Ideas and Ideals of Asceticism in the Buddhacarita of Aśvaghoṣa

Aśvaghoṣa’s hagiography of the Buddha, that is, the Buddhacarita (first–second century ce), though poetically simple and incipient in nature, has attracted great scholarly attention. This epic poem is one of the first extant kāvya works. Originally, the Buddhacarita has twenty-eight cantos but unfortunately, it comes down to us fragmented as half of the first canto and the last fourteen cantos do not exist in the original Sanskrit form. However, E. H Johnston and Patrick Olivelle have tried to restore and translate the lost part of the text from Tibetan and Chinese manuscripts. Technically the Buddhacarita comes under the genre Sargabandha as it is divided into sargas. Traditionally it is considered as a mahākāvya, whose themes are either picked up from some popular stories or from supposed historic incidents. Thus, the story of the Buddhacarita starts with Sarvārthasiddha’s (i.e., Siddhārtha’s) birth and ends with King Aśoka and his attempts to promote Buddhism.

It has been called an apologia, ¹ an answer to certain prevalent trends of the author’s time. Aśvaghoṣa vividly portrays different ascetics, their practices, resolves, dwelling places (āśramas) and inclination towards asceticism and austerity in general. On his journey towards enlightenment, Sarvārthasiddha meets different seers ² and visits their āśramas. He observes their austerities and practices, listens to the accounts of their philosophical systems and finally mulling over them, he reflects upon their pros and cons. This particular plot provides Aśvaghoṣa ample space and critical junctures where he elaborately talks about different ideas and practices of asceticism.

Aśvaghoṣa has a clear motive to establish how the Buddhist understanding of dharma surpasses the Brahmanical one. However, despite this authorial intent, we can still tease out references and portrayals of ascetic life and practices in an āśrama. Thus, this article will specifically be focusing on Cantos seven and twelve of the Buddhacarita, which enumerate different ascetic resolves, practices and food habits. The article will also try to reflect upon the logic, ideas and ideals behind such practices and their relation with other Brahmanical practices and beliefs. Finally, it will also consider the Buddhist stand and Aśvaghoṣa’s repudiation of these practices and the preferable Buddhist alternatives.

Although since the nineteenth century the Buddhacarita has attracted scholars and Sanskritists alike, still there has been a lack of study of different aspects of asceticism and ascetic practices portrayed in the text. The first English translation of the Buddhacarita was published in the year 1894 in the series called ‘Sacred Book of the East’. This translation was credited to Professor Edward B. Cowell who translated the available Sanskrit part which was published in the ‘Anecdota Oxoniensia’ in 1893 ce. It was a satisfactory attempt which made English readers and Indologists familiar with a poet who was filled with religious zeal and had a very clear authorial intent in mind.

Another translation of the Buddhacarita came out in 1936. It was E. H Johnston who undertook this task and presented a translation of all twenty-eight Cantos by the name ‘the act of Buddha’. He used available Tibetan and Chinese texts of the Buddhacarita to present a complete translation. Johnston’s attempt is unique in a way that he did not limit himself to translation and general remarks but he dealt with the historically significant aspects of the work. He tried to contextualise the life of Aśvaghoṣa by reading direct and indirect references from texts and outside. Johnston also discussed his possible oeuvre, his religious affiliation, philosophical approach and poetic technicalities. Johnston made a quite acceptable inference that Aśvaghoṣa was from Sāketa (ancient Kosala) and that is why he was fond of Sanskrit epics especially the Rāmāyaṇa. Johnston discussed the similarities and inspirations which Aśvaghoṣa has taken from the Vālmikī Rāmāyaṇa. However, he also pointed out that Aśvaghoṣa’s hero, that is, Sarvārthasiddha does not repeat the mistake of returning back to the worldly bonds and fetters like Rāma after renouncing them once. This inference has been followed by many scholars lately and now it is believed that Aśvaghoṣa was well aware of the Brahmanical myths, stories ideas and philosophies and he uses this understanding of Brahmanism throughout the Buddhacarita and Saundarananda.

In 2008, Patrick Olivelle’s translation of the Buddhacarita, ‘life of Buddha by Aśvaghoṣa’ was published. Apart from translating the complete text with the help of Tibetan and Chinese translation Olivelle also tries to contextualise the text and calls it a response to Brahmanical counter-reformation. ³ He draws parallels and dialogue of the Buddhacarita with the Manusmṛti, which enumerates the norms for ideal social and political life according to Brahmanical perspective.

There are few other works such as Richard H. Robinson’s ‘Humanism Versus Asceticism in Aśvaghoṣa and Kālidāsa’, Sarla Khosla’s ‘Aśvaghoṣa and His Times’, Stephen A. Kent’s ‘Early Sāṁkhya in the Buddhacarita’ and Alf Hiltebeitel’s ‘Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita’ which discuss the Buddhacarita in detail but what lacks is that Aśvaghoṣa’s portrayal of Brahmanical asceticism and its possible Buddhist critique has not been discussed elaborately in any of the present work. The search for the right ascetic path was a very important part of Sarvārthasiddha’s journey as well as the narrative of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. Aśvaghoṣa vividly portrays this search, thus, it is very much necessary to analyse this scarcely explored theme of the Buddhacarita and try to situate it in broader cultural and social understanding of asceticism and ascetic practices.

The story of the Buddhacarita starts with the birth of a child to the king Śuddhodana of Śākya clan in Ikṣvāku line. At the time of birth, brahmins read the extraordinary signs and omens and prophesied that this child will either be a World conqueror or an awakened seer. The child was named Sarvārthasiddha—the one who accomplishes all his objectives. A great sage Asita also comes to see the child and confesses that the Vedic path which he has followed did not lead him to the final attainment and now he has no time left to follow the new path which Sarvārthasiddha will pave. ⁴ King Śuddhodana does not want his son to be an ascetic so he manages to provide all worldly pleasures within the palace. When Sarvārthasiddha reaches a certain age, he gets married to a suitable girl and eventually fathers a son. But all the worldly pleasures and fetters could not stop him to renounce from the world and become a wanderer. He decides to find an ultimate path to avoid illness, old age and death which he witnesses on his excursion to the city. Śuddhodana’s ministers and king Śreṇya of rājagṛha try to persuade Sarvārthasiddha to not to renounce at such a young age as renunciation is for the older people. Sarvārthasiddha denounces this idea as death does not wait for the old age it can afflict young and old alike. So, it is unreasonable to wait and get old to renounce and search the ultimate path.

Verse 6.60 of the Buddhacarita starts Sarvārthasiddha’s real journey into the wild, when he meets a divine being in the form of a hunter disguised in an ochre robe. This is a puzzling combination of profession and dress-code, especially in the ancient Indian context where different dressing styles reflect specific social, religious and cultural obligations and inclinations. Sarvārthasiddha points to the contradiction that ‘this deadly bow of yours does not go with your holy ochre robe that’s the seer’s badge (ṛṣidhvaja BC 6.61)’. The hunter gives an intriguing reply that he uses such robe to kill deer (mṛga) as it helps him to get their trust. Here, mṛga may specifically mean deer, as it is used in Canto seven of the Buddhacarita more than once, or it may be a general term referring to animals living in the wild. In both cases, it reflects a close connection and a trusting relation between ascetics and wild creatures.

This motif of similarity and consonance between the lifestyle of the ascetics and wild animals continues almost throughout Canto seven. The Canto starts with Sarvārthasiddha’s entry into the āśrama and Aśvaghoṣa uses the simile of mṛga repeatedly to present Sarvārthasiddha as supreme and above the ascetics inhabiting the āśrama. He, like a deer (mṛgavat) enters that āśrama which is described as the courtyard/abode of deer (mṛgājira) with the gait of a lion/ king of beasts (mṛgarājagāmī bc 7.2). Thus, he is best among ascetics and even as a novice, he is like a king among wild animals.

