The early connection between Buddhism and kingship through the exemplary figure of the Buddha as a princely ascetic is as obvious as it remains largely understudied，and offers important avenues of further enquiry.It would be worth speculating，for example，to what extent the royal image of the Buddha was functional，in India，to opening the path of renunciation beyond the Brahmanical caste，producing a discourse of religious self－cultivation whose appeal to the court and the aristocracy may have been less strategic than tactical.[1]But the strain between royal greatness and self－denial that lies at the core of the Buddha＇s legend could be construed in different ways，and the inexorable shift from the former to the latter may have been only one of them：a selective reading of the story of the Buddha，especially in environments where canonical views had as yet little leverage，could easily pick out the absolute self－mastery of the Indian prince，and engross Chinese court audiences in a fabulation of empowerment.
If so，one may legitimately ask what should be made of the ideal of the cakravartin，generally regarded as the chief Buddhist model of rulership，and whether it notably had any role or visibility in the early period of Buddhism in China.More than one scholar has admitted that the Wheel－Turning universal monarch（Skr.cakravartin，Pāli cakkavattī）is a relatively late and probably foreign strand in the Indian tradition.[2]It is mentioned in the Maitrī Upanivad，which may be not earlier than the Maurya age，but it is in a handful of Buddhist scriptures that it is given some emphasis，most prominently in the Cakkavatti－sīhanāda－sutta in the Pāli Dīgha－nikāya.Here we read the story of king Dalhanemi and his successors，ruling by Dharma over the four directions，and then yielding the throne to their sons to embrace the renunciant life；in their tours of conquest they are preceded by the magical wheel（cakka，Skr.cakra），token of their power，that brings about the spontaneous submission of the other peoples，but disappears whenever the king＇s righteous rule falters.[3]Few other texts in the Pāli canon，notably the Mahāsudassana and the Bālapaodita?suttas，provide further sketches of the Buddhist world－ruler，but the notion of the cakravartin and its political significance remain largely unclear.[4]The very nature of the cakra is far from being fully understood：while the scant Indian sources have generally led to an interpretation of the Wheel as an abstract symbol of sovereignty patterned after the sun and its celestial course，Buddhist materials only preserved in Chinese translation allow further，sometimes unexpected readings：here the Wheel can be a sceptre－like palladium，a magical tool，a weapon，or even a flying saucer.
Two somewhat expanded parallels of the Cakkavatti－sīhanāda－suttanta were translated into Chinese，probably from Northwestern Prakrit originals，only between the late 4th and the early 5th c.[5]There is no doubt，however，that the idea of the cakravartin was known in China already from the first wave of canonical translations.It features，for example，in the Yiyue moni bao jing遗婿（曰）蘑尼虹经，Zhi Chen＇s rendering of the Kāsyapaparivarta，[6]where the unique qualities of the cakravartīrāja（transcribed as zhejiayue luo遮迦越罗）are frequently compared to those of the Buddha and of the bodhisattvas；here the cakravartin is the secular counterpart of the Blessed One，like him equipped with the thirty－two marks of the superman.Dalhanemi himself is mentioned in passing，and in Mahāyānist disguise，in the Dun zhenduoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing伅真陀罗所问如来三昧经（Druma－kinnara－rāja－pariprcchā－sūtra），another translation（probably revised）from Zhi Chen＇s workshop.[7]It is difficult to say whether such texts would have reached a court readership.Their unstylish language，devoid of any wenyan文言elements（Zürcher influentially，albeit improperly，labelled it“vernacular”），[8]would seem to exclude it，though the apparent observance in them of the taboo on the name of Huandi suggests some degree of connection to the official sphere，perhaps only due to bureaucratic surveillance.[9]
