M. B.

VOYCE
of the
Enforcement
King's
The
Purification
of the Sangha
(c. B. C. 269-232)

The

Vinaya
under

Pitaka:
Aoka

1. Introduction
It is well accepted that ancient India was primarily an aggregate of
smaller societies each functioning in their own spherel. It is clear that
groups (such as the Buddhist Order or Sangha) had their own laws which
they were entitled to frame and were binding on all members2.
Under the traditional notions of Indian Kingship (Radharwa )3 it was
the duty of the king to compel his subjects to maintain their respective
duties. The king was in fact exhorted to respect and enforce the laws of
heretical sects outside the Brahminical fold4. More specifically it was the
of various
king's duty to enforce the internal laws or compacts
groups5 and Sanghas.
Specifically mentioned as a group whose laws the king should enforce
is the Buddhist

39
While it is accepted that the king should enforce the laws of the Buddhist Sangha7 few scholars have actually tried to examine how in actual fact
the king tried to enforce the hinaya8. Such an examination would serve a
valuable function as it would help to delineate the relationship between
the Sarigba and the king in ancient India.
We therefore propose to examine the famous so-called purge of the
Sangha by Asoka to show that the king had no power to intervene in interpretations of matters of Vinaya or doctrine which were entirely domestic to the Sarigba. In our examination if the schism edicts we will show
that the king could not and did not take part in the legal Sarigbakamma.8
The Sangha's certificate of what the Vinaya said would be accepted by the
king.
However, we will show that if the Sangha failed to adhere to their own
law regarding solving disputes then the king might intervene to force the
Sangha to adhere to their own internal law (Vinaya). We will note that the
king had no jurisdiction to annul a monk's renunciation of the world.
One common conception of ancient Indian kingship was that the king
did not assume a legislative function. The traditional view is that the
temporal sovereign is not the source of law in the Hindu State?. The
sources of law are a divine creation independent of the king. The particular function of the king is to administer the law for the maintenance of
the social order and for the protection of the king. However, even under
the traditional view, it was seen that the king had power to issue regulations of a temporal nature for the purpose of facilitating objects already
inculcated by the dharma -astral 0. For our present purposes we will assume then that some of the edicts are examples of legislationll. We will argue that Asoka specifically legislated to compel the Buddhist Sangba to

40
adhere to its own law, the T?inaya Pitaka, and how A'soka in his three
schism edicts12 actually may have exceeded the provisions of the Vinaya
regarding schism.
We will say here briefly that Asoka envisaged two types of Regulationsl3, namely: Moral Regulations (P. dhalnmanryamana) and Regulations of Persuasion (P.
By Regulations of Persuasion Asoka envisaged moral injunctions which
exhorted his subjects in general to live moral livesl4. However, we submit that by Moral Regulations Asoka envisaged definite regulations
which had a legislative quality.
For instance, Asoka declared certain classes of beings inviolablel5, he
forbade festive meetings (samtija)16, gave a three-day respite on the execution of condemned prisoners17, and gave a specific order that certain
gifts be registered in the name of the Queen18.
Lastly, of great interest and importance to us, he ordered in the three
"schism edicts" that schism-makers must be removed from the Sangha.
2. The Sources on the Sangha - Purification of Afoka
Regarding the expulsion of heretical monks and nuns from the Samgha
we have two main sources of information. Both sources have to be evaluated against their own respective biases and prejudices19.
The first source is contained in dispersed legends concerning Asoka
found in a number of Buddhist workS20. It is claimed that these legends
must have originated in the after-fame of Asoka and that they must have
been of an ancient tradition. But the tradition itself was post-Asokan21.

41
However we suggest it is impossible to be so sure that these legends are
post-Asokan and that they could not have arisen during Asoka's life, as
we have no evidence on the matter.
A second source of information is contained in a number of edicts rediscovered within comparatively recent times in different parts of the Indian subcontinent.
These edicts were made during Asoka's reign and
were presumably unknown to the makers and purveyors of the legends22.
The legends and the edicts cannot be put on a par in reconstructing
our picture about the events which we are concerning ourselves with.
The legends suffer from the religious bias that religious minds would naturally bring to such works, while the edicts, as far as we know, were the
Emperor's own self- revelations. However, one source cross-lights and
complements the other. Happily for our purposes both sources talk of
the purge carried out by Asoka against heretical monks; although there
are some inconsistencies in minor points, or gaps of factual information
which cannot be checked.
It is proper to conclude on the basis of both the edicts and legends that
a general purge of the Sangha was undertaken by Asoka. Alsdorf23 concludes that there can be no doubt that this was not just a minor schism
but was a purge on a major scale with a historical significance and this
purge can only have been the same one, which the Ceylonese chronicles
report as having been a prelude to the third Council.
3. The Historical Background to the Purification of the Sangha
The king's right to purify the religion was usually exercised in circumstances of monastic abuse and degeneracy generated from within the
ranks of the Sangha. Frequently the monks were found not to live according to the Vinaya. Hence the intervention of the king as dhammarajaz4 to
correct the situation.
S. Dutt25 says that "the (Asokan) edicts recognise the Sangha, but as a
corporation, in the welfare of which the king was specially interested.
These edicts have a constitutional basis. They were in discharge of the
duty of the king in his office and capacity as ruler, enjoined by immemorial practice in India which we find formulated later in Brahminical Smrtis
and Arthasastras."
We have seen how the king regarded it as his duty to enforce customary laws called Samaya26. We have shown also how the Buddhist Sangha

