Talk:Chandragupta Maurya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject India (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup. More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the India project. WikiProject Pakistan     (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Jainism (Rated B-Class) Jainism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Chandragupta Maurya, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

why no mention of chanakya in this?

confused - what are the notes referring to? kh7 17:31 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 which notes are you talking about!! 2 Edited 3 False references used 3.1 Deletions 4 More examples of Bias 5 Deletions in Chandragupta Maurya 6 Reply to PHG 7 Further challenge based on Megasthenes and Arrian 8 More evidence against Fraudsters 9 IS THE FRAUDSTER CASTIEST, Mura and Maurya 10 Devi-Bhagtam & Markendeya Purana on Mauryas 11 Baseless Fraud and Juvenile Reply by Satbir 12 ON THE ORIGIN OF NANDAS/MAURYAS, PER TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS 12.1 A: ON ORIGIN OF NANDAS 12.2 B. ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS 13 REVIEW OF VARIOUS HYPOTHESES ON ORIGIN OF MAURYAS: 13.1 (A) NANDA ORIGIN OF MAURYAS 13.2 (B) ORIGIN OF MAURYAS FROM THE MORIYA CLAN OF PIPPALIVANA 13.3 (C) ORIGIN OF MORIYA DYNASTY FROM NORTH WEST INDIA 13.3.1 Legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang (in 629-645) 13.4 ON the Historicity of Udyana legend of Naga-maiden vs Sakya fugitive 13.4.1 SOME REFERENCES 14 Modern Views on Maurya Origin 14.1 Scythian origins view 14.2 Northwestern origin 15 Vandalism 16 Bias 17 Vandalism 18 Removing NPOV tag 19 Remove the picture from comic book 20 Spaghetti Like Info - Reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta 21 "Historical comparison"? 22 So-called "quote" removed

[edit] which notes are you talking about!!

the notes offered are from 1911 encyclopedia...used it for updating the article.--Shubhajeet roy 15:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edited

Made a few grammatical and structural changes to the article.

--203.144.143.2 10:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Pranav Verma

[edit] False references used

It seems like in History of India related links a new trend has started. Some speculators have started a vicious, fraudulant and hostile campaign to show that all great rulers in India had origins in North-west or Punjab. Blatant unsubstantiated work by some authors is being presented as "Another View or Fifth view and so on...".

The speculators are so drunk with haughtiness that they think If there was an ancient ruler of India it must have been from North-west. The traditional view known to India for Centuries is being presented as "Just Another View out of many different possibilities". Wild speculations are being presented as "matter of fact".

One example is a wild speculation that how could an "inexperienced" person from Bihar conquer the "hardy Punjabis" and establish his rule all across India? And that he himself must have been of Punjabi origins. Plutarch's words are presented as assured truth whereas traditional view is presented as highly sketchy is nature. If this is not fraud, what is? We would like to know in which ancient and historical work ChandraGupta Maurya is referred as belonging to some North-Western region.

Even in Modern times there are plenty of examples that Heartland of India, Uttrapradesh, bengal, Bihar, Madhyapradesh, Gujarat and South States have produced leaders of great stature who commanded the allegience of All Indians. Subhash Bose, Mahatma Gandhi, Viekananda, Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati and even in pre-british times the Marathas, the empire of Vijaynagar, and most assuredly Mauryas who most honest Indians know originated unequivocally from Bihar. These Leaders were as good or better than any leader North-West has produced.

This article therefore needs major changes. SanjayMohan 21:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hell, the article is very intersting as it stands now. It has given several alternatives on Chandragupta Maurya's origin and ancestry. Let it be left to the readers to make decisions as to which view to accept. There is no need to do any major overhaul for the article. If there are differences of opinions, let they be discussed here in the talk page before making any changes to the article. Satbir Singh 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

The readers are being fed on false POVs and they shall be removed. SanjayMohan 01:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate your views on POVs. If one reads carefully, the contributers have listed several view points, each of which has its own supporter among the scholars. Satbir Singh 03:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh.

I have checked with some of the references through Library of congress. The information quoted is highly speculative with no clear corelation. I will bring this up on discussion if need be. There is absolutely no historical account of these speculations. If you can scan the image or original text from plutarch or megasthenes saying Chandragupta was a Punjabi, then I will be happy to accept it. SanjayMohan 10:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Hi SanjayMohan. Thank you for your research on the sources. Should they be inexistant, they have to be eliminated, but please refrain doing so until you do clarify the situation. In the meantime, I will reinstate the article in its original form. Your previous comments clearly indicate your dislike for alternative views, but that's no basis to erase them. Wikipedia policy of No original research means that individual opinions or interpretations have no place in the editing of article, but instead only referenced/ published work should be relied on. Conversely, a published opinion, even if marginal or to your dislike, has the right to be presented on the page. I didn't write any of the article content, so please consider my intervention as quite neutral. PHG 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TO PHG: Your intervention is not neutral. The sources are existing, but they do not support the text. I have no dislike for alternative views. But they must be grounded on solid evidence. There is no evidence here. Pure rumor mongering. The text of this article is purely POVs. You are also wrong in stating that "published opinion" should be part of the content. If I publish some garbage by paying a few dollars to someone should then my "published opinion" be trumpeted too? A credible encyclopedia must be thorough and particular even on the published sources. What are the authors stating? What are the authors sources? After refering the sources, what conclusions have they arrived at? Are these conclusions based on figments of imagination, hot-gas or something substantial.

Are the authors misrepresenting their sources to artificially arrive at a conclusion? All this matters! A solid well-research book honestly and faithfully basing conclusions based on ancient and original source should not get the same amount of coverage and writing space as a work which is highly speculative and possibly intentionally fraudulant in nature.

You have not written the article. But that does not mean you are a healthy or a neutral mediator. besides the mediator must read the article carefully and must also have some knowledge of the subject with an impartial and unbiased mind..

These article is replete with such blatant non-sense and speculation, that I am not sure if Wikipedia is serving as a free source of credible information or a free source of fraudulant information in the garb of "well researched work".

The most dangerous part is the poisoning of minds who will read this.

 Here are some examples to show outright fraud and speculation:

1. Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind" [27]. This important factor again points to north-west connections of Chandragupta Maurya.

Note: The fact that ChandraGupta Led an army of north-western tribes does not "automatically" mean that he himself was north-western in origin. This is just like saying that since an Iberian Spaniard rose to become Caesar of Rome, therefore he was also a Roman.

2. Some small particulars which happen to be recorded are sufficient to show that in the time of the early Maurya Emperors, the court was affected by Iranian practices. The Arthashastra of Kautiliya advises that the king when consulting the Physicians and ascetics should be seated in the room where the sacred fire has been kept. Likewise, there was a custom of burning sacred fire in the room where the meetings of Council of Ministers were held. This attests that the Zoroastrian rituals were practiced and honored at Mauryan court. Moreover, the ceremonial washing of king's hair was made the occasion of a splendid festival when courtiers offered rich tributes to the king. This observance recalls the ancient Persian hair-washing ceremony on the sovereign's birthday as described by Herodotus......

Note: The text says that mention of a sacred fire means "Persian origin of Ch. Maur.". This is false interpretation. Sacred fire has been kept in India since at least as long as Persia and probably much earlier. In India its called Agnihotra. All Hindu ceremonies in India including marriage rites, entering a new home, birth of a child, cremation of the dead etc etc involve fire altars with sacred fire. This is well-documented in Rig-Veda which is at least 1000 years older than Ch. Maur.

3. Scholars of this school are also not convinced as to "how an inexperienced youth far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own" could have conquered the TOUGH AND HARDY people of Punjab and north-west frontiers. It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles. This calculates to conquering only one mile per day.[25] The scholars also argue that it is not a custom to assume a family name after one's mother's name. Thus, to say that Chandragupta had adopted the Maurya name after his Dasi mother Mura does not sound at all convincing. Moreover, Chandragupta would have certainly disliked to be recognised as the son of dasi (Hindi:maid) Mura, a keeper of pea-cocks (Mayuras)......

Note: The scholars of this school have wild theories. The text says "how can an inexperienced youth from Bihar...". This is blatant speculation. "How could he?", "...Does not sound at all convincing...", CONVINCING TO WHOM?. Speculators of course! Should ChandraGupta rise from the ashes to convince these morons that he really did it?

Note 2: Who said it is not customary to go after mother's name. Customary to whom? To the speculators of course! The word customary itself is highly speculative in nature. The customs of today can be quite different from customs of yesterday.

4. Dr J. W. McCrindle thinks that they both POSSIBLY belonged two different sections of the Ashvakas [21]......

Note: This is again a speculation. There is no ancient source which says ChandraGupta belonged to Ashvakas.

5. Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that Chandragupta, the king of the Indians, lived near river Indus which evidence again points at the north-west frontier borderlands....

Note: Just because a german lives in France, should we interpret that this German is French. Blatant non-sense. We do not even know during which years exactly or approx. Ch.Maur. Lived on Indus. How can we make such sweeping claims that he was "from" Indus. There is a light year gap between "from Indus" and "Lived in Indus". Even today millions of Indians live away from their native provinces. bengalis live in Punjab. Punjabis live in Karnataka. Rajasthanis live in Orissa. etc etc.

6. Plutarch: Plutarch himself is not sure what and who he is mentioning. Even today it is a matter of open debate whether the person whom Plutarch mentions as Sandrokottus was ChandraGupta or not. IMPORTANT NOTE: There was not just one person by name ChandraGupta. Chandra and Gupta are very common names in India. Besides, Plutarch has mentioned several different variations of Ch. throughout.

