1. Indian Civilization 1
Semester 1, Essay 2
To what extent can Aśoka be called a Buddhist king?
‘I confirm that all this work is my own
except where indicated, and that I have understood the rules about Plagiarism’
Signed: Tuesday, 1st
December 2009
Word count: 2,271 words
Aśoka was a sovereign who was unlike other kings of Indian past that had a standard
image of being “autocratic, oppressive and unconcerned with welfare of his subjects”
(Thapar, 2002, p16). One can easily draw conclusions that this was due to the
influence of Buddhism, and this essay sets out to find the true influence that
2. Buddhism had over Aśoka. In my research, I have discovered that many critics
disagree over the true nature of the relationship between Aśoka and his faith and in
this essay; I hope to bring out this differences and find my own conclusions. The
question of the extent that Aśoka was a Buddhist king is vitally important as many
Indians believe that Aśoka was one of the greatest Indian rulers (Basham, 1994, p53)
so the questions of his religion must be addressed.
According to Ceylonese Buddhist accounts Aśoka, in his accession to the thrown was
represented as “wading through pools of blood [to reach the throne]” (Tripathi, 1960,
p162). Aśoka is tended to be represented in this sources as being “indulgence steeped
in cruelty” (Keay, 2008, p90). In the Mahāva sa, the sacred chronicles of Ceylon, weṃ
discover how Aśoka killed “99 of his 100 brothers” (Norman, 1994, p113). Indeed,
Buddhist sources claim that Aśoka did not get crowned until 4 years after his de facto
accession. However, the Dutch Indologist Eggermont thinks that these “are only
legends which were invented later by the Buddhists” (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004,
p66) and Thapar believes that four years was an ‘unusually lengthy time for Aśoka to
establish his position” (Thapar, 1974, p32).
Scholars do doubt the veracity of the claims of the number of brothers slain and the
graphic nature of the images, as they are based on a rock edict, which has a brief
allusion to the brothers, but is not conclusive. This emphasis on his bloodthirstiness
at the beginning of the reign serves to emphasise the profound effect Buddhism had
on Aśoka and how it turned him from a tyrant to a gentle ruler (Both sentences
referenced to Tripathi, 1960, p162). In this essay, I will discuss whether the Buddhist
sources are right and Buddhism had a great effect of Aśoka, or if Buddhism had very
little effect on Aśoka or, if the picture of the relationship between Buddhism and
Aśoka is much more nuanced then the two extremes.
3. Between the start of Aśoka’s reign in 268BCE and the aftermath of the Kalinga
conquest in 261BCE (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004, p67), it seems fairly clear that
Aśoka was a normal Indian monarch who wished to “expand power as ruthlessly as
possible” (Wolpert, 1993, p62). Indeed, he commenced his political career when he
was made governor in Taxila where he “successfully suppressed a revolt.” (Kulke and
Rothermund, 2004, p67) I think that, almost certainly, Buddhism had little, if any
influence on Aśoka during the time before Kalinga. Even Buddhist sources are clear
that Aśoka did not follow Buddhism before Kalinga (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004,
p67) and critics seem clear that Aśoka was certainly not an avowed Buddhist at the
start of his reign and coronation (Thapar, 1974, p104).
A major turning point in Aśoka’s reign was the conquest at Kalinga in 261BCE.
Aśoka had a real horror of the casualties that he had caused (Robb, 2002, p37). There
is no doubt that around this time Aśoka converted to Buddhism; however critics
disagree over when exactly. Some believe that Aśoka converted just before the start of
the Kalinga campaign, as Eggemont has tried to show, however, I agree with Thapar
who feels that one would doubt if a recent convert to Buddhism, which is noted for
being a religion with the concept of ahimsā (non-violence) would then engage in such
a bloody war. The consensus seems to be that the conversion occurred in the wake of
the Kalinga campaign (all from Thapar, 1973, p33). According to H G Wells, he was
the only king to abandon war after victory (Sengupta, 1956, p72).
The Divyāvadāna (an anthology of Buddhist tales), according to Thapar, tell a
different tale of how Aśoka converted to Buddhism, which would suggest Buddhism
had different effect on Aśoka. In this tale, Aśoka started a prison at Pā aliputraṭ
(modern day Patna), with Girika as the head and where the most hideous tortures were
inflicted on the prisoners. Once, Samudra, ex-merchant from Śrāvastī who converted
4. to a monk, could save himself through his extraordinary powers. Aśoka then made a
visit to the monk and “was so impressed by the miracles that he observed… that he
became an observer of Buddhism.” (Thapar, 1974, p35). This tale would make the
effect of Buddhism on Aśoka much greater as he would feel that he had a personal
link to the effects of Buddhism through personal experience. However, this story has
“all the ingredients of the usual conversion stories, previous wickedness, and
revelation through miracles… conversion” and there is very little in historical
evidence to back its veracity (Thapar, 1974, p35). For this reason, I would argue that I
strongly doubted that this story has any place in Aśoka’s history other than in the
world of legend.
