________________
354
/ Jijñāsa
one of the strongest arguments in support of the view that Asoka's Dhamma did not conform to the religious policy of any one of the existing religions of his time, and further that it was not purely religious policy but in fact covered a more extensive field, including broad aspects of economic social, and political life. Had the Dhamma conformed to any of the religions, more particularly Buddhism, the institution of Dhamma Mahāmātta would have been superfluous. The Dhamma was above apart from the various religious groups. The social ethics in India tend to lag behind after the formalism of the caste system had set in. Even the attempt of Buddha was in the end unsuccessful. Monkish orders of this period were concerned largely with their personal salvation through retreat and asceticism. The lowborn was always an outcaste, and the brahmanas and sramanas were too confined by social pressure even to dare to regard him as a human being. The institution of Dhamma Mahāmāttas was an attempt made by Asoka to provide some system of social welfare for the lower castes and the less fortunate members of the community. It was a form of social welfare which in practice was eliminated by the rigidity of the caste system.
Asoka's inauguration of this system may well have been prompted by charitable and sympathetic feelings. But there was a practical necessity for it. A centralized administration is always more efficient of social welfare at all levels is attended to. Asoka's concept of centralization certainly included the welfare of his subjects. By giving the Dhamma Mahāmätta this title he ensured against title accusation that they were mere officials who had been given too much power. Now they became a privileged body carrying out a special mission of the king. By giving them extensive control over the high and the low, the religions and the secular, he was assured of a constant proximity with all levels of society. This control also served the purpose of bringing about an intensive infiltration of the Dhamma policy into all sections of society.
This relationship between the king and his subjects via the Mahāmattas creates a new departure from the past procedures. The Mahāmāttas are told to make their reports to the king at any time, irrespective of what he may be occupied with at the moment. This emergency is particularly stressed in regard to any matter arising in the ministerial council where the action of the king was debated or if the council look an adhoc decision, which had to be reported directly to the king.
Asoka's Dhamma is broadbased upon the principle of tolerance. pleading for toleration amongst all sects. It would seem that differences of opinion were expressed in direct and antagonistic ways amongst the various sects. The Asokan idea of toleration differs, however, from the general Indian idea in that if it offers a scheme of active co operation among all sects for their growth in essential matters, and does not leave any sect to itself under the comfortable belief that all faith lead ultimately to one and the same goal. He wants all sects and exponents to come together for frank and free interchanges of their thoughts and ideas in a mutually helping spirit. It urges that men of all sects should listen and study each other doctrines so that all may be were informed (bahusruta) and possessed of noble traditions. If there be any criticism in the course of discussions, it should be as light as possible, but there must also be due appreciation of other sects in this or that point. One must not unduly extol one's own sect and condemn another sect because it is not one's own. He who does that, does so because of his devotion to his own sect and with the desire of glorifying it. In doing so, he not only does a great disservice to other sects but also digs the grave of his own sect. Concord (samvāya), therefore, is good and at the root of it is self restraint (samyama), particularly the guarding of the tongue (vachiguti)