There is in any case sufficient evidence to assume that the concept of the cakravartin entered the imperial circles at Jiankang建康，first under the Wu吴kingdom（222－280）and then under the Eastern Jin晋（317－420），witness the translations by the upāsaka of Yuezhi descent Zhi Qian支谦（a.k.a.Zhi Yue支越，194／199－253／258）and the monk Kang Senghui康僧会（d.280），both reportedly at home at the Wu court.[10]The former，in particular，authored the Taiziruiying?benqi?jing太子瑞应本起经，certainly the most popular Chinese biography of the Buddha（or more exactly，of the Bodhisattva until shortly after his reaching enlightenment）in early medieval China，[11]which includes a short description of the cakravartin with his Seven Treasures：the Golden Wheel金猎，the White Elephant佰象，the Purple－maned Horse绀马，the Divine Gem神珠，the Precious Woman玉女，the Principled Householder理家，the Sagely Counsellor圣导.[12]Zhi Qian was probably also the translator of a version of the（non－Mahāyāna）Parinirvāna－sūtra?（Bannihuan jing般泥洹经，T vol.1 no.6）.[13]Here the Buddha，upon his last journey，digresses on the wondrous reign and personal qualities of the great cakravartin Mahāsudarsana（Ch.Dakuaijian大跪见），a universal monarch ruling from Kusinagara in a former aeon，who is the subject of a separate sutta in the Pāli canon.[14]In the mid－4th c.，both the Taizi ruiying benqi jing and the Bannihuan jing were availableto the court elite in Jiankang，since they are quoted in the Fengfa?yao奉法要（Essentials for the Observance of the［Buddhist］Law），[15]a layman＇s summary of Buddhism written by one of the most powerful members of that court，Xi Chao郄超（336－377）.[16]
Kang Senghui included in his Liudu ji?jing六度集经（Collected Scriptures on the Six Perfections，T vol.3 no.152）the story of another illustrious Wheel－Roller of ages past，Mūrdhajāta，the“Headborn”（Ch.Dingsheng鼎生，elsewhere transcribed as Wentuojie文陀竭），which is also attested in a separate recension of slightly later date.[17]
Zhi Qian and Kang Senghui were apparently the first to introduce a distinctive Chinese rendering of the term cakravartin as feixing?huangdi飞行皇帝，“flying emperor”，which enjoyed wide currency in Buddhist translations of the 3rd and 4th c.on both sides of the Yangzi.The expression puzzled Erik Zürcher，[18]but has otherwise failed to receive a proper explanation.[19]Now，it is clear enough from the sources that the cakravartin was no ordinary man：he enjoyed incredible longevity（84，000 years in some texts），had thousands of sons and wives，and a body endowed with the thirty－two lakvanas.It would seem that he was also able to fly.The Bannihuan jing，for example，says of king Mahāsudarsana that“he could fly and travel around the four parts of the world，with his Seven Treasures leading and following him，and wherever he arrived，［people］would submit to him”能飞行，游四天下，七虹导从，所至臣属。[20]Similarly，the Zhong benqi jing中本起经（Tvol.4 no.196），which in its present text is a 4th－century revision of a biography of the Buddha originally translated in the late 2nd c.，has the Buddha himself warning king Prasenajit that“a cakravartī rāja rules over the four continents，flying around and inspecting［the world］典领四域，飞行案行，with his Seven Treasures leading and following.But although he may live for a thousand years，he will also depart，and all the gods will devour his fortune”.[21]
