The Maurya Empire: The History and Legacy of Ancient

India’s Greatest Empire

By Charles River Editors

Avanti Putra’s map of the empire

 
 About Charles River Editors

 
Charles River Editors is a boutique digital publishing company,
specializing in bringing history back to life with educational and engaging
books on a wide range of topics.  Keep up to date with our new and free
offerings with this 5 second sign up on our weekly mailing list, and visit
Our Kindle Author Page to see other recently published Kindle titles.
We make these books for you and always want to know our readers’
opinions, so we encourage you to leave reviews and look forward to
publishing new and exciting titles each week.
 
 Introduction

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.’s picture of a Mauryan coin

The Maurya Empire
During the last centuries of the first millennium BCE, most of the
Mediterranean basin and the Near East were either directly or indirectly
under the influence of Hellenism. The Greeks spread their ideas to Egypt,
Mesopotamia, and Persia and attempted to unify all of the peoples of those
regions under one government. Although some of the Hellenistic kingdoms
proved to be powerful in their own rights – especially Ptolemaic Egypt and
the Seleucid Empire, which encompassed all of Mesopotamia, most of the
Levant, and much of Persia during its height – no single kingdom ever
proved to be dominant. The Hellenic kingdoms battled each other for
supremacy and even attempted to claim new lands, especially to the east,
past the Indus River in lands that the Greeks referred to generally as India.
But as the Hellenistic Greeks turned their eyes to the riches of India, a
dynasty came to power that put most of the Indian subcontinent under the
rule of one king.
 The dynasty that came to power in the late fourth century BCE is known
today as the Mauryan Dynasty, and although the ruling family was short-
lived and their power was ephemeral, its influence resonated for several
subsequent centuries and spread as far east as China and into the Hellenistic
west. Through relentless warfare and violent machinations, the Mauryans
were able to take a land that was full of disparate and often warring ethnic
groups, religions, and castes and meld it into a reasonably cohesive empire.
After establishing the empire, subsequent kings were able to focus their
attentions on raising the living standards of their people. One particular
Mauryan king, Ashoka, embarked on several ambitious public works
projects and promoted the tenets of Buddhism. Due to its influence on
religion and what many believe was the world’s first attempt by a
government to legitimately acknowledge human rights, the Maurya Empire
continues to be a source of interest and inspiration today.
The Maurya Empire: The History and Legacy of Ancient India’s Greatest
Empire looks at one of antiquity’s most interesting empires. Along with
pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about
the Mauryans like never before.


The Maurya Empire: The History and Legacy of Ancient India’s Greatest
Empire
About Charles River Editors
Introduction
Before the Mauryans
The Establishment of the Mauryan Dynasty
Ashoka the Great
Mauryan Culture
The Decline of the Mauryan Dynasty
Online Resources
Bibliography
Free Books by Charles River Editors
Discounted Books by Charles River Editors
 Before the Mauryans
 The geographic area known today as “India” is a modern concept that
was created by the United Kingdom when the British partitioned south Asia
along religious lines in 1947; the predominantly Hindu south became India,
while the predominantly Muslim areas became Pakistan. For most of its
history, India was divided along religious and ethnic lines with scores of
kings and princes claiming authority over relatively small regions.
Languages too were widely dispersed, with the north being home to more
Indo-European-descended people and the south being home to the
Dravidians (Thapar 2002, 13).
There were certainly clashes between these different groups, but for most
of its early history, there was equilibrium on the subcontinent. Outside of
the Aryan conquest in the middle of the second millennium BCE, not one of
the many groups was able to gain ascendency over the others. This situation
changed in the late fourth century BCE, when Alexander the Great led his
army all the way to the banks of the Indus River. Alexander toppled
kingdom after kingdom as he led his armies west on a campaign to conquer
the known world, which brought him through the Middle East into Persia,
and then finally into India in 326 BCE. Many of the Classical historians
recorded the warrior-king’s most important battles in India, as it turned out
to be a seminal point in Hellenistic history; the Greeks were ultimately
repulsed and forced to focus on promoting Hellenism in more familiar
confines.
 Andrew Dunn’s picture of an ancient bust of Alexander
The first century BCE Greek historian Diodorus Siculus gave detailed
accounts concerning how Alexander was continually faced by the enigmatic
Indian king “Porus.” Porus, known to the Indians as “Puru,” is believed by
modern scholars to have been the king of the Jhelum region, which made
him powerful, but he was still just one of many who claimed such a title in
India at the time (Thapar 2002, 158). The Indians had a well-equipped army
and proved to be a match for the Greeks: “In this year Alexander repaired
his army in the land of Taxiles and then marched his army against Porus,
the king of the neighboring Indians. He had more than fifty thousand
infantry, about three thousand cavalry, more than a thousand chariots of
war, and one hundred and thirty elephants. . .When Alexander received
word that this king was four hundred furlongs away, he decided to attack
Porus before the arrival of his ally. As he approached the Indians, Porus
learned of his advance and deployed his forces promptly. He stationed his
cavalry upon both flanks, and arranged his elephants, arrayed so as to strike
terror in an opponent, in a single line at equal intervals along his front. . .
Then the elephants came into play, trained to make good use of their height
and strength. Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armour
and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up
by the elephants’ trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the
ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through the
whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience
manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians
stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. . . Many were slain
in their flight, but then Alexander, satisfied with his brilliant victory,
ordered the trumpets to sound the recall.” (Diodorus, Library of History,
XVII, 87-89).
After defeating Porus, Alexander ordered his troops to move on and cross
the Indus River, which the Greeks considered the traditional boundary of
India. It was there that Alexander’s troops threatened to mutiny and not
move forward. According to the second century CE Greek historian Arrian,
Alexander gave the following speech: “You all wish to leave me. Go then!
And when you reach home, tell them that Alexander, your King, who
vanquished Persians and Medes and Bactrians and Sacae. . . who crossed
the Caucasus beyond the Caspian Gates, and Oxus and Tanis and the Indus,
which none but Dionysus had crossed before him.” (Arrian, The Campaigns
of Alexander, VII, 11). Nonetheless, Alexander eventually relented and
agreed to move his army back to Babylon.
The Indus debacle is generally seen as a military failure and a physical
demonstration of the limits of Hellenistic imperialism, but for the Indians,
Alexander’s campaign into India was devastating, as it added more
instability to an already chaotic political situation. Due to the plurality of
ethnic groups and religions, India tended toward political decentralization.
Beginning in the sixth century BCE, decentralization in northern India had
led to many wars by competing princes to unify the land, as the various
kings, princes, and warlords all desired to rule over much larger realms than
they did. India was moving into a phase that most civilizations throughout
the world have experienced: the drive by the constituent kingdoms to place
all of the civilization’s peoples under the banner of one government.
Thus, in the wake of Alexander’s campaigns, the focus of the process was
centered on the kingdom of Magadha in northeast India (Scialpi 1984, 56).
The various warring forces tried to conquer Magadha because the winner of
that kingdom stood to gain most of northern India, especially after
Alexander’s army left the region.
A map of the region in the late fourth century BCE
 The Establishment of the Mauryan Dynasty
Once the smoke from India’s civil war cleared, it would be obvious who
the winner was. The extant primary sources state that Chandragupta Maurya
(ca. 321-297 BCE) was the progenitor of the Mauryan Dynasty and its first
monarch (Thapar 2002, 175). The origins of the family are open to debate
because they differ widely based on the source of the text. Since the
Mauryan Dynasty is often remembered as a Buddhist dynasty due to
Ashoka’s proselytizing efforts, Buddhist sources tend to be more positive in
their treatment by assigning the family the background of the kshatriya
caste, but conversely, Brahman texts state that the Mauryans were of the
shudra caste (Thapar 2002, 176).
Understanding the Indian caste system and the role it played in India
before, during, and after the Maurya Empire is vital in any study of the
Mauryan Dynasty because the caste differences are so crucial to Indian
culture and historiography. The kshatriya caste was, in the ancient Vedic
religion – what is today generally thought of or referred to as “Hinduism” –
the caste of the warriors and among the top two castes, while the shudra
caste was that of the peasants and serfs.
The creation of the castes in ancient India – known as varnas in the
Sanskrit language – is believed to have been introduced by the Aryans in
the middle of the second millennium BCE. One was born into a caste and
spent most of his or her time around others in the same caste and could only
marry of the same caste. There were four basic castes in Indian society: at
the top were the brahmins, who were priests; just below them, but almost
equal, were the kshatriya, who were noble warriors; the vaishya caste was
comprised of farmers and merchants; the shudras were day laborers and
serfs; and the chandalas were without a caste, which made them
“untouchable” to all the others (Thapar 2002, 63).
The origins and reasons for the caste system are described in the
collection of ancient Indian holy books known as The Rig Veda. One hymn
reads:
 “When they divided the Man, into how many parts did they apportion
him? What do they               call his mouth, his two arms and thighs and
feet?
“His mouth became the Brahim; his arms were made into the Warrior,
his thighs the               People, and from his feet the Servants were born.”
(Doniger 1981, 31).
The caste system continued to play a role during the Maurya Empire, and
almost as important, it played a role in how the Mauryan rulers were
remembered. Buddhist chroniclers in later centuries, who did not follow the
caste system, took a much more positive view of the Mauryans than the
Hindu historians did, especially because the latter possibly saw them as
apostates.
The murky origins of the Mauryan Dynasty were also touched upon by
the Classical historians. The Classical Hellenic historians referred to the
Mauryan kings by Hellenized names, much like they did for most of the
non-Greek and Roman peoples they encountered. As a result, the name the
Greek historians and geographers gave to Chandragupta was “Androcottus”
or “Sandrocottus,” who according to some of the Hellenistic sources had
met but offended Alexander the Great (Lamotte 1988, 219). In his treatment
of Alexander the Great, the famous ancient historian Plutarch mentioned a
brief encounter between Alexander and Chandragupta, writing,
“Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are
told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making
himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on
account of his baseness and low birth.” (Plutarch, Alexander, LXII, 9).
The meeting between Alexander and Chandragupta cannot be
corroborated, but it certainly seems to fit the historical chronology and
would have been logical.
As he watched Alexander and the Greeks attempt to invade India,
Chandragupta was given a crash course in ancient warfare tactics and geo-
politics that he would use to forge an empire. Chandragupta certainly
proved to be an excellent student of martial affairs, taking the experience
and knowledge that he gained against the Greeks in northwest India and
applying it against the various other warring Indian princes. When
Chandragupta set out on his war of conquest shortly after the Greeks left
India, he focused most of his energy against the Nanada Dynasty, which
was the most powerful in northern India. Instead of thrusting his forces
directly at the Nanada’s capital, Chandragupta instead took lands in the
northwest that were left vacant by Alexander the Great’s army. In doing
this, Chandragupta planned to starve the Nanadas by restricting the flow of
valuable resources that they used to pay their troops to their capital (Thapar
2002, 176). The strategy allowed Chandragupta to conquer rich lands all
around the Nanadas until he had the rival dynasty encircled.
Once Chandragupta finally vanquished the Nanadas, he reached out past
the Indus River with an olive branch to his former Greek enemies.
Geopolitics in the pre-modern world were quite fluid as alliances constantly
shifted, and a kingdom that was another kingdom’s friend one day might be
an enemy the next. Alliances were based on the ability to get resources and
also served security interests and were often cemented by marriages. When
Chandragupta established the Mauryan Dynasty, it was in a precarious
position; nearly all of the lesser Indian kingdoms wanted to see them
toppled, and the Hellenistic Seleucid Dynasty to the west constantly cast a
covetous eye to the east. Aiming to protect his western flank and to also
open up new trade routes to Persia and Europe, Chandragupta made peace
with the king of the Seleucid Dynasty at the time, Seleucus I (r. 305-281
BCE).
A number of Classical authors wrote about the peace, most notably
Plutarch. Plutarch’s passages regarding Chandragupta are particularly
important because they describe the actual peace treaty and also note how
the king was able to overwhelm India due to the sheer size of his army. “For
Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to
Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred
thousand men overran and subdued all India.” (Plutarch, Alexander, XXXI,
5).
A number of other Classical sources also mention the deal between
Chandragupta and Seleucus I, but the first century BCE Greek geographer
Strabo added in his account that the treaty was sealed with diplomatic
marriages. “The Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of
these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians,
although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander took these
away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus
Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus, upon terms of intermarriage and of
receiving in exchange five hundred elephants.” (Strabo, Geography, XV, 2,
9).
 
