Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c4.37

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.