SO, unless you have solid unspeculative sources, these speculations are worth and legitimately worth deleting. Your statement also shows that you havent paid any attention to the article itself and simply jumped to conclusions. SanjayMohan 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More examples of Bias

...Lastly, there is yet another school of scholars like redoubtable B. M. Barua, J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner, Dr H. C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ratanjit Pal, Gur Rattan Pal Singh and many others who connect...

Note: To artificially boost the claims a subtle and subliminal word has been in above sentence. "ReDoubtable". Redoubtable to whom? By the fraudster who wrote this text of course!

[edit] Deletions in Chandragupta Maurya

The quotes you are mentionning are from published sources (when I mean publish, I mean from a reputable, regular, publisher), and, honestly, the suggestions made cannot be totally rejected. I have long read, in numerous books, that Chandragupta Maurya may have been from the northwestern area. You cannot just reject such sources just because of your judgement that they are "speculations": this is just your POV. I suggest you keep them in the article, and relabel them something like "Alternative hypothesis" if you wish. I agree that some of the parts are poorly written , but that it rather a grammatical issue. Regards PHG 13:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to PHG

They have to be totally rejected because these are speculations without "any historical basis".

You have long read, in numerous books. Which books? May I know? Which books tell you he was from North-Western Area. Your wishy-washy language makes me extremely suspicious of your agenda here. And you are using the word "quite honestly"?

Till now you have not provided a single ancient source which points to these north-western origins. My judgement that they are speculations is because they are. When some modern author is writing an account of something more than 2000 years ago, he/she must provide references from that era. This is not my POV. THIS IS COMMONSENSE! I also strongly feel that you are accusing me of POV so that you can put me on a defensive! This strategy will not work.

From my side I am providing a link on the entire online work from Plutarch, the famous Greek Author who was close to the times of ChandraGupta and Alexander. http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Plutarch.html I challenge you to show me where it is written Ch.Maur was from Punjab.

I will also report you to the "administrators" if you dont fix your rumor mongering as I suspect that you have some hidden agenda here.

All I am asking/requesting the writer of the text is to show where in ancient sources like Plutarch, Megasthenes or Mudrarakshas all three of which are from the same or closely following era explicitely say that ChandraGupta Maurya was from North-West? Is that too much to ask? The anonymous author of this speculative text should come out and show me where in the above mentioned writings of Plutarch is mentioned that Ch.Maur was a Punjabi?

It is not me who is engaging in False POVs it is you. SanjayMohan 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further challenge based on Megasthenes and Arrian

I have gone through this book and I challenge you to show me on which page and which line does it say Ch.Maur. was a Punjabi? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8121509483/qid=1141659082/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7354507-4281747?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 Mark my words!! You and the writer of this fabrication have been caught RED-HANDED. I am not sure if your assertion has any more weight than James Frey. SanjayMohan 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More evidence against Fraudsters

In another book by JW McCrindle, it is clearly mentioned that Megasthenes referred to or spoke of several different chandraGuptas. There is Sandrokottus, Sandrokoptus, Androkottus and so on. Was megasthenes a lunatic that he referred to Chan. Maur. by three different meaningless variations or was there more to it? SanjayMohan 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very easy go type baseless speculation thinking that no one will go to original sources, but very difficult to be honest. SanjayMohan 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IS THE FRAUDSTER CASTIEST, Mura and Maurya

Fraudster argues that "...Moreover, Chandragupta would have certainly disliked to be recognised as the son of dasi (Hindi:maid) Mura, a keeper of pea-cocks (Mayuras).[26]...".

WOULD HAVE? VOW what an original evidence! I would like to know from which ancient source this "would have" claim arises? I suspect this as another case of reckless fraud.

There are countless examples in ancient India where sons of low class women have rose to attain status even higher than the "so called kshatriyas" which Frauster is not probably aware of because of his lack of knowledge. Example one, Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa the author of Mahabharat and the greatest living sage of his era was born from the womb of Satyavati, a shudra fisher woman. He fathered, Dhritrashtra the father of Kauravs and Pandu the father of Pandavs and Vidur. That means MOST of the warriors in MAHABHARAT had LOW-CLASS BLOOD.

Example two, Mark! Vidur was again born from the womb of a Shudra Daasi, or servant, and drank the milk from her breasts. And went on to write a celebrated work on Statecraft which is revered throughout India as Vidur-Niti.

There are other countless examples in ancient times. By all means ChandraGupta would never feel low or depressed, if anything, he would be proud of his inter-caste heritage. It is only the castiest Fraudster who is anxious to prove that Ch.Maur. was some sort of Pure Warrior! SanjayMohan 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have following comments to make here.

Moriya or Maurya obviously seem s to be a clan name derived from the Mor (a region in Swat/Kunar) as this article refers to. There is one evidence I like to quote here. The Devi-Mahatam (Ancient Hindu Mythological story----In Markendeya Purana) describes a war between the Devas and Danvas (or Asuras). Among the Asuras are mentioned all the tribes of Afgfhanistan like Kambus (Kambojas), Kotiviryas, Kalakas, Daurhrdas, Kalakeyas (Afridis) and also interstingly the Mauryas and the etc.

Illustration: Now let the eighty-six asuras - upraising their weapons - with all their forces, and the eighty-four Kambus, surrounded by their own forces, go out. 5. 'Let the fifty asura families of Kotiviryas and the hundred families of Dhaumras go forth at my command. 6. 'Let the asurasa Kalakas, Daurhrdas, the Mauryas and the Kalakeyas hasten at my command and march forth ready for battle.' 7. After issuing these orders, Sumbha, the lord of the asuras and a ferocious ruler, went forth, attended by many thousands of big forces [1].

This Durga-Devi-vs-Danvas (Asuras=Ahuras= i.e Ahuramazda worshippers = i.e Iranians) war had taken place around region involving Hindukush (also called Caucasus, Himalaya, Imaos, Himados etc). The region was pure Iranian as even a reader with average IQ would know of. Does any one thinks that the Mauryas mentioned in this war in the north-west were a clan derived from the Mura, so-called maid-servant mother of Chandragupta and did this Maurya clan of Devi-Mahatam really belong to Bihar? This Moriya/Mauria clan (of Devi-Mahatam) obviously refers to the people/clan from the Mor region (or Meros of the Classical writings) in eastern Afghanistan/around Hindu-Kush.

Besides this, the contributors of this article have provided creditable reference which must be respected. And, yes I see some minor POV in this article which needs to be corrected.

Satbir Singh 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

[edit] Devi-Bhagtam & Markendeya Purana on Mauryas

How can you associate a MYTHOLOGICAL STORY "in your own words" with reality? besides does this passage say that ChandraGupta belonged to Mauryas who were asuras? Is this a work of history or giving a historical allegory? Do we even know when it was approximately written? Is it not pure speculation? I can also reverse question you by asking "How can we associate the Mura-putra ChandraGupta Maurya with Iran and Punjab? Even the Singh Surname is widespread in India. In south its called Simha, In north its Singh in Gnagetic as well as Indus belt.

LETS FOR A MOMENT IMAGINE THAT YOUR WILD SPECULATION HAS SOME TRUTH, EVEN THEN, ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU ASSERTING THAT A CERTAIN MYTHOLOGICAL MAURYA TRIBE IS SAME AS CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA?

I feel that Punjabis are in desperate need to show that they too produced great leader in the past, so they are resorting to fraud.

There are Sharmas in Bihar, Uttarpradesh, Punjab and even South India, such as karnataka. Are all these Sharmas from SAME CLAN? IS there a limit to such non-sense? SanjayMohan 05:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What a non-sense?

The sources being cited here sources are from your own Hindu-texts. They are not anybody else's creation. How can you disbelieve your own ancient sources?. Even if the legend is mythological, still the clans named are real characters which belonged to north-west region and many can still be identified.

And, read Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 4-5 by Dr H. C. Raychaudhury and Dr B. N. Mukerjee. These scholars identify the Maurya clan omentioned in the Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana with the Maurya Clan of Chandragupta and take it as Asura/Demon. There are further references citing King Ashoka as an incarnation of Maha-Asura---i.e. great Demon (See: Adiparva I.67.13-14).... Even Buddha has been spoken ill of by Brahmanical sources etc. The instances are endless.

Satbir Singh 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

Satbir, You are drunk with violence and anger. Please have self-control. I have confirmed this one ref. provided by you and incorporated in the text. But there are major speculations and fraud in the text you keep reverting. This is not healthy. Please refrain and discuss it on Talk page with me and others. I am only interested in accuracy and honesty. I am myself not a Bihari, so you cannot call me a fanatic. If that were true, I would try to locate Ch.Maur. in Andaman and Nicobar Islands or some really exotic place like antarctic. SanjayMohan 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable:

• Sanjay your statement that the ancestry of Chandragupta is definetly established is a baseless and reflects your personal opinion only. In reality, there is no agreement among the scholars on this issue. The ancestry of Mauryans is still shrouded in mystery (Dr V. D. Mahajan, Dr H. C. raychaudhury). The Scholars are still at variance regarding Maurya origin and their background. The information provided by ancient Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina texts differ materially from each other. Sometimes, the two texts of the same canon also are at wide discordance, therefore, making them quite unreliable to give a decision on this issue. Hence, there are still justifiably several views among the scholars who take none of these ancient texts as completely trustworthy.

• It is true that while some Indian and foreign historinas link Chandragupta to Magadha, there are other scholars like B. M. Barua (a distinguished Indian scholar of ancient History), Dr J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner (both foreigner schoars of repute), Dr Hari Ram Gupta (A note scholar, Head of History Deptt, Punjabi University Patiala), Dr H. C. Seth, Dr Ratanjit Pal and many other scholars who reject the Magadhan origin of Chandragupta and rather connect him to north-western frontiers, including the Taxilla, Gandhara, Paropamisadae (Kunar/Swat valleys). This land was indisputably the land of the Ashvakas, who were Kshatriyas and were a sub branch of the ancient tribe known by the general name Kamboja (Dr K. P. Jayswal, Dr E Lamotte, Dr Buddha Parkash, Dr Romila Thapar, Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury etc).

• The statements of classical writers like Justin, Plutarch and Appian if read carefully support north-west origin of Chandragupta Maurya. Based on Plutarch’s statement, Dr J. W. MccRindle, B . M. Barua, Dr Rattanjit Pal etc tend to identify Chandragupta with north-west region i.e Greater Punjab.

• The Devi-Bhagtam/Markendeya Purana reference ALSO supports Iranian Origin of the Mauryans.

Devi-Bhagtam on Mauryans:

• There is a reference to a Maurya clan in the Srimad Devi Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) and Markandeya Purana (verses 8.1-6). In the war between the Daevas (Vedic Indo-Aryans ) and Asuras (Iranians) the Mauryas were allies of the Asura forces like the Kambojas, Kalakeyas, Kotiviryas, Dhaumras, Kalakas and Daurhrdas—---all belonging to the north-west/Afghanistan. The scene of action was around Himalaya (See: Devi-Mahatam 5.89,90) as is clear from the text of the story. The Himalya of ancient traditions included Pamirs and Hindukush also (Himalaya of ancient Indian traditions is said to extend from from eastern Occean to western Occean: See: Kumarasambuvam, I.1; Critical Study of early Puranas, 1972, p 65, Dr M. R. Singh). A group of scholars identify the Maurya Asura clan of the above ancient texts with the Maurya clan of king Chandragupta and king Ashoka (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 4-5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukherjee). The Adiparva of Mahabharata brands king Ashoka also as an Asura i.e. an incarnation of Maha-Asura (Mahabharata I.67.13-14 cf also XII.5.7), where in the present context, the term Asura is the Indian equivalent of Iranian Ahura (follower of Ahura-Mazda). This ancient reference therefore, obviously tends to prove the Iranian affinities of Chandragupta Maurya.

SANJAY's REPLY: The Bhagvat Puran says so because Ch.MAur became a Jain monk which did not go well with Brahmans of those days, so they condemned him by calling him an Asura. Your assertion that Maurya was an ally of NW tribes just does not hold water. SanjayMohan 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay Mohan writes:

• “However the views of these speculators have been widely rejected by mainstream media. These speculators are mainly punjabi or colonial in origin and have used ficticious evidence to locate ChandraGupta Mauryas ancestry to Punjab or somewhere in North-Western India. Besides, no new material or literary evidence linking Chandragupta Maurya to any place other than Magadha has been discovered. The aforementioned speculators have also failed to answer why ChandraGupta Maurya did not re-locate the Capital of Mauryan Empire to somewhere in North-West India such as "Bhatinda" instead of Patliputra in Eastern India.”

[edit] Baseless Fraud and Juvenile Reply by Satbir

My answers:

• So you say that a distinguished Buddhist Scholar B. M. Barua (an Indian), noted Dr J. W. McCrindle, Dr D. B. Spooner (foreigners) , Dr Hari Ram Gupta etc etc are colonial or biased Punjabi scholars who wrote fictious history using fictious evidence!. Come on guy, you need to grow a little bit. BTW, what are your credentials?

These authors have first of all not given any primary sources in their writings which would state that ChndraGupta Maurya was a "PunJabi Puttar" or "Son of Iranian Pashas" and so on. They have "ASSUMED" that since CH.Maur. had some Frontier NW tribes in his army he was also a son of NW. This assertion is so laughable that no further comment is needed on this. Just because MARATHAS FAUGHT IRANIANS AND AFGHANIS in PAnipat and ATTOck does not mean they were from NW. You have lost all sense it seems!

PRIMARY SOURCES: PLUTRACH, ARRIAN, MEGASTHENES' original texts without footnote interpolations by McCrindle can be one Primary source. Another is MudraRakshas of course.

• There are ancient references which connect Chandragupta to Sakya clan of Nepal and to Moriya clan of Rajasthan. Some ancient texts connect him to solar race of Yuvanashva/ Mandhatri. Interstingly, James Tod connect the Yuvanashva with the Assakenois/Assacani/Ashvakas of east Afghanistan (See Origin of Rathor Rajput, Vol II, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan). Note that the ancient Indian traditions---whether Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina---they only give general outlines but not the precise picture.

HOW DO THEY CONNECT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT: DO the ancient sources clearly say "Ch.M was a scion of Moriya clan". Or just because of similar sounding words they are asserting it. If it is clearly written some whee that he was Moriya-Nandan, or Moriya-Putra of Moriya clan in Rajasthan, or mnetion some nearby town in Rajasthan then I will be the first one to add it in the article.

HOW has James tod connected him? HOW? If he is quoting a reliable primary source then yes, his secondary rendering should be included, otherwise not.

Only "RELIABLE AND SCHOLARLY" sources can be considered, not fraud.

• Chandragupta had conquered an established monarchy viz Nanda dynasty with capital at Pataliputra/Magadha. Theoretically, he was an outsider and an invader of Indian-mainland from Afghanistan. From strategic point of view, his keeping of the existing Capital at Pataliputra was more important than to establish a new one in the north-west since he was an inheritor to Nanda Empire. Hence, after stabalising and securing his north-west frontiers, Chandragupta had prefered to move to and establish his dynastic headquarters permanently at Magadha. Again, strategically, it was the right decision for Chandragupta to headquarter at Magadha.

ANSWER: This assertion of yours is clearly farudulant speculation. How do you know he was an outsider? Were you his Uncle? Besides the origins of Muslim invaders are clearly in Central Asia. There is no doubt in that. They always faced stiff and murderous rebellion from almost all parts of India all the time. "THEY WERE CONSTANTLY AT WAR WITH INDIANS". In Ch.Mr case only the NW rose in rebellion, so he had to go there to subdue them again. You yourself have written it. "Where as there were little or no rebelllions from Indians".

If at all, the needle strongly points to Ch.Mr being a native magadhan and a son of Nanda ruler. That is why entire India rallied behind him against Selucus Nicator and other outsiders. It is well-known throughout history how galvanized people become around the scion of a ruler in times of conflict.

Panna Daayi replaced her own son to save the live of the scion of the maratha rulers. In the same manner Shivaji's father was a local cheiftain, veryone saw Shivaji as the future ruler and rallied around him. Besides, it is entirely possible that Ch.Maur. rebelled against his own father since he was corrupt. The whole Mahabharat epic is filled with Grandson killing Grandfather, Son killing father, Uncle killing nephew, brother killing brother on fight over noble values.

It is "YOU WHO IS IGNORANT OF INDIAN HISTORY". PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THIS FRAUD.

THE word "connections" is very different from "origins". I can have connections with europe, America and China through friends, business and so on, but my origin is in India.

The TOPIC IS "ORIGINS"! NOT CONNECTIONS.

• The Lodhis, Pathan and Mogul invaders of India etc were all foreign invaders from Afghanistan/and Central Asia. Like Chandragupta, they too had conqurered India. Did they make some city in Afghanistan/Central Asia as their Capital? Dear Sanjay, read Indian history carefully, whenever a foreign invader had conquered India, most often, he made the existing capital as his own capital.

That is again a non-sensical assertion. None of the Invaders origins are contested. They were all clearly from Central Asia. Ch.Maurya's times were much different from medieval times. The Medieval wars were either for Independence or for Islamic LOOT and ARSON which is well documented.

As I said again you have shown serious ignorance of Indian History. Please dont POISON OTHER PEOPLE's MINDS. SanjayMohan 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[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: [2].

[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: [3], [4] . 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.

[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" ( 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 [5]. 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:[6] . 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: [7] [8] [9]. 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] 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) [10] 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.

HISTORY & CULTURE of INDIAN PEOPLE writes:

"It is now generally believed that the old clan name Moriya offers a more satisfactory explaination of Maurya, the name of the dynasty founded by Chandragupta than the supposed derivation from his mother named MURA or father named MAURYA. We may therefore readily accept the view that Chandragupta belonged to the KSHATRYA clan called Moriya originally ruling over Pippalivanna which probably lay in U.P..." (Views from: Hist and Cult of Indian People, The Age of Imerial Unity, p 56, (Ed) Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar, forward Dr K. D. Munshi etc).

Besides above, other texts like Political History of Ancient India, 1996 p 236-37 ... by Dr H. C. Raychaudhury and Dr B. N. Mukherjee, and the Ancient India, 2002, p 284-85 --- by Dr V. D. Mahanjan scholars also hold similar views.

CONCLUDING TEXT OF HIST & CULT of INDIAN PEOPLE:

"According to tradition preserved in Buddhist texts, Chandragupta's father was the chief of the Moriya (Maurya) clan, who was killed in a border clash, leaving his wife destitute. She had to seek safety at far-off PUSHAPURA where she gave birth to a child, Chandragupta. The boy was brought up first by a cowherd and later by a hunter (who has bought Chandragupta from the cowherd). THe child grew up in the village and asserted his predominance among his rural companions by playing the king with them (Rajakilam). This attracted the notice of Chanakya who happened to pass through that village and seeing the promise of greatness the child, he bought him from hunter and took him away his native city Taxila. There he gave him through education in all the arts and sciences to fit him for his appointed task." (Hitory and Culture of Indian People, The Age of Imerial Unity, p 56 (Ed) Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar, forward by Dr K. D. Munshi etc).

