The Mauryan Polity c11.s3: Sec. vi. Aśoka's Personal Religion

The Mauryan Polity c11.s3

Language: English

c11.s3.t1 The Buddhist legends — 4 parts
c11.s3.t2 Buddhist Inscriptions — 22 parts
c11.s3.t3 Visits to the Sambodhi and Lummini — 51 parts
c11.s3.t4 Aśoka and the Third Council — 17 parts
c11.s3.t5 The Evidence of Archaeology — 18 parts
c11.s3.t6 Animal capitals — 12 parts
c11.s3.t7 Conclusion — 3 parts

Sec. vi. Aśoka's Personal Religion

c11.s3.1

"I intend to make a conscientious study of Aśoka's Dharma and Religion, based only upon contemporary documents. The Buddhist chronicles of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries have deceived many a scholar. To count so great a monarch as Aśoka among the disciples of Gautama was unquestionably a distinct advantage to the declining Buddhist monachism. Hence their statement is not reliable at all. Centuries after, some Jain authors claimed an analogous honour for themselves as regards Akbar." In this strain the Rev. Fr. Heras, S.J., begins his very interesting paper on Aśoka's Dharma and Religion.¹ The theory that Aśoka was a Buddhist is primarily supported by the Buddhist books which were reduced to writing centuries after the Buddha's *nirvāṇa*. Writers who have thrown their weight in this behalf claim that the theory is partially supported by the inscriptions of Aśoka. There is a school of savants who deem that Aśoka was originally a Jaina by faith² and was afterwards attracted by the Buddhist ideals and doctrines. There is also another view that Aśoka was neither a Buddhist nor a Jaina, but one who professed the Brahmanical faith.

c11.s3.2

¹ Q.J.M.S., Bangalore, Vol. XVII, No. 4, p. 255.

c11.s3.3

² See Thomas, Early Faith of Aśoka. Also a paper on Religion of Aśoka by M. Ghosh in the Pro. of II Orient. Conf., Calcutta.

The Buddhist legends

c11.s3.t1.1

Years ago Bühler wrote that in his view "a full explanation of Aśoka's Edicts can only be given with the help of the Brahmanical literature and by a careful utilization of the actualities of Hindu life. This conviction has forced me to demur against a specially Buddhistic interpretation of various words and terms.”¹ The subject then requires a careful and independent examination. In regard to the theory that Aśoka professed Buddhism, the Buddhist books are claimed to be the chief authority. Here are found stories and chronicles of Aśoka mostly legendary in character. According to V. A. Smith silly fictions “disfigure the Ceylonese chronicles of Aśoka, and disguise their solid merits and hence do not deserve serious criticism.”² Referring to the story of Māhinda or Māhendra, the younger brother of Aśoka, and his sister, Prof. Oldenberg remarks that “it has been invented for the purpose of possessing a history of the Buddhist institutions in the island, and to connect it with the most distinguished person conceivable—the great Aśoka.”³ A similar view is held by another scholar H. Kern whose special study of the Buddhist works is too well-known to need mention.⁴ In the course of his examination of the Buddhist Councils from the traditions of the Pāli Books, and after referring to the absurdities, inconsistencies and dogmatical and sectarian tendencies, imprinted in every page of the works, D. R. Bhandarkar has much justification for the opinion that “very little that is contained in these traditions may be accepted as historical truth.”⁵

c11.s3.t1.2

¹ *Ep Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 246. ² *Aśoka*, p. 19. ³ Intro. to the *Vinayapiṭakam*, p. 4 (ii). ⁴ *Manual of Indian Buddhism*, p. 110. ⁵ *Aśoka*, p. 96.

c11.s3.t1.3

Notwithstanding these downright and absurd mythological accounts that have gathered round the name of the celebrated Mauryan monarch they are taken for granted as a source of information for the history of Aśoka, and theories hardly tenable have been floated in the ever expanding ocean of oriental history. Nothing authentic is on record concerning these legendary chronicles, and any endeavour to utilise them for historical purposes is to get ourselves stranded on the shore of imaginary history.

c11.s3.t1.4

A calm but deep study of the Pāli Buddhism with its special reference to Aśoka leaves the reader with the impression that the whole thing is marred by glaring inconsistencies, and the views set forth are deeply sectarian and consequently one-sided. Materials culled from these fictions compiled centuries after Aśoka’s death can afford no tangible basis to build any historical edifice. Scholars have realised this difficulty though they still believe that these chronicles are materials for scientific history. If it be accepted that the legends do not carry much historical value, the inscriptions of Aśoka can alone be credited with trustworthiness.

