The Mauryan Polity c11.s3.t2: Buddhist Inscriptions

The Mauryan Polity c11.s3.t2

Language: English

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

Linked texts (10)

Itivuttaka — Pāli
Gopakamoggallānasutta — Pāli
Rāhulovādasutta — Pāli
Ariyavaṃsasutta — Pāli
*Anāgatabhayasūtra — Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vinayapiṭaka — Pāli
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli
Calcutta-Bairāṭ (Bhabru) edict — Prakrit
Sarnath Pillar Edict — Prakrit