ASOKA
1
The first period in the history of Buddhism extends from the death of
the founder to the death of Asoka, that is to about 232 B.C. It had then
not only become a great Indian religion but had begun to send forth
missionaries to foreign countries. But this growth had not yet brought
about the internal changes which are inevitable when a creed expands far
beyond the boundaries within which it was a natural expression of local
thought. An intellectual movement and growth is visible within the
limits of the Pali Canon and is confirmed by what we hear of the
existence of sects or schools, but it does not appear that in the time
of Asoka the workings of speculation had led to any point of view
materially different from that of Gotama.
Our knowledge of general Indian history before the reign of Asoka is
scanty and the data which can be regarded as facts for Buddhist
ecclesiastical history are scantier still. We hear of two (or including
the Mahâsangîti three) meetings sometimes called Councils; scriptures,
obviously containing various strata, were compiled, and eighteen sects
or schools had time to arise and some of them to decay. Much doubt has
been cast upon the councils[551] but to my mind this suspicion is
unmerited, provided that too ecclesiastical a meaning is not given to
the word. We must not suppose that the meetings held at Râjagaha and
Vesâlî were similar to the Council of Nicaea or that they produced the
works edited by the Pali Text Society. Such terms as canon, dogma and
council, though indispensable, are misleading at this period. We want
less formal equivalents for the same ideas. A number of men who were
strangers to those conceptions of a hierarchy and a Bible[552] which are
so familiar to us met together to fix and record the opinions and
injunctions of the Master or to remove misapprehensions and abuses. It
would be better if we could avoid using even the word Buddhist at this
period, for it implies a difference sharper than the divisions existing
between the followers of Gotama and others. They were in the position of
the followers of Christ before they received at Antioch the name of
Christians and the meeting at Râjagaha was analogous to the conferences
recorded in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
The record of this meeting and of the subsequent meeting at Vesâlî is
contained in Chapters XI. and XII. of the Cullavagga, which must
therefore be later than the second meeting and perhaps considerably
later. Other accounts are found in the Dîpavaṃsa, Mahâ-Bodhi-Vaṃsa and
Buddhaghosa's commentaries. The version given in the Cullavagga is
abrupt and does not entirely agree with other narratives of what
followed on the death of the Buddha[553]. It seems to be a combination
of two documents, for it opens as a narrative by Kassapa, but it soon
turns into a narrative about him. But the clumsiness in compilation and
the errors of detail are hardly sufficient to discredit an event which
is probable in itself and left an impression on tradition. The Buddha
combined great personal authority with equally great liberality. While
he was alive he decided all questions of dogma and discipline himself,
but he left to the Order authority to abolish all the minor precepts. It
seems inevitable that some sort of meeting should have been held to
consider the position created by this wide permission. Brief and
confused as the story in the Cullavagga is, there is nothing improbable
in its outline—namely that a resolution was taken at Kusinârâ where he
died to hold a synod during the next rains at Râjagaha, a more central
place where alms and lodgings were plentiful, and there come to an
agreement as to what should be accepted as the true doctrine and
discipline. Accordingly five hundred monks met near this town and
enquired into the authenticity of the various rules and suttas. They
then went on to ask what the Buddha had meant by the lesser and minor
precepts which might be abolished. Ânanda (who came in for a good deal
of blame in the course of the proceedings) confessed that he had
forgotten to ask the Master for an explanation and divergent opinions
were expressed as to the extent of the discretion allowed. Kassapa
finally proposed that the Sangha should adopt without alteration or
addition the rules made by the Buddha. This was approved and the Dhamma
and Vinaya as chanted by the assembled Bhikkhus were accepted. The
Abhidhamma is not mentioned. The name usually given to these councils is
Sangîti, which means singing or chanting together. An elder is said to
have recited the text sentence by sentence and each phrase was intoned
after him by the assembly as a sign of acceptance. Upâli was the
principal authority for the Vinaya and Ânanda for the Dhamma but the
limits of the authority claimed by the meeting are illustrated by an
anecdote[554] which relates that after the chanting of the law had been
completed Pûraṇa and his disciples arrived from the Southern Hills. The
elders asked him to accept the version rehearsed by them. He replied,
"The Dhamma and Vinaya have been well sung by the Theras, nevertheless
as they have been received and heard by me from the mouth of the Lord,
so will I hold them." In other words the council has put together a very
good account of the Buddha's teaching but has no claim to impose it on
those who have personal reminiscences of their own.
This want of a central authority, though less complete than in
Brahmanism, marks the early life of the Buddhist community. We read in
later works[555] of a succession of Elders who are sometimes called
Patriarchs[556] but it would be erroneous to think of them as possessing
episcopal authority. They were at most the chief teachers of the order.
From the death of the Buddha to Asoka only five names are mentioned. But
five names can fill the interval only if their bearers were unusually
long-lived. It is therefore probable that the list merely contains the
names of prominent Theras who exercised little authority in virtue of
any office, though their personal qualities assured them respect. Upâli,
who comes first, is called chief of the Vinaya but, so far as there was
one head of the order, it seems to have been Kassapa. He is the Brahman
ascetic of Uruvelâ whose conversion is recorded in the first book of the
Mahâvagga and is said to have exchanged robes with the Buddha[557]. He
observed the Dhutângas and we may conjecture that his influence tended
to promote asceticism. Dasaka and Sonaka are also designated as chiefs
of the Vinaya and there was perhaps a distinction between those who
studied (to use modern phrases) ecclesiastical law and dogmatic
theology.
The accounts[558] of the second Council are as abrupt as those of the
first and do not connect it with previous events. The circumstances said
to have led to its meeting are, however, probable. According to the
Cullavagga, a hundred years after the death of the Buddha certain
Bhikkhus of Vajjian lineage resident at Vesâlî upheld ten theses
involving relaxations of the older discipline. The most important of
these was that monks were permitted to receive gold and silver, but all
of them, trivial as they may seem, had a dangerous bearing for they
encouraged not only luxury but the formation of independent schools. For
instance they allowed pupils to cite the practice of their preceptors as
a justification for their conduct and authorized monks resident in one
parish to hold Uposatha in separate companies and not as one united
body. The story of the condemnation of these new doctrines contains
miraculous incidents but seems to have a historical basis. It relates
how a monk called Yasa, when a guest of the monks of Vesâlî, quarrelled
with them because they accepted money from the laity and, departing
thence, sought for support among the Theras or elders of the south and
west. The result was a conference at Vesâlî in which the principal
figures are Revata and Sabbakâmi, a pupil of Ânanda, expressly said to
have been ordained one hundred and twenty years earlier[559]. The ten
theses were referred to a committee, which rejected them all, and this
rejection was confirmed by the whole Sangha, who proceeded to rehearse
the Vinaya. We are not however told that they revised the Sutta or
Abhidhamma.
Here ends the account of the Cullavagga but the Dîpavaṃsa adds that the
wicked Vajjian monks, to whom it ascribes wrong doctrines as well as
errors in discipline, collected a strong faction and held a schismatic
council called the Mahâsangîti. This meeting recited or compiled a new
version of the Dhamma and Vinaya[560]. It is not easy to establish any
facts about the origin and tenets of this Mahâsangîtika or Mahâsanghika
sect, though it seems to have been important. The Chinese pilgrims Fa
Hsien and Hsüan Chuang, writing on the basis of information obtained in
the fifth and seventh centuries of our era, represent it as arising in
connection with the first council, which was either that of Râjagaha or
some earlier meeting supposed to have been held during the Buddha's
lifetime, and Hsüan Chuang[561] intimates that it was formed of laymen
as well as monks and that it accepted additional matter including
dhâraṇîs or spells rejected by the monkish council. Its name (admitted
by its opponents) seems to imply that it represented at one time the
opinions of the majority or at least a great number of the faithful. But
it was not the sect which flourished in Ceylon and the writer of the
Dîpavaṃsa is prejudiced against it. It may be a result of this animus
that he connects it with the discreditable Vajjian schism and the
Chinese tradition may be more correct. On the other hand the adherents
of the school would naturally be disposed to assign it an early origin.
Fa Hsien says[562] that the Vinaya of the Mahâsanghikas was considered
"the most complete with the fullest explanations." A translation of this
text is contained in the Chinese Tripitaka[563].
Early Indian Buddhism is said to have been divided into eighteen sects
or schools, which have long ceased to exist and must not be confounded
with any existing denominations. Fa Hsien observes that they agree in
essentials and differ only in details and this seems to have been true
not only when he wrote (about 420 A.D.) but throughout their history. In
different epochs and countries Buddhism presents a series of surprising
metamorphoses, but the divergences between the sects existing in India
at any given time are less profound in character and less violent in
expression than the divisions of Christianity. Similarly the so-called
sects[564] in modern China, Burma and Siam are better described as
schools, in some ways analogous to such parties as the High and Low
Church in England. On the other hand some of the eighteen schools
exceeded the variations permitted in Christianity and Islam by having
different collections of the scriptures. But at the time of which we are
treating these collections had not been reduced to writing: they were of
considerable extent compared with the Bible or Koran and they admitted
later explanatory matter. The record of the Buddha's words did not
profess to be a miraculous revelation but merely a recollection of what
had been said. It is therefore natural that each school should maintain
that the memory of its own scholars had transmitted the most accurate
and complete account and that tradition should represent the successive
councils as chiefly occupied in reciting and sifting these accounts.
