Editing Ashoka (section)

===Alternative interpretation of the epigraphic evidence===
{{One source section|date=January 2023}}
{{Fringe section|date=March 2025}}
{{multiple image
| perrow            = 2
| total_width       = 450
| caption_align     = center
| align             = right
| direction         = horizontal
| header            = The Edicts and their declared authors
| image1            = Major Rock Edicts and Major Pillar Edicts by Devanampiya Piyadasi.jpg
| caption1          = Edicts in the name of [[Priyadasi|Piyadasi]] or ''[[Devanampiya]]'' Piyadasi ("Beloved of the Gods and humane"):<br />[[File:Brown pog.svg|8px]]: [[Major Rock Edicts]]<br />[[File:Brown 5C3317.svg|3px]]: [[Major Pillar Edicts]]
| image2            = Minor Rock Edicts and Minor Pillar Edicts of Ashoka.jpg
| caption2          = Edicts in the name of Ashoka or just "''[[Devanampiya]]''" ("Beloved of the Gods"), or both together:<br />[[File:Orange ff8040 pog.svg|8px]]: [[Minor Rock Edicts]]<br />[[File:Orange F79A18.svg|3px]]: [[Minor Pillar Edicts]]
| footer            = The different areas covered by the two types of inscriptions, and their different content in respect to Buddhism, may point to different rulers namely [[Chandragupta Maurya]] and [[Bindusara]].<ref name="CIB226"/>
| footer_align      = center
}}
For [[Christopher I. Beckwith]] — whose theories are not accepted by mainstream scholarship — Ashoka, whose name only appears in the [[Minor Rock Edicts]], is not the same as king [[Priyadasi|Piyadasi]], or ''[[Devanampiya]]'' Piyadasi (i.e. "Beloved of the Gods Piyadasi", "Beloved of the Gods" being a fairly widespread title for "King"), who is named as the author of the [[Major Pillar Edicts]] and the [[Major Rock Edicts]].<ref name="CIB226">{{cite book |last1=Beckwith |first1=Christopher I. |title=Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia |date=2017 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-17632-1 |pages=226–250 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=53GYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA234 |language=en |access-date=31 January 2020 |archive-date=14 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200514211528/https://books.google.com/books?id=53GYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA234 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Beckwith suggests that Piyadasi was living in the 3rd century BCE, was probably the son of [[Chandragupta Maurya]] known to the Greeks as [[Amitrochates]], and only advocated for piety ("[[Dharma]]") in his Major Pillar Edicts and Major Rock Edicts, without ever mentioning [[Buddhism]], the [[Buddha]], or the [[Sangha]] (the single notable exception is the 7th Edict of the Major Pillar Edicts which does mention the Sangha, but is now considered to have been faked by Beckwith).<ref name="CIB226"/> Also, the geographical spread of his inscription shows that Piyadasi ruled a vast Empire, contiguous with the [[Seleucid Empire]] in the West.<ref name="CIB226"/>

On the contrary, for Beckwith, Ashoka was [[Ashoka (Gonandiya)|a later king of the 1st–2nd century CE]], whose name only appears explicitly in the Minor Rock Edicts and allusively in the [[Minor Pillar Edicts]], and who does mention the Buddha and the Sangha, explicitly promoting Buddhism.<ref name=" CIB226"/> The name "Priyadarsi" does occur in two of the minor edicts (Gujarra and Bairat), but Beckwith again considers them as later fabrications.<ref name=" CIB226"/> The minor inscriptions cover a very different and much smaller geographical area, clustering in Central India.<ref name=" CIB226"/> According to Beckwith, the inscriptions of this later Ashoka were typical of the later forms of "normative Buddhism", which are well attested from inscriptions and Gandhari manuscripts dated to the turn of the millennium, and around the time of the [[Kushan Empire]].<ref name=" CIB226"/> The quality of the inscriptions of this Ashoka is significantly lower than the quality of the inscriptions of the earlier Piyadasi.<ref name=" CIB226"/>

However, many of Beckwith's methodologies and interpretations concerning early Buddhism, inscriptions, and archaeological sites have been criticized by other scholars, such as [[Johannes Bronkhorst]] and [[Osmund Bopearachchi]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bopearachchi|first=Osmund|title=Review of C.I. Beckwith, ''Greek Buddha''|year=2016|url=https://www.academia.edu/30812686|journal=Ancient West & East|volume=15|page=341-342|access-date=4 September 2019|archive-date=26 March 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326031701/https://www.academia.edu/30812686|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Bronkhorst|first=Johannes|title=How the Brahmins Won|year=2016|publisher=Brill|pages=483–489|url=https://www.academia.edu/25308643|access-date=4 September 2019|archive-date=24 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220424162155/https://www.academia.edu/25308643|url-status=live}}</ref> According to [[Patrick Olivelle]], Beckwith's theory is "an outlier and no mainstream Ashokan scholar would subscribe to that view."<ref>{{cite book | last=Olivelle | first=Patrick | title=Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King | publisher=Yale University Press | date=2024 | page=xxviii | isbn=978-0-300-27000-6 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=TE3gEAAAQBAJ}}</ref>