42
was recognised as a self-governing body, its .Samaya being constituted by
its Vinaya Pitaka2l. Thus in enacting this edict, Asoka was following the
traditional Rqjadarma of Indian kingship and enforcing by legislation the
injunction found in the Mahavagga: "Monks, if a schismatic is not ordained, he should not be ordained; if he is ordained, he should be expelled"28. We will examine later to what extent Asoka not only enforced the
Ilinaya but actually aimed to exceed its injunctions in severity.
When we examine the reports as to the causes of the purification they
seem to be contradictory. The Dpavamsa29 tells us that for seven years
there was no uposatha30 ceremony. The reason was that members of nonBuddhist groups and others had penetrated the Sangha so that the Holy
Ones
did not feel like participating.
The Mah-avamsa3l
account is clearer.
"From that time onwards the Revenuesof the brotherhood were exceedinggreat,
and sincethose who were converted later causedthe revenues to increase,heretics
who had (thereby)lost revenue and honour took likewisethe yellowrobe, for the
sake of revenue, and dwelt together with the bhikkhus (monks). They proclaimed
their own doctrinesas the doctrine of the Buddha and carried out their own practices even as they wished."
The report in the Samantapasadika by Buddhaghosa32 does not deviate considerably from the Mahavamsa, but is in parts more detailed. We
are told that:
"Heretics,whose gain and honour had dwindledto the extent of their failingto obtain even food and clothing, gained admissionto the Order in the Dispensationin
their eagernessfor gain and honour, and each propounded his philosophicaldogmas claimingthem to be the Dhammaand the Vinaya.And those who failedto gain
admissionto the Order, themselvesshavedoff their hair, and wearing yellowrobes
wandered about in monasteriesintruding at the uposathaand "Invitation" (pavarana) ceremoniesand at formal Acts of the Order and of the Chapter. The monks did
not perform the uposathaceremony in their company."33
Furthermore, we are told:
"And in spite of the hereticsbeing subjectedto censureby the Order of monks with
regard to the Dhammaand the Vinaya and the Teaching of the Master, they gave
rise to divers forms of upheavals,stains,and thorns in the Dispensation,as they did
not conform to the principleslaid down in accordancewith the Dhammaand the
Vinaya. Some of them tended the sacrificialfire, some subjectedthemselvesto the
heat of the five fires, some worshippedthe sun followingits movementsin the sky,
while others made a determined effort to destroy the Dhammaand the Vinaya."34

43
In this account all the false doctrines are specified and it is clear that
they are the same heresies which the Buddha had already rejected in the
Brahmajalasutta of the Digha Nikaya where they appear mentioned under the same names35.
These Pali reports thus portray the picture that heretics had infiltrated
the Sangha and were advocating non-Buddhist teachings and were practising non- Buddhist spiritual techniques. We know that much the same
accusations could be made with justice of the Buddhism of the first half
of the first millennium in India: the imagination was thus easily stimulated.
There is a difficulty in accepting this view in its entirety as Bechert36
has pointed out because later on the Pali texts admit that expulsion from
the Sangha was made by Asoka on the basis of monks supporting wrong
doctrines rather than other grounds, such as the practising of non-Buddhist spiritual practices. Furthermore, there is the problem of the Kathavatthu a later report, which claims expulsion was made from the Sangha
of all non-Theravada advocates. Fortunately however, the purge is confirmed by the schism edicts.
Having satisfied ourselves as to the historicity of the purge it is appropriate now to narrate Asoka's reaction to the existence of heretics in the
Sangha as portrayed by legendary Pali sources. We will then discuss the
evidence of the purge in the edicts.
When King Asoka heard of the situation in the ,Sarigba he sent a minister to Asokarama ordering him to command that the uposatha should be
carried out. The minister tried to force the monks to celebrate the uposatha, and cut off the heads of several theras (elders) in an attempt to carry
out Asoka's orders.
The king's attention was then drawn to the fact that Mogalliputta Tissa could probably find a remedy for these difficulties. The king sent for
the Thera who convinced the king by a miracle. Then Asoka sent out
two yakkhas and assembled together all the bhikkhus on the earth in the
Asokarama3?.
It is important to note the actual process of expulsion. The edicts tell
us nothing of the process of expulsion, but the Pali sources give us the
background. The edicts thus tell us about ideas contemporary with the
sources.
The Mahavamsasays as follows:
"Then seated with the thera on one side behind a curtain the ruler calledto him in
turn the bhikkhus of the several confessionsand asked them: 'Sir, what did the
BlessedOne teach?' And they each expounded their wrong doctrine, the Sassatadoctrine and so forth. And all these adherents of falsedoctrine did the king causeto
be expelledfrom the order; those who were expelledwere in all sixty thousand.
And now he asked the rightly- believingbhikkhus: 'What does the BlessedOne teach ?'And they answered:'He teaches the Vibhajja-doctrine."'38

