# Asoka - the Buddhist Emperor of India/Chapter 1

CHAPTER I
The History of Asoka
When Alexander, invincible before all enemies save death, passed away at Babylon in June, B. C. 323, and his generals assembled in council to divide the empire which no arm but his could control, they were compelled perforce to decide that the distant Indian provinces should remain in the hands of the officers and princes to whom they had been entrusted by the king. Two years later, when an amended partition was effected at Triparadeisos in Syria, Sibyrtios was confirmed as governor of Arachosia (Kandahâr) and Gedrosia (Makrân), the provinces of Aria (Herat) and Drangiana (Sistân) being assigned to Stasander the Cyprian, while Bactriana and Sogdiana to the north of the Hindû Kush were bestowed on Stasanor of Soli, another Cyprian. Oxyartes, father of Alexander's consort, Roxana, obtained the satrapy of the Paropanisadai, or Kâbul territory, the neighbouring Indian districts to the west of the Indus being placed in charge of Peithon, son of Agênor, whom Alexander had appointed ruler of Sind below the confluence of the rivers. Probably Peithon was not in a position to hold Sind after his master's death. Antipater, who arranged ​the partition, admitting that he possessed no force adequate to remove the Râjâs to the east of the Indus, was obliged to recognize Omphis or Âmbhi, king of Taxila, and Pôros, Alexander's honoured opponent, as lords of the Panjâb, subject to a merely nominal dependence on the Macedonian power. Philippos, whom Alexander had made satrap of that province, was murdered by his mercenary troops early in B. C. 324, and Alexander, who heard the news in Karmania, was unable to do more than appoint an officer named Eudêmos to act as the colleague of King Âmbhi. Eudêmos managed to hold his ground for some time, but in or about B. C. 317 treacherously slew his Indian colleague, seized a hundred and twenty elephants, and with them and a considerable body of troops, marched off to help Eumenes in his struggle with Antipater. The departure of Eudêmos marks the final collapse of the Macedonian attempt to establish a Greek empire in India.
But several years before that event a new Indian ​power had arisen which could not brook the presence of foreign garrisons, and probably had destroyed most of them prior to the withdrawal of Eudêmos. The death of Alexander in June, B. C. 323, must have been known in India early in the autumn, and it is reasonable to suppose that risings of the natives occurred as soon as the season for campaigning opened in October, if not earlier. The leader of the movement for the liberation of his country which then began was a young man named Chandragupta Maurya, who seems to have been a scion of the Nanda dynasty of Magadha, or South Bihâr, then the premier state in the interior. With the help of an astute Brahman counsellor named Chânakya, who became his minister, Chandragupta dethroned and slew the Nanda king, exterminating his family. He then ascended the vacant throne at Pâtaliputra the capital, the modern Patna, and for twenty-four years ruled the realm with an iron hand. If Justin may be believed, the usurper turned into slavery the semblance of liberty which he had won for the Indians by his expulsion of the Macedonians, and oppressed the people with a cruel tyranny. Employing the fierce and more than half-foreign elans of the north-western frontier to execute his ambitious plans, he quickly extended his sway over the whole of Northern India, probably as far as the Narbadâ. Whether he first made himself master of Magadha and thence advanced northwards against the Macedonian garrisons, or first headed the risings in the Panjâb, and then with the forces collected there swooped down upon the Gangetic Kingdom, ​does not clearly appear. There is, however, no doubt about the result of his action. Chandragupta became the first strictly historical emperor of India and ruled the land from sea to sea.
Seleukos, surnamed Nikator, or the Conqueror, by reason of his many victories, had established himself as Satrap of Babylon after the partition of Triparadeisos in b. c. 321, but six years later was driven out by his rival Antigonos and compelled to flee to Egypt. After three years' exile he recovered Babylon in b. c. 312, and devoted himself to the consolidation and extension of his power. He attacked and subjugated the Bactrians, and in b. c. 306 assumed the royal title. He is known to historians as King of Syria, although that province formed only a small part of his wide dominions, which included all western Asia.
About the same time (b. c. 305) he crossed the Indus, and directed his victorious arms against India in the hope of regaining the provinces which had been held ​by his late master for a brief space, and of surpassing his achievement by subduing the central kingdoms. But the vast hosts of teeming India led by Chandragupta were more than a match for the power of the Macedonian, who was compelled to withdraw from the country and renounce his ambition to eclipse the glory of Alexander. No record of the conflict has survived, and we are ignorant of the place of battle and everything save the result. Terms of peace, including a matrimonial alliance between the two royal houses, were arranged, and the Indian monarch obtained from his opponent the cession of four satrapies, Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia, and the Paropanisadai, giving in exchange the comparatively small recompense of five hundred elephants. This memorable treaty extended Chandragupta's frontier to the Hindû Kush mountains, and brought under his sway nearly the whole of the present Kingdom of Afghanistan, besides Balûchistan and Makrân.
A German writer has evolved from his inner consciousness a theory that Chandragupta recognized the suzerainty of Seleukos, but the plain facts are that the Syrian monarch failed and was obliged to surrender four valuable provinces for very inadequate consideration. Five hundred elephants at a high ​valuation would not be worth more than about two millions of rupees, say £200,000 sterling. Seleukos never attempted to assert any superiority over his successful Indian rival, but, on the contrary, having failed in attack, made friends with the power which had proved to be too strong for him, and treated Chandragupta as an equal.
In pursuance of this policy, soon after his defeat, in or about B. C. 305, Seleukos dispatched Megasthenes, an officer of Sibyrtios, the satrap of Arachosia, as his ambassador to the court of Chandragupta at Pâtaliputra on the Sôn, near the confluence of that river with the Ganges, which in those days was situated below the city. The modern city of Patna, the civil station of Bankipore, and adjoining villages have been proved by partial excavations to occupy the site of the ancient capital, the remains of which now lie buried at a depth of from ten to twenty feet below the existing surface. Megasthenes resided there for a considerable time, and fortunately for posterity, took the trouble to record carefully what he saw and heard. The ambassador found the government of the Indian king strong and well organized, established in a magnificent fortified city, worthy to be the capital of a great kingdom. The royal camp at the capital was estimated to contain 400,000 souls, and an efficient standing army numbering 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, 9,000 elephants, and a multitude of chariots, was maintained at the king's expense. On active service the army is said to have mustered the ​huge total of 600,000 men of all arms, a number not incredible in the light of our knowledge of the unwieldy size of the hosts employed by Indian princes in later ages. With this overwhelming and well-equipped force Chandragupta, as Plutarch tells us, 'overran and subdued the whole of India,' that is to say, at least all the country to the north of the Narbadâ. His empire, therefore, extended from that river to the Himalaya and Hindû Kush.
​After twenty-four years of stern and vigorous rule, Chandragupta died or abdicated, and transmitted the empire which he had won to his son Bindusâra Amitraghâta, who reigned for twenty-five or, according to other authorities, twenty-eight years. The only recorded public event of his reign, which may be assumed to have begun in either B. C. 298 or 301, according to the chronology adopted, is the dispatch to his court by the King of Syria of an ambassador named Deïmachos. The information is of interest as proving that the official intercourse with the Hellenic world begun by Chandragupta was continued by his successor. In the year B. C. 280 Seleukos Nikator, then in the seventy-eighth year of his age, was murdered, and was succeeded on the Syrian throne by his son Antiochos Soter.
Greek writers have preserved curious anecdotes of private friendly correspondence between Seleukos and Chandragupta and between Antiochos and Bindusâra, of value only as indications that the Indian monarchs ​communicated with their European allies on terms of perfect equality. The mission of Dionysios, who was sent to India, and no doubt to the Maurya court, by Ptolemy Philadelphos, King of Egypt (B. C. 285—247), must have arrived in the reign of either Bindusâra or his son Asoka. Patrokles, an officer who served under both Seleukos and his son, sailed in the Indian seas and collected much geographical information which Strabo and Pliny were glad to utilize.
About seven years after the death of Seleukos, Asoka-vardhana, commonly called Asoka, a son of Bindusâra, and the third sovereign of the Maurya dynasty, ascended the throne of Pâtaliputra (B. C. 273), and undertook the government of the Indian empire, which he held for about forty years. According to the silly fictions which disfigure the Ceylonese chronicles and disguise their solid merits, Asoka waded to the throne through a sea of blood, securing his position by the massacre of ninety-nine brothers, one brother only, the youngest, being saved alive. These fictions, an extract from which will be found in a later chapter, do not deserve serious criticism, and are sufficiently refuted by the testimony of the inscriptions which proves that the brothers and sisters of the king were still living in the middle of the reign, and that they and all the members of the royal family were the objects of the sovereign's anxious solicitude. ​The tradition that Asoka, previous to his accession, served his apprenticeship to the art of government as Viceroy first of Taxila, and afterwards of Ujjain, may be accepted, for we know that both viceroyalties were held by princes of the royal family.
It seems to be true that the solemn consecration, or coronation, of Asoka was delayed for about four years after his accession in B. C. 273, and it is possible that the long delay may have been due to a disputed succession involving much bloodshed, but there is no independent evidence of such a struggle. The empire won by Chandragupta had passed intact to his son Bindusâra, and when, after the lapse of a quarter of a century, the sceptre was again transmitted from the hands of Bindusâra to those of his son Asoka, it seems unlikely that a prolonged struggle was needed to ensure the succession to a throne so well established and a dominion so firmly consolidated. The authentic records give no hint that Asoka's tranquillity was disturbed by internal commotion but on the contrary exhibit him as fully master in his empire, giving orders for execution in the most distant provinces with perfect confidence that they would be obeyed.
The numerous inscriptions recorded by Asoka are the leading authority for the events of his reign. All the inscriptions, except the latest discovered, that at Maski in the Nizam's Dominions, are anonymous, describing their author by titles only. The Maski record, beginning with Devânaṁpiyasa Asokasa, supersedes much argument concerning the identity of ​Devânaṁpiya and Piyadasi with Asoka. The titles Devânaṁpiya and Piyadasi are frequently combined, although also used separately. The name of Asoka next occurs in Rudradâman's inscription, c. A. D. 152. A few other inscriptions and traditions preserved in various literary forms help to fill up the outline derived from the primary authority, and by utilizing the available materials of all kinds, we are in a position to compile a tolerably full account of the reign, considering the remoteness of the period discussed, and the well-known deficiency of Hindu literature in purely historical works. The interest of the story is mainly psychological and religious, that is to say, as we read it we watch the development of a commanding personality and the effect of its action in transforming a local Indian sect into one of the leading religions of the world. That interest is permanent, and no student of the history of religion can ignore Asoka, who stands beside St. Paul, Constantine, and the Khalîf Omar in the small group of men who have raised to dominant positions religions founded by others.