Exactly how the world－ruler was supposed to fly is just unclear.In the 5th－century Chinese translation of the Mahā－vibhāvā－sāstra，the great opus of Sarvāstivāda scholasticism，whose original was probably composed around 300 CE，we find a vignette on king［Dalha］nemi（Ch.Nimi尼弥）asking his charioteer Mātali（Ch.Moduoluo蘑多罗）to“soar into the sky”升天so that he could see from above the cities of the demons to the west of Jambudvīpa.[22]The story is strongly reminiscent of an episode from the legend of Asoka，a version of which Faxian法显（d.ca.423）reports as background to his travel notes：the Chinese monk states that the great king，before his conversion，was inspired to build his infamous hell－prison when he could see，presumably from the sky，the real hell of Yama at the edge of the earth，as on one occasion“he was riding on his Iron Wheel，touring and inspecting Jambudvīpa”乘铁猎，案行阎浮提。[23]This seems the most obvious translation of a passage that other scholars have construed otherwise；[24]Faxian＇s reference to the Wheel as a flying saucer of sorts will appear less startling when one considers the description elsewhere of this mysterious object as measuring fourteen chi尺（well over three metres）in diameter，[25]or Jan Gonda＇s observation that cakravartin properly means someone who stays?in the Wheel.[26]However，in the Zhude futian?jing诸德福田经，a proto－Mahāyāna sermon on merit translated around 300 CE by the monks Fali法立and Faju法炬at Luoyang，and of which no Indic counterpart is extant，a monk recollects that in a former life he had been born“as a Wheel－Rolling Holy King，returning［in rebirth］thirty－six times in all，ruling over heavenly and human beings，growing feathers under the soles of his feet，treading the void and roaming”为转猎圣王，各三十六反，典领天、人，足下生毛，蹑虚而游。[27]Plantarplumage smacks of a Taoist recasting of the myth，and one may end up wondering whether the Flying Cakravartin，which is unparalleled in the Pāli sources，is not after all a purely Chinese elaboration.But at least one passagein the Avtasāhasrikā－praj?āpāramitā sūtra—accuratelyrendered by Zhi Chen in his version，the Daoxing?jing盗行经—does eventually suggest an Indian background.The Chinese has：“The cakravartin king roams from one observatory to another，and from birth to death never does he set his foot on the ground”遮迦越王从一观复游一观，从生至终足不蹈地。[28]The Sanskrit goes along quite well，and places even more emphasis on the absence of contact of the cakravartin＇s feet with the earth＇s surface.[29]
It would seem，then，that a mythical paradigm of universal monarch，endowed with superhuman powers，was well attested in the Buddhist literature introduced in China between the 2nd and the 4th?centuries.But what should we make of it？At first sight，one may wonder whether the Flying Cakravartins of the ilk of Mahāsudarsana and Mūrdhajāta，and the very ideal of world emperorship based on Dharma，could ever be more than an exotic footnote to the Chinese doctrine of the Son of Heaven（tianzi天子），with its expansions in Confucian and Taoist ritual.[30]Such a reading，however，would fail to catch the inherently antinomian nature of the Wheel－Turning king，which has been spectacularly misconstrued in significant swaths of modern scholarship.[31]We have seen that the cakravartin of ancient Buddhist literature，and as it was known in the early period of Chinese Buddhism，was in fact a sovereign of past kalpas，locked out of history and thereby devoid of any political ascendancy.His main rhetorical function seems to have been to offer a convenient foil for the Buddha as the only rightful claimant to universal kingship in our age，albeit of a purely spiritual kind.Put another way，he was an allegorical reminder that world rulership is not of this world：the grandest monarch is not as good as the one who forsakes the immensity of his power to embrace the renunciant＇s life.[32]Paradoxically，then，the original Buddhist cakravartin reveals itself as a canonical pendant to the Royal Ascetic，but shorn of the ambiguities of the latter and unyielding to secular imitation.The Wheel－Turning king should be seen instead as a symbol of ancient Buddhism＇s demurral at worldly politics，and it is consonant with this image that the early scriptural formulations of the cakravartin ideal should make no room for the samgha as an interlocutor of the ruler.
However，ushered in by sweeping changes in Buddhist political thought and ideas of kingship，the monastic community would eventually start claiming just that role.