It is generally agreed that the eighteen[565] schools were in existence
during or shortly before the reign of Asoka, and that six others[566]
arose about the same period, but subsequently to them. The best
materials for a study of their opinions are afforded by the text and
commentary[567] of the Kathâ-vatthu, a treatise attributed to Tissa
Moggaliputta, who is said to have been President of the Third Council
held under Asoka. It is an examination and refutation of heretical views
rather than a description of the bodies that held them but we can judge
from it what was the religious atmosphere at the time and the commentary
gives some information about various sects. Many centuries later I-ching
tells us that during his visit to India (671-695 A.D.) the principal
schools were four in number, with eighteen subdivisions. These four[568]
are the Mahâsanghika, the Sthavira (equivalent to the old Theravâda),
the Mûlasarvâstivâda and the Sammitiya, and from the time of Asoka
onwards they throw the remaining divisions into the shade[569]. He adds
that it is not determined which of the four should be grouped with the
Mâhâyana and which with the Hînayâna, that distinction being probably
later in origin. The differences between the eighteen schools in
I-ching's time were not vital but concerned the composition of the canon
and details of discipline. It was a creditable thing to be versed in the
scriptures of them all[570]. It is curious that though the Kathâvatthu
pays more attention to the opinions of the six new sects than to those
held by most of the eighteen, yet this latter number continued to be
quoted nearly a thousand years later, whereas the additional six seem
forgotten. It may be that they were more unorthodox than the others and
hence required fuller criticism. Five of their names are geographical
designations, but we hear no more of them after the age of Asoka.
The religious horizon of the heretics confuted in the Kâthavatthu does
not differ materially from that of the Pitakas. There are many questions
about arhatship, its nature, the method of obtaining it and the
possibility of losing it. Also we find registered divergent views
respecting the nature of knowledge and sensation. Of these the most
important is the doctrine attributed to the Sammitiyas, that a soul
exists in the highest and truest sense. They are also credited with
holding that an arhat can fall from arhatship, that a god can enter the
paths or the Order, and that even an unconverted man can get rid of all
lust and ill-will[571]. This collection of beliefs is possibly
explicable as a result of the view that the condition of the soul, which
is continuous from birth to birth, is stronger for good or evil than its
surroundings. The germs of the Mahâyâna may be detected in the opinions
of some sects on the nature of the Buddha and the career of a
Bodhisattva. Thus the Andhakas thought that the Buddha was superhuman in
the ordinary affairs of life and the Vetulyakas[572] held that he was
not really born in the world of men but sent a phantom to represent him,
remaining himself in the Tusita heaven. The doctrines attributed to the
Uttarâpathakas and Andhakas respectively that an unconverted man, if
good, is capable of entering on the career of a Bodhisattva and that a
Bodhisattva can in the course of his career fall into error and be
reborn in state of woe, show an interest in the development of a
Bodhisattva and a desire to bring it nearer to human life which are
foreign to the Pitakas. An inclination to think of other states of
existence in a manner half mythological half metaphysical is indicated
by other heresies, such as that there is an intermediate realm where
beings await rebirth, that the dead benefit by gifts given in the
world[573], that there are animals in heaven, that the Four Truths, the
Chain of Causation, and the Eightfold Path, are self-existent
(asankhata).