The dates which follow may be open to slight correction, for various reasons which we need not stop to examine, but the error in any case cannot exceed three years, and the chronology of the reign may be regarded as practically settled in its main outlines. Bearing in mind this liability to immaterial error, we may affirm that Asoka succeeded his father in 273, and four years later, in B. C. 269, was solemnly consecrated to the sacred office of Kingship by the rite of ​aspersion (abhisheka), equivalent to the coronation of European monarchs. Like his fathers before him, Asoka assumed the title of Devânaṁ piya, which literally means 'dear to the gods,' but is better treated as a formal title, suitably rendered by the phrase current in Stuart times, 'His Sacred Majesty.' He also liked to describe himself as piyadasi, literally 'of gracious mien,' another formal royal title, which may be rendered as 'His Grace' or 'His Gracious Majesty.' Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta, assumed the closely ielated style of piyadasana, 'dear to the sight,' which one of the Ceylonese chronicles applies to Asoka. Thus, when the above two titles were combined with the word rājā, or 'king,' Asoka's full royal style was 'His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King.' The complete formula is often used in the inscriptions, but in many cases it is abbreviated.
Nothing authentic is on record concerning the early ​years of the reign of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty King Asoka. The monkish chroniclers of India and Ceylon, eager to enhance the glory of Buddhism, represent the young king as having been a monster of cruelty before his conversion, and then known as Asoka the Wicked, in contradistinction to Asoka the Pious, his designation after conversion. But such tales, specimens of which will be found in Chapters VI and VII, are of no historical value, and should be treated simply as edifying romances. Tradition probably is right in stating that Asoka followed the religion of the Brahmans in his early days, with a special devotion to Siva, and we may assume that he led the life of an ordinary Hindu Râjâ of his time. We know, because he has told us so himself, that he then had no objection to sharing in the pleasures of the chase, or in the free use of animal food, while he permitted his subjects at the capital to indulge in merry-makings accompanied by feasting, wine, and song. Whether or not he waged any wars in those years we do not know. There is no reason to suppose that his dominions were less than those of his grandfather and father, and equally little reason for supposing that he made additions to them. In his inscriptions he counts his 'regnal years' from the date of his consecration, which may be taken as B.C. 269, and ​he always observed the anniversary of the ceremony by a jail delivery of prisoners condemned to death.
The earliest recorded events belong to the ninth 'regnal year,' B. C. 261, the thirteenth from the accession of Asoka. In that year he sought to round off his dominions by the conquest of the Kingdom of the Three Kalingas, or Kalinga, on the coast of the Bay of Bengal between the Mahânadî and Godâvarî rivers. His arms were successful and the kingdom was annexed to the empire. But the horrors which must accompany war, even successful war, made a deep impression on the heart of the victorious monarch, who has recorded on the rocks in imperishable words the sufferings of the vanquished and the remorse of the victor. The record is instinct with personal feeling, and still carries across the ages the moan of a human soul. The words clearly are those of the king himself, for no Secretary of State would dare to express in such a language 'the profound sorrow and regret' felt by His Sacred Majesty. The rocks tell the tale as follows:—
'The Kalingas were conquered by His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King when he had been consecrated eight years. One hundred and fifty thousand persons were thence carried away captive, one hundred thousand were there slain, and many times that number died.
Directly after the Kalingas had been annexed began His Sacred Majesty's zealous protection of the Law of Piety; his ​love of that Law, and his inculcation of that Law. Thence arises the remorse of His Sacred Majesty for having conquered the Kalingas, because the conquest of a country previously unconquered involves the slaughter, death, and carrying away captive of the people. That is a matter of profound sorrow and regret to His Sacred Majesty. . . . So that of all the people who were then slain, done to death, or carried away captive in Kalinga, if the hundredth part or the thousandth part were now to suffer the same fate, it would be matter of regret to His Sacred Majesty.'
The royal preacher proceeds to prove in detail the horrors of war, and to draw the lesson that the true conquest is that of piety.
After the triumphant conclusion of the war and the annexation of the kingdom Asoka issued two long special edicts prescribing the principles on which both the settled inhabitants and the wild jungle tribes of the conquered provinces should be treated. These two edicts, in substitution for three documents published in other localities, were issued in Kalinga only, where they are preserved at two sites, now called Jaugada and Dhauli. The conquered territory, no doubt, formed a separate unit of administration, and seems to have been constituted a viceroyalty under a Prince of the royal family stationed at Tosali, a town situated in the Puri District of Orissa, and apparently identical with Dhauli. There is no ​reason to believe that after the subjugation of the Kalingas Asoka ever again waged an aggressive war. His officers, the Wardens of the Marches mentioned in the edicts, may or may not have been compelled at times to defend portions of his extended frontiers against the incursions of enemies, but all that we know of his life indicates that once he had begun to devote himself to the love, protection, and teaching of the Law of Piety, or dharma, he never again allowed himself to be tempted by ambition into an unprovoked war. It is possible that the Kalinga conflict may not have been his first, but certainly it was his last war undertaken voluntarily.
The full meaning of the statement that the king's love for and protection of the Law of Piety and his teaching of that Law began directly after the annexation of Kalinga is brought out by comparison with another document (Minor Rock Edict I) published a few months earlier than the edict describing the annexation. In the earlier document, three copies of which are addressed to officers in the South through the Prince at Suvarnagiri, who apparently was the Southern Viceroy, and four to other officials, Asoka explains that for more than two years and a half he had been a lay disciple, without exerting himself strenuously, but that for more than a year prior to the publication of the edict he had become a member of the Buddhist Order of monks (saṁgha) and had devoted himself with the utmost energy to the winning of immense heavenly bliss for his people by his ​teaching. The total period referred to is consequently somewhere about four years. The conquest of the Kalingas took place in the ninth 'regnal year' (B. C. 261), while the Rock Edict describing that operation was issued four years later in the thirteenth 'regnal year' (B. C. 257). When that edict, which expressly ascribes Asoka's conversion to his remorse for the sufferings caused by the war in the ninth 'regnal year,' is read together with the Minor Rock Edict which traces his progress in virtue for four years, from the condition of a comparatively careless lay disciple to that of a zealous monk, it seems to be a necessary inference that Asoka became a lay disciple under the Buddhist system in his ninth 'regnal year,' immediately after the conquest of Kalinga, that he began to be zealous about two and a half years later, when he had been consecrated for about eleven years, and that he attained to a high standard of zeal more than a year subsequently when he began to issue his religious edicts in his thirteenth 'regnal year,' B. C. 257. He expressly informs us that his earliest inscriptions date from that year. The Minor Rock Edict I, of which seven copies are known, appears to be the first fruits of the epigraphic zeal of the convert, who longed to make everybody as energetic as himself, and resolved that the imperishable record of his 'purpose must be written on the rocks, both afar off and here, and on a stone pillar, wherever a stone pillar exists.' These orders were largely executed and resulted in the ​considerable number of rock and pillar inscriptions now extant and known. Many more probably remain to be discovered, and at least two inscribed pillars are known to have been deliberately destroyed. The period consisting of more than a year, say fifteen or sixteen months of strenuous exertion, must have been spent in preparations for his propaganda work, both in his own territories and in foreign countries, but no details are on record.
Asoka's conversion to Buddhism, therefore, may be dated in b. c. 261-260. It is impossible to be more precise because we do not know the exact value of the expressions 'more than two years and a half' and 'more than a year.' The transition from the easygoing attitude of the lay disciple to the fervent zeal of the monk was effected when His Majesty, in his eleventh 'regnal year' (b. c. 259) entered the Order, abolished the Royal Hunt, and substituted pious tours, enlivened only by sermons and religious discussions, for the tours of pleasure which he had enjoyed in his unregenerate days.
​Before proceeding farther in tracing the story of Asoka's religious development, which is the history of his life and reign, it will be convenient to pause and explain the nature of the dharma, or Law of Piety, which he loved, protected, and promulgated with all the energy of his temperament and all his power as a mighty sovereign. We must also consider how he managed to reconcile the apparently inconsistent positions of monk and monarch.
Dharma, or Dhaṁma, means to a Hindu the rule of life for each man as determined by his caste and station, or, in other words, the whole duty, religious, moral, and social, of a man born to occupy a certain position in the world. For many ages past this conception of dharma has been inseparably associated with the notions of caste. Each caste has its own dharma, and conduct most proper for the member of one caste is reprehensible in the highest degree for a member of another. In Asoka's time caste, although in some respects less rigid than it has been since the shock of the Muhammadan invasions, which did so much to solidify the institution, was well developed, and the now current Hindu notion of dharma does not seem to diverge widely from that then entertained by the followers of the Brahmanical law. The dhaṁma of the Edicts is that Hindu dharma with a difference, due to a Buddhist tinge, nay, rather due ​to saturation with the ethical thought which lies at the basis of Buddhism, but occupies a subordinate place in Hinduism. The association of the idea of duty with caste is dropped by Asoka, and two virtues, namely, respect for the sanctity of animal life and reverence to parents, superiors, and elders, are given a place far more prominent than that assigned to them in Hindu teaching. In short, the ethics of the Edicts are Buddhist rather than Brahmanical. This proposition, of course, does not involve contradiction of the equally true statement that Buddhism is a development of Hinduism. The marked prominence given to the two specially Buddhist virtues above mentioned suggests so strongly the connotation of the Latin word pietas that the phrase 'the Law of Piety,' or sometimes simply 'piety,' or 'the Law' seems to me the best ordinary rendering of dhaṁma in the Edicts, and preferable to 'righteousness,' 'religion,' 'the moral law,' or other renderings favoured by various authors. 'The Law of Duty' is an alternative.
Many summaries of the dhaṁma, or Law of Piety, are to be found in the Edicts, the most concise being that in Minor Rock Edict II:—
'Thus saith His Sacred Majesty:—Father and mother must be hearkened to; similarly, respect for living creatures ​must be firmly established; truth must be spoken. These are the virtues of the Law of Piety which must be practised. Similarly, the teacher must be reverenced by the pupil, and towards relations proper courtesy should be shown.
This is the ancient nature of piety—this leads to length of days, and according to this men should act.'
No part of the royal teaching is inconsistent with that pithy abstract, but other documents lay stress on the duties of almsgiving, toleration of all denominations, abstention from evil-speaking, and sundry other virtues. One of them defines the Law of Piety as comprising the duties of 'compassion, almsgiving, truth, purity, gentleness, and saintliness.' Excellent moral doctrine of such a kind is inculcated over and over again, and men are invited to win both the royal favour and heavenly bliss by acting up to the precepts of the Law.
