Talk:Saśigupta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ON THE ORIGIN OF NANDAS/MAURYAS, PER TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS 1.1 A: ON ORIGIN OF NANDAS 1.2 B. ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS 2 REVIEW OF VARIOUS HYPOTHESES ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS: 2.1 (A) NANDA ORIGIN OF MAURYAS 2.2 (B) ORIGIN OF MAURYAS FROM THE MORIYA CLAN OF PIPPALIVANA 2.3 (C) ORIGIN OF MORIYA DYNASTY FROM NORTH WEST INDIA 2.4 NEW LIGHT ON MAURYAS IN UDYANA/SWAT???? 2.4.1 Legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang (in 629-645) 2.5 ON the Historicity of Udyana legend of Naga-maiden vs Sakya fugitive 2.5.1 SOME REFERENCES

[edit] ON THE ORIGIN OF NANDAS/MAURYAS, PER TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS

[edit] A: ON ORIGIN OF NANDAS

[i]. The Puranic accounts (Brahmanical literature) say that Mahapadama Nanda (Mahapadapati, Ugersena), the founder ruler of Nanda dynasty was the son of the last Saisunaga king from a Sudra mother (Vrishala-mata). Mahapadapat had eight sons known as Nandas who ruled Magadha after him. Hence the Nanda princes of Magadha were all Sudra rulers.

[ii]. According to Jaina tradition preserved in Parisishtaparvana, the first Nanda was son of a Barber and a courtesan (ganika) lady. [Hemachandra’s Persishtaparavan , VIII, p 230].

[iii]. According to Buddhist tradition, the Nandins i.e. Nanda rulers of Magadha were of unknown lineage (annatakula).

[iv]. According to Greek historian Curtius, the last king of Magadha whom he calls Agrammes (=Ugersena) was the son of a Barber father and the queen of the last ruler of the preceeding line of rulers of Magadha i.e of the Saisunaga line. Greek Agrammes is believed to be same as Xandrames and is taken to be the classical equivalent of Augrasaina i.e son of Ugrasena. Other scholars interpret Xandarmes as different from Agrammes and interpret Xandarmes as Chandrama. King Augrasaina (son of Ugrasena) was the same as Dhana Nanda, the last ruler of Magadha. This classical information teaches us that Mahapadama Nanda had his name Ugrasena, and was of a Barber lineage and the Nanda rulers of Magadha were Sudras from Barbar caste.

[v]. Mudrarakshasa, on the other hands, describes the Nandas of Magadha as hailing from high or noble lineage (Prathitakula –Pratishatakula) or high birth (Uchchairvajanam)---- [See Act VI.6]. Though Puranas know only of nine Nandas [Ugrasena, (the father), Panduka, Pandugati, Bhutapala, Rashtrapala, Govishanka, Dasajddhaka, Kaivarta and Dhana (all sons)], the Mudrarakshasa talks of ten Nandas. Mudrarakshasa introduces “Sarvarthasidhi”, whom it calls Nandvamsya i.e. originator or chief of the Nandas. According to the Drama, Sarvarthasidhi, a Nandavamsya was a Ksatriya and had two wives (1) SUNANDA-- his first wife of Ksatriya descent, who bore him eight sons called Nandas (sons of Sunanda); and (2) his second wife MURA, a Sudra girl (Vrishala-mata) who bore him one son called Maurya i.e son of Mura. This Maurya, the ninth son of Sarvarthasidhi Nanda had fathered a son who in history, is known as Chandragupta Maurya. Thus, Mudrarakshasa’s evidence connects the Nanda rulers of Magadha to the Ksatriya rather than the Barber or Sudra lineage as stated by Greek chronicler Curtius or the Pauranic accounts of India. The Greek chronicler Curtius appears to have picked his story from the Puranas.

COMMENT-1: Scholars like Dr Buddha Parkash, Dr B. C. Law etc surmise that the Nandas were from Kshatriya lineage and that Greek and Pauranic accounts are based on false rumors spread about the royal house by superstitious and illiterate subjects (See: Studies in Indian History and Civilization, p 125, Dr Buddha Parkash; See quotes in: Ancient Kamboja, People and the Country, 1981, p 283-286, Dr J. L. Kamboj).

COMMENT-2: The above information about Nanda origin/lineage is being given here simply to illustrate the fact that the ancient references must be given very careful scrutiny before accepting any of the historical information contained in them. It is very amusing to note that there are glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies in the various hypotheses on the origin and ancestry of Nandas as can be seen from the above ancient references. Question arisesas to which from amongst the above references is to be taken more trustworthy and reliable regarding the origin of the Nandas?.

COMMENT-3: How can a dynasty of Barber or Nai (a lowly caste) rulers, as attested by Curtius a Greek Chronicler and also by Pauranic accounts (Brahmanical accounts) be considered of noble/illustrious lineage which the author of Mudrarakshasa (another Brahmanical work), wants us to believe? (Note: The Indian Brahmanical caste-system definitely brands the Barbers/Nais as a low caste).

[edit] B. ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS

(1) BRAHMANICAL TRADITIONS:

[i]. Pauranic Traditions: The Puranas, after enumerating list of Kshatriya kingship, in no in-equivocal and un-ambiguous terms state that the Sudra kinbgship in India began with the Nandas (onwards).......and count kings of Mauryas among the list of the Sudra or degraded dynasties (See: Shreemad Bhagavatam, Canto 12, Chapter One, The Degraded Dynasties of Kali-yuga; See also Pargiter , p 71). Thus the Puranas clearly attest that Chandragupta and his dynasty belonged to so-called Sudra or degraded origin. (See also: The Hindu Law of Impartible Property Including Endowments, 1908, p 48, Jogendra Chundra Ghose). See Link: [1].

[ii] Matsya Purana" Chapter ccixxii, speaks of the dynasty of king Maru (Moru), the son of Shigra. Max Muller translates the name (Maru/Moru) as the Moriya of the Maurya dynasty to which Chandragupta belonged (See: History of Ancient Sanskrit, Max Muller; The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy , 1893, p 405, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). In the same chapter of Matsya Purana, it is prophesized that Moryas will in one day rule over the earth after restoring the Ksatriyas race many thousands yearshence. Only that reign would be purely spiritual and "not of this world". It will be the kingdom of next Avatara. Vayu Purana declares that Moru will establish the Kshatryas in the nineteenth coming yuga (See: Five Years of Theosophy, 483th article, The Moryas and the Koothoomi; Op cit.,, 1893, p 405, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky).

COMMENT-1: The test of Matsya Purana reads like: " Two persons, Devapi of the race of Kurus and Maru (Moru) of the race of Ikshvaku......continue alive throught the four ages, residing at Kalpa. ..They will return hither, in the beginning of the Krita Age....Maru (Moru) the son of Shigra, through the power of devotion is still living..... and will be the restorer of the Kshatriya race of solar dynasty " (The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy , 1893, p 405, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky).

COMMENT-2: One can easily see that where as Puranas like Shreemad Bhagavatam, Canto 12, Chapter One, lists the Mauryas in the degraded or Sudra dynasties, the Matsya Purana, Vayu Purana, on the other hand declares the Maru/Moru as representing a line of illustrious Kshatriyas and the restorers of the Kshatriya race (provided Maru/Moru is same as Maurya as stated by Max Muller).

[iii]. Mudrarakshasa Drama (Act II, V 5/6 ) calls Chandragupta a Maurya-putra (son of a Maurya) but Act IV of the same play also addresses him as Nandanvaya i.e of Nanda lineage (Act II, pp 134-136, 141-143 etc). But some of the dialogues of the same Mudrarakshas Drama also call Chandragupta as Vrishala i.e Sudra/degraded (in Act VI.6) as well as Kula-hina i.e of lowly or mean lineage (in Act II, 17).

[iv]. Commentator of Vishnu Purana states that Chandragupta was son of king Nanda from a women named Mura (IV.24, Wilson, IX.187). Hence he and his descendants were called Mauryas after Mura. Note that here Vishnu Purana’s commentator calls Chandragupta as son of Mura where as Mudrarakshasa/commentator calls Chandragupta’s father as the son of Mura. Also note that Vishnu Purana does not call Mura as a sudra or Vrishala-mata.

[v]. Dhundiraja, an 18th century Commentator of Mudrarakshasa states that Chandragupta was eldest son of Maurya who was son of Nanda king “Sarvarithasiddhi” born of a keep girl called Mura, who was a daughter of Vrishala (Sudra) father. Though Puranas know only nine Nandas, yet Mudrarakshasa talks of ten Nandas. And Mudrarakshasa commentator introduces “Sarvarthasidhi”, whom it calls Nandvamsya i.e. originator or chief of the Nandas. According to the Drama, “Sarvarthasidhi”, a Nandavamsya was a Ksatriya and had two wives (1) SUNANDA-- his first wife of Ksatriya descent, who bore him eight sons called Nandas (sons of Sunanda); and (2) his second wife MURA, a Sudra girl (Vrishala-mata) who bore him one son called Maurya i.e son of Mura. This Maurya, the ninth son of Sarvarthasidhi Nanda had fathered a son who in history is known as Chandragupta Maurya. Here Chandragupta is shown as son of a father who was Ksatriya from father side but Sudra from mother side. The caste status of Chandragupta’s own mother is not identified in this version of the story.

[vi]. Pandit Kshmendra, as well as Somadeva (both 11th c Sanskrit writers, from Kashmir), refer to Chandragupta as a Purva-Nanda (i.e Real/genuine/authentic son of Nanda king) as opposed to Yogananda (i.e an illegitimate or pseudo son of Nanda). Thus both these works of mediaeval era connect Chandragupta to Nanda line of kings. The evidence from Kshmendra and Somadeva calling Chandragupta as genuine/legitimate/real son of Nanda does not mesh with the evidence of Mudrarakshasa which certifies that Chandragupta was a Vrishala (degraded/sudra lineage) as well as Kulhina i.e lowly or mean/degraded lineage.

(2) JAIN TRADITIONS:

[i]. Jain tradition describes Chandragupta Moriya as the maternal grand son (son of a daughter) of the chief of a village belonging to the rearers of royal peacocks (Mayura-poshaka-grama) [Hemachandra’s Persishtaparavan , VIII, Section B, p 230; Cf also: Uttaradhyanatika; Chandragupta Maurya, 2007, p 30, Purushottam Bhargava]. Note that there is no reference to king Nanda here. And this evidence from Maurya definitely certifies Chandragupta from a Vaishya or Sudra lineage, rather than a Ksatriya one. The same text describes Nanda as the son of Barbar father from a courtesan (ganika) mother. Jain Avasyaka Sutra (p 693) also knows of nine Nandas and describes the first Nanda as begotten of a Barbar father. But very interestingly, the same Parsishtaparavan, [VIII, 320] some places in the text also describes the daughter of the last Nanda as a Ksatriya girl (See: Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 1988, p 14, Dr R. K. Mukerjee).

[ii]. Kalpasutra of the Jains mentions one Mauryaputra as belonging to Kasyapa gotra (Sacred Books of the East, Vol 36, p 286). This evidence shows the Maurya clan to be high class rather than Sudra.

(3) BUDDHIST TRADITIONS:

[i]: Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (II. 167) (4th c BCE) , for the first time in Indian history/traditions, introduces to us one Ksatriya clan known as Moriya whom it describes as inhabiting a territory called Pipphalivana.

[“ Then the Moriyas of Pipphalivana came to know that at Kusinara the Blessed One had passed away. And they sent a message to the Mallas of Kusinara, saying: "The Blessed One was of the warrior caste, and we are too. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. We will erect a stupa over the relics of the Blessed One and hold a festival in their honor." (Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (II. 167)].

[ii]: Divyavadana (Cowel and Neil, Ed p 370) describes Bindusara Maurya, the son of Chandragupta Maurya, as an anointed Kshatriya (Kshatriya Murdhbhishika). Same text Divyavadana also describes Ashoka, son of Bindusara as Kshatrya (Cowel and Neil, Ed p 409).

Dr V. A.. Smith as well as Eugene Burnouf etc have presented a genaeology of king Ashoka which they take from Ashokavadana in the Divyavadana (Burnouf, Introduction, a l'Histoire du Buddhisme, pp 319 seq; also Sanskrit Nepaliese Literature, pp 6-17, Dr R. L. Mitra). This text gives geneaology of Ashoka's ancestors, but interstingly, it omits Chandragupta and further, king Bindusara father of king Ashoka is represented as being the son of king Nanda E.g: "Bimbisara reigned Pataliputra. His son was Ajatsatrua, whose son was Udayibhadra, whose son was Munda, whose son was Kala-Varnin, whose son was Sahlin, whose son was Tulakuchi, whose son was Presntji, whose son was Nanda, whose son was Bindusara. King Bindusara ruled Pataliputra and had a son named Susima..." (See Ref: Ashoka The Buddhist Emperor of India, 1901, pp 175, Dr V. A. Smith; Legends of Indian Buddhism, 2006 Edition, p 20, Winifred Stephens, Eugene Burnouf; Advanced History of Ancient India, 1995, p 118, Shiri Ram Bakshi). See Links: [2], [3] . Thus, the Buddhist text Divyavadana, which eminent scholars like Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr R. K. Mukerjee, Purushottam Bhargava etc rely on as credible source to establish that Chandragupta belonged to the Moriya clan of Eastern India gets easily discredited since the same Divyavanada text gives geneaology of kings Bindusara/Ashoka which is very different from what the scholars usually assume. King Bindusara, the father of king Ashoka is designated as Nanda in the BUddhist text Divyavadana, thus it is very obvious that Ashoka/Bindusara etc are described as direct descendants from the Nandas of Magadha. On the other hand, other Buddhist texts like the belated (10th/11th) century Mahavamsatika connects Chandragupta with the Morya Kshatriya clan of Eastern India. This means that the Buddhist traditions which the texts like Cambridge History of India, or The Political History of Ancient India etc rely on, contain obvious contradictions which these authorities conveniently ignore to fore-connect the Maurya rulers of Magadha to the little known and historically insignificant Moriya Kshatriya clan of Eastern India (per Digha Nikaya). This clearly puts a strong question mark on the Buddhist traditions about their claim on the origin of Maurya rulers of Magadha from the Moriyas of Eastern India.

COMMENT-1: The Divyavadana attests that Bindusara and Ashoka were Ksatriyas but nowhere does it connect these rulers or their family to the Moriyas of Eastern India, referred to in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (II. 167). Further, the same Divyavadana also calls Ashoka as the son of Bindusara from a barber woman (See: The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, 1968, p 81, Benjamin Walker - Hinduism; Racial Synthesis of Hindu Culture, 2001, p 121, S. Viswanatha). According to scholars like Dr W. W. Tarn etc, king Ashoka was the son of Greek mother (Ibid, p 81). This way, the parentage of king Ashoka from mother side is obsecure.

Thus, we see that the evidence from this Buddhist text Divyavadana can not be trusted blindly as reliabable or else other Buddhist texts on Mayrya origin are in gross error.

[iii]: Dipavamsa: 4th century AD Buddhist text (from Ceylone) refers to Candaragupta (simply) as king of Maurya family (Moriya-kula) (Dipavamsa VI.19). It does not furnish any more information about his family.

[iv]: Mahavamsa: 5th century Buddhist text from Ceylon, next in series after Dipavamsa, now states that Chandragupta was born of a Chief of the family of Mauriyas, whom it also designates as Ksatriyas [ Mauryanam Khattyanam vamse jatam (Geiger Trans p 27).]

COMMENT-1: Dipavamsa of 4th c only calls Chandragupta as a king of Morya-kula and nothing about his caste background. But the fifth century text Mahavamsa talks of Chandragupta not only as a king of Maurya family but now also styles his family as of Ksatriya lineage. However, nowhere, does it still say anything about the racial connections between the Maurya family of Chandragupta and the Ksatriya Moriyas of Pipphalivana (first referred to in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, II. 167).

[v]: Mahavamsatika or Vamsatthappakasini ( creation of First half of 10th c AD): The Mahavamsatika (Ceylonese edition) has a tradition that Vidudabha, the ambitious and cruel king of Kosala (first half of fifth c BCE) had invaded the Sakya country when a section of the Sakyas fled to the Himalayan region which lay between Rumindei and Kasia, about 56 miles west of Kusinagar. The place abounded in Peepul trees and there were also numerous peacocks i.e. Sanskrit Mayuras (Pali Mora). This offshoot of the Sakyas got permanently separated from the original Sakyas and later became known as the Moriyas of Pipphalivana. There they founded a city called Moriyanagara (Mahavamsatika, Ceylonese Edition, p 119-120). Further, the same tradition of the Mahavamsatika now also specifically connects, for the first time, the Maurya rulers of Magadha to these Moriyas of Pippalivana saying that “Chandragupta , the founder of the Maurya dynasty was born of the chief queen of of the Morya king of Pippalivana” (Mahavamsatika, Ceylonese Edition, p 119-120; Dr R. K. Mukerjee; Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-13, Dr B. C. Law; Moriyas (Chandragupta and His Times, 1988, pp 13-14).

COMMENT-1: This is the first time, after about 13 centuries, that the Mauryas rulers of Magadha have now been clearly and in-equivocally connected to the (1) Moriya clan of Pippalivana and (2) to the noble Sakya clan of Buddha. This all seems to be result of the attempts of the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylone to give king Ashoka a highly distibguished lineage i.e to connect his low background to the Ksatriya lineage of Moriyas of eastern India and also to the noble clan of the Sakyas.

COMMENT-2: Great Buddhist scholar Dr B. C. Law describes the above traditional story of Mahavamsatika as historically untrue (See Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212, Dr B. C. Law). According to him, the reason for this is that king Vidudabha was the son of Kosala king Presenjit who was contemporary of Buddha as well as of kings Bimbisara and Ajatsatru, rulers of Magadha. Bimbisara is stated to have died 7 years prior to Buddha’s death (See: Oxford History of India, 2006 Edition, p 72, Dr V. A. Smith). Since Buddha’s death is now accepted as 486 BCE, hence Bimbisara died in 493 BCE. Hence Bimbisara’s son, Ajatsatru must have assumed rulership of Magadha only in 493 BCE, after the death of his father Bimbisara. Ajatsatru’s contemporary was Presenjit, the king of Kosala, who is said to have been deposed by his own son Vidudabha, when Presenjit was on a visit to Sakya country to meet Buddha. As a consequence, Presenjit sought the help of Ajatsatru to claim his kingdom back from his usurper son Vidudabha, but as he reached Magadha capital to meet Ajatsatru, Presenjit breathed his last. The information provided above shows that Presenjit must have met the Buddha Sakya and afterwards, Ajatsatrua of Magadha between 493 BCE and 466 BCE. Now if Vidudabha had invaded Sakya country as the commentator of Mahavamsa claims, then Vidudabha must have done so only after 493 BCE. This evidently leads one to conclude that the Sakyas--- the alleged ancestors of the Moriyas, must have fled from the Sakya country between 493 BCE and 466 BCE. But we know from the Buddhist evidence of Digha Nikaya that at the very occasion of the GREAT DECEASE i.e 486 BCE (and only 6 years after the flight), the Moriyas of Pippalivana are shown as contemporary, distinct and a powerful rivals of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu (See: Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, (II. 167). Now the question arises as to how within only few years (less than 5-6 years) of their flight under Vidudabha of Kosala, the Moriyas who are alleged to be an offshoot from the Sakyas, grew so powerful and a distinct tribe so as to become apowerful rival of their parent clan in so short a time. This makes this traditional story as highly suspicious and no doubt, Dr B. C. Law has rejected this tradition as unhistorical.

COMMENT-3: Is it possibly that the Moriyas (whom Mahavamsatika describes as the offshoot of the Sakyas of Kapilvastu) could have become so POWERFUL and DISTINCT RIVALS of the Sakyas within couple of years of their alleged separation from their alleged parent clan? Dr B. C. Law rightly rejects this as historically untrue (See: Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-213, Dr B. C. Law). Just as the first part of this Buddhist tale has been ably exposed by Dr Law as historically untrue, one can likewise reject the second part of the tradition which seeks to establish connection between Chandragupta Maurya and the Moriya Ksatriya clan of Eastern India as also being historically untrue. It is absurd to trust a tradition which was set in writing about 13 centuries after the Maurya reign. The story appears to have been invented by Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon to confer upon Buddhist Ashoka an illustrious lineage by linking him to noble Sakya clan of the Lord. Scholars like Dr V. A. Smith have styled these stories by these Buddhist writers as “silly fictions of mendacious monks", "tales told by monkish romancers" etc.

[vi]: Mahabhodivamsa by Upatissa (written after second half of 10th c AD) (Ed., Strong, p 98) also states that Chandragupta was born of a dynasty of kings, hailing from a city known as Moriya-nagara, which was built by Sakyaputtas, and being supported by a dvija Brahmin Cankya he became a king of the Pataliputra.

COMMENT-1: Apparently, the mediaeval era Mahabhodivamsa has borrowed its information about Chandragupta Maurya from the Mahavamsatika tradition, the historical value of which has already been discussed above.

vi: Saddharmalankavtara: In its prophetic passage Chapater 10, Buddha is reported to have said: " A hunderdds years after my nirvana, will live Vyasa, the composer of Mahabharata. Then will arise the Pandavas, Kauravas, Nandas and Mauryas. The Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas and Mlechchas..the most degraded of the princes will be rulers. Dominion of the Barbarians will be succeeded by an upheaval which in its turn herald the Kalyuga" ( Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism (from Winternitz, Sylvain Levi, Huber), 1972, p 81, Gushtaspshah Kaikhushro Nariman).

COMMENT: This Buddhist reference includes the Nandas, the Mauryas in the degraded list.

MAX MULLER ONCE MADE COMMENTS ON THE ANNALS OF BUDDHISM THUS: “In our times, when even the contempranous evidence of Herodotus , Thucydides , Livy or Jornandes is sifted by the most uncompromising skepticism, we must not expect a more merciful treatment for the annals of Buddhism. Scholars engaged in special researches are too willing to acquiesce in evidence, particularly if that evidence has been discovered by their own efforts and comes before them with all the charms of novelty. But in the broad day light of historical criticism, the prestige of such a witness, as Buddhaghosa, soon dwindles away and his statements as to kings and councils eight hundreds years before him are in truth worth no more than the stories told of Arthur bt Geofry of Monmouth or the accounts we read in Livy of early history of Rome” (See: Chips from German Workshop, Second Edition, Vol I, p 199, Max Muller).

The above comments by Max Muller are also true for Buddhist chronicles like Dapavamsa (4th c AD), Mahavamsa (5th c AD), Mahavamsatika (10th/11 c AD) and Mahabhodivamsa (second half of 10th c AD) etc etc.

[edit] REVIEW OF VARIOUS HYPOTHESES ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS:

[edit] (A) NANDA ORIGIN OF MAURYAS

As wee see from above references, conflicting views are held today about the origin of Mauriya dynasty. Dr V. A. Smith has given a wide currency to the view that Chandragupta was a scion of the Nanda kings of Magadha. And his mother (or according to other version, grand mother) Mura was of low birth. The Epithet Mauryan got stuck to the dynasty from his mother’s side (See: The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, 1904 Edition, p 110, Vincent Arthur Smith; The Oxford History of India, 2006 Edition, p 96, Vincent Arthur Smith, Percival Spear).

This view has finally and ably been rejected on the solid grounds that according to Sanskrit Grammer, the descendants of feminine name "Mura" will be called "MAUREYAS" and that of a masculine name "MURA" would be "MAURYA". In other words, the term MAURYA can only be derived from the masculine name Mura which is mentioned as the name of a gotra in Ashtadhyayi of Panini. As in all old books, the name of Chandragupta’s dynasty is found written as MAURYA (and not Maureya) which fact grammatically rules out any connection between female MURA and the MAURYA dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya(See: Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 1988 Edition, p 10, Dr Radhakumud Mookerji; The History and Culture of the Indian People, 1977, p 55, Dr Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Dr Achut Dattatraya Pusalker, Dr Asoke Kumar Majumdar; Problems of Early Indian Social History, 1983, p 69,, Dr Dineschandra Sircar; Journal of Ancient Indian History, 1968, p 243, University, Calcutta (India); A Glimpse of the History of Sanskrit Grammar, 1990, p 208, Baidya Nātha Jhā - Sanskrit language; History of Ancient India , 1967, p 146, Rama Shankar Tripathi; Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume, 1936, p 95, Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar - India; The Indian Review, 1937, p 814, Edited by G.A. Natesan; Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, p 164, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Indo-Aryan philology). This linguistic explanation gave a final death blow to the hypotheses advanced and propagated by Dr V. A Smith based on the Mudrarakshasa Drama that the Mauryas rulers of Magadha are a scion from their predecessors, the Nanda Rulers of Magadha

[edit] (B) ORIGIN OF MAURYAS FROM THE MORIYA CLAN OF PIPPALIVANA

This view on the origin of Maurya dynasty is held by an important group of modern historians of India and is based mostly on the Buddhist traditions. The Cambridge History of India, where greater credit is given to these traditions, regards the Mauryas a Himalayan offshoot of the noble sept of the Moriyas belonging to the race of Buddha. And according to this view, Mauryas of Magadha originally belonged to a Ksatriya clan of Pipphalivana and are first introduced to us by Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (II. 167), and were located in the foots of Himalayan in north-eastern India at the time of Buddha’s death. The important proponents of this view include scholars like Dr R. K. Mukerjee, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr D. C. Sircar, Dr S. K. Aiyangar, Purushottam Bhargava, Suzanne Michele Bourgoin, Paula K. Byers, S. B. Mookherji etc and this is also the current view about Maurya origin.

Buddhist Chroniclers hold that the clan name Maurya or Moriya is evolved from the term 'Mora' which is the Pali word for the peacock. But, at that early time, and in that land belonging to (or abuting with) the Aryavrata, where, unlike north-western India, the Brahmanical influence and culture had always been strong, the common term, in day to day usage, must have been Sanskrit Mayura (and not the Prakritic Mora). If this true, then it would be interesting to know as to how one can apply the Sanskruit Grammer rules to derive term Maurya from Sanskrit Mayura (=Peacock). It appears that the proponents and advocates of this theory, in their ardent desire to link the Moriya clan of the Pipphalivana with the dynasty of Chandragupta and Ashoka, have forgotten this important aspect of the etymolgy. Thus, if we can reject the Mura origin of the Mauryas based on the Sanskrit grammatical rules, we can also similarily reject the Maurya origin from the Sanskrit Mayura (peacock) based on the same Sanskrit grammer rules.