44
And the monarch asked the thera: 'Sir, does the Sambuddha(really)teach the Vibhajja- doctrine?' The thera answered: 'Yes'. And then the king knew this he was
glad at heart and said: 'Since the communityis (henceforth)purified, sir, therefore
should the brotherhood hold the uposatha-festival',and he made the thera guardian
of the order and returned to his fair capital;the brotherhood held thenceforth the
uposatha-festivalin concord. "39
Regarding the actual process of the expulsion the Samantapasadika
tells us that:
"On the seventh day, the King had the Order of monks assembledat Asokarama
and having had an enclosureof screensput round, he sat within that enclosure,and
separatelygrouping together monks who held divergent views, and summoning
each group of monks, asked, 'What teaching did the PerfectlyEnglightened One
propound?' Then the eternalists replied that He was an eternalist. The qualified
eternalists, the propounders of the theory of finiteness and infinitude, the eelwrigglers, casuists,"those who held theories of consciousexistence,nonconscious
existence,neither consciousnor non-consciousexistence,annihilationistsand those who professed Nibbana of this life also replied (in accordancewith their view).
Since the King had already studied the Teaching he realised that they were not
monks but hereticsbelongingto other schools;and giving them white garments he
expelledthem from the Order. They numbered 60,000 in all.
"He next summoned the remainingmonks and asked: 'What teaching did the Perfectly Enlightened One expound?''Great King, He was an exponent of the analytical doctrine (vibhajjav-ada).'
When it was said thus the King asked the Elder: 'Did the Perfectly Enlightened
One expound the analyticaldoctrine?' 'Yes, Great King.'
Thereupon the King said: 'Sir, the Dispensation is now pure; let the Order of
monks hold the upo.ratha`;
and giving them his protection he entered the city. The
Order, in perfect harmony, assembledand held the uposatha."4o
From the Pali texts we cannot tell whether Asoka's intervention- was
spontaneous or was requested by the monks as in the case of earlier councils.
We agree with Bareau4l that it is difficult to discern the attitude of
Asoka and to discern to what degree his action is due to him as guardian
of the social order and to him as a devotee of a religion dear to him. It seems however that Asoka acts as an energetic and authoritarian king, who
acts more as the guardian of the social order than as a devotee of a particular religion.
Asoka's role as portrayed by the Pali texts regarding the expulsion of
the heretics, is obviously considerable42. He is really depicted as an ideal
king. We have seen how Asoka ordered his minister to go to the Asokarama to command the monks to recite the upo.ratha. He locates Tissa and
puts himself under his instruction and arranges an assembly of the
monks. Finally, having "condemned the monks" at fault Asoka publishes this condemnation in three schism edicts at various points of the empire in order that potential breakers of the Vinaya law are forewarned.

45
We must take care in accepting these Buddhist legends as the edicts
themselves could have led to these legends. Therefore we must look at
the schism edicts to see what evidence we have of the purge.
Alsdorf43 has undoubtedly done the most satisfactory work on the reconstruction of the schism edicts so we propose to use his editions and
translations where possible.
Alsdorfs version of the Kosambi edicts is as follows:
"Devanampiyeanapayati:Kosambiyammahamata vataviya: sarpghe samage kate
sarpghasino lahiye bhede. ye samgham bhakhati bhikhu va bhikhuni va, se pi ca
odatani dusani samnamdhapayituanavasasiavasyiye
"His Majestycommands:The Mahamatrasof Kausambi are to be instructed: The
unity of the order is again established.In the Sanbano schismcan be tolerated. And
whosoever will cause a schismhenceforth, be it monk or nun, has to wear a white
gown and has to live in a place where no monks live."
Without reproducing our later comments44 we can see that the edict is
specially addressed and communicated to the Satlgha. Another copy of
the edict was also brought to the attention of the Upisakas (layfolloit would seem that a special class of officer called
wers). Furthermore
Dhamma Maha-matras are exhorted to enforce the edict throughout the
empire.
Let us examinethe first part of the edict more closely:
"Devanampiyeanapayati:Kosambiyammahamata vataviya: samghe samage kate
samghasino lahiye bhede."
His majesty commands:The Mahamatrasof Kausambi are to be instructed: The
unity of the Order is (again)established.In Sanghano schismcan be tolerated."45
Hultzsch46translates this section as follows:
"(His Majesty) commands: The Mahamatras at Kosambi ... is made united ..
should not be received into the Samgha."
As we later show47 we cannot necessarily suppose, as Bechert does,
that Asoka was employing exact Vinaya terminology. Bechert focuses on
giving the words samage and satlghabheda the exact legal meaning found in
the Vinaya. However we submit he cannot necessarily assume that the:
existence of a few words similar to the Pali terminology in the Vinaya
means that the terms have the same meaning as in the Vinaya48.
What we can extract from this portion of the edict is this. The Sangha is
ordered to restore its unity. In the Sangha no breakers of unity will be tolerated.
The second part of the inscription reads:
"ye samghambhakhati bhikhu va bhikhuni v-a, se pica odatani dusani samnamdhapayitu anavasasiavasayiye."
"and whosoever will cause a schismhenceforth, be it monk or nun, has to wear a
white gown and live in a place no monks live."
Hultzsch49translates this verse as:

