Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c11.s2: Sec. iv. Personal Religion of Candragupta Maurya

The Mauryan Polity c11.s2

Language
English

Contents

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.

Yatis and yoga

c11.s2.t11.1

It must be remembered that the order of *Sannyāsa* either of the orthodox or the heterodox type, did not begin with the Buddha or even Mahāvīra. It was a very ancient institution. The *dhyāna yoga* attributed to the Buddha finds a mention in the *Upaniṣad* and the epics. In fact it is much earlier than we would ordinarily believe. We have archæological evidence to show that this institution of yoga can be traced as far back as to the prehistoric culture of the Indus Valley.¹ At Mohen-jodāro a group of stone statuettes are found though in a mutilated condition. But the bust which is in a good state of preservation is characterised by the stiff erect posture of the head, the neck, and the chest, and the half-shut eyes looking fixedly at the tip of the nose, in conformity with the description in the *Bhagavad Gītā*.² It is undoubtedly the posture of the *yogin*.³ Rāmaprasād Chanda recognises in these statuettes the images of the *yatis*, first friends and then foes of Indra, as seen from some hymns of the *Ṛg Veda*; and those *yatis* were probably the forerunners of the *vrātyas*.⁴ Von Schroeder interprets the expression *yati* as a *shamana* or a diviner, sorcerer.⁵ What do these things bear testimony to? They indicate clearly that *yoga* and asceticism were not peculiar to the Mauryan epoch or even to the few centuries before it. But it goes far back into the prehistoric times and it is not possible to determine when exactly such speculation in regard to religion and philosophy commenced.

c11.s2.t11.2

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 170.

c11.s2.t11.3

¹ According to Sir John Marshall *yoga* had its origin among the pre-Aryan population. *Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilisation* (1931) p. 54.

c11.s2.t11.4

² VI, ch. 11-13.

c11.s2.t11.5

³ *Memoirs of Ar. Sur. India*, No. 41, p. 25.

c11.s2.t11.6

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 32-33.

c11.s2.t11.7

⁵ *Vienna Oriental Journal*, Vol. XXIII, pp. 11-15 (1909).

c11.s2.t11.8

The practice of *dhyāna-yoga* in the third millennium B.C., bears the test that religion and its institutions were far older than that period. Again the sects of heterodox mendicants are as old as the *Ṛg Veda* when the *yatis* turned inimical to Indra and were reduced in the course of ages to the position of the *vrātyas*, the outcaste mendicants of the Vedic literature. If the term *yati* could mean *shamana*, as Von Schroeder would have it,¹ verily is our knowledge of ancient Indian history rapidly changing, partly on account of increasing archæological evidence and partly on account of the scientific interpretation of the technical terms in her ancient literature.

c11.s2.t11.9

¹ *op. cit.*, pp. 11-15.

Conclusion

c11.s2.t12.1

In the light of the above facts it is indeed difficult to believe that Candragutpa either during the period of his reign, or in the evening of his life, became a convert to the Jaina faith. The other possible alternative is that he was a devout follower of the Vedic school of religion, and if the legends have anything to impart, it is, that Candragupta, as was usual with the Kṣatriya monarchs of old, abdicated his throne in favour of his son, and betook himself to the third *āśrama* or *vānaprastha*, to lead a life of quiet and ease. Bindusāra was also a follower of the Brahmanical school. This is corroborated even by an accredited Buddhist work, the *Mahāvaṃśa*.² What is more remarkable is that another Buddhist work, the *Divyāvadāna*, speaks of Bindusāra and his son Aśoka as being Kṣatriyas³ though it is generally believed that the Buddhists did not recognise the institution of caste.

c11.s2.t12.2

² P. 15.

c11.s2.t12.3

³ P. 370, ed. by Cowell and Neil.

Linked texts (11)