Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c11.s1.t3: The doctrinal aspect

The Mauryan Polity c11.s1.t3

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (8)