46
"That monk or nun who shall break up the Sangha,must be causedto put on white
robes (oditini dusini) and be made to live in a non-residence (anavasasi)."
It is clear that as the colour of monks' robes are yellow that to put on
white robes is to revert to a layman. The Samantapasadika confirms that
Asoka gave the heretics white garments (setakani vatthani)5. We are told
in the Cullavagga5l that even a monk who is suspended on account of a
emblem.
Sanghadisesa52 offence should not wear a householder's
As we shall see, schism makers are dealt with under Sanghadisesa 10
and 11 which prescribes probation for which a monk must live in non-residence (Anavasa)53. A monk suffering from such a penance (parivasa)
and manatta54 is still part of the Sarigha55. Such a monk, though has to reside in a place such as shrine house (cetiyaghara), wisdom-house
(bodhihara), a place (at- !aka) for sweepings, a place for wood, a place for drinking water, a privy, a granary5?.
We have some difficulty concerning the translation that schism makers must live in "non residence" (anava.ra.ri). Does this mean Asoka is
ordering schism-makers to leave the Sangha and revert to laymen? Or
does it mean that such schism-makers must be put on probation in white
cloths for the offence of schism-making?
The first possibility that Asoka is actually expelling monks from the
Sangha and not merely putting them on probation we feel is a good possibility. White robes are clearly the mark of the layman. Further this is consistent with the Mahavamsa which tells us that the heretics were actually
expelled from the order5?, 60,000 in all. We think this is the meaning to
be construed from the term anavasa. The term implies living in a place
where no monks would live, not even a monk on probation58.
The second possibility we think unlikely. It would mean that Asoka
would have ordered that schism-makers on probation would be in white
cloths yet still nominally within the Sasigha. If this possibility be true we
could conject that the state's needs to be able to identify the corporation
whose by-laws it protected and enforced and to be able to control its judicial functions, found voice in a measure which tended to divide the
Sangha from within. According- ly the full effect of this order was repressed as a matter of utility.

47
We think from the indication that white robes are to be put on by
schism- makers that the first possibility is the best one. We conclude
from the edicts that a purge took place and monks who broke the concord of the Sangha were removed.
While the Pali texts portray Asoka in such an obvious and instrumental role it is also clear that Asoka put himself in a subsidiary role to that of
Tissa when it came to actually deciding who were heretical and who were
not5?. This is illustrated by the fact that the king seated himself behind a
curtain,?? or enclosed in a scrccn61 . Asoka is thus painstakingly trying not
to assume clerical powers and limit his interference to the necessary minimum?2. The state could thus act as cat's paw.
BareauG3 rightly conceives that Tissa is the true arbitrator as Asoka follows his criteria as to orthodoxy. Having received the definition of orthodoxy from Tissa, all Asoka does is to check in the presence of Tissa
that the monks adhe re to Tissa's formulation of the doctrine.
We can even think that if the deed is historical and the Emperor did
nothing but follow the words of Tissa, Asoka is in fact only an agent of
execution, carrying all the prestige of the royal function. Finally, Asoka
gives the sentence and considers his role terminated. He does not, therefore, take part in the supposed Third Council when the canon is recited
by the orthodox monks.
The reason for Asoka leaving the monks themselves to solve their
own in- ternal dispute is not hard to see. It is a fundamental principle underlying the Vinaya that every formal act (Sanghakamma) should be done
according to strict rules64. Vital to every formal observance is a complete
assembly of the whole Sangha before valid transactions such as ???/??Upo.ratha, or Pavarana can take place. It is a basic premise of the Vinaya that a layman could take no part in such proceedings. The Vinaya in
fact excludes certain people such as one who is suspended, a schismatic or
one belonging to a different communion. from even making tip the necessary quorum, should that be necessary64. Thus Asoka, we suggest,
was recorded by the Pali compilers, as putting himself behind a screen or
curtain as symbolical of the fact that constitutionally the king could play
no role in the exclusion of monks from the Sarigha. Asoka was, therefore,
according to the Pali sources, portrayed as playing a necessary constitutional role in leaving the formal act of exclusion to the Sangha. There
must be no doubt left, however, that Asoka must have been the prime
mediator of the purge.
We have said that in ancient India many jurisdictions65 existed. However, we must explain why the Sangba was not such a jurisdiction. The