Later in his reign, Aśoka on his thirteenth rock edict expressed his horror at the
violence at Kalinga, “150,000 were deported, 100,000 were killed, and many times
that number died” and vowed that he now desired “security, self-control, calm of
mind and gentleness” (both from Embree, 1988, p142). I suspect that the number of
casualties may have been exaggerated for literary effect but there is no doubt that
Aśoka no eschewed violence (Robb, 2002, p37) and became an upasaka (Buddhist lay
member) soon afterwards (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004, p66). This is a concrete
proof that Buddhism had some effect on Aśoka, twinned with this was the fact that,
two years following, Aśoka went on a “256 day dhamma-yāta [pilgrimage] to all
Buddhist holy places in Northern India (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004, p66). This
clearly was no small undertaking and would seem to indicate that Buddhism had a
large effect on Aśoka. Aśoka also went on a pilgrimage to Bodhgaja (Tripathi, 1960
p164). Indeed, Smith believes that 2 ½ years after the conquest of Kalinga, Aśoka was
at his more zealous (Smith, 1919, p27).
5. Interestingly, Thapar has an alternative, or perhaps simultaneous, theory on why
Aśoka chose Buddhism as his faith of choice. Thapar argues that the years following
Aśoka’s accession to the throne were difficult for him and that he wanted, although he
was not against it, to veer away from Orthodox Brahmanism, and he felt he could
achieve this by giving open support to Buddhism especially sects of Buddhism such
as the Ājīvika sect. In this way he could attract the support of non-orthodox elements
which “may have eventually succeeded in weaning people away from the
orthodoxy… in element acceptable to public.” This was made easier by the fact that
the tradition was not radically different from the old tradition and the concept of
dharma was a very practical one (all summarized from Thapar, 1974, p35-36)
Furthermore, Aśoka changed the royal hunt to dhamma-yāta. (Wolpert, 1993, p62).
Aśoka appears very proud of this fact (Basham, 1994, p56). He declares on his eighth
rock edict, “kings [formerly] went on pleasure trips and indulged in hunting… now
when goes on tour… he interview and gives gifts to brāhmins (holy men) and
ascetics… [and] questions [people] on righteousness” (Embree, 1988, p146). These
measures, combined with the fact that he sent numerous missionary monks to
promulgate the religion (Dutt, 1880, p33), all seem to show that Buddhism had a deep
and lasting effect on Aśoka. However, it is important to note, that although the rock
edicts promulgating Aśoka’s messages were translated into Greek and Aramaic, there
was no reference to the teachings of Buddhism in the Greek and Aramaic versions
(Thapar, 2002, p179). This is a possible proof that would diminish the influence of
Buddhism in Aśoka’s life.
There is possible proof that Aśoka found middle ground in Buddhism and adapted
Buddhism for his own purposes. Robb argues that Aśoka called for a “modified
Buddhism to be followed through his empire… [calling for] peace and order after
6. conquering Kalinga” and desired that all should “obtain wealth and happiness both in
this world and the next” (Robb, 1994, p34).
Aśoka did not care for ritual and promulgated the virtues of liberation, truth,
gentleness and saintliness. There were a number of practices that he took up that
suggest that Buddhism could have been a dominant influence on him. This was
namely alms giving and teaching dharma, the concept of righteousness, but also a
great emphasis on charity giving (Sengupta, 1956, p72). He decreed on a rock edict
that “on roads, I have banyan trees to give shade and homes erected” and created
animal hospitals and care for elderly (All from Sengupta, 1956, p72). However, I
note that these traits could have been present in a kind, caring regent that was not a
Buddhist.
Aśoka also insisted that all officers exemplify and teach dharma and that people
should be encouraged to obey parents and teachers more. It was decreed that “father
and mother must be obeyed and similarly all creatures respected” (Sengupta, 1957,
p71). Also, it was imperative to increase kindliness to Brāhmins, showing that he did
not want to isolate the Brāhmin community either (Robb, 1994, p37). I think there
may have been an ulterior motive in increasing obedience, principally, also increasing
obedience to the king. In addition to this, though Aśoka had a great interest in the
concept of dharma in did not affect him to such an extent that he gave up his
“imperial ambitions” but he “modified them in accordance with humanitarian ethics
of Buddhism” (Basham, 1994, p54).