The marriage alliance not only sealed the peace between the Seleucid and
Mauryan Dynasties, but it also brought the Mauryans much closer to the
Hellenistic world. In fact, the Mauryans’ link to the Hellenistic world was
much stronger than it was to East Asia. Moreover, some scholars believe
that the dynastic marriages that sealed the alliance between the Mauryans
and the Seleucids may also have legalized marriages between non-noble
Indians and Greeks within the Mauryan realm (Thapar 2002, 177).
Legalized marriages between Indians and Greeks would have allowed trade
to flow more freely between the two kingdoms, and in the case of the
Seleucids, it provided another way to promote Hellenism to the non-Greek
world.
Besides the Seleucid princesses who came to the Mauryan court, Greek
scholars also spent time with Chandragupta and some of the other Mauryan
kings. Perhaps the best known of the Greek scholars to spend considerable
time in India was a historian and geographer named Megasthenes, who
Strabo cited extensively. Megasthenes served as the ambassador of the
Seleucid Empire, under Seleucus I, to the Maurya Empire (Scialpi 1984,
57). In his Anabasis, often titled in English translations as The Campaigns
of Alexander, Arrian offered a brief geographical description of India, for
which he cited Megasthenes. “Imagine Asia as divided by the Taurus and
Caucasus ranges, running in an east-west direction, and you will see that the
two main divisions are formed by the Taurus, one lying north of it, the other
south; the southern part may then again be divided into four, the largest of
which is, according to Erastosthenes and Megasthenes, India;
(Megasthenes, by the way, spent much time in Arachotia with its governor
Sibyrtius, and tells us that he frequently visited the Indian King
Sandracottus.” (Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, V, 6). Along with
Megasthenes, a Seleucid Greek named Deimachus also served as
ambassador at the Mauryan court in the capital city of Pataliputra during the
reign of Chandragupta’s son and successor, Bindusara.
By all accounts, Chandragupta’s reign was incredibly successful. He
forged an empire, made important contacts with the Hellenistic world, and
brought stability to a region that had been marred by instability and chaos
for quite some time. The sources concerning Chandragupta’s death are a bit
sketchy, but modern scholars believe that the king abdicated the throne in
favor of his son Bindusara (ca. 297-273 BCE). The fact that Chandragupta
abdicated on behalf of his son is not particularly important or interesting,
but the way that he possibly ended his life was. Chandragupta was a
follower of the ancient Indian religion known as Jainism, which holds as
one of its central tenets the idea of ahimsa, or non-violence, which the most
ardent Jains apply to all living creatures, even insects and many plants.
Although Chandragupta certainly did not follow the concept of ahimsa
when he was conquering most of northern India, he apparently became
more spiritual later in his life and decided to end his life as a devout Jain.
He first abdicated his throne, which would follow with the idea of non-
attachment to worldly possessions. He then chose to end his life in the true
Jain tradition by starving himself to death (Thapar 2002, 178).
A map of the Maurya Empire after Chandragupta’s campaigns
 Ilya Mauter’s picture of Bhadrabahu Cave, where Chandragupta is
said to have died
Like his father, Bindusara began his rule in a particularly aggressive
fashion. Bindusara identified the 16 most bothersome princes and nobles
within his kingdom and then had them summarily executed. Modern
scholars believe that Bindusara’s repression of the nobility probably had
less to do with him being a despot or tyrant and more to do with the 16
princes being troublemakers in the kingdom. The princes were probably
especially cruel to their subjects and fanned the flames of rebellion in order
to cover their nefarious activities against their own people (Lamotte 1988,
223).
Whatever the reason or reasons, within a few years of taking the throne,
Bindusara had expanded the Mauryan realm from the Indian Ocean to the
Pacific Ocean. Within its borders were numerous different ethnicities and
religious sects with nearly as many languages.
 Bindusara’s expansion of the empire
Although the primary sources from Bindusara’s reign are fairly scant, it
does appear that he continued his father’s policy of good relations with the
Seleucids. Bindusara is mentioned by some of the Classical authors, who
refer to him as “Amitrochates” (Thapar 2002, 178). It was during
Bindusara’s reign that the Greek writer Deimachus spent time at the
Mauryan court in Pataliputra. Although nearly all of Deimachus’s writings
are now lost, other Classical writers cited him in their accounts of Indian
geography and history.
 Jean-Michel Moullec’s picture of a coin minted during Bindusara’s
reign
Besides the continued good relations with the Seleucids, Bindusara also
maintained many of his father’s domestic policies within the empire. For
the most part, both Chandragupta and Bindusara took an especially
enlightened view toward the many religious sects within their realm. As a
Jain, Chandragupta practiced tolerance toward other religious groups
because the prophets and tenets of his religion taught that there was more
than one way to enlightenment. Like his father, Bindusara also followed a
religious sect that was outside of the Vedic orthodoxy of the time.
Bindusara was a practitioner of the Ajivika religion, which essentially held
that man has no free will (Sciapli 1984, 58). Although not followers of the
mainstream Indian-Vedic gods, the Ajivikas, like the Jains and Buddhists,
were believers in religious tolerance, so Bindusara never engaged in
persecution of other religious communities in his realm, nor did he attempt
to forcefully convert any of his subjects to Ajivikism. In fact, records show
that Bindusara actually patronized the Brahmins, who were the highest
caste in Vedic society (Lamotte 1988, 223).
 Ashoka the Great
Bindusara’s reign was one of peace and relative stability, but when he died,
the kingdom was thrust into a brief interregnum over who would be the next
king. In fact, historians are still divided on what exactly took place after
Bindusara died. The Buddhist sources provide the bulk of the information for
this short period, but they could be described as “pseudo-historical” at best, as
they are more concerned with presenting the Buddhist emperor Ashoka as an
enlightened ruler, despite his shortcomings. Many modern scholars believe
that after Bindusara died or was possibly murdered, a four-year civil war was
fought among his brothers for control of the Mauryan Dynasty (Thapar 2002,
180). The successor and rightful heir to Bindusara was a man named Susuma,
but the capital city of Pataliputra – and therefore the seat of the royal crown,
royal treasury, and the army – was occupied by Ashoka, one of Bindusara’s
other sons (Lamotte 1988, 223). Since Ashoka occupied the metaphorical high
ground, he was able to eventually defeat all rival claimants to the throne and
make himself the ruler of most of India.
 Dharma’s picture of an ancient relief depicting Ashoka
There is a consensus among modern scholars that Ashoka’s assumption of
the Mauryan throne was violent, but the details of how he went from being a
brutal and malevolent dictator to an enlightened and benevolent Buddhist ruler
are unclear. One of the most cited primary sources concerning Ashoka’s first
few years on the throne is known as the Ashokavadana, which is a Sanskrit-
language, pseudo-biographical tale about the king. Since the Ashokavadana
was written hundreds of years after Ashoka’s death and its true purpose was to
depict the king as a pious Buddhist, the text’s historiographical value is
suspect. With that said, the text is important because it details some of the
major events in Ashoka’s life. The Ashokavadana is also important historically
because it demonstrates how later Buddhists viewed Ashoka, and how they
believed an enlightened monarch should rule.
According to the Ashokavadana, when Ashoka was known as “Jaya” in a
previous life, he offered a clump of dirt to the Buddha, who was at first taken
aback by the offering but then realized that the boy had a much greater destiny
in a future life. The text reads, “After presenting this offering to the Blessed
One, Jaya then proceeded to make the following resolute wish (pranidhana):
‘By this root of good merit, I would become king and, after placing the earth