Aśvaghoṣa vividly describes the activities of the āśrama as Sarvārthasiddha observes them while entering it. The dwellers of the āśrama are astonished and charmed by his presence. In wonder they (cakradhara) stand there with their wives (sadāra), holding the yoked poles (yuga) ⁵ and bowing their heads like yoked oxen (dhuryā). The meaning of the cakradhara is not all together clear. Johnston tries to identify the class of ascetic it would be referring to as cakradhara, who is also mentioned in other contemporary texts. However, he literally translates it as wheel-bearer because of its uncertainty and ambiguity. ⁶ Olivelle simply translates the word as ascetics. ⁷

Apart from Aśvaghoṣa’s poetic attempt to present the dwellers of the āśrama as mesmerised by Sarvārthasiddha’s presence, what is noteworthy is their depiction with their wives. It is generally believed that ascetics follow the life of celibacy and it is one of the fundamental resolves to which they adhere. So, it might be confusing for those who think that asceticism and Celibacy always go hand in hand. To solve this confusion and to understand what kind of ideal image of the āśrama we are dealing with in the Buddhacarita, Olivelle’s analysis of the term āśrama can certainly be helpful. Olivelle pointed out that originally, the lifestyle of the āśrama does not oppose the central Brahmanical ideal of the household. Rather, the term in its original sense refers to the lifestyles of exceptional Brāhmaṇas adhering to supreme religious toil and austerity confirming to the ideals and goals of Brahmanism. ⁸

Even Johannes Bronkhorst observes such similarities and comments that ‘the āśrama of Vedic vānaprastha is essentially a re-designation of a form of life which before that had been and to some extent remained—an option for the Vedic householder’. ⁹ He further continues that ‘the ascetic element, in particular, is not at all foreign to the Vedic sacrificial tradition. The execution of sacrifice demands from the sacrificer (yajamāna) various restrictions’. ¹⁰ Āpastamba also refers to certain kinds of householders such as Śālinas, Yāyāvaras and Cakracaras. They live outside the village, perform sacrifices and adhere to the law of fire. ¹¹ The description of the āśrama in the Buddhacarita has similar traits. For instance, in the Buddhacarita some of the Brahmins are adhering to the law of ritual fire (bc 7.33), they are subsisting on left-overs as ideal Brahmin householder does (bc 7.16) ¹² and some of them live with their wives. Thus, it can be inferred with some ground, that Aśvaghoṣa presents an ideal habitat for supreme Brahmins, where they perform Vedic sacrifices, follow the rules of ritual and domestic fires, adhere to the resolves of the householder and perform austerities, abstinence and bodily mortifications as prescribed in the scriptures.

After entering the grove, Sarvārthasiddha curiously asks one of the ascetics (tapasvin):

What is your resolve (niścaya)? What do you seek to achieve (pravṛttaḥ)? (bc 7.12)

One of the twice born (dvijāti), who is described as rejoicing in asceticism (tapovihāra) then elaborately tells the varieties (tapoviśeṣa) and rewards (tapasaḥ phala) of different ascetic practices:

Food not grown in a village,

whatever grows in water,

leaves and water, fruits and root—

according to scriptural texts

that’s the livelihood of a sage;

there are, however, numerous

alternative ascetic paths. (bc 7.14) ¹³

It is very interesting and quite revealing that when asked about the varieties and rewards of ascetic practices, first of all, Sarvārthasiddha is told about food restrictions. Procurement and consumption of food are the prime concern of living beings and by their distinguished ability to develop a culture, humans try to interfere in the food cycle and ease the process of procurement and consumption of food. Patrick Olivelle gives a technical term for such a cultural mediation by humans, namely ‘food effort’, which is later divided into four different parts—production or procurement, storage, preparation and consumption. ¹⁴ Among these four distinct parts of food effort, storage and preparation are clearly cultural interference by humans and indeed such efforts are extended in the area of production/procurement and consumption also. Thus, one of the pre-requisites of the ascetic life in the forest is having food which is not grown in the village (agrāmya)—the ultimate locus of human culture. The food is not to be produced by any mediation or effort of humans; rather it is to be grown naturally in water (salile prarūḍha) or consisting only of leaves (parṇa), water (toya), fruits and roots (phalamūla). The next three verses are important to understand this distance from culture and to further decipher its implications for the ascetic lifestyle.

Verse 7.15 of the Buddhacarita starts with enumerating the different ways with one can procure food after restricting and cutting out its cultural current. These ways of procurement consist of imitating wild animals and the Buddhacarita refers to three such ways based on gleaning like a bird (khaga); subsisting on grass (tṛṇāni) like deer (mṛga); and the most severe and motionless attempt to collect food; that is, living in the company of snakes and turning oneself as if into an anthill because of lying on the very same spot throughout one’s life. ¹⁵ Ascetics are not only portrayed as living away from the village but also as following and imitating the ways and food habits of wild animals. And this imitation is somewhere an extension of the idea of not eating anything or procuring that which is cultivated by human culture.

Imitating wild animals in terms of food habits and manner of eating distinguish ascetic culture from the refinement and regulations of societal norms. Olivelle calls such tendencies as ‘counter-culture’. ¹⁶ He relates it with the Indian cosmological myths which portray primordial beings as unrestrained by social and cultural laws, where economic activities were not needed. He gives references to two such myths, one from the Aggaῆῆa Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya and the other from the Liṅga Purāṇa. ¹⁷ According to Olivelle,

both myths portray the ideal world as one in which nature provides everything humans need. So as long as they take only what they need each day, this condition continues. Taking more than one needs, hoarding for the future, creation of ownership: these results of greed are the basic causes of the world’s deterioration. ¹⁸

Myths reflect the imagination of ultimate and absolute bliss and happiness—the paradisiacal state, ¹⁹ which is nature or in our context a return to the nature. Culture is consuming more than one needs, hoarding, private ownership, in short, decay of the ideal mythical state through greed.

Imitating khaga, mṛga and bhujaṅga in the Buddhacarita are clear signs of blurring the distinction between natural and cultural being. The more one abandons his cultural traits, the more he collects merit to reach the state of happiness and bliss, that is, heaven. The answer to the question Sarvārthasiddha has asked in verse 7.12 to one of the ascetics about the rewards (tapasaḥ phala) of such a lifestyle. Thus, the ascetic guide finally explains;

when such ascetic toil is amassed over time (evaṃ vidhaiḥ kālacitaiḥ tapobhiḥ),

through the higher kind they go to heaven (diva),

through the lower kind, to the world of men (nṛloka)

for it’s the path of pain (dukhmārga) that leads to bliss,

for the root of dharma, they say, is bliss (bc 7.18)

Verse 7.16 of the Buddhacarita also reflects upon three different ways of food preparation. These three ways consist of cooking (śrapaṇa), pounding with stone (aśma prayatna) and, finally, directly eating without any mediation or effort of outside, only with their teeth (svadanta). Aśvaghoṣa describes the pounding with stone as a method of procurement (arjita) but certainly, it would have also been a way, however very simplified and rudimentary, to make food edible.

Fire is the ultimate symbol of culture and verse 7.16 also indicates that some ascetics use fire to cook their food. Ascetics who use fire to cook food are bound by one of the socio-cultural obligations of the householder, that is, the five great sacrifices. ²⁰ Procuring and preparing food by pounding with stone, is somewhat higher in the ascetic ladder because of its severity. It reflects abandoning of the chief instrument of culture, that is, restricting oneself to equipment provided by nature. Using stone also decreases the cultural effort of altering the taste by cooking and now food is only consumed in its natural state. Finally, the utmost way of living by nature is, by no preparation at all; thus, the food is directly eaten with the teeth. Effort is totally abandoned and the hardship of life is increased to an extreme level. This effortless state of procurement and preparation of food has direct consonance with the resolve of the snake (bhujaṅga), in which, as mentioned already, an anthill is formed around the ascetic as he abandons any movement for the sake of food. Aśvaghoṣa does not describe other practices in detail and only gives an allusion to them by saying that there are numerous alternative ways (tapasāṃ vikalpāḥ) to which one can adhere. However, we can assume, as other contemporary sources portray, that this severity of ascetic toil can be further increased by subsisting only on air, then finally, nothing.