Another factor which weighs in favour of the argument that Buddhism affected Aśoka
to a great extent was the fact that he strongly believed in the concept of ahimsā. This
is key Buddhist concept which advocates non-violence between all humans and
7. animals. Aśoka banned animal sacrifice, regulated slaughter of animals for food and
completely forbid the slaughter of certain species (Basham, 1994, p55). Later in
Aśoka’s reign “life became more austere [through] excessive love for animals
(Segunta, 1957, p70). For example, in the first rock edict, Aśoka states how “no
animal is to be killed for sacrifice” and boasts “formerly… several hundred thousand
animals were killed daily for food, but now at the time of writing only three animals
are killed for food… even those will not be killed in the future” (Embree, 1988,
p144). On the other hand, it does seem peculiar that the death penalty was still
maintained with only 3 days stay of execution allowed to keep affairs in order
(Basham, 1994, p56). This strikes me as very unlike a Buddhist.
Other evidence that Aśoka was influence to a large extent by Buddhism is that caves
in the Barībar hills have shown early examples of caityas (Harle,1994, p24) and
Aśoka also built a large number of stūpas (holy sites for Buddhists) (Tripathi, 1960,
p166). These would all indicate a great interest and a large extent of influence over
Aśoka, and show Aśoka to be a Buddhist king. Also, in around 250BCE, Aśoka
hosted the 3rd
Buddhist council which would indicate he would be, to a large extent, a
Buddhist king (Thapar, 2002, p181).
Most of the evidence so far, would, for the most part, point towards Aśoka clearly
being, to a very great extent, a Buddhist king. However, there are number of crucial
points that make me doubt the true extent of Aśoka as a Buddhist king. A somewhat
weak argument, I believe, is that some critics maintain that Aśoka was a brāhmanical
Hindu (although Thapar does not believe this, from Thapar, 1974, p148). It seems to
me, from the research I have done, there is no evidence for this, right down to the fact
that Aśoka disliked rituals, banned animal sacrifice and goes against the writings of
the rock edicts.
8. A stronger argument against the fact that Aśoka was a Buddhist on purely moral
grounds was that India at the time had a great racial and cultural diversity. There
therefore was a pressing need for Aśoka to unite the political and cultural units.
According to Thapar, much like Charlemagne did with Christianity to convert Saxons,
a new religion can be a powerful uniting force creating a culture of shared belief and
understanding (Thapar, 1974, p145). This is a very strong argument showing that
Aśoka was only using Buddhism to a large extent to control the population and not as
a spiritual religion for himself.
I conclude that, without doubt, to a certain extent Aśoka was a Buddhist king. He
clearly had some sort of conversion at Kalinga and did believe in many key Buddhist
concepts. I think it is however unwise to simplify the matter as much as Buddhist
sources do and say he was utterly transformed by Buddhism. I believe his
transformation was a more subtle one, where he did believe in concepts of non-
violence and dharma but also saw it as a powerful tool to control the people, gain
popularity and, at times, manipulate them. Therefore, in answer to the question, I
believe that to a large extent, Aśoka can be called a Buddhist king but cannot be
called a Buddhist king to an unqualified extent.
![Buddhism had over Aśoka. In my research, I have discovered that many critics
disagree over the true nature of the relationship between Aśoka and his faith and in
this essay; I hope to bring out this differences and find my own conclusions. The
question of the extent that Aśoka was a Buddhist king is vitally important as many
Indians believe that Aśoka was one of the greatest Indian rulers (Basham, 1994, p53)
so the questions of his religion must be addressed.
According to Ceylonese Buddhist accounts Aśoka, in his accession to the thrown was
represented as “wading through pools of blood [to reach the throne]” (Tripathi, 1960,
p162). Aśoka is tended to be represented in this sources as being “indulgence steeped
in cruelty” (Keay, 2008, p90). In the Mahāva sa, the sacred chronicles of Ceylon, weṃ
discover how Aśoka killed “99 of his 100 brothers” (Norman, 1994, p113). Indeed,
Buddhist sources claim that Aśoka did not get crowned until 4 years after his de facto
accession. However, the Dutch Indologist Eggermont thinks that these “are only
legends which were invented later by the Buddhists” (Kulke and Rothermund, 2004,
p66) and Thapar believes that four years was an ‘unusually lengthy time for Aśoka to
establish his position” (Thapar, 1974, p32).
Scholars do doubt the veracity of the claims of the number of brothers slain and the
graphic nature of the images, as they are based on a rock edict, which has a brief
allusion to the brothers, but is not conclusive. This emphasis on his bloodthirstiness
at the beginning of the reign serves to emphasise the profound effect Buddhism had
on Aśoka and how it turned him from a tyrant to a gentle ruler (Both sentences
referenced to Tripathi, 1960, p162). In this essay, I will discuss whether the Buddhist
sources are right and Buddhism had a great effect of Aśoka, or if Buddhism had very
little effect on Aśoka or, if the picture of the relationship between Buddhism and
Aśoka is much more nuanced then the two extremes.]()