under a single umbrella of sovereignty, I would pay homage to the Blessed
Buddha.’ The compassionate Sage immediately perceived the boy’s character,
and recognizing the sincerity of his resolve, he saw that the desired fruit would
be attained because of his field of merit. He therefore accepted the proffered
dirt, and the seed of merit that was to ripen into Ashoka’s kingship was
planted.” (Strong 2014, 200-1).
Buddha subsequently told his companions that Jaya would in fact become
king 100 years after he had reached the state of nirvana. The Ashokavadana
states, “One hundred years after the Tathāgata has attained parinirvana, that
boy will become a king named Aśoka in the city of Pātaliputra. He will be a
righteous dharmaraja, a cakravartin who rules over one of the four continents,
and he will distribute my bodily relics far and wide and build the eighty-four
thousand dharmarajikas. This he will undertake for the well-being of many
people.” (Strong 2014 203-4).
The above mythological passages are not necessarily important for retracing
the chronology of Ashoka’s life, but they demonstrate the importance that he
had within the pre-modern Buddhist world outside of India, as well as the
importance of Buddhism in the king’s life. At the same time, regardless of how
important as Buddhism was in Ashoka’s personal life and in his kingship, he
became the king before he became a Buddhist, and the Ashokavadana depicts
the events surrounding Ashoka’s ascension to the Mauryan throne as chaotic
and violent. It claims that even before Bindusara died, regions within the
empire attempted to break away, but the Mauryans were woefully unprepared
for the situation. According to the text, since Ashoka was deemed to be a king
during a previous life by none other than Buddha himself, the Mauryans’
weapons problems were solved by providence.
“Now it happened that the city of Taksasila rebelled against King Bindusara.
He therefore sent Aśoka there, saying: “Go, son, lay siege to the city of
Taksasila.” He sent with him a fourfold army [consisting of cavalry, elephants,
chariots, and infantry], but he denied it any arms. As Aśoka was about to leave
Pātaliputra, his servants informed him of this: ‘Prince, we don’t have any
weapons of war; how and with what shall we do battle?’ Aśoka declared: ‘If
my merit is such that I am to become king, may weapons of war appear before
me!’ And as soon as he had spoken these words, the earth opened up and
deities               brought forth weapons.” (Strong 2014, 208).
After valiantly fighting the usurpers and after engaging in his own
duplicitous actions against his own family, Ashoka finally became the king,
but during his first few years, he was not the enlightened Buddhist he is
remembered as today. Ashoka was an exceptionally cruel leader who reveled
in the pain and misery of others, and the Ashokavadana suggests Ashoka’s
cruelty began not long after he assumed the throne. He directed his fury not
just at recalcitrant nobles, but even toward the environment: “Once Ashoka
had become king, many of his ministers began to look on him with contempt.
In order to discipline them, he ordered them, [as a test of their loyalty], to chop
down all the flower and fruit trees but to preserve the thorn trees. ‘What is
your majesty planning?” they asked, ‘should we not rather chop down the
thorn trees and preserve the flower and fruit trees?’ And three times they
countermanded his order. Ashoka became furious at this; he unsheathed his
sword and cut off the head of five hundred ministers.” (Strong 2014, 210).
The young Ashoka’s wrath knew no bounds, and he directed his anger at
concubines and lower officials as much as he did at the high-born. The
Ashokavadana states that he killed 500 of his concubines when they cut down
one of his favorite trees: “Strolling through the park he came across an ashoka
tree whose blossoms were at their peak, and thinking “this beautiful tree is my
namesake,” he became very affectionate. King Ashoka’s body, however, was
rough-skinned, and the young women of the harem did not enjoy caressing
him. So after he had fallen asleep, they, out of spite chopped all the flowers
and branches off the ashoka tree. ‘Who did this?’ he asked his servants who
were standing nearby. ‘Your majesty’s concubines,’ they answered. On
learning this, Ashoka flew into a rage and burned the five hundred women
alive. When the people saw all these vicious acts of the king, they concluded
he was fearsome by temperament, and gave him the name ‘Ashoka the
Fierce.’” (Strong 2014, 210-11).
 Dharma’s picture of an ancient relief depicting Ashoka and some of his
wives
Although Ashoka displayed his own affinity and acumen for cruelty and
killing, his closest advisors nevertheless convinced him to hire a royal
executioner named Girika. Girika was described in the Ashokavadana as an
incredibly cruel young man who enjoyed torturing animals, and when
Ashoka’s advisors learned of the youth, they asked him to work for Ashoka.
After killing his parents, Girika joined the king and became his royal
executioner and torture expert. According to the Ashokavadana, he even built
a prison that was modeled on the Buddhist concept of Hell. “Then they took
Girika to King Ashoka. The first thing he did was to ask the king to have a
building made for this purposes. Ashoka had one built immediately; it was
actually a very frightful place, and people called it ‘the beautiful
gaol.’Candagirika then said: ‘Your majesty, grant me this wish – that
whosoever should enter this place should not come out alive.’ And the king
agreed to his demand. Soon thereafter, Candagirika went to the Kukkutarama
where he heard a monk reciting the Balapandita Sutra. ‘There are being who
are reborn in hell, and the hell-guardians grab them, and stretch them out on
their backs on a fiery floor of red-hot iron that is but a mass of flames. They
pry open their jaws with an iron bar and pour fiery balls of red-hot iron into
their open mouths…’ ‘There are other beings who are reborn in hell, and the
hell-guardians grab them and stretch them out on their back on a fiery floor of
red-hot iron that is but a mass of flames. They pry open their mouths with an
iron bar and pour boiling copper down their throats…’And there are beings
who are reborn in hell whom the hell-guardians grab and throw onto their
faces on a fiery floor of red-hot iron that is but a mass of flames. They mark
them with a chalk line of searing hot iron… ‘Finally, there are beings who are
reborn in hell whom the hell-guardians grab, and stretch out on their backs on
a fiery floor of red-hot iron that is but a mass of flames. Then they carry out
the torture of the five-fold tether; they drive two iron stakes through their
hands; they drive two iron stakes through their feet; and they drive one iron
stake through their heart. Truly, O monks, hell is a place of great suffering.’”
(Strong 2014, 212-13).
The Ashokavadana depicted Ashoka as a vile person with few redeeming
qualities, a ruler who was unmoved by the pain he caused others. If anything,
he seemed to revel in the torture, until he came across a Buddhist monk whom
he could not kill. According to the legend, a Buddhist monk named Samudra
came to the Mauryan court, but displeased Ashoka with his unapologetic piety.
Perhaps seeing something in himself that was lacking, Ashoka ordered
Samudra arrested and sentenced him to be boiled to death in a cauldron. The
passage reads:
“That unmerciful monster, feeling no pity in his heart and indifferent to the
other world, threw Samudra into an iron cauldron full of water, human blood,
marrow, urine, and excrement. He lit a great fire underneath, but even after
much firewood had been consumed, the cauldron did not get hot. Once more,
he tried to light the fire, but again it would not blaze. He became puzzled, and
looking into the pot, he saw the monk seated there, cross-legged on a lotus.
Straight-away, he sent word to King Aśoka. Aśoka came to witness this
marvel, and thousands of people gathered, and Samudra, seated in the
cauldron, realized that the time for Aśoka’s conversion was at hand.” (Strong
2014, 216).
Although the Ashokavadana is a fictional story, its depiction of Ashoka’s
conversion to Buddhism may be rooted in historical facts. Based on the rock
and pillar edicts/inscriptions Ashoka had carved throughout his kingdom, it is
known that Ashoka did in fact convert to Buddhism later in his reign. The
turning point in his conversion was not the torture of an innocent Buddhist
monk, but prolonged and intense military campaigns that resulted in the
extreme loss of life.

