“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas 8 years after his coronation.
150,000 were deported, 100,000 were killed and many more died (from other causes).
After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma.
Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.
Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered.
But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this — that Brahmans, Shramanas, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees — that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones.
Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected.
These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.
...
There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and Shramanas, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion.
Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a 100th, or even a 1,000th part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.
Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.”
Just a few words.
There are 2 important points here, though I would like to dig further myself.
The translations are not always perfect.
First: the edict points out that Brāhmaṇas & Shramanas are being injured, killed, or separated from their loved ones.
The precise context is not very clear to me.
Is he talking about any country which is conquered in war?
It is noteworthy, that Ashoka clearly praises the Brāhmaṇas {along-with the Shramanas, who are always held to be Buddhists as distinct from the Hindu Brahmins}, at any rate he is deeply concerned about them, and seems to even extol their moral values.
An alternative translation is used on the Wikipedia, which says:
“But the following is considered even more deplorable than this by Devanampriya.
(To) the Brahmanas or Sramanas, or other sects or householders who are living there, (and) among whom the following are practised:
· obedience to those who receive high pay (????? this was earlier understood as member of higher caste),
· obedience to mother and father,
· obedience to elders,
· proper courtesy to
è friends,
è acquaintances,
è companions, &
è relatives,
è slaves & servants, (and)
· firm devotion,
to these then happen injury or slaughter or deportation of (their) beloved ones.
Or if there are then incurring misfortune the friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives of those whose affection (for the latter) is undiminished, although they are (themselves) well provided for, this (misfortune) as well becomes an injury to those (persons) themselves.”
This translation is particularly long-winded & convoluted, but it appears to me that Ashoka is saying that “injury or slaughter or deportation of (their) beloved ones” is happening to the “the Brahmanas or Sramanas, or other sects or householders who are living there...”.
Doesn’t this mean that the Brāhmaṇas & Shramanas did NOT enjoy that absolutely inviolable status, the high “security” & safety – did NOT possess that so-called despotic status, that supreme “dominance”, that has been stereotypically, formulaically attributed to them, especially to the Brāhmaṇas?
They were very much prone to being slaughtered & harmed, when any war of conquest took place.
And Ashoka makes it a point to say that this is wrong, that it pains him that they should suffer.
Ashoka makes it a point to declare that the Brāhmaṇas & Shramanas should NOT be harmed or killed.
And yes, they are always referenced together, as if they were two parts of one whole: not two warring factions constantly at tenterhooks with each other.
Where is the great Buddhist revolt against Brāhmaṇas?
As I will point out later, Ashoka laments the fact that disrespectful behavior towards Brāhmaṇas (& Shramanas) has increased – in the last few hundred years before his time – and that Dhamma consists in being respectful to them.
Where is any talk of “caste-oppression” or the “bigotry” of Brāhmaṇas?
The exact opposite seems to be the case.
It is not the Brāhmaṇas who were oppressing anybody – but the Brāhmaṇas who were being oppressed.
I see absolutely no hostility or anger or disrespect towards Brāhmaṇas, in Ashoka.
His edicts clearly seek to protect them, & give utmost respect to them.
Second point is even more intriguing.
“There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and Shramanas, are not found...”
What does one make of such a statement?
Does this mean that the Brāhmaṇas were NOT exclusive to India?
Does this indirectly apply to the entire caste system?
A footnote to this passage in one translation says:
“The Buddha pointed out that the four castes of Indian society likewise were not found among the Greeks; see Majjhima Nikaya, II:149.”
This does not say much about the prevalence of the Brāhmaṇas, and I quote it for what it is worth.
I haven’t yet traced out the information given in the footnote, nor have I read the Majjhima Nikaya.
But the Edict makes a rather sweeping statement.
Does this mean that the caste-system was found outside the confines of {present-day} India-
That it was a far more universal phenomenon than we believe it to be?
That it was not restricted to India?
Are we to think that Brāhmaṇas & Shramanas had fanned out from India, and spread their culture far & wide?
Or, what seems to be unmistakable: Brāhmaṇas & Shramanas were everywhere {except, somehow, Greece, which modern intellectuals associate most, with India!}, and that they might have influenced numerous cultures?
This one statement seems to corroborate the conviction, of at least some highly erudite, indigenous Pandits of India, that the Ārya-Brahmanical civilization actually spread all the way from the Mediterranean to Tibet-China.
I have come across this claim, and will need to research more, but it is interesting that the Greeks {Yona, in the original translation, it seems}, flourished to the West of the eastern-limit of the Mediterranean, and were outside the ambit of Brahmanical culture.
I cannot comment on such a curious though fascinating idea as of now, but Ashoka’s edict does seem to conform to such a notion.
What we DO see in this edict is this: ASHOKA HAS NO ENEMITY OR HOSTILITY TOWARDS THE “BRAHMINS” OF INDIA – ON THE CONTRARY, THE GREAT BUDDHIST ASHOKA SYMPATHIZES WITH THE “BRAHMINS”, SEEKS TO HELP THEM, AND ENCOURAGES THE REVERENCING OF “BRAHMINS”.