48
king had no power to determine doctrine. This power as we have seen
Asoka left to the Sangha. The Sangha's certificate of what the Vinaya said
would be accepted by the king66. The king thus had no power to intervene in the Sangha's internal affairs.
It is now appropriate to examine again our most important contention, that the three schism edicts were examples of legislation specially
orientated towards the Sangha to enforce obedience to their internal laws.
This above contention could conveniently be reinforced by a leading
article on the three schism edicts by H. Bechert. Bechert contends that
there is a definite terminological relationship between the Vinaya and the
of the inscriptions
inscriptions of Asoka. To Bechert an interpretation
has to start with an examination of the rules of the Vinaya to see how the
Vinaya terms are employed in the edicts67. Should we from our examination of the edicts be able to substantiate that Asoka employed exact Vinaya terms in their appropriate legal meaning it would reinforce our conclusion that Asoka was legislating specifically for the removal of schismmakers from the Sangha.
Bechert's argument is seductive and we must not be taken in by it. His
thesis that Asoka employed exact Vinaya terms reminds us of the controversy, whether Asoka's instructions that monks should study specific
Buddhist texts proves the formation of the canon68. Likewise with this
case, mere existence of Vinaya terms in his edicts does not necessarily
mean that Asoka was legislating with exact Vinaya terms in his mind. We
can conclude that Asoka was working towards a similar goal as that intended by the provisions regarding schism found in the Vinaya, but with
the states purposes in mind - an object foreign to the Vinaya. More we
cannot say.
We may well ask ourselves is Bechert reading more into these Vinaya
terms we find in the edicts than Asoka actually could have intended.
Thus we must in all honesty question whether it is justifiable to conclude
that an interpretation of the edicts has to start with an examination of the
rules of the Vinaya on the evidence presented by Bechert.
One thing, however, is clear, Asoka was well versed in Buddhism.
The Mahavamsa relates how Asoka was persuaded by the Samanera Nigrodha69. Asoka also tells us that he had been a lay devotee (upasaka) for
two and a half years.70 He also recommends the monks to study a selection of texts.71 Furthermore, the schism edicts are directed primarily to
Buddhist monks so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the edicts are to
be construed in the exact sense they are employed in the Vinaya.

49
However, Asoka in his edicts employs many Brahminical and Buddhist
terms and we must be cautious in construing these terms in their strict
sectarian sense.
We now wish to focus a little closer on Bechert's argument. Bechert
examines the words Saf!1ghesamage kate72 and interprets them according
to strict Vinaya terminology. Thus he argues the Sangha must be all together (samage) in the sense of completeness of assembly. This is a necessary stipulation for the performance of any formal act of the Vinaya
(Sanghakamma) such as the Uposatha, Pavarana and Abbhana.
Secondly, Bechert focusses on the word Sanghabbeda. Firstly, Bechert73
notes how the Kausambi edict reads as follows:
saighe samagekate savghasino lahryebhede74
Alsdorf75translated these words as follows:
"Die Einheit des Ordens ist (wieder)hergestellt. Im Samgha kann keine Spaltung
geduldet werden."
We translate this into English as follows:
"The unity of the order is (again) established.In Sanghano schism can be tolerated.""
Hultzsch76 made the following construction "...is made united ...
should not be received into the Sangha."
Bechert, however, in his article 77 construes these words to mean in essence, that in Sarigha b h e d ais not allowed and he then goes on to tr top
prove how the word Sanghabheda which he has constructed from the passage is an exact Vinaya term employed by Asoka in the edicts. Ingenious
as Bechert appears, we cannot follow his reconstruction of text to support the conclusion he seems to desire.
Thus, the occurrence of a few words in Asokan edicts which resemble
(or are constructed to resemble) Vinaya terms does not necessarily mean
an interpretation of the edict has to start with the Vinaya. Bechert draws
conclusions based on inadeauate evidence.
Having dealt with Bechert's argument, it is necessary to examine in detail the edicts themselves in both their original (transcribed) and translated forms.
We have already reproduced the Kosambi edict,78 so here we reproduce the Sanchi and Sarnath edicts.
The Sanchi edict, following Alsdorf's version79 goes like this:
"...Vidisayam mahamatavataviya:sarpghena kenapi lahiyabhetave. samhe samage kate bhikhunam ca bhikhuninam ca ti, puta-papotike camdama- suriyike. ye
samghambhakhatibhikhu va bhikhuni va, odatani dusani sam-namdhapayituanavasasi vasapetaviye.icha hi me kimti? samghe samage cilathiti- ke siya ti."

50
"The Mahamatrasof Vidisaare to be instructed. It cannot be tolerated that anyone
divides the .Sangha.The unity of the Sanghais re-establishedamong monks as
amongst nuns, permanently,as long as sons and grandsons of mine will reign and
as long as the sun and moon keep shining.80Whosoeveris going to causeschismin
the future, be it monk or nun, will have to wear a white gown and habitation for
him is to be assigned where no monks live. For this is my wish: the unity of the
Sanghashall last for a long time. "81
As regards the Sarnath edict we quote the complete edict as constructed and translated by Hultzsch.82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11I
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)

(E)
(F)

(A) Deva ...

el...
Pata ... ye kenapi samghe bhetave (D) e chum kho
[bhikh] u [va bhikh] uni va samgham bh[akha]t[i] s[e] odatani
dus[I- n]i i [sa] mnamdhapayiya anavasasi
cha bhikhuniavasayiye (E) hevam iyam sasane bhikhu-samghasi
samghasi cha vimnapayitaviye
(F) hevam Devanampiye aha (G) hedisa cha ika lipi tuphakamtikam huvati samsalanasi nikhita
ikam cha lipim hedisameva upasakanamtikam
nikhipatha (H) te pi
cha upasaka anuposatham yavu
etameva sasanam visvamsayitave anuposatham cha dhuvaye ikike
maha-mate posathaye
yati etameva sasanam visvamsayitave ajanitave cha (I) avate cha tupha- kam ahale
savata vivasayatha tuphe etena viyamjanena (J) hemeva savesu
kota-vishavesu etena
viyamjanena vivasapayatha
Deva[nampriya] ...
... Pata[liputra] ...
... the Samgha [cannot] be divided by any one.
But indeed that monk or nun who shall break up the Samgha,
should be caused to put on white robes and to reside in an non-residcnce
Thus this edict must be submitted83 both to the Samgha of monks
and to the Sangha of nuns
Thus speaks Devanampriya:

51
(G)

(H)

(I)
(J)

Let one copy of this (edict) remain with you deposited in (your) office ; and deposit ye another copy of this very (edict) with the layworshippers.
These lay-worshippers may come on every fast-day (postha) in order to be inspired with confidence in this very edict; and invariably
on every fast-day, every Mahamatra (will) come to the fast-day
(service) in order to be inspired with confidence in this very edict
and to understand (it).
And as far as your district (extends), dispatch ye (an officer)
everywhere according to the letter of this (edict).
In the same way cause (your subordinates) to dispatch (an officer)
according to the letter of this (edict) in all the territories (surrounding) forts

It is noticeable how the Sarnath edict is more detailed, so accordingly

we wish to analyse the second half of it (E-J). It is the longest according
to Alsdorf84 because the official orders about publication and execution
of the royal edict have been included, which were not meant for publication and were included probably because of over zealousness or misunderstanding of a local servant.
The first thing to notice is that one copy of the edict is ordered to be
inscribed85 or "deposited"86 with the Sangha.
(hedisachaika lipi tuphkalntikamhuvti)samsalanasinikhita
The exact place where the edict (lipi) is to be inscribed remains a problem. We presume some locality is intendedg? by the expression samsalanasi and scholars have translated this expression as place of assembly88 or
office89. Thomas90 also suggests that we should make the appropriate
analogy of "clois- ters".
It is also clear that another copy of the edict was to be brought to the
attention of the upasaleas, who presumabiy do not iive in the V ahara
(temple) but come to the Uposatha every fast day. Furthermore, T??w/w?mahmtras like Upisakas are ordered to come to the Upostha in order to
be familiar91 with the edict and to understand it92 (visvaynsayitave?.
One point regarding the last two sections I-J must be made clear.
The difficulty concerns the action of the officials implementing the edict.

52
We are told that the edict must be made known everywhere in the empirc93 (savata). Hultzsch94 renders vivasayatha, as according to the letter.
We should note that an additional connotation to this word must be suggested to give the idea that Asoka's officials were ordered to execute this
edict everywhere. Accordingly V oge195 suggested that inspection tours
are possibly inferred. Thomas96 would translate this passage as:
"as far as your administration extends, you are everywhere upon this intimation
[and without further orders] to expelLikewisein all the districtsof the forts you are
upon this intimation to require expulsion."
Before concluding by comparing the schism edicts with the provisions
deal- ing with schism in the Vinaya we wish to make some comments about the dhammamahmtras and say something about .casana (orders).
It is noticeable that the three edicts are addressed to the Mahamatras
of Kausambi, Sanchi and Sarnath. We think this is a reasonable conclusion as in the Kosambi edict mahmtras are specifically mentioned and
the Sarnath edict only makes sense if we make such a conclusion9?. Although the first two lines of the Sanchi Pillar are lost, due to its similarity
to the other two edicts, it is reasonable to conclude that it was likewise
addressed to the Mahmtras98.
Among Asoka's innovations were the creation of special officals called
Dbamma Mahmtras99 whose task includes elucidating Asoka's ideals.
Specifically some of these Dhamma mahmtras were ordered to occuthemselves with the affairs of the Sangha and other
pyoo
sects'01. It seems valid as Senartloz has done to draw a distinction between
Dhamma mahmtras who had a general surveillance and those specifically entrusted with special sects.
Much has been written'03 about the actual function of these officers. It
is clear that the term dhamma mahamatra was a generic designation for
high officialsloa. In the Pali canon the word Mahmatta is common

53
enough. For instance the Vinaya Pitaka mentions voharika mahamatta (legal officials), ga- yakamaba-matta (financial officials) and senanayakam
(military officials).
Smith105 likens Dhammamahamatras to Dharmadhikari whose jurisdiction merely comprises breaches of rules of caste, for which they levy fines, or order penances or even proceed to excommunicate. Smith also cites another analogous institution from Kasmir where there existed special Dharmadhikaris to insist on offenders expiating their sins in the manner provided by the Sastras. But, this could be too narrow an interpretation ; "Ministers of Religion" may be nearer the mark.
It is noticeable how the edicts (lipi) of Asoka describe themselves as
being Sasana106. In ancient India a sasana (sic) (order) embodied a new
law or declared an old one which had been doubted. We find them inscribed or erected at the most important or relevant spot107. In the case of the
Sarnath edict it is noticeable how Asoka ordered that the Sasana be deposited or inscribed with the Sah gna'08D. C. Sircar has shown how many
Rtijafasana were addressed to subordinates and officials for executionl09.
Lingat"O considered that particular orders addressed to individuals or
groups of individuals were not legislation. However, as we have clearly
we do not intend to follow this line of reasoning and to
indicated"',
make what we consider an unnecessary distinction between "orders" and
"legislation".
We do not, therefore, agree with Appadurai112 who sees these authoritative settlements of local affairs as administrative commands and not as
legislation. Any provisions which have future arrangement in contemplation and are of general relevance pertake of the character of legislation
if they comprise the concerns of the political superior.
4. The provisions for dealing with schism makers in the Vinaya Compared with
schism edicts
Firstly, we propose to outline the provisions in the Vinaya dealing
with schism. This necessarily means we must understand the meaning of
the word Sanghabheda.
We have seen that the term Sangha appears alongside gana in Vedic literature to refer to a political union or organisation of tribes113. The
word Sangha means as much a commercial association as a political or re-

54
hgious one114. Later commentators recognise that among J?anghas is the
Buddhist Sarigha115.
In Pali the word Sangha is not so precise: literally it means "comprising" ; hence "multitude, the order, the priesthood, the clergy, the Buddhist Church or community"116. We can see in a broad sense the term
Sangha means all those monks, nuns, laymen and women who practise
the teaching and struggle for nihbina'17.
As a term for an assemblage of Buddhist priests the word has several
shades of meaning. Firstly it applies to all ordained monks all over the
worldll8. This is its widest sense of meaning. In this context the Samgha
constitutes one of "three jewels" along with the Buddha and Dhamma.
However, we wish to focus on the meaning given to Sangha in the Vinaya as that particular number of ordained Bhikkus who could act as a separate and self-contained community in that it had sufficient number of
monks in it to perform the necessary sarighakammaslm. The minimum
number for a Sangha was four. (An assembly of two or three monks was
known as a Gana and a solitary person is called a puggala).
To constitute the various Sarighakammas a certain minimum number
of monks was a condition precedentlz?.
The Sanskrit dictionary defines bheda as breaking, splitting, cleaving,
The Pali Dictionary 122 defines one "Bhedako" as one
ending, tearing.
who breaks or causes disturbance.
We can now see that a Sanghabheda is a schism or disunion in a legally
constituted Sangha. In the Vinaya this has a particular meaning. It is constituted when in any matter there are at least five unrighteous (Adhammavidt-) monks on one side and at least four righteous (Dhammavadi)
monks on the other. Because the minimum number of monks, as we have
seen, is four so 5:4 can alone create a Sanghabheda. Thus for a schism to
occur at least nine monks must break off from the main body of the safigha. This would in effect create a new Sangha.
There are eighteen circumstances when a schism can happenlz3. We
may summarise them as being matters relating to (i) Dhamma (1-2), (ii)

55
Vinaya (3-4), (iii) teachings, practices, and ordainments of the Tathagata (5-10), and (iv) offences and rules regarding them (11-18)124.
If any monk endeavours to create a schism he should be warned three
times. If he persists he commits a Sanghadisesa offencelz5. Further, joIf there is
ining in with a dissident monk is also a Sanghadisesa offence.
a "dissention" in the Sangha where the numbers are less than eight monks
it is known as Sangharajilz?.
It is difficult to decide exactly the meaning of Sanghadisesa as no etymological rendering seems to make sense.
Conveniently, however, the text itself contains the necessary disciplinary action128. When a monk is guilty of such an offence he is subject to a
probationary period for as many days as the offence has been concealed.
If the offence is confessed at once the Pariva.ra period is reduced to nil.
When the Pariva.ra is completed a further period of six nights called a
manatta must also be spent.
The disabilities under both types of disciplinary action are almonst the
same. In the case of Parivasa he was subject to many restrictions. The
most important of these was to debar him from eating or living with the
Sangha.
We have now given the legal meaning of Sanghabheda. We can now
look at Asoka's edicts in the light of this definition.
We have seen that Asoka laid down in no uncertain terms that any
monk or nun who created a schism in the Sangha should be made to put
on white cloths and return to normal lay-lifel29. It is noticeable Asoka did
not arrogate to himself the power to annul a monk's or nun's renunciation of the world.
However should we examine the provisions in the Vinaya dealing
with schism in their entirety we will see that the Vinaya in some of its
provisions is not so strictl3o as Asoka. Nor is the Vinaya so simple in its
dealings with schism-makers as simply to legislate for their removal. In
fact the provisions dealing with schism are very comphcated, as we shall
see.
and terse statement regarAsoka, in making such a straightforward
ding schism-makers, actually as we shall also see, exceeds the provisions
of the Vinaya regarding schism. We may also say that perhaps Asoka was
not as familiar with Vinaya terms an Bechert supposed, as Asoka was not
familiar with the more lenient ways the Vinaya approached the problem
of schism- makers. This last suggestion weakens Bechert's argument that
a proper interpretation
of the edicts has to start with the Vinaya.