COMMENTS: WHO WAS A THIS MORIYA CLAN??: It is notewothy that the ancient Buddhist traditions are very vague and do not clearly and indisputably specify the identity of the Maurya/Moriya clan which Chandragupta belonged to. Based on circumstancial evidence, the scholars have speculatively identitified the Maurya clan of Chandragupta with the Moriya clan of Pippalivanna. This Moriya clan finds reference as a mere passing shadow in Indian history and only in the Buddhist text alone. It was indeed a very minor and insignificant clan living/ruling in the north of UP during 6th c BCE. Since political and residential headquarters of the Mauryans were located in Pataliputra/Magadha, and since the Mauryans were also the immediate successors to the Nanda empire of Magadha, some ancient chroniclers have naturally connected the Mauryans to the Magadha or to East India. But there is no indisputable and substatintive evidence to firmly support Chandragupta and his Mauryan line to Eastern India. Rather the available evidence is such that there is a school of noted scholars who like to affine Chandragupta and his clan to north-west India.

ISSUE OF PUSHPAPURA

• There is a reference to PUSHPAPURA as the birth place of Chandragupta (per Buddhist traditions). Two Pushpapuras are attested in the Indian literature.

• (i)Pushpapura is stated to be ancient name of Pataliputra. Personally I know for sure that Kusumpura was the ancient name of Pataliputra which name is attested in the Brahmanical texts of second/First c BCE. But I'm not sure if Pataliputra was ever called Pushpapura in ancient period. My gut feeling is that Pushpapura, as an alternative name for Kusumpura/Pataliputra, if any is of Mediaval era origin, unless some reader comes up with ancient reference/evidence to prove it otherwise.

• (ii)The second Pushpapura was located in north-west. This PUSHPAPURA is powerfully attested in the ancient inscriptions belonging to the Saka age i.e Christian times (See: Acta Orientalia, xvi, para iii, 1937, pp 234ff, Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 392, Dr H. C Raychaudhury). The following three strapies are attested in these ancient inscriptions of Saka period belong to the start of Christian era and they all belong to Gandhara/Kamboja in the north-west:

(i)Kapisi, (ii)Pushpapura (iii)Abhisara-prastha (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 392, Dr H. C Raychaudhury on Pushpapura and its geographical location)

The strapy of PUSHPAPURA was so named after the city of Pushpapura which was located between Kapishi (Begram) and Abhisara (Doab of Indus and Jhelum). It is said to be ancient name of Peshawar. In Parthian and Greek inscriptions, the name Pushpapura is said to have appeared as Pushkbur/Pasikaboura which city was the limit of Sassanian empire in the east (See: The Pathans, 1958, pp 33, 441, Olaf Caroe).

• The Ananga Ranga (The Hindu Art of Love) also groups the city/place name PUSHPAPURA with the Madda-Desa (Madradesa = north-western Punjab) and attests both of them lying in the north-west division of ancient India (See: The Ananga Ranga/Hindu Art of Love , 2003, p 52, Kessinger Publishing, Richard F. Burton).

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Author of The Political History of Ancient India (Dr H. C. Raychadhury), though very through in his treatment of the subject, no where refers to the Pataliputra as Pushpapura. He however refers to Pataliputra as Kusumpura which is understandable.

To me, the Pushpapura of the Buddhist traditions most likely is the Pushpapura of north-west frontiers which was an ancient city of Gandhara. This may imply that the (Moriya) clan of Chandragupta may have belonged to the Mor region of Swat/Kunar. After the death of Chandragupta’s father in the upper KUnar/Swat valley border clash (Mor region), Chandragupta’s mother may have found a refuge in the Pushuppura (i.e Peshawar of Gandhara) accross Kabol river.

NOTE: Let some reader come up with an ancient evidence attesting Pushpapura as the ancient name of Pataliputra or some other place in east India. Until then, it can tentatively be assumed that name Pushpapura (for Pataliputra, east India) had originated later than the Pushpapura (for Peshawar, the north-west).

• The Mor-Coh or Mer-Coh, the name of the hilly region between river Indus and Kabol river is located in the Swat/Kunar valleys. Also called Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill. It was known as Meru since very remote antiquity as per Sanskrit texts. Greek writings call it Mt Meros. According to some scholars, the people of Mor region, to all probability, were the Maurya Asuras of the Devi-Mahatam and of the Markendeya Purana. The Mor region was the abode of the Ashvakas. The people of this region appear to have also been called Mauryas/Moriyas after the place-name epithet since they belonged to place called Mor/Mer.

• Mauriyas, as an Asura clan, are clearly referenced in Brahmanical texts like Srimad Devi Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) and Markandeya Purana (verses 8.1-6). These Mauryas had formed a battle-alliance with the Hindukush tribes such as the Kambojas, Afridis etc which evidently connects them with north-west frontiers, and more specifically, with eastern Afghanistan. The land of action is obviously the region around Hindukush (See: Devi-Mahatama 5.89,90; See also: The Shrimad-Devi-Bhagawatam, trans: Swami Vijnanananda 1921-22, p 451). The Mauryas are branded as an Asura clan in these Brahmanical texts. The event alludes to a war between ancient Indo-Aryans and the Iranians. On the surface, this ancient war seems to be mythological but in reality, it alludes to a remote historical event which refers to some faintly remembered border clash between the Daevas (Indo-Aryans) and the Iranians (Asuras =Ahura-Mazda followers, the Iranians) around/following the great divide.

Kambojas, Sakas, Yonas, Mauryas in Sri Lanka

• A ruler called Moeres (king of the Moris) finds mention in the classical accounts. This king is stated to have been ruling in lower Indus during Alexander’s Invasion (326 BCE)(Diodorus evidence; See: Alexander’s Invasion of India, p 256, J. W. McCrindle). According to Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, the name Moeres of this ruler of lower Indus probably implies reference to Maurya clan (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 229, Dr Raychaudhury).

• (i)It is very likely that some population of these Moeris of lower Indus had moved to Sri Lanka. Ancient cave inscriptions of Sri Lanka (Second c BCE) make mention of ethnic groups such as the KABOJA, MURIDI, MERAYA, JHAVAKA, DAEMEDA, MILEKA as living in Sri Lanka around/earlier than second c BCE. According to scholars, the Kabojas were Kambojas, the Muridis were Murindas (Sakas) and the Merayas were Mauryas. The Daemedas were Dravids and Milekas were Mlechchas i.e the Veddas or the aborigines of Sinhala (See: History of Ceylone, Vol I, Part I, p 88-89, Dr S. Parnavitana)

See Also Internet Link: http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/hist/hist18.html

Evidence on Yona/Yavanas in Sri Lanka. Besides the above referenced communities living in Sri Lanka as specifically mentioned in the ancient Sinhalese inscriptions, there is also evidence that the Yonas/Yavanas had also reached Sri Lanka in Pre-Christina times. Buddhist texts attest that the Yonas or Yavanas had reached Sri Lanka in pre-Christian times and founded a Yona colony "Pandukabhaya" in Anuradhapura/Sri Lanka. (See: History of Ceylone, Vol I, Part I, pp 88-89, Dr S Parnivatana, Ancient Kamboja, People and the Country, 1981, p 343, Dr Kamboj). (Also see Dictionary of Pali Proper Names). The EVIDENCE BELOW from Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (DPPN) also lends credibility to this view:

"Alasanda: A city in the land of the Yonas. There was a large Buddhist community there and it is said, in the Mahávamsa (See: Mahavamsa xxix.40), that on the occasion of the foundation of the MaháThúpa by Dutthagámani, the thera Yonaka Mahá Dhammarakkhita came to Anurádhapura from Alasanda with 30,000 monks." [11]

ONLY the Damedas (Dravidians) and the Milekas [the Mlechchas--- the Veddas (the aborigines of Sinhala)] of the Inscriptions were the two important non-Aryan ethinic groups living in ancient Sri Lanka before Christian times. The Kabojas (Kambojas), the Muridis (Sakas/Murindas), Yonas or Yavanas and the Merayas (Moriyas) were the four Aryan/Scytho_Aryan ethnic groups which had found access to this far-off island and are attested to have been living in Sinhala.

Thus a communication of the people from north-west with ancient Sri Lanka is confirmed from ancient Buddhist traditions and Sri Lankan inscriptions. The joint reference to Kabojas/Kambojas, Yonas/Yavans, Sakas/Muridis and the Meryas/Mauryas in Sri Lanka connects the Sri Lakan Mauryas with Moeris of lower Indus, the Moris of Chittor and further also with the Mauryas/Moryas of the Kabol valley (Meros of the classical writings).

Since originally, the Kambojas, Sakas and the Yavanas are known to belong to the north-west, the fourth community i.e the Meryas/Mauryas, by corolary, also appears to have been from the north-west.

• (ii)There are inscriptional references to a Mori clan in the Annals of Mewars/Rajasthan. In seventh/eigth century AD, Udaipur was under the rule of Maun Mori (Mori is a branch of Parmars) who was then the ruling king of Chittor. (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002, pp 77, 78, 87, 185, 187-188; also see Inscription details at p 626-627 in the same text, James Tod). Scholars like James Tod connect this Mori clan of Rajputana inscriptions with the clan of Chandragupta Morya (op cit, p 77).

We very well know that the Kambojas are also attested as living in Gujarat/Saurashtra in post-Christian times..SEE: [12] [13]. Thus, it appears very likely that the Mori ruling clan of Avanti/Rajasthan (of 7th c AD) was obviously a section from the Moeris clan attested to have been living in the lower Indus during Alexander's times. A part of these Moeris (from lower Indus) and the Kambojas are likely to have moved to Sri Lanka during third/second century BCE. The remainder population of Moeris may have moved to south-western Rajasthan around Christian times and founded a kingdom there. The Kambojas had also established their kingdom in this region as is referenced above.

Dr H. C. Raychaudhury writes that "In Rajputana Gazetteer, the Moris (Mauryas) are described as a Rajput clan" (Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 236; also: The Mewar Residency, II A, compiled by Major K. D. Ersekine, p 14). They are most likely the same Moris people whom James Tod makes reference in his Annals and Antiquities as stated above (Ibid).

