta by name, and hence the great grandson of Candragupta I Maurya. The son and grandson of this Candragupta, according to this account, are Simhasena and Bhāskara.⁴ We are not in possession of any other material to speak of a grandson of Aśoka, Candragupta by name. Whatever this may be, the fact remains that it is impossible to confer credibility on the legends.

c11.s2.t4.8

¹ See *Indian Antiquary*, XX, pp. 349-51; XXI, p. 156-ff. *Ep. Ind.* III, p. 171, note; IV, 22.

c11.s2.t4.9

² See *Kalpasūtra*, Intro., p. 13.

c11.s2.t4.10

³ See *C.H.I.*, Vol. I, p. 472.

c11.s2.t4.11

⁴ *In. Ant.*, XXI, p. 157.

c11.s2.t4.12

Thirdly, not only is there conflicting account between legend and legend, but also between the legends and the inscriptions. If due weight is thrown on the side of the inscriptions, no Mauryan king seems involved in this connection. Apparently some Jaina teacher, a faithful disciple of Bhadrabāhu, is celebrated. The only possible conclusion is that all the Jaina tradition in regard to Candragupta Maurya is imaginary romance, and does not belong to the province of sober history. But both the inscriptions at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa and the legends of the Jaina canon are valuable for their statements as to the outbreak of a continued famine and the consequent migration of the Jaina community from the North to the South of India, as far as the Karṇāṭaka country, to settle permanently, and that the movement was led by Bhadrabāhu and his disciple, one Candra or Prabhācandra.

The evidence of Megasthenes

c11.s2.t5.1

Fourthly, the other evidence adduced in support of the theory that Candragupta was a Jaina is the *Indika* of Megasthenes and the writings of other Greek writers. The classical writers uniformly speak of Brahmanas and Śramaṇas (also *pravrajitas*). The same is found mentioned in the Edicts of Aśoka.¹ This only demonstrates the esteem and regard which the Brahmana had from the state both as a householder and as an ascetic. This is quite in keeping with the prescription of the *Arthaśāstra* that he was exempted from taxation, confiscation, corporal punishment, death-penalty, etc.² This was because he was expected to perform sacrifices and other rites to avert calamities, providential or otherwise, by use of spells, magic, and incantations. He was to read the omens, and fix the auspicious and inauspicious seasons for various undertakings by the state. He was above all a teacher. In return for these services he was allowed to have the privileges of a rare order. There is no incompatibility between the Kauṭalīya and the account of Megasthenes in this particular.

c11.s2.t5.2

¹ R.E. XIII; Meg. Fg. XLI, 19.

c11.s2.t5.3

² Bk. IV, ch. 8.

c11.s2.t5.4

Says Megasthenes, “The first is formed by the collective body of the philosophers which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity is pre-eminent over all. For the philosophers being exempted from all public duties are neither the masters nor the servants of others. They are however engaged by private persons to offer sacrifices due in lifetime and to celebrate the obsequies of the dead; for they are believed to be most dear to the gods and to be the most conversant with matters pertaining to Hades. In requital of such sacrifices they receive valuable gifts and privileges. To the people of India at large they also render great benefits; when gathered together at the beginning of the year, they forewarn the assembled multitudes about droughts and wet weather, and also about propitious winds and diseases, and other topics capable of profiting the hearers. Thus the people and the sovereign learning beforehand what is to happen always make adequate provision against a coming deficiency and never fail to prepare beforehand what will help in time of need. The philosopher who errs in his predictions incurs no other penalty than obloquy and he then observes silence for the rest of his life.”¹ From this it is evident that not only was the Brahman a member of the society who fulfilled a sacred function, but a person who was sacred.² The same notion more or less prevailed among the Buddhists also.¹ The Dhammapada has the following statement:—

c11.s2.t5.5

¹ I ,40-43 cp. Frag. XXXIII, 39; XLI, 59: See also *An. Ind. in Class. Literature*, Sec. IX.

c11.s2.t5.6

² *C.H.I.*, Vol. I, p. 484.

c11.s2.t5.7

¹ Vide author's article on the Early History of Buddhism in India, Journal of Bombay Historical Society, Vol. II, pt. 1.

c11.s2.t5.8

"In whom there is truth and righteousness he is blessed, he is a Brahman."²

c11.s2.t5.9

² S.B.E., Vol. X, ch. 26.

c11.s2.t5.10

Again it is said "Because a man is rid of evil therefore is he called a Brāhmaṇa. Because he walks quietly he is called a Samaṇa, because he has sent away his own impurities therefore is he called a Pravrajita."³

c11.s2.t5.11

³ op. cit.

The Śramaṇas of the classical writers

c11.s2.t6.1

The next question is who these Śramaṇas were, why they were tacked on with the Brahmanas and what public services they rendered to the state to claim special privileges. From what Megasthenes has to say of these Śramaṇas it is certain that he does not mean Buddhists or Jaina by the term. He seems to divide apparently the Brahmana class into two divisions, one purely following the Śrauta sacrifices and engaged in study and teaching, and the other adept in Atharvan rites serving the state as physicians, diviners and sorcerers. This latter division includes probably those Brahmans of the third and fourth āśramas. Elphinstone who has made a study of these classical writings remarks "it is indeed a remarkable circumstance that the religion of the Buddha should never have been expressly noticed by the Greek authors though it had existed for two centuries before Alexander. The only explanation is that the appearance and the manners of its followers were not so peculiar as to enable a foreigner to distinguish them from the mass of the people”. The Pāli Sammana is the Sanskrit Śramaṇa. Lassen sustains the view that from the nature of their functions and their description in the Indika, the Śarmanes or Śarmani of Megasthenes, Germanes of Strabo and Samanæans of Porphyrius agree better with the Brahmana Sannyāsins.¹

c11.s2.t6.2

¹ Ind. Alter., II, pp. 705-ff.

