334 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVI, 
worth noting also that some duties of Agsoka’s dharmamahama- 
tras, as detailed in his R.E.V., correspond to items of work 
looked after by the king in the upasthana in the days of 
ere ye. as referred to above. 
then, does R.E. VI represent Asoka to have 
a an advance on the religious constitution as 
portrayed by Kautilya? Kautilya saw, probably from ex- 
apieged that in attending to work of a sacred aspect, the king 
must not make himself difficult of access; for inaccessibility 
implies dependence on officers whose errors in judging between 
right and wrong must inevitably be imported into the judg- 
ment pronounced by the king who thus renders himself liable to 
be misunderstood. Kautilya’s solution is that the king should 
personally look after these concerns, sometimes in consultation 
with experts, at a particular hour of the day and in a particular 
place called the upasthana. Asoka proclaimed that he was 
almost ideally accessible, but not, it seems, directly to the people 
(which was impracticable). He permitted pativedakas or Re- 
—_— to ete their reports to him even when he was in his 
from the centralizing eotisy of Kautilya ke ‘dele ating to 
the dharmamahamatras the function ae attending, in the first 
instance, to some affairs having a religious complexion, reserv- 
ing to himself the right to pronounce the final verdict under 
— circumstances, This arrangement was probably necess- 
itat y his undertaking an active religious propaganda 
Shuk could not be carried on by himself alone. The way in 
which the mahamdatras are alluded to as ‘“‘ being entrusted with 
urgent work”’ suggests the possibility that they did not, like 
the dapakas and the éravakas, receive oral orders directly from 
the King and ma maa normally enjoyed a certain amount of 
freedom in the ‘dphares of their functions. Nevertheless, the 
parisad deliberated upon urgent work assigned to them and 
even discussed the King’s own oral orders to dapakas and 
sravakas. 
Thi 8 leads us to consider the spon A of the parisad 
itself. rent: g to one view, the constitution was the same 
as that of the mantri-parisad ahianed by Kantilya. Just as 
Kautilva lays down the rule that in dtyayika matters the King 
should summon the mantri tparisad, so we find Asoka speaking 
of the parisad in connexion with atyayika work entrusted to the 
mahamatras. The analogy is tempting, but insufficient. Ina 
dhammalipt Asoka "sual hardly, as assumed in the proposed 
identification, quote orders relating to purely administrative 
work, entirely unconnected wit amma, such as could be 
made the subject of discussion by the mantri-parisad. The 
real nature of the work before the parisad as alluded to in 
-E. VI being now known, the parisad must be deemed to 