GREEK ACCOUNTS:

• Classical historian Appian attests that Antrocottos (Chandragupta), king of Indians dwelt on Indus on its eastern banks (Appian XI-55). The time frame which this references refers to is 310-305 BCE. This evidence attests that king Antrocottos belonged to north-west region.

• Plutarch makes a statement that Androcottos had met Alexander when the former was a mere lad (small boy). The time of this event was 326 BCE ("Chandragupta’s first emergence from obscurity into the full view of history occurs in 326-25 B.C. when he met Alexander" says Dr H. C. Raychaudhury), when Alexander was in the heart of Punjab. Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J. W. McCrindle concludes that Chandragupta belonged to north-west region (Greater Punjab). Since the date of birth of Chanakya is stated to be 345 BCE and Chandragupta was probably 4-5 years younger to Chanakya, hence the age of Chandragupta at the time of this meet with Alexander was probably 14-15 years. A young lad of 14-15 can not be expected to have come all the way from eastern India to far-off north-west to meet the World conqueror. It seems very probable that Chandragupta had belonged to some local ruling family of north-west. Classical accounts tell us that several princes from the ruling families of north-west frontiers (like Omphes (Ambhi of Taxila), Sangaeus of Peukelaotis (Pushklavati), Kophaios (ruler of Kubha or Kabol), Sisikottos (of Assakenoi) and Assagetes etc) had met Alexander personally and cooperated with him in his compaigns. It is not unreasonable to think that Chandragupta may also have met Alexander in similar context, like the above several princes from north-west, and may also have actually cooperated with him initially. The circumstantial evidence strongly points to north-west origin of Chandragupta and also indicates that he was from royal family.

• Greek writer Justin attests that Sandrocottos had annoyed Nandrum (i.e. Nanda king--Dhana Nanda) and sensing danger had to flee to save his life. One school of scholars believe that this incidence had occured when Chanakya had visited Magadha to make presentation for his Political thesis called "Arathshastra" to the Acharyas at Pataliputra in the presence of king Nanda of Magadha. Chandragupta, the most illustrious and devoted student of Chanakya had accompanied the latter during this visit to Magadha. Chanakya had won competetion and the award for his outstanding contibution to Political Science but for some reasons, Dhanna Nanda was annoyed at Chanakya and insulted him badly. It was at the same occasion that Chandragupta, Chanakya's dedicated student, had annoyed Nanda with his bold and outspoken speech (probably in support of his teacher) and subsequently had to flee from the scene to save his life. As a result of series of these events, Chanakya had pledged to destroy Nanda kingdom of Magadha using Chandragupta, his illustruious student, as his most powerful weapon. (See: Was Chandragupta Mauryan a Punjabi?, Punjabi History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, pp 32-35, Dr H. R. Gupta, The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, p 151-152, S Kirpal Singh).

There is another version of the above story according to which Chanakya had gone alone to Pataliputra. On being insulted, he had left Pataliputra in disgust but had silently vowed to destroy Dhana Nanda. On his way back to Taxila, he chance-met a small kid Chandragupta playing the role of king with his friends in the outer skirts of Pataliputra. Shrewed Brahmin Chanakya is said to have immediately spotted great potentialities in the young kid and bought him from the hunter so that he could give practical shape to his plan to destroy Dhana Nanda.

As can be seen, this version of story seems to sound more like a Phantasy than a historical fact.

Hence, it is more probable that young Chanakya was accompanied by his young and brilliant desciple Chandragupta when the former had visited Pataliputra. This version which is based on the evidence of Justin, as corolary also belies the often-held view that on his return journey to Taxila, Chanakya had purchased Chandragupta from Magadha. If at all Chandragupta was purchasded by Chanakya, the purchase may have been done in Gandhara/Kamboja region in the north-west (which region is attested for slavery as per Majhhima Nikaya) and not in Magadha. This again implies that Chandragupta may have belonged to the north-west rather than eastern India.

But the higher proability is that Chandragupta was a young boy from a royal lineage from the north-west frontiers and had joined Taxila University to learn Political Science from Chanakya aka Kautiliya. Taxila was the grooming center for the boys of royal families from surrounding countries in north-west.

• Justin also attests that Santrocottos had collected a band of local robbers (which according to the Mudrarakshas play, were the Sakas, Yavanas, Kamboja, Bahlikas, Parsikas etc....all Iranians) and also instigated the Indians to overthrow the Greek prefects of Punjab. Chandragupta was was 14-15 years in 326 BCE. At such a raw age, and to collect a band of local robbers and instigate and mobilise the north-western Indian (hardy Punjabis) for rebellion, it is very imperative that he must have been a native of this region. It is well neigh impossible for an outsider to accomplish this marvellous feat which Chandragupta had accomplished in the north-west if he were not a local/native, and was not familiar with the pulse of the people of north-west. In nut-shell, it was necessary for him to have belonged to this people to accomplish what he had accomplished. THe Bihar origin of Chandragupta does not sound convincing.

Part III

Summary of the Discussion:

1. The upshot of above discussion is: There is vide variation on the origin/ancestry of not only of the Nandas but also of the Mauryas. The traditional Indian sources i.e. Buddhist, Jaina and Brahmanical do not converge, and further, within the same school, there are still discordances and discrepancies. Hence, there is no unanimity on the origin of Mauryas.

2. The Nanda-Mura conne ction on the origin and ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya has been rejected by most scholars of note.

3. Many scholars now believe that Chandragupta belonged to Maurya/Moriya, a Kshatriya clan which gave him the epithet of Maurya.

4. One school of scholars identify the Maurya Kshatriya clan of Chandragupta with the Moriyas of Pippalivana. While the other school identify him with the Mauryas of Kabol region (from the Mor/Mer region). The Moriyas or Mauryas of Swat/Kunar are believed to have been Ashvakas (q.v.) who lived in the Mor/Mer mountainous region (Meru of Sanskrit, Mt Meros of classical writings, Mor of the locals).

5. The PUSHPAPURA was the city where Chandragupta's mother had sought refuge after her husband, who was Chief of his clan, had died in a border clash. Chandragupta was born in Pushpapura after the death of his father. The boy was deposited with a cow-herder as the mother was too destitute to look after the child. This Pushpapura is attested by a Saka inscriptions written around Christian times. Ancient traditions states that Chandragupta was sold as a slave by the cow-herder to a Hunter who further sold it to Chanakya (Kautiliya). Now the slavery was a custom which is known to have been prevalent in north-west at the time under reference. For example, Majjhima Nikaya (II.149) attests that in the land of Yonas and Kambojas and some other border countries, there were only two social classes....Arya (Ayyo) or Master (freeman) and the Dasa (Serf or Slave). This special social custom was prevalent in north-west only. This evidence favors to link this Buddhist tradition to the frontiers of north-west/Greater Punjab where the slavery was routinely practiced in Pre-Christian times. It is highly important to note that the slavery was practiced and the salaves are purchased and sold routinely in Kaffirstan (land of ancient Kambojas) till as late as 1896 AD as is attested by 19th century British investiogators like George Robert Scott and M. Elphinstone. The reference to cow-herder, hunter etc also seem to point to a milieu of north-west.

6. As seen earlier, Brahmanical texts like Srimad-Devi-Mahatam and Markendeya Purana etc attest a Maurya clan which was an ally of Kambojas and Afridis etc and further identify it as an Asura clan. These Maurya/Morya warriors seem to belong to the Ashvakas of the Swat/Kunar region which since ancient times is known as Mor. The Maurya/Morya is simply the place-name epithet or cognomen which got attached to Chandragupta's dynasty since he may have come from this Mor region.

7. Very interestingly, Maurya King Ashoka is referenced in the Mahabharata (1.67.13-14 & XII.5.7) and has been labelled as Maha-Asura as well as an incarnation of Aswa or Aswaka in the Adiparva of Mahabharata. The reference to Aswa implies connection with horse/horse culture:

yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |.

Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14||

tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |.

daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.||

(See: MBH 1/67/13-14)

English Translation: "That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle."

"And, O king, the younger brother of Aswa who was known as Aswapati, a son of Diti, became on earth the mighty monarch Hardikya." See link: [14]

Kamboja king Chandra Verman is also connected with Asuras/Daityas and is stated to be an incarnation of Chandra, the foremost among the sons of Diti.

chandrastu ditijashreShTho loke tArAdhipopamaH |

chandravarmati vikhyat kambojanam nRadhipah .||30||

(MBH 1/67/31-23)

English Translation: "The foremost, among the sons of Diti known by the name of Chandra and handsome as the lord of the stars himself, became on earth noted as Chandravarman, the king of the Kamvojas (Kambojas)". See Link: [15]

Please note that in the above epic text, king Asoka is linked to Aswa/Ashva or Aswaka/Ashvaka. The name Aswa/Ashva/Asvaka obviously implies horse culture or connection. It is important to remark here that the Aswa/Ashva (horses) was predominantly the field and specility of the ancient Kambojas only. The Ashvakas (q.v) of Kunar/Swat were clans of the Kambojas. Therfore, it looks like the above epic evidence implies some connection between the Kamboja king Chandra-varman and Maurya king Ashoka.

According to James Tod, "The Aswas were chiefly a Indu-race (i.e Chandravamsi); yet a branch of Suryas (i.e solar race)also bore this designation. It appears to indicate their (Aswas') celebrity as horsemen" (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002 edition, p 53, James Tod). The Aswakas of the classical accounts stated that they were Chandervamsis. And Megasthenes attests that Chandragupta was from Chandravamsa. At another place in his classic, James Tod connects the Aswas/Aspasio/Assaceni/Asi calns with horse-culture and labels them as Scythic stock (Op cit, p 64).

