King Asoka and Buddhism - Urban Dharma

the only scholar of the West to dispute the reliability of theserecords was R.O. Franke, whose objections were effectivelyrefuted by Wilhelm Geiger. 65In contrast, scholars of Indian origin invariably questionedthe veracity of all Buddhist sources including the Sri LankanPali records. They seemed to work on a rule-of-thumb thatAśoka’s lithic records supersede in accuracy and reliability allliterary sources, and that whatever information is omitted inthe inscriptions but stated in literary sources should be suspectedand therefore rejected — as “monkish inventions.” Asregards the first part of this assumption, there can be no dispute.But the second part attributes to the inscriptions a comprehensivenessin recording the life, the career and the achievementsof Aśoka, which is totally unjustified. As a result of the anxietyto discredit literary sources, statements which strangely madea case in favour of ex-silentio evidence proliferated, like the followingby Sukumar Dull:In the edicts, he nowhere alludes to the alleged Council held atPāṭaliputra, although such an allusion would have been appropriatein Sarnath, Calcutta-Bairat and some other edicts. This exsilentioevidence is more weighty than the motived assertions ofthe monk-makers of Aśokan legends. 66Ignoring the epigraphically established historicity of MoggaliputtaTissa, the President of the Third Council, and the ascriptionof the authorship of the Kathāvatthu to him, the samescholar stated categorically, “But there is no historical foundationfor the legend.” 67As Aśoka had specifically affirmed his personal faith inBuddhism in several edicts, these scholars had to concede it asa fact, with unconcealed reluctance. They seemed compelled toconsider Aśoka’s partiality to Buddhism an aberration, needing209