A picture of a bilingual inscription of one of Ashoka’s edicts found in

the city of Kandahar
Besides the pseudo-historical Ashokavadana, there are few extant primary
texts that chronicle Ashoka’s early reign. Most of the rock and pillar
inscriptions were commissioned later in his kingship, but two in particular
relate important events from the eighth year of his rule, which roughly
coincides with the year 260 BCE (Thapar 2002, 180). The edict in question –
which is referred to by modern scholars as edict thirteen – is written in the
Prakrit language, although a number of different scripts were employed in all
of the edicts (Thapar 2002, 182). The subject matter of edicts twelve and
thirteen concern Ashoka’s conquest of the region of Kalinga in northeast India.
Rock edict thirteen reads: “Eight years after his coronation King
Devanampiya Piyadasi conquered the Kalingas. In that (conquest) one
hundred and fifty thousand people were deported (as prisoners), one hundred
thousand were killed (or maimed) and many times that number died.
Thereafter, with the conquest of Kalinga, King Devanampiya Piyadasi
(adopted) the practice of morality, love of morality and inculcation of morality.
For there arose in King Devanampiya Piyadasi remorse for the conquest of
Kalinga. For when an unsubdued country is conquered there occur such things
as slaughter, death and deportation of people and these are regarded as very
painful and serious by King Devanampiya Piyadasi. Brahmins and ascetics
live everywhere, as well as votaries of other sects and householders who
practice such virtues as support of mother and father, service of elders, proper
treatment of friends, relatives, acquaintances and kinsmen and slaves and
servants and steadfastness in devotion to duties. They too suffer injury
(separation from loved ones), slaughter and deportation of loved ones. And for
those whose love is undiminished, their friends, acquaintances, relatives and
kinsmen suffer calamity. . . Hence, whatever the number of men then killed (or
wounded) and died and were deported at the annexation of Kalinga, a
hundredth or a thousandth part (thereof) even is regarded as serious by King
Devanampiya Piyadasi.” (Gokhale 1966, 157-8).
The impact that Ashoka’s campaign had on the Mauryan Dynasty, as well as
the king himself, was tremendous. Based on the inscriptions concerning the
conquest of Kalinga, along with archaeological work, modern scholars believe
that the numbers mentioned in edicts twelve and thirteen are fairly accurate,
with up to 150,000 people deported from the region, 100,000 killed, and many
more dying later as a result of the epic battle (Lamotte 1988, 226). After a life
of wanton death and cruelty, Ashoka would show genuine remorse at the
destruction he had partially caused.
When Ashoka came to power in India, Buddhism was still a fairly new
religion, having only been around 200 years since the death of the Buddha.
The new religion had made some inroads among the Indian population in the
years between Buddha’s death and Ashoka’s kingship, but in many people’s
eyes, it was just an obscure Vedic sect that eschewed the traditional caste
system. Apart from the pseudo-historical passages in the Ashokavadana,
Ashoka had probably been quite familiar with Buddhism since childhood, but
it was the bloodbath in Kalinga that pushed him over the edge and become an
official Buddhist monarch who tried to convert the entire population of India
to his religion.
In order to understand Ashoka’s conversion apart from the propaganda of the
later Buddhist texts, one must turn to the rock and pillar edicts to read the
king’s own words. In an inscription known as “Minor Rock Edict #1,” Ashoka
implies that his conversion to Buddhism was actually a gradual process, and
that he had not been such an ardent follower even after he accepted the faith.
The first part reads, “From Suvarnagiri, by the order of the Prince and high
officers, the high officers of Isila are to be wished well and addressed as
follows: (The Rupnath Version has Devanampiya commands thus). For more
than two and one-half years since I have been a lay-devotee I have not been
exerting myself energetically. But for over a year since I approached the Order
I have been exerting myself strenuously. . . And for this purpose this must be
written on rocks (or pillars). This must be spread all over your jurisdiction.
This proclamation I have made while on a tour of 256 nights.” (Gokhale 1966,
161).
 Jadia Gaurang’s picture of one of Ashoka’s rock edicts
Of central importance is Ashoka’s explanation of why he decided to
construct these edicts across his empire. In the second part of the same
inscription, Ashoka related some of what he believed were the most important
concepts in his new empire. “Devanampiya says this: Mother and Father must
be shown due respect; likewise the elders; proper regard for living beings must
be firmly established, truth must be spoken. These values of morality must be
propounded: Pupils must honor teachers; kinsmen must be well regarded. This
is the ancient law, of long duration; this must be practiced.” (Gokhale 1966,
162).
The numerous edicts Ashoka had inscribed throughout his empire are
important both in terms of historiography and theology. The edicts have been
useful in constructing the chronology of Ashoka’s reign, but more importantly,
they demonstrate the desire the king had to promote his newfound religion
within his realm. But before he spread the word of Buddhism to his subjects
through the rock and pillar edicts, he attempted to better organize the Buddhist
community in India. By the time that Ashoka became king, the Buddhist
community, or sangha, was fairly organized in its own right, but the king
intended to help it along further with royal patronage. About 18 years into
Ashoka’s reign, in 250 BCE, the Third Buddhist Council met in Pataliputra.
There were a number of issues for the monks and patrons of the religion to
discuss, including the codification of their central beliefs and the idea of
proselytization. It was decided at the council that the believers would follow
the trade routes to spread the message of Buddha to all corners of the world.
The council also discussed important theological issues such as the proper or
best way to reach enlightenment. Those in attendance agreed that studying the
sutras – the actual sayings and writings of Buddha – would provide the core of
their religious canon, which ultimately proved to be the origin of the
Theravada branch of Buddhism (Thapar 2002, 181).
Besides allowing organized Buddhism a place to thrive, Ashoka also carried
out his own initiatives that promoted his religion. In year ten of his rule,
Ashoka embarked on a grand tour of his empire. The tour was multi-purposed,
as it served to promote Buddhism throughout the kingdom, but it also helped
to send a message of goodwill from the royal house, thereby engendering
stability within the realm. At the many stops he made, Ashoka distributed gold
to his subjects and later had rock and pillar edicts constructed to commemorate
his visits (Lamotte 1988, 226). As discussed earlier, the edicts ranged in topics
from being historiographical in nature – like the mention of the Battle of
Kalinga – to those concerning Buddhist philosophy and theology. In the more
religious edicts, Ashoka urged his subjects to adopt Buddhist ideas, such as
following a vegetarian diet. Rock edict #1 reads, “This rescript on morality has
been commanded to be written by the King Devanampiya Piyadasi. Here no
animal may be slaughtered and offered in sacrifice. No convivial assembly too
may be held. For King Devanampiya Piyadasi sees many a blemish in
convivial assemblies. But there are some assemblies considered good by King
Devanampiya Piyadasi. Formerly in the kitchen of King Devanampiya
Piyadasi every day hundreds of thousands of animals were slaughtered for
curry. But now since this rescript on morality has been written only three
animals are slaughtered for curry; two peacocks and one deer, and that deer to
not always. Even these three animals will not be slaughtered hence.” (Gokhale