[1]One is reminded of the two great works of Asvaghova（fl.early 2nd c.CE？），the Buddhacarita and the Saundarananda，which can in fact be read as literary models of renunciation for noble Indians.On the intimate relationship between courtly life and Buddhist asceticism see the insightful discussion in Ali 1998.According to Ali，“Buddhism spoke directly to the courtly societies of early India—and this articulation would explain，as it were，its currency in such world”（1998：181）.He argues that Buddhist asceticism acted as a counterpoint to the hedonistic“technologies of the self”（a notion he borrows from Foucault）reflected in such works as Vātsyāyana＇s Kāmasūtra，which were addressed to an urban readership.Particularly convincing is the parallel he draws between the?Kāmasūtra＇s directions on hedonistic self－cultivation and the Vinaya（Cullavagga）prescriptions on self－restraint；the two sets mirror each other and imply a common world.A difficulty in putting Ali＇s remarks to use lies in their loose reference to an“early Indian”culture—a fuzzy sweep of some six centuries，stretching from the Maurya age to after the Kuvāoas—which remains chronologically and geographically indistinct.This vagueness is，of course，the general curse of ancient Indian history.
[2] See among others Przyluski 1929；Sastri 1940.
[3] D iii，no.26；tr.Rhys Davids 1965；cf.also Strong 1983：45－49；Nattier 1991：13－15.
[4]For summaries of the scattered literature on the cakravartin see Spellman 1964：173－175；Gonda 1966：60－61，123－128.In spite of its being a literary cliché of kingship，the epithet of cakravartin is not expressly found in the historical and archaeological record of ancient India in connection to actual rulers.Touching upon the issue in a recent study，Oskar von Hinüber（2010：52 and n.56）cannot name a single example，but he mentions the Kalilga king Khāravela as someone“who may［A.P.＇s italics］have considered himself a cakravartin”in view of the wording of the final line of his Hāthīgumphā inscription，variously dated to the late first century BCE or the early first century CE.Equally meagre is the iconographical evidence.As John M.Rosenfield could point out，images of the cakravartin with his distinctive emblems are found in significant number among the reliefs（1st－3rdc.CE）at Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunikooda in thendhra region（Deccan），but nowhere else across India，not even in the copious Buddhist art of Mathurā：see Rosenfield 1967：176；cf.Verardi 1983.
[5]These werethe Zhuanlun wang jing转猎王经，being sūtra no.70 inthe Zhong ahan jing中阿喊经（T vol.1 no.26，15.520b16－525a3），translated by by Gautama Samghadeva（Qutan Sengqietipo瞿昙僧伽提［var.揥］婆，fl.384－398）in 397－398；and the Zhuanlun shengwang xiuxing jing转猎圣王修行经，being sūtra no.6 intheChang?ahan jing裳阿喊经（T vol.1 no.1，6.39a21－42b19），translated by Buddhayasas佛陀耶舍（fl.ca.350－413）and Zhu Fonian竺佛念（fl.383－413）in 413.
[6] T vol.12 no.350；German translation，with extensive critical apparatus，in Weller 1987.On Zhi Chen／Lokakvema＇s translation see Harrison 1993：162－163；Nattier 2008：84.
[7]On this translation see Harrison 1993：150－151；Nattier 2008：85.For the relevant passagesee Dun zhenduoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing，3.363b10－21.
[8] See Zürcher 1977 and 1991：279－282.
[9]I discuss the observance of taboo characters in Han translations in a study in progress.The reader，however，will notice the unusual distribution of the character zhi志，which was the personal name of emperor Huandi，and of its taboo replacement yi意in the translations safely attributed to An Shigao and Zhi Chen.
[10]See their respective biographies in Chusanzang?ji?ji，13.97b14－c18 and 13.96a29－97a17.
[11] Probably editing and polishing a previous，lost translation of the Han period：see Palumbo 2003：204－207.
[12]See Taizi ruiying benqi jing，1.473b3－7.
[13] For the attribution of this translation to Zhi Qian see Nattier 2008：126－128.
[14]See Bannihuanjing，2.185c3 ff.
[15]The text of the Fengfa?yao is in Hongming?ji，13.86a23－89b2；an English translation is in Zürcher 2007：164－176.
[16]See Hongming?ji，13.88c17－19，and cf.Taizi ruiying?benqi?jing，2.479c27－28；Hongming?ji，13.87a13－，87b2527，88a13，88c25－26，and cf.Bannihuan jing，1.181a25－26－－，1.181b13，2.189b2223，1.181a21.On Xi Chao see Zürcher 2007：134－135.