No student of the edicts can fail to be struck by the purely human and severely practical character of the teaching. The object avowedly aimed at, as in modern Burma, is the happiness of living creatures, man and beast. The teacher assumes that filial piety and the other virtues commended open the path to happiness here and hereafter, but no attempt is made to prove any proposition by reasoning, nor is any value attached to merely intellectual cognition. ​No foundation of either theology or metaphysics is laid, the ethical precepts inculcated being ordinarily set forth as rules required for practical guidance and self-evidently true. One edict only, that of Bhâbrû, probably early in date, expressly alleges the authority of the Venerable Buddha as the basis of the king's moral doctrine, and that authority undoubtedly is the one foundation of Asoka's ethical system. The king was an earnest student of the Buddhist sacred books, several of which he cites by name, and the edicts throughout are full of words and turns of phrase characteristic of, even if not peculiar to Buddhist literature. So long as he felt assured that his teaching was in accordance with that of his Master he needed not to allege any other justification.
The authority expressly cited in the Bhâbrâ Edict is understood throughout the whole series, and the only non-Buddhist inscriptions of Asoka are the Barâbar cave dedications in favour of the Âjîvika ascetics, who were more akin to the Jains than to the Buddhists.
​The blessings offered by the Law of Piety, that is to say, the ethical teaching of Buddha, are not to be won by indolent acquiescence in a dogma or formal acceptance of a creed. Asoka's favourite maxim, apparently composed by himself, was the text 'Let small and great exert themselves.' He never tires of urging the necessity of exertion and effort, explaining that he himself had set a good example of hard work.
'Whatever exertions,' he observes, 'His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King makes, all are for the sake of the life hereafter, so that every one may be freed from peril, which peril is vice. Difficult, however, it is to attain such freedom, whether by people of low or of high degree, save by the utmost exertion and giving up all other aims. That, however, for him of high degree is difficult.' But 'even by the small man who chooses to exert himself, immense heavenly bliss may he won.’
This doctrine of the need for continual self-sustained exertion in order to attain the highest moral level is fully in accordance with numerous passages in the Dhaṁmapada, and other early Buddhist scriptures. The saying about the difficulties of the man of high degree, recalls, as do many other Buddhist aphorisms, familiar Biblical texts, but the spirit of the Bible is totally different from that of Asoka's teaching. The Bible, whether in the Old Testament or the New, insists upon the relation of man with God, and upon ​man's dependence on the grace of God. Asoka, on the contrary, in accordance with the practice of his Master, ignores, without denying, the existence of a Supreme Deity, and insists that man should by his own exertions free himself from vice, and by his own virtue win happiness here and hereafter. As it is said in the Dhaṁmapada:
By ourselves is evil done, By ourselves we pain endure, By ourselves we cease from wrong, By ourselves become we pure.
No one saves us but ourselves, No one can and no one may, We ourselves must tread the Path: Buddhas only show the way.
The same self-reliant doctrine is taught at this day in Burma, where 'each man is responsible for himself, each man is the maker of himself. Only he can do himself good by good thoughts, by good acts; only he can hurt himself by evil intentions and deeds.' The Buddhist attitude is akin to the Stoic, Zoroastrian, and Jain, but directly opposed to the Christian.
So much exposition may suffice to enable the reader to understand the general nature of the Buddhist dhaṁma, or Law of Piety, as taught by Asoka. Special topics of the doctrine will be discussed later, as occasion arises.
​The fact is undoubted that Asoka was both monk and monarch at the same time. The belief held by some learned writers that he had abdicated before he assumed the monastic robe is untenable, being opposed to the plain testimony of the edicts. We have seen that the earliest of them, unquestionably issued by Asoka as sovereign, expressly states that at the time of issue (B. C. 257) he had been for more than a year exerting himself strenuously as a member of the Buddhist Saṁgha, or Order of Monks, the organized monastic Church, of which the sovereign had assumed the headship. Throughout his reign he retained the position of Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith. His latest proclamations, the Minor Pillar Edicts, issued at some time during the last ten years of the reign, exhibit him as actively engaged in protecting the Church against the dangers of schism and issuing his orders for the disciplinary punishment of schismatics. In the Bhâbrû Edict, seemingly of early date, we find him describing himself as 'King of Magadha,' and using his royal authority in order to recommend to his subjects seven favourite passages selected by himself from the sacred books. That edict was recorded on a boulder within the precincts of a monastery on the top of a hill in Râjputâna, and the presumption is that the sovereign was residing in ​the monastery when he issued the orders, which are on record there only. A copy of the Minor Rock Edict I in which he gives a summary of his early religious history is engraved on a rock at the foot of another hill close by. The inscriptions give no support to the late legends which represent the great emperor as a dotard in his old age, and suggest that he abdicated his sovereign functions. His authentic records show him to have been the same man throughout his career from 257 to the end, a zealous Buddhist, and at the same time a watchful, vigorous, autocratic ruler of Church and State.
How did he manage to reconcile the vows and practices of a Buddhist monk with the duties and responsibilities of the sovereign of an enormous empire? It is not possible to give a complete answer, but fairly satisfactory explanations can be presented. The pilgrim I-tsing in the seventh century notes that the statue of Asoka represented him as wearing a monk's robe of a particular pattern. He does not seem to have been offended by any incongruity in the situation, and his attitude may be explained by the fact that he knew a Chinese Emperor to have done the same thing. It is recorded that Kao-tsu Wu-ti (alias Hsiao-Yen), the first emperor of the Liang dynasty, who reigned from A. D. 502 to 549, was 'a devout Buddhist, living upon priestly fare and taking only one meal a day; and on two occasions, in ​527 and 529, he actually adopted the priestly garb.' Du Halde relates of this emperor that—
'He was not without eminent qualities, being active, laborious, and vigilant; he managed all his affairs himself, and dispatched them with wonderful readiness; he was skilled in almost all the sciences, particularly the military art, and was so severe upon himself, and so thrifty, as 'tis said, that the same cap served him three years; his fondness at last for the whimsical conccits of the bonzes carried him so far as to neglect intirely the concerns of the State, and to become in effect a bonze himself; he put out an edict forbidding to kill oxen or sheep even for the sacrifices, and appointed ground corn to be offered instead of beasts.'
A large part of Du Halde's description applies accurately to Asoka, but I see no reason to believe that the Indian monarch resembled his Chinese imitator in entirely neglecting affairs of State during his later years.
However exact or inexact the parallel may be in detail, it holds good for the main fact that both Asoka and Wu-ti succeeded somehow in combining the duties of monk and monarch.
A slightly less exact parallel to Asoka's action is offered by the case of the Jain Kumârapâla, King of Gujarât in the twelfth century, who assumed the title of 'Lord of the Order,' and at various periods of his reign took vows of continence, temperance, abstention from animal food, and refraining from confiscation of ​the property of the faithful. Indeed, the whole story of Kumârapâla's proceedings after his conversion to Jainism offers the best possible commentary on the history of Asoka.
The legend of Vîtâsoka, the hermit brother of Asoka according to one form of the story, who was permitted to beg his alms within the palace precincts, is good evidence to show that people were accustomed to arrangements making asceticism easy for princes.
We must further remember that the Buddhist ceremony (upasampadâ) of full admission to the Order, commonly, but inaccurately, called 'ordination,' does not convey indelible 'orders' or involve a lifelong vow. In both Burma and Ceylon men commonly enter the Order temporarily, and after a time, long or short, resume civil life. Asoka could have done the same, as Wu-ti afterwards did in China, and a proceeding easy for an ordinary man is doubly easy for an emperor. In short, although we do not know the details of the arrangements by which Asoka reconciled his monastic obligations with his duties as sovereign, we know as a fact that he arranged the ​difficulty somehow, and the parallel cases enable us to understand how the business could be settled in more ways than one.
Having now defined the nature of the dhaṁma, or Law of Piety, which Asoka made it the business of his life to preach and propagate, and having shown how the apparently inconsistent rôles of monk and monarch could be reconciled in practice, we may resume his life story. We have seen that his ninth 'regnal year' (B.C. 261) was the turning-point of his career, that he then began to love, protect, and preach the Buddhist Law of Piety as a lay disciple, and that two and a half years later he assumed the monastic robe, abolished the Royal Hunt, and instituted 'pious tours.'
The memory of such a 'pious tour' in his twenty-first 'regnal year' (B. C. 249) is preserved by the commemorative records on the Rummindeî and Niglîva pillars in the Nepalese Tarâi, where there is reason to believe that other similar pillars exist. Those records prove that Asoka visited the 'Lumbini garden,' the traditional scene of the birth of Gautama Buddha, and also paid reverence to the stûpa of Konâkamana, or Kanakamuni, the 'former Buddha,' which he had already enlarged six years earlier. It is interesting ​to learn that the cult of the 'former Buddhas,' a subject imperfectly understood, was already well established in Asoka's days, but no one can tell how or when it originated.
The memory of the same pilgrimage was preserved also by literary tradition, as recorded in the Sanskrit romance called the Asokâvadâna. According to the story, which will be found in a later chapter, the king, under the guidance of his preceptor, a saint named Upagupta, visited in succession the Lumbini garden, Kapilavastu, the scene of Buddha's childhood, the Bodhi tree at Bodh Gayâ, Rishipattana, or Sârnâth, near Benares, Kusinagara, where Buddha died, the Jetavana monastery at Srâvastî, where he long resided, the stûpa of Vakkula, and the stûpa of Ânanda. The words graven on the Rummindeî pillar, 'Here the Venerable One was born,' are those ascribed by the tradition to Upagupta as spoken when he guided his royal master to the holy spot. Asoka bestowed great largess at every place except the stûpa of Vakkula, where he gave only a single copper coin, because that saint had met with few obstacles to surmount, and had consequently done little good to his fellow creatures. The explanation accords well with the severely practical character of Asoka's piety.
​The preceptor Upagupta, who probably converted Asoka, as Hemachandra converted Kumârapâla in a later age, seems to have been a real historical personage. The famous monastery at Mathurâ which bore his name appears to have been situated at the Kankâlî Tila, a Buddhist as Well as a Jain site, and his memory was also associated with various localities in Sind. He is said to have been the son of Gupta the perfumer. In the traditions of Ceylon his place is taken by Tissa, the son of Mogali, who should be regarded as a fictitious person made up from the names of Buddha's two principal disciples, as ingeniously argued by Colonel Waddell.