It is notable that linking Chandragupta Maurya origin to the Buddhist Moriya clan of Eastern India as well as the noble clan of the Sakyas of Buddha is certainly a belated and deliberate attempt on the part the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon to give an illustrious lineage to their Patron, Ashoka Maurya.......This is also clear from the Buddhist identification of Pippalivana with the site of Charcoal Stupa (which place is believed to be linked to the Buddhist Moriya clan of Eastern India) which again sems to be the result of attempts of these Buddhist monks to give Ashoka a highly distinguished lineage (Dr H. C. Seth) (Cf: Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India, 1901 Edition, pp 15-17, 29, Vincent Arthur Smith)

According to Dr Law: “Dipavamsa (4th c AD) says nothing about Nandas, but refers to Candaragupta (simply) as king of Maurya family (Moriya-kula) (Ref: Dipavamsa VI.19). Then the Mahavamsa (5th c AD) mentions nine Nandas and also says that Candragupta killed Dhanananda and secured sovereignty over whole of Jambudvipa under the guidance of a wrathful Brahmana Canakya. Then the Mahavamsatika (11th c AD) goes still further to avail itself of a fantastic story to account for the name Chandragupta and of other legends and to connect Chandragupta and his descendants with the Moriyas-- undoubtedly the Moriyas of Pipphalivana, and ultimately with the Sakyas of Kapilavastu. It narrates early life and training of Chandragupta under Canakya. Evidently, there grew up in later times, a Ceylon Buddhist version of legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya as a counter part of the Brahmanical and Jaina work...........there was distinctly a Buddhisttheological motive behind the connection which is sought to be established between the Moriyas of Magadha with the warrior Moriya clan of Pipphalivana and ultimately with the Sakyas of Kapilvastu. In many respects the legends are irreconcilable with Ashoka’s own records …“ (Ref: On the Chronicles of Ceylon, p 59, Dr B. C. Law)

The views expressed above by Dr B. C. Law reinforce the view of scholars like Dr H. C. Seth that the Buddhists of Ceylon have have wrongly connected the Moriyas of Eastern India and the Sakyas of Buddha in their attempt to give a distinguished lineage to the Buddhist emperor Ashoka Maurya.

COMMENT-1: Mahavamsa (5th c AD) is a rehandling of Dipavamsa (4th c AD) with additional matter referring to Sinhalese history. According to DR E. J. Thomas, the Mahavamsa written about in 5th c AD but continued to receive additions recording the HISTORY OF CEYLON, down to much later period (Ref: Life of Buddha As Legend and History, p xxiii, E. J. Thomas). If this is so, how can we be sure that the information in the Mahavamsa regarding Chandragupta Maurya has not been a later addition or else an interpolation?.

Refereing to Mahavamsa, Dr V. A. Smith states that "The Buddhist writers have erroneously represented the Mauryas as the princely race. For example, Mahavamsa Chapter 5 mentions 'Moriyanam Khattiyanam vamsejatana siridharan' rendered by Turnour and Wijesimha a descendant of the dynasty of Moriyan sovereigns endowed with illustrious and beneficent attributes, surnamed Chandragutta"(See: Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India, 1901 , p 42, fn 2, Dr Vincent Arthur Smith). Ashoka does not make even the slightest allusion to his ancestry (op cit, p 44, V. A. Smith). Dr Smith has labelled many Buddhist legends about Ashoka and Chandragupta Maurya appearing in Mahavamsa as grotesque and contradictory tales composed by by monkish romancers (op cit, pp 15, 17, 54/55, Smith). Dr Smith calls the Sanghamitra legend as extremely suspicious and the whole tale not more than a monkish fiction. Similarily, Prof Oldenberg has also remarked that the story of Mahinda and Sanghamitta in the Buddghist chronicles seems to have been invented for the purpose of possessing a history of the Buddhist institions in Ceylon and to connect it with most distinguished person conceivable--the great Ashoka. THe historically legend is found of poetically exalting the ordinary occurances into great and brilliant actions; we may assume that, in reality, things are accomplished in more gradual and less striking manner than such legends make them appear " ( Introduction to Vinayapitakam (Mahavagga), p 4 (ii), Oldenberg).

Thus these Buddhist legends in the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa and Mahavamsatika about the Mauryas should regarded with extreme caution since they may been invented with ultrior motives by Buddhist chroniclers.

The scholars who connect Chandragupta Maurya to Moriya clan of Eastern India mainly quote Mahavamsatikka (10th c work from Ceylon), besides some earlier works but those do not directly and definitely connect Chandragupta Maurya with the Moriya clan of Eastern India. The author of Mahavamsa narrates a story which says that Moriyas were an offshoot from the Sakyas who fled from Sakya country to Himalayan when Kosala king Vidudabha invaded and tortured the Sakyas. Interestingly, the same tradition also now definitely links Chandragupta Maurya to the Moriya clan of the Eastern India for the first time after 13 centuries of the event (See: Mahavamsatika, Ceylonese Edition, pp 119-120, foil; See also: See Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-13, Dr B. C. Law). But Great Buddhist scholar Dr B. C. Law describes the above traditional story of Mahavamsatika as historically untrue (See: Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212, Dr B. C. Law). According to him, the reason for this is that king Vidudabha was the son of Kosala king Presenjit who was contemporary of Buddha as well as of kings Bimbisara and Ajatsatru, the rulers of Magadha. Bimbisara is stated to have died 7 years prior to Buddha’s death (See: Oxford History of India, 2006 Edition, p 72, Dr V. A. Smith). Since Buddha’s death is now accepted as 486 BCE, hence Bimbisara died in 493 BCE. Hence Bimbisara’s son, Ajatsatru must have assumed rulership of Magadha only in 493 BCE, after the death of his father Bimbisara. Ajatsatru’s contemporary was Presenjit, the king of Kosala, who is said to have been deposed by his own son Vidudabha, when Presenjit was on a visit to Sakya country to meet Buddha. As a consequence, Presenjit sought the help of Ajatsatru to claim his kingdom back from his usurper son Vidudabha, but as he reached Magadha capital to meet Ajatsatru, Presenjit breathed his last.

The information provided above shows that Presenjit must have met the Buddha Sakya and afterwards, Ajatsatrua of Magadha between 493 BCE and 466 BCE. Now if Vidudabha had invaded Sakya country as the commentator of Mahavamsa claims, then Vidudabha must have done so only after 493 BCE, after assuming kingship of Kosala from his father since his father goes to seek help from Ajatsatru of Magadha who assumed rulership in 493 BCE . This evidently leads one to conclude that the Sakyas--- the alleged ancestors of the Moriyas, must have fled from the Sakya country due to oppressions of Vidudabha between 493 BCE and 486 BCE. But we know from the Buddhist evidence of Digha Nikaya that at the very occasion of the GREAT DECEASE i.e 486 BCE (and only 6 years after their flight from Sakya country), the Moriyas of Pippalivana are shown as contemporary, distinct and a powerful rivals of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu (See: Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, (II. 167). Now the question arises as to how within only few years (less than 5-6 years) of their flight under Vidudabha of Kosala, the Moriyas who are alleged to be an offshoot from the Sakyas, grew so powerful and a distinct tribe so as to become apowerful rival of their parent clan in so short a time. This makes this traditional story as highly suspicious and no doubt, Dr B. C. Law has rejected this tradition as unhistorical.

It is not possibly that the Moriyas (whom Mahavamsatika describes as the offshoot of the Sakyas of Kapilvastu) could have become so POWERFUL and DISTINCT RIVALS of the Sakyas within couple of years of their alleged separation from their alleged parent clan, the Sakyas of Kapilavastu. Dr B. C. Law rightly rejects this as historically untrue. Therefore, just as the first part of the above Buddhist tale has been ably exposed by Dr Law and rejected as being historically untrue, one can likewise, reject the second part of the tradition which seeks to establish connection between Chandragupta Maurya and the Moriya Ksatriya clan of Eastern India as also being historically untrue. It is absurd to trust a tradition which was set in writing about 13 centuries after the Maurya reign. The story appears to have been invented by Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon to confer upon Buddhist Ashoka an illustrious lineage by linking him to noble Sakya clan of the Lord. As noted above, Scholars like Dr V. A. Smith have rightly styled these stories by these Buddhist writers as “silly fictions of mendacious monks", "tales told by monkish romancers" etc.

[edit] (C) ORIGIN OF MORIYA DYNASTY FROM NORTH WEST INDIA

There are several very serious and distinguished scholars who disagree with both the above hypthotheses on the origin of Maurya Dynasty. Amongst them are celebrated names like Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr B. M. Barua, Dr H. C. Seth, Dr H. R. Gupta, Dr Ranajit Pal, Kirpal Singh and others who express secepticism about both of the above views.

(1): Dr D. B. Spooner: In his article "Zoroastrian period of Indian History" (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1915, Part I, p 406, Part II, pp 416-17), Dr. Spooner draws attention to the striking resemblance between the palaces of Chandragupta and those of Persian empire which made him arrive at a far-fetched conclusion that Chandragupta was a Persian. It seems, as in modelling a big Indian empire, likewise in modelling his palaces too, Chandragupta was greatly influenced by Persian ideals. The Maurya hall at Pataliputra was built on the model of the pillared hall at Persipolis. The Ahura Mazda of the Iranians is the same as Asura Maya of the Mahabharata. Just as Darius attributes his exploits to Ahura Mazda, Mahabharata likewise attributes such buildings to Asura Maya. Dr Spooner interprets "Asura" with "Ahura" and "Maya" with "Mazda". In Mahabharata, there is a reference to an Indian structure (e.g. Pandava palace at Indraprastha) built by a Asura Maya. In this reference Dr Spooner sees ancient connections of the Iranian artists and architects with the Indian mainland since remote antiquity. Further, the script which the Mauryas introduced into their empire was also of Achaemenian origin. Dr Spooner also remarks that name Maurya is not connected with Mura, a Sudra women, but with Mt Meru, the Merv, the Avestan town Mouru, which is known as Margu in the Achaemenian inscriptions and is located in Persepolis. Dr. Spooner is of the opinion that King Chandragupta was an Iranian and Zoroastrian who had founded a kingdom in India with capital at Pataliputra. He termed his dynasty as Maurya from the name of his motherland Merv, just as in modern Persian, an inhabitant of Merv is called Maurya. According to Dr Spooner, Chandragupta belonged to Merv (Mourv) the Avestan town Mouru, which is known as Margu in the Achaemenian inscriptions and is located in Persepolis. He further supposes that the Maurya rulers of Pataliputra were the descendants of the Achaemenean rulers of Persepolis.....He also brings out another very important point that the Army of Chandragupta was predominantly made of Iranians which comprised warlike tribes like Sakas, kambojas, Paradas, Parasikas, Bahlikas etc which were all Iraninas. This testimony of Mudrarakshasa, according to Dr Spooner, is explicit on this point and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in a matter of this kind (Op cit, Part II, p 416-17)

• NOTE:: Referring to Mauryan art and archicture, Sir James Fergusson, who is considered foremost authority in the history of Architecture in all countries of world also comments that the earliest Buddhists of western India, either belonged to Persian Empire or drew their art from it (Quoted in: Bombay Gazetteer, 1882, p 413). This lends further support to the views expressed by Dr Spooner that Mauryna rulers were Iraninas.

(2): Dr B. M. Barua: Dr Barua bases his theory of the north-west origin of Chandragupta on the very important fact that "Chandragupta’s education, military training and military/political alliances were all in that part of the India. And moreover, some of Asokas’ more important rock edicts also are located there--- After adoption of Buddhism by Asoka, the entire sources of his vast empire were harnessed to the drive of propaganda in the north-west " (Indian Histocal Quartely, 1963, p 159, B. M. Barua). Dr Barua observes: “To me, Chyandragupta was a man of Uttarapatha, or Gandhara, if not exactly of Taxila. His early education, military training, and alliances were all in that part of India and that some of Asoka's scribes were habituated to Kharosthi and few of his artists were well versed in the traditions of Persipolis. Furthermore, the Greek writers did not connect Chandragupta with the Maurya family.... He added the whole of province of Gandhara and the surrounding tribal states (Punjab and North-West Frontier Province) to the growing Magadha empire to gather with the territories ceded to him by Selecus Nicator” (Indian Culture, Vol X, p 34, B. M. Barua). There is a force in the above arguments of B. M Barua.

(3): Dr Chandra Chakraverty: In his interesting book entitled "The Racial History of India", Dr Chandra Chakraverty connects Chandragupta Maurya initially with Ujjanaka Uddyana/Oddyana, or Swat valley and calls him a ruler of this territory at the time of Alexander's invasion. He writes: Massaga, the stronghold of the Assaakenians (Assakenoi) was stormed with great difficulty, and when the defenders were treacherously massacred, the women, according to Diodorus, taking up arms of the fallen fougHt heroically, side by side with their men. The Assakenians had an army of 20,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry and 30 elephants but when defeated, they were given over as a reward to Sasigupta (Sisikottos). From Bajaur (i.e. Asvaka country), Alexander’s swollen army entered into Ujjanaka, the Mauriya kingdom of Chandragupta (Ujjanaka = Woo-chang of Fa-hsien, U-chang-na of Hiuen Tsang, Uddyana---the Swat Valley...i.e Aornos country of the eastern Asvakas). Here the resistance was as stubborn as in Bajaur and Alexander received a serious wound in the ankle. Then Poros (Porus) resisited the invaders on the banks of Hydaspes i.e Jhelum (See: Racial History of Ancient India, 1944, p 814-15, Chandra Chakraverty). It is notable that Chandra Chakraverty connects Sasi-gupta with Malakand area and Chandragupta with Uddyana/Swat valley (Prakrit Ujjana or Ujjanaka = Woo-chang of Fa-hsien, U-chang-na of Hiuen Tsang, = Sanskrit Uddyana/Udyana---the Swat Valley...i.e Aornos country of the eastern Asvakas) both localities being located in north-west frontiers and constituted the land of the famous Asvakas (which means expert horsemen and breeders of notable horses).

(4): Dr J. W. McCrindle: J. W. McCrindle writes that 'Sandrokottos was of obscure birth and from the the remarks of Plutarch that during his early days he had met Alexander, we may infer that he was a native of Punjab...... He paid a visit to Nandru (Nanda), king of Magadha, but for some reasons, he had offended the king and had to flee for his life and he returned to his native land i.e north-west...' (See: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, p 405, John Watson M'Crindle et al).