1966, 151-2).
 Dharma’s picture of a relief depicting Ashoka’s visit to Ramagrama
Although Ashoka never required any of his subjects to become vegetarians
or even follow Buddhism, he did introduce what amounted to a government
sponsored “morality police.” Rock edict #5 states, “King Devanampiya
Piyadasi says thus: Benevolence is difficult; he who performs a benevolent act
accomplishes something difficult. I have performed much that is benevolent.
Benevolence shall also be practiced by my sons, grandsons and their
descendants even until the very dissolution of the universe. But he who
neglects even a part hereof does evil. To commit sin, indeed, is easy. In times
past, formerly, there were no morality officers (Dharmamahamatras). Since I
have been crowned thirteen years ago, I have appointed morality officers.
They are engaged with votaries of all faiths, for the firm establishment of
morality, for its progress, for the happiness here and hereafter of those devoted
to morality. They are employed among the Greeks, Kambojas, Gandharas,
Rashtrikas, Petenikas and among the frontier peoples. They are employed
among the servants and masters, among the Brahmins, the destitute and the
aged, for their benefit and happiness, for the removal of hindrances for those
devoted to morality. They are engaged in helping those incarcerated, in
preventing harassment and securing release of those who have large families
or have been overwhelmed with calamity or are old. Here in Pataliputra or
elsewhere they are employed in all towns, in all the harems of my brothers and
establishments of my sisters and other kinsmen. They are employed among all
those who are devoted to morality or are established therein everywhere in my
dominions. For this purpose has this rescript on morality been written that it
may long endure and that my subjects may practice it.” (Gokhale 1966, 153-
4).
 Conspicuously absent in the inscription is a detailed account of what Ashoka
considers “moral behavior,” especially in the harems. One can only assume
that he considered moral behavior to be that which fell in line with Theravada
Buddhism, which he interpreted in various other edicts. It also seems to follow
that what Ashoka and other Buddhists considered moral behavior was
followed by the kingdoms Jains, Ajivikas, Vedic practitioners.
Ashoka’s worldview can be seen in a number of the rock and pillar
inscriptions, and although appearing disjointed when viewed singularly, they
make much more sense when seen together. Despite being an ardent Buddhist
throughout most of his rule, Ashoka was not known to engage in any
widespread persecution of India’s many other religions, to the extent that he
actually promoted religious tolerance in many of his edicts. Rock edict #7
reads, “King Devanampiya Piyadasi desires that all sects may live everywhere.
All of them desire restraint and purity of the mind. But men are of diverse
desires and passions. They will practice all (points of their faith) or only a part.
Even for a generous man, if he not have restraint, purity of main, gratefulness
or steadfastness in faith, there is not greatness.” (Gokhale 1966, 155).
Besides tolerance of all religious sects, one of the other reoccurring themes
in many of the edicts was care for animals and the encouragement to follow a
vegetarian diet. Along with his belief in early “animal rights,” Ashoka also
championed the preservation of the natural environment. Pillar edict #5 states,
“King Devanampiya Piyadasi says thus: since I was crowned twenty-six years
ago, I have made inviolate these species (of animals and birds) to wit; parrots,
starlings, arunas, Brahmany ducks, wild geese, nandimukhas, gelatas, bats,
queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, vedaveyakas, gangapuputakas, skate,
turtles, squirrels, Borasing stags, Brahmany bulls, rhinoceros, white pigeons,
common pigeons, all quadrupeds that are not in use or are not eaten. . . Forests
must not be burnt just for mischief or to destroy living beings in them. Life
must not be fed on life.” (Gokhale 1966, 167).
 A picture of Ashoka’s pillar at Vaishali
None of the edicts point toward Ashoka compelling his subjects to convert to
Buddhism, but the texts that relate the activities of the moral police certainly
indicate that the king at least attempted to enforce transgressions against his
edicts. What is not clear from the edicts is what, if any, punishment was meted
out for those who transgressed Ashoka’s edicts.
It is obvious that Ashoka believed in the ideas he promoted through the
edicts, but if he did not in fact expect his subjects to convert to Buddhism,
what was the point of promoting Buddhist theology in his kingdom? In pre-
modern periods, most religious communities in India lived in relative peace
alongside each other, so while Ashoka never planned to convert the mass of
his kingdom to Buddhism, he apparently believed that by promoting Buddhist
ethics and morality through his edicts, he would make his realm a more moral
and happy place. Pillar edict #1 reads, “King Devanampiya Piyadasi says thus:
This rescript on morality has been commanded to be written by me since I was
crowned twenty-six years ago. Happiness in this world and the next is difficult
to achieve except through utmost devotion to morality, keen introspection,
complete obedience, fear of evil and great exertion. Now because of my
instruction this reliance on morality and devotion to it have increased daily
and will increase. My officers, too, whether of the highest, middling or low
ranks, must follow my instruction and practice it so that they may encourage
the weak or hesitant as much as they can. Similarly the high officers
(Mahamatras) of the frontiers must act. And this should be the norm of
conduct that administration must confirm to morality, that legislation should
be according to morality; this alone can make people happy according to
morality and protect them according to the law of morality.” (Gokhale 1966,
165).
Ashoka attempted to make India a Buddhist land - or at least Buddhist
friendly - not through force, but by appealing to the beliefs that Vedic, Jain,
and Ajivika Indians shared with Buddhists, such as the belief in ahimsa, which
was often manifested in a vegetarian diet.
Along with creating pro-Buddhist laws and government through the edicts
and giving organized Buddhism a physical sanctuary, Ashoka also promoted
his religion through the construction of numerous monuments and
monasteries. The most visible of Ashoka’s building projects were the
numerous pillars scattered across his empire, which contained the edicts
described earlier in this article. The pillars range in size, but some are as high
as 50 feet. The magnificent pillars can be seen from great distances and are the
earliest extant examples of monumental Indian art (Irwin 1973, 706).
Although the pillars are an unmistakable symbol of the Mauryan Dynasty and
therefore Indian culture, they were undoubtedly influenced by Western
architectural and artistic styles (Thapar 2002, 182).
The most famous of all the Ashoka pillars is the one that still stands in the
city of Sarnath. The Sarnath pillar, which is said to mark the spot where
Buddha first preached his message of enlightenment to his acolytes, stands 37
feet tall, with four lions adorning its capital (Irwin 1973, 706). Even today,
scholars are unsure why many of the pillars were erected in their particular
locations. As mentioned above, the pillar in Sarnath was erected on a holy
spot, and the first pillar, which was built in Sanchi, was erected in front of the
Great Stupa in that city (Irwin 1973, 709), but many are located in rural areas
far removed from any Buddhist holy sites. Modern mapping techniques have
revealed that placement of many of the pillars seemed to coincide with trade
routes to the west (Irwin 1973, 717). The idea of a nexus between merchant
activity and early Buddhism in India certainly is logical when one considers
how many other world religions, such as Christianity and Islam, were spread
by merchants, not just priests and armies.