The eleventh 'regnal year' (B. C. 259), memorable ​as the date from which Asoka began to exert himself strenuously as Head of the Church and prophet of the dhaṁma, was marked, not only by the abolition of the Royal Hunt and the substitution of tours devoted to works of piety for the pleasure excursions of other days, but by a much more important measure, the most important ever taken by Asoka, and one which to this day bears much fruit. In or about the year mentioned he took the momentous resolution of organizing a network of preaching missions to spread the teaching of his Master, not only throughout and on the borders of his own wide empire, but in the distant regions of Western Asia, Eastern Europe, and Northern Africa. Rock Edict XIII, published with the rest of the Fourteen Rock Edicts in the fourteenth 'regnal year' (B. C. 256), gives a detailed list of the countries to which the imperial missionaries of the Law of Piety had been dispatched. We are told that His Majesty sought the conversion of even the wild forest tribes, and that missions were sent to the nations on the borders of his empire, who are enumerated as the Yonas, Kâmbojas, Nâbhapamtis of Nâbhaka, Bhojas, Pitenikas, Ândhras, and Pulindas, that is to say, various more or less civilized tribes occupying the slopes of the Himalaya, the regions beyond the Indus, and parts of the Deccan and Central India, which were under imperial control, although not included in the settled provinces administered by the emperor or his viceroys. Envoys were also sent, as far as the Tâmraparni river, to the Chola and ​Pândya kingdoms of the extreme south of the peninsula, which were independent. But these operations, extensive though they were, did not satisfy the zeal of Asoka, who ventured to send his proselytizing agents far beyond the limits of India, into the dominions of Antiochos Theos, King of Syria and Western Asia (b.c. 261-246); Ptolemy Philadelphos, King of Egypt (b.c. 285-247); Magas, King of Cyrene in Northern Africa, half-brother of Ptolemy (about b.c. 285—258), Antigonos Gonatas, King of Macedonia (b.c. 277-239), and Alexander, King of Epirus (acc. b.c. 272). Rock Edict V adds to the list of border nations given above the names of the Râshtrikas of the Marâthâ country, and the Gândhâras of the Peshâwar frontier, noting that there were yet others unnamed; while Rock Edict II, which again names Antiochos, with a reference to his Hellenistic neighbours, as well as the Cholas, and Pândyas, as far as the Tâmraparni river, adds the Satiyaputra and Keralaputra kingdoms of the Western coast to the list of countries in which healing arrangements for man and beastwere carried out. The date of the missions is fixed approximately by the fact that the year b.c. 258 is the latest in which all the Greek sovereigns named were alive together. The statements in the two edicts quoted constitute almost the whole of the primary and absolutely trustworthy evidence concerning Asoka's missionary organization.
The Ceylonese chronicles, the earliest of which was composed by Buddhist monks about six centuries ​after the Edicts, give a different list of countries and add the names of the missionaries as follows:—
| | Country. | Missionaries. |
| 1. | Kashmîr and Gandhâra (Peshâwar, &c.) | Majjhantika. |
| 2. | Mahîshamaṇḍala (Mysore) | Mahâdeva. |
| 3. | Vanavâsi (North Kannara) | Rakkhita. |
| 4. | Aparântaka (coast north of Bombay) | Yona-Dharmarakkhita. |
| 5. | Mahâraṭṭha (West Central India) | Mahâ-Dharmarakkhita. |
| 6. | Yona region(N.W. frontier provinces) | Mahârakkhita. |
| 7. | Himavanta (the Himalayan region) | Majjhima, Kassapa, &c. |
| 8. | Suvaṇṇabhûmi (Pegu and Moulmein) | Soṇa and Uttara. |
| 9. | Lankâ (Ceylon) | Mahinda (Mahendra), &c. |
All the names of countries in this list, except Nos. 8 and 9, can be reconciled with the differently worded enumeration in the inscriptions. The inclusion of No. 8, Suvaṇṇabhûmi, which is identified by most authorities with the Pegu and Moulmein territories, is, I believe, at the best, a half-truth; that is to say, that the mission, if really sent, produced little effect. Burma, as a halfway house between India and China, seems to have first received Buddhism effectively early in the Christian era in two streams converging from China on one side and northern India on the other. The close connexion between the Churches of Ceylon and Burma is of much later date.
The exclusion of the Hellenistic kingdoms from the Ceylon list is easily explained when we remember that those kingdoms had ceased to exist centuries before that list was compiled. The omission of the Tamil ​countries of Southern India may be ascribed to the secular hostility between the Sinhalese and the Tamils of the mainland, which naturally would indispose the oppressed Sinhalese to recognize the ancestors of their oppressors as having been brothers in the faith. The island monks were eager to establish the derivation of their religion direct from Magadha through the agency of Mahinda and his supposed sister, and had no desire to recall the bygone days of friendly intercourse with the hated Tamils. Sound principles of historical criticism require that when the evidence of the inscriptions differs from that of later literary traditions, the epigraphic authority should be preferred without hesitation, and there is no reason to doubt the reality of the missions to the Tamil kingdoms of the south.
The Ceylon tradition as to the names of the missionaries is partially confirmed by Cunningham's discoveries at the Bhîlsâ topes or stûpas near Sânchî, which included relic caskets bearing the name of 'Kâsapa Gota, missionary (âchariya) of the whole Hemavanta,' or Himalayan region. Other caskets bore the name of Majjhima. But when the chronicler ascribes to the monk Tissa, son of Mogali, all the credit for the organization of the missions, and ignores Asoka, we are clearly bound to apply the principle of preferring the authority of the contemporary inscriptions, and to allow Asoka the honour of having personally organized, ​with the aid of his enormous imperial power, the most comprehensive scheme of religious missionary enterprise recorded in the history of the world. The scheme was not only comprehensive but successful. It resulted in Buddhism quickly becoming the dominant religion throughout India and Ceylon, and in its ultimate extension over Burma, Siam, Cambodia, the Indian Archipelago, China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Tibet, and other countries of Asia. In some of these countries Buddhism did not effect its entry until centuries after the time of Asoka, but the diffusion of the religion in them all was due to the impetus given by the great Buddhist emperor of India, who transformed the creed of a local Indian sect into a world-religion, the most important of all the religions, perhaps, if the numbers of its adherents be taken as the test.
The obvious comparison of Asoka with Constantine suggests the thought that the action of the Indian monarch was far more influential than that of the Roman emperor, whose official patronage of Christianity was rather an act of tardy and politic submission to a force already irresistible than the willing devotion of an enthusiastic believer. If Constantine had not ​adopted the Christian creed himself, his successors would have been compelled to do so, but if Asoka had withheld his heartfelt adherence to the teaching of Buddha there is no reason to suppose that the doctrine had strength enough to impose itself upon the faith of India and half of the civilized world. Gautama Buddha lived, moved, and died within a small territory in and near Magadha, and there is no indication that during the interval of three centuries which elapsed between his death and the dispatch of missions by Asoka the Buddhist teaching had made any great noise in the world or was known beyond very narrow limits, nor is there any reason to believe that Asoka was constrained by political reasons to make a virtue of necessity and yield to the demands of an imperious priesthood. We watch in the personal records drafted by himself the gradual growth of his sincere convictions and the orderly development of the policy which consecrated his immense autocratic power and diplomatic influence as the sovereign of one of the greatest empires in the world to the service of the religion which had captured his heart and intellect.
An abstract of the monastic legends of Ceylon and India which purport to describe the conversion of Ceylon will be found in Chapters VI and VII. They cannot be accepted as history, and, in reality, the conversion of the island must have been a process much slower then it is represented to have been. But we do not possess any authoritative account of what actually happened. The Edicts, as now ​interpreted, are silent about Ceylon, and cannot be cited in support of the local monastic traditions which, although resting upon a basis of fact, are wholly untrustworthy for details. We must be content to admit our ignorance, which is likely to continue. I am sceptical about the tale of Sanghamitrâ, the supposed daughter of Asoka. Her name, which means 'Friend of the Order,' is extremely suspicious, and the inscriptions give no indication of her existence. Professor Oldenberg has much justification for his opinion that the story of Mahinda and his sister seems to have 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 Asoka. The historical legend is fond of poetically exalting ordinary occurrences into great and brilliant actions; we may assume that, in reality, things were accomplished in a more gradual and less striking manner than such legends make them appear.'
The naturalization in Ceylon of the immense mass of Buddhist literature now existing in Pâli and, I believe, also in Sinhalese, must necessarily have been a work of time, and would seem to be the fruit of long and continuous intercourse between Ceylon and the adjacent parts of India, rather than the sudden result of direct communication with Magadha. The statements of the Chinese pilgrims in the fifth and seventh centuries prove that Asoka's ​efforts to propagate Buddhism in the far South were not in vain, and that monastic institutions existed in the Tamil countries which were in a position to influence the faith of the island. Hiuen Tsang mentions one stûpa in the Chola country, and another in the Drâvida or Pallava kingdom as being ascribed to Asoka. Still more significant is his description of the state of religion in a.d. 640 in the Malakotta Pândya country to the south of the Kâviri (Cauvery), where he found that—
'Some follow the true doctrine, others are given to heresy. They do not esteem learning much, but are wholly given to commercial gain. There are the ruins of many old convents, but only the walls are preserved, and there are few religious followers. There are many hundred Deva [Brahmanical] temples, and a multitude of heretics, mostly belonging to the Nirgranthas [Jains].
Not far to the east of this city [the unnamed capital, ? Madura] is an old sanghârâma [monastery] of which the vestibule and court are covered with wild shrubs; the foundation walls only survive. This was built by Mahendra, the younger brother of Asoka-râja.
To the east of this is a stûpa, the lofty walls of which are buried in the earth, and only the crowning part of the cupola remains. This was built by Asoka-râja.'
This interesting passage, which shows how vivid the traditions of Asoka and his brother continued ​to be in the south after the lapse of nine centuries, and locates Mahendra in a monastery to the south of the Kâviri, within easy reach of Ceylon, goes a long way to support the hypothesis that Mahendra really passed over to the island from a southern port on the mainland. That hypothesis is certainly much more probable than the Ceylonese story that he came flying through the air, 'as flies the king of swans.' Nor is it likely that his first discourse converted the king and forty thousand of his subjects.
But, notwithstanding the mythology which has gathered round his name, Mahendra or Mahinda, the younger brother of Asoka, was a real, historical personage, and there can be no doubt that he was a pioneer in the diffusion of Buddhism in Ceylon. The concurrence of Indian and Ceylonese traditions, and the existence of monuments bearing his name both in the island and on the mainland do not permit of scepticism as to his reality. But the Ceylonese version of the story which represents him as an illegitimate son of Asoka is unsupported, and is opposed to the Indian tradition as current in both Northern and Southern India, at Pâtaliputra and at Kânchî (Conjeeveram), and reported by Fa-hien at the beginning of the fifth century, as well as by Hiuen Tsang in a. d. 640. Even the monks of Ceylon, who met the later pilgrim at Kânchî, and told him the accepted legend of the conversion of their country, knew Mahendra as the younger ​brother, not the son of Asoka. It is obvious that the true form of the tradition was more likely to survive at Pâtaliputra, the ancient capital, than anywhere else, and Fa-hien when there about a. d. 400 heard anecdotes concerning Asoka's hermit brother, who is named Mahendra by Hiuen Tsang. Other forms of the legend call him Vîtâsoka or Vigatâsoka, but the evidence of the monuments in India and Ceylon fixes his name as Mahendra or Mahinda.