COMMENT-1: J. W. McCrindle calls Chandragupta as Panjabi. North-west frontiers, the land of the Ashvakas, constituted part of greater Panjab, which in ancient times also included regions west of Indus and encompassed Swat/Kunar territories and Kabol river. It is very important that Dr J. W. McCrindle who re-translated the ancient classical works of Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Justins etc relating to Alexander's invasion of India, has identified Chandragupt as hailing from the north-west. This is what B. M. Barua, the greatest Buddhist scholar, also states (Asoka and His Inscriptions, 1968, p 51, Beni Madhab Barua, Ishwar Nath Topa). Dr McCrindle has further reconciled and corrected several errors in the copies of the transcripts and has corrected Justin's story about Chandragupta having met Alexander and offending the latter (See: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, pp 405, Watson M'Crindle).

COMMENT-2: Dr Hari Ram Gupta explains at length as how the relations of Chanakya and Chandragupta with Nanda king of Magadha turned hostile. "At Pataliputra, the capital of Magadha, there was a high council of learned professors. It had been in existence for a long time. Anybody who wrote something of value or discovered some scientific truth had to appear before this body to establish the merit of his own work. If the judges approved of it, he was awarded a prize of one thousand gold coins, freedom from payment of taxes and other state contributions for life and a roll of honour. The emperor of Magadha was its patron. Chanakya applied for the prize and left Takshashila for Pataliputra. Chandragupta seems to have accompanied his teacher. He was still in this teens.". Kirpal Singh also thinks that "Chandragupta had accompanied his teacher Chanakya, when the latter had gone to Pataliputra to make a presentation on the principles of state-craft and diplomacy, contained in his (Chanakya's) newly written book, Arthashastra, which he had authored at Taxila University".

(5): Dr Ratanjit Pal: While writing on Sasigupta, Dr Ratajit Pal remarks: "Curiously, the Satrap of the Taksashila (Taxila) area under Alexander was another Gupta whose history has been treated in the most perfunctory manner. After capturing the rock fort at Aornos near Taxila Alexander left Sasigupta in command. Sasigupta of Taxila who is first heard of in 327BC is clearly the Chandragupta of B. M. Barua. J. W. McCrindle also noted the discrepancies but missed the real Chandragupta... ..."The very name Sasigupta tells a story (Saśi = Chandra in Sanskrit) that has remained unheard due to the callousness of historians like Badian and Green who have blindly followed the Greek and Roman sources alone for the reconstruction of Alexander's life. This is a very unsatisfactory approach that has obscured the true identity of a central figure who masqueraded under many names. Badian notes the crucial role of Sasigupta in Alexander's camp but has no idea that he is the same as "Moeris" of Pattala, who was pursued by Alexander. Chandragupta belonged to the Maurya line of kings" (Ref: THE POISONING OF ALEXANDER BY THE GENERALS AND SASIGUPTA, Dr Ranajit Pal) See Link [4]. Thus one can see that Dr Ratanjit Pal takes Sasigupta to be same as Chandragupta and treats "Saśi" as the synonym of "Chandra". And more interestingly, Dr Ratanjit Pal has identified king "Moeris" of lower Indus to be the same person as Sasigupta. It looks likely that the relations between Sasigupta and Alexander had gotten sour after the assassination of Greek Satrap Nicanor (the Alexander's Satrap of the frontier land of the Ashvakas of Massaga). Since the Ashvaskas had also threatened to kill Sasigupta (Alexander-appointed governor of the eastern Ashvakas of Aornos), if the latter continued to cooperate with Alexander, it thus appears likely that Sasigupta may have finally deserted Alexander's camp and returned to his own people and formed a joint insurgent front against the foreign invaders. This way, he must have offended Alexander and, to escape the effects of his displeasure, he may have fled to lower Indus/Patala. Sasigupta was a remarkable military adventurist (Dr H. C. Seth), chief of the Corporation of warriors, a shrewed politician and, on top of it, a far-sighted statesman and diplomat, he must have realised the pulse of changing times now and at a right opportunity, he may have returned to his countrymen and became leader of the insurgents. This is quite possible. Dr Ratanjit Pal takes this MOERIS of Patala (referred to by Curtius: See: Historiae Alexandri Magni, IX,8,28) to be same historical personage called MEROES referred to by Arrian (Arrian Anabasis Book 5b, Ch XVIII), as originally belonging to the north-west, stated to be a good old friend of Poros, who was sent as an ambassador by Alexander to bring the fleeing Poros back for peace negotiation after the battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum). And Dr Ratanjit Pal identifies this MEROES with classical Siskottos (Sasigupta).

NOTE: Meroes, Moeris, Moeres, Morieis, Mories, and Meris are all equivalents and refer to the same name (Age of Nandas, and Mauryas, 1967, p 427, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri; Maurajya Samarajya Samsakrik Itihasa, 1972, B. P. Panthar; Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahminabad, 1975, p 26, Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont; Indological Studies, 1977, p 100, Unversity of Sindh, Institute of Sindology).

(6): Dr H. C. Seth: The detailed research on the north-west origin of Mauryas was carried out by Dr H. C. Seth. Dr Seth also quotes both Dr Spooner and Dr Barua to reinforce his theory of Maurya origin which was first published in the “Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona” in 1936 (See: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, pp 157-165, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Indo-Aryan philology, Dr H. C. Seth; See also: Indian Review, 1937, p 814, Ed. G. A. Natesan; Indian Culture , 1934, p 305, Indian Research Institute).

On the Mura story, Dr Seth argues that the Mura/Nanda story for the first time appeared in Mudrarakshasa drama by Visakhadatta around 4th-5th c AD (Dr V. A. Smith). It is difficult to trace any older or more satisfactory evidence for the Mura story. No doubt, at one or two places, the drama does suggest the kinship of Chandragupta and the Nandas but at places, the drama also lends itself to interpretation. According to other version, Mura was of low birth Sudra women, daughter of a Vrishala (Op cit. 1937, p 158, Dr H. C. Seth).

And Dr Seth uses scientific and linguistic evidence to delink Maurya origin from MURA and thus rejects Dr Smith’s hypothesis as etymologically untenable on the principals of Sanskrit grammer. Dr Seth argues that the descendants of faminine name Mura must have their descendants named as Maureyas and not Mauryas as the rules of Sanskrit language should dictate. As in all old Hindu books, the name of the dynasty is found always written as Maurya, hence, the Mura hypothesis is baseless and not sustainable (Op cit. 1937, p 165, Dr H. C. Seth).

"That Chandsragupta did not belong to the Nanda family is also proven by the fact that Chandragupta was indifferent to the murder of last Nanda prince Sarvasthasidhi (said to be Chandragupta's real grand father, according to the author of Mudrarakshasa commentary) who had already left the worldly struggle for the throne and had already retired to hermitage. Chandragupta did not participate in his obsequies. On the other hand, Chandraguopta himself performed the obsequies on the death of king Paravartaka or Porus (Para 33, act 1 of the Mudrarakshasa). According to Hindu customs and the Shastras, the last rites of the deceased are performed by the sons or other very close relatives. This demonstrates that Chandragupta was not related to Sarvasthasidhi Nanda, otherwise, as a grandson, he would have participated in his grandfather's obsequies. On the other hand, he seem to be more affiliated to Parvartaka, the Mlechcha king of north-west. Moreover, he is also pitted against the Nanda descendants and is prepared to put against Sarvasthasidhi a foreign prince called Malayaketu-- a Mlechcha on the throne belonging to his alleged ancestors " (Op cit. 1937, p 159, Dr H. C. Seth).

Dr Seth writes: "We know from the Greek accounts that at the time of Alexander's invasion, Chandragupta was in north-west. Plutarch mentions his having met the conqueror. How did Chandragupta, if he belonged to Magadha, happened to be in north-west at that time? To reconcile these facts, highly improbable and fairy-like story is woven round Chandragupta". ..."A lad hardly above twenty, first tried to over throw Nandru (Nanda) of Magadha. having failed in this attempt, he fled to Punjab side....... After Alexander's retirement from India, in 323 BCE, he there overpowered the mighty Ashvakas west of Indus, powerful Porus, the great fighters the Kshatriyas east of Ravi and the invincible Malloi in Sindh ---all of whom gave Alexander a hardest fight of his life. ...It can not be believed that all these hardy and independent people submitted to an unknown runaway of doubtful origin (i.e Chandragupta). Even Alexander had failed to subdue these fierce and freedom loving people. If history is to be correctly interpreted, they submitted only to one great among themselves, as Chandragupta perhaps really he was" (Op cit. 1937, p 161, Dr H. C. Seth).

Dr Seth further remarks: "The scholars have not treated the evidence from Appian with the attention it deserved. Appian (Syriakê, c. 55) was Syrian historian, whose references to Chandragupta (Androkottos) are worthy of greatest consideration because of the very intimate relations between Seleucus Nicator, the founder of Syrian empire and Chandragupta Maurya the founder of Indian empire. Speaking of Seleucus, Appian says: 'And having crossed Indus, he warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river (the Indus), until he entered into an alliance and marriage affinity with him'. This statement from Appian clearly shows that Chandragupta was initially a ruler of Indus country" (Op cit. 1937, p 161, Dr H. C. Seth). It was only after Chandragupta's war with Seleucus and the defeat of the latter which took place in 312 BCE (according to Williams Jone; Dr V. A. Smith; Encyclopedias and dictionaries (1915)), in 305 BCE (according to E. J. Rapson), and in 301 BCE according to Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee) that Chandragupta appear to have shifted his capital and residence from north-west to Pataliputra, which was also the political headquarters of the regime he had succeeded to.

Dr Seth refers to Sasigupta---Sisikottus of the Greek chroniclers, whom he connects with the Ashvaka clans of the Swat/Kunar valleys or to other branches of the Asvakas ruling west of river Indus, in the region falling between Hindukush and Kabul river. Sasigupta was some upstart military adventurist, from this very region, who had first sided with Iranian Bessus, (the Iranain governor of Bactria) against Alexander and when Bessus’s case was lost, Sasigupta befriended Alexander and co-operated with him at Sogdiana. Later he also helped Alexander in reducing several Ksatriya chiefs of the Ashvakas when Alexander invaded republican territories of the Swat/Kunar, Massaga and Aornos on the west of Indus. The Ashvakas are the Assakenoi and Aspasio of the Greeks writings and were sub-sections of the great Kamboja tribe living in north-eastern Afghanistan during this phase of history (Dr E Lamotte, Dr Jayswal, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee, Dr Buddha Prakash, Dr R. C. Majumdar etc). Dr Seth analyzes the names "Sasigupta" and "Chandragupta"--- which both in Sanskrit mean “moon-protected” (See: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as Described by Arrian, Qurtius…, 1896, pp 76, 408, John Watson M'Crindle; Chinese Buddhism, p 93, Joseph Edkins). “Śasi” part of Śasi-gupta has same meaning in Sanskrit as “Chandra” part of Chandra-gupta. Thus, Chandragupta and Śasigupta are exact synonyms. It is also not uncommon practice in India to substitute one’s common name with its synonyms. Dr Seth notes that since Sasigupta and Chandragupta are known to have led similar early Military careers, therefore, the two variant names Sasigupta and Chandragupta, in reality, refer to one and the same historical personage. Śasigupta was a remarkable military adventurist, who had played very important roles during Alexander's invasion of Iran/India. After defeat of the Ashvakas, Alexander made Śasigupta the strap of Ashvakas and entrusted to his command the most strategical fort of Aornos whom not even Herkeles could conquer in earlier times (Op. cit, p 112, J. W. McCrindle et al).

"If we take into account the practice Alexander followed of putting in-charge of the area which he conquered, the vanquished ruler himself or some equally influential from among the people, we find no difficulty in assuming that Sasigupta either belonged to the ruling dynasty of the area of which Massaga and Aornos were the centres, or to some other influential ruling Ashvaka family of west of Indus. Obviously this was the only way in which Alexander could get support of the entirely alien people.......He did it in case of Ambhi, the ruler of Taxila and as also Porus, the ruler of northern Punjab territories falling between Jhelum and Bias. If Chandragupta is identical to Sasigupta, then we find no difficulty in assuming that he indeed belonged to the Ksatriya clan of the Ashvakas whose influence extended from the Hindukush to eastern Punjab at the time of Alexander's invasion. With Mauryan conquest of other parts of India, these Asvakas settled in other parts of India as well. From Buddhist literature, we also read of southern Asvakas (or Assakas or Asmakas) on the bank of river Godavary in Trans Vindhya country. The Ashvakas are known to have belonged the great Lunar dynasty" (Op cit. 1937, p 163, Dr H. C. Seth).

"The fact that Chandragupta belonged to the Indus region may help us give more satisfactory explanation of the origin of the name Maurya. In the heart of the country lying between Hindukush and Indus, once ruled by Ashvakas, stands to this day the three peaked mountain spur from Kunar range which curving eastwards, culminates in the well known peak of KOH-i-MOR i.e MOR Mountain, which is visible from Peshawar valley. The Greek chroniclers call it Mt MEROS, but in ancient Sanskrit literature, it was probably same as Mt Meru (Op cit., p xxxI, J. W. McCrindle et al; See also: Indian Borderland, 1996, p 3, T. Hungerford Holdich; The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, 1910, p 226, Encyclopedias and dictionaries; Alexander the Great, 2004, p 319, Lewis Vance Cummings - Biography & Autobiography; Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study in Motives and Types, 1996, p 271, Allan Dahlaquist). In Prakritic or local parlance, it was known as MOR and MER. Since Chandragupta (alias Sasigupta) belonged to this territory, the dynasty founded by him was called Maurya" (Op cit. 1937, p 164, Dr H. C. Seth). .

