Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya: Difference between revisions

The ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire, is debated.

For two centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early India. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottos is one element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded.^[1] The indologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were reluctant to believe in the veracity of Indian accounts of the past or to accept the extraordinary antiquity of Indian history. Arthur A. MacDonell wrote,^{[citation needed]}

Early India wrote no history because it never made any. The ancient Indians never went through a struggle for life like the Greeks, the Persians and the Romans. Secondly, the Brahmanas early embraced the doctrine that all action and existence are a positive evil and could therefore have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events.

Later scholars took the identity of Sandrokottos with Chandragupta Maurya as proven and carried on further research. James Prinsep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassin. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassin was used as another name of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing this name of Asoka was not found until the time of Turnour. In 1838, Prinsep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings, successors of Alexander, living in the third century BCE, who were contemporary with Asoka.

• "The Greek records mention the kings before and after Sandracottus to be Xandramas and Sandrocyptus^{[citation needed]}. The kings before and after Chandragupta Maurya were: Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara. The kings before and after Chandragupta Gupta were: Chandramas and Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity is quite apparent for Chandragupta Gupta and not Maurya."

On the contrary, Strabo properly identifies both Sandragupta and his son Bindusara "Amitraghata" (Slayer of Enemies), and connects them to the 3rd century ambassadors Megasthenes and Deimakos sent to their courts:

"Both of these men were sent ambassadors to Palimbothra (Pataliputra): Megasthenes to Sandrocottus ("Chandragupta"), Deimakos to Allitrochades ("Amitraghata") his son" (Strabo II, I, 9).^[2] Also Plutarch directly connects Chandragupta to Alexander himself::"Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3.^[3]

• "Greek records are silent about important figures like: Chanakya, Ashoka (whose kingdom was much larger than his Grandfather Chandragupta's.)"

• "Greek records do not clearly mention the presence of Buddhist monks who were very common in Maurya time". There are actually many Greek accounts of sramanas which are thought to correspond to them.

• An alleged "inscription on a Greek Tomb has: 'Here lies Indian Sramanacharya, Shakya monk from Bodh Gaya'.^[4] The exact circumstances of this event are connected to 10 CE instead. Nicolaus of Damascus is famous for his account of an embassy sent by an Indian king "named Pandion (Pandyan kingdom?) or, according to others, Porus" to Caesar Augustus around 13 CE. He met with the embassy at Antioch. The embassy was bearing a diplomatic letter in Greek, and one of its members was a "Sarmano" (Σαρμανο) who burnt himself alive in Athens to demonstrate his faith. The event made a sensation and was quoted by Strabo^[3] and Dio Cassius.^[4] A tomb was made for the "Sarmano", still visible in the time of Plutarch, which bore the mention "ΖΑΡΜΑΝΟΧΗΓΑΣ ΙΝΔΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΒΑΡΓΟΣΗΣ" (Zarmanochēgas Indos apo Bargosēs – The sramana master from Barygaza in India).

• Allegedly, "the names of contemporary kings found on Ashokan inscriptions are Antiyoka, Tulamaya, etc. Antiyoka ruled Afghanistan around 1475 BC, which then appears to be the approximate date of Ashoka. (the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta.)" ^{[citation needed]} On the contrary, it is usually thought that the edict in question mentions Western Greek kings during the time of Ashoka:

"Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas (4,000 miles)) away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni." Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika)

In the Gandhari version Antiochos is referred as "Antiyoko nama Yona-raja" (lit. "The Greek king by the name of Antiochos"), beyond whom live the four other kings: "param ca tena Atiyokena cature 4 rajani Turamaye nama Antikini nama Maka nama Alikasudaro nama" (lit. "And beyond Antiochus, four kings by the name of Ptolemy, the name of Antigonos, the name of Magas, the name Alexander" Gandhari original of Edict No13 (Greek kings: Paragraph 9): [5]

According to Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottos and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottos. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts. However, as is seen in the case of Amitraghata (Bindusara), Greek sources mention a secondary (Sanskritic) name of Indian kings.

In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BCE to 2nd century CE. None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya's work on polity is an important Indian document on this subject. According to tradition, it was with his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent missionaries to the Yavana countries. But both are not mentioned in Greek sources by these names. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkhus though that was the flourishing religion of that time due to the royal patronage of Asoka.

Some Indian literary traditions connect him with the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India. The Sanskrit drama Mudrarakashasa not only calls him Mauryaputra (Act II) but also a Nandanvaya (Act IV). Dhundiraja, a commentator of 18th century on Mudrarakshas states that Chandragupta was son of Maurya who in turn, was son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by a wife named Mura, daughter of a Vrishala (shudra). Mudrarakshas especially uses terms like kula-hina and Vrishala for Chandragupta's lineage. This reinforces Justin's contention that Chandragupta had a humble origin.^[5][6] On the other hand, the same play describes the Nandas as of Prathita-kula i.e. illustrious lineage. The commentator on the Vishnu Purana informs us that Chandragupta was son of a Nanda prince and a [dasi] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (English: maid), Mura. Pandit Kshmendra and Somadeva call him Purvananda-suta, son of genuine Nanda as opposed to Yoga-Nanda i.e. pseudo Nanda.

Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Both the Buddhist as well as Jaina traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock). While the Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the Peacock clan (Moriya), the Jaina tradition on the other hand, refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).^[7] This view suggests a degraded background of Chandragupta. (The same Jain tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan).

According to some scholars, there are some monumental evidence connecting the Mauryas with peacocks. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh bears on its bottom the figures of a peacock which is repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi.^[8] According to Turnour,^[9] Buddhist tradition also testifies to the connection between Moriya and Mora or Mayura or peacock. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra. But scholars like Foucher^[10] do not regard these birds as a sort of canting badge for the dynasty of Mauryas. They prefer to imagine in them a possible allusion to the Mora Jataka. Moreover, besides the peacocks, there were also other birds like pheasants, parrots as well as a variety of fishes etc. also kept in the parks and water pools of the Mauryas.

Yet there are other literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya (warrior) clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana located between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Tradition suggests that this clan was reduced to great straights in the 4th century BCE under Magadhan rule, and young Chandragupta grew up among the peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters.

The Buddhist text of the Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a scion of the Khattya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana^[11] calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta^[12] of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas (Mauryas) belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta may have come from a Kshatriya lineage.

The Mahavamshatika connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e. solar race.^[13]

A medieval age inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas.^[14] It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race.^[15]

Although most of the sources claim Chandragupta to be of east Indian origin, additional views have been proposed by an alternative school of scholars.

These scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamise (Hindu Kush) who had helped Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns.^[16] During Alexander's campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the tribals, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas.^[17] Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e. Mor hill---the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisade region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (q.v.). It is claimed that since Chandragupta Maurya could have belonged to Mor (Meros of classical writings) hence he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.^[18][19]

Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind".^[20] Although this theory contradicts Mudrarakshasa, which talks about Malayketu forming an alliance with Persians not Chandragupta. As per the Mudrarakshasa, Malayketu, together with Rakshasa, the last minister of Nanda and his Persian allies wanted to invade Pataliputra, the capital of Chandragupta, though their alliance was undone by Chanakya, who managed to attract Rakshasa to the Maurya side.

See main article: Saśigupta.

A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity^[21] in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers^[22] in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jatts still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.^[23]

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan.^[24]

Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Template:Link FA