The assumption of the monastic robe by the emperor’s younger brother, or rather half-brother on the mother's side, was quite in accordance with precedent and rule. 'According to the laws of India,' says a Chinese historian, 'when a king dies, he is succeeded by his eldest son (Kumârarâja); the others leave the family and embrace a religious life, and they are no longer allowed to reside in their native kingdom.' In Tibet the rule was varied in the case of the famous king Ral-pa-chan (died a. d. 838), who allowed his elder brother, Gtsang-ma, to enter the Order, and was succeeded by his younger brother. Other parallel cases might be cited to justify the assertion of Prof. Jacobi that 'the spiritual career in India, just as the Church in Roman Catholic countries, seems to have offered a field for the ambition of younger sons.' We may ​feel assured that Mahendra or Mahinda, the apostle of Ceylon, was the brother, not the son of Asoka. As to the conversion of the king and people of the island, I hold that it was only begun by Mahendra, that the existence of his sister Sanghamitrâ is doubtful, and that the chroniclers' accounts of Mahendra's proceedings should be treated as edifying romances resting on a basis of fact, the extent of which cannot be determined precisely.
The thirteenth and fourteenth 'regnal years' (b. c. 257, 256) were busy ones for Asoka, marking great advance in his spiritual development and religious policy. Two (Nos. III and IV) of the Fourteen Rock Edicts are expressly dated in the thirteenth, while No. V mentions the fourteenth, 'regnal year.' In the localities where all the fourteen edicts occur it is clear that the whole set was engraved at once. The publication, therefore, may be dated in b. c. 256. The two special Kalinga Edicts, which were substituted in the newly conquered province for Nos. XI-XIII of the series, may be assigned to the same period, which also witnessed the dedication of costly caves in the Barâbar Hills near Gayâ to the use of the non-Buddhist Âjîvika ascetics and the institution of quinquennial official transfers for the purpose of public instruction in the Law of Piety. Officers of all ranks, when serving in their several jurisdictions, were directed to undertake the business of propaganda in addition to their ordinary duties. ​The Kalinga Provincials' Edict, by a supplementary clause, modified the general orders and instructed the Princes of Ujjain and Taxila to have the transfers carried out at intervals of three years only. Elaborate arrangements were made for ensuring full publicity to the royal commands.
Another important administrative measure was taken in the fourteenth 'regnal year' (b. c. 256) by the appointment for the first time of special officers of high rank, entitled Dharma-mahâmâtras, that is to say, mahâmâtras, or superior officials, exclusively engaged in the enforcement of the edicts concerning dharma, or the Law of Piety, and additional to the ordinary civil mahâmâtras. These officers may be described conveniently as Censors, and similar appointments have been made under the name of Dharmâdhikârîs in Kashmîr and other Hindu states in modern times. Asoka attached high importance to the organization of the body of Censors, who received very comprehensive instructions to enforce the Law of Piety among all religious denominations, among the Yonas and other border tribes, and even in the households of the sovereign's brothers, sisters, and other relatives. They were assisted by subordinate officials termed Dharmayuktas.
In the following year (fifteenth 'regnal,' b. c. 255) ​Asoka enlarged for the second time the stûpa of the 'former Buddha' Konâkamana, or Kanakamuni, which he visited personally six years later. The relation of the cult of the 'former Buddhas' to the religion of Gautama, as already observed, is a subject concerning which very little is known.
In the twentieth 'regnal year,' b. c. 250, the sovereign presented a third costly rock-dwelling to the Âjîvikas; and in the year following, b. c. 249, made the pilgrimage to the holy places of Buddhism already noticed. The dated record is then interrupted until the twenty-seventh 'regnal year,' b. c. 243, when Pillar Edict VI, dealing with the necessity that every man should have a definite creed, was composed. The dated series of inscriptions as discovered up to the present terminates in b. c. 242 with Pillar Edict VII, comprising ten distinct sections or separate edicts, and giving a comprehensive review of the measures taken during the reign for the propagation of the Law of Piety Within the empire.
The Minor Pillar Edicts of Sârnâth, Allahabad-Kausâmbî, and Sânchî must be later in date because the position and mode of engraving the Queen's and Kausâmbî Edicts on the Allahabad pillar, which evidently was removed from Kausâmbî, indicate clearly that the short records are supplementary and posterior to the main series of Pillar Edicts on the same monument. The Kausâmbî and Sânchî documents are merely variants of the Sârnâth Edict. The Queen's Edict treats of another subject.
​Inasmuch as the Sârnâth Edict and its variants deal with the disciplinary punishment to be inflicted on schismatic persons and emphatically declare the imperial resolve that no rending in twain of the Church should be permitted, it is reasonable to connect those orders with the Buddhist Council which tradition affirms to have been convened by Asoka at his capital for the purpose of suppressing heresy. The Ceylonese books date the Council either sixteen or eighteen years after the consecration of Asoka, but those dates must be erroneous, because, if the Council had been convened before the twenty-eighth 'regnal year,' it would surely have been mentioned in the seventh Pillar Edict, which reviews all the internal measures taken up to that date by the sovereign for the promotion of the Law of Piety. The Council, however, may well have taken place in any one of the ten or eleven years intervening between the last dated edict and the close of the reign. It is said in various traditions to have been concerned with the overthrow of heresy, and if there be any truth in that story, the Sârnâth Edict and its variants may be regarded as embodying the resolution of the Council, and may be dated in one or other of the years near the end of the reign.
​Having thus traced Asoka's religious history in chronological order as far as positive dates are available, we shall now proceed to discuss certain features of his policy which cannot be treated with equal chronological accuracy. Several edicts record the successive steps taken by the king to give effect to the principle of the sanctity of animal life, which was one of his cardinal doctrines. In the early years of his reign Asoka was not troubled by any scruples on the subject, and he confesses in the first Rock Edict, it is to be hoped with some exaggeration, that 'formerly in the kitchen of his Sacred and Gracious Majesty each day many hundred thousand of living creatures were slaughtered to make curries.' Afterwards, presumably from the time when he became a lay disciple, or, perhaps, from the eleventh 'regnal year,' the slaughter was reduced to 'two peacocks and one antelope—the antelope, however, not invariably.' From the thirteenth 'regnal year' all killing for the royal table was stopped. The same edict prohibits at the capital the celebration of animal sacrifices and merry-makings involving the use of meat, but in the provinces such practices apparently continued to be lawful. The suppression of the Royal Hunt some two years later than his conversion marked an intermediate stage in the monarch's growing devotion to his favourite doctrine. The final development of his ​policy in this matter is defined by Pillar Edict V, dated b.c. 243, which lays down an elaborate code of regulations restricting the slaughter and mutilation of animals throughout the empire. Those regulations were imposed on all classes of the population without distinction of creed, social customs, or religious sentiment. A long list was published of animals the slaughter of which was absolutely prohibited, and other rules prescribed restrictions on the slaughter of animals permitted to be killed, and prohibited or limited the practice of different kinds of mutilation. Asoka could not venture to absolutely forbid the castration of bulls, he-goats, rams and boars, but he regarded the practice as unholy, and prohibited it on all holy days, amounting to about a quarter of the year. The branding of horses and cattle was treated in the same spirit. On fifty-six days the capture or sale of fish was prohibited, and on the same days, even in game preserves, animals might not be destroyed. The caponing of cocks was declared to be absolutely unlawful at all times.
The practical working of such minutely detailed rules must have been almost intolerably vexatious, and they cannot fail to have pressed with painful harshness upon people who believed sacrifice on certain days to be necessary to salvation and on many classes of the working population. The insistence on the display of energy by the Censors and all classes of officials in carrying out the imperial commands must have produced a crowd of informers and an immense ​amount of tyranny. Regard for the sanctity of animal life, even that of the meanest vermin, is not peculiar to Buddhism, being practised even more strictly by the Jains, and esteemed more or less highly by most Brahmanical Hindus. It rests on the theory of re-birth, which underlies nearly all forms of Indian religion, and binds together in one chain all classes of living creatures, whether gods or demi-gods, angels or demons, men or animals. But, although that doctrine had been familiar to the mind of India for ages, its strict enforcement to a certain extent as part of the civic duty of every loyal subject, irrespective of his personal religious belief, was a new thing, and imposed a novel burden on the lieges. The regulations must have had permanent influence in obtaining the general acceptance of ideas formerly restricted to sections of the population. It is noteworthy that Asoka's rules do not forbid the slaughter of cows, which, apparently, continued to be lawful. The problem of the origin of the intense feeling of reverence for the cow, now felt by all Hindus, is a very curious one, imperfectly solved. The early Brahmans did not share the sentiment.
The doctrine of the duty of reverence to parents, seniors, and teachers seems to have held in Asoka's eyes a place second only to that of the sanctity of animal life. It is reiterated over and over again in the Edicts, but no development of the principle is traceable.
The sanctity attaching to the life of the most ​insignificant insect was not extended to the life of man. The monkish legend that Asoka abolished the death penalty is not true. His legislation proves that the idea of such abolition never entered his thoughts, and that like other Buddhist monarchs, he regarded the extreme penalty of the law as an unavoidable necessity, which might be made less horrible than it had been, but could not be dispensed with. Late in his reign, in b.c. 243, he published an ordinance that every prisoner condemned to death should invariably be granted before execution a respite of three days in which to prepare himself for the next world. This slight mitigation of the usual practice of Indian despots, whose sentence was commonly followed by instant or almost instant execution, is all that Asoka claims credit for. The inferior value attaching to human as compared with animal life presumably is due to the fact that men are responsible for their deeds while animals are not. In later times Hindu Râjâs have not hesitated to execute a man for killing a beast, and it is unlikely that Asoka was less severe.
One of the most noticeable features in the teaching of Asoka is the enlightened religious toleration which is so frequently and emphatically recommended. The Dharma, or Law of Piety, which he preached and propagated unceasingly with amazing faith in the power of sermonizing, had few, if any, distinctive features. The doctrine was essentially common to all Indian religions, although one sect or denomination might lay particular stress on one factor in it rather ​than on another. The zeal of Asoka for Buddhism is proved, not by his presentation of Dharma, but by his references to the canon, by the cast of his language, by his pilgrimages to Buddhist holy places, and by his active control of the Church. His personal devotion to the teaching of Gautama did not cool his goodwill to other sects. The edicts repeatedly enjoin the duty of almsgiving to Brahman as well as Buddhist ascetics: the king, using his Master's words, declares all men to be his children, announces his impartial consideration for all denominations, including Jains and Âjîvikas, and implores people to abstain from speaking ill of their neighbours' faith. He sees good in all creeds, and is persuaded that men of all faiths perform, at any rate, a part of the commandment. So much may be gathered from the Fourteen Rock Edicts of b.c. 257 and 256. The sixth Pillar Edict of b.c. 243 goes a little further and insists on the necessity for every person having a definite creed. 'I devote my attention,' Asoka observes, 'to all communities, for all denominations are reverenced by me with various forms of reverence. Nevertheless, personal adherence to one's own creed is the chief thing in my opinion.' These latitudinarian views did not, as we have seen, prevent him from imposing very stringent rules of conduct on persons of all ranks and classes, irrespective of their religious denomination. Men might believe what they liked but must do as they were told.