Referring to the Buddhist tradition that Mauryan rulers of Magadha originally belonged to Pippalivana, Dr Seth remarks that this may be a correct historical tradition, but in Pali texts, this Pippalivana has been wrongly identified with Nyagrodha Forrest which was the site of Char Coal Stupa (said to be associated with the Moriya clan of Eastern India), and the identification of Charcoal Stupa seem to be the result of the attempts of the Buddhist chroniclers to give king Asokas a highly distinguished lineage. Dr Seth observes that Fa-hien (399 – 411 AD) does not mention the name of Pippalivana (i.e the site of Char Coal Stupa). Further, in the Tibetan Chronicle Dulva the site of Charcoal Stupa is called the town of Nvagrodha or Baniya Forest (Asiatic Researches, Bengal xx). Chinese pilgraim, Hiuen Tsang who visited India (630- 644) had also visited this site but he also does not mention the site as Pippalivana but instead, speaks of site of Char Coal Stupa as Nvgarodha trees. It is very interesting that only Ceylonese and the Burmese chronicles, which are based on the Ceylonese chronicles, call the site of Char Coal Stupa as Pippalivano. Dr Seth says that since Hiuen Tsang had actually visited the site of Charcoal Stupa, we must accept his testimony in preference to distant chroniclers of Ceylon or those of Burma which followed the Ceylonese chronicles (Op. cit., 1937, p 160, Dr Seth). In this connection it is also added that General Alexander Cunnigham, author of famous "Ancient Geography of India" had also earlier rejected the identification of the site of Char Coal Stupa with the Pippalivana on similar grounds as Dr Seth has put elicited above (See: The Ancient Geography of India, Vol I, The Buddhist Period.., p 429, Col Alexander Cunningham): See Link:[5] . Other scholars also have rejected the identification of Char Coal Stupa site with Pippalivana of the Ceylonese chroniclers (Ref: Studies in Indian History and Civilization, 1962, p 85, Buddha Prakash - India). Dr H. C. Raychaudhury had identified the Nyagrodhavanna with the Pippalivana but Dr Buddha Praksh has criticized this identification and has also asked for evidence if the site of the tope ever abounded in peepul trees (op cit, p 85, Dr Buddha Prakash).

Thus there is a force in Dr Seth’s arguments.

In the above context, Dr Seth has brought out a interesting point here. The landscape extending to its north-east (the Daradistan territory) was anciently known for its Pipilika or Ant-gold (See Mahabharata 2.49.4). But since Swat, Kunar and Indus were also the ancient sources of Alluvial gold and the term Pipilika is believed by some scholars to refer to the size of the alluvial grains (in actuality, it also referred to river gold) and the scholars like Pickard think that this was perhaps the true origin of the name Pipilika (Ref: Science and Civilization in China, 1954, p 339, Joseph Needdam, Ling Wang). It is believed that Pipilka may also have been the local name of the regions lying between Indus and Hindukush due to the abundant availability of Pipilka gold. The Pippalivan of the Ceylonese texts is probably a corruption of this very name local parlance. It is also notable that the fifth century Sanskrit play of Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa refers to the Pipilka gold of the Kambojas (Ref: The Purana, Vol VI, No 1, Jan 1964, Kamboja Janapada by Dr V. S. Aggarwal) who were the ancient inhabitants of this very region.

Dr Seth observes: "As regards Pippalivana, we have already noted that it was wrongly identified by Buddhist chronicles of Ceylon with the site of Char Coal Stupa. It is likely that the region between Hindukush and Indus was known as Pippalivana. In the upper reaches of Indus and Swat lie Daradistan from which Pipilika (Ant gold or as Pickard believes, the Alluvail gold grains) was obtained and is still obtained. The fact that very large amount of gold was obtained from this area is testified by the heavy tribute it paid in gold to Persian empire during Achaemenid rule" (Op cit. 1937, p 164, Dr H. C. Seth).

In an attempt to attribute to Chandragupta and his descendants an illustrious lineage and to link them finally to the noble clan of the Sakyas, the distant Ceylonese Chroniclers appear to have transformed this Pipilika to Pippalivana and connected it erroneously to the site of Char coal Stupa of the Moriya clan of Eastern India.

The Ashvakas had revealed to the Greek chroniclers accompanying Alexander that they (Asvakas--Assaekenois) belonged to the line of Devanahusha–a divine personage of lunar race (Indian Caste, 2000, p 332, Johm Willson). This Deva-Nahusha is same as Nahusha, son of Yayati of lunar race of the ancient Sanskrit texts (See: Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, Numismatic, and Palæographic, of the ... , 1858, p 236, James Prinsep, Henry Thoby Prinsep - Numismatics; The History of Hindostan: Its Arts, and Its Sciences, as Connected with the ..., 1820, p 127, Thomas Maurice; Useful Tables, Forming an Appendix to the Journal of the Asiatic Society, 1834, p 96. God Nhusha =Devanahusha= Dionysos= Bacchus, Wilford). The Asmaka clan of southern India is said to have migrated from north-west in ancient times and are stated to be related to the Asvakas of Kabul valley. The Asmakas (Pali Assakas) are said to be connected to the lunar race in the Yadava geneaology. Megasthenes also records that Chandragupta belonged to the greater lunar race (See: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, p 163, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Indo-Aryan philology; Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, fn.2, Dr H. R. Gupta; Cambridge History of Ancient India, I, p 400). On the other hand, the Moriya clan of eastern India, first referred to in 6th c BCE, is said to belong to Aditya race or solar or Suryavamsa race of the Sakya Buddha per a tradition recorded in mediaeval era i.r. 10th/11th century Buddhist text, the Mahavamsatika (See: Mahavamsatikka, Ceylonese Edition, pp 119-120, foil; Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 212, Dr B. C. Law; The Indian Historical Quarterly, 1963, p 422; Ancient India, 2003, p 285, Dr V. D. Mahajan; Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 236, Dr H. C. Raychaudhuri). If Megasthenes and the Greek historians have correctly recorded the lineages of the Assaekenoi/Ashvakas and Sandrokottos/Chandragupta, then Chandragupta should have belong to north-western India, especially the Swat/Kunar region, west of Indus, rather than to the Suryavamsi Moriya clan residing anciently in Eastern India.

The north-west origin of Chandragupta is also indicated from the fact that how very soon after Alexander's retirement from India, Chandragupta had completely uprooted the Greek power in the Punjab. Even before Alexander left India, most of the Greek straps he had appointed including Niconor of lower Kabul valley and Phillips who was from royal family and was governor of Punjab upto confluence of Indus and Chenab, were killed by the Ashvakas and the mercenary soldiers respectively. It is absurd to say as Dr V. A. Smith suggests that Chandragupta first defeated the Nandas and then came to Punjab to finish the Greek straps there. India from Gangaridai in the east to Surashtra in the west and from Hindukush in the North to Godavary in the south had formed one compact empire under Chandragupta. Dr V. A. Smith however, correctly observes that "the first Indian emperor, more than two thusands years ago, entered into possession of that scientific frontiers which was sighed in vain by his English successors and never held in its entirety even by the Moghul monarchs of 16th and 17th centuries. That only Chandragupta could do this job because he himself was one among the great and independent people of the frontiers whom he was able to submit (Op cit. 1937, p 161/162, Dr H. C. Seth).

Dr Seth has also brought out another interesting point that one of Ashoka’s grandson was named Shakuni. Since Shakuni is a legendary name/designation popular in the Gandhara region as is attested by Epic Mahabharata, therefore, this also reinforces Chandragupta’s affinities with North-west rather than eastern India.

Dr Seth refers to Dr D. B. Spooner's famous article "Zoroastrian period of Indian History" (See: Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1915, Part I, p 406) and draws attention to the striking resemblance between the palaces of Chandragupta and those of the Persian empire which made Dr Spooner arrive at a far-fetched conclusion that Chandragupta was a Persian. It seems, as in modelling a big Indian empire, likewise in modelling his palaces too, Chandragupta was greatly influenced by Persian ideals. The Maurya hall at Pataliputra was built on the model of the pillared hall at Persipolis. The script which the Mauryas introduced was also of Achaemenian origin. Dr. Spooner connects the name Maurya, with the Avestan town Mouru, which is known as Margu in the Achaemenian inscriptions and is located in Persepolis. Dr Spooner also recognizes the Maurya rulers of Pataliputra as the descendants of the Achamenean rulers of Persepolis. Dr Seth does not accept a observations of Dr Spooner put forward in his paper that Chandragupta's ancestral home was Persepolis and the Mauryas were descendants of the Achaemenids......But it is very likely that Chandragupta was intimately in personal touch with the Persians empire before its break-up by the Greeks forces of Alexander (Op cit. 1937, p 161, Dr H. C. Seth)....... And rather than Persipolis, Chandragupta ancestral home was the land of the great Ashvakas whose territory covered extensive area lying south of Hindukush and west of Indus (Dr Seth).

• ABOVE EXTRACTS TAKEN FROM: ANNALS OF THE BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, POON, 1936, ART BY Dr SETH.

(7) Dr H. R. Gupta (Punjabi University Patiala): "Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it. Afterwards, with the help of the Punjab army he seized the Nanda empire. However, there are reasons to believe that Chandragupta belonged to the Kshatriya caste of the ruling Ashvaka tribe of the Koh-i-Mor territory. He called himself Maurya after his homeland "(Ref: Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, pp 32-35, Dr H. R. Gupta).

Dr H. R. Gupta, a historian of Punjab is very sceptical as to how an inexperienced youngman far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and without any monetary and other resources of his own could have conquered the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers (Ref: Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, 1966, p 32, Dr H. R. Gupta).

Dr Gupta argues: "It had taken Alexander, the world’s great conqueror, over a year and four months to subdue the people of the submontane Punjab starting from east Afghanistan to river Hyphasis (Biasa), which area spanned a distance of just 500 miles. Alexander had entered Afghanistan in June 327 BCE and and reached river Bias in September 326 BCE. This amounts to conquering a mile a day only (See: Op cit., p 32, Dr H. R. Gupta). It does not at all seem possible that an inexperienced youngman from far off Bihar, without any human, financial and material resources of his own and without any social and political clout could easily conquer the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers (Ref: Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, pp 3, Dr H. R. Gupta) Op cit. p 32, Dr. H. R. Gupta). This region belonged to the well known warlike, hardy, fiercely independent and freedom-loving people who are known never to have easily yielded to any overlord. Besides, the scholars also argue that it is not a common custom among the Indians to assume a family name after their mothers' name as the Nanda-Mura story wants us readers to believe. Generally, the family name is takens from one’s father side, fatherland or else from one’s caste name. Thus, to say that Chandragupta hadassumed the Maurya name from his mother name (Mura) does not sound convincing. Moreover, why would Chandragupta like to be recognised in history as the son of Dasi Mura, a keeper of pea-cocks (Mayuras)?" (Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, 1966, pp 32-33, Dr H. R. Gupta).

On the right bank of the Panj Kora river, (ancient Ghourea), nearly opposite to its junction with the river of Swat, there is a very conspicuous mountain, whose three-headed outline can be distinctly seen from Peshawar cantonment. These peaks are located not far on the northern side of Malkand pass and of them, two are called Korasibie and Kondaske and the third is known as Meros, perhaps the Meru of the Sanskrit texts. Its prakritic form would be Mor or Mer. Now a days, it is known by the name Koh-i-Mor or Mountain of Mor. The people living in Koh i Mor or Mor mountain were the Meros of Greeks writings. It is likely that Chandragupta (Sandrokottos of the classical writings) belonged to a ruling Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas of MOR region (modern Koh-i-Mor) and his dynasty was known as Moriya or Mauriya after that place (Punjab History Conference, Second Session, October 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, 1966, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta).

COMMENT-1: They Meros were same people as the Mauryas of the Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana where they are conspicuously depicted as Asuras or Daityas. In the Devi-Bhagtama Chapter, the Kalakeyas (Afridis), Mauryas, Kambus (Kambojas), Kalakas (Kajalas or Glausai of the Greeks), Daurhrta (Dardas?) etc are all bracketed togather as allied clans and are styled as Asura warriors (Markendeya Purana, verses 8.1-6). All this people belonged to the north-west per evidence of Markandeya Purana. There are also epic references to King Ashoka which style him as an incarnation of Maha-Asura---i.e. great Demon (See: Mahabharata I.67.13-14). Dr H. C. Raychaudhury also refers to this verse of Markendeya Purana with reference to the Mauryas and Ashoka Maurya (Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee). Sisikottos or Sasigupta was the Strap of the Assakeninas (The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great , 1896, p 112, J. W. McCrindle)

In his book on Alexander’s Invasion of India, Dr McCrindle notes: "From the remark of Plutarch that in the early years he had seen Alexander, we may infer that he was a native of the Punjab." (The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, p 405, John Watson M'Crindle). Speaking of Seleucus Nicator, Appian a Greek historian of Roman citizenship says: “And having crossed Indus, he (Selecus) warred with Androkottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river (the Indus) until he entered into an alliance and marriage affinity with him" (See: Appian's Roman History, XI.55). This powerful evidential statement from Appian clearly shows that initially (i.e. before his war with Seleucus) Chandragupta as a ruler was living about Indus country.

