The Mauryan Polity c11.s3.t2.14

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.