Ashoka And The Rise And Fall Of Buddhism In India

[Xangsamhua]

Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor

Have recently read Charles Allen’s latest in his series on the Orientalists in India and their uncovering of the remains of Buddhism in India’s antiquity.

This one - Ashoka: The Search for India’s Lost Emperor – despite its title, spends most of its time recounting how the great orientalists – Sir William Jones, James Prinsep, HH Wilson, George Turnour, Alexander Cunningham and others – painstakingly copied, analysed and eventually broke the code of the early Aramaic-based written versions of the Prakrit that the Buddha and, later, King Ashoka, spoke and then the Sanskrit-Pali forms that emerged from this. In doing so, George Turnour in Ceylon was able to definitively identify Ashoka as the author or authorizer of the pillar, rock and cave edicts and the stupas that were to be found all over India.

Of course, in order to rediscover Ashoka and to learn about him and the dharma he constantly refers to in these edicts, the code-breaking was essential and is a story in itself deserving of a full account, though I found Allen’s attention to detail a bit too much at times and did skip some of his more excruciating analyses of murals and sculptures, worthy and all as they may be. Each to his own. Actually, attention to detail is a feature of Charles Allen’s books on the orientalists and the other scholars of India’s epigraphy, philology, archaeology, arts and architecture. I got lost in the mass of detail Allen served up in his earlier book, The Buddha and Dr Fuehrer, and didn’t know quite where I was when I got to the end of it. I might be a bit thick, but it may also be a warning to others: Don’t buy this book unless you’re prepared to concentrate.

It’s only really in the latter part of the book that we start to get a coherent and fullish picture of who Ashoka was and what he did. Part of the problem is that for centuries Ashoka has been viewed in India as rather persona non grata, something of a deviant for promoting a vaguely unsavory and upstart religion contrary to the tradition of other Dhammarajahs who supported the Brahmin clerical caste and its teachings, or at the very least the Jains, who are seen as more respectable than the Buddhists. And yet, Ashokan and Buddhist symbols – the lion capital from Sarnath and the Dharmacakra wheel - were adopted by Pandit Nehru as national symbols for independent India in 1947. I wonder why.

Ashoka’s messy rise to power in the early years of the 3^rd century BCE, in which he is said to have done away with 99 of his 100 brothers in gaining the throne of Maghada at Pataliputra (Patna) and his unjustifiable slaughter of the Kalingans, together with the story that he burned his fully-occupied harem to the ground because his womenfolk didn’t like to caress his rough skin (a condition consequent on having offered the Buddha a handful of earth in a previous incarnation) do not give rise to fond memories and encomiums in chronicles of the day, despite his clearly sincere remorse for the Kalingan massacres and, presumably, for other acts of violence once he was converted to the Buddhadharma. He was also fat and ugly as well as having unfortunate skin, and in his later years suffered fainting fits and had to be supported when standing by two women. He is said to have had his second queen put to death (for poisoning the Bodhi Tree) and appeared to have no friends or supporters towards the end of his life. Indeed his court rebelled against him.

And yet there appears to be no doubt that his conversion to the Buddhadharma was absolutely sincere and total. Although in the edicts he had engraved around the country he always uses the word dharma/dhamma in an inclusive sense, as it is generally used now in India, not just as the Buddha’s dharma, and he recommends a rather warm and wet morality-based form of dharma, as well as respect for and support to all religious schools of thought, his devotion to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha was sincere and generous. In fact, as his declining years approached he appears to have become somewhat fanatical and hyper-emotional towards his religion and its representatives, human and symbolic. He had a special devotion to the Bodhi Tree at Bodhgaya and was overwrought to find it in such bad condition (and fainted as a result).

In his last years he handed over most of the material wealth of the kingdom and all of his own personal wealth to the Sangha. In fact, he offered the whole Earth to the Sangha. This rather deranged excess was what brought on the court rebellion, when the administrators of the kingdom/empire simply refused to carry out his instructions to hand over more. They then had to go to the monks and redeem the Earth for a start, and presumably much of the rest as well, but Ashoka was said to have died in possession of only a cherry plum, which he ordered to be mashed and made into broth for the monks.

The Great Chakravartin and Dhammarajah appears not to have been mourned or celebrated at his death. In fact the historical records hardly mention him and there is considerable confusion as to who was his successor. It appears that this most high-minded of kings was indeed a flash in the pan, as his great sponsorship of the Buddhist religion did not lead to a lasting place for the dharma and the sangha in the lives and culture of the Indian people. By the time the Chinese monk, Xuanzang, made his 15-year pilgrimage into India in the 7^th century there was much decay. Although Xuanzang saw many temples and stupas and spent three years at the university in Nalanda, he was also aware that many had fallen into disuse and the common people were no longer practicing Buddhism, but had reverted to the Brahminism of their pre-Ashoka forebears. In Allen’s words, “In India itself Buddhism surrendered to the fatal embrace of tantrism and was to all intents a spent force by the time Adi Shankaracharya began his … ‘tour of conquest’ at the start of the eighth century.” (Kindle loc. 5254-60)

I had intended to say something about Orientalism and the recovery of its reputation from the critique of Edward Said in the late 70s, now regarded by Charles Allen as discredited, and to relate this to the study and dismissal of Dhammakaya in Thailand, by “neo-orientalists” (according to Rachelle Scott), but space does not allow. "Neo-orientalist" would describe many, perhaps most, readers of this forum, I suspect, including myself, but I wonder if “neo-orientalism” is in fact the opposite of “orientalism” as practiced by Sir William Jones and his successors and attacked by Said. The orientalists, however, pace Said, were not so judgmental, included indigenous advisors in their work, were intensive in their studies and came to respect indigenous points of view as authentic, if not to their taste. It seems the “neo-orientalists”, on the other hand, tend to approach phenomena such as Dhammakaya from a Eurocentric, western academic, text-and rule-based, perhaps purist perspective, somewhat like the Anglicists who replaced the orientalists in India and brought in the missionaries and the campaign to bring India to Christ. Well, Dhammakaya may seem cynical, materialist, exploitative, superficial, superstitious and ill-informed to Eurocentric neo-orientalists (like myself), but they would say, and obviously many agree, that they are the heirs of traditional Thai Buddhism and consistent with those aspects of the Buddhadharma that speak most emphatically to Thai people now and have done through the centuries. If that is so, Edward Said’s relativistic critique of orientalism may be better directed at deductivist neo-orientalists rather than those who did so much to reveal ancient India to its descendants and the world.

[cm das]

"In fact the historical records hardly mention him..."

Yes, so I'm very curious what sources Charles Allen draws on to provide the "coherent and fullish picture of who Ashoka was and what he did." The edicts themselves are, as far as I know, the only contemporary written records in India from his time. In fact they are among the earliest written records at all in India. Inscriptions from the early centuries BCE are fairly common but nothing like a biographical text appears in written form til much later. Of course there are Buddhist legends surrounding Ashoka but using these as historical sources is a dubious enterprise. Can you relate to us a little bit about Allen's methods in researching Ashoka? Years ago in the course of doing graduate work in S. Asian history I read some of the edicts in the original prakrit & worked a fair amount on early Indian epigraphy, so naturally I'm curious & I appreciate your raising this topic.

[Xangsamhua]

"In fact the historical records hardly mention him..."

Yes, so I'm very curious what sources Charles Allen draws on to provide the "coherent and fullish picture of who Ashoka was and what he did." The edicts themselves are, as far as I know, the only contemporary written records in India from his time. In fact they are among the earliest written records at all in India. Inscriptions from the early centuries BCE are fairly common but nothing like a biographical text appears in written form til much later. Of course there are Buddhist legends surrounding Ashoka but using these as historical sources is a dubious enterprise. Can you relate to us a little bit about Allen's methods in researching Ashoka? Years ago in the course of doing graduate work in S. Asian history I read some of the edicts in the original prakrit & worked a fair amount on early Indian epigraphy, so naturally I'm curious & I appreciate your raising this topic.

Thanks for your query and comments, cm das.

Most of the book recounts the research done by the India-based orientalists on the epigraphs found in various places by amateurs (army engineers, surveyors, etc.), and, later, trained archaeologists and sent to members of the Asiatic(k) Society of Bengal or the Royal Asiatic Society and published in their journals. It covers the period of epigrahic and archaeological research from Sir William Jones (late 18th century) to Sir John Marshall (early 20th century).