Buddhist Inscriptions

c11.s3.t2.1

What is then the message of the Aśokan Edicts inscribed on rocks and pillars? Do they aid us in settling once for all the vexed question of the king’s personal religion? It is rather an intricate task to attempt anything like a definite answer to these questions. Still an humble effort is made here and a decision is arrived it. It may not be out of place to examine here the alleged Buddhist inscriptions of Aśoka. These are the Calcutta-Bairāṭ rock inscription, the Rummindēī and Nigālī Sāgar Pillars, the Kauśāmbī, Sāmchi and Sārnāth Pillar Edicts. Says D. R. Bhandarkar: “It is no longer permissible to call in question the Buddhist faith of Aśoka. That is now established beyond all doubt by the Bhābru Edict, otherwise called the Second Bairāṭ Edict. It opens with Aśoka expressing his reverence for Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha, exactly in the well-known trinitary formula of Buddhism.¹ Thus this Edict is taken to be a declaration of Aśoka’s faith in the Buddhist Trinity. This explanation is largely dependent upon the interpretation of the phrase am mamayā saghe upayāte (M.R.E. I).² This D. R. Bhandarkar explains: ‘I have lived with the Saṅgha,’³ and R. K. Mookerjee ‘I visited the Saṅgha.’⁴ If Bhandarkar’s interpretation is accepted, the expression must signify that Aśoka became a monk while he continued to rule as emperor. This position is taken by V. A. Smith who remarks: “The fact is undoubted that Aśoka was both monk and monarch at the same time. . . . Throughout his reign he retained the position of the Head of the Church and Defender of the faith.”⁵ That he became a member of the Saṅgha or the order of the Buddhist clergy is also accepted by F. W. Thomas.⁶ This position cannot stand a critical test as we shall see presently.

c11.s3.t2.2

¹ Aśoka, p. 73. See also Vallee-Poussin, L'Inde Aux Temps Des Mauryas (1930), pp. 126-133.

c11.s3.t2.3

² Cp. Siddhapura, upete (Rūpnāth), upayāte (Bairāṭ), upagate (Maski).

c11.s3.t2.4

³ Aśoka, p. 328.

c11.s3.t2.5

⁴ Aśoka, p. 109.

c11.s3.t2.6

⁵ Aśoka, p. 35. Hultzsch, Corpus, Smith, History of India, Ch. IX etc.

c11.s3.t2.7

⁶ C.H.I., Vol. I, p. 496.

c11.s3.t2.8

The passage in question simply marks the visit of the emperor to the Saṅgha. This is a circumstance which is not incompatible with the active rule of a great and tolerant emperor. It was one of the several state visits in which Aśoka indulged. Nor were his visits confined to the Buddhist monasteries; they were extended to the Brahmanas, Śramaṇas, Ājivikās and other sects in the empire. Even Bhandarkar feels this inconsistency and seems to reconcile that Aśoka did not become a bhikṣu or monk but a bhikṣu-gaṭika, a stage higher than that of an upāsaka but less than that of a monk.¹ According to the political philosophy of the times the king was an active functionary and there were only two courses open to him. He was either to rule or to abdicate. One cannot eat the cake and have it. There was no third course open to him.

c11.s3.t2.9

¹ Aśoka, pp. 79-80.

c11.s3.t2.10

The contention that Aśoka retained the position of the Head of the Church is absolutely baseless. A reference to the constitution of the Buddhist Saṅgha as described in the Vinayapiṭaka² will reveal the fact that the Buddha was the Satthā or Head of the Saṅgha. After the Buddha it was the Dharma that was the refuge of true disciples as is seen from the interesting discussion in the Gopaka-Moggallāna Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya. Here to a question put by Vassakāra to Ānanda whether the Buddha had elected any to succeed him as the Head, Ānanda answered in the negative; but to a supplementary question put to him how could unity exist among the monks without anybody as refuge, he answered 'the Dhamma'.³ Sukumar Dutt remarks: "Not only is the idea of the paramount authority of a person—a recognised head, a spiritual dictator or an abbot foreign to the constitution of a Buddhist Saṅgha, but it is definitely excluded in a number of passages.”¹ ‘No person however highly placed, could pretend to legislate for the Buddhist Saṅgha and set up as its ecclesiastical ruler.’² In the light of the above observations it is impossible for Aśoka to have been a king and a monk at the same time.

c11.s3.t2.11

² Vinaya Texts, S.B.E., Pt. I, I, Intro., p. 23.

c11.s3.t2.12

³ Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 198 and p. 341.

c11.s3.t2.13

¹ See *Early Buddhist Monachism*, pp. 143-45. ² *Sir Asutosh Mem. Vol.* (Patna), p. 257. ³ Address (1898) before the *As. Soc. of Bengal*. Cp. Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 152 ff; p. 190. ⁴ See Author’s *Early History of Buddhism in India* in the *Jour. B. His. Society*, Vol. II, pp. 51-74. ⁵ P. 125, New York Ed.

c11.s3.t2.14

If he was not a monk, then it may be contended that Aśoka must have been at least an upāsaka (a lay disciple) perhaps of a fervent type. There is not much warrant even to assume this position. According to Dr. Hoernle while the lay adherent formed an integral part of the Jaina organisation, not even a formal recognition of him was made in the Buddhist order.³ In other words the Buddhists were a purely monastic community and took no lay disciples and hence did not interfere with the caste system. The Jains on the other hand admitted lay disciples and accepted the institution of caste.⁴ Therefore the upāsaka could not be a de facto or de jure member of the Saṅgha. All that is meant by the term is that the house-holder would minister to the needs of the members of the Saṅgha. The Iti Vuttaka plainly informs us that the Buddhists owed their sustenance to the Brahman house-holders.⁵ To feed them and administer to their needs, and to aid them in the accomplishment of their ends, were as much the duty of the public as of the state. Aśoka realised this and discharged his responsibility.