It is difficult to state at this moment if there is any connection between Kamboja king CHANDRA-varma of epic reference and the Maurya king CHANDRA-gupta, the grand father of Ashoka. But it is noteworhy that both are stated to be incarnations of Asuras, both are connected with Aswa/horse culture (i.e. Kambojas as Asvakas), and both, as the epic attests, are connected with goddess Diti, a deity cult practiced in the north-west.

8. There is a reference to king Moeres i.e king of Moris in the classical accounts which attests this king to be ruling in lower Indus at the time of Alexander's invasion (327-326 BCE). This king was called Moeres since he was the king of the Moeris or Moris. These Moeris are identifiable with Mori/Moria as Dr H. C. Raychaudhury also suggests. The Mori/Moria people living in lower Indus appear to have migrated from north-west and especially from Swat/Kunar valleys (Mor region, hence Moris). Section of Kambojas are also attested to have moved to lower Indus in pre-Christian centuries and set up their colonies in west and south-west India. SEE: [Kambojas in south-west India].

9. The joint presence of Kamboja, Sakas (Muridis =Murindas) Yavanas and Maurya population in Sri Lanka around second century BCE also point to close affinities of the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas and the Maurya people, thus again attesting that the Mauryas of Sri-Lanka and of Lower-Indus must have originally been an off-shoot from the Mor/Mer region in Swat/Kunar in eastern Afganistan.

10. All these references make us think that Chandragupta was, to all probability, from North-west region and most probably belonged to Mor region in Swat/Kunar valley---the land of Ashvaka Kambojas. Hence he may have been indeed from Ashvakas, a sub-tribe of the Kambojas.

11. So the upshot of this discussion is that Chandragupta most likely belonged to north-west region. He was an illustrious student of Chanakya who himself was a native of Taxila/Gandhara. Thus most probably, it was this brilliant and dedicated Brahmin and Kshatriya duo from the north-west region of Gandhara/Kamboja which was responsible for rasising a powerful empire in India on the ruines of Nanda empire of Magadha and the Greek strapies of north-west.

[edit] Modern Views on Maurya Origin

[edit] Scythian origins view

A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity (Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133) in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers (Jats the Ancient rulers, Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana, by B. S. Dahiya I.R.S.) in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jatts still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.

This view may become creditable only if it is accepted that the Jatts evolved from the Madras, Kekayas, Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas of the north-west borderlands of ancient Indian sub-continent. This is because king Ashoka's own Inscriptions refer only to the Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas as the most important people of his north-west frontiers during third century BCE. They do not make any reference whatsover, to the Sakas, Shakas or the Scythians. See: Rock Edict No 5 [16] and Rock Edict No 13 [17] ( Shahbazgarhi version).

The view of Bhim Singh Dahiya that the Mauryas were Jat is supported from the fact that Khoye Maurya is clan of Jats found in Uttar Pradesh, India. The meaning of 'Khoye Maurya' is the 'lost Maurya' in Hindi language. The Khoye Maurya clan is not found in Rajputs. Moreover Madras, Joon(Yona) and Gandharas are clans found in Jats.

Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya: "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata". (Geiger Trans p 27). It means "Mauryas are Kshatriyas of Jat clan".

According to Jat historian Ram Swarup Joon - History of the Jats, Rohtak, India (1938, 1967)

" Mauryans being Jats, were denigerated by Brahmans and are termed even Shudras to show their cotempt. Infact Maurya was not a caste but it was a gotra of Jats which is still found in Jats. Gupta was a title of Chandra Gupta and not the caste, as has been proved below in the history of Chandra Gupta. He was a warrior of Jat caste. There are numerous legends about the Maurya dynasty, as Ashoka of this dynasty was an ardent follower of Buddhism, Brahmin writers have, in the Puranas, called it a Shudra dynasty.

Mor, Maurya, Maurana are Jat gotras of very old standing. Hence the rule of this dynasty has been given a high place in history of Jats."

The above evidences prove that Mauryas were a clan of Jats.

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan (II A, the Mewar Residency by Major K. D. Erskine, p 14).

These several references, at least, tend to establish the Kshatriya lineage, if not the nativity of Chandragupta Maurya.

[edit] Northwestern origin

Lastly, there is a school of scholars like B.M. Barua, J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ratanjit Pal, Gur Rattan Pal Singh and others who connect Chandragupta Maurya to north-western frontiers including the Gandhara/Paropamisadae, if not exactly Taxila itself.

Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle writes that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory (Invasion of India by Alexander the great, p. 405. Plutarch attests that Androcottos had seen Alexander when he (Androcottos) was a lad and afterwards he used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country (India)).

B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila and thus seem to invest him with Persian affinities (Says Barua: 'To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila' (Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua)). Dr D.B. Spooner, the official excavator of Pataliputra (Bihar), also believes that Mauryas (Chandragupta, Ashoka) were Iranians ( Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II) , p.406, Dr D.B. Spooner).

Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that 'Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus' (Appian (XI, 55)) which again would suggest an origin in the north-west frontier borderlands. Other historians of this school state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys (The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh).

Ashvakas said that they were Chandravamsi (Ref: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-33, Dr H. R. Gupta; cf James Tod writes: 'The Aswas were chiefly of Indu race (i.e. Chandravamsi), yet a branch of the Suryas (solar race) also bore the Aswa designation. The name indicates their celebrity as horsemen' See: The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2002, Vol I, p 53). Megasthenes writes that Chandragupta was also a Chandravamsi (Cambridge History of India, I, p 400; See also: Op cit., p 33, fn.2. Dr Gupta). Many scholars see a connection between "Chandragupta" (Sandrocottos or Androkottos) and the strap Sisicottos (Diodotus of Erythrae) of the classical writings, stating that the Sashi- part in Sashigupta (Sisicotos) also means Chandra or moon (Sanskrit Sasi = moon, chandra) ("Sashi" is a synonym of "Chandra"-- Sashi, SASIGUPTA AND THE POISONING OF ALEXANDER, Dr Ranajit Pal)---hence asserting that Sashigupta (Sisicottos) and Chandragupta (Sandrocottos) was probably one and the same historical personage. Sisicottos had been a ruler of a petty hill state located at the base of Paropamisos (Hindukush) range in former Kamboja. Like Sandrocottos (Chandragupta), this Sisicottos (Sashigupta) was also a refugee at the time of Alexander's invasion. He had left his country and first helped Bessus of Bactria and later had co-operated with Alexander throughout the Sogdian campaigns (Arrian. iv, 30. 4.) Such men had every reason to encourage Alexander to invade cis-Hindukush and he himself also needed little encouragement (Bosworth). During Alexander's compaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas i.e the free tribes of Aspasios, Assakenois, Guraeans, Andakas, Arigaeums and Aornos etc. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander had to face very stiff resistence from the tribals, Sashigupta was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. This suggests that Sisicottos had been a Kamboja himself. [It appears that after being kicked out by his own people (the Ashvakas), Sisicottos had first sought refuge in Bactria and fought against Alexander. Later on, he joined Alexander and instigated the latter to invade cis-Hindukush countries so that he (Sisicottos) could settle his scores with his opponents (Ashvakas) as well as regain his lost position in Paropamisadae]]. Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sashigupta as a Kamboja (Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind). It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was the same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers. It appears probable that they may have been related in someway. Dr H. R. Gupta and Dr J. W. McCrindle think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas (Invasion of Alexander, 2nd Ed, p 112, Dr J. W. McCrindle; Op cit., p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta). Dr McCrindle further writes that modern Afghanistan was the ancient Kamboja and further says that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian (Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander's Invasion of India, p 38). Thus, Dr McCrindle connects the Ashvakas with the Kambojas. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the epithet Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor of Koh-i-Mor or Mer-Koh i.e Mor hill (Meros & Mt Meros of the classical writings), which was important ancient territory located in the Paropamisadae region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas. Dr Holdich also says that Nysa was a capital city of the Ashvakas located in the Koh-i-Mor valley (Indian Borderland, 1901, pp 270, 322, Dr H. D. Holdich; cf also: The Gates of India, 1910, pp 123-124, Op. cit, p 32, Dr H. R Gupta). Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros (i.e. Ashvaka) people. These scholars assert that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Meros (Mor) region/people and was called Morya or Maurya after his motherland. (Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154).

Gur Rattan Pal Singh writes: "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: Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999 They taught lessons to kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Also cf: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta).

Scholars of this school are not convinced as to how an inexperienced youngman far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own could have conquered the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers (Op cit. p 32, Dr. H. R. Gupta). It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles. This calculates to conquering only one mile per day (See: Op cit., p 32, Dr H. R. Gupta). The scholars also argue that it is not a custom among the Indians to assume a family name after their mothers' names as the Nanda-Mura story wants us to believe.

Many scholars identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas [18]. They were so-called since they (the Ashvaka branch of the Kambojas) were exclusively engaged in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars.

Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind" (Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner).

The Arthashastra of Kautiliya advises that the king when consulting the Physicians and ascetics should be seated in the room where the sacred fire has been kept. Likewise, there was a custom of burning sacred fire in the room where the meetings of Council of Ministers were held. This has been cited as a theory that Zoroastrian rituals may have been practiced and honored at the Mauryan court. Moreover, the ceremonial washing of king's hair was made the occasion of a splendid festival when courtiers offered rich tributes to the king. This observance recalls the ancient Persian hair-washing ceremony on the sovereign's birthday as described by Herodotus. Persian nobles (E.g, Tushaspa-- apparently an Ashvaka Kamboja, was governor of Kathiawad. Likewise Whšu (Vakshu?) was the governor of Kamboja province in Afghanistan; See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 590-91, 610 & 617 Dr B. N. Mukerjee) were working as governors of Mauryan provinces and similarily the Persian women (Yavananis) were employed by Mauryan emperors as their bodyguards. The Ashoka inscriptions and the Architecture at Pataliputra also appear to bear some impression from Persia. The pillars of Ashoka with round bell-shaped abaci and bull or lion capital and the use of winged animals as capitals of pillars are also similar to Iranian artwork. The use of Kharosthi script, a variety of Aramaic, in the provinces near the frontiers may also point to the Iranian origin of the Mauryans. (Dr V. A. Smith, Oxford History of India).