“The Ashvakas had revealed to the Greek chroniclers who accompanied Alexander that they (Asvakas--Assaekenois) belonged to the line of Devanahusha–a divine personage of the lunar race” (See: Indian Caste, 2000, p 332, Johm Willson). This Deva-Nahusha is same as Nahusha, son of Yayati of lunar race of the ancient Sanskrit texts (See: Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, Numismatic, and Palæographic, of the ... , 1858, p 236, James Prinsep, Henry Thoby Prinsep - Numismatics; The History of Hindostan: Its Arts, and Its Sciences, as Connected with the ..., 1820, p 127, Thomas Maurice; Useful Tables, Forming an Appendix to the Journal of the Asiatic Society, 1834, p 96. God Nhusha =Devanahusha= Dionysos= Bacchus, Wilford). The Ashmaka or Ashvaka clan of Godavary is said to have migrated from north-west in ancient times and is said by some scholars to be related to the Ashvakas of the Kabul valley. The Asmakas/Asvakas (Pali Assakas) of southern India are also said to be connected to the lunar race in the Yadava geneaology. The coins of the Ashvakas of Swat/Kunar also carry a picture of moon which also imply their connection with moon or to the lunar race. Megasthenes has also records that Chandragupta belonged the great lunar race (See: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, pp 157-165, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Indo-Aryan philology, Dr H. C. Seth; Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, fn.2, Dr H. R. Gupta; Cambridge History of Ancient India, I, p 400). “It seems very likely that Chandragupta belonged the influential Ashvaka family of the territory now-a-days called north-west frontier province and had met the Macedonian conqueror when the latter was on his military compaign of Afghnaista/Panjabn regions”........“There was yet another prince named Sasigupta (Sisikottos of the classical writings) who was also a petty ruler of some hill state between Hindukush and Indus river with Massaga and Aornos forming its principal centres. Sasigupta had first sided with his friend Bessus, the Iranain governor of Bactria against Alexander but when Bessus’s case was lost, Sasigupta joined Alexander and co-operated with him during his compaign of Sogdiana. Later he had rendered a great service to Alexander in reducing several Kshatriya chiefs of the Ashvakas when the Macedonina conqueror had invaded the Kunar/Swat valleys on the west of Indus. When the most strategic fortress located on the top of hill called Aornos was captured after stubborn resistance offered by the Ashvakas, Alexander entrusted the command of this garrison to Sasigupta. Arrian calls Sasigupta the Satrap of the Assakenois or Ashvakas (See: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great , 1896, p 112, John Watson M'Crindle; The History and Culture of the Indian People, 1969, p 49, Dr Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bhāratīya Itihāsa Samiti - India; Alexander's Campaign on the Indian North-West Frontier: Notes from Explorations between Upper Swat and the Indus, Aurel Stein, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Dec., 1927), pp. 515-540). Mer, probably was another power center of the Ashvakas but it is not clear if this Sisikottos or Sasigupta, the strap of eastern Ashvakas was related to Sandrokottos or Chandragupta, the young prince from the influential family of frontier province or not. It is possible that both were the chiefs of two separate branches of the Ashvakas" (Ref: Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, fn.2, Dr H. R. Gupta; The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, p 151, Kirpal Singh). If we analyze the two names "Śaśigupta" and "Chandragupta", we find them both exactly synonymous. “Śaśi” means moon in Sanskrit and so also does “Chandra”. Both names literally mean “moon protected”.

“Chanakya was born in a Brahmin family at Takshashila (Taxila in Rawalpindi district), the capital of Gandhara, in about 346 B.C. His original name was Vishnugupta, but his parents called him by the pet name of Chanakya. He had studied all the constitutions of numerous states existing at that time in Punjab. After pain-staking work and thought, he wrote Arthashastra which was to serve the purpose of a guide or manual for kings, enabling them to acquire power and preserve it. His mother wanted him to be a teacher, so that his intellect could outshine his ugliness.”

"At Pataliputra, the capital of Magadha, there was a high council of learned professors. It had been in existence for a long time. Anybody who wrote something of value or discovered some scientific truth had to appear before this body to establish the merit of his own work. If the judges approved of it, he was awarded a prize of one thousand gold coins, freedom from payment of taxes and other state contributions for life and a roll of honour. The emperor of Magadha was its patron. Chanakya applied for the prize and left Takshashila for Pataliputra. Chandragupta seems to have accompanied his teacher. He was still in this teens. Chanakaya appeared before the council and succeeded in getting a prize as he convincingly explained the efficacy of the principles of state-craft and diplomacy contained in the Arthashastra. It was a tradition at Pataliputra that the prize-winners were awarded the prize and other distinctions by the emperor at a special function. Chanakya reached the hall rather early and occupied an empty seat in the front row. This seat was meant for some body else. When the emperor arrived, one of his courtiers asked Chanakya to vacate the seat. When he refused to do so, some attendants used force to get Chanakya out”.

“The emperor expressed displeasure at Chanakya’s behaviour. Chanakya grew furious and abused the court for the ill-treatment meted out to him. Chanakya left the hall without receiving the prize. He was determined to root out the Nanda dynasty. Chandragupta, his pupil joined his teacher in this protest."

“According to the Greek writer Justin (quoted by McCrindle), Chandragupta by his insolent behaviour had offended the King Nanda. He ordered that Chandragupta be put to death but Chandragupta and Chanakya fled the court. Chandragupta and Chanakya came back to Takshashila. Like Bismarck, Chanakya was fired with patriotism for his homeland, Gandhara. He had written in the Arthashastra that anyone abusing Gandhara and its people must be punished. He resolved to see his student Chandragupta, a Gandhara prince, on the throne of the Nanda empire. Acting under the guidance of his astute Brahmin preceptor, Vishnugupta, (better known as Chanakya) Chandragupta, attacked the Macedonian officers commanding the garrisons in the Indus basin after Alexander’s death. With the aid of the northern nations, he destroyed them. About the same time, the youthful adventurer and his wily counsellor effected a revolution at Pataliputra (Patna), the capital of the Magadhan monarchy, and exterminated the Nanda family. Chandragupta succeeded to the throne of Pataliputra, secured his position against all enemies, and established a gigantic empire. He is the first person who can historically be termed as the Emperor of India".

COMMENT-2: According to Mahavamsatika, Canakya and Chandragupta collected recruits from different places and organised them into powerful army and with their help they turned out the foreigners (Ancient India, 2002, p 286, Dr V. D. Mahajan). Jaina text Parashisthaparavan says that Canakya gathered for Chandragupta an army with wealth he found from underground (literally with the aid of minerology) for the purpose of uprooting the Nandas (Parshisthaparavan VIII, pp 253-54). According to Mudrarakshasa (Act II), Chandragupta's army specifically consisted of warlike tribes of the Sakas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Parsikas, Kiratas and Bahlikas which helped Chandragupta to uproot the Nanda ruler of Magadha. It is worth noting that the clans enumerated in the Mudrarakshasa drama as constituting Chandragupta army were predominantly all Iranians nations.

COMMENT-3: IT IS INTERESTING TO COMPARE THE ABOVE WITH VIEWS OF J. W. McCRINDLE. McCrindle says: “From the detached notices combined with those that appear in the translation, we may now gather together into a connected and consistent narrative. Sandrokottos was of obsecure birth and from the remark of Plutarch that in his early years he had seen Alexander, we may infer that he was native of Panjab. It was one time thought that he had in some way offended Alexander and to escape the effects of his displeasure, he had fled for his protection to the court of Magadha. But this belief now must be given up as it was based on a corrupt passage in Justin, which by the restoration of correct reading, shows that it was not Alexander whom he had offended, but Nandru or Xandarmes, the king of Magadha. We do not know what induced Sandrokottos to leave his native home and to take service under the King of Magadsha, but we incline to attribute it to a sentiment of patriotism forbidding him to seek office or advancement under a power which had crushed the liberties of his country. What the nature of his offense against Nanda was does not appear, but he so dreaded his resentment that he qutted his dominion and returned home to Panjab. He found it, although Alexander was now six years dead, still under the Greek vassalage and ruleb as formerly in civil matters by Omphis of Taxila and Great Porus while the military administration had passed into the hands of Eudemos. Soon after his arrival, however, the order of things was violently disturbed. Eudomos having decoyed Poros into his power, treacherously murdered him but had no dsooner done so than he was recalled to succour Eumens in his war against Antigonos. As he took with him 3000 foot, 500 horse and 125 elephants, he denuded the province of main strength of force by which it was held under subjection and his departure was fatal to the Greek power. The Indians who longed for freedom, and no doubt greatly incensed by the murder of Poros rose in revolt, Sandrakottos who headed this movement, having a band of insurgents, overthrew the existing government, expelled the remaining Greek garrison and finally installed himself in the sovereignty of Panjab and of all the lower valley of Indus…..Sandrakottos while in Magadha had seen the king was held in such odium and contempt by his subjects that, as Plutarch tells us, he used often afterwards to speak of the ease with Alexander might have possessed of the whole country. He accordingly had no sooner settled the affairs of Panjab than he prepared to invade the dominions of his former Master. The success which he ancipated followed his arms. The overthrew with ease the unpopular despot and having received the submission, of Magadha, extended his conquests far beyond its eastern limits. He was thus able combine into one great empire the regions both of the Indus and the Ganges. He established the seat of government at Palibothra….” (The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, p 405-07, John Watson M'Crindle)

• 'ABOVE EXTRACTS TAKEN FROM: PUNJAB HISTORY CONFERENCE, SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 28-30, PUNJABI UNIVERSITY PATIALA, Dr H. R. Gupta..

(8) Kirpal Singh:: Historian Kirpal Singh also talks of probably two Guptas hailing from the north-west frontiers. One he identifies with Sasigupta (Sisicottos of the classical writings) who was found later in the Alexander’s train after Bessus, the Iranian Satrap of Bactria, lost his case against the Macedonian conqueror. His had been probably some little hill-state on the slopes of the Hindu Kush, whence he had gone for two years since to help the Iranians in Bactria. After defeat of the Iranians, he co-operated with Alexander and was later appointed by the conqueror as the Satrap of the Ashvakas. The other Gupta he connects with south-eastern parts of the frontiers and whom he identifies with Chandragupta (Sandrokottos of the Classical writings). It was this latter Gupta who emerged victorious in the power struggle in north-west and ultimately became the great emperor of India aided and guided by Canakya or Kautiliya. Kirpal Singh further notes that both Mauryas and the Kambojas are portrayed as Asuras as well as Vrishalas or Mlechchas in ancient Hindu texts. Furthermore, Chandragupta is depicted as very handsome youth since Mudrarakshasa calls him Chandrasiri as well as Pryadarshaniya (very handsome). The ancient Kambojas were also designated as handsome people (prabhadarakastu Kambojas) in the Mahabharata and "sun-like" (Ravi-sanibhah) in the Valmiki Ramayana. These characteristic and attributes are common to both. Moreover, Greek chronicler Justin calls Sandrakottos as coming from low/degraded background which meshes very well with the Kamboja background since per Hindu texts, Kambojas were also regarded as degraded Kshatriyas. Kirpal Singh concludes that if it is true that Chandragupta belonged to the north-west and to the Ashvaka Kshatriyas of trans-Indus countries as historians like B. M. Barua, D. B. spooner, Dr S. C. Seth, Dr J. W. McCrindle, Dr H. R. Gupta etc write, then it may also be true that his ethnic background is traceable to the Ashvaka sections of the Kambojas living in Swat/Kunar valleys i.e in the Paropamisadae (Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 153/54)

(9): James Tod: Major James Tod identifies dynastic name Maurya of the Magadha rulers with the mediaeval era Mori Rajput clan ruling in Morwan and Chittore, who (Moris) were replaced by the Gehlots in 728 AD. James Tod also connects Sandrocottos or Chandragupta Maurya with these Moris of Rajaputana but designates them as of Takshac or Naga race (See: Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han, Or the Central and Western Rajpoot, Vol I, 1873, pp 29,84/85, 94 etc, James Tod) rather than the Aditya or Solar race of the Ikshvakus as one belated Buddhist chronicle Mahavamsatika (10/11th c AD) from Ceylon claims (See: Mahavamsatika, Ceylonese Edition, p 119-120, foil; Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 212, Dr B. C. Law).

COMMENT-: The Takshak/Naga race had its origin in the north-west from across the Oxus which goes to remote antiquity. It is interesting as well as amusing that James Tod relates the Moris of South-western Rajputana to the Pramara Rajputs, but the Pramaras themselves claim to be of the Solar race. James Tod styles Pramaras as of Takshac or Naga race. The Moris of Mediaval age living in SW Rajaputana during 7th/8th c AD appear to be same people as the Moeris of Patala whose king MOERIS ( also MERIS, according H. M. Elliot) figures in the Greek chronicles relating to Alexander's invasion. It appears that these Moeris were fugitives (Dr Ratanjit's views) from the area of Meros in lower Swat/Kabul (MERU of Sanskrit, MOR/MER in Prakrit, KOH-i-MOR now) who, with their chieftain "Moeris" , had probably fled to the south under pressure of Alexander's destructive war compaign west of Indus and finally shifted to Patala in advance of Alexander invading militia which reached there in 325 BC. The name Moeris is reflected in Maurya, the Dynastic Maurya name of the rulers of Magadha ('See: Reisen im indischen Archipel, Singapore, Batavia, Manilla und Japan, 1869, p 209, Adolf Bastian; Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin, 1975, pp 26-27, Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont - History; Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han, Or the Central and Western Rajpoot, 1873, p 94, James Tod; The History of India: As Told by Its Own Historians, 1956, p 128, Henry Miers Elliot; Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1990, p 546, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland - Middle East; The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1893, p 256, John Watson M'Crindle; Political History of Ancient India, 19996, p 229, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. M. Mukerjee). This chieftan, Moeris had fled to the mountains in wake of Alexander's invasion of Patala (Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire, 2006, p 169, Waldemar Heckel - Biography & Autobiography; The History of Alexander, 1984 edition, p 318, Quintus Curtius Rufus; Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin, 1975, pp 26-27, Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont - History; Quintus Curtius Rufus 9.8.28).

