The Mauryan Polity c5.s1: Sec. i. The Evidence of the Purāṇas

The Mauryan Polity c5.s1

Language: English

Sec. i. The Evidence of the Purāṇas

c5.s1.1

Historians of Ancient India generally classify the original authorities for the early history of India into four definite divisions: (1) tradition mainly based on literary records, (2) contemporary literature, (3) notes and accounts of foreigners who visited India, and (4) archæological evidence.¹ Let us take up these sources one by one and categorically examine their value in reconstructing the Mauryan epoch of Indian History, especially its administrative side. Though the ancient Hindus did not possess the so-called historical sense in that they had not left accounts of the different members of a dynasty with dates of their accession and succession together with their activities in chronological order, still they had an historical outlook and a geographical outlook as well. Much is spoken to-day of the value of geographical studies and their importance to the historian. A similar study of geography coupled with history was attempted with success by the composers of the Purāṇic literature. Each of the eighteen Mahāpurāṇas, called such because there were numbers of other smaller purāṇas (in later days even the Sthalamāhātmyas became included into this class), deals, though not systematically, with five main topics (pañcalakṣaṇa), namely, primary creation (sarga), secondary creation (pratisarga), genealogies of gods and patriarchs (vaṃśa), reigns of various Manus (manvantara), and the history of the old dynasties of kings (vaṃśānucarita).¹ In a recent valuable work of Von Willibald Kirfel entitled "*Das Purāṇa Pañcalakṣaṇa*"² an attempt is made to group together the common texts of these purāṇas on the five main topics. An early endeavour in this direction was made by F. E. Pargiter who in his works "*Ancient Indian Historical Tradition*" and "*Purāṇa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age*" was concerned chiefly with the last of the five topics of this class. Reducing these five topics for the sake of convenience to two—creation of the universe and the genealogy of gods and kings—we find the principal aim of the purāṇas to be a comprehensive study of the geography and the history of the then known world. The first two out of the five deal with the earth and its surface, atmosphere, climate, land and water forms, geography of vegetation and animal life including the habitations of man. The last three topics are the history of gods, of Manu the first king and of the other later kings. From this the object of the Purāṇa literature is evident that it is to impart a knowledge of the geography and the history of the land. If we are permitted to make a conjecture, the ancient writers conceived that a study of geography, i.e., the various phenomena of nature precedes any study of history. Having thrown open the study of these purāṇas to the members of all castes and creeds it seems that the Purāṇic writers of Ancient India expected every citizen of the land first to acquaint himself or herself with a scientific knowledge of the historical geography of the land.

c5.s1.2

¹ See V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 4th Ed., p. 9 ff.

c5.s1.3

¹ Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 301.

c5.s1.4

² Kurt Schroeder, Bonn 1927.

c5.s1.5

If this position be granted, the Purāṇas are to be treated as the most systematic records which transmit ancient Indian historical tradition. No doubt the accounts are in certain places embellished unduly and sometimes unnaturally. Omitting such embellishments, the fact remains that any scientific historian of India can have ample materials which, if properly investigated, would go a long way to fill in the gaps left here and there in the various epochs of ancient history. The researches of Bühler have led him to conclude that inasmuch as Vāyu, Viṣṇu, Matsya, and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas refer to royal dynasties including that of the Guptas, they may be styled as historical Purāṇas.¹ The Bhāgavata Purāṇa takes us a little further and deals with post-Gupta dynasties also. These purāṇas above mentioned are invaluable to our study, for they transmit the Kauṭalīyan tradition, namely, Kauṭalya helped Candragupta, the first Mauryan King in establishing his rule by defeating the reigning king of the Nanda dynasty. Further these purāṇas enable us to add much to the history of the pre-Mauryan India by way of information.

c5.s1.6

¹ Ind. Ant. XXV, 1896, pp. 323-28.

c5.s1.7

According to this source of information the Nandas reigned the earth only for one hundred years and were succeeded by the Mauryas. This change in dynasty was effected with the help of a Brahman Kauṭalya by name. The latter had Candragupta anointed as King. The Mauryan kings reigned for 137 years and then the Government passed into the hands of the Śuṅgas. Collating all the purāṇic materials available the following is the categorical list of the 13 kings of the Mauryan dynasty with respective periods of their rule:—

c5.s1.8

c5.s1.9

But some purāṇas like the Matsya and the Vāyu¹ mention nine kings of the dynasty omitting four names Daśona, Daśaratha, Samprati, and Śaliśuka and bring the reigning time of the dynasty to 137 years though it is actually 133 years.

c5.s1.10

¹ uddhariṣyati tān sarvān Kauṭilyo vai dviraṣṭabhiḥ| bhuktvā mahīm varṣaśatam nandenduḥ sa bhaviṣyati|| Candraguptam nṛpam rājye Kauṭilyaḥ sthāpayiṣyati| caturviṃśat samā rājā Candragupto bhaviṣyati|| bhavitā Bhadrasārastu pañcaviṃśatsamā nṛpaḥ| ṣaḍviṃśattu samā Aśoko bhavitā nṛṣu|| tasya putraḥ Kunālastu varṣānaṣṭau bhaviṣyati| Kunālasūnuraṣṭau ca bhoktā vai Bandhupālitaḥ|| Bandhupālitadāyādo daśamānīndrapālitaḥ| bhavitā saptavarṣāṇi Devavarmā narādhipaḥ|| rājā Śatadharaścāṣṭau tasya putro bhaviṣyati| Bṛhadaśvaśca varṣāṇi sapta vai bhavitā nṛpaḥ||

c5.s1.11

¹ Purāṇa Text of Dynasties of Kali Age, p. 26.

c5.s1.12

Though the extant purāṇas do not agree in certain details and however conflicting the accounts may be, they have done a distinct service by mentioning at least the names of the various kings of the dynasty. Pargiter has remarked rather doubtfully that the account of this dynasty suffered more than that of any other and that this was because its great fame in Buddhism disgraced it in Brahmanical eyes. There is no warrant for this supposition. It is yet a problem whether the Mauryas won great fame in Buddhism as Pargiter would have it. Our investigation into the subject leads to a different view. It is a controversial point to which we shall revert in a later chapter. Granting for our present purpose that Aśoka was a Buddhist by conviction can we conclude on this account that all the Mauryan monarchs favoured Buddhism? Surely Aśoka cannot be taken to represent all the Mauryan dynasty. There are other monarchs equally great and equally tolerant and generally accepted to be non-Buddhists. Thus the argument of Pargiter is a mere assumption and lacks the support of tangible evidence. It is again unconvincing. A remarkable circumstance in this connection is that the successors of the Mauryan dynasty, namely, the Śuṅgas and Kaṇvas or Kaṇvayānas are generally believed to be Brahmanical in their outlook and policy. This view is also shared by Pargiter. Do we get any

c5.s1.13

ityete nava bhūpā ye bhokṣyanti ca vasundharām|
saptatriṃśacchatam pūrṇam tebhya śuṅgān gamiṣyati||
—Vāyu, Ch. 99, st. 330-36.
cp. Matsya, Ch. 272, st. 22-26.

c5.s1.14

more detail of these dynasties than that of the Mauryan dynasty? The accounts here are nothing more nor anything less than those for the Mauryan dynasty. Therefore to characterise the account of this particular dynasty as having suffered in the hands of its writers is to strain possibilities far too much.

Linked texts (2)

Vāyupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Matsyapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit