The Mauryan Polity c5.s1.12

c5.s1.12

Though the extant purāṇas do not agree in certain details and however conflicting the accounts may be, they have done a distinct service by mentioning at least the names of the various kings of the dynasty. Pargiter has remarked rather doubtfully that the account of this dynasty suffered more than that of any other and that this was because its great fame in Buddhism disgraced it in Brahmanical eyes. There is no warrant for this supposition. It is yet a problem whether the Mauryas won great fame in Buddhism as Pargiter would have it. Our investigation into the subject leads to a different view. It is a controversial point to which we shall revert in a later chapter. Granting for our present purpose that Aśoka was a Buddhist by conviction can we conclude on this account that all the Mauryan monarchs favoured Buddhism? Surely Aśoka cannot be taken to represent all the Mauryan dynasty. There are other monarchs equally great and equally tolerant and generally accepted to be non-Buddhists. Thus the argument of Pargiter is a mere assumption and lacks the support of tangible evidence. It is again unconvincing. A remarkable circumstance in this connection is that the successors of the Mauryan dynasty, namely, the Śuṅgas and Kaṇvas or Kaṇvayānas are generally believed to be Brahmanical in their outlook and policy. This view is also shared by Pargiter. Do we get any