Picture of Ashoka’s pillar (circa 250 BCE) located at Sarnath

 A map depicting the routes Buddhists took to proselytize the faith
Since the pillars are the earliest known examples of monumental architecture
in India, modern historians have debated their inspiration for decades. It is
believed that Ashoka got the idea for the pillars as a result of his interactions
with the Seleucid Greeks, who in turn were influenced by earlier cultures. The
Sanchi Pillar in particular bears a striking similarity to some of the extant
pillars in the Achaemenid Persian royal palace in Persepolis, which was built
in the sixth century BCE. Irwin believeds that the influence goes back even
further, to the Hittite Empire of the second millennium BCE, though he noted
they show a strong Hellenistic character (Irwin 1973, 710). Irwin is right for
believing that inspiration for the pillars predated the Achaemenid Persians, but
it is likely the Hittites’ descendants, the Lydians, provided inspiration to the
Persians.
Along with the pillars, a vast number of stupas were also built during
Ashoka’s reign. In his bid to make his kingdom Buddhist, Ashoka knew that
he had to provide shelter for the religion’s many monks and holy men, as well
as places to store their holy relics. Unlike the Vedic religion that was practiced
by most Indians at the time, Buddhism was not a ritualistic or cultic religion,
so it did not require large, ostentatious temples; the faithful only required
places where their monks could meditate and study. Ashoka’s answer was the
creation of thousands of stupas. Stupas are the distinct, round buildings that
today dot the landscape of modern India. According to Buddhist written
tradition, Ashoka had 84,000 stupas erected throughout his kingdom as a
profession of his piousness and to promote his faith (Irwin 1973, 715).

A picture of the stupa at Sanchi

 A picture of the stupa in Taxila
Although modern scholars know what stupas were used for – many are still
used today by Buddhist monks – they are unsure why they were built with
such a distinct shape. Some scholars believe that they were simply built on top
of prehistoric tumuli (ancient burial mounds) and, for whatever reason, the
Mauryans just decided to keep the same shape (Irwin 1973, 717).
Ashoka followed Chandragupta’s policy of fostering relations with the
Seleucid Dynasty, but he also expanded the Mauryans’ geopolitical influence
by reaching out to Sri Lanka and the Far East. The primary sources that
mention Ashoka’s relations with the West seem to indicate that he followed the
details of his predecessor’s program, as well as the general policy, by engaging
in trade and diplomacy. Ashoka’s contacts with and influence in the East,
though, were more intricately intertwined with his Buddhist beliefs, and much
more indirect. The king’s impact on the Hellenistic kingdoms was immediate,
yet ephemeral, while his influence on the Far East was minimal when he was
alive, but continues to this day.
Ashoka’s interactions with the West are well-documented in both Mauryan
and non-Mauryan sources. Many of Ashoka’s rock and pillar edicts were
erected in territories formerly held by the Seleucids, including Ghandara and
Bactria. In fact, it is believed that Ashoka spent time in Ghandara, probably as
a viceroy for his father, Bindusara (Scialpi 1984, 59).
The connections that Ashoka made with the Seleucid Greeks probably came
in handy during his reign, as he was able to keep the trade routes flowing
between the two empires. Although there is little textual evidence to support
extensive trade between the Mauryan and Seleucid Empires, a passage in the
work of the second century BCE Greek historian Polybius referred to an
encounter between Antiochus I (ruled 281-261 BCE) and an as of yet
unidentified Indian “king” named Sophagasenus. “Antiochus took his
departure, serving out generous rations of corn to his troops and adding to his
own the elephants belonging to Euthydemus. Crossing the Caucasus he
descended into India and renewed his alliance with Sophagasenus the Indian
king. Here he procured more elephants, so that his total force of them
amounted now to a hundred and fifty, and after a further distribution of corn to
his troops, set out himself with his army, leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus to
collect the treasure which the king had agreed to pay.” (Polybius, The
Histories, XI, 39, 10-13).
Since Ashoka was known as “Piodasses” to the Greeks, most historians
believe that Sophagasenus was a viceroy or other high-level administrator who
worked under Bindusara or Ashoka. It is also not clear if Ashoka was the
Mauryan king in question when this event took place, since Antiochus I ruled
for about 10 years before Ashoka came to power, but when one considers the
interregnum/civil war that took place in India after Bindusara’s death, it is
more than likely Ashoka was the king in India.
Although the above reference may not definitely pertain to events during
Ashoka’s reign, inscriptions from Mauryan territory prove that Ashoka was
aware of his Western counterparts and their culture. The rock inscriptions from
the western reaches of the Maurya Empire, in what would today be western
Pakistan and Afghanistan, refer to the Hellenistic kings by their equivalent
Indian names and includes Greeks as one of the subject peoples of the empire.
One shorter edict was written completely in Greek. Rock edict thirteen
mentions that the Maurya Empire extended to the borders of the Hellenistic
kingdoms. “King Devanampiya considers the victory of morality as the
greatest. And this victory has been accomplished by King Devanampiya up to
all his frontiers, even to a distance of six hundred yojanas where the Greek
King Antiochus rules, and beyond Antiochus’ realm in the dominions of the
four kings called Ptolemy, Antigonas, Magus, and Alexander, downwards into
the dominions of the Cholas and Pandyas, even up to Tamraparni. Similarly in
the royal domains where live the Greeks, the Kambojas, Nabhakas,
Nabhapantis, Bhojas, Pitinikas, Andhras and Paridas, everywhere people
follow the instruction in morality by King Devanampiya.” (Gokhale 1966,
158).
The actual Indian names in the inscription are Amtiyoko (Antiochus II, who
reigned from 261-246 BCE), Turamaye (Ptolemy II of Egypt, who reigned
from 285-247 BCE), Amtikini (Antigonus II of Macedon, who reigned from
278-239 BCE); Maka (Magas of Cyrene, who reigned from 300-258 BCE),
and Alikasudaro (Alexander II of Epirus, who reigned from 272-258 BCE).
In addition to the mention of the Hellenistic kings, a rock inscription in
Kandahar indicates that Ashoka counted many Greeks among his subjects and
tried to persuade them to follow Buddhism. The Greek-language Kandahar
inscription states:
“Ten years after his coronation King Piodasses instructed the
people in morality. After that he made people practice morality
more and more.
“There is prosperity in all the world.
“The king refrains from violence to living beings as do the other
and even the hunters and fishermen refrain from killing.
“Those that were unrestrained have practiced restraint as much as
it was possible for them to do.
“Obedience to father and mother and elders has in the past led to
a better life and will do so in future with the practice of the rules
given above.” (Gokhale 1966, 163).
The Mauryan rulers in general — and Ashoka specifically — clearly had a
working relationship with the Hellenistic kings that could be described as
friendly and productive. Future discoveries may even demonstrate more
details about the relations between the various kingdoms. Ashoka and the
Mauryan rulers did not just focus their attention on the West, though; they
attempted to develop diplomatic relationships with many of the existing
powers of the time.
Given that India is in Asia and very close to East Asia, and given that
Ashoka was such an ardent Buddhist – which, although a native Indian
religion, later became the primary religion of tens of millions of East Asians –
one might assume the Mauryan kings would have established deep ties with
their Asian neighbors, but that was not the case. Even today, the Himalayan
Mountain range is a barrier to regular travel between India and China, which
during ancient times meant that contact between the two countries was
minimal (Thapar 2002, 183). In the centuries after the Maurya Empire, more
trade routes were developed between India and China, mostly due to Chinese
Buddhist pilgrims, but there are few sources that attest to the Mauryans having
any significant connections to China. The Chinese scholars Fa-hsien and
Hsuan Tsang recorded many of Ashoka’s pillars and rock edicts into Chinese,
but these men lived in the fourth and seventh centuries CE, which means that
they never had contact with any Mauryan rulers (Irwin 1973, 709).
Although the Mauryans had little contact with China, there is evidence that
suggests they developed ties with the island of Sri Lanka. Ashoka’s own son
was the first Buddhist missionary to Sri Lanka, and shortly after that, the
island became one of the first kingdoms to accept Theravada Buddhism
(Thapar 2002, 184). Also, many of the pseudo-biographical texts written about
Ashoka were recorded in the Sinhalese language, which is the traditional
language of Sri Lanka.
Long after the Maurya Empire collapsed, Buddhism gradually faded from
significance in India, but the Sinhalese-speaking people of Sri Lanka
continued to be pious followers of Theravada Buddhism and remain so today.
 Mauryan Culture
The Maurya Empire displayed many attributes that are common or
indicative of several empires throughout world history. Perhaps the most
important feature is when the government unifies several different groups
under a single ideology, which was Buddhism in the case of the Mauryans.
Ashoka’s personal conversion to Buddhism and the ways he promoted
Buddhist ideas were important, but the king also molded some aspects of
Buddhist theology to fit with his religiously pluralistic kingdom.
All branches of Buddhism and all practicing Buddhists recognize the Four
Noble Truths as the core tenets of the religion. The Four Noble Truths are
as follows: to live is to suffer; suffering comes from desire; it is truthful to
eliminate suffering; and the elimination of suffering comes from following
the Noble Eightfold Path (Carter 2008, 78). The Noble Eightfold Path
involves these thoughts and actions: right view, right thought, right speech,
right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right
concentration (Carter 2008, 78).
When one examines the theology espoused in Ashoka’s rock and pillar
edicts, it becomes clear that the king did not promote a traditional form of
Buddhism, but one that was more in line with older Indian religions
(Lamotte 1988, 233-4). Neither the Four Noble Truths nor the Noble
Eightfold Path are mentioned in any of the edicts. With that said, the
policies that Ashoka promoted in his edicts did coincide with the general
idea of ahisma, which was shared by Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas, and
traditional followers of the Vedic religion alike.
One crucial aspect in which Buddhism differed from its Vedic parent
religion was the recognition of the caste system. As discussed earlier, it was
the Aryans who introduced the caste system to India nearly 1,500 years
before Ashoka, which was intended to be a beneficial way to separate the
ruling Aryans from the native Dravidian people. In time, the ethnic
differences in the caste system gave way to spiritual and class differences,
with the priest and warrior classes being the rulers of the society. Although
Buddha himself was of the warrior caste, he allowed people from all castes,
even the casteless chandalas, or “untouchables,” to follow him. He taught
that enlightenment could come to a person from any caste and was fully
contingent upon that person following the Four Noble Truths and the Noble
Eightfold Path, which was in many ways directly in conflict with the Vedic
ideals.
Despite being an ardent Buddhist, Ashoka never threatened to end the
caste system or slavery, for that matter. Strabo quoted Megasthenes, who
visited at least one Mauryan king, in a detailed passage about the Indian
caste system. Although the passage is faulty in its placement of the
warriors, it is important because he points out the many sub-castes. “He
says then, that the population of India is divided into seven castes: the one
first in               honour, but the fewest in number, consists of the
philosophers; and these philosophers are               used, each individually,
by people making sacrifice to the gods or making offerings to the dead. . .
The second caste, he says, is that of the farmers, who are not only the most
numerous, but also the most respected. . .The third caste is that of the
shepherds and hunters, who alone are permitted to hunt, to breed cattle, and
to sell or hire out beasts of burden. . . After the hunters and the shepherds,
he says, follows the fourth caste – the artisans, the tradesmen, and the day-
labourers. . . The fifth caste is that of the warriors, who, when they are not
in service, spend their lives in idleness and at drink-bouts, being maintained
by the royal treasury. . . The sixth is that of the inspectors, to whom it is
given to inspect what is being done and report secretly to the king. . . The
seventh is that of the advisers and councilors of the king, who hold the chief
offices of state, the judgeships, and the administration of everything.”
(Strabo, Geography, XV, 1, 39-49).
Either Megasthenes related some confusing details in his original account
or Strabo made some mistakes in his transmissions. For instance, the
warriors are the second highest caste in the Indian caste system, not the
third to the bottom. With that said, the warrior caste did enjoy a life of
leisure, so perhaps the confusion came when one of the two Greeks
compared the caste system with their own culture.
Megasthenes/Strabo did correctly identify that, in addition to the primary
castes, there were several other sub-castes. The most important aspect of
this passage, though, at least in relation to Ashoka’s desire to spread
Buddhism throughout his kingdom, was that the caste system persisted
despite having a Buddhist king on the throne. Perhaps Ashoka knew that
challenging the Vedic priest and warrior castes would have led to civil war
in his kingdom, or maybe things were going so well that he did not want to
shake things up too much.
Besides being considered by many to be one of the most enlightened
empires in human history, the Maurya Empire was also incredibly wealthy.
The Mauryan kings took advantage of the remarkable wealth of natural
resources that they possessed to engage in trade across great distances. The