Views of Colebrooke

c11.s2.t7.1

We have again the authority of H. T. Colebrooke² who is disposed to believe that the word Śramaṇa must refer to Brahman ascetics, and who observes, “It may therefore be confidently inferred, that the followers of the Vedas flourished in India when it was visited by the Greeks under Alexander; and continued to flourish from the time of Megasthenes, who described them in the fourth century before Christ, to that of Porphyrius, who speaks of them on later authority, in the 3rd century after Christ.”³ So the attempt of scholars like Schwanbeck to identify the Śramaṇas of the classical writers with the Buddha teachers is an assumption with no legs to stand on.⁴

c11.s2.t7.2

² See his observation on the sect of Jains; Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. II, ch. vii (ed. 1872).

c11.s2.t7.3

³ Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 204-5.

c11.s2.t7.4

⁴ Hultzsch takes this view in his Corpus.

Buddhist India, a misnomer

c11.s2.t8.1

If the inference of Colebrooke is right, then the epoch of earlier Hinduism, viz., the religion and institutions of the orthodox Hindus (the followers of the Veda), continued to flourish with no diminished glory, at least from the time of Alexander to A.D. 300. In this intervening period it was the Mauryan dynasty that held a vast empire in pre-eminent scale. It would not be therefore proper to entitle this epoch of the History of India as *Buddhist India* as Rhys Davids has done.¹ This was due to the fact that the word *dharma* in the Edicts was sought to connote Buddhist *dharma*, and Aśoka was hence taken to be a Buddhist, and the epoch in which Aśoka flourished was again taken to be the period of Buddhist ascendency, all contributing to a theory of Buddhist India. But the fact is that the *dharma* of the Edicts despite all straining on our part cannot be said to differ from the established ethical code of the orthodox Hinduism. The evidence of Greek writers and the evidence of Sanskrit literature show a continued period of ascendency of the followers of the Vedic school only. Granting for the sake of argument that a single monarch of the dynasty is a Buddhist in his faith, is it reasonable on that account to style the whole dynasty as Buddhist?

c11.s2.t8.2

¹ *The Story of the Nations Series.*

Śramaṇas are not Buddhists

c11.s2.t9.1

There is again the internal evidence of Megasthenes to show that the word ‘Śramaṇas’ does not denote the Buddhists. In Frag. XLIII he says: “Among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of the Buddha whom they honour as a God on account of his extraordinary sanctity.” Appropriately to this notion the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* has accepted the Buddha as an *avatār* of Viṣṇu² and has accorded to him a place of honour among the orthodox Gods and deities. By referring to the sect of the followers of the Buddha Megasthenes was certainly able to make the nice distinction between the orthodox ascetics and the Buddhist monks. He has not said much about them like the author of the *Arthaśāstra*. Possibly these authorities did not feel the heavy weight of their influence. The Buddhist sect flourished like many other sects and claimed no ascendancy at any period over the established religion of the land.

c11.s2.t9.2

² Book. I. 3-24; II. 7-37.

c11.s2.t9.3

Again the following description of the Śramaṇas is given to us:

c11.s2.t9.4

“The shamanas, on the other hand, are, as I said, an elected body. Whoever wishes to be enrolled in their order presents himself to the city or village authorities, and there makes cession of all his property. He then shaves his body, puts on the Shamana robe, and goes to the Shamans, and never returns back to speak or look at his wife and children if he has any, and never thinks of them any more, but leaves his children to the king, and his wife to his relations, who provide them with the necessaries of life. The Shamanas live outside the city, and spend the whole day in discourse upon divine things. They have houses and temples of a royal foundation, and in them stewards receive from the king a certain allowance of food, bread, and vegetables for each convent.”¹

c11.s2.t9.5

¹ Ancient India in Class. Liter., p. 168.

Śramaṇas are sannyāsins

c11.s2.t10.1

The above description is exactly that of a parivrājaka or the orthodox Hindu sannyāsin. The phrases, ‘elected body,’ ‘order,’ ‘royal foundations,’ need not detain us here demonstrating particularly to the Buddhist order and its establishment. This is true of all monastic orders, all being patronised by the monarch of the state whose aim was *der gesellschaftliche culturzweck*, as already pointed out. According to the prescription of the *Kauṭalīya* previous sanction of the authorities of the state was necessary before one could don the robes of the *sannyāsin*. Inasmuch as the state provided for their food and lodging, the state might issue permits to one to embrace asceticism or might not. There seems to be however some confusion as regards the statement that "the Samanæans, again, . . . are collected from all classes of the Indians." It may be that the Greek writer has taken the *Pāṣaṇḍas* and other heretics and included them in the orthodox fold. Or it may denote the fact that asceticism was no more confined to the members of the first caste but open to the Kṣatriyas and the Vaiśyas also. Whatever this might be one thing is certain that the expression Śramaṇa with the Greek writers does not mean 'a Buddhist', but does connote 'ascetics' and more likely of the orthodox type.

First 156 of 328 passages. Read on

Linked texts (59)