When we apply to Asoka's policy the word ​toleration with its modern connotation and justly applaud the liberality of his sentiments, another qualification is needed, and we must remember that in his days no really diverse religions existed in India. The creeds of Jesus, Zoroaster, and Muhammad were unknown. The only organized religion other than Buddhism or Jainism was Hinduism, and that complex phenomenon at all times is more accurately described as a social system than by the name of either a religion or a creed. When Asoka speaks of the toleration of other men's creeds, he is not thinking of exclusive, militant religions like Christianity and Islam, but of Hindu sects all connected by many links of common sentiment. The dominant theory of rebirth, for instance, was held by nearly all. Buddhism and Jainism both were originally mere sects of Hinduism—or rather schools of philosophy founded by Hindu reformers—which in course of time gathered an accretion of mythology around the original speculative nucleus, and developed into religions.
Asoka, therefore, was in a position which enabled him to realize the idea that all Indian denominations were fundamentally in agreement about what he, from the practical point of view, calls 'the essence of the matter,' all of them alike aiming at self—control and purity of life; and he thus felt fully justified in doing honour in various ways to Jains and Brahmanical Hindus as well as to Buddhists. While lavishing his treasure chiefly on Buddhist shrines and monasteries, he did not hesitate to spend large sums in hewing ​out of hard gneiss spacious cave-dwellings for the Âjîvika naked ascctics, not even grudging the expense of polishing the interiors like a mirror; and there can be no doubt that liberal benefactions were bestowed likewise on the Jains and Brahmans. Indeed, Kashmîr tradition has preserved the names of Brahmanical temples built or restored by Asoka. Similar toleration, evidenced in practice by concurrent endowment of various creeds, was practised by later princes. Khâravela of Orissa, for instance, used language almost identical with that of Asoka, and avowed that he did reverence to all creeds. In much more recent times the cases of Harsha and many other Râjâs who acted on the same principle are familiar to students of Indian History.
The sentiment which dictated the tolerant conduct of the old kings is still accepted, and has been expressed by a lady who has penetrated deeply below the surface of Indian character:
'It is natural enough to the Hindu intellect,' she observes, 'that around each such forth-shining of the divine should grow up a new religious system. But each of them is only a special way of expressing the one fundamental doctrine of Mâyâ [scil. illusion], a new mode of endearing God to man. At the same time it is thought that every one, while recognizing ​this perfect sympathy of various faiths for one another, should know how to choose one among them for his own, and persist in it, till by its means he has reached the point where the formulae of sects are meaningless to him . . . . "A man has a right to hold his own belief, but never to force it upon another" is the dictum that has made of India a perfect university of religious culture, including every stage of thought and practice.'
A modern Hindu writer, following the same line of thought, lays down the rule:
'Let every man, so far as in him lieth, help the reading of the scriptures, whether those of his own Church or those of another.'
Asoka presumably did not believe in the Vedântist doctrine of Mâyâ, which forms a bond of union between so many Hindu sects, but, nevertheless, his theory of the relation which one sect or denomination should bear to another, as expressed in Rock Edict XII and Pillar Edict VI, agrees exactly with the principles formulated by Miss Noble and Pratâpa Siṁha.
Although Asoka unquestionably was familiar with a body of sacred Buddhist literature substantially identical with a large part of the Pâli canonical scriptures, the teaching of the edicts gives the impression of being different from that of most Buddhist works. We find no distinct reference to the doctrine of karma, or transmitted merit and demerit, nor is any allusion made to nirvâṇa, as the goal to be obtained ​by the good man. No doubt the emperor believed in karma, although he does not plainly say so, and very probably he may have looked forward to nirvâṇa, although he does not express the hope. His precepts, as already observed, are purely practical and intended to lead men into the right way of living, not into correct philosophical positions. Many passages in the edicts indicate that he believed firmly in the 'other world' or 'future life.' He tells us, for instance (Rock Edict VIII), that all his exertions were directed to the end that he might discharge his debt to animate beings, make some of them happy in this world, and also enable them in the other world to gain heaven. Again (Rock Edict IX), making the same contrast, he warns his people that ordinary ritual may be of only temporal effect, good for this world alone, while the ritual of the Law of Piety produces endless merit (puṇyam) in the other world. The next following edict offers the same promise to those who practise the true kind of almsgiving. Still more emphatic is the declaration near the close of Rock Edict XIII that only the things concerning the other world are regarded by His Majesty as bearing much fruit, and he concludes by adjuring his descendants to place all their joy in efforts which avail for both this world and the next. The warning given in the Provincials' Edict to negligent officials in Kalinga is couched in the following remarkable terms:—
'See to my commands; such and such are the instructions of His Sacred Majesty. Fulfilment of these bears great fruit, non-fulfilment brings great calamity. By those who fail neither heaven (svarga) nor the royal favour can be won. Ill performance of this duty can never win my regard, whereas by fulfilling my instructions you will gain heaven and also pay your debt to me.'
The inducements thus held out seem hardly consistent with the Buddhist philosophy of most books, but the reference to heavenly bliss is supported by the words of the Buddha in the Kûṭadanta Sutta:—'Then the Blessed One discoursed to Kûtadanta the Brahman in due order; that is to say, he spake to him of generosity, of right conduct, of heaven, of the danger, the vanity, and the defilement of lusts, of the advantages of renunciation.'
While Asoka took infinite pains to issue and enforce 'pious regulations,' he put his trust in the 'superior effect of reflection' as the chief agent in the promotion of 'the growth of piety among men and the more complete abstention from killing animate beings, and from sacrificial slaughter of living creatures.' Nor did he rely solely upon the combined effect of reflection and pious regulations for the success of his propaganda. He continually extolled the merit of almsgiving, and attached much importance to practical works of benevolence, in the execution of which he set a good example. Within his own dominions he provided for the comfort of man and ​beast by the plantation of shade-giving and fruit-bearing trees, the digging of wells, and the erection of rest-houses and watering-places at convenient intervals along the highroads. He devoted special attention to elaborate arrangements for the care and healing of the sick, and for the cultivation and dissemination of medicinal herbs and roots in the territories of foreign allied sovereigns as well as within the limits of the empire. Although the word hospitals does not occur in the edicts, such institutions must have been included in his arrangements, and the remarkable free hospital which the Chinese pilgrim found working at Pâtaliputra six and a half centuries later doubtless was a continuation of Asoka's foundation. The curious animal hospitals which still exist at Surat and certain other cities in Western India also may be regarded as survivals of Asoka's institutions.
The greater part of Asoka's moral teaching is in agreement with, and may be fairly summed up in the familiar words of the Church Catechism:
'To love, honour, and succour my father and mother . . . to submit myself to all my governours, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters: to hurt no body by word nor deed: to be true and just in all my dealing: to bear no malice nor hatred in my heart: to keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil-speaking, lying, and slandering . . . and to do my duty in that state of life, unto which it shall please God to call me.'
​Although Asoka probably had no clear faith in a living, personal God, his teaching certainly attained to a level of practical morality little inferior to that of the Church of England in many respects, and superior in one point, by the inclusion of animals within the circle of neighbours to whom duty is due. Until very recent times Christian moralists and divines have been slow to recognize the obligation to treat animals with kindness, or even to abstain from inﬂicting Wanton cruelty upon them, while Asoka brackets together the 'sparing of living creatures' and the 'kind treatment of slaves and servants.' These remarks, of course, apply only to the documents as they stand. The question as to how far the admirable sentiments of the edicts were acted on by either teacher or taught is incapable of solution, but there can be little doubt that on the whole Buddhism produced a valuable and permanent improvement in Indian notions of morality, and that its beneficent action was largely promoted by Asoka's official propaganda. Brahmanical Hinduism always has shown a tendency either to exalt unduly the purely intellectual apprehension of transcendental propositions or to attach excessive value to the performance of ceremonies, which, as Asoka observed, 'bear little fruit,' and, consequently, to undervalue moral duty. Buddhism put moral obligation in the front.
The last glimpse obtained of the historical Asoka is that afforded by the Minor Pillar Edicts, which exhibit him as the watchful guardian of the unity and discipline of the Church which he loved. How, when, ​or where he died we know not, and no monument exists to mark the spot where his ashes rest. The Hindu Purânas assign him a reign of either thirty—six or thirty—seven years, in substantial agreement with the chronicles of Ceylon, which also give the duration of the reign as thirty—seven years. By adding the interval of about four years between his accession and coronation, the total duration of the reign may be taken as either forty or forty-one years. The materials available do not permit of the chronology being adjusted with more minute accuracy, but in assigning the period b.c. 273-542 to the reign of Asoka we cannot be far Wrong. The initial date is fixed within narrow limits of possible error by two independent calculations, one starting from the death of Alexander in b.c. 323 and the nearly contemporaneous accession of Chandragupta, the other working backwards from b.c. 258, the date of the death of Magas of Cyrenc, who is mentioned in the thirteenth Bock Edict, published presumably in the fourteenth 'regnal year' reckoned from Asoka's consecration. Some uncertainty is introduced into the first calculation by doubts as to the exact time of Chandragupta's accession and by the discrepancy of authorities concerning the length of the reign of Bindusâra, whether twenty-five or twenty-eight years. The second calculation, based upon the year b.c. 258, leaves very little room for doubt, and all authorities are agreed that Chandragupta reigned for twenty-four years. On the ​whole, I think it best to assign b. b. 325 for the accession of Chandragupta, 301 for that of Bindusâra, and 273 for that of Asoka, whose coronation followed in 269.