wealth of the Maurya Empire can be gauged through archaeological
discoveries, which show that many of the houses in the larger urban areas
were made of brick, while the palace in Pataliputra was made of stone
(Thapar 2002, 189). The Mauryans were able to send their precious
resources to the west via their “Great Road,” which went from Taxila, in
what is now northwest Pakistan, to the Mauryan capital. Smaller roads
connected Taxila to central Asian cities such as Kabul and the Parthian-
Persian cities farther to the west (Scialpi 1984, 57).
There were also sea routes that brought ships from India to Mesopotamia
and even as far west as Egypt. Strabo wrote about large numbers of Roman
ships sailing to India during his time, and he also noted that during the
Ptolemaic era in Egypt, which coincided with the Mauryans, the routes
were less used but still active nonetheless. “At any rate, when Gallus was
prefect of Egypt, I accompanied him and ascended the Nile as far as Syene
and the frontiers of Ethiopia, and I learned that as many as one hundred and
twenty vessels were sailing from Myos Hormos to India, whereas formerly,
under the Ptolemies, only a very few ventured to undertake the voyage and
to carry on traffic in Indian merchandise.” (Strabo, Geography, II, 12).
The Mauryan rulers were able to import commodities from the west, such
as furs, while exporting elephants, which the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
kingdoms frequently used in their wars against each other. The trade of
elephants was particularly interesting, and it naturally raised the stature of
India in the eyes of the West for some time. When Alexander invaded India,
his soldiers were introduced to the concept of elephant warfare (Lloyd
2000, 400), but after their initial horror and shock over what the animals
could do on the battlefield wore off, Alexander realized that he could bring
elephants back west to use on his enemies there. When Alexander died and
his conquests were divided into the Hellenistic successor states, the
Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt both used elephants against each
other.
Although the use of elephants certainly had advantages, armies quickly
learned that they could charge elephants effectively by using small
contingents of cavalry, and the supply of elephants also eventually became
an issue. The Ptolemies found that Asian elephants were better for warfare
than African forest elephants, but in order to keep a steady supply, they
would have to go through Seleucid territory to get to the Maurya Empire
(Lloyd 2000, 401). Eventually, elephant warfare became more of a fad than
anything in the West, and so the demand diminished, which hurt Mauryan
trade routes.
Even after the fad of elephant warfare passed in the West, the trade routes
remained quite active between the Seleucid and Mauryan capitals. In
addition to the benefits that the routes brought to the royal houses of the
Seleucid and Mauryan Dynasties, the routes also had the effect of
dispersing wealth in a trickle-down effect throughout India, leading to the
formation of merchant guilds and the creation of a middle class (Scialpi
1984, 60). The great amount of wealth that flowed into India during the
period of the Maurya Empire also contributed to creating a large
government apparatus that far eclipsed anything in previous periods of
Indian history. The Mauryans came to power through warfare, and once
they established their dynasty, they rewarded the warrior caste by creating a
large standing army. The army was much larger than anything India had
previously seen; at its peak, the army could boast of 80,000 infantry and
700 elephants (Thapar 2002, 191). Even during Ashoka’s relatively
peaceful rule, the military retained its size and influence, which may point
toward another compromise that the astute king was willing to make in
order to keep the many factions and sects within his empire happy.
Although the military may have wielded considerable influence in the
Maurya Empire, there is no doubt who ruled the kingdom. The Maurya
Empire, like most ancient empires outside of Greece and Rome, was an
absolute monarchy. The king decided the course of the government, ranging
from diplomacy to war and trade, and he could even influence his subjects
to follow a certain religion. With that said, the Maurya Empire was a
complex bureaucracy, so the king often needed to delegate responsibilities
to nobles and trusted advisors. Under the king, the two most important
government positions were the treasurer and the “chief collector,” whose
job it was to collect taxes from the empire’s many districts (Thapar 2002,
198). Since there were so many districts in the Maurya Empire, the king
allowed a certain level of autonomy in order to make the wheels of
government turn a little easier.
It is believed that, during the Maurya Empire, princes from the priest and
warrior castes retained their noble titles and were allowed to continue to
rule as long as they accepted Mauryan authority and paid their taxes. Under
the princes, governors were appointed to administer smaller districts
(Thapar 2002, 198). Some modern scholars believe that the system was
based on the Achaemenid Persian government, whereby administrative
districts were based on the ethnicities of the subject groups more than any
geographic area (Scialp 1984, 61).
Although documents from the period do not go into any detail about the
system, some of Ashoka’s rock and pillar edicts help make the situation a
bit clearer. Rock edict three names the men who administered the districts
and some of their responsibilities. “King Devanampiya Piyadasi says thus:
Twelve years after my coronation have I ordered thus! Everywhere in my
dominions, the officers (Yuktas, Rajukas and Pradeshikas) will embark on
tours of inspection every five years for the inculcation of morality and other
such works. (They will instruct my subjects that) obedience to father and
mother is excellent, liberality to friends, acquaintances and kinsmen, to
Brahmins and ascetics is excellent; excellent is abstention from the
slaughter of animals; and abstemiousness and few possessions are excellent.
The council (Parishad) will also order the officers (Yuktas) to enforce these,
both in their letter and spirit.” (Gokhale 1966, 152).
Pillar edict seven gives a few more details about the bureaucrats’ duties.
“My morality officers have engaged themselves in acts of royal
benevolence in diverse ways. They are engaged among those that have
renounced the world as well as the householders and among all sects. I have
ordered them to be engaged in the welfare of the (Buddhist) Order as also
the welfare of Brahmins, Ajivikas, Nigranthas and other sects. These high
officers will engage themselves in their diverse and respective duties
whereas the morality officers are engaged specifically among all
denominations in addition to other duties. . . These and many other officers
are engaged in distribution of royal charity.” (Gokhale 1966, 169).
Of course, the overarching theme and purpose of the Mauryan
government, at least during Ashoka’s reign, was to promote the values of
Buddhism in the best way possible. The first three Mauryan kings certainly
created a government system that worked quite efficiently, but after
Ashoka, the wheel of government quickly came undone.
 The Decline of the Mauryan Dynasty
Like so many other great empires and dynasties, the Maurya Empire went
into a precipitous decline after their most famous ruler’s death. In the case
of the Mauryans, it took less than 50 years after Ashoka’s death for the
dynasty to collapse, and in that period, there were dozens of kings whose
reigns often overlapped (Lamotte 1988, 259). Though the reasons for the
dynasty’s decline are not entirely clear, and there are disagreements by
modern scholars pertaining to those reasons, a few possibilities can be
considered.
Many believe that the Maurya Empire’s pluralistic society was one of the
primary reasons for its demise, which happened to other empires before and
after the Mauryans. The Achaemenid Persians established one of the first
truly global empires, but its diverse population of different subject peoples
was quick to side with Alexander the Great when he promised to liberate
them from the Persians. In the modern period, the spark that ignited the
powder keg of World War I came when Serbian nationalists assassinated the
archduke of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thus, while
Ashoka seemed to keep the kernels of ethnic and religious distrust and
hatred out of his kingdom during his reign, they did not take long to surface
once he was gone. The Brahmin/priest caste, in particular, probably
resented Ashoka’s Buddhist program, as they believed that they were the
traditional defenders of kingship in India (Lamotte 1988, 259). This might
have meant that once a strong ruler was gone, the Brahmins were able to
manipulate the local rulers of India until there was no longer any central
authority.
At the same time, any state’s authority cannot be effectively challenged
without first challenging its military. The Indian military establishment
increased tremendously under the Mauryans, and the first three kings were
able to build a military that could rival any of the Hellenistic kingdoms in
size, but some historians think that Ashoka’s policies, especially his
adherence to the concept of ahimsa, were a double-edged sword for the
dynasty. On the one hand, the promotion of nonviolence brought stability
within the realm, but it also weakened the military (Lamotte 1988, 259).
This could have ensured that once the Mauryan military complex was
significantly diminished due to Buddhist polices, the dynasty was
vulnerable to foreign armies, as well as enemies from within.
Whatever the reasons, the Maurya Empire suffered from a host of internal
problems, and it eventually went the course of so many empires before and
after it by breaking into smaller regional states (Thapar 2002, 205). Upon
the empire’s collapse, India once more divided itself into several kingdoms
based on ethnicities and religious sects, much the way it was before
Chandragupta. The Mauryans themselves maintained a power base in the
Ganges River basin, where they remained a regional power (Thapar 2002,
205).
The fractured nature of India would remain until the Mughal conquered
most of the region in the 16th century, nearly 2,000 years after Alexander’s
invasion had helped facilitate the rise of the Mauryans.
Online Resources
Other books about ancient history by Charles River Editors
Other books about the Maurya Empire on Amazon
Bibliography
Arrian. 1971. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey de
Sélincourt. London:              Penguin Books.
Carter, John Ross and Mahinda Palihawadana, trans. 2008. The
Dhammapada. Oxford: Oxford               University Press.
Diodorus Siculus. 2004. The Library of History. Translated by C.H.
Oldfather. Cambridge,              Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Doniger, Wendy, trans. 1981. The Rig Veda: An Anthology. London:
Penguin.
Gokhale, Balkirshna Govind. 1966. Aśoka Maurya. New York: Twayne
Publishers.
Irwin, John. 1973. “‘Aśokan’ Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence.”
Burlington Magazine              115: 706-720.
Lamotte, Étienne. 1988. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to
the Śaka Era.              Translated by Sara Webb-Boin. Leuven, Belgium:
Peeters Press.
Lloyd, Alan B. 2000. “The Ptolemaic Period (332-30 BCE).” In The
Oxford History of Ancient              Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, 395-421.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plutarch. 1968. Lives. Edited and translated by Bernadotte Perrin.
Cambridge, Massachusetts:              Harvard University Press.
Polybius. 1960. The Histories. Translated by W.R. Paton. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard              University Press.
Scialpi, Fabio. 1984. “The Ethics of Aśoka and the Religious Inspiration
of the Achaemenids.”              East and West 34: 55-74.
Strabo. 2001. Geography. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones.
Cambridge, Massachusetts:              Harvard University Press.
Strong, John S. 2014. The Legend of King Aśoka: A Study and Translation
of the Aśokavadana:              A Study and Translation of the Aśokavadana.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thapar, Romila. 2002. Early India: From the Origins to CE 1300. Los
Angeles: University of              California Press.
 Free Books by Charles River Editors
We have brand new titles available for free most days of the week. To see
which of our titles are currently free, click on this link.
 Discounted Books by Charles River Editors
We have titles at a discount price of just 99 cents everyday. To see which
of our titles are currently 99 cents, click on this link.