There is also a reference to another contemporary ancient personage named MOERIS (L. V. Cummings, K. A. Nilakanta Shastyri, B. P.Panthari) or MEROES (Dr J. W. McCrindle; Dr Buddha Prakash etc) in north-west frontier province, who was sent by Alexander to bring Poros back after the latter had fled from the battle field after losing the battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) with Alexander. Alexander had sent first one messenger called Taxiles (obviously the ruler of Taxila, Omphis or Ambhi) to bring back Poros, but he could not bring the fleeing and injured Poros back to Alexander. Then Alexander sent another messenger whom Arrian call MEROES (which obviously means the ruler of the MOR/MORIYA people or MOR region). This important messanger MEROES was successful in bringing Poros back to Alexander for starting peace-negotiations. (See refs: Arrian Anabasis Book 5b, Chapter XVIII; The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, pp 108/109, Dr John Watson M'Crindle; Alexander the Great, 2004 Edition, p 350, Lewis Vance Cummings; A Pageant of Asia: A Study of Three Civilizations, 1941, p 69, Kenneth James Saunders; History of The Punjab, Vol I, 1997, p 239, 241, Editors Dr Fauja Singh, Dr L. M. Joshi; History of Poros. 1967, pp 65, 66, 67, Dr Buddha Prakash). Arrian also attests that Poros and Meroes were good old friends (See: Arrian Anabasis Book 5b, Ch XVIII). Hence this MEROES or MOERIS must have been an eminent regal figure in this area of the North-west, neighboring to the kingdom of Poros and hence the bonds of friendship between them are understandable. Based on Panini's rule (Sutra IV.1.168-175) the classical names Taxiles, Abhisares, Kadphizes, Assakenos etc represents the rulers of Taxila, Abhisara, Kadphis (Kapisa) and Assakenois respectively, in the same way, the classical name MEROES/MOERIS also represents ruler of the MEROS (modern Koh-i-Mor). Sasikottos had good relations with Alexander at this very juncture, and he was also the governor/ruler of the eastern Ashvakas (of Meros territory), hence in local parlance, he was probably also known as MOERES/MOERIS i.e the ruler of the MEROS (MOR PEOPLE/TERRITORY). Alexander must have found it advantageous to try another influential person with a good relations with Poros i.e. MEROES (=Sasikottos) after the Taxiles (=ruler of Taxila) had failed to bring Poros back to Alexander for peace negotiations. This historical personage MEROES/MOERIS of the classical writings in all probability, belonged to the Moriya/Maurya (MEROS, MERU, MOR/MER) people of the lower Swat territory (MODERN KOH-i_MOR) of the Ashvakas, on west of Indus, north of Kabul. Scholars including Dr Budha Prakash equate Arrian's MEROES/MOERIS with Maurya and indentify this MEROES of the north-west with Chandragupta Maurya (See: Studies in Indian History and Civilization, 1962, p 132/133, Dr Buddha Prakash; Political and Social Movements in Ancient Panjab, 1962, 171, DR Buddha Prakash; Sindhological Studies, 1977, p 100, University of Sind, Institute of Sindology; Studies in Alexander's Campaigns, 1973, p 40, Binod Chandra Sinha; Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahminabad, 1975, p 26, Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont; Deducing India's Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony From historical and Conceptual Perspectives, April 2005, M. S. Pardesi, Institute of Defense & Strategic Studies, Singapore), but since Sasigupta and Chandragupta are Synonyms, and its not an uncommon practice in India to substitute one's name with a synonym (Dr H. C. Seth), hence Arrian's MEROES/MOERIS or MOERES was perhaps same person as Sasigupta or Chandragupta (Maurya). Dr Ratanjit Pal also identifies this north-western name MEROES of Arrian with Sisikottos or Sasigupta (See: Poisoning of Alexander (Part 1 & 2), Newsletter, February 09, 2008, Dr Ratanjit Pal).

NOTE: Meroes, Moeris, Moeres, Morieis, Mories, and Meris are all equivalents and refer to the same name (Age of Nandas, and Mauryas, 1967, p 427, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri; Maurajya Samarajya Samsakrik Itihasa, 1972, B. P. Panthar; Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahminabad, 1975, p 26, Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont; Indological Studies, 1977, p 100, Unversity of Sindh, Institute of Sindology).

These MOERES or MEROES (called after the place name Meros) were same people as the Mauryas of the Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana (verse 88.5) where they are conspicuously depicted as Asuras or Daityas. Dr H. C. Raychaudhury also refers to this verse of Markendeya Purana with reference to the Mauryas and Ashoka Maurya (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee). It is notable that Devi-Mahatama/Markandeya Purana (Ch 88.5) refers to the Mauryas along with the Kalakas (mentioned as northern people in Brihaspati of Varaha Mihira) = the Kalajas of MBH or = the Kalachas of Rajput Chronicles, = the Glausais of the Greeks (See: The Etude, pp 102-103, Saint Martin & The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1893, p 113, fn 2, John Watson M'Crindle); Kalakeyas (=the Afridis), Kambus (=Kambojas), Daurhrita (=Daratas or Daradas), they are all portrayed as allied clans and styled as Asuras or Demons, depicted as enemyies of the gods, and are located in north-west Himalayans (See: Markendeya Ch 88.5 for full text; NOTE: for Kambus = Kambojas and the Kalakeyas = Afridis, See: Glory of the Divine Mother (Devi Mahatmyam), p 211, Sri Sankaranarayanan). There is further references to ethnic groups called Kabojas and Merayas in the ancient inscriptions of Ceylon said to belong to circa 3rd cent. B.C. to 1st cent per Dr S Paranavitana and others. The Merayas are said to be same as Mauryas and the Kabojas are obviously the Kambojas (Refs: History of Ceylone Vol I, Part, I, p 8889, Dr Dr S Parnavitana; THE PEOPLE OF THE LION ETHNIC IDENTITY, IDEOLOGY AND HISTORICAL REVISIONISM IN CONTEMPORARY SRI LANKA: K. N. O. DHARMADASA; Prācīna Kamboja, jana aura janapada =: Ancient Kamboja, people and country, 1981, p 341 seq, Dr Jiyālāla Kāmboja - Kamboja) See Links: [6] [7] [8]. It appears to be a historical fact that the Meryas of Ceylon inscriptions who are listed there with the Kabojas or Kambojas are same as Mauryas and they came to Ceylon from Patala after second c BCE. They appear to be connected with the Kambojas and after their migration from Kabul/Swat valley Patala in 4th c BCE (under pressure from Alexander) a section of them later also reached to Ceylon and thus finds references along with kambojas in ancient inscriptions of the island. Being originally from the region of MOR in lower Swat valley, they got their name as Moriyas or Mauryas and were, in all probabiliyty, a branch of the Ashvakas, who in turn, were a section of the greater Kamboja tribe located anciently in north-eastern Afghanistan/and Tajiksttan. Thus Mauryas and Kambojas appear to be related people and the Mauriyas rulers of Magadha are probably traceable to north-west India and probably to Kamboja lineage.

[edit] NEW LIGHT ON MAURYAS IN UDYANA/SWAT????

[edit] Legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang (in 629-645)

There is a tradition recorded by Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang (in around 629-630) in his travelography known as Si-yu-ki which picks up Udyana as its locale and states that in his former life, Gautama Buddha was a Mayura-raja i.e MORA RAJA (Moriya Raja---Peacock king?), living in Udyana. According to the legend, Mayuraraja and his flock of Mayuras had created a lake of fresh water by breaking a steep cliff to quench the thirst of his Mora flock (See: Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, 1906, p 126, Trans. by Samuel Beal; On Yuan Chawang's Travels, 1904, p 235, Trans by Thomas Watters).

Hiuen Tsang asserts that the traces of the feet of the Mayuraraja could still be seen on the steep rock.

The story which Hiuen Tsang recorded in his Si-yu-ki was told to him by the local Buddhist monks of the Swat/Udyana monastries. Hiuen Tsang clearly records the locality for us by giving us the coordinates of the lake/cliff --the scene of action--as follows: From Mangkil (Manglaur), go 200 Li (65-67 miles) south where is located Mahayana Stupa (of Bodhisattva Sarvadatta); from there go north-west 30-40 Li (10-12 miles) to Mosu; from there go 60-70 Li (20-25 miles) east to reach stupa of Bodhisattva Sivika/Sivi who had cut off and given away flesh from his leg to ransom an innocent dove from the rapacious Hawk. From there, go 200 Li (65-67 miles) north-west and reach Shani-lo-shi valley ((Adinzai valley---Adinzai in district Dir). At this place, bountiful king Sudana/Saniraja (King Vssantara) had donated the magical white elephant to the hostile kingdom and also later gave away in alms his two children to a mean Brahmana beggar and his wife to Sakka, the god of Devas. Near about this convent is the Stupa of Naga Suma where the people aree cured of the pestilence. North of this Suma stupa, there is the steep cliff where the Mayuras (Moriyas) had created a clear/fresh water lake.

This story relates to Pre-Buddhist times and thus veiledly place the Mayuras/Moras/Moriya section in the Kamboja area. The ancient Buddhist texts like Anguttara Nikaya (I. p 213; IV. pp 252, 256, 261) also place ancient Kamboja precisely between Kabul and Indus on south of Hindukush. So also do the two edicts of king Ashoka which are located at Shabazgarhi and Mansehra.

The above reference by Hiuen Tsang to a Mayura-raja (MORA-RAJA/MAURYA-RAJA?) and MAYURAS (MORAS/MAURYAS?) locate him/them in north-west frontiers of India (eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan), the very heart of Swat valley/Udyana, the ancient land of the Ashvakas (i.e. the Kambojas section, specialised in horse culture). The information from Hiuen Tsang seems to be very interesting and revealing. It seems to hold a veiled clue to the fact that there indeed may have been a section of people in Swat/Udyana region known as Mayuras, Moras (Moriyas) and their king was also nicknamed as Mayura-raja or Mora Raja (Maurya Raja).

The legend is clearly fanciful but very suggestive and symbolic and more importantly is localised in the north-western Udayan region. We know that the MEROS Mt of the classical writings was also located in the west of Swat and closely in the same region. The modern names MORA HILLS (Koh-i-MOR) and MORA PASS are located in the same region. The name MERU of ancient Sanskrit traditions applied to a wider are which comprised Pamirs also. It is thus quite clear that this region and mountain from ancient times carried the geographical name MOR/MORA. WE know that in ancient times as in modern times, the people living in/about a particular geographical place/region were also known/called after the name of that region/place/territory. This is amply clear from Panini's Ashtadhyayi (See Indian as Known to Panini, 1953, Dr V. S. Agarwala). Thus the Mauryas of Hiuen Tsang symbolocally represent the Mayuras/Moras/Mauryas -- the people living around Meros Mt or the MORA HILLS (Koh-i-MOR).

The name obviously refers to Ashvaka section around Mora hills (Koh-i-Mor)--the Meros of the classical writings.

The Nysa/Nyssa of the Greeks (modern Nusson) lying at the foot of the Meros (modern Koh-i-Mor or MORA hills) is stated to be a Persian/Iranian name (M. de St. Martin). The area between Kunar and Indus initially was Iranian but later, it became more Indianised prior to Alexander's invasion since it was exposed to Indo-Aryan cultural influence. The dividing line between the Indo-Aryans and Iranians at the time of Alexander was probably somewhere between Kunar and Swat river i.e the Kunar valley, Bajaur and the region to west was taken as Iranian in culture whereas the SWat valley, Talash upto Indus was predominantly Indian in culture (The Pathanas, 1958, p 56, Olaf Caroe). The Aspasioi of the Greek writings (Asvayana of t Panini) derive their name from Iranian Aspa (meaning Horse in Iranian language). The Assakenoi of the Greek texts (Ashvakayanas of Panini--- the Ashvakas of Mahabharata and the Puranas) derive their name from Sanskrit Ashva (= horse). The Aspasioi people were the western branch of the Ashvakas but were more Iranian than Indian whereas the Assakenoi were the eastern branch of the Ashvakas who were more Indian than Iranians. And we know that the Iranianas were known as ASURAS to the Indo-Aryans.

COMMENT-1: They Meros of the classical writings and the Mayuras of Hiuen Tsang were same people as the Mauryas of the Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana where they are conspicuously depicted as Asuras or Daityas. In the Devi-Bhagtama Chapter, the Kalakeyas (Afridis), Mauryas, Kambus (Kambojas), Kalakas (Kajalas or Glausai of the Greeks), Daurhrta (Dardas?) etc are all bracketed together as allied clans and are styled as ASURAS warriors (See: Markendeya Purana, verses 8.1-6). All this people belonged to the north-west per evidence of Markandeya Purana. There are also epic references to King Ashoka styling him as an incarnation of Maha-ASURA---i.e. great Demon (See: Mahabharata I.67.13-14). Dr H. C. Raychaudhury also refers to this verse of Markendeya Purana with reference to the Mauryas and Ashoka Maurya (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee).

Sisikottos or Sasigupta was the Strap of the Assakeninas or the ASHVAKAS (The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great , 1896, p 112, J. W. McCrindle)

Satbir Singh (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ON the Historicity of Udyana legend of Naga-maiden vs Sakya fugitive

Hiuen Tsang records another legend according to which, a Sakya fugitive fled from Kapilavastu in the wake of king Vidudabha of Kosal's invasion of Kapilavastu (some time after 493 BCE). King Vidudabha is said to have destoryd all Sakyas and only those who fled Kapilavastu escaped the wrath of the cruel king (See: Mahavamsatika, Ceylonese Edition, pp 119-123, foil; See also: See Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-13, Dr B. C. Law). Most Sakyas fled to Himalaya and are said to have established themselves in Sub-Himalayan region and founded a city called Moriyanagara and a kingdom called Pipphalivana. And one of the fleeing Sakyas fell tired and collapsed on the ground and lay flat in the middle of road. All of a sudden, a magical goose alighted from above, and being docile, gave ride to the the tired Sakya youth. The goose took Sakya fugitive to Lan-po-lo lake which is said to be 4-5 miles north of Manglaur in Udyana south of upper Swat (Ref: Serindia, p 176, Sir Auriel Stein; Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, 1990, p 171, H.A. Rose). In Udyana the Sakya fugitive fell in love with a Naga maiden (belonging to the Naga-worshipping Kamboja population of the northern Udyana See: Tree and Serpent Worship: Illustrations of Mythology and Art in India..., 2004 edition, p 46, James Fergusson - Art) [9] and both were married with the consent of Naga Maiden's parents. Then, with the assistance of his Naga father-in-law, the Sakya youth seized the kingdom of Udyana by killing its ruling king. From this union was born a son to Sakya fugitive who was named Uttarasena. After Uttarasena had grown into full youth, he assumed the kingship of Udyana from his Sakya father. Hiuen Tsang further relates that when Buddha died, this king Uttarasena of Udyana also joined the great decease and asked for and got his share of the Lord's relics/ashes. This king Uttarsena is depicted as possessing frontier manners and thus was disliked by the easterners (See: Si-yu-ki, 1906, p 128-132, Samul Beal).