Several eminent scholars have held and defended the opinion that the figures 256 at the end of Minor Rock Edict I must be interpreted as a date expressing the number of years elapsed since the death of Buddha, and in the first edition of this work that opinion was treated as probable. But further examination of the problem has convinced me that M. Senart and Mr. F. W. Thomas are right in rejecting the date theory, according to which, if the death of Buddha be assumed to have taken place in 487, the edict would be dated in b.c. 231, at the close of Asoka’s life. I now accept the view that the edict in question is the earliest of the whole collection, and dates from cir. b. b. 257. This divergence of opinion as to the interpretation of that document seriously affects the treatment of the life history of Asoka. As already observed, I reject the theory that he abdicated, and am of opinion that the connected theory of his conversion late in life is opposed to the clear testimony of the inscriptions. ​Nothing of importance is known about the successors of Asoka. His grandson, Dasaratha, mentioned in the Purânas, is shown to have been a real personage by his inscriptions in the Nâgâjuni Hills near Gaya, where he dedicated caves to the use of the Âjîvikas, as his grandfather had done in the neighbouring Barâbar Hills. The Jain literary tradition of Western India has much to tell about a grandson named Samprati, who is represented as having been an eminent patron of Jainism—in fact, a Jain Asoka, but these traditions are not supported by inscriptions or other independent evidence. The hypothesis that the great emperor left two grandsons, of whom one succeeded him in his eastern and the other in his western dominions, is little more than a guess; but it appears to be nearly certain that in the cast he was followed directly by Dasaratha. The pathetic story of the blinded son, Kunâila, briefly related in Chapter VII of this book, is mere folk-lore, and the account in the Kashmîr chronicle of Jalauka, another son, is little more, although fortified by some prosaic details. He is represented as an ardent worshipper of Siva, while his queen was devoted to the service of the Mother-goddesses, or Saktis. The edicts, which indicate that Asoka had many sons and grandsons, give the name of only one son, Tivara, whose mother was the second queen, the Kâruvâki, and nothing is known about his fate.
​The names of the successors of Asoka after Dasaratha as stated in different books vary, but the Purânas agree that the dynasty came to an end after a duration of either 133 or 137 years. Taking the accession of Chandragupta to have occurred in b.c. 325, the extinction of the Maurya line may be dated in b.c. 188. It seems plain that the later Mauryas were comparatively insigniﬁcant princes ruling a restricted territory, and that the empire governed for about ninety years with such distinction by Chandragupta, Bindusâra, and Asoka, crumbled to pieces when the strong arm of the third sovereign dropped the sceptre. The end is said to have come when Brihadratha, the last of the Maurya dynasty, was put to death by Pushya-mitra Sunga, his commander-in-chief, who usurped the throne. But, although the imperial dynasty became extinct within half a century after the death of Asoka, his descendants seem to have continued to be local chieftains in Magadha for some eight centuries, because Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, tells us that shortly before his arrival, Pûrnavarman, Râjâ of Magadha, and the last descendant of Asoka, had piously restored the sacred Bodhi tree at Gayâ, which Sasanka, King of Bengal, had destroyed. These events happened soon after a.d. 600.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE MAURYA PERIOD (Indian dates merely approximate)
| B.C | Regnal year of Asoka. | Event. | Remarks. |
| 327-25 | — | Indian campaigns of Alexander the Great; Chandragupta in his youth met Alexander. |
| 325-22 | — | Revolt of Indian provinces. |
| 325 | — | Accession of Chandragupta Maurya as king of Magadha and emperor of India. |
| cir. 324 | — | Murder of Satrap Philippos; Indian provinces placed in charge of Eudêmos and King Âmbhi (Omphis) of Taxila. |
| 323,Junc | — | Death of Alexander at Babylon. |
| 321 | — | Partition_ of Triparadeisos; kings Âmbhi and Pôros in charge of the Panjâb. |
| cir. 317 | — | Withdrawal of Eudêmos. |
| 315 | — | Seleukos Nikator driven out of Babylon. |
| 312 | — | Recovery of Babylon by Seleukos; Seleukidan era, 1st October. |
| 306 | — | Seleukos assumed title of king. |
| cir. 305 | — | War between Selenkos and Chandragupta; cession of four satrapies west of Indus by Seleukos; mission of Megasthenes to Pataliputra. |
| 301 | — | Battle of Ipsos. Accession of Bindusâra. Amitraghâta Maurya. |
| cir. 300 | — | Mission of Deīmachos. |
| 285 | — | Accession of Ptolemy Philadelphos, king of Egypt. |
| 280 | — | Death of Seleukos Nikator; accession of Antiochos Soter, his son. |
| 278 or 277 | — | Accession of Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia. ​ |
| 273 | — | Accesion of Asoka—vardhana Maurya. | |
| 272 | — | Accession of Alexander, king of Epirus. | |
| 269 | 1 | Consecration (abhisheka = coronation) of Asoka. | |
| 261 | 9 | Conquest of Kalinga. by Asoka, who became a Buddhist lay disciple (upâsaka); accession of Antiochos Theos, king of Syria. | Rock E.XIII; Minor Rock E. I. |
| 259 | 11 | Asoka entered the Buddhist Order as a monk, abolished Royal Hunt, established 'pious tours,' and dispatched missionaries. | Rock E. II, VIII, XIII; Minor Rock E. I; Pillar E. VII. |
| 258 | 12 | Death of Magas, king of Cyrene, half - brother of Ptolemy Philadelphos; (2) death of Alexander, king of Epirus. | |
| 257 | 13 | Asoka composed Minor Rock Edict I and Rock Edicts III and IV, dedicated Barâbar Caves 1 and 2 to the Âjîvikas, and instituted quinquennial transfers of officials. | Minor Rock E. I; Rock E. III, IV; Minor Rock E. II maybe a little later. Barâbar Cave dedications. |
| 256 | 14 | Completion of Fourteen Rock Edicts; Kalinga. Borderers' Edict; a ointment of Censors; (?) Bhâbrû Edict. | Rock E. V, XIV; Borderers' E.; Bhâbrû E. |
| 255 | 15 | (?) Kalinga Provincials' Edict; enlargement for second time of stûpa of Konâkamana Buddha near Kapilavastu. | Provincials' E.; Nigliva Pillar inscription. |
| 250 | 20 | Dedication of Barâbar Cave No. 3 to the Âjîvikas. | Barâbar Cave dedication. |
| 249 | 21 | Pilgrimage to Buddhist holy places. | Rummiudeî and Niglîva Pillar inscriptions. ​ |
| 248-46 | 22to24 | Declaration of independence by Bactria. and Parthia. | |
| 247 | 23 | Death of Ptolemy Philaclelplios, king of Egypt. | |
| 247 or 246 | 23or24 | Death of Antiochos Theos, king of Syria. | |
| 243 | 27 | Composition of Pillar Edict VI., | Pillar E. VI. |
| 242 | 28 | Completion of Seven Pillar Edicts; (?) death of Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia. | Pillar-E. VII. |
| cir. 240 | 30 | Buddhist Councll at Pâtaliputra. | |
| 240-32 | 3oto37 | Minor Pillar Edicts. | Minor Pillar E. |
| 232 | | Death of Asoka; accession Of Daaaratha, and (?) Of Samprati; dedication of Nâgârjuni Caves to the Âjîvikas. | Dîpaṁśa, Mahâvaṁśa, Purâṇas, Nâgârjuni Cavededications. |
| 188 | | Murder of Brihadratha Maurya by Pushyamitra Śunga; extinction of Miaurya imperial dynasty. | |
* ↑ 'For it was impossible to remove (μετακινῆσαι) these kings without royal troops under the command of some distinguished general' (Diodorus Sic. xviii. 39).
* ↑ The partition of Triparadeisos is detailed in Diodorus Siculus, xviii. 39. His statement that the country along the Indus was assigned to Pôros, and that along the Hydaspes to Taxiles (scil. Âmbhi) cannot be correct, and the names of the kings seem to have been transposed. The departure of Eudêmos is related, ibid. xix. 14. He is said to have seized the elephants after the death of Alexander, 'having treacherously slain Pôros the king.' But there is a various reading πρῶτον ('first') for Πῶρον ('Pôros').
* ↑ 'Auctor libertatis Sandrocottus fuerat: sed titulum libertatis post victoriam in servitutem verterat. Siquidem occupato regno, populum, quem ab externa dominatione vindicaverat, ipse servitio premebat. Fuit hic quidem humili genere natus . . . contractis latronibus, Indos ad novitatem regni sollicitavit. Molienti deinde bellum adversus praefectos Alexandri. . . . Sic acquisito regno, Sandrocottus ea tempestate, qua Seleucus futurae magnitudinis fundamenta iaciebat, Indiam possidebat: cum quo facta pactione Seleucus.' The miracles are omitted from the quotation. The word deinde seems to indicate that the war with Alexander's officers followed the usurpation (Justin, xv. 4).
* ↑ The current assertion that the Syrian King 'gave his daughter in marriage' to Chandragupta is not warranted by the evidence, which testifies merely to a 'matrimonial alliance' (κήδος, έπιγαμία). The authorities for the extent of the cession of territory by Seleukos are textually quoted and discussed in Early History of India, 3rd ed., App. F.
* ↑ The chief authority for the history of Chandragupta is Megasthenes. His work has been lost, but the pith of it is preserved in extracts or allusions by Arrian, Anabasis, Bk. v. ch. 6; Indika, various passages; Q. Curtius, Bk. viii. ch. 9; Plutarch, Life of Alexander, ch. 62; Justin, Bk. xv. ch. 4; Appian, Syriakê, ch. 55; Strabo, i. 53, 57; ii. 1. 9; xv. i. 36; Athenaios, Deipnosophists, ch. 18 d; and Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 19, &c. The testimony of Megasthenes concerning all matters which came under his personal observation is trustworthy, and Arrian rightly described him as 'a worthy man' (δόκιμος). Strabo and some other ancient writers censure him unjustly on account of the 'travellers' tales' which he repeated. The passages above cited and most of the other references in Greek and Roman authors to India have been carefully translated in Mr. McCrindle's works (Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Trübner, 1877; Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 2nd ed., 1896; and Ancient India as described in Classical Literature, 1901). Interesting traditional details are given in the Mudrâ-Râkshasa drama, which is now believed by some scholars to date from the fifth or sixth century A. D. But Mr. Keith places it in either the seventh or the ninth century (J. R. A. .S., 1909, p. 149). The Arthaśâstra of Kautilya or Chânakya, discovered in 1904, and completely translated in 1915 by R. Shamasastry (Bangalore Government Press) is the best commentary on the Asoka inscriptions and on his institutions. The Purâṇas and the chronicles of Ceylon also give valuable information, and a few particulars are obtainable from other sources. Solinus (McCrindle, Megasthenes, p. 156) gives the infantry force as 60,000 only, and the elephants as 8,000.
* ↑ The name Bindusâra is attested by the Hindu Vishṇu Purâṇa, the Buddhist Mahâvaṁśa and Dîpavaṁśa, and the Jain Pariśishṭaparvan. The variants in other Purâṇas seem to be mere clerical errors. The name or title Amitraghâta ('slayer of foes') is a restoration in Sanskrit of the Amitrochades or Amitrochates of Greek writers, who is stated to have been the son of Chandragupta (Sandrakoptos, &c.). Târanâth indicates that Bindusâra extended the empire towards the south. See S. K. Aiyangar, The Beginnings of Indian History, chap. ii. (Madras, 1918.)
* ↑ Asoka's 'brothers and sisters' are mentioned specifically in Rock Edict V. See also Rock Edicts IV and VI, Pillar Edict VII, and the Queen's Edict.
* ↑ Dr. Fleet prefers the term 'anointing,' and states that the liquid poured over the king included 'ghee' or clarified butter (J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 30 note).
* ↑ The reasons for rendering the royal style as in the text are explained in 'The Meaning of Piyadasi' (Ind. Ant., xxxii (1903), p. 265). Chandragupta is called piadaṁsana in the Mudrâ-Râkshasa (Act vi), which used to be dated in the eighth century, but is now ascribed by some scholars to the Gupta period, in the fifth or sixth century (Hillebrandt, Über das Kauṭilîyaśastra, Breslau, 1908, pp. 26, 30); contra, Keith, in J. R. A. S., 1909, p. 149. I do not deny that the chronicleis of Ceylon used Piyadasi and Piyadassana as quasi proper names, but I affirm that in the inscriptions the titles are not so used.
* ↑ Rock Edicts I, VIII.
* ↑ The earliest dated inscriptions are of the thirteenth, and the latest (Pillar Edict VII) of the twenty-eighth 'regnal year,' corresponding respectively with B. C. 257 and 242. The Minor Pillar Edicts, which are not dated, appear to be certainly later than 242. The Queen's Edict is the latest of all.
* ↑ Rock Edict XIII.
* ↑ The Kalinga Edicts, formerly called Detached, replacing Nos. XI-XIII of the series published elsewhere.
* ↑ Dhauli version of the Borderers' Edict.
* ↑ Pillar Edict VI.
* ↑ Namely, Lâṭ Bhairo at Benares, smashed during a riot in 1809, and one at Pâṭaliputra, numerous fragments of which were found by the late Bābû Purna Chandra Mukharjî, as described in an unpublished report. See the author's paper identifying Lâṭ Bhairo with a pillar described by Hiuen Tsang published in Z. D. M. G., 1909, pp. 337-49.
* ↑ This argument was lucidly stated by M. Senart in 1886 (Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi, tome II, pp. 222-45). When the first edition of this book was published I was misled by interpretations of Minor Rock Edict I now proved to be erroneous. The position adopted in this edition, which has the support of Mr. F. W. Thomas as well as of M. Senart, was opposed by Fleet, whose latest article appeared in J. R. A. S., 1913, p. 655.
* ↑ In the Bhâbrû Edict the Good Law (sadhaṁme) means the collective sayings of Buddha, the recorded expression of the Law of Piety in its highest form.
* ↑ Other summaries are given in Rock Edicts III, IV, IX, XI, and Pillar Edict VII. sec. 7.
* ↑ Pillar Edict VII.
* ↑ 'His religion says to him [the Burmese], "the aim of every man should be happiness," and happiness only to be found by renouncing the whole world' (Fielding Hall, The Soul of a People, p. 113).
* ↑ Having adopted the opinion of M. Senart and Mr. F. W. Thomas that Minor Rock Edict I is the earliest of the series, I am inclined to assign the Bhâbrû Edict to the same time. That Edict and a version of Minor Rock Edict I were recorded close together near Bairât in Râjputâna.
* ↑ All the seven passages cited in the Bhâbrû Edict have been identified in the Nikâya portion of the Canon. The quoted sayings, 'The Good Law Will long endure' (Bhâbrû Edict), and 'All men are my children' (Borderers' Edict), also are canonical. M. Senart has noted many specially Buddhist words and phrases throughout the inscriptions.
* ↑ Minor Rock Edict I.
* ↑ Rock Edict X.
* ↑ Minor Rock Edict I (Brahmagiri text).
* ↑ Fielding Hall, The Soul of a People, p. 226. Contrast the teaching of the Church Catechism:—'My good Child, know this, that thou art not able to do these things of thyself, nor to walk in the Commandments of God, and to serve him, without his special grace.'
* ↑ The correct reading is Mâgadhe, agreeing with lâjâ, and not Mâgadhaṁ, agreeing with Saṁghaṁ (Bloch).
* ↑ Takakusu, translation of I-tsing, A Record of Buddhist Practices, p. 73.
* ↑ Giles, Chinese Literature (1901), p. 133.
* ↑ Du Halde, History of China, Engl. transl., 3rd. ed. (London, 1741), vol. i, p. 381.
* ↑ Bühler, Ueber das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemachandra (Wien, 1889), pp. 29-42.
* ↑ 'Il se mit à parcourir en mendiant les appartements intérieurs, mais il recevait de très bons aliments. Le roi dit aux femmes des appartements intérieurs: Donnez-lui des aliments semblables à ceux que ramassent les Religieux qui mendient.' (Burnouf, Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, 2$^e$ éd., p. 375, with Burnouf's necessary emendation.) See post, chap. vii. .
* ↑ Bodoahprâ, the ferocious king of Burma, who reigned from 1781 to 1819, and claimed descent from Asoka (Phayre, History of Burma, 1884, p. 235), proclaimed himself to be a Buddha, and dwelt for some time in a monastery, but tired of it, resumed power, and reverted to his evil ways (Calc. Rev., 1872, p. 136).
* ↑ Rummindeî on the Tilâr river certainly is the site of the Lumbini garden (see Plate II). The Kapilavastu visited by Hiuen Tsang is represented by Tilaurâ Kôṭ (Mukherjî and V. A. Smith, Antiquities in the Tarâi, Nepâl; Archaeol. S. Rep. Imp. S., vol. xxvi, 1901). Bodh Gayâ, six miles south of Gayâ, is well known. The discoveries made at Sârnâth in 1904 and subsequent years include an edict of Asoka. The site of Kusinagara has not been finally determined. I believe it to have been near Tribeni Ghât, where the Little Râptî joins the Gandak (E. Hist. India, 3rd ed., p. 159 n.). See also the author's work, The Remains near Kasia, the reputed Site of Kuçanagara (Allahabad, 1896); 'Kusinârâ or Kuśinagara,' J. R. A. S., 1902; Archaeol. S., Annual Rep., 1904-5. The site of Srâwastî seems to be at Sahât-Mahât on the south bank of the Râptî in Oudh. I once believed it to be in Nepal on the upper course of the Râptî; but contra, Vogel, J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 971. The legend of Bakkula or Vakkula is told in the Bakkula-sutta (J. R. A. S., 1903, p. 373). There were two stûpas of Ânanda, one on each side of the Ganges (Legge, Travels of Fa-hien, ch. xxvi; Hiuen Tsang). For the Asokâvadâna see Burnouf, Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme, or Râjendralâl Mitra, Sanskrit Nepalese Literature.
* ↑ Growse placed the Upagupta monastery at the Kankâlî mound (Mathurâ, 3rd ed., p. 122). For references to other books and papers see 'Asoka's Father-Confessor' in Ind. Ant., 1903, p. 365.
* ↑ The argument is worked out at length in the author's essay, 'Asoka's alleged Mission to Pegu (Suvaṇṇanbhûmi),' Ind. Ant., xxxiv (1905), pp. 180-6), and is carried further in Mr. Taw Sein Ko's Progress Report of the Archaeol. S. Burma for 1905-6.
* ↑ Bhilsa Topes, pp.287, 289, 317, pl. xx. The finding of a casket inscribed Mogaliputasa does not establish the real existence of the Ceylonese Tissa, son of Mogali, as distinct from Upagupta.
* ↑ 'When Constantine, partly perhaps from a genuine moral sympathy, yet doubtless far more in the well-grounded belief that he had more to gain from the zealous sympathy of its professors than he could lose by the aversion of those who still cultivated a languid paganism, took Christianity to be the religion of the empire, it was already a great political force, able, and not more able than willing, to repay him by aid and submission' (Bryce, Holy Roman Empire (1892), p. 10).
* ↑ Introduction to the Vinayapitakam, p. 4 (ii).
* ↑ Beal, Records of the Western World, ii. 231; instead of 'only the walls are preserved,' Watters renders 'very few monasteries were in preservation,' which agrees with the context and seems to be correct (On Yuan Chwang, ii. 228).
* ↑ Beal, Life of Hiuen Tsiang, p. 144.
* ↑ Legge, Travels of Fa-hien, p.77, chap. xxvii.
* ↑ Ma-twan-lin in Ind. Ant. ix. 22.
* ↑ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, p. 225.
* ↑ S. B. E., xxii, p. 15.
* ↑ Rock Edict III.
* ↑ Ind. Ant., xxxii (1903), p. 365. The word 'minister' would be a good rendering of mahâmâtra, in some cases at all events.
* ↑ Rock Edict V, Pillar Edict VII.
* ↑ The subordinate civil officials were known simply as yuktas, upayuktas, or âyuktas.
* ↑ The value of the traditions of the Councils is discussed at length in the author's essay 'The Identity of Piyadasi (Priyadarśin) with Aśoka Maurya and some connected Problems,' J. R. A. S., 1901, pp. 842-58; and also by M. Poussin in Ind. Ant., 1908, and by Professor R. Otto Franke (transl. Mrs. Rhys Davids) in J. Pâli Text Soc., 1908. Any attempt to reconstruct a narrative of the actual proceedings of the Council from the conflicting traditions is hopeless.
* ↑ Stein, transl. Râjatar., Bk. I, vv. 101-7.
* ↑ Journal, Bihar and Orissa Research Society, vol. iii (1917), pp. 460, 467.
* ↑ E. Hist. India, 3rd edition, pp. 178, 179, 265, 303, 331, 346. But religious persecutions occurred occasionally (ibid., pp. 202, 203. 347. 455).
* ↑ Miss Noble, The Web of Indian Life, pp. 224, 281.
* ↑ Pratâpa Siṁha, Bhakta Kalpadruma (1866), transl. Grierson (J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 359).
* ↑ 'In this World,' literally 'here'; 'in the other world,' literally 'on the other side'; 'heaven,' svarga.
* ↑ Rhys Davids, Dialogues of the Buddha, p. 184.
* ↑ Pillar Edict VII, sec. 9.
* ↑ Rock Edict II, Pillar Edict VII; Fa-hien, Travels, ch. xxvii; E. Hist. India, 3rd ed., pp. 183, 296.
* ↑ Rhys Davids‘ note in Anc. Coins and Measures of Ceylon, p. 41, corrects the copyist's error which makes the Mahâvaṁsa assign thirty-four years to the reign.
* ↑ Bühler maintained the date theory to the last (Ind. Ant., xxii. 302), and has been followed by Dr. Fleet in several articles in the J. R. A. S., of which the latest is in the volume for 1913, p. 655. For date of death of Buddha see E. Hist. India, 3rd ed., pp. 46, 47. If b. c. 487 be correct, the Ceylonese date 218 a. b. for the consecration of Asoka also will be right (487-218 = 269). But I now incline to 544 or 543 b.c.
* ↑ Stein, transl. Rājatar, Bk. i. vv. 108-52.
* ↑ Queen's Edict.