c11.s3.t2.15

A parallel can be drawn from the *Mahābhārata*¹ where among the other duties of a king is mentioned the duty of looking to the comforts of the elders (*upāsitā ca vṛddhānām*) and helping, among others, those who look forward to only one thing, the other world, and *sādhūs* who stand like the mountain steadfast in *dharma*.² An *upāsitā* is expected to be *jitatantraḥ*, one who has won over lassitude, and *alolupaḥ*, indifferent to sensual objects. This construction is perhaps warranted by the term occurring in the Buddhist works. It may therefore be safely argued that the inscriptions of Aśoka do not bear the test of a declaration of his Buddhist faith but imply his state visit to the *Saṅgha*, where he learnt to love the monks for their purity and transparent sincerity in having renounced worldly pleasures and subjecting themselves to a life of mortification, which, penance of any kind involves. During his sojourn Aśoka must have also learnt the working of the constitution of the *Saṅgha* and resolved to help it in its accomplishment. Hence the Calcutta Bairāṭ Rock Inscription.

c11.s3.t2.16

¹ *Śānti*, 56, 20-ff.

c11.s3.t2.17

² *Ibid.*, 24 and 55.

c11.s3.t2.18

It is significant to note that this Edict is addressed not to all his peoples, but only to the members of the *Saṅgha*. Even here Aśoka says: ‘though whatever has been said has been well said, still he would make a selection which in his opinion would make the *dharma* eternal.’³ Bhandarkar who has examined the six principles enunciated on behalf of the *dharma* is constrained to remark that this does not reveal any ritualistic or metaphysical element of Buddhism.¹ With regard to the sacred texts quoted in this inscription, and their identification the *Vinaya-samukasa*, the *Aliya-vasas*, the *Anāgata-bhayas*, the *Muni-gāthas*, the *Moneya-sūta*, the *Upatisa-pasina*, and the *Lāghulovāda*, no last word has yet been said. Mookerjee, who has examined this Edict, makes the following statement that "the Bhābru Edict was prior to the main body of the Rock Edicts."² If this chronology of the Aśokan Edicts is acceptable, how are we to account for the issuing of the Major Rock Edicts containing his proclamations where there is absolutely no reference to the Buddha or Buddhism? Either the chronological examination is wrong or Aśoka was not a Buddhist. The latter is the more probable. The attempts to prove Aśoka's faith in Buddhism are too far-fetched, conjectural and hence inconclusive.³

c11.s3.t2.19

³ See *Corpus*, pp. 172-173.

c11.s3.t2.20

¹ *Aśoka*, p. 88.

c11.s3.t2.21

² *Aśoka*, p. 120 *n*.

c11.s3.t2.22

³ See Oldenberg, *Buddh. studien*, *Z.D.M.G.*, Vol. 52 p. 634; Vallee Poussin, *L'Inde Aux Temps Des Mauryas*, p. 127-ff; B. C. Law, *Annals of the Bh. Inst.*, Vol. XII, pp. 171-172.

Visits to the Sambodhi and Lummini

c11.s3.t3.1

Possibly the same interpretation and the same value must be attached to his visits to the Sambodhi and Lummini, the latter of which he made tax-free. The inscription on the column at Rummindeī in Nepal is also contended, without much justification, in support of Aśoka's faith in Buddhism.⁴ More than 20 years ago this record was subjected to a severe and lengthy examination by that learned indologist J. F. Fleet, and the only possible conclusion to which he could arrive at was that it was only a state visit, and the remission of bali and bhāga was to commemorate his visit to the birthplace of the founder of Buddhism.¹ We need not go into the details once again which Fleet has so critically examined and arrived at the right conclusion. Suffice it to point out here that it could not have been a pious tour, for the sheer reason that a part of this tour was devoted to visit Niglīvā sacred to Konākamana, about thirteen miles north-west of Rummindeī. Thus in the same year and on the occasion of the same tour, Aśoka visited two places, one sacred to the Buddha and the other to the founder of the rival sect. The inscriptions on both these pillars, fortunately preserved to us, demonstrate that the emperor went in person, did worship and left a stone memorial behind. If one could be regarded as a pious tour, the other also must be regarded as such; what is really significant is the mention of the fact that he worshipped in both the places. To-day Aśoka could not be a follower of the Buddha and to-morrow of his rival. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that both were state visits to the holy places of the different cults, and Aśoka left memorials in commemoration of such visits.² Any other interpretation seems erroneous and misleading. Even to-day the Hindus regard these as sacred places of pilgrimage and visit them to revere the memory of an ancient saint, the Buddha.

c11.s3.t3.2

⁴ See for instance D. R. Bhandarkar, *Aśoka*, pp. 82-83.

c11.s3.t3.3

¹ J.R.A.S., 1908, p. 471-ff; cp. Ep. Ind., Vol. V, p. 162; Ind. Ant., 1905, p. 1-ff: 1914.

c11.s3.t3.4

² See Minor Pillar Inscriptions, Corpus, pp. 164-165.

c11.s3.t3.5

To crown all this comes Aśoka’s important public statement: “Thus do I attend to all classes. All sects are also honoured by me with various offerings. But which is one's own approach (or choice) is considered by me as the most essential."' His policy was clear. It was non-interference as regards choice of religious belief, but intervention to see that everything was properly accomplished. If the theory that Aśoka fostered the orthodox Buddhist *sangha* can be accepted, it is equally acceptable that he showed no less zeal in fostering the rival sect founded by Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha. The founder of this sect was a mythological saint Konākamana, one of the previous Buddhas, according to the Pāli version of the tradition. He enlarged the *stūpa* dedicated to Konākamana and paid a state visit to it when he had been anointed twenty years.²

c11.s3.t3.6

² Cf. Smith, *Early His.*, p. 33; Nagāli Sāgar Pillar, *Corpus*, p. 165.

c11.s3.t3.7

The following points deserve notice in this connection:—

c11.s3.t3.8

(1) Aśoka showed equal enthusiasm in honouring the Ājīvikas. These were apparently a heterodox sect of monks whose founder was one Gośāla Maṅkhalīputta, contemporaneous with the founders of the other ascetic sects, Mahāvīra and Gautama. According to the Pāli *sūtras* Gośāla was a prominent rival of Mahāvīra and an opponent of the Buddha.³ In order to support that ascetic community 'which would seem to have, at one time, rivalled in numbers and importance the two still existing great communities of the Buddhists and Jainas' the caves of Barābar Hills were dedicated by the Emperor¹ in the same spirit with which his successor Daśaratha bestowed rock-hewn caves on Nāgārjuni Hill on the Ājīvikas.² One is at a loss to know what weight this testimony carries in the argument about Aśoka’s faith in Buddhism. Even Vallee Poussin, the eloquent advocate of the theory that Aśoka was a Buddhist, has to make the following observation in this connection: “On voit mal, en des temps moins anciens, un bouddhiste convaincu favoriser d’aussi mauvais religieux que les Ajīvikas, meme pour raison d’Etat.”³

c11.s3.t3.9

¹ Pillar, E. VI, *Corpus*, pp. 128-129.

c11.s3.t3.10

³ See Jacobi, *Kalpa sūtra* Intro., p. 1; Hoernle, *Uvāsaga-Dasāo*, II, Intro.. p. 12; Bühler, *In. Ant.*, Vol. 20, p. 362.

c11.s3.t3.11

¹ See Barābar Hill Inscript. and also Pillar Edict VI-VII. For the use of the term under various designations see B.M. Barua’s article ‘Ajīwika-what it means’ in the Annals of Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. VIII, Part II, pp. 183-188.

c11.s3.t3.12

² In. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 361f.

c11.s3.t3.13

³ L’Inde Aux Temps Des Mauryas, p. 126.

c11.s3.t3.14

(2) That the insriptions of Aśoka do not *ipso facto* suggest his proselytism to the Buddhist faith is evidenced by the fact that he equally honoured the Nigaṇṭhas or Nirgranthas who were another dissenting sect of the Hindus.⁴ We know from references in the Buddhist Piṭakas that the Nigaṇṭhas were a sect hostile to the Buddhists. It would appear that Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, the founder of the Jaina sect, was an opponent of Gotama the Buddha and hence one of his contemporaries.⁵

c11.s3.t3.15

⁴ P.E. VI.

c11.s3.t3.16

⁵ In. Ant., Vol. 7, p. 143: also C.H.I., I, p. 160

c11.s3.t3.17

According to the Jaina scriptures, the Jaina clergy went by the name of Nigaṇṭhas.⁶ In the opinion of Bühler, the term in the inscriptions of Aśoka has reference to the Jaina monks and nuns.⁷ If we can believe the references in Buddhist canons, then there is strong reason for the theory that the Nirgranthas were members of the early Jaina church.¹ This position of extending the royal patronage to the Jaina sect which looked upon Buddhism as a rival faith, and which ignored it by taking no notice of it in any of its old Jaina sūtras, is irreconcilable with the theory of Aśoka being a Buddhist.²

c11.s3.t3.18

⁶ See Kalpasūtra, sūtra, 130.

c11.s3.t3.19

⁷ Ep. Ind., II, p. 272.

c11.s3.t3.20

¹ In. Ant., Vol. 9, p. 161.

c11.s3.t3.21

² See preface, p. 7 of Jacobi's ed. of the Āyāraṃga sutta, P.T.S.

c11.s3.t3.22

(3) Professor H. H. Wilson draws our attention to "the total omission of any allusion to Buddha himself by any of his appellations, Sugata, Tathāgata, Gautama, Sākya, or Sākyasinha, all which occur repeatedly in the Buddhist writings, both of Tibet and of Ceylon, and which the Sāranāth Buddhist inscription proves it was not unusual to allude to in the sculptured inscriptions of that religion. Neither is there any allusion to his family, or to any of his early disciples, or to any of the Bodhisatwas, who are sufficiently conspicuous in the Kahgyur and Mahawanso, nor does any hint occur of Stūpas, Vihārs, or Caityas, or of the Bodhi, or Bo tree,—everywhere else so frequently adverted to. Neither do we find anything that can be regarded as peculiarly Buddhist doctrines, for the moral duties inculcated are the same that are enjoyed by Brahmanical writings, and there is at least one duty enforced which it is very difficult to reconcile with the spirit of Buddhism; reverence for, or rather the service of (suśrusha) the Brahmans."³

c11.s3.t3.23

³ J.R.A.S., XII, pp. 240-1.

c11.s3.t3.24

(4) The last but not the least were the Brahmans who were the recipients of honour and regard from Aśoka.¹ Even the *Mahāvaṃśa* which attributes many a Buddhist building to the munificence of Aśoka,² states that Aśoka followed his father in bestowing gifts on the Brahmans. The *Rājatarangiṇī* places on record many a Brahmanical temple and even Jaina buildings to the credit of the same monarch.³ Added to this is the evidence of the *Dīpavaṃśa*⁴ which clearly makes out that the Buddhism was not his original faith. His interest in the welfare of the other castes and orders like the Ibhyas or Vaiśyas, ascetics and householders is unbounded.⁵ His alleged denunciation of rituals said to be contained in the Ninth Rock-Edict is meaningless. For, does he not say ‘se katavi cheva kho maṃgale,’ meaning that ceremonies needs be practised. What he drives at here is that mere *karma* will bear little fruit. One must aim at the substance and not at the shadow. So practice of virtues (*śiṣṭācāram*) is more fruitful. From these and other evidences it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Aśoka held catholic views about religion and was an extremely tolerant monarch. His was universal toleration regardless of sects and creeds. In fact he realised that doctrine as one of the proximate ends of the state.⁶

c11.s3.t3.25

¹ P.E. VI, etc. R.E. V.

c11.s3.t3.26

² Bk. V, p. 23.

c11.s3.t3.27

³ Bk. I, ch. 20. Stein, Trans.

c11.s3.t3.28

⁴ Bk. VI, ch. 18.

c11.s3.t3.29

⁵ R.E. V.

c11.s3.t3.30

⁶ Cf. Edmund Hardy, *Konig Aśoka*, pp. 22-23.

c11.s3.t3.31

The above examination leads us to the conclusion that he could not have been a Buddhist. The next question that remains to be answered is what was his religion? The following facts which are categorically stated support the theory that Aśoka’s personal faith was Brahmanical Hinduism to the very end of his days.

c11.s3.t3.32

(1) Aśoka encouraged exhibitions of representations of the celestials and deities peculiar to Hinduism. These are quite in tune with the recommendations of the Kauṭalīya. It may be noted that early Buddhism did not believe in idolatry but actually discarded it.

c11.s3.t3.33

(2) Aśoka pursued firmly the principle of religious neutrality accompanied with a spirit of universal toleration, an element foreign to the rival sects and especially the dissenting sects.¹

c11.s3.t3.34

¹ Cf. Kern, *Op. cit.*, p. 112.

c11.s3.t3.35

(3) In more than one place Aśoka has repeatedly mentioned that the reward for the practice of dharma was the enjoyment of a life of heavenly bliss. Belief in, and attainment of, heaven are foreign to the Buddhist philosophy.

c11.s3.t3.36

(4) Non-injury to creatures emphasised by the emperor is as much Brahmanical as the Jaina or even Buddhist. Aśoka’s *ahiṃsā* was not of the rigid type peculiar to the Jaina prescriptions. For the practice of slaughtering animals for the royal kitchen was continued. It is more in accord with the epic notions of *ahiṃsā* where it is characterised as *paramo dharmaḥ*. The recognition of this principle is admitted by the Upaniṣads and the early *Dharmasūtras* as well.²

c11.s3.t3.37

² Wilson, *J.R.A.S.*, XII, pp. 238-240.

c11.s3.t3.38

(5) Aśoka makes no mention whatsoever of the Buddhist notion of *nirvāṇa*³ and the *nirvāṇic* annihilation which is the fundamental characteristic of the Buddhist faith. In this respect the inscriptions of Aśoka do, not only, not conform to the prescriptions of the Dhammapada but differ from them widely. The keynote of the *Dhammapada* is the doctrine of *nirvāṇa*.¹ Hence the remarks of the latest writer on the subject, Vallee Poussin, can hardly be accepted: “Le bouddhisme d’Aśoka, en effect, respire l’atmosphere des textes qui, pour diverses raisons, sont consideres comme les plus archaiques, *Dhammapada*, *Suttanipāta*, (dont des morceaux sont proprement nommes a Bhabra).”² As already shown the reference to *svarga* is made in the edicts on more than one occasion. The concept of *nirvāṇa* is such as it does not lead to any enjoyment or happiness after life. But the concept of heaven does imply all this.

c11.s3.t3.39

³ C.H.I., I, p. 505.

c11.s3.t3.40

¹ P. 125.

c11.s3.t3.41

² See Vallee Poussin, *L’Inde Aux Temps Des Mauryas*, p. 125.

c11.s3.t3.42

(6) A scholar of the standing of Hultzsch who is disposed to believe Aśoka’s faith in Buddhism admits that “the lists of evil passions and dispositions do not tally with the *āsavas* and *kileśas* of the Buddhists.”³ These agree with the Hindu notions and beliefs, ‘about the reward of human actions.’