COMMENT ON THE HISTORICITY OF THIS LEGEND: This legend which Hiuen Tsang collected from the the local Buddhist guides is obviously fanciful and untrue and a clear case of invention by Buddhist romancers. It was invented by the Buddhist monks from Ceylon which spread in north-west too later on as the direct/indirect influence of king Ashoka. It is plain historical fact that king Vidudabha of Kosala had mounted the throne of Kosala after 493 BCE and the invasion of Kapilavastu must have occured only after 493 BCE if at all it had occurred. This is because, at the Great Decease (486 BCE), Sakyas and the Moriyas are both shown as powerful, full fledged rivals claiming their respective shares of the Lord's Ashes. And we know that the decease had occurred just 7 or 8 years after Vidudabha became king of Kosala. Scholars have rejected the historicity of this legend as being untrue and fanciful (See comments by Dr B. C. Law: in Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-13). In the case of Udyana legend, the story is even more inconsistent and anachronistic. If Uttarasena's father was indeed a fugitive Sakya youth who had fled from Kapilavastu (after 493 BCE), how come his son Uttarasena had grown into a full youth so soon by the time of Great Decease (486 BCE)? THis is because Sakya must have married the Naga Maiden from Udyana only around 492 AD or after if the story is indeed true. Uttarasena must have been only 4 or 5 years of age at the time of Great Decease if the Vidudabha tradition and Udyana legend is to be believed as true. Apparently, the story is later time invention, created after the direct/indirect influence of Ashoka had grown too much in the north-west frontiers and when the Buddhism had gained massive following and replaced Naga-worship or Brahmanism. In all probabilty, the Naga Maiden vs Sakya legend seems to symbolise the conversion of a predominantly Naga-worshipping population of Uddyana to the popular Buddhism on account of the efforts of the Maurya kings in third c BCE. In fact, the Naga Maiden vs Sakya story of Udyana has its parellel in another Naga Maiden Mera vs king/sage Kambu legend of Cambodia. So it seems that such like themes were common inventions by the romantic and mendacious Brahmanis Priests and the Buddhist Monks in earlier times. Hence these legends do not belong to history.

On the historicity of Buddhist chronicles (of Ceylon), Dr B. C. Law also Obeerves as follws: “Dipavamsa (4th c AD) says nothing about Nandas, but refers to Candaragupta (simply) as king of Maurya family (Moriya-kula) (Ref: Dipavamsa VI.19). Then the Mahavamsa (5th c AD) mentions nine Nandas and also says that Candragupta killed Dhanananda and secured sovereignty over whole of Jambudvipa under the guidance of a wrathful Brahmana Canakya. Then the Mahavamsatika (11th c AD) goes still further to avail itself of a fantastic story to account for the name Chandragupta and of other legends and to connect Chandragupta and his descendants with the Moriyas-- undoubtedly the Moriyas of Pipphalivana, and ultimately with the Sakyas of Kapilavastu. It narrates early life and training of Chandragupta under Canakya. Evidently, there grew up in later times, a Ceylon Buddhist version of legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya as a counter part of the Brahmanical and Jaina work...........there was distinctly a Buddhisttheological motive behind the connection which is sought to be established between the Moriyas of Magadha with the warrior Moriya clan of Pipphalivana and ultimately with the Sakyas of Kapilvastu. In many respects the legends are irreconcilable with Ashoka’s own records …“ (Ref: On the Chronicles of Ceylon, p 59, Dr B. C. Law)

COOMENT-2: It is very interesting to note that Hiuen Tsang refers to several kings in the Uttarapatha whom he calls of Sakya descent. For example, the King of Bamiyan, king of Udyana, and the King of Himatala (Snowy mountains/Pamirs) of Tukhara etc etc have been stated to be of Sakya descent (See: On Yuan Chawang;'s Travels, 1904, pp 116, 238, 278, Trans. Thomas Watters; Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World, 1906, p 128-132, 156, Trans. Samuel Beal). This information Hiuen Tsang must have collected from the local Buddhist monks/guides. It is a known fact that due to universal appeal of Buddhism, most people of the Uttarapatha had adopted Buddhism by the efforts of king Ashoka. Thus the Sakya image had become glorious and preeminent there. Naturally it may have become a matter of pride to connect oneself to lineage of divine Buddha and thus many kings and chiefs of north-west might have started to falsely affine themselves the line of the SAkya Buddha, hence of Sakya descent. Or like the Brahmanas, the Buddhist monks also may have invented fictitious lineages for the devout Buddhist rulers to earn their goodwill and favor. The Vidabha legend is generally linked with spreading of the Sakyas to different parts and becoming rulers of various kingdoms. Likewise, Mahavamsa/Dimpavamsa also assign the Sakya affinities to the early kings of Sinhala i.e to Devanpiya Tissa and his descendants. According to Mahavamsa tradition, Devapiya Tissa was the grandson of king Pandu said to be Sakka or Sakya whose daughter was married to Panduvasa or Panduvasudeva (grand father of king Tissa). Panduvasudeva was the nephew of king Vijaya (the forefather of Sinhalese). According to the same Vidudabha tradition, king Pandu was a Sakka (Sakya) fugitive, who had also fled from Kapilavastu, crossed the Ganges southwards, settled in southern India, and became king there (See: Mahavamsa, The Consecrating of Panduvasudeva, Chapter 8). All this legends add high element of suspicion to the historicity of of these stories including Vidudabha tradition.

COMMENT-3: Prior to Hiuen Tsang, Chinese pilgrim Fa-hsien had also visited India and had entered North-Western parts from Khotan and Tsung-ling (Pamirs) side in 399 AD, crossed Indus westwards and visited Udyana (Woo-Chang), Swat (Soo-ho-to), Gandhara (Kin-to-wai), Taksasila, Peshawer/Purusapura, and Nagarahara (Jalalabad) in the north-west frontiers. And later, he went to Central India and eastern India as well where he paid visit to Kapilavastu, Vaisali, Patna, Champa, Tamalipti (Tamralipti) and then to Ceylon in 412 AD (See: Chinese Literature, Book I, Epiphanius Wilson). Like Hiuen Tsang, Fahien does refer to several legends connected with Bodisattva in his detailed travels, in all of the above referred territories of Udyana/Gandhara/Taksasila, but nowhere does he refer to legend of Naga-Maiden of Udyana vs Sakya fugitive or to the legend of bountiful king Vessantra of Udyana. Like Hiuen Tsang, he otherwise gives very useful information about this and other kingdoms in his accounts as also refers to many other legends which Hiuen Tsang also describes in detail. Another Chinese traveler Song-yun had also visited this same very region in 518-521 AD via Kashmir ( Shi-mi), Bolor (Polu-lai) and then crossing INdus had entered Udhyana (Uchang) and Gandhara (Kintolo). He also gives some accounts of the people of these regions. But Sung Yun also does not make any referenhce to the Naga-Maiden vs Sakya fugive legend of Udyana though he does make mention of bountiful king Pi-lo (Vessantra) of this kingdom. THus, from the accounts of Fahien and Sungyun, it is very clear that the local Buddhist monks/his guides did not tell him the legend about Naga-Maiden vs Sakya otherwise, these two chroniclers must have recorded it into their accounts. This may very likely mean that the legend did not exist yet and may not havet been invented yet and thus had not yet become popular among the monks/guides and the local peoples in the north-west frontiers. The first ever reference to Vidabha's invasion of Kapilavastu appears in the Mahavamsa (6th c AD). The story of Sakya fugitive coming to Udyana by taking a ride on the back of a magical goose therefore must have been invented after the Mahavamsa was written. Hiuen Tsang had visited India/norh-west frontiers in 7th century (629-645 AD). It appears that Ceylonese or/and the Indian-mainland Buddhist schools had made up the legend of the Naga-Maiden vs Sakya fugitive round about sixth century AD which then reached Udyana/Gandhara and became popular among the frontiers. On similar grounds and taking lead from Vidudabha's invasion-story, the Buddhist Monks of Ceylon had also made up another story which linked Maurya Chandragupta and Ashoka to the Sakya lineage. THis was done to counter the effect of the Brahmanical tradition that Chandragupta and Ashokas had risen from Vrishalas/Shudras/Mlechchas or degraded Kshatriya lineage. Fourth century AD Ceylonese chronicle, Dipavamsa, the earliest Buddhist chronicle on Sinhala, does not refer to the Nandas and only refers to Ashoka and calls him Maurya. The Sixth century AD Mahavamsa from Ceylon, the most detailed chronicle on early history of Sri Lanka goes a step further from Dipavamsa and says that Brahman Canakka (Canakya) had anointed a glorious Khattya (Ksatriya) youth, Candagutta (Chandragupta), known as a Moriya as the king over all Jambudipa (See: Mahavamsa, CHAPTER V, THE THIRD COUNCIL). But the Mauryas kings of Magadha were finally linked to a minor Moriya clan of Pipphalivanna in a 10th century (or perhaps even later) Buddhist text from Ceylon, called Vamsatthappakāsinī (Interstingly whose author is not known), which gives detailsed account of Vidudabha tradition, describing his invasion of Kapilavastu, destroying all Sakyas and some fleeing to Himalayas and founding there a kingdom known as Moriya kingdom anhd a city there known as Moriyanagara (Vamsatthappakāsinī, pp 119-123, Ceylonese Edition; Some Ksatriya Tribes of Ancient India, 1924, p 212-13, Dr B. C. Law). ALL THIS TOOK PLACE MORE THAN 1300 years to finally link Ashoka/Chyandragupta Mauryas to the Moriyas of Pipphalivanna as well as to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu on the one hand, and the ruling dynasty of Devapiya Tissa of Srilanka to Ashoka Maurya, and the Sakyas of Kapilavastu on the other hand. How much is the truth in these later time Buddhist traditions no body knows for sure, but some Historians like Dr V. A. Smith, Dr Humphry William Codrington, Dr Oldenberg, Dr S. C. Seth and some others have described the various Buddhist legends variously as untrue, silly and mendacious fictions, fabrications by unscrupulous monks etc. Dr Humphry William Codrington remarks that "the identification of Panduvasa's brother-in-law (i.e the son of king Pandu) and the Moriyas with the Sakyas of Kapilavastu doubless is due to the desire to connect the royal family of Ceylon with Ashoka the Great" (Short History of Ceylon, 1970, p 12, Humphry William Codrington; Cf also: Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India, 1901, Vincent Arthur Smith).

Referring to the Mahavamsa, Dr V. A. Smith states that "The Buddhist writers have erroneously represented the Mauryas as the princely race. For example, Mahavamsa Chapter 5 mentions 'Moriyanam Khattiyanam vamsejatana siridharan' rendered by Turnour and Wijesimha a descendant of the dynasty of Moriyan sovereigns endowed with illustrious and beneficent attributes, surnamed Chandragutta" (See: Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India, 1901 , p 42, fn 2, Dr Vincent Arthur Smith). Dr Smith has labelled many Buddhist legends about Ashoka and Chandragupta Maurya appearing in Mahavamsa as grotesque and contradictory tales composed by by monkish romancers (op cit, pp 15, 17, 54/55, Smith). Dr Smith also calls the Sanghamitra legend as extremely suspicious and the whole tale not more than a monkish fiction.

Similarly, Prof Oldenberg also remarks that the story of Mahinda and Sanghamitta in the Buddhist chronicles seems to have been invented for the purpose of possessing a history of the Buddhist institions in Ceylon and to connect it with most distinguished person conceivable--the great Ashoka" (Introduction to Vinayapitakam (Mahavagga), p 4 (ii), Oldenberg).

Dr H. C. Seth remarks that the distant Buddhist Ceylonese chroniclers have misrepresented some historical information and falsely connected Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka Mauryas with the Moriya clan of Pipphalivanna and the Sakya clan of Buddha of Kapilavastu. This appears to have been done with the desire to give Chandragupta and his descendants a highly distinguished and illustrious lineage (See: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, pp 164, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute - Indo-Aryan philology, Dr H. C. Seth).

76.105.50.27 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SOME REFERENCES

• Indian Historical Quarterly, vol.8 (1932), B. M. Barua
• Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua
• The Zoroastrian period of Indian history, (Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, 1915, (Pt.II), pp 406, 416-17, D.B. Spooner
• Invasion India by Alexander the Great, 1896, p 112, 405/408 J. W. McCrindle
• Did Candragupta Maurya belong to North-Western India?, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936, p 158-165, Dr S. C. Seth
• Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35, Dr H. R. Gupta
• Was Chandragupta a Kamboj?, The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, p 149-154, Kirpal Singh
• They Taught Lessons to Kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999
• The Indian Review, 1937, p 814, edited by G.A. Natesan
• The Indian Historical Quarterly, 1963, p 361, India
• Indian Culture, 1934, p 305, Indian Research Institute- India
• Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, 1906, p 126, Trans. by Samuel Beal
• On Yuan Chawang's Travels, 1904, p 235, Trans by Thomas Watters.

Satbir Singh (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)