The point of view of the Kathâ-vatthu, and indeed of the whole Pali
Tripitaka, is that of the Vibhajjavâdins, which seems to mean those who
proceed by analysis and do not make vague generalizations. This was the
school to which Tissa Moggaliputta belonged and was identical with the
Theravâda (teaching of the elders) or a section of it. The prominence of
this sect in the history of Buddhism has caused its own view, namely
that it represents primitive Buddhism, to be widely accepted. And this
view deserves respect for it rests on a solid historical basis, namely
that about two and a half centuries after the Buddha's death and in the
country where he preached, the Vibhajjavâdins claimed to get back to his
real teaching by an examination of the existing traditions[574]. This is
a very early starting-point. But the Sarvâstivâdins[575] were also an
early school which attained to widespread influence and had a similar
desire to preserve the simple and comparatively human presentment of the
Buddha's teaching as opposed to later embellishments. Only three
questions in the Kathâ-vatthu are directed against them but this
probably means not that they were unimportant but that they did not
differ much from the Vibhajjavâdins. The special views attributed to
them are that everything really exists, that an arhat can fall from
arhatship, and that continuity of thought constitutes Samâdhi or
meditation. These theses may perhaps be interpreted as indicative of an
aversion to metaphysics and the supernatural. A saint has not undergone
any supernatural transformation but has merely reached a level from
which he can fall: meditation is simply fixity of attention, not a
mystic trance. In virtue of the first doctrine European writers often
speak of the Sarvâstivâdins as realists but their peculiar view
concerned not so much the question of objective reality as the
difference between being and becoming. They said that the world _is_
whereas other schools maintained that it was a continual process of
becoming[576]. It is not necessary at present to follow further the
history of this important school. It had a long career and flourished in
Kashmir and Central Asia.
Confused as are the notices of these ancient sects, we see with some
clearness that in opposition to the Theravâda there was another body
alluded to in terms which, though hostile, still imply an admission of
size and learning, such as Mahâsanghika or Mahâsangîtika, the people of
the great assembly, and Âcâryavâda or the doctrine of the Teachers. It
appears to have originated in connection with some council and to embody
a popular protest against the severity of the doctrine there laid down.
This is natural, for it is pretty obvious that many found the
argumentative psychology of the Theravâdins arid and wearisome. The
Dîpavamsa accuses the Mahâsanghikas of garbling the canon but the
Chinese pilgrims testify that in later times their books were regarded
as specially complete. One well-known work, the Mahâvastu, perhaps
composed in the first century B.C., describes itself as belonging to the
Lokuttara branch of the Mahâsanghikas. The Mahâsanghikas probably
represent the elements which developed into the Mahâyâna. It is not
possible to formulate their views precisely but, whereas the Theravâda
was essentially teaching for the Bhikkhu, they represented those
concessions to popular taste from which Buddhism has never been quite
dissociated even in its earliest period.
2
For some two centuries after Gotama's death we have little information
as to the geographical extension of his doctrine, but some of the
Sanskrit versions of the Vinaya[577] represent him as visiting Muttra,
North-west India and Kashmir. So far as is known, the story of this
journey is not supported by more ancient documents or other arguments:
it contains a prediction about Kanishka, and may have been composed in
or after his reign when the flourishing condition of Buddhism in
Gândhâra made it seem appropriate to gild the past. But the narratives
about Muttra and Kashmir contain several predictions relating to the
progress of the faith 100 years after the Buddha's death and these can
hardly be explained except as references to a tradition that those
regions were converted at the epoch mentioned. There is no doubt of the
connection between Kashmir and the Sarvâstivâdins nor anything
improbable in the supposition that the first missionary activity was in
the direction of Muttra and Kashmir.
But the great landmark in the earlier history of Buddhism is the reign
of Asoka. He came to the throne about 270 B.C. and inherited the vast
dominions of his father and grandfather. Almost all that we know of the
political events of his reign is that his coronation did not take place
until four years later, which may indicate a disputed succession, and
that he rounded off his possessions by the conquest of Kalinga, that is
the country between the Mahanadi and the Godavari, about 261 B.C. This
was the end of his military career. Nothing could be gained by further
conquests, for his empire already exceeded the limits set to effective
government by the imperfect communications of the epoch, seeing that it
extended from Afghanistan to the mouths of the Ganges and southwards
almost to Madras. No evidence substantiates the later stories which
represent him as a monster of wickedness before his conversion, but
according to the Dîpavaṃsa he at first favoured heretics.