Allen's research appears to have been largely literature-based, supported by consultations with experts in Britain, India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. There is no separate bibliography; his sources are cited in the chapter notes, and he refers the reader to the "extensive bibliography given in Harry Falk, Asokan Sites and Artefacts, 2006.

A cursory look back through the book indicates that he does provide a bit of detail about Asoka's life, rule and mission, much of it gained from sources such as George Turnour's translation from Pali of the "Great Dynastic Chronicle", which is a history of Lanka from 543 BCE to 301CE, but which speaks about Piyadassi, later identified not as the Lankan king who introduced Buddhism to Lanka, but as Ashoka (whose given name was Piyadassi), who had some role in this. Other sources used by Allen include Romila Thapar's 1961/1998 history of Ashoka and, presumably, whatever he could get his hands on. Of course, the edicts provide some indication of his ethics, general views (on ecumenism, toleration, etc.), objectives and organizational strategies (employment of Mahamatras, etc.).

Whether my term "fullish" is a bit generous or not, I'm not quite sure (we have limited knowledge of many ancient figures), but it's true that Allen doesn't give us much more than Ashoka's origins, his less than favoured status in his father, King Bindusara's eyes, his pacification of Taxila, governorship of Avanti, despatch of his brothers in the succession struggle after Bindusara's death, the Kalingan massacres and his subsequent conversion to Buddhism, the differing accounts in Tibetan and Pali as to who his mentor was in this, his promotion of the Sangha and building of monasteries, his declining years and some (speculative) detail about his appearance, physical attributes and health. Some of the biographical detail is based on the edicts, the Lankan source and other sources, and legend, the latter including, presumably, the stories about the burning of his harem, his fainting at the dilapidated state of the Bodhi tree, his execution of his second wife for poisoning the Bodhi tree, and the dissolution of his fortune except for the cherry plum he sent over to the monastery to be made into soup. The edicts give us a picture of his philosophy of Dhammarajah rule, but in his own or approved words. That doesn't really tell us a great deal about Ashoka. As you say, much of what people think they know of him is Buddhist legend.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

Charles Allen is presenting Bones of the Buddha on the National Geographic Channel on May 11th in Thailand and May 12th in Australia. Not sure if this just covers material in his previous two books or more recent information.

[AyG]

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious about the phrase "early Aramaic-based written versions of the Prakrit". I thought that only one of the edicts was in Aramaic, and it was accompanied by a Greek translation, so (presumably) easily understood. Why the importance of "code-breaking"? What am I missing?

Thanks.

[camerata]

Bones of the Buddha WHEN workers stumble upon an ancient Indian tomb in 1898, they

uncover one of the most amazing discoveries in Buddhist history: A huge

stone coffer containing stone jars and urns, over 1,000 separate jewels —

as well as ash and bone.

One of the jars has an inscription indicating that these are the remains of

the Buddha himself. But the most extraordinary find in Indian

archaeology has been marred in doubt and scandal for over 100 years. For

some, it is an elaborate hoax. For others, it is the final resting

place of the messiah of one of the world’s great religions.

Premiering tomorrow at 10pm on National Geographic Channel, Bones Of

The Buddha follows renowned historian on ancient India, Charles Allen,

as he retraces the steps of this incredible find.

http://www.nst.com.my/life-times/showbiz/cinema-mystery-behind-buddha-s-remains-1.275422

[Several]

Good stuff. Just watched it, and read a few articles. Sceptics finger pointing and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as usual. But there is no guarantee that Ashoka actually got his hands on the genuine relics. I'm not sure that it would be possible to prove that the original division of the Buddhas remains was genuine either. Perhaps if one of the seven remaining portions is found and properly excavated and tested. But anyway, its the teachings that are important. The dust and bones and rocks are just interesting.

[lungmi]

The cult of devotionals. Three Sicilian churches claim they have the prepuce of Jesus.

Indian history, specially at the time of Asokha, is a colportage of many sources.

The most credible sources came from chinese buddhist pilgrims perambulating

Buddhist countries in Asia who had to note down their experiences on her return

on the request of Chinese officials.

We have in Europe legends of history longtime admitted: Marco Polo, a specialist of chinese history

never has been in China!

(I quote my son, assistant professor of Chinese History and Philology at Academia Sinica, Taipei)

Edited May 28, 2013 by lungmi