Who was the real Ashoka the Great?

23 July 2008 349 views 3 Comments

To those of us whose image of Samraat Ashoka (Ashoka the Great) has been shaped by Amar
Chitra Kathaor the eponymous movie, it will come as a suprise that there may actually
have been three different Kings by the name of Ashok and the real history of the Ashok
the Great may be more complex than hitherto imagined.
I am reproducing below some excerpts from some early but ground-breaking research by
Kishore Patnaik which he shared on a Yahoo! group recentlyIt makes for
fascinatingreading (emphasis mine).
*** Excerpts BEGIN Long Post ***
it may be too premature for me to say(but it appears that) there are three Asokas in the
history whose identity has to be established:
1. The Mauryan king Asoka vardhana, as described in Puranas. I am not sure if anything was told
about Asoka vardhana by puranas, even though he has ruled the longest in his dynasty
2. The Bauddhist king Asoka(Tissa?) as described in the various Buddhist and Jain works.
Clearly, they try to mostly identify Asoka with with Asoka Vardhana but it is possible that the
writers are confused since these works were composed centuries after Asoka
3. Priyadarsi, the king of edicts who was supposed to be dear to the gods and of course, just once
he calls himself Asoka (in the edict of Maski)
In any case, we see that all the three kings differ in their nature and dating.
The full name of Asoka Vardhana (the Ashoka of Puranas), a princely name is not
mentioned anywhere else either in non-puranic sources or the edicts. While some buddhist
literature does identify the lineage of asoka as mauryan and name his father as bindusara
(as did the puranas), largely the name of the father of asoka keeps changing in this
literature.
The king of edicts is a totally different person from the Asoka of buddhist literature. That
both are buddhists is the only common point.
There is no Kalinga war mentioned in the buddhist literature. The Asoka of Buddhists was a
cruel sadist who was brought to the path of Buddhism by various monks as soon as he has taken
over or at best, four years after his coronation. After his conversion, Asoka was intolerant of
other religions and killed even his own brother, whom he has spared
earlier, suspecting that he is following a heretic Buddha school.

On the other hand, the edicts clearly mention that the king has taken to Buddhism in the 8th year
of his coronation, following the war of Kalinga. He was highly tolerant of other religions,
advising his people to respect brahmins and he has made donations to ajivakas in the 12th/13th
year and perhaps, in 19th year of his coronation, which is much later to his conversion.
The king of edicts is clearly highly tactful and diplomatic, never a sadist. He was a shrewd and
ambitious ruler- he annexed Kalinga only to have control of sea faring business routes. He has
used religion as a matter of tool to discipline people, most of the important edicts being in the
gold bearing areas of India. His repentance may be more
of a farce since the famous edict announcing his remorse was never found in Kalinga or the area
around it. Not just this, his hypocracy is clearly mentioned in the likes of edicts where he
confesses that he continued to eat meat, even as he entreated others, including the staff and other
residents of the Royal palace to convert to vegetarianism.
That most of his tactics are to get the maximum out of trade routes is very obvious. That kings
concentrated highly on trade routes is a trade mark of around Guptan kings.
If you follow the traditionalists chronology, we can say that Asoka vardhana was existing
much earlier to Greek invasion. Also, the traditionalists identify Sandrocottus with Chandra
gupta I. This will make the Asoka of Edicts a king around the times of Guptans, as pointed
by his way of dealing.
Thus, clearly Devanam piya/piyadarsi who have inscribed all the famous edicts is not a Mauryan
king. There are many other arguments in favor of this statement. which I will keep it for future.
Priyadarsi could not be a Mauryan king for many reasons one new reason being the Mauryan
kings were not in habit of bearing titlesPriyadarsi has never sent missionaries. It is king Ayu
(also named Asoka but he is not Mauryan again) who has sent these missionaries in order to
spread the relics of Buddha all over the country. That his daughter Bhadrana (the liturgical
Sanghamitra)also was amongst the missionaries is proved by inscriptions (not those of
priyadarsi).
Priyadarsi is from South India, in all possibility from Kolar fields of karnataka. His all important
edict recognizing the various provinces of his empire is issued from Suvarna giri, Kolar fieds,
Karnanataka.
Kalinga or Orissa was a thriving kingdom of ancient trade. They have adopted Buddhism
perhaps from the times of Buddha. For eg., Vinaya pitttaka, composed before the times of
Mauryans, represents Tapussa (or Tapassu) and Bhallika (or Bhalluka or Bhalliya), the two
merchant brothers of Utkala as offering the Buddha rice cakes and lump of honey in the eighth
week of his enlightenment. The Ariguttara Nikaya commentary adds that the Buddha
reciprocated by giving them eight handfuls of his hair which they subsequently enshrined in a
magnificent caitya at Asitanjana.