The general effect of Asoka's rule on the history of Buddhism and indeed
of Asia is clear, but there is still some difference of opinion as to
the date of his conversion. The most important document for the
chronology of his reign is the inscription known as the first Minor Rock
Edict[578]. It is now generally admitted that it does not state the time
which has elapsed since the death of the Buddha, as was once supposed,
and that the King relates in it how for more than two and a half years
after his conversion to Buddhism he was a lay-believer and did not exert
himself strenuously, but subsequently joined the Sangha[579] and began
to devote his energies to religion rather more than a year before the
publication of the edict. This proclamation has been regarded by some as
the first, by others as the last of his edicts. On the latter
supposition we must imagine that he published a long series of ethical
but not definitely Buddhist ordinances and that late in life he became
first a lay-believer and then a monk, probably abdicating at the same
time. But the King is exceedingly candid as to his changes of life and
mind: he tells us how the horrors of the war with Kalinga affected him,
how he was an easygoing layman and then a zealous monk. Had there been a
stage between the war and his acceptance of Buddhism as a layman, a
period of many years in which he devoted himself to the moral progress
of his people without being himself a Buddhist, he would surely have
explained it. Moreover in the Bhâbrû edict, which is distinctly
ecclesiastical and deals with the Buddhist scriptures, he employs his
favourite word Dhamma in the strict Buddhist sense, without indicating
that he is giving it an unusual or new meaning. I therefore think it
probable that he became a lay Buddhist soon after the conquest of
Kalinga, that is in the ninth or tenth year after his accession, and a
member of the Sangha two and a half years later. On this hypothesis all
his edicts are the utterances of a Buddhist.
It may be objected that no one could be a monk and at the same time
govern a great empire: it is more natural and more in accordance with
Indian usage that towards the end of his life an aged king should
abdicate and renounce the world. But Wu Ti, the Buddhist Emperor of
China, retired to a monastery twice in the course of his long reign and
the cloistered Emperors of Japan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
continued to direct the policy of their country, although they abdicated
in name and set a child on the throne as titular ruler. The Buddhist
Church was not likely to criticize Asoka's method of keeping his
monastic vows and indeed it may be said that his activity was not so
much that of a pious emperor as of an archbishop possessed of
exceptional temporal power. He definitely renounced conquest and
military ambitions and appears to have paid no attention to ordinary
civil administration which he perhaps entrusted to Commissioners; he
devoted himself to philanthropic and moral projects "for the welfare of
man and beast," such as lecturing his subjects on their duties towards
all living creatures, governing the Church, building hospitals and
stûpas, supervising charities and despatching missions. In all his
varied activity there is nothing unsuitable to an ecclesiastical
statesman: in fact he is distinguished from most popes and prelates by
his real indifference to secular aspirations and by the unusual
facilities which he enjoyed for immediately putting his ideals into
practice.
Asoka has won immortality by the Edicts which he caused to be engraved
on stone[580]. They have survived to the present day and are the most
important monuments which we possess for the early history of India and
of Buddhism. They have a character of their own. A French writer has
said "On ne bavarde pas sur la pierre," and for most inscriptions the
saying holds good, but Asoka wrote on the rocks of India as if he were
dictating to a stenographer. He was no stylist and he was somewhat vain
although, considering his imperial position and the excellence of his
motives, this obvious side of his character is excusable. His
inscriptions give us a unique series of sermons on stones and a record,
if not of what the people of India thought, at least of what an
exceptionally devout and powerful Hindu thought they ought to think.
Between thirty and forty of these inscriptions have been discovered,
scattered over nearly the whole of India, and composed in vernacular
dialects allied to Pali[581]. Many of them are dated by the year of the
King's reign and all announce themselves as the enactments of Piyadassi,
the name Asoka being rarely used[582]. They comprise, besides some
fourteen single edicts[583], two series, namely:
(1) Fourteen Rock Edicts, dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth
years of Asoka's reign[584] and found inscribed in seven places but the
recensions differ and some do not include all fourteen edicts.
(2) Seven Pillar Edicts dating from the 27th and 28th years, and found
in six recensions.
The fourteen Rock Edicts are mostly sermons. Their style often recalls
the Pitakas verbally, particularly in the application of secular words
to religious matters. Thus we hear that righteousness is the best of
lucky ceremonies and that whereas former kings went on tours of pleasure
and hunting, Asoka prefers tours of piety and has set out on the road
leading to true knowledge. In this series he does not mention the Buddha
and in the twelfth edict he declares that he reverences all sects. But
what he wished to preach and enforce was the _Dhamma_. It is difficult
to find an English equivalent for this word[585] but there is no doubt
of the meaning. It is the law, in the sense of the righteous life which
a Buddhist layman ought to live, and perhaps religion is the simplest
translation, provided that word is understood to include conduct and its
consequences in another world but not theism. Asoka burns with zeal to
propagate this Dhamma and his language recalls[586] the utterances of
the Dhammapada. He formulates the law under four heads[587]: "Parents
must be obeyed: respect for living creatures must be enforced: truth
must be spoken ... the teacher must be reverenced by the pupil and
proper courtesy must be shown to relations." In many ways the Sacred
Edict of the Chinese Emperor K'ang Hsi resembles these proclamations for
it consists of imperial maxims on public morality addressed by a
Confucian Emperor to a population partly Buddhist and Taoist, just as
Asoka addressed Brahmans, Jains and other sects as well as Buddhists.