[17]For the story of Mūrdhajāta（best known as Māndhātr in Indian sources）see Liudu ji?jing，4.21c8－22b15；French translation in Chavannes 1910－：137142.For its separate version（probably late 3rd－early 4thc.）see T vol.1 no.40.
[18] Cf.Zürcher 1991：292.
[19] Cf.e.g.Mochizuki 1954－63，vol.4，pp.3826a－3827c；Nakamura 1981：1127c；Oda 2000：1459c.
[20]Bannihuan jing，2.185c9－10.
[21]Zhong?benqi?jing，2.160c9－10.The received text includes three glosses explaining Indic terms in“the language of Jin”晋言，suggesting a date after 266；its terminology（e.g.the items in the Eightfold Path）is generally close to translations produced in southern China after Zhi Qian，and a number of textual overlaps（e.g.with T.109 and T.210）point to rather heavyhdd ditig li i td i Xi Ch＇－aneen；onenesquoenaos Fengfayao（cf.Zhong?benqi?jing，1.160c21 and Hongming?ji，13.88a10－11），suggesting that some form of the scripture was known at the Jin court in the third quarter of the 4th c.
[22]See Apitan?piposha?lun，7.48c15－21.This is evidently a sketch of the same story developed at length in the Pāli Nimijātaka，of typically undecided date，on which see Braarvig 2009：279－280.The composition of the Mahā－vibhāvā－sāstra is traditionally placed under the reign of the Kuvāoa king Kanivka（early 2nd c.CE）on the basis of a late tradition reported by Xuanzang玄奘（d.664），but internal evidence tells otherwise.One passage，in particular，contrasts the local kinglet of Mathurā to the Kuvāoa，depicted as regional rulers（see Apitan?piposha?lun，14.101a16－18）；this suggests a date between the Kuvāoa loss of that city around 280 CE and the conquest of Mathurā by the Gupta emperor Samudragupta（r.ca.335－375）at some point before ca.350 CE，with a greater likelihood for the first half of this period（ca.280－320）.
[23]Gaoseng Faxian zhuan，p.863b26－27.
[24] Cf.Beal 1884，vol.1，p.lxiv；Deeg 2005：556.
[25]See e.g.Chang?ahan jing，3.21c17，21；6.40a1.
[26] See Gonda 1966：123.
[27]Zhude futian jing，p.777b23－24.
[28]Daoxing banruo jing，6.458a21－22.
[29]See the text ed.by P.L.Vaidya，1960，p.181（rājā cakravartīm prāsādātprāsādam?samkrāmet，sa yāvajjīvam pādatalābhyām dharaoītalam nākrāmet，sa yāvanmaraoāvasthāyām bhūmitalam pabhdyāmanākramya kālam kuryāt），and cf.thetranslation in Conze 1973220hr ：，weeprāsāda i ndrtood suesas“palace”，while Zhi Chen would evidently take it in the sense of“terrace，elevated place”（“observatory”in my translation）.
[30] On the Son of Heaven and traditional Chinese conceptions of kingship see，among many others，Soothill 1951；Ching 1997：1－66；Chen 2002.Seidel 1983 is a brilliant exploration of the common ground behind imperial and Taoist rituals of empowerment.
[31]The notion that early Buddhist texts held in the cakravartin a bona fide ideal of universal kingship，to be emulated by real rulers，is simply ubiquitous，and appears to be shared by many of the studies we have already encountered（e.g.Gokhale 1966，Lingat 1989，von Hinüber 2010）.Perhaps the most explicit upholder of this view is Stanley Tambiah，whose discussion of the notion of the Wheel－Turning king in ancient Buddhism culminates in his defining it as a“grand imperial conception”，by means of which“the way was made open for Buddhist monarchs actually to found“world empires”on a scale hitherto unknown in India or，in face of an inability to found them for logistical reasons，at least to stake imperial claims”；see Tambiah 1976：52.We look forward to the evidence supporting such statements.
[32]An unambiguous presentation of this view is given in the Faju?piyu?jing法句譬喻经，a collection of parables illustrating the verses of the Dharmapada，translated around 300 CE.In one of the stories，speaking before an audience of royalty and nobles，the Buddha explains that because of three negative factors—arrogance，greed，lustfulness—kings and princes cannot achieve the path of liberation through the ascetic life of the sramaoa.He goes on explaining that the reason why bodhisattvas are born as kings is precisely in order to remove these three causes，and tells the story of his own previous incarnation as an all－powerful cakravartin（predictably able to fly飞行虚空），who，at the thought of impermanence looming even over his 84，000－year lifespan，relinquished the throne and became an ascetic.See Faju?piyu?jing，4.608a18－c12；cf.Willemen 1999：219－222（with some misunderstandings）；Kamitsuka 2001，vol.2，pp.145－149.
Asoka and the Political Transformation of the Universal Ruler
A very different type of monarch stands next to the cakravartin，sometimes in the same sūtras.He is embodied in a handful of royal well－wishers of the samgha—Prasenajit，Bimbisāra，Ajātasatru，and the somewhat later Udayana—who lived in the time of the Buddha and reverenced him.[1]Unlike the cakravartins，these kings are depicted as ruling in“historical”times over relatively small Gangetic states—Kosala，Magadha，Vatsa—and offering patronage to the monastic community.They are scarcely mentioned in the oldest translations in China，though already by the 3rd c.their names would resonate with increasing frequency.[2]What is important for us here is that they represent a major departure from our first two models，and especially from the leery attitude，those“feelings of disquiet，bordering on fear”[3]that the ancient Buddhist communities appear to have held vis－ā－vis the state，at least as reflected in canonical literature.In early Buddhist texts and in their Chinese parallels，the king with his functionaries（rāja） features in fact as one of the major sources of misfortune for the monk together with fire，floods and bandits.[4]The royal contemporaries of the Buddha，then，should probably be seen as the first attempt of the samgha to profile in scripture a benign kind of fictional ruler，and come to terms with his daunting counterpart in the real world.
The significance of Prasenajit and the others as exemplary Buddhist kings，however，must have been uncertain even in India itself；apart from the limited appeal they could convey as minor rulers of a distant age，their very close association with the Buddha left little use for them in a world where the Blessed One was no longer around.It took a different and far more threatening challenge for Buddhism to develop a full－fledged political myth，that would eventually make its way to the Chinese courts.
This has to do，in India，with the cultural reactions sparked by the Kuvāoa domination in the 2nd c.CE over an area stretching from Gandhāra to Pātaliputra，an age marked by the rapid expansion of Buddhism，but also followed by a nativist revival of Brahmanical values and social models.[5]Especially in northwest India and following the decline of Kuvāoa rule，embattled under the backlash of Brahmanical culture，the Buddhists are forced towards monarchic power as the only viable antidote against the strictures of the caste system.This is the time when in many?sūtras the king replaces the?kvatriyaas the stock positive character，as noted long ago by Tomomatsu Entai.[6]It is，however，especially outside the sūtras，in the avadāna literature，that Buddhism fashions its royal champions among historical figures including not only Asoka，but also the Kuvāoa kings Kanivka and Huvivka as well as several minor Indo－Scythian rulers；the KalpanāmaoditikāDrvtāntapalkti of Kumāralāta（ca.300－325）—translated in Chinese as Zhuangyan?lun庄严论（T vol.4 no.201），possibly towards the end of the 4th c.—is a most telling witness to the new course，featuring as it does a whole gallery of monarchs，crucially lifted from the recent past，and fictionalized as devout supporters of the clergy.[7]
It is probably again in the long transition from the Kuvāoa to the Gupta dynasties（ca.230－320）that the ideal of the cakravartin?becomes secularized，as it were，and put to the political service of the samgha.The Abhidharma literature，in particular，starts making room for progressively less perfect Wheel－Rollers.In his Abhidharma－kosa，Vasubandhu（late 4th c.？），drawing on the older Kāraoapraj?aptisāstra?of the Sarvāstivāda，[8]lays out the theory of four different kinds of cakravartins，respectively endowed with wheels of gold，silver，copper and iron，and ruling over four，three，two，or just one continent.[9]The theory is referred to in the early 5th－c.Chinese translation of the Sarvāstivāda Mahā－vibhāvā－sāstra（ca.280－320 CE），[10]but it must have been known in China already under the Eastern Jin晋（317－420），and probably at the southern court in Jiankang，since it is mentioned in a translation of that period，the Shier you?jing十二游经（T vol.4 no.195），[11]which is repeatedly quoted in the Shijia?pu释迦谱（T vol.50 no.2040）and the Jinglüyixiang经律异相（T vol.53 no.2121），two Buddhist anthologies compiled at the palace library respectively in the early 490s and shortly after 516.[12]
The doctrine of the Iron－Wheel cakravartin，ruling over one continent，provides the background for the single most important political myth of medieval Buddhism，the legend of king Asoka，which magnified in fiction vague historical memories of the Maurya emperor Piyadasi（r.ca.268－232 BCE）and of his favour toward the dhamma.[13]In a seminal though now largely outdated study，Jean Przyluski was willing to assign the core of the Indian tradition to as early as the late 2nd c.BCE；[14]but this dating has little to recommend it，as it takes as a terminus antequem the alleged representation of scenes from the cycle on the lintels of the Sācī stūpa，an evidently indecisive argument.[15]
Asoka＇s grand deed is the distribution of the relics of the Buddha all across Jambudvīpa through the simultaneous erection of 84，000 stūpas，a self－contained episode that may well go back to the oldest layers of the legend，as it occurs already in the closing stanzas of the Buddhacarita of Asvaghova（fl.early 2nd c.CE？）.[16]
However，it is in the added subplots of somewhat later versions that the royal character displays its most interesting traits.The legend finds its fully developed expression in four consecutive chapters（XXVI－XXIX）of the Divyāvadāna，a Sanskrit collection of Buddhist stories of probably Gupta origin，[17]along with its three Chinese parallels：the Ayu?wang?zhuan阿育王传（Account of King Asoka），[18]a translation of problematic date，as we shall see；the Ayu?wang?jing阿育王经（Scripture of King Asoka），[19]translated in 512 by Samghavara（Sengqiepoluo僧伽婆罗，460－524）；and the long Asoka“sūtras”embedded in the Za ahan?jing杂阿喊经，a Samyuktāgama translated by Guoabhadra（Qiunabatuolo陷那跋陀罗，398－464）in 435－436.[20]It is in these expanded narratives that Asoka emerges as the leading literary archetype of Buddhist kingship.With him，the cakravartin myth is ferried for the first time into human history，conveying the politically fecund oxymoron of a Buddhist rulership that is limited and universal at the same time：Asoka is an Iron－Wheel cakravartin governing over only one fourth of the world，but his sovereignty is made universal by his support of the Dharma and the samgha.[21]This ecclesial view，depicting the Maurya emperor as the chief devotee and supporter of the Buddhist clergy，deferring to its leaders and exhausting his wealth in donations to the monks，is the distinctive trait of the long narratives in Pāli，Sanskrit and Chinese.[22]
When did the legend enter China，and how was it received？There is apparently no trace of it before the 4th c.The Ayu?wang?zhuan（T.2042），whose version of the story broadly matches the Divyāvadāna?chapters，[23]is not quoted or indeed mentioned anywhere before its emergence in the Lidai sanbao?ji历代三虹纪（completed in 598），which assigns its translation to one An Faqin安法钦in 306.[24]A silence of nearly three centuries and the notorious imprecision of Fei Zhangfang＇s费裳防catalogue are not the main reasons to reject this attribution，for the translation itself displays a terminology that is only seen after the work of Kumārajīva（Jiumoluoshi鸠蘑罗什，ca.360－413）in the early 5th c.[25]