Though Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a Khattiya (Kshatriya), Mudrarakshasa by Vishakhadatta describes him as a Vrishala (i.e. Mlechha) as well as Chandrasra & Pryadarshana (i.e very handsome, comely). And Adiparava of Mahabharata (Mahabharata 1.67.13-14) refers to Ashoka Maurya as a Maha-asura i.e. a great Asura or Demon.

Note: The term Vrishala was applied to the high class Kshatriyas who did not follow the sacred codes recommended in the Brahmanical texts (Ref: Chandragupta Maurya, National Book Trust, India, p 31-32, Gopal Lallanji).

Exactly similar attributes (i.e. Kshatriyas, Vrishala (Mlechhas), Pryadarshanam/Handsome, Asuras, Danvas etc) have been applied to the Kambojas as well as their princes as is attested by ancient texts like Panini's Ashtadhyayi(Sutra 4.1.168-175...attesting the Kambojas as one of the fifteen prominent ruling Kshatriya clans of his times), Manu Smriti(Manusmriti x.43-44; Mahabharata 13.33.21: Both Manusmriti as well as Mahabharata attest that the Kambojas were originally noble Kshatriyas, but later on, when they discontinued to entertain the Brahminas in their country and ceased to follow sacred Brahmanical rituals & codes, they earned the Vrishala status as aresult of the wrath of the Brahmanas), Mahabharata (Mahabharata 1.67.31.32; 7.23.43; 7.82.74; 8.56.111, 8.56.113.114: Mahabharata verses 1.67.31-32 term the Kamboja king Chandravarman as Diti-ja i.e. incarnation of Chandra, son of Diti-- a great Asura ruler. The other verses attest the Kambojas as prabhadarkastu Kambojas (MBH 7.23.43) i.e very handsome Kambojas. Also their princes Chandravarman, Sudakshina and Prapaksha are labelled, sudarshaniya (MBH 7/82/74), pryadarshanam (MBH 8.56.113-14) i.e exceedingly handsome, of gaura varna and tall (MBH 8.56.113-14) etc), Ramayana, (Ramayana verse 1.55.1-3 calls the Kambojas as ravisanibhah i.e Kambojas having faces brighter and illustrious like the Sun). Markendeya Purana (verses 8.1-6) label the Kambojas as Asuras. Srimad Devi-Bhagawatam (verses 5.28.1-12) also label the Kambojas as Asuras and other ancient Indian sources.

The Asura Maurya clan mentioned in the Brahmanical texts like Devi-Bhagtam, Markendeya Purana etc has been identified with the Maurya Clan of Chandragupta. The Mauryas are also labelled as a Asura clan in the Mahabharata (See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, pp 4-5, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukherjee). It is noteworthy that Maurya clan of these Brahmanical references had allied with the Kambojas, Afridis and other clans of east Afghanistan and scene of action is indicated as Himalaya/Hindukush in Afghanistan. The Himalaya of ancient Indian traditions is said to extend from from eastern Occean to western Occean: (See: Kumarasambuvam, I.1; Critical Study of early Puranas, 1972, p 65, Dr M. R. Singh). The Devi-Bhagtam story seems to refer to some faintly remembered border-clash between Daevas (Indo-Aryans) and the Asuras (Iranians) in remote antiquity. The Maurya of these legends seems to refer to a people inhabiting the Mor region (modern Koh-i-Mor) in Swat/Kunar valleys. These Mor (or Moriya) people seem to be same as the Ashvakas.

See also: [19] [20].

On Iranian Affinities of the Kambojas, see: Language and ethnicity of Kambojas

---

Sanjay: Please append your responses if any HERE-TO-AFTER and in a sequence if you want to argue against the above. Pleaee do not embed your comments/responses within body of main discussion page.

Regards

Satbir Singh 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

[edit] Vandalism

Dear Sanjay. By Wikipedia standards, the only one practicing vandalism here is you. You are not supposed to delete references and secondary sources by published authors, even if their views are not in accordance with yours. Please respects alternative theories on the origins of Chandragupta Maurya. Please do not vandalize other's Talk Pages. Please do not make empty threat about refering to Administrators, when you are yourself reverted by Administrators. Please do not make personal attacks. Please do not make anonymous edits. Please do not edit other's comments in Talk Pages. Thank you PHG 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I am not really sure if the "alternative theories" proposed have any basis in truth or not. However, a charge in foul play can be made in terms of presentation alone. For starters, the size of the text of alternative theories alone make it seem like the dominant theories to a casual reader. Also, the choice of words make all theories of equal standing when the fact, whether you like it or not, is that the alternative theories presented here are speculative in nature and not the majority (even one of the reference in support of the alternative theory claims this - check references).

Also, I suspect their is a lot of slipping of personal bias going on in between references. For instance, "Scholars of this school are not convinced as to how an inexperienced lad far from Bihar with no social, political or military standing in the north-west and with inadequate monetary and other resources of his own could have conquered the people of the Punjab and north-west frontiers. It had taken Alexander, the world conqueror, over 16 months to subdue the land from east Afghanistan to river Bias spanning over a distance of just 500 miles." I would like to see a citation with a page numbers on this. Also, once again, even if their are some scholars out there who are not convinced based on the aforementioned reasons that should not make the alternative theory the dominant one. However, the presentation of this article does this quite openly.

Wikipedia clearly states this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."

In my opinion, their is a strong bias in this article towards the alternate theories and as a result, I am throwing the bias flag. It is all fine and dandy to have alternate theories but it is not ok when you have half the article dedicated to them with some questionable claims being made.

Added later: If no one is willing to defend the current structure, their will be editions made. I will wait for ten days to give original authors a chance to defend against these allegations. (Blacksun 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree here. The ancestry section needs to be overhauled so that these new theories aren't passed off as equals to the mainstream theories. Gtmshine 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving attention to this article. I was fighting these vandalists alone for the past few weeks. I live in Boston area and I have access to Harvard libraries, which in my opinion are second only to library of congress. I confirmed several references and they are all fraudulant. I need some assistance in this regard. Please read my comments on this whole whole discussion page above. I ave dealt with this POV issue at length. The main problem with the ancestry section is that there are very few "PRIMARY SOURCES" provided and most of the references are "SECONDARY SOURCES" which are fraudulant and highly biased in themselves. The writer of this article is clearly biased and wants to show that Ch.Maur was from Punjab and not any other place in India. SanjayMohan 13:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay, take a deep breath and relax. Now, please provide here (sorry if you have already done this) in a nice list all the sources that are cited incorrectly. I am not asking the credibility of the sources but whether or not they are cited incorrectly (as you claim, I think). If you can provide proof (scan a page maybe?). Thanks.(Blacksun 23:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes - the sentences you quote as objectionable are poorly written. Also, as a lot of the data comes from folklore and verbal history, I think there is a need for more references and citations. Also, there is a need for paraphrasing - dramatism and graphic details in language is not acceptable. Rama's Arrow 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, there is a lot of good in the citations already in place. This article's POV problems can be easily addressed. Rama's Arrow 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Somebody please do something about SanjayMohan. He has been vandalizing several pages and inserting text reflecting not just bias, but hate.

Look:

On Sarasvati_River http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&oldid=44305890

He writes: "Saraswati to the east of Indus, now called Ghaggar served as boundary between Vedic Aryans on the east and Dasyu savages on the west"

That would make people of a region of India (including Panini the Sanskrit grammarian, Charaka the physician etc) savages.

He had inserted this in Punjabi Khatri page at one time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Punjabi_Khatri

"Madra was the most prominent Khatri state which covered all the six rivers from Indus (Sindhu) to Beas (Vipas). The people of this state were extremely corrupt, were chronic liars"

"Hindu-Khatris never pay taxes. Due to this they have hoarded a lot of wealth from Indians, much like the nazis who usurped wealth from the Jews."

Does it look like an unbiased view?

--ISKapoor 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely unbiased view since I have provided valid "online references" from Ramayana and Mahabharat, not fraudulant and unsubstantiated references by Satbir Singh. Most of the references used in Ch.Maur. Article are downright fraud and have nothing to do with his ancestry. It is just one long monotonous story of fabrication and lies like the Aryan Invasion Theory. Moreover, this is the discussion for Ch.Maur not Khatris SanjayMohan 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Hello All,

Could both sides please refrain from attacking each other? It's no wonder India had a rough thousand years with this kind of bickering. To top it all off, there's enough garbage masquerading as Indian History floating out there to annoy both sides of this argument. Regarding the question of Chandragupta's origins, as a periodic editor of this page prior to this debate, I also recognize that it is difficult to construct an accurate narrative. There is a significant amount of evidence pointing to a Magadhan heritage; however, as we cannot be certain, we also may want to consider the possibility of his origins in the Panjab. SanjayMohan, I recognize that, setting aside the punjabi contestation, many of th alternative theories are outright garbage (i.e. scythian and zoroastrian). As Rama's Arrow notes, these "alternative theories" are legitimized by questionable sources and made to seem as if these are genuinely viable ones in mainstream history. It's bad enough that there are people out there aching to associate every Indian accomplishment (including Chandragupta's unification of northern indian to the greeks and other foreigners without real evidence). Accordingly, this Dr. Spooner (who wrote on this topic in 1915, I might add, with many incredulous and unsubstantiated theories) that is referenced, also theorized that the Buddha was Persian as well. Whether Punjabi or Bihari, at least we should be taking pride in that fact that Chandragupta was Indian, which evidence points to be the only certainty. Second of all, we should all refrain from explosive language, irrespective of the side. Could we please reach some sort of compromise here? There are definitely a number of potential brokers that have floated the possibility of restructuring this article in a fair manner. Please take this into consideration.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I have to say, as an "outside observer", i.e. someone who hasn't been editing this article, that the edits by SanjayMohan that you point to seem inappropriate. However, I'm not sure why this comment is on this talk page? I went through some of SanjayMohan's edits on this page, and nothing seemed objectionable. Admittedly, I haven't been around these pages, and I'm sure there could be a bunch of history amongst the people here which I don't know. But in any case, can't we all just get along? --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

==This is absurd==--70.238.2.87 05:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Satbir Singh refuses to respond to the issues that I raised in "Bias" post and he continues to keep reverting changes made by anyone. This is so sad. I dont know what the heck to do about this. (Blacksun 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Blacksun, you can't ignore the alternative views of a school of scholar community. Somebody has already suggested you to read some of the original sources I have listed in this discussion page and also in the main article. Read them and come up refutation giving reasons.

