In Buddhist countries there is a perception that Asoka was a great Buddhist ruler. However, the scholarly research has questioned this assumption. Most people point to the Asoka rock edicts as evidence of his Buddhist predilections. Scholars that have studied these rock edicts in detail have noted that many of the Buddhistic injunctions were also principles that applied to other religions.

For example, the instruction that his subjects should give up the hunting of animals was an ideal that would have been supported by the Jains, Buddhists and some sections of the Hindu orthodoxy of the period. His use of the term “Dharma” is (as everyone knows) a generic term that was used in basically every religion of the period.

This has led theorists to put forward the hypothesis that Asoka was likely a religious pluralist who was canny about how he dealt with his subjects and that he wanted to throw his lot in with basically everyone. This is fairly consistent with other rulers of this period and it allowed for a thriving multi-religious community. Asoka was likely a patron of different religions. This also explains why there was a sudden explosion of new religious movements around 500bc, because there was a tradition for rulers to support a range of faiths.

It may be that Asoka was a devout Buddhist but it is most likely he was a pluralist who was serving a number of different religions.

The great Indologist A.L Basham has written extensively on the (mis)perception of Asoka’s devotion to Buddhism. As has D.C Ahir. Kate Crosby has a section on this in her book “Theravada Buddhism”.

As for the missionary work ascribed to him by some Buddhist sources, there is not much actual evidence . Even the Theravadin texts actually attribute the missionary work in 250bc to Tissa Moggaliputta who was an elder monk. For more details on this see Richard Gombrich (Theravada Buddhism: A social history).

Gombrich also points out that the very fact that this missionary work was conducted at all is in dispute amongst scholars. On the whole, the material evidence is rather flimsy and we have to rely on Buddhist traditional accounts which are notoriously unreliable during this period.