Now, the latest excavations (November 2007) recognize that this is not a mere folktale but true.
The scientists recognize that Asitnjana could be either Radhanagar (the ancient capital of
Kalinga) or Tarapore, another site of excavations which revealed the names of Tapussu and
Bhalliya. Several stupas of ancient origin are found in this region.
According to the commentary of the Theragatha, these two merchants also subsequently visited
the Buddha at Rajagriha and by that time Tapassu was renamed as Sotapanna and
Devachikaupasaka, and his name has been incorporated in the list of eminent upasakas of Lord
Buddha. Bhallika, on the other hand, joined the Sangha and became an arhat. The Pujavaliya text
of Ceylon delineates that Tapassu and Bhallika after their conversion visited the east coast of Sri
Lanka, where they erected a Chaitya to commemorate their visit.

The ancient text of Buddhists, The Mahcattarisaka Sutta of the Majjahimanikaya speaks of two
tribes of Utkala (Orissa) named Vassa and Bhanna as renouncing their earlier faith in Ahetu
vada, Akritya vada and Nastika vada in favor of Buddhism.
As per Chinese sources, Buddha had lauded Orissa as one of the twelve suitable places for the
attainment of perfection. That Buddhism has received the royal patronage is given in
Kalingabodhi Jataka referring to Kalinga II, who has paid reverential honor to the Bodhi tree at
Uruvela near Gaya for seven days.
The above liturgical and archaeological evidence amply proves that the Orissa was not only
flourishing commercially, especially in maritime trade, but also was traditionally Buddhist
in religion.
It is also evident that Kalinga was forming the connection between south and north. All the
important trade routes between south India and north India have been developed through
Kalinga. An ambitous king like Priyadarsi naturally would want to control this trade route.
Hence, the conquest of Kalinga.
It is here that Priyadarsi came into contact with Buddhism. In all probability, he must have
seen how obedient and controlled the Kalingan army was, even in the face of a fatal defeat. In
other words, he has seen how religion can be used to control masses, to command their total
surrender and loyalty. Thus he has cooked up the story of his remorse and presented it all over
his empire, which in fact, according to Taranatha, was acquired only after the conquest of
Kalinga (Obviously, he grew quite powerful with the commercial support offered by Kalinga)
While he has not converted to Buddhism at the time of Kalinga war , though he was genuinely
respecting it, was clear from his edicts, there is an aspect to be considered here.
How true was his remorse? We can say his remorse was entirely falseand was a tool invented
by him to control the masses using religion is amply evident in two ways:
1. That he has carried further conquests as evidenced by Taranatha