Aśvaghoṣa also describes the lifestyle-related with living among the fish (mīnaiḥ sama), and vividly describes how their bodies are scratched by the turtles (bc 7.17). However, dwelling in water is clearly different from the morning and evening bath of the ascetics before their fire oblations. Morning and evening bath have a ritual orientation which relates it with cultural ideas of purity and fire. Whereas living among the fish reflects an attempt to cut off those cultural links completely. Thus, it is quite evident that the ascetic practices described in the Buddhacarita revolve around bodily mortification and pain. The ascetic guide tells Sarvārthasiddha that this is the path of happiness and bliss (dukḥena mārgeṇa sukhaṃ hy upaiti, bc 7.18)—the root of dharma.

After enumerating the lifestyle and resolve of the āśrama inhabitants, Aśvaghoṣa presents Sarvārthasiddha as sceptic, who voices discontent about whatever he is told about the life in an āśrama. Sarvārthasiddha contemplates thoroughly:

Pain is basic to the many types of ascetic toil (tapas),

while heaven is the highest reward of ascetic toil;

And yet, all these worlds are subject to change;

such toil (śrama) in hermitages (āśrama)

only to gain so little! (bc 7.20)

Aśvaghoṣa directs his critique towards the body-oriented ascetic practices in the āśrama and their final reward as heaven. He uses the Buddhist logic of impermanence and the changing nature of the worlds (loka). Whether the mundane earthly life or a state of divinity and heaven earned through ascetic effort, all these states are subject to change. Thus, by keenly observing and mulling over the lifestyles and different resolves of ascetics Sarvāthasiddha reaches the conclusion that such severe pain (duḥkha) and toil (śrama) are adhered just to gain very little (svalpa). The state which is considered as the absolute bliss and desperately desired by the ascetics and seers of the āśrama is now relegated to a state of impermanence and described as bound to change. The Brahmanical idea and ideals are resituated and reformulated according to the idea of saṃsāra, transition, impermanence and urgency to act, in which heaven is considered just as one of the transitional stages, rather a final outcome.

The next two verses continue this idea of saṃsāra and the pain inherent in each transitional stage. Sarvārthasiddha reflects upon the logical fallacy and sheer ignorance of the ascetics, who desert their kin and objects of the senses to achieve a more painful and horrendous state of bondage (mahattara bandhana), that is, heaven. Practising severe restriction and restraint for such a transitory and dire state is considered futile. Without realising the flaws of the cycle of saṃsāra, the ascetics inflict pain on their bodies, supposedly calling it tapa, but in reality, they desire continued existence for the sake of pleasure, which is just enduring pain to get enormous pain in return. Although Sarvārthasiddha has not attained Buddhahood yet, Aśvaghoṣa clearly portrays him as contemplating and realising the fault of body-centric ascetic practices of Brahmanism in terms of evolved Buddhist teachings and philosophy. Thus, he reflects:

Creatures are always mortally afraid of death,

and yet they strenuously seek repeated birth;

Death is certain where there is active existence;

creatures wallow in the very thing they most fear

Some take on pain with this world as their end,

other endure toil with heaven as their end;

Forlorn in their hope, with bliss as their end,

those living beings with their unattained

only reach a disastrous end (bc 7.23–24)

All these verses are clearly imbued with the shared understanding of renunciatory trends which sees the world as the ultimate source of pain and people deluded by their ignorance trying to escape it using different futile ways. They are totally engrossed in the very thing they are afraid off (tatra aiva magnā yata eva bhītāḥ). Some end up suffering pain here and others—especially alluding to ascetics of the āśrama, endure toil (śrama) to attain heaven considering it as their final end, but they do not obtain what they seek, rather they reach even a more dire end.

Syllogistically, Aśvaghoṣa repudiates the idea that body-oriented toil and pain can lead to the attainment of the perfect dharmic state. He argues,

But, if dharma here consists of bodily pain,

then bodily bliss (sukha) should be adharma;

So when by dharma one attains bliss hereafter,

dharma here bears the fruit of adharma! (bc 7.26)

The verse clearly rejects and presents the logical fallacy in the reply of the ascetic guide, who was describing the resolves and their attainments. The ascetic guide has described that the path of pain leads to bliss and also adds that they (the ascetics) call this bliss as the root of dharma (sukhaṃ hi dharmasya vadanti mūlam bc 7.18). Sarvārthasiddha states that if bodily pain is considered as equal to dharma here, then bodily pleasure is clearly adharma. In such a context, desiring heaven and attaining pleasure in the next world by accumulating dharma/pain, is like reaping the fruit of dharma in the form of adharma—pleasure. This is a totally reverse picture of Brahmanical theology and understanding of dharma, a bend to present it as distorted and filled with logical defects at its root. It is a brave move to prove that the fundamental understanding and ideals on which Brahmanical ascetic practices and resolves are based, are wrong. Thus, finally, it is suggested that it is the mind (manas) that needs to be controlled, not the body—an ultimate fault in the understanding and effort of ascetics of the āśrama. Efforts to incur pain on the body are futile as body works and ceases to act under the mind’s control, and without mind (cittād ṛte) the body is just like a log of wood (kāṣṭha sama). There is no requirement to inflict pain and mortify body to attain higher state.

One by one, Aśvaghoṣa criticises each and every body-oriented practice described as meritorious by the ascetic guide in the earlier verses. At first, he directs his critique towards the excessive emphasis on the idea of the purity of food (āhāraśuddhī). It is interesting to understand what purity of food really means here because Sarvārthasiddha questions the ascetics that if this is the way to acquire merit, then deer (mṛga) were the first to achieve such merit (bc 7.28). This argument reflects that purity of food figuratively means following the lifestyle of deer, who subsist only on grass, fruits and other such food. Therefore, it directly repudiates one of the most prevalent resolves of the mṛgācārīn, a frequently referred motif throughout the text. Thus, the mṛgarājagāmī (the one with the gait of king among deer) Sarvārthasiddha enters the mṛgājira (abode of deer) to make mṛgacārīs (followers of the resolve of deer) realise that their resolve is futile and that if something meritorious could be earned from such a life then, first it should have been acquired by the mṛgas themselves. Continuing the same logic, such reward and merit are also to be acquired by the one who is bereft of wealth out of misfortune (bhāgyaparādha), if deprivation and misery earn merit anyway.

Then Aśvaghoṣa turns his critique towards the idea of water as a sacred ford (tīrtha) and supreme medium to cleanse and purify one’s misdeeds (bc 7.30). Verse 7.17 describes two practices related to water, the first with the morning and evening bath before the fire oblations and the second, the severe resolve of living in water among fish. But Aśvaghoṣa negates the idea of water as tīrtha only as complacency to the heart (toṣo hṛdi kevalo bc 7.30), which has nothing to do with cleansing one’s sins (pāpa). He considers virtues (guṇa) and virtuous men as the highest sacred fort (tīrtham iṣṭam) on earth, and water as only water, which neither cleanses sins nor purifies deeds (bc 7.31).

After this whirl of thoughts and arguments in his own mind, Sarvārthasiddha moves further into the forest to observe the life and practices of the ascetics. He stops at the foot of a lovely and auspicious tree (śiva śrīmatī vṛkṣa mule) just out of reverence towards the austerities (tapāṃsi) of those ascetics. They reach him and the oldest among them addresses Sarvārthasiddha with veneration, saying that his arrival had completed (pūrṇa) the āśrama but now his absence would make it empty. The elder ascetic tries to give Sarvārthasiddha reasons to stay in the āśrama that it is situated at the foot of the Himālayas which are visited by seers of all kind, that is, Brāhmaṇa, royal and divine. Thus, merit earned through practices and toil at such a place in the company (saṃnikarṣa) of great seers is multiplied and intensified. Such places are considered as the staircases to the heavenly realm (sopāna bhūtāni nabha tala). ²¹ Sarvārthasiddha is also asked to state if he found someone neglecting (niṣkriya) the rites or fallen to a corrupted dharma (saṃkīrṇa dharma apatita) and whether that is why he desires to leave.

