History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c91.319

v7.c91.319

It should be noted that even Aśoka's ahimsā was at first not thorough-going but qualified. In his first Rock Edict he himself states that in his royal kitchen thousands of animals were killed, but that he had reduced the slaughter to two peacocks a day and one deer (that too rarely) and that even the three animals would not be killed in future (vide C I. I. vol. I. pp 1–2). Whether this last promise was really carried out is not clear. Besides, Aśoka appears to have carried his solicitude for the protection of all life too far and used against human beings his absolute power like a dictator. In the 4th Delhi Topra Pillar edict (C. I. I., vol. I p. 124) he mentions that his revenue settlement officers called Lājūkas had to deal with many hundred thousands of men and were given the discretion to award punishments including the death sentence and that a respite of three days was allowed in which the relatives of the man condemned to death could persuade the lajūkas to grant reprieves. In the fifth Delhi-Topra pillar edict (*ibid*. pp 125–128), after 26 years of his being anointed he declared that 23 kinds of birds and other animals (such as parrots, mainas, ruddy and wild geese, doves, certain kinds of fish, tortoises) were not to be killed at all, that ewes and sows that were with young or were in milk or the young of these that were less than six months old were also not to be killed; he also forbade the sale of fish on certain Full Moon days and the days previous to them and following them, the castration of bulls, rams, horses on 8th, 14th and 15th days of a month and the branding of horses and bulls on Puṣya and Punarvasu and on cāturmāsīs These sweeping regulations must have caused great hardships to poor people and must have assumed the form of rigid coercion more or less, particularly when all discretion was left to the lajūkas. Later in life Aśoka appears to have tried to undermine the worship of Hindu Gods. In a Rupnath Rock Inscription¹⁶⁴⁹ published by Buhler in I. A. vol. VI pp. 154–156 it was stated that he had been an *upāsaka* (lay worshipper of Buddha) for certain years but that he was not zealous, that for a year or more (he had become zealous), that during that (last interval) those gods that were held to be true gods in Jambudvīpa (i e. India) had been made (to be regarded as) false and that was the reward of his zeal. This could be construed as saying that when he became a zealous Buddhist he tried to dissuade people from the worship of gods and probably resorted to coercive measures in that direction. This very inscription is edited at C. I I, Vol. I. pp 166 by Dr. Hultzsch and the translation of the important sentence is changed and is given as 'And those gods who during that time had been unmingled with men in Jambudvīpa have now been made (by me) mingled with them; for this is the fruit of zeal'. This new translation cannot be understood as it stands and on p 168 (note 3) Hultzsch admits that this sentence is enigmatical and tries to show that it refers to religious shows at which effigies of gods were shown in order to convey to the subjects that they would be able to reach the abodes of gods by the zealous practice of Buddha's Dhamma. This interpretation is extremely far-fetched and does not fit into the context How can the mere showing of exhibitions and their effect on people be regarded as the reward of zeal? Besides, in the very first rock edict he forbids assemblies or festival meetings (C. I. I. vol. I. p. 1 'na ca samājo kattavyo' except such as were regarded good by Aśoka and asserts that the king sees great evil in festival meetings. Aśoka probably followed what Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 32. 19 provides for Vedic householders 'sabhāḥ samājāṁśca' (varjayet), sabhā meaning 'gambling hall'. The author is not satisfied with the translation of Hultzsch, particularly when Bühler and Senart (pp. 168 note) agreed as to the meaning of the important sentence about gods.¹⁶⁵⁰