2. That he has erected his story of remorse all over India but not in Kalinga, which clearly
shows that he has not converted his so called remorse into action, atleast in Kalinga In
fact, he must have seen Kalinga as a milch cow for his further conquests
In fact, he did not free Kalinga from his sovereignty and it was continued to be under his regent
Tussa, as the excavations reveal.
*** END of Excerpts ***
Sh Patnaik is in the process of compiling this research in the form of a bookI, for one, am
eagerly looking forward to itIf anyone of you wishes to get in touch with him, please email
him at kishorepatnaik09ATgmail.com
P.S. To get a sense of current wisdom on Samraat Ashoka, try this Wikipedia link. Finally,
below is some more information from Shri Patnaik on the confusion created (inadvertently?) by
scholars researching this bit of history:
****
One of the greatest mistakes of Indian Historiography scholars is identifying Sandrocottus with
Chandragupta Mourya.
The predecessor of Sandrocottus was Xandremes (who can be easily identified Chandramasi, the
unpopular Satavahana ruler). Sandrocottus himself was Chandragupta, who has murdered
Chandramasi and usurped the kingdom. His forefather was named Gupta, meaning the
protected alluding to his low caste. Probably an artisan. The Greek records identify the father of
Sandrocottus as a barber , towards whom the Queen was amorous. This need not be in doubt
since the name Ghatotkacha, father of CG I not only indicates a name of lower birth but also a
person with great capabilities, especially physical strength. If the Queen of an unpopular and
perhaps, old king has loved him, it may be no wonder.
The son of Sandrocottus was Sandrocyptus.
Max Mueller could not synchronize the names Xandremes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus
with Nanda, Chandra gupta Maurya and Bindu sara. Hence, he denied the existence of
Xandremes and postulated without evidence that both Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus are one
and the same.
The name Sandro cryptus not only synchronizes with the name of Samudra gupta , the valiant
son of CG I but also, the title of allitrochades or Amitrochates (meaning slayer of enemies)
perfectly suits his image as a valiant and ruthless warrior, as described in the Prasasthi
epigraphy.

However, it is clear that the kingdom of Guptas did not sustain for long. It is not correct to say
that CG II is the son of Samudra gupta and he has taken over the reins of Gupta Kingdom after
SG. There are many kings between Samudra gupta and CG II. Samudra guptas father CG I
has taken over the kingdom around 321 bce whereas it is clearly chronicled that CG II has driven
away the Sakas in 58/57 bce. To support this, there are many names of kings mentioned in the
liturgical history as well as in numismatics. All these names were tried to be shown as other
names of already known kings, which has taken place due to the shrinkage of Indian
chronology. For eg., we do not know who is Kacha, who came after Samudra Gupta , nor
Chandra prakasa as mentioned by Vamana nor Chandra who claimed on the Allahabad Pillar
that he expanded his kingdom to Bengal. There are many more such names about whom we
know nothing nor we are in a position to fix their chronology.
After Samudra Gupta, his son Rama (Chandra)Gupta or Sarma (Chandra)Gupta, who has
married Dhruva Swamin could not continue on the seat of pataliputra. He was driven away to the
west by one Kalyana varma whose victory was chronicled in a drama called Kaumudi
mahotsavam. Ramachandra gupta has taken over at Ujjain but he had to surrender his wife to the
foreign rulers in order to keep his seat, as described in Kavya mimamsa by Raja sekhara In
shame, Sarma gupta or Ramachandra gupta has retired to Himalayas and hence, Dhruvaswamini
has continued the rule. Her son was Govinda gupta also seemed to have ruled for sometime.
During this time that Priyadarsi has come into forefront.(Priyadarsi could not be a Mauryan king
for many reasons one new reason being the Mauryan kings were not in habit of bearing titles,
whereas all the kings CGM, Bindusara and Asoka were shown as bearing titles) He has
corrected two mistakes that have been committed by Samudra gupta : one, in spite of his
various Jaitra Yatras, SG did not bother about them strategically. He did not have a particular
control over the trade routes. Priyadarsi has seen to it that he had a great control over trade
routes. In fact, the Kalinga conquest was primarily for this purpose, to have a control over road
and sea routes. Second mistake of SG was to lose contact with people in general. In spite of
his great ness, SG has inscribed his eulogies in Sanskrit, which were not understood by common
man. Priyadarsi has seen to it that not only his inscriptions were in prakrit, a language known to
the common man but also he has ensured that all these inscriptions are read aloud to the
gatherings at frequent intervals. He has also cleverly used the tool of religion in order to control
the general masses