c11.s3.t3.43

³ *Corpus*, Intro., p. 52.

c11.s3.t3.44

(7) Aśoka makes a significant statement which furnishes a clue as to the profession of his faith. He says that his predecessors engaged themselves in the spreading and propagating of the *dharma* to which he wedded himself.⁴ But their efforts did not prove very much of a success in that direction. His predecessors were Candragupta and Bindusāra. There is not even a lengendary record to testify to their attachment to the Buddhism. This more than anything else goes to prove Aśoka’s faith in the *sanātana dharma* of the Hindus. At least there is no implication here of any reference to the Buddhist *dharma*. According to Fleet it is the ordinary *dharma* of the Hindu kings and he bases his conclusion on the authority of the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.¹

c11.s3.t3.45

⁴ P.E. VII.

c11.s3.t3.46

¹ See *J.R.A.S.*, p. 491.

c11.s3.t3.47

(8) According to Bhandarkar, the six constituents of the True Dharma addressed to the *Saṅgha* in the Calcutta Bairāṭ Edict show that “his (Aśoka’s) mind was ravished not by the ritualistic or metaphysical elements of Buddhism, but rather by the fundamentals of that religion, or for the matter of that, any religion. He was fascinated not by any specification of rules and regulations to be observed externally and mechanically, but rather what constitutes and conduces to real inner growth.”²

c11.s3.t3.48

² *Aśoka*, pp. 88-89.

c11.s3.t3.49

(9) Next we have to consider the term Devānāmpriya, a title assumed by kings other than Aśoka as well. It was the title of Candragupta Maurya. It is contended that ‘Deva’ refers to the Jaina deity, and the title ‘beloved of the Gods’ is taken to be a profession of the Jaina faith. If this were so Aśoka’s faith in Buddhism becomes a myth, for, the term occurs in several of the Rock and Pillar Edicts. It is a title borne by Daśaratha, grandson of Aśoka.³ In fact the R.E. VII (Kālsī and Mānsehrā) shows that Aśoka’s predecessors also bore the same title. In the *Dīpavaṃśa* it is an attribute of Tissa King of Ceylon, a contemporary of Aśoka. A century later Patañjali uses it as a honorific and also in the ironical sense of a fool. But in the *Harṣacarita* Bāṇa uses it as an honorific.⁴ At the best the title does not warrant Aśoka's profession of the Buddhist faith.

c11.s3.t3.50

³ See Nāgarjuni Hill Cave Inscriptions.

c11.s3.t3.51

⁴ See Intro., *Corpus*, p. XXIX.

Aśoka and the Third Council

c11.s3.t4.1

(10) Similar to the legends which have grown around the three Tamil Academies (*Saṅgam*) of the Tamil literary tradition, the Buddhist tradition speaks of three councils summoned at different times to settle the disputed points about the dharma. There is a tradition that a council (perhaps the fourth) was held under the patronage of king Kaniṣka. The Ceylonese version is silent on this and maintains the council of Aśoka as the third and the last. In a similar manner the Buddhists of Northern India, not to speak of Tibet and China, do not mention anything about the third Council and refer to the Council of Kaniṣka as the third and the last. Thus there is a conflict of opinion among the Buddhists themselves as regards the so-called Third and Fourth councils. Examining the historical character of the First council Prof. Oldenberg has made the remark that it was pure invention and not history.¹ Considering the disagreement of the varying accounts with regard to the Second Council Kern held that it was dogmatic fiction.² Judged by the modern critical standards we have to conclude that whenever a dispute arose as to the discipline or the doctrine, the leading monks met together and came to some agreement. Not only three or four but a good number might have been held and "later traditions have jumbled them all up into one story", and fathered every one of them invariably to a great monarch like Aśoka or Kaniṣka. Confining ourselves to the Third Council, it is mentioned by the Dīpavaṃśa and the Mahāvaṃśa and referred to by Buddhaghoṣa in his Introduction to Samantapāsādika.¹

c11.s3.t4.2

¹ Vinaya Texts, Vol. I, p. 26.

c11.s3.t4.3

² Histoire du Bouddhisme, Vol. II, p. 290.

c11.s3.t4.4

¹ Dip. VII, p. 34-ff; Mahā., Ch. V; Vinaya Texts, Ed. Oldenberg, Vol. III, p. 306-f.

c11.s3.t4.5

The Ceylonese Chronicles which are the primary authority or rather the sole authority for this tradition, with the exception of a single reference in Buddhaghoṣa's writings, have it that a great Council was held under the patronage of Aśoka in his capital city. Briefly the story is as follows:—The Buddhist monasteries were flooded by a large number of people belonging to different heretical sects who practised their own doctrines in the name of the Buddha. Consequently the Buddhist monks had to discontinue for seven years the Uposatha and Pavāraṇa ceremonies. On a representation to the king, who was then Aśoka, he sent on the advice of the Bhikkus, for Tissa Moggaliputta, an eminent Bhikku of the time. With him in an open assembly summoned by Aśoka it was resolved that the Vibhajja doctrine was not unacceptable to the teachings of the Buddha.