But when we find in the thirteenth Rock Edict the incidental statement
that the King thinks nothing of much importance except what concerns the
next world, we feel the great difference between Indian and Chinese
ideas whether ancient or modern.
The Rock Edicts also deal with the sanctity of animal life. Asoka's
strong dislike of killing or hurting animals cannot be ascribed to
policy, for it must have brought him into collision with the Brahmans
who offered animals in sacrifice, but was the offspring of a naturally
gentle and civilized mind. We may conjecture that the humanity of
Buddhism was a feature which attracted him to it. In Rock Edict I. he
forbids animal sacrifices and informs us that whereas formerly many
thousand animals were killed daily for the royal kitchens now only three
are killed, namely two peacocks and a deer, and the deer not always. But
in future even these three creatures will not be slaughtered. In Rock
Edict II. he describes how he has cared for the comfort of man and
beast. Wells have been dug; trees, roots and healing herbs have been
planted and remedies—possibly hospitals—have been provided, all for
animals as well as for men, and this not only in his own dominions but
in neighbouring realms. In the fourteenth year of his reign he appointed
officers called Dhamma-mahâmâtâ, Ministers or Censors of the Dhamma.
Their duty was to promote the observance of the Dhamma and they also
acted as Charity Commissioners and superintendents of the households of
the King's relatives. We hear that "they attend to charitable
institutions, ascetics, householders and all the sects: I have also
arranged that they shall attend to the affairs of the Buddhist clergy,
as well as the Brahmans, the Jains, the Âjîvikas and in fact all the
various sects." Further he tells us that the local authorities[588] are
to hold quinquennial assemblies at which the Dhamma is to be proclaimed
and that religious processions with elephants, cars, and illuminations
have been arranged to please and instruct the people. Similar
processions can still be seen at the Perahera festival in Kandy.
The last Rock Edict is of special interest for the light which it sheds
both on history and on the King's character. He expresses remorse for
the bloodshed which accompanied the conquest of Kalinga and declares
that he will henceforth devote his attention to conquest by the Dhamma,
which he has effected "both in his own dominions and in all the
neighbouring realms as far as six hundred leagues (?), even to where the
Greek King named Antiochus dwells and beyond that Antiochus to where
dwell the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas and Alexander[589],
and in the south the kings of the Colas and Pandyas[590] and of Ceylon
and likewise here in the King's dominions, among the Yonas[591] and
Kâmbojas[592] in Nâbhaka of the Nâbhitis[593] among the Bhojas and
Pitinikas, among the Ândhras and Pulindas[594]. Asoka thus appears to
state that he has sent missionaries to (1) the outlying parts of India,
on the borders of his own dominions, (2) to Ceylon, (3) to the
Hellenistic Kingdoms of Asia, Africa and Europe.
This last statement is of the greatest importance, but no record has
hitherto been found of the arrival of these missionaries in the west.
The language of the Edict about them is not precise and in fact their
despatch is only an inference from it. Of the success of the Indian
missions there is no doubt. Buddhism was introduced into southern India,
where it flourished to some extent though it had to maintain a double
struggle against Jains as well as Brahmans. The statement of the Dîpa
and Mahâ-vaṃsas that missionaries were also sent to Pegu (Suvaṇṇabhûmi)
is not supported by the inscriptions, though not in itself improbable,
but the missions to the north and to Ceylon were remarkably successful.
The Sinhalese Chronicles[595] give the names of the principal
missionaries despatched and their statements have received confirmation
in the discoveries made at Sanchi and Sonari where urns have been found
inscribed with the names of Majjhima, Kassapa, and Gotiputta the
successor of Dundhubhissara, who are called teachers of the Himalaya
region. The statement in the Mahâ and Dîpa-vaṃsas is that Majjhima was
sent to preach in the Himalaya accompanied by four assistants Kassapa,
Mâlikâdeva, Dundhâbhinossa and Sahassadeva.
About the twenty-first year of his reign Asoka made a religious tour and
under the guidance of his preceptor Upagupta, visited the Lumbini Park
(now Rummindei) in the Terâi, where the Buddha was born, and other spots
connected with his life and preaching. A pillar has been discovered at
Rummindei bearing an inscription which records the visit and the
privileges granted to the village where "the Lord was born." At Niglîva
a few miles off he erected another inscribed pillar stating that he had
done reverence to the stûpa of the earlier Buddha Konâgamana and for the
second time repaired it.
During this tour he visited Nepal and Lalitpur, the capital, founding
there five stûpas. His daughter Cârumatî is said to have accompanied him
and to have remained in Nepal when he returned. She built a convent
which still bears her name and lived there as a nun. It does not appear
that Asoka visited Kashmir, but he caused a new capital (Srînagar) to be
built there, and introduced Buddhism.
In the 27th and 28th year of his reign he composed another series of
Edicts and this time had them carved in pillars not on rocks. They are
even more didactic than the Rock Edicts and contain an increasing number
of references to the next world, as well as stricter regulations
forbidding cruelty to animals, but the King remains tolerant and
says[596] that the chief thing is that each man should live up to his
own creed. It is probable that at this time he had partially abdicated
or at least abandoned some of the work of administration, for in Edict
IV. he states that he has appointed Commissioners with discretion to
award honours and penalties and that he feels secure like a man who has
handed over his child to a skilful nurse.
In the two series of Rock and Pillar Edicts there is little dogmatic
Buddhism. It is true that the King's anxiety as to the hereafter of his
subjects and his solicitude for animals indicate thoughts busy with
religious ideas, but still his Dhamma is generally defined in terms
which do not go beyond morality, kindness and sympathy. But in the
Bhâbrû (less correctly Bhâbrâ) Edict he recommends for study a series of
scriptural passage which can be identified more or less certainly with
portions of the Pali Pitakas. In the Sarnath Edict he speaks not only as
a Buddhist but as head of the Church. He orders that monks or nuns who
endeavour to create a schism shall put on lay costume and live outside
their former monastery or convent. He thus assumes the right to expel
schismatics from the Sangha. He goes on to say that a similar edict
(i.e. an edict against schism) is to be inscribed for the benefit of the
laity who are to come and see it on Uposatha days. "And on the Uposatha
days in all months every officer is to come for the Uposatha service to
be inspired with confidence in this Edict and to learn it." Thus the
King's officers are to be Buddhists at least to the extent of attending
the Uposatha ceremony, and the edict about schismatics is to be brought
to the notice of the laity, which doubtless means that the laity are not
to give alms to them.
It is probable that many more inscriptions remain to be discovered but
none of those known allude to the convening of a Council and our
information as to this meeting comes from the two Sinhalese Chronicles
and the works of Buddhaghosa. It is said to have been held two hundred
and thirty-six years after the death of the Buddha[597] and to have been
necessitated by the fact that the favour shown to the Sangha induced
heretics to become members of it without abandoning their errors. This
occasioned disturbances and the King was advised to summon a sage called
Tissa Moggaliputta (or Upagupta) then living in retirement and to place
the affairs of the church in his hands. He did so. Tissa then composed
the Kathâ-vatthu and presided over a council composed of one thousand
arhats which established the true doctrine and fixed the present Pali
Canon.
Even so severe a critic of Sinhalese tradition as Vincent Smith admits
that the evidence for the council is too strong to be set aside, but it
must be confessed that it would be reassuring to find some allusion to
it in Asoka's inscriptions. He did not however always say what we should
expect. In reviewing his efforts in the cause of religion he mentions
neither a council nor foreign missions, although we know from other
inscriptions that such missions were despatched. The sessions of the
council may be equally true and are in no way improbable, for in later
times kings of Burma, Ceylon and Siam held conventions to revise the
text of the Tripitaka. It appeared natural that a pious King should see
that the sacred law was observed, and begin by ascertaining what that
law was.
According to tradition Asoka died after reigning thirty-eight or forty
years but we have no authentic account of his death and the stories of
his last days seem to be pure legends. The most celebrated are the
pathetic tale of Kunâla which closely resembles a Jâtaka[598], and the
account of how Asoka vowed to present a hundred million gold pieces to
the Sangha and not being able to raise the whole sum made a gift of his
dominions instead.
3
Asoka had a decisive effect on the history of Buddhism, especially in
making it a world religion. This was not the accidental result of his
action in establishing it in north-west India and Ceylon, for he was
clearly dominated by the thought that the Dhamma must spread over the
whole world and, so far as we know, he was the first to have that
thought in a practical form. But we could estimate his work better if we
knew more about the religious condition of the country when he came to
the throne. As it is, the periods immediately before and after him are
plunged in obscurity and to illuminate his reign we have little
information except his own edicts which, though copious, do not aim at
giving a description of his subjects. Megasthenes who resided at
Pataliputra about 300 B.C. does not appear to have been aware of the
existence of Buddhism as a separate religion, but perhaps a foreign
minister in China at the present day might not notice that the Chinese
have more than one religion. On the other hand in Asoka's time Buddhism,
by whatever name it was called, was well known and there was evidently
no necessity for the King to explain what he meant by Dhamma and Sangha.
The Buddha had belonged to a noble family and was esteemed by the
aristocracy of Magadha; the code of morality which he prescribed for the
laity was excellent and sensible. It is therefore not surprising if the
Kshatriyas and others recognized it as their ideal nor if Asoka found it
a sound basis of legislation. This legislation may be called Buddhist in
the sense that in his edicts the King enjoins and to some extent
enforces _sîlam_ or morality, which is the indispensable beginning for
all spiritual progress, and that his enactments about animals go beyond
what is usual in secular law. But he expressly refrains from requiring
adherence to any particular sect. On the other hand there is no lack of
definite patronage of Buddhism. He institutes edifying processions, he
goes on pilgrimages to sacred sites, he addresses the Sangha as to the
most important parts of the scriptures, and we may infer that he did his
best to spread the knowledge of those scriptures. Though he says nothing
about it in the Edicts which have been discovered, he erected numerous
religious buildings including the Sanchi tope and the original temple at
Bodh-Gaya. Their effect in turning men's attention to Buddhism must have
been greatly enhanced by the fact that so far as we know no other sect
had stone temples at this time. To such influences, we must add the
human element. The example and well-known wishes of a great king,
supported by a numerous and learned clergy, could not fail to attract
crowds to the faith, and the faith itself—for let us not forget Gotama
while we give credit to his follower—was satisfying. Thus Asoka probably
found Buddhism in the form of a numerous order of monks, respected
locally and exercising a considerable power over the minds and conduct
of laymen. He left it a great church spread from the north to the south
of India and even beyond, with an army of officials to assist its
progress, with sacred buildings and monasteries, sermons and ceremonies.
How long his special institutions lasted we do not know, but no one
acquainted with India can help feeling that his system of inspection was
liable to grave abuse. Black-mailing and misuse of authority are ancient
faults of the Indian police and we may surmise that the generations
which followed him were not long in getting rid of his censors and
inspectors.
Christian critics of Buddhism are apt to say that it has a paralyzing
effect on the nations who adopt it, but Asoka's edicts teem with words
like energy and strenuousness. "It is most necessary to make an effort
in this world," so he recounts the efforts which he has himself made and
wants everybody else to make an effort. "Work I must for the public
benefit—and the root of the matter is in exertion and despatch of
business than which nothing is more efficacious for the general
welfare." These sound like the words of a British utilitarian rather
than of a dreamy oriental emperor. He is far from pessimistic: indeed,
he almost ignores the Truth of Suffering. In describing the conquest of
Kalinga he speaks almost in the Buddha's words of the sorrow of death
and separation, but instead of saying that such things are inevitable he
wishes his subjects to be told that he regrets what has happened and
desires to give them security, peace and joy.
Asoka has been compared with Constantine but it has been justly observed
that the comparison is superficial, for Constantine (more like Kanishka
than Asoka) merely recognized and regulated a religion which had already
won its way in his empire. He has also been compared with St Paul and in
so far as both men transformed a provincial sect into a religion for all
mankind the parallel is just, but it ends there. St Paul was a
constructive theologian. For good or evil he greatly developed and
complicated the teaching of Christ, but the Edicts of Asoka if compared
with the Pitakas seem to curtail and simplify their doctrines. No
inscription has yet been found mentioning the four truths, the chain of
causation and other familiar formulæ. Doubtless Asoka duly studied these
questions, but it was not theology nor metaphysics which drew him
towards religion. In the gallery of pious Emperors—a collection of
dubious moral and intellectual value—he stands isolated as perhaps the
one man whose only passion was for a sane, kindly and humane life,
neither too curious of great mysteries nor preoccupied with his own soul
but simply the friend of man and beast.
For the history of doctrine the inscription at Rummindei is particularly
important. It merely states that the King did honour or reverence to the
birthplace of the Buddha, who receives no titles except Sakyamuni and
Bhagavan here or elsewhere in the inscriptions. It is a simple record of
respect paid to a great human teacher who is not in any way deified nor
does Asoka's language show any trace of the doctrines afterwards known
under the name of Mahayana. He does not mention nirvana or even
transmigration, though doubtless what he says about paradise and rewards
hereafter should be read in the light of Indian doctrines about karma
and samsâra.