56
There is another way of trying to reconcile the schism edicts with the
provisions in the Vinaya dealing with schism. However, as we cannot definitely work out the exact stage of the formation of the canon at Asoka's
time, no firm statement is possible. It may have been at the time of Asoka
that the Vinaya only contained a "strict" approach towards schismatics.
Later on, as the Vinaya developed, there may have been a relaxation of
attitude towards schismatics131. Thus if the Vinaya only contained
"strict" injunctions about schism makers, Asoka was, indeed, enforcing
strict Vinaya injunctions about schism makers.
However, this argument that there was later relaxation of the law on
schismatics suggested by Dutt faces an inconsistency in the Sanghadisesa
10, which according to Dutt was an "old provision" contained what we
consider a reasonably lenient approach to schismaticsl3z.
We have for our own puproses coined the words strict and lenient as regards the approach of the I?inaya towards schism-makers. We have used
these terms to indicate roughly the two extremes in the Vinaya of dealing
with schism makers, or as the stages of evolution of Vinaya law on this
subject (according to Dutt).
We find strict injunctions similar to the Asokan edicts in the Mahavagga.
"Monks, if a schismaticis not ordained, he should not be ordained; if he is ordained, he should be expelled. "133
In the Cullavagga a distinction is allowed for or "evolved" between a
"strict" approach towards schism makers and a "lenient" approach. The
strict approach is seen in the distinction between creating a schism (saighabheda) as found in Cullavagga VII. 5.2. and an offence giving rise to vivddhikaratta as found in Cullavagga IV.14.2. The same eighteen points
consisting of falsifying the Vinaya rules or interpreting them incorrectly
are found in both types of cases. However to constitute a Sanghabheda offence under Cullavagga VII.5.2. there must be a difference of opinion
put forward dishonestly or with a "knowledge of its falsity" or dubious
character together with an intention to cause a diversion.
A more "lenient" or tolerant approach towards schism is found in
Sangha disesa 10. In this case if a monk persisted in attempting to create a
schism in spite of repeated admonitions by the Sangha he was guilty of a
Sanghadisesa offence.
We conclude as follows. Asoka ordered that members of the Sangha
who broke its concord should be removed. This rather bold injunction
exceeded the Vinaya in its severity because it did not allow for the measures to be taken in the Vinaya to put a monk on probation. He therefore
created a new meas- ure which exceeded the Vinaya in its severity.

57
Abbreviations
A.B.O.R.I. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
B.D.
Book of Di.rcipline, trans. of Vinaya Pitaka by I. B. Horner
Dip.
Dipavamsa, ed. and trans. H. Oldenberg
Div.
Divyvadana ed. E. Cowcll and R. Neil
E. M. f 1. L. l,ssays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law, ed. J. D. M.
Derrett 4 Vols., Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1976-78
E.I.
Epigraphia Indica
Indian Antiquary
LA.
J.A.O.S.
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
J.R.A.S.
J.U.P.H.S. Journal of the Uttar Pradesh Historical Society
M.V.
Mahavamsa ed. W. Geiger
.
Pali
P.
Sacred Books of the East
S.B.E.
S.M.P.
Samantapasadika ed. J. Takakusu
The Vinaya Pitakum, ed. H. Oldenberg
V.P.
W.Z.K.S.O.Wiener
Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens
Z.D.M.G.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft

Original Sourcesin Pliand Sanskrit

Brhaspati ed. K. V. Rangaswm
Aiyangr,Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Baroda, 1941,
trans. J. Jolly, S.B.E. 33 Oxford, 1889
Dandaviveka of Vardhamana, Baroda, Baroda Oriental Institute, 1930
Dhammapadatrans. M. Muller, Delhi S.B.E., Motilal Banarsidass,1977 pp. 1-99
ed. and trans. H. Oldenberg, Williamsand Norgate, London 1879
Dpavamsa
ed. E. B. Cowell and R A Neil, Cambridge University Press, 1886
Divyvadna
ed. S. A. Mookerjee, Calcutta Baptist Mission Press,
Jimutavahana, Vyavahra-Mtrik,
1912
Part 1 Text, Part 2 trans. R. P. Kangle, BombayuniversityPress, 1969
KautilyaArthastra
and 1972
ed. W. Geiger P.T.S. 1908trans. W. Geiger, Colombo, Government of CeyMahvamsa
lon, 1912
Manu ed. V. N. Mandlik, Bombay, 1886 with the commentary of Medhatithi d.J. R.
Gharpure, Hindu Law Texts Series Bombay, 1920,trans. S. Bhler S.B.E. 25 Oxford, 1886
Narada ed. J. Jolly, Calcutta,AsiaticSociety1885trans. J. Jolly S.B.E.33, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1889
Calcutta, Calcutta Oriental Press, 1954
Prtimoksa-Sutram
(Mlasarvstivda)
Samantapasadikaby Buddhaghosaed. J. Takakusu 7 Vols London P.T.S. 1924-27partial
trans. as TheInceptionof Disciplineand the VinayaNidana, London, Luzac & Co.,
1962
The Vinaya Pitaka ed. H. Oldenberg 5 Vols London, Williamsand Norgate, 1879-1883,
trans. T. W. Rhys Davids and H. Oldenberg VinayaTexts S.B.E. Vols. 13, 17 and
20, Delhi Motilal Banarsidass,1968-69 and I. B. Horner The Bookof Discipline
London, P.T.S. 1938-1966
ed. and trans. M. N. Dutt, Hindu ReligiousCodes,Vol. 1 New Delhi, Cosmo
Yjavalkya,
Publications, 1978.