c11.s3.t4.6

The latest writer on the subject Dr. R. C. Majumdar justly remarks²: "The story stands self-condemned. It is impossible to hold that thousands of heretics entered into the Saṅgha and were not detected for years; that the Uposatha ceremony was stopped for seven years even in his own ārāma in Pāṭaliputra and Aśoka did not know anything of it till at the end of that long period; and lastly that the name and fame of such a great Arhat as Tissa Moggaliputta is represented to be, could possibly remain unknown to Aśoka till the 18th year of his coronation.”¹

c11.s3.t4.7

² Buddhistic Studies, pp. 26-72, ed. B. C. Law (Cal. 1931).

c11.s3.t4.8

¹ *Buddhistic Studies*, p. 67.

c11.s3.t4.9

In addition to the above, other arguments which go to disprove the authenticity of this tradition can be categorically stated.²

c11.s3.t4.10

² See J. N. Farquhar, *Outline of the Religious Literature of India*, pp. 68-69; R.C. Mazumdar, *Buddhists and Councils*, in *Buddhistic Studies*, pp. 64-69.

c11.s3.t4.11

1. The accounts are a jumble of myth, the miraculous elements predominating.

c11.s3.t4.12

2. If the tradition has any basis the original canon must have been in Māgadhī, the vernacular of Aśoka’s capital. What we have on the other hand is the Ceylonese Pāli canon which was reduced to writing some centuries after Aśoka. Whether the rendering in Pāli was from the original Māgadhī we cannot say for certain.

c11.s3.t4.13

3. According to Professor Poussin ‘the apostolic or conciliar origin of the *abhidharma* is a pious fraud’. For, all the schools except those of the Vibhajjavādins and of the Sarvāstivādins, approve of two baskets—*vinaya* and *sutta piṭakas*.

c11.s3.t4.14

4. The Council was at the most a sectarian assembly of the Vibhajjavādins, perhaps to get their doctrines approved.

c11.s3.t4.15

5. There is no reference to it in the *Chullavagga*.

c11.s3.t4.16

6. Hiuen Tsiang who records many a tradition about Aśoka does not say anything about this council.

c11.s3.t4.17

7. Last but not least is that a Council held under the patronage of Aśoka, it is reasonable to assume, will be mentioned in his inscriptions. According to Farquhar ‘his silence thus suggests a serious doubt about the whole tradition.’

The Evidence of Archaeology

c11.s3.t5.1

(11) Literary and inscriptional evidence has led us to the conclusion that Aśoka’s faith was not Buddhism as is the current view. This is further supported by the testimony of archæology. As this has been examined fully elsewhere,¹ it is enough to point out here the main lines of argument adduced in support of our theory. Tradition records that Aśoka was a great builder of cities, stūpas and pillars. This is corroborated by the records of the Chinese travellers Fa-hien and Yuan Chwang. While Fa-hien noticed six pillars² of Aśoka, Yuan Chwang saw as many as fifteen.³ But of these only five can be identified with the existing monuments. But pillars which find no mention in these records are now discovered, as for example, the Lauṛiyā-Ararāj pillar with no capital and the Lauṛiyā-Nandangaṛh pillar, its capital being bell shaped “with a circular abacus supporting the statue of a lion facing the north.”⁴ Even among the few identified with those mentioned by the Chinese travellers, there is some discrepancy. For instance, the pillar at Sārnāth measures in height just half of what has been attributed to it by Yuan Chwang.⁵

c11.s3.t5.2

¹ See for a full discussion of the subject author's paper in the *Journal of Oriental Research*, Madras, Vol. V, Pt. III, pp. 267-281.

c11.s3.t5.3

² Legge's trans., p. 80.

c11.s3.t5.4

³ Watters I. 344 and 383, II 5, 6, 28 ch.

c11.s3.t5.5

⁴ Ar. Rep. Vol. I, pp. 67-73.

c11.s3.t5.6

⁵ See Ar. Sur. Rep. 1904-5, p. 69: Watters, II 50; Beal, *Buddhist Records*, Vol. II, p. 46.

c11.s3.t5.7

*Most of the monuments pre-Aśokan*

c11.s3.t5.8

It would appear further untenable to assume that Aśoka set up pillars at different places for inscribing his edicts. It would be more reasonable to hold that these monuments stood long before Aśoka, and served convenient material for the emperor to record his inscriptions so as to give an element of permanence to the record of his achievements. This is evident from his own words. He says that he enlarged to twice its size the stūpa of Konākamana.¹ In another place he says that he caused his records to be inscribed wherever pillars of stone existed in his empire.²

c11.s3.t5.9

¹ Nigāli Sāgar Pillar, *Corpus*, p. 165.

c11.s3.t5.10

² Minor R. Edict (Rūpnāth text) and Pillar Edict VII, *Corpus*, pp. 116-131.

c11.s3.t5.11

*Aśoka's monuments*

c11.s3.t5.12

In brief, the following monuments are attributed to Aśoka by modern archæological research:—

c11.s3.t5.13

(1) The stūpa at Sāñci.

c11.s3.t5.14

(2) The stūpa at Bhārhut.

c11.s3.t5.15

(3) The enlarging of the stūpa of Konākamana.

c11.s3.t5.16

(4) Erecting three sets of caves in the Barābar Hills.

c11.s3.t5.17

(5) Four uninscribed pillars—those at Rāmpūrva with bull capital, Saṅkisa with elephant capital, Bakhra (Vaiśāli) with lion capital, and Kośam (Kauśāmbi) with no capital.

c11.s3.t5.18

(6) Other so-called Aśokan pillars containing his inscriptions are those discovered at Topra, Meerut, Allahabad, Lauṛiyā-Ararāj, Lauṛiyā-Nandangaṛh, Rāmpūrva, Sānchi, Sārnāth, Rummindeī, and Niglīva.

Animal capitals

c11.s3.t6.1

To a student of Aśoka’s religion the animal capitals are far more important than the pillars themselves. Discussing this, V. A. Smith arrives at the following results:

c11.s3.t6.2

| 9 | examples | of lion. |
| 2 | ,, | of elephant. |
| 2 | ,, | of bull. |
| 1 | ,, | of horse. |
| 1 | ,, | of wheel. |
| 1 | ,, | of Garuḍa. |
| 1 | ,, | of man. |
| 2 | ,, | of four lions back to back. |

c11.s3.t6.3

Of these the lion, the elephant, the bull and the horse are explained as the riding animals of the guardian deities of the four quarters. These are Vaiśravaṇa, or Kubera with the lion on the north; Dhṛtarāṣṭra with the elephant on the east, Virūḍha with horse on the south and Virūpākṣa with the bull on the west.¹

c11.s3.t6.4

¹ Z.D.M.G., Vol. LXV, pp. 221-240.

c11.s3.t6.5

From these Mr. Smith formulates the theory of the universality of the church, ‘the congregation from the four quarters, present and absent’, adding that the number four has some mystic significance, and that the selection of the symbol was influenced in some cases by the origin of monks. There is nothing impossible in that some of these animals are the vāhanas of the guardians of the four quarters, or the dikpālas of Sanskrit literature.² There is no mystic significance about the number four, as more than four riding animals crown the various capitals of these pillars. In the light of the references occurring in the Vedic literature about these animals, it was argued that there is no foundation for the theory of the universality of the church as V. A. Smith would have it.¹ These pre-Aśokan pillars with animal capitals were pillars of victory, planted as memorials by the ancient kings of India of whom we have unfortunately no record, the images of the capital representing the emblem of their ensign, symbolical of the object of their worship.

c11.s3.t6.6

² Śabdakalpadruma, p. 709, and Mānasāra, Ch. LXII and LXIII.

c11.s3.t6.7

¹ Śabdakalpadruma, pp. 276-7.

c11.s3.t6.8

Mr. R. P. Chanda points out that the Mauryan pillars were primarily intended for worship.² Perhaps the pillar cult is as old as the chalcolithic period in the Indus valley.³ That the choice of the symbol was due to the influence exerted by the origin or nationality of the monks of an adjoining monastery, has no basis in fact. According to this assumption all the pillars in the north must possess the lion on their tops, in the east the elephant, in the south the horse, and in the west the bull. But the extant pillars do not conform to any such system. It is a historical fact that Aśoka did not erect most of them and hence was not responsible for the arrangement which we attribute to-day to him. It is therefore far from correct to say that these monuments were intended by the emperor to perpetuate the memory of the Buddha. An attempt has been made without much success to explain the symbols of the figure of a man on one of the monuments, of the Brāhmaṇi geese on the Lauṛiyā-Nandan-gaṛh pillar, and of the bell capital.⁴

c11.s3.t6.9

² Memoirs of Ar. Sur. of India, No. 34, pp. 31-33.

c11.s3.t6.10

³ Ibid., No. 41, p. 35.

c11.s3.t6.11

⁴ See A. K. Coomaraswami's article on the Origin of the Lotus (so-called Bell) capital in Ind. His. Q., Vol. VI, No. II.

c11.s3.t6.12

To conclude, the fact that Aśoka enlarged the stūpa sacred to Konākamana whom orthodox Buddhism would style as heretic, and also the fact that three caves were erected in the Barābar Hills for the Ājīvikas, the rival sect of the Buddhists, are sufficient to tell the true tale, viz., that the emperor had the same amount of sympathy which he had for Buddhism, for other sects as well, which were to all intents and purposes its rivals. It is quite obvious that the extant monuments eloquently voice forth the catholicity of his religious views, the most wonderful and the best relieving feature of the Hindu religion. It is not easy to believe that such ferocious animals as the lion and elephant symbolise the Buddha himself, the enlightened sage of Kapilavastu. Neither the monuments nor the animal symbolism can carry home the conviction and decide the religious leaning of this emperor to Buddhism.

Conclusion

c11.s3.t7.1

These are some of the weighty arguments which tend to negative the position of Aśoka’s personal faith in Buddhism. They are positive in establishing the indisputable fact that Aśoka was a follower of the dharma of his predecessors. In the face of the inscriptions of the period and the monuments of the age which throw great light on the question there is no use in depending merely on the Buddhist chronicles. An intelligent and impartial interpretation of the Edicts cannot but prove conclusively the fact that Aśoka “remained Hindu and Brahmanical till the end of his days.”[¹]