Satbir Singh 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

What are you talking about???? No one has suggested no such thing to me. Nor have I suggested that the "alternate theories" should not be presented. Have you even read my complaint?? Their are REAL ISSUES. Over 50% of the article is about your alternate theories with half of it not supported by your so called sources. Article will NEVER reach featured or good article level in your format. If you really really want to have four pages on alternate theories than make a separate article about it and link it in this article. Furthermore, you cannot connect the dots like the ones you made with Kambojas and asura thing. Heck afte reading the article, I am not quite sure if its about chandragupta or your kambojas. Furthermore, the fact that spooner also claimed that Buddha was a Persian shows just how speculative his research is. Please go read my post "bias" and then post again. (Blacksun 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

That Buddha was Iranian is also accepted by mainstream historians like Dr Michael Witzel of Harvard Univ who say that Sakyas are in fact Saka or Shaka (who were Iranians) off-shoot. Even there is a school of scholars who link the Licchavis (Nichavis of Manusmriti Kulluka's) as from Nisivis---an Iranian clan in the north of ancient Ariana.

Why can't you connect the Mauryas with Asuras? Even the ancient Brahmanical sources do it.

Satbir Singh 14:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

You have obviously still not read my "bias" post. Maybe you should go add 2 pages of Buddhas alleged Iranian origins and see what people say to that. Let me copy paste again Wikipedia's guideline and hopefully you will read it and respond to it this time: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." If you do not think that the article goes against this policy than I guess their is nothing more for us to talk about. --Blacksun 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Blacksun, you dont need unnecessarily spew your anger at me. I only responded to your attempt at your belittling of Dr Spooner's scholarship. Who knows, Dr Spooner may prove right in the end?. Indian history is still very much ambiguous and imperfectly known. It has been constructed on lot of speculations. And the ancestry of Nandas and Mauryas is not an exception. There is a school of scholars who do believe that Buddha's clan was Iranian too and others who also believe that the Lichchavis were so too and there is also a powerful group of scholars who say that Pallavas are derived from Iranian Pahlavas which make sense if even if one goes by Puranic evidence. Among the most noted modern scholars (there are several of them) who believe that Buddha /his Sakya clan were Iranians is the most distinguished Harvard Scholar Dr Michael Witzel who heads the Sanskrit and Indology Deptt of the same University whose Library your friend states as second only to Library of Congress. Dr Michael's detailed Paper on Buddha-Saka-Iranian connection is in the offing and will soon hit the Internet as he has pointed out in one of his monograph. And probably you/me will learn lot of new things. But most important thing to remember is that one must not close one's mind to new ideas and research. Regards Satbir Singh 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh

lalala and you continue to keep talking without responding to the matter of concern. Good job. You can obviously not comprehend the wikipedia policy that I have displayed in bold or chose to ignore it. Great. Wonderful. Keep it up. --70.238.2.87 05:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Professor Witzel is a fabricator and a fraudster. He has been exposed by Dr. Subhash Kak of LSU and Shrikant Talageri of Mumbai long time ago. By using the Harvard name he is spreading fraud. Most of his research is fabricated but is being propagated due to Harvard policies of "divide and rule" by which they want to psychologically subjugate India forever. This Buddha-Saka-Iranian connection is also concocted and a major fraud. This paper is going to be presented by Witzel in China, to subtely tell the chinese that Buddha was "White Guy" and not "Brown India". By doing so he will also send an implicit message that Chinese should now all become christians since that is the most followed religion by the white people these days. Romila Thapar the Punjabi fraudster author and Mike Witzel are leading this fraudulant campaign and Satbir is their supporter.

Satbir and other Punjabi fraudsters want to pose as the leaders and harbingers of Aryan culture and all the aristocracy in India, despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that Punjabi Khatris are Asuras. SanjayMohan 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is this guy?. 66.81.185.225 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just casually reading Wiki when I thought of seacrching Chandragupta Maurya. What I found was shocking. The whole discussion page seemed 10 times longer than the actual article. The article hardly mentions the true glorious history of Chandragupta. Rather, the whole article seems mudded in "Alternate Theories". Sorry to say, but the "Alternate Theories", seem at the very least, absurd, ridiculous and rival some of the greatest Conspiracy Theorys. That Chandragupta was of north-western origin seems a frivilous claim only made to highten the glory of a particular community, while painting others as socially backward and mentally retarded. Sanjay seems to fighting a lone battle. The Indian School Certificate board followed a Hindi novel called 'Jwalamukhi Ke Phool' by Sushil Kumar. It deals with the times of Mahapadma Nanda, how Chankya trained Chandragupta, the invasion of Alexander, the overthrow of Nanda Dynasty and the consolidation of Chandragupta's power with the help of Chanakya. I cannot vouch for it's authencity, but nowhere does it come even close to endorsing the pseudo history as Satbir Singh would like have us believe. The whole article in its present form is utterly confusing and lacklustre. Hopefully, the biasing will end so that we can have a proper article as a tribute to one of India's greates kings. Giko 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course this article is not neutral. Any indian who has studied history in school will tell you that. There is no mention of the glorious chandragupta. Heck, the whole article is just about alternate views. And in the talk page is the real surprise. The defendant of the article appears to strongly believe in Prof Witzel's thoughts. That alone is sufficient enough to dispute the originality of the article. Sabarish Sasidharan 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing NPOV tag

Hi! I am removing NPOV tag from the article. The quarrel on the origin of Chandragupta Maurya has been shifted to a new article Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya, in toto (and has been tagged NPOV). All the claims of origin have been summarised here in the main article. All the editors interested in the fight over the origin of this great ruler are requested to continue their claims with evidences in the new daughter article, while letting this article portray the whole life and achievements of him. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am also copy-pasting pertinent talks to the new article so that new fighters. if any, can take the cue from previous line of arguement. Thanks.

[edit] Remove the picture from comic book

Does the picture from the comic book add any value? It is an artist's impression and almost certainly does not accurately depict the clothing or jewelry of the age (the dress looks more modern than carvings or paintings from 3rd and 4th century BCE). Not to mention the fact that it is not copyrighted and doesn't belong here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokhalevai (talk • contribs)

[edit] Spaghetti Like Info - Reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta

Some really odd statements in here.

Points 1 through 3 are fine - need references

Points 4 and 5 - what is the point. Are you raising doubt about the period in which they existed - i.e. Buddha and Mauryas existed before 1000 b.c. and hence before Alexander the Great? If so - then the corroboration of dates for Asoka from Far East would not work.

I recommend that this whole issue be spun into a separate article about Chandragupta's origins, with summarized version under Chandragupta Maurya.

At the very least Points 4 and 5 do not contribute, are on extremely shaky ground and need deleted.

---Content under question --- Reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta:

1. The Greek records mention the kings before and after Sandracottus to be Xandramas and

  Sandrocyptus. The kings before and after Chandragupta Maurya were: Mahapadma Nanda and
  Bindusar.The kings before and after Chandragupta Gupta were: Chandramas and Samudragupta.
  The phonetic similarity is quite apparent for Chandragupta Gupta and not Maurya.

2. Greek records are silent about important figures like: Chanakya, Ashoka (kingdom

  much bigger than his Grandfather Chandragupta's.)

3. Greek records do not mention the presence Buddhist monks who were very common in Maurya time.

4. Inscription on a Greek Tomb: "Here lies Indian Sramanacharya, Shakya monk from Bodh Gaya".

  Sramanacharya went to Greece with his Greek pupils. The tomb marks his death about
  1000 B.C. Which means Buddha existed before 1000 BC.

5. The names of contemporary kings found on Ashokan inscriptions are Amtiyoka,

  Tulamaya, etc. Amtiyoka ruled Afghanistan around 1475 BC, which then appears
  to be the approximate date of Ashoka. (the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta.)

---

I agree. Let's take this out of the main article, and leave it with discussion on the Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya article PHG 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Historical comparison"?

What's with this "historical comparison" section? It's blatantly adulatory, anti-Chinese, and repeated verbatim in the "Maurya Empire" article, where it has at least a semblance of purpose. Varana 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to read like India better than China, I think a rewording is in order however it shouldn't be removed. A better solution would be to compare it to a contemporary rather than make an anachronistic comparison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giani g (talk • contribs) .

Personally, I believe it should be removed; it's unsourced, partisan and original research and of highly doubtful utility. What's worse, it diminishes the complessive quality of the article, that is considerable. For this I'll follow WP:BOLD now and erase it, also since its pleonastic and, as Varana says, is repeated verbatim in Maurya Empire.--Aldux 22:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So-called "quote" removed

I removed the following quote as I could not find it in Geiger and it therