Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c4: Chapter I: Origin and Early Life

Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c4

Language
English

Chapter I: Origin and Early Life

c4.2

**Chandragupta’s Achievements: His Historicity.** Chandragupta Maurya ranks as one of India’s greatest rulers. There are many titles to his greatness which, in several respects, is found to be even unique. He figures as the first ‘historical’ emperor of India in the sense that he is the earliest emperor in Indian History whose historicity can be established on the solid ground of ascertained chronology.

c4.3

**Earlier Emperors.** India had seen many great kings and emperors before him like Mahāpadma, Nanda, Ajātaśatru, or Bimbisāra whose reign was enlivened by the moving personality of the great Buddha. And even before these we read in the texts of earlier emperors with high-sounding titles acquired by conquests and formally conferred upon them with appropriate religious ceremonies announcing such achievements. Indeed, the tradition of such great kings and emperors goes back to the Vedas. The *Ṛigveda* tells of Sudās who had achieved his overlordship of Ṛigvedic India by his victory at the Battle of Ten Kings (*Dāśa-rājña*) [*Ṛv.* VIII. 33, 2, 5; 83, 8], representing about forty different Ṛigvedic peoples.

c4.4

**Terms and Ceremonies of Imperialism.** The conception of paramount power and imperial sovereignty was so well established even in these early days that it expressed itself in appropriate technical terms, such as *Adhirāja*, *Rājādhirāja*, or *Samrāt*, liberally used in the Vedic texts. The *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* [VIII. 15] even uses the more significant term, *Ekarāṭ*, and, together with the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* [XIII. 5, 4], enthuses over the 'world-wide' conquests of the two Bharata kings, Dauḥshanti and Sātrājita Śatānīka, stating that "the great deeds of Bharata neither men before or after him attained, as the sky a man with his hands". These two texts also mention as many as twelve other such great kings. Even different ceremonies are described for different grades of kingship: the *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa* prescribes *Rājasūya* for the *Rājā*, *Vājapeya* for the *Samrāt*, *Aśvamedha* for the *Svarāt*, *Purushamedha* for *Virāṭ*, and *Sarvamedha* for *Sarvarāṭ*, while the *Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra* [XX. 1, 1] reserves the *Aśvamedha* only for a *Sārvabhauma* sovereign.

c4.5

**Importance of Chronology.** Chandragupta follows in the wake of this imperial tradition. But in his case the tradition becomes a reality, and acquires historicity. The older kings are mere names and cannot be related definitely to space and time which alone can make them historical characters. In the case of Chandragupta, we are able for the first time in the long annals of ancient Indian kingship to locate him accurately in both time and space, and establish his history on the basis of chronology. In one sense, History is limited by Chronology, and what is history proper is chronological history, comprising an arrangement of facts in order of time. Chronology is not so essential to the history of thought or cultural history, made up, as it is, not of isolated and individual dated events, but of large movements of the spirit embracing a long interval of time, though even such cultural history must rest on and present a sequence in thought, what Max Müller has called 'the inner chronology of ideas'. But Chronology is essential to Biography. An individual cannot rank as a historical person unless his life and work are placed in time. The dates of Chandragupta's life and reign may be worked out with considerable precision.

c4.6

*Other Titles to Greatness.* We may now examine his other titles to greatness. He is the first Indian king who established his rule over an extended India, an India greater than modern British India. The boundaries of this Greater India lay far beyond the frontiers of modern India along the borders of Persia. Chandragupta is again the first of the Rulers of India to be able by his conquests to join up the valleys of the Indus and the land of the five rivers with the eastern valleys of the Ganges and the Jumna in one Empire that stretched from Aria (Herat) to Pāṭaliputra. And he is also the first Indian King who followed up this political unification of Northern India by extending his conquests beyond the barriers of the Vindhyas so as to bring both North and South under the umbrella of one paramount sovereign. Earlier in his career, he was again the first Indian leader who had to confront the distressing consequences of a European and foreign invasion of his country, the conditions of national depression and disorganisation to which it was exposed, and then to achieve the unique distinction of recovering his country's freedom from the yoke of Greek rule. It may be recalled that Alexander's invasion of India covered a period of about three years from May 327 B.C. to May 324 B.C., while it will be seen that Chandragupta was able to rid the country of all traces of Greek occupation by 323 B.C. Very few Rulers of India have to their credit the accomplishment of so much within the short time of his reign which, according to the *Purāṇas*, embraced a period of only 24 years. To crown all, Chandragupta, as the founder of the imperial Maurya dynasty, gives to India for the first time a continuous history as well as a unified history, a history affecting India as a whole, and as a unit, in the place of merely local histories involving only particular peoples and regions of India. This imperial history thus inaugurated by Chandragupta could not long survive him. It soon lost itself in local annals. The political unity of India attained under the Maurya emperors was not maintained by their successors. One political authority no longer shaped her history. India was again split up into a multitude of smaller States and Kingdoms, each having its own history.

c4.7

**Sources: Greek and Latin Works.** An advantage of Mauryan History lies in the abundance, authenticity, and variety of its sources. One of the greatest discoveries of Indian History (which we owe to Sir William Jones) is the correspondence of the Greek name Sandrocottos or Androkottos to the Indian name Chandragupta [*Asiatic Researches*, IV. p. 11]. This led to the consequential conclusion that Chandragupta was a contemporary of Alexander whom he had also personally interviewed. We get this fact from Plutarch who states: "Androkottos himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander himself.” The result of this discovery has been a bountiful crop of evidence bearing on Chandragupta Maurya and his times, furnished by the historians of Alexander’s campaigns in India. Foreign sources thus throw a flood of light on what might have remained a most obscure chapter of Indian History, though it was so glorious by its achievements. To these sources, Indian History is also indebted for what has been called ‘the sheet-anchor of its chronology,’ for the starting-point of Indian chronology is the date of Chandragupta’s accession to sovereignty.

c4.8

Of the companions of Alexander on his campaigns, three are noted for their writings on India, viz., (1) Nearchus, whom Alexander deputed to explore the coast beween the Indus and the Persian Gulf; (2) Onesicritus, who took part in the voyage of Nearchus and afterwards wrote a book about it and India; and (3) Aristobulus, whom Alexander entrusted with certain commissions in India.

c4.9

The writings of these companions of Alexander were supplemented in the third century B.C. by those of some European ambassadors who were sent by the Hellenistic kings to India. Of these, Megasthenes was unfortunately the only one who utilised his opportunities properly and has left the fullest account of India in classical literature. His account, however, is lost in the original and can be traced only in the citations of later writers among whom the following may be noted:

c4.10

¹ Strabo, who lived *c.* 64 B.C.–19 A.D. and wrote an important geographical work, of which Book XV, Chapter I, deals with India: its geography,

c4.11

manners, and customs, on the basis of material drawn from the companions of Alexander and from Megasthenes.

c4.12

2. Diodorus who lived up to 36 B.C. and wrote an account of India taken from Megasthenes.

c4.13

3. Pliny the Elder, the author of *Natural History*, an encyclopaedic work published about 75 A.D. and giving notices of India drawn from the Greek books and also recent reports of merchants.

c4.14

4. Arrian who lived up to 172 A.D., and wrote the best account of Alexander's expedition (*Anabasis*) and a tract on India, its geography, manners, and customs, drawn from Nearchus, Megasthenes, and Eratosthenes, the geographer (176-195 B.C.).

c4.15

5. Plutarch, c. 45-125 A.D., whose *Lives* includes a Life of Alexander in its chapters 57-67 and deals with India.

c4.16

6. Justin who lived in the second century A.D. and composed an *Epitome*, of which Book XII gives an account of Alexander's Campaigns in India.

c4.17

Indian Works. Besides these Latin and Greek sources, there are also Brahminical, Buddhist, and Jain sources throwing light on Chandragupta's life and times. The Brahminical sources include the *Purāṇas*, the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya, the *Mudrārākshasa* of Viśākhadatta, and, partly, works like the *Kathāsaritsāgara* of Somadeva or *Bṛihatkathāmañjarī* of Kshemendra. The Buddhist authorities are mainly *Dīpavaṁsa*, *Mahāvaṁsa*, the *Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā*, and *Mahābodhivaṁsa*. The Jain authorities are mainly *Kalpasūtra* of Bhadrabāhu and *Pariśishṭaparvan* of Hemachandra. Other minor sources, texts, inscriptions, or coins, will be indicated in the course of the narrative.

c4.18

**Age of *Arthaśāstra.*** Of the above authorities, there is a controversy regarding the *Arthaśāstra* as a document of Maurya history. Professor F. W. Thomas holds the view [*Cambridge History of India*, I. p. 467] that the date of the work “clearly falls within or near the Maurya period.” This was the view taken earlier by scholars like the late Dr. Vincent A. Smith in his *Early History of India*, Dr. H. Jacobi, and Dr. K. P. Jayaswal. This view is followed in this work. It will be seen from the contents and details of the work that, whatever might be the time of its composition in its present form, it is a picture of early conditions applicable to Mauryan India. As F. W. Thomas further points out [*Ib.* p. 474]: “Concerning the condition and organisation of the vast Maurya empire, the Greeks have provided us with a considerable body of valuable information: and, as the *Arthaśāstra* furnishes the means of describing the complete polity existing at the time, its land system, its fiscal system, its law, its social system, with some view of literature and religion, we shall not forego the opportunity, so rare in Indian history—we must wait for the time of Akbar and the *Ain-i-Akbari*—of dwelling a little on the picture.”

c4.19

**Origin.** The lineage of Chandragupta is a subject of controversy. One view holds him to be of high birth, a true-born Kshatriya eminently worthy of royalty, while the other view slanders him as a man of base birth, a Śūdra, not eligible for kingship.

c4.20

We shall have to decide this controversy by a consideration of all the evidence adduced on both sides.

c4.21

**Extracts from Classical Works.** We shall first consider the evidence of foreign authorities on account of its double advantage. Firstly, it is earliest in time, and nearest to the time of Chandragupta, and, secondly, it is based on contemporary Indian reports, the current stories and traditions on the subject gathered by some of the Greek historians at first hand.

c4.22

The following extracts are made from the classical sources as being relevant to the issue:

c4.23

(1) From Curtius (of first century A.D.): Porus (the Indian king who was defeated by Alexander in the battle of the Hydaspes and the greatest personality of the times in that region) reported to Alexander "that the present king (the Nanda king who was later to be supplanted by Chandragupta Maurya) was not merely a man originally of no distinction, but even of the very meanest condition. His father was in fact a barber" who stealthily became the queen's paramour and encompassed the assassination of the king by treachery. "Then, under the pretence of acting as guardian to the royal children, he usurped the supreme authority, and having put the young princes to death begot the present king who was detested and held cheap by his subjects."

c4.24

(2) From Diodorus: Porus informed Alexander "that the king of the Gangaridai (the Nanda king) was a man of quite worthless character and held in no respect, as he was thought to be the son of a barber."

c4.25

(3) From Plutarch: "Androkottos (Chandragupta) himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander himself and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken possession of the whole country (of 'the Gangaridai and the Prasii' under the Nanda king), since the king was hated and despised by his subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin."

c4.26

(4) From Justin (writing, as we have seen, in the second century A.D. on the basis of a Greek work of first century B.C.): "India, after Alexander's death, as if the yoke of servitude had been shaken off its neck, had put his prefects to death. Sandrocottus (Chandragupta) was the leader who achieved its freedom. He was born in humble life but was prompted to aspire to royalty by an omen. By his insolent behaviour he had offended Nandrus¹ and was ordered to be put to death when he sought safety by a speedy flight."

c4.27

¹ "*Nandrum* has been here substituted for the common reading *Alexandrum* which Gutschmid has shown to be an error" [McCrindle's *Invasion of India by Alexander*, p. 327].

c4.28

**Base Origin of Nandas.** It will be seen from these passages that none of them contains any reference to Chandragupta's lineage except the passage from Justin. Justin's statement only points out that Chandragupta was of *lowly* and *not low* or base birth, that he was a mere commoner who had no royal blood in him but who was 'aspiring for royalty.' The other passages cited indicate why Chandragupta was aspiring after royalty. They are full of aspersions on the character of the then reigning Indian king who was a man of disreputable origin, the illegitimate offspring of a barber, "detested and held cheap by his subjects.” We are further told by Plutarch that it was Chandragupta himself who had reported to Alexander the “meanness” of Nanda king’s origin. Does not this statement itself definitely demonstrate that Chandragupta himself was of no mean origin? Ancestral “meanness” will then be also his by descent. Thus Chandragupta by his own statement frees himself from any taint of relationship to a disreputable royalty as well as any mean origin for himself. The passages cited above only show how the political conditions of the times were paving Chandragupta’s way to royalty after which he was thus naturally “aspiring.”

c4.29

Thus the evidence of foreign sources based upon the reports of the Indians of the day and the stories then current in the country does not at all contain any insinuations as to the supposed base birth or disreputable origin of Chandragupta. On the contrary, that evidence imputes it to the then reigning Indian king of ‘Eastern’ India and describes the consequent weakness of his position, inviting his overthrow. At first, Chandragupta thought that Alexander might easily displace him, considering how he lacked the best defence and protection that a king could have, the love of his people. For the people’s feelings were outraged by the usurpation of sovereignty by a man of low origin, the son of a barber, and a Sūdra, and a murderer to boot of the last lawful sovereign, and a man of an equally low character possessed of an inherently “wicked disposition.” When Chandragupta found that Alexander was out of the way and unable to carry further his conquests and exploit in any way the political situation prevailing in Nanda’s empire, he himself thought of undertaking that task and was inspired by 'aspiration after royalty', as stated by Justin. But how could he undertake that mission if he was himself not free of the taint which made Nanda so unpopular? If he had to seek the support of the people in ridding the country of its despicable usurper, and count on their moral opinion outraged by Nanda's disreputable origin and doings, he could not hope to do so without having a clean record of lineage for himself. One who was making political capital out of the base birth of his rival could not himself be base-born. Justin also makes Chandragupta free of any trace of royal or even aristocratic blood, far less of any connexion, remote or illegitimate, with the Nanda kings, which some later Sanskrit traditions seek to ascribe to him. He was not out to oust the Nanda king as any jealous kinsman of his. He was out only to free his country from the dearly despised domination of the Nanda king, as an instrument of his people's will, as he had already freed the country from the yoke of foreign rule.

c4.30

If, then, the trustworthy foreign histories based on Indian evidence collected at first hand are innocent of all uncomplimentary references to Chandragupta's lineage, who first started the story of his disreputable origin? A careful analysis of all available evidence will show that the source of this story is rather out of the way and not quite authentic.

c4.31

We shall now examine all the Indian texts on the subject, Brahminical, Buddhist, and Jain.

c4.32

**Evidence of '*Purāṇas*'.** The principal Brahminical text is that of the *Purāṇas*. It will be seen that the *Purāṇas* are more concerned with the origin of the Nanda kings than that of Chandragupta. They are very much concerned at the ending of Kshatriya rule in the country and its displacement by a Śūdra rule under the Nandas whom they openly brand as *adhārmikās*, 'immoral people.' The founder of the Nanda dynasty is described as the 'offspring of a Śūdra woman' (*Śūdrāgarbhodbhavaḥ*) and a 'Mahāpadmapati,' 'exceedingly avaricious', as translated by H. H. Wilson. According to the commentator, the term *Mahāpadma* may mean limitless army or limitless wealth amounting to 100,000 millions [Wilson's *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, p. 184].

c4.33

The *Purāṇas* tell us that the previous Śiśunāga kings were Kshatriyas (*Kshatra-bāndhavaḥ*). They were followed by the nine Nandas, Mahāpadma Nanda and his eight sons. Mahāpadma became 'a second Paraśurāma', as 'the exterminator of the entire Kshatriya race' (*sarvakshatrāntakaḥ*), 'one who uprooted all Kshatriyas (*sarvakshatrānuddhṛitya*), 'the destroyer of Kshatriyas' (*Kshatravināśakṛit*), and established himself as 'the sole sovereign of the realm' (*eka-rāṭ*) placed 'under the umbrella of one authority (*eka-chchhatrām*) which no one could challenge' (*anullaṅghita-śāsanaḥ*). Then the *Purāṇas* state that this race of "irreligious" kings "will be uprooted by a certain Dvija", "the Brāhmaṇa Kauṭilya", and that "Kauṭilya will anoint Chandragupta as the sovereign of the realm" (*rājye-abhishekshyati*).

c4.34

**They know only of Nanda's base origin.** These passages from the *Purāṇas* tell their own tale in no equivocal terms. They clearly point to the following propositions: (1) that the Nanda kings were base-born, and had inaugurated unrighteous and unlawful Śūdra rule which the *Śāstras* do not approve; (2) that it remained for a militant Brāhman, the redoubtable Kauṭilya, as the custodian and upholder of *Dharma*, to rid the country of its usurpation by Śūdra rulers and restore it to the lawful rule of the Kshatriyas; and (3) that, after accomplishing this mission of his life by ‘uprooting’ the race of Nandas, Kauṭilya chose Chandragupta for the throne to which he was consecrated by the performance of the ceremony of *abhisheka* or anointment prescribed for royalty. This formal anointment of Chandragupta to sovereignty by an orthodox Brāhman of unbending strictness, a master of the *Śāstras*, and an uncompromising champion of *Dharma*, like Kauṭilya, is a proof positive that the man of his choice must have been one of noble lineage, a Kshatriya who was eligible for kingship.

c4.35

The *Arthaśāstra* bears the same evidence. It is interesting to note that the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya itself renders explicit the meaning and implications of these passages from the *Purāṇas*. At the end of the work occurs a passage which states that “the *Arthaśāstra* has been compiled by one who forcibly (*amarsheṇa*) and quickly (*āśu*) achieved the liberation of the mother-country, of its culture and learning (*śāstra*), its military power (*śastra*) from the grip of the Nanda kings.” This passage shows that Kauṭilya considered it to be an urgent and imperative religious duty to extirpate, as soon as possible, and by violent means, the unlawful rule of Śūdra kings who could not be trusted with the spiritual and cultural, nor even the military, interests of the country. The social order and system for which Kauṭilya stands is known as *Varṇāśramadharma* which rules out royalty for the Śūdra and reserves it to the Kshatriya whose occupations are prescribed to be the ‘pursuit of arms’ (*Śastrājīva*), and ‘protection of living beings’, i.e., military and administrative functions. The Kshatriya king is to function as the *Daṇḍa* or the Executive to uphold and enforce *Dharma* as the ultimate Sovereign, the rule of Law. It is thus quite absurd to suppose that Kauṭilya who was out to rescue this Dharma or system from the outrage inflicted upon it by a Śūdra sovereignty could have chosen as his agent in the fulfilment of his sacred mission a person of the same disqualification. He could not consecrate to sovereignty one Śūdra in place of another. To add to this, we have Kauṭilya’s own opinion as to the merits of a king who is high-born (*abhijāta*) and one who is lowborn (*anabhijāta*). Kauṭilya prefers a high-born king, even though he is weak and powerless (*durbalam*), to a king of low birth but of great power (*balavān*). His argument is that the people (*prakṛitayaḥ*) of their own accord welcome a prince of noble lineage (*svayam upanamanti*) and are prepared to follow him (*anuvartate*) out of their natural regard for the greatness that springs from birth (*jātyaṁ kulotpannam*) and character (*aiśvaryaprakṛitiḥ aisvaryārhatā*). On the contrary, the people are naturally averse to a base-born prince whose intrigues (*upajātam*) they are not prepared to support (*visamvādayanti, na anuvartante*). For, as the saying is: ‘Love is kindled by Virtue’

c4.36

(*anurāge sārvaguṇyam*) [*Arthaśāstra* VIII. 2]. This reads like the self-defence of Kauṭilya in preferring a humble prince like Chandragupta, a true-born Kshatriya, to the Śūdra king Nanda, with all his power and pelf.

c4.37

The term ‘Maurya’. The theory of the base birth of Chandragupta Maurya was first suggested by the derivation which a commentator was at pains to find for the epithet *Maurya* as applied to Chandragupta by the *Purāṇas*. The commentator on the *Purāṇa* text takes *Maurya* to be the son of *Murā* who was one of the wives of king Nanda [*Chandraguptam Nandasyaiva patnyantarasya Murāsaṁjñasya putraṁ Mauryāṇāṁ prathamam*]. Heavens save us from commentators who supplement texts by facts of their own creation! The commentator here makes the astounding statement that Chandragupta was a son of the Nanda king against the silence of all the *Purāṇas* on the subject. Such a fact completely militates against the context of the references which the *Purāṇas* make to Chandragupta, as already indicated. It may be noted that if there is any sort of connexion between a preceding and succeeding dynasty, the *Purāṇas* as a rule do not omit to mention it. For instance, in the case of the Śaiśunāga dynasty which was succeeded by that of the Nandas, it has been clearly stated that of the ten Śaiśunāga kings, the ninth was Nandivardhana, and the tenth was his son named Mahānandin, and that, “as son of Mahānandin by a Śūdra woman will be born a king, Mahāpadma (Nanda), who will exterminate all Kshatriyas. Thereafter, kings will be of Śūdra origin.” If this history had repeated itself in the case of the Mauryas, and if the first Maurya king were also related to the preceding Nanda king in the same way as the Nanda king was related to the preceding Śaiśunāga king, that history could not have been omitted by the *Purāṇas*. It is nothing but a pure and simple invention of the commentator to explain grammatically the formation *Maurya* from *Murā*. But he is as innocent of grammar as of any concern for truth. It is impossible to derive by any grammar *Maurya* as a direct formation from *Murā*. The derivative from *Murā* is *Maureya*. The term *Maurya* can be derived only from the masculine *Mūra* which is mentioned as the name of a *gōtra* in a *Gaṇapāṭha* to Pāṇini's *Sūtra* [IV. 1, 151]. It is strange that the derivation of the term has not been traced by this track. The commentator was more interested in finding a mother than in grammar! The only redeeming feature of the commentator is that not merely is he innocent of grammar and history : he is also innocent of any libel against Chandragupta. For he has *not* stated that Murā, the supposed mother of Chandragupta, was a Śūdra woman or a courtesan of the Nanda king. He is severely silent about her caste, while he describes Murā as a lawfully wedded wife of the king. Thus even this commentator of the *Purāṇa* cannot be held responsible for the theory of Chandragupta's low origin.

c4.38

The question is : On whom are we to father this slanderous story ?

c4.39

**Evidence of '*Mudrārākshasa*': the terms '*Vṛishala*' and '*Kula-hīna*.'** It is generally supposed that the true source of the story is the *Mudrārākshasa*, of which the relevant passages may be now critically examined. It would appear that the whole story rests upon the meaning of the two words, *Vrishala*, and *Kula-hīna*, applied in the drama to Chandragupta. The words should not be torn from their contexts and interpreted independently. The term *Vrishala* has been applied to Chandragupta at several places in the drama and is taken in its ordinary sense to mean 'the son of a Śūdra.' It is, however, to be noted that the term may bear another meaning as one of compliment instead of opprobrium. A passage in the drama itself [III. 18] uses the term *Vrishala* as a term of honour to mean 'one who is a *vrisha* among kings, the best of kings.' In several other places, the term is used as one of endearment by Chāṇakya for his favourite pupil and almost as his personal nickname. It is left only to the enemies of Chandragupta to use it as a term of abuse against him [VI. 6], and that also by way of a pun on what is taken to be his nickname. Thus the derogatory meaning of the term *Vrishala* is not at all established in the drama. A similar meaning is sought to be found in the other term *Kula-hīna* as applied to Chandragupta [II. 17] and pointing undoubtedly to his 'inferior lineage.' But the context in which the term is used only shows that it should mean *lowly*, and not *low* or degraded lineage, and does not cast any slur on it. It practically indicates what Justin has stated, viz., 'that he was born in humble life.' It really means that Chandragupta was born of a *hīna* or 'humble', *kula* or 'family,' as contrasted with the Nandas described as '*prathita-kulajāḥ*,' 'of illustrious lineage,' or of 'high birth' [*uchchairavijanam* (VI. 6)]. The point emphasised against Chandragupta by his enemies in the drama is that he is a mere upstart, of a family unknown to name and fame (*aprathita-kula*), having no trace of any aristocratic or royal blood in him, and, as such, utterly unworthy of the throne which was adorned by the Nandas of noble lineage. This is undoing the *Purāṇas* with vengeance. While the *Purāṇas* represent the Nandas as Śūdra kings of odious origin, the tables are completely turned by the *Mudrārākshasa* which gives to the Nandas a proud pedigree and reserves to Chandragupta all the opprobrium attaching to a mere commoner, and an upstart of unknown family of indifferent status. But dramatic partisanship and prejudice cannot be taken as sober history, nor should a drama separated by an interval of about eight centuries from the time of Chandragupta prevail against the *Purāṇas* as a historical source.

c4.40

**Evidence of the Commentator.** But though the *Mudrārākshasa* cannot thus be invoked in support of any calumny against Chandragupta, there is no escape for him from the clutches of its commentator who definitely fastens it on him. Dhuṇḍhirāja, a commentator on *Mudrārākshasa*, of the eighteenth century, is responsible for some new history. In the *Upodghāta* of his commentary, he introduces Sarvārthasiddhi as the father of two sets of sons by two wives, viz., (1) the nine Nandas by his wife Sunandā and (2) Maurya by his junior wife named Murā. It was left to Dhuṇḍhirāja to make the discovery for the first time in the long history of these Chandragupta traditions that the woman Murā was a *Vrishalātmajā*, the daughter of a *Vrishala* or Śūdra. Dhuṇḍhirāja stands alone in this statement which may be taken for what it is worth. It is also implied that Sarvārthasiddhi was of high caste along with his nine sons, the Nandas, born of his Kshatriya wife, Sunandā. According to Dhuṇḍhirāja, Chandragupta was a son of Maurya who was entrusted with the command of his army by his father Sarvārthasiddhi in preference to his *Nanda* sons, whereupon the Nandas contrived the murder of Maurya and all his sons except Chandragupta who escaped. This united Chandragupta with Chāṇakya in a common hostility to the Nandas.

c4.41

**Other points in *Mudrārākshasa*.** A few other points are revealed in the *Mudrārākshasa* on the subject. It may be noted that the attitude of the drama towards Chandragupta is not always consistent or constant. It shows an anxiety at times not to point the finger of scorn at him as *Vṛishala* but to hail him as a prince, a scion of the Nanda house, a *Nandānvaya*, a *Maurya-putra* [II. 6], and the same note is struck by Rākshasa, the faithful follower and minister of Nanda, in describing himself as Chandragupta’s *pitṛi-paryāyāgata*, i.e., as the holder of the hereditary office of minister of his family. He also mentions Chandragupta as his *svāmiputra*, his master’s son. It may be noted that the drama describes Chandragupta as a *Maurya-putra* and not as a *Nanda-putra*. Yet he is called ‘a scion of the Nanda house’, because he is son of Maurya who was a son of Sarvārthasiddhi, the father of nine Nandas, and of Nanda ancestry himself. This old king was called a Nanda. He is seen in the drama to have fled from Pāṭaliputra to the forest at the suggestion of Rākshasa, as all his sons, the nine Nandas, were killed one after another by Chāṇakya and Chandragupta. And yet Chandragupta could not be called a parricide, because he is not called *Nanda-putra*: the son of any of the nine Nandas. The other description of him as a *Maurya-putra* saves him from that heinous crime [See C. D. Chatterji, ‘*Observations on the Bṛihat-kathā*’ in *Indian Culture*, I. p. 221].

c4.42

Thus the drama departs from the tradition of the *Purāṇa* which does not assert any connexion by blood between Chandragupta and Nanda. The drama here draws upon the commentator of the *Purāṇa* who first attests that connexion, as we have seen.

c4.43

The *Mudrārākshasa* shows other points of divergence from the *Purāṇas*. While the *Purāṇas* know of nine Nandas, the drama knows of a tenth Nanda named Sarvārthasiddhi whom it describes as a *Nandavaṁśīya*, a scion of the Nanda dynasty, and whom it places on the throne after the death of the last Nanda. Thus the enemy whom Chāṇakya and Chandragupta are to fight is not the Nanda king proper, as stated in the *Purāṇas*, but a kinsman of his. The drama opens with the statement of Chāṇakya to the effect that he has already “exterminated the nine Nandas from the earth and rooted out the stem of Nanda. But he fears that he cannot consider his work to be finished so long as there still survives a single offshoot of the Nanda family.” And so, in that view, he did not refrain from accomplishing the assassination of Sarvārthasiddhi then living as a hermit in the forest, because he happened to be the last surviving “shoot of Nandas’ stem.”

c4.44

**Kashmir Tradition.** We owe a different version of Chandragupta’s lineage to two other Sanskrit works of Kashmir, the *Kathāsaritsāgara*, and the *Bṛihat-kathāmañjarī*, both as late as the eleventh century A.D.

c4.45

These texts do not know of the nine Nandas, nor of their father, Sarvārthasiddhi, known to *Mudrārākshasa*. They mention only two Nandas: (1) *Pūrva*-Nanda, stated to be the father of Chandragupta (whereas his father is named Maurya in the *Mudrārākshasa*); (2) *Yoga*-Nanda, father of Hiraṇyagupta or Harigupta.

c4.46

The relation between these two Nandas is not specified, nor is any connexion asserted between them, and between them and the nine or ten Nandas known to *Mudrārākshasa*.

c4.47

It is not also stated whether *Pūrva*-Nanda was even a prince. We are only told that the second Nanda or *Yoga*-Nanda was a king who succumbed to the *kṛityā* or magical spell practised against his life by Chāṇakya who installed Chandragupta as king in his place. This Nanda is also stated to be a *Śūdra*, and to have his camp at Ayodhyā.

c4.48

On the whole, it is thus clear that beyond the mere names of Nanda, Chāṇakya, and Chandragupta, there is hardly any link of connexion between the tradition of the Kashmir texts and that of the *Mudrārākshasa* which is very widely and wrongly supposed to have been based upon either the *Bṛihat-kathā* of Guṇāḍhya, or its later Kashmir redaction, or even the *Bṛihatkathāmañjarī*. The Kashmir tradition moves on different lines altogether, and has hardly any points of contact with the *Mudrārākshasa* story [C. D. Chatterji in *Indian Culture*, Vol. I. pp. 210 ff.].

c4.49

Buddhist Tradition. We shall now turn to the Buddhist traditions which describe the 'Nandins' as of unknown lineage (*aññātakula*) and testify to the noble lineage of Chandragupta without any doubts about it. Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept of the Śākyas who gave the Buddha to the world. According to the story, these Moriyas separated from the parent community to escape from its invasion by the cruel Kosala king, Viḍūḍabha and found refuge in a secluded Himalayan region. This region was known for its peacocks, whence the immigrants also became known as Moriyas, i.e., those belonging to the place of peacocks. Moriya is from '*Mora*' which is the Pali word for peacock, corresponding to the Sanskrit word '*Mayūra*.' Another version of the story mentions a city called Moriya-nagara after the fact that it was built with "bricks coloured like peacocks' necks." The people who built the city became known as Moriyas. The *Mahābodhivaṁsa* [ed. Strong p. 98], states that "Prince (*kumāra*) Chandragupta, born of a dynasty of kings (*narinda-kula-sambhava*), hailing from the city known as Moriyanagara, which was built by the *Sākyaputtas*, being supported by the Brāhmaṇa (*dvija*), Chāṇakya, became king at Pāṭaliputra."

c4.50

The *Mahāvaṁsa* also states that Chandragupta was "born of a family of Kshatriyas called Moriyas." [*Moriyānaṁ khattiyānaṁ vaṁse jātaṁ*].

c4.51

The Buddhist canonical work *Dīgha Nikāya* [II. 167] mentions the Kshatriya clan known as the Moriyas of Pipphalivana.

c4.52

In the *Divyāvadāna* [ed., Cowell, p. 370], Bindusāra (Chandragupta's son) is mentioned as a lawfully anointed Kshatriya king (*Kshatriya-mūrdhābhishikta*), while Asoka (his grandson) is described as a Kshatriya.

c4.53

**Jain Tradition.** Jain tradition also relates that Chandragupta was born of a daughter of the chief of a village community who were known as 'rearers of royal peacocks' (*mayūra-poshaka-grāme*) [Hemachandra's *Pariśishtaparvan*, VIII, 230], while it describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan (whom the Greeks specify to be the queen of the last king) [*Ib.* VI. 232]. This imputes to him a double infamy due to both parents being tainted. The *Āvaśyaka Sūtra* (p. 693) which also knows of nine Nandas (*navame Nande*), describes the first Nanda as begotten of a barber (*nāpitadāsa…rāja jātaḥ*).

c4.54

It may, however, be noted that the *Pariśishtaparvan* [VIII. 320] relates the story that while the deposed Nanda king was allowed by Chāṇakya to leave Pāṭaliputra with all the luggage that could be accommodated in a single chariot, he had with him two wives and one daughter who fell in love with Chandragupta at first sight and was permitted by her father Nanda to marry him, "because it is customary for *Kshatriya* girls to marry according to their choice" (*Prāyaḥ Kshatriya-kanyānāṁ śasyate hi svayamvaraḥ*). This seems to imply that Nanda was still claiming that he was a Kshatriya.

c4.55

**Monumental Evidence.** The Buddhist tradition as well as the Jain tradition connecting the peacock, *Mayūra*, with the Moriya or Maurya dynasty receives a curious confirmation in striking monumental evidence. The Asoka pillar at Nandangarh has been found to bear at its bottom below the surface of the ground the figure of a peacock, while the same figure is repeated in several sculptures on the Great Stūpa at Sānchi, which are associated with Asoka on the basis of the stories of his life which these sculptures translate into stone. Both Foucher and Sir John Marshall agree with Grünwedel who was the first to suggest that this representation of the peacock was due to the fact that the peacock was the dynastic emblem of the Mauryas.

c4.56

**Summary.** Now to sum up these various traditions regarding the origin and lineage of Chandragupta with reference to their points of agreement and divergence. The Greek accounts agree with the *Purāṇas* in ascribing a disreputable origin not to Chandragupta but to the Nanda king. They describe the Nanda king as an illegitimate son of a barber, while the *Purāṇas* describe the Nandas as Śūdras. The Greek accounts further trace their low origin to their Śūdra father described as a handsome barber with whom the queen of Nanda fell in love, carried on illicit intercourse, and then contrived to get her royal husband out of her way by murder. The *Mudrārākshasa*, however, turns the table, proclaiming a noble lineage for the Nandas, and Chandragupta as a mere upstart of unknown family. The drama is also sometimes inconsistent in suggesting a Nanda origin for Chandragupta. Buddhist and Jain traditions are at one in declaring for him a noble birth.

c4.57

It is interesting to note that the Greek accounts of Alexander's invasion of India mention an Indian tribe called the *Morieis* corresponding to the Moriyas.

c4.58

**Early Life.** Much romance has gathered round the origin and early life of Chandragupta, because so little is known of them. Legend grows in obscurity. It is fond of making hero of a man who rises to greatness from lowly origin. The details of Chandragupta’s early life we owe to Buddhist legends. The chief sources of these legends are the two works already mentioned, viz., (1) the *Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā*, also known as *Vaṁsatthappakāsinī* (of about first half of the 10th century A.D.) and (2) the *Mahābodhivaṁsa* written by Upatissa (of about 2nd half of 10th century A.D.). Both these texts draw upon older sources known as the *Sīhalaṭṭhakathā* and the *Uttaravihāraṭṭhakathā*. The former is supposed to be the work of Thera Mahinda (Asoka’s son) and his companion monks from Magadha, who were chosen for the Mission to Ceylon by the Head of the church. Asoka added to it laymen like Bodhigupta and Sumitra who were brothers of his first wife, Devī. The king of Ceylon, Devānāṁpriya Tishya, appointed both of them as chief writers on the Conquest of Ceylon by the Bodhi Tree (*Laṅkājaya-Mahālekhaka*). Their work, which is no longer extant, appears to have been partly incorporated into the *Uttaravihāraṭṭhakathā*. This work gives some details about Maurya history not contained in the *Sīhalaṭṭhakathā*. These were probably supplied by the aforesaid historians from Magadha and incorporated into the work of the dissenting and heterodox Uttaravihārins or Dhammaruchikas [Appendix I].

c4.59

According to these traditions, Chandragupta came of the Kshatriya clan of the Moriyas, kinsmen of the Śākyas. The chief of the migrant Moriyas was his father who was unfortunately killed in a border-fray, leaving his family destitute. His helpless widow escorted by her brothers escaped to the city called Pushpapura (=Kusumapura=Pāṭaliputra) where she gave birth to the child Chandragupta. For his safety, the orphan was deposited by his maternal uncles at a cow-pen where he was brought up as his own son by the cowherd who later sold him as a grown-up to a hunter by whom he was employed to tend cattle. The story goes that at the village common, the boy, Chandragupta, showed himself to be a born leader by inventing the game of playing the king (*Rājakīḷaṁ*) with his companions as his subordinates and even getting up a mock court at which he was practising administration of justice. It was at one of these rural royal games that Chandragupta was first seen by Chāṇakya. Chāṇakya, with his prophetic vision, at once discovered in that rustic foundling the promise and signs of royalty and straightway bought him of his foster-father by paying down 1000 *kārshāpaṇas* on the spot. Chandragupta must have been then a boy of only eight or nine years. Chāṇakya, who is described as a resident of the city of Taxila (*Takkasilā-nagara-vāsī*), returned to his native city with the boy and had him educated for a period of 7 or 8 years at that famous seat of learning where all the ‘sciences and arts’ of the times were taught, as we know from the *Jātakas*. He gave him an all-round education both in the humanities, and also in the practical or technical arts (*bāhusachchabhāvañcha*; *uggahitasippakañcha*).

c4.60

**Education at Taxila.** The *Jātakas* tell us how the kings of those days sent their sons for education to Taxila, where there were "world-renowned" teachers. We read: "Youths of Kshatriya and Brāhman castes came from all India to be taught the arts by one of these teachers." Taxila was a seat of advanced studies and not elementary education. Its students are spoken of as being admitted there at the age of 16 or when they "come of age." Elderly students or householders also studied there as day-scholars, making their own arrangements for residence. We read of a teacher at Taxila whose school had only princes as pupils, "princes who were at that time in India to the number of 101." Among the subjects of study are mentioned the three Vedas and eighteen *Sippas* or Arts among which are mentioned Archery (*Issattha-sippa*), Hunting, Elephant Lore (*Hatthisutta*) which were appropriate for princes. Training was given in both theory and practice. Taxila was known for its special schools of Law, Medicine, and Military Science. We have also reference to its Military Academy counting 103 princes as its pupils. We are told how a pupil, after graduation in military science, received by way of a diploma a present from his teacher of his own "sword, a bow and an arrow, a coat of mail, and a diamond", and was asked by his teacher to take his place as the head of his school of 500 pupils, all seeking instruction in the military arts, as he was old and wanted to retire [See Chapter XIX of my *Ancient Indian Education* (Macmillans, London) for references].

c4.61

Thus Chāṇakya could not do better for the education of his youthful protege than to place him at Taxila for the purpose. An eight years' education at its military school in the stimulating company of so many princely pupils must have made him a master of the military sciences and arts of the days and gave him the best possible preparation and equipment for the great task to which Chandragupta was consecrated by his guardian, Chāṇakya.

c4.62

Incidentally, Chandragupta's early life and education at Taxila in a way prove the truth of Plutarch's interesting statement that Chandragupta, as a youth, had seen Alexander in the course of his campaigning in the Punjab. It was possible for a youth of that locality who must have sought an interview with the greatest military leader of the times for his own education as a military student.

c4.63

And these details of Chandragupta's early life from Pali sources also confirm the truth of Justin's statement that he was "born in humble life."

Linked texts (25)