Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c4.41

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].