Finally, Sarvārthasiddha replies that though he is just a novice in dharma (dharmanavagraha), rather than being a hurdle, this is doubling his passion (rati) towards it. Thus, he reflects:

But your dharma aims at attaining heaven (svarga),

and my desire is to be free from rebirth (apunarbhava).

So, I have no wish to live in this forest,

from the dharma of cessation (nivṛtti dharma) is opposed

to the dharma of continued existence (pravṛtti) (bc 7.48)

This is a clear-cut answer based on theological difference between pravṛtti and nivṛtti dharma. Indulgence and world renunciation are the two most prevalent themes of the Indian literary tradition and philosophy emerged out of two different lifestyles. Pravṛtti considers heaven as its highest attainment and a return to the world of mortals. Whereas the nivṛtti leads to the stage of absolute cessation of the process of accumulation and retribution of deeds. The Indian epics are filled with such themes, and historically, ancient India witnessed many sects evolved around the concepts and precepts following the idea of nivṛtti by abandoning pravṛtti. The basis of dualism and dichotomy of pravṛtti and nivṛtti is the idea of karmic accumulation and retribution. Either accepted, rejected or modified by different sects and philosophical trends, they have always been central ideas. Aśvaghoṣa portrays Sarvārthasiddha as finally choosing and suggesting the path of cessation (nirvṛtti), which wise people choose and achieve the ultimate freedom rather enmeshing themselves in the endless process of birth and death out of indulgence (pravṛtti).

The differentiation is further crystallised by calling the dharma, which ascetics of the āśrama are following as ‘conforming to the first/old age’ (pūrva yuga bc 7.49). Sarvārthasiddha calls the ascetics of the āśrama as great seers (maharṣi) and tells them that he is not abandoning the āśrama out of dislike or offence. He is abandoning the āśrama, just because of the different paths of pravṛtti and nivṛtti; the former conforms to the old yūga and the later to a new theological understanding. Sarvārthasiddha chooses the new path that leads to liberation and surpasses the understanding of the old yūga. ²² The ascetics of the āśrama heard Sarvārthasiddha’s kind and meaningful words and bid adieu with all respect and veneration. He finally leaves the āśrama to not to adhere the path of bodily pain and not to get enmeshed in the vicious circle of saṃsāra.

However, in this particular context Canto twelve is intriguing and certainly reflects that Aśvaghoṣa’s description of Sarvārthasiddha as mulling over the faults of body-oriented ascetic practices and finally repudiating them, were Aśvaghoṣa’s personal attempt to present Sarvārthasiddha as already above Brahmanical ascetics. Because after leaving the company of ascetics the first thing Sarvārthasiddha tried was the mortification of the body and physical pain to attain enlightenment.

He then undertook fierce austerities

by fasting, thinking that

that was the means whereby

death and birth are destroyed (mṛtyu janma antakaraṇe)

Observing many kinds of fast (upavāsa),

difficult for men to perform,

he shriveled up (kārśya) his body for

six years in his pursuit of calm.

The farther shore of saṃsāra,

the shore that has no farther shore

yearning to reach, he subsisted

by consuming during mealtimes (annakāla)

one jujube (kola), one sesame seed (tila),

and a single grain of rice (taṇḍula) (bc 12.94–96)

Here is a contradiction between two starkly different portrayals of Sarvārthasiddha. On the one hand, he is shown critical enough to understand the uselessness of bodily mortification. On the other hand, he is shown shrivelling up his body to skin (tvaga) and bones (asthi) by the same methods and practices he condemned earlier. And only after six long years of trial and error Sarvārthasiddha could realise that these ascetic practices are futile (vyartha) and if he will continue this mortification further he would soon die without achieving anything (bc 12. 100) Only then did he resolve:

This dharma will not lead to detachment,

To awakening or release (na bodhāya na muktaye) (bc 12.101)

His final reappraisal leads him to believe that a man withered by hunger, thirst and fatigue (kṣutpipāsāśrama klānta) and whose mind is tired and sick cannot attain the fruit of tranquillity (nirvṛtti) and peaceful mind (bc 12.103). Senses are needed to be content to achieve this tranquil state and healthy mind (manaḥ svāsthyam bc 12.104).

This contradiction is a clear example of Aśvaghoṣa’s authorial intent deliberately moulding the story in favour of a well-crafted Buddhist narrative. As already suggested in the beginning, Aśvaghoṣa has a clear motive to establish how the Buddhist understanding of Dharma surpasses the Brahmanical one. And throughout the Buddhacarita, Aśvaghoṣa never misses a chance to prove Buddhist supremacy over Brahmanical ideas and practices, be it by Asita’s confession that Vedic path did not lead him to attainment, by repudiation of Brahmanical idea of debt, by pointing out the logical fallacy of Brahmanical ascetic resolves and practices and finally by portraying Sarvārthasiddha leaving the Brahmanical āśrama. So, the question arises that why Aśvaghoṣa did not smooth out this contradiction? Why does highly critical Sarvārthasiddha spend six long years to repeat the same mistakes he has pointed out by his well-articulated arguments and logics? There can be few inferences to define this contradiction. First of all, such a hardship might have been part of Sarvārthasiddha’s journey to enlightenment. So, Aśvaghoṣa could not avoid it as that would have created trouble for him in Buddhist circles. Second, Aśvaghoṣa could also not dare to undermine the difficulty, dedication and pain one has to adhere to attain Buddhahood. Finally, Aśvaghoṣa’s Brahmanical background might have also played a crucial role. Throughout the Buddhacarita he never suggests that Brahmanical practices and resolves are in totally vain. Aśvaghoṣa somewhere had a respect for the people who abandon the inferior (hīna) and yearn to seek something superior (viśeṣa). However, he finds these ascetic efforts lacking to reach the final goal and suggests that ‘wise people (prājῆa) with the same toil ought to attain that state in which nothing needs to be done again (bc 7.25)’. We cannot conclusively say what would have been the exact reason for such a contradiction and it will always be the food for more scholarly speculations. But what we can see is the dynamics of two different traditions of asceticism. We can also observe the dialogues, discords and points of confluences between them. Although, Sarvārthasiddha treads a different path to his journey to enlightenment, for Aśvaghoṣa it is an extension and elaboration of an already frequented path.

Conclusion

Finally, we can sum up our discussion with the point that while retelling his grand poetic hagiography of the Buddha, Aśvaghoṣa takes up certain important themes of his time and one of them clearly is asceticism. He chooses particular types of ascetic practices and methods of liberation which we can loosely label as Brahmanical. Aśvaghoṣa portrays Sarvārthasiddha as keenly observing different ascetic resolves and listening to the accounts of different sages. The description of ascetics and their lifestyle in Canto seven vividly paint an image of the Brahmanical āśrama. Where different ascetics are following different resolves from adhering to the law of sacred fire to standing still and turning oneself as if into an anthill. The above discussion suggests that each ascetic resolve has its cultural connotation and increased hardship and toil represents ascetic’s attempt to go towards nature. Thus, the framework of Sarvārthasiddha’s search for the true recluse provides Aśvaghoṣa an opportunity and narrative to insert details and arguments to firmly assert the Buddhist position against the Brahmanical understanding of asceticism, ideal lifestyle and liberation. The Buddhacarita elaborates, reflects and then repudiates some of the current ideas and ideals of contemporary ascetic practices and knowledge systems in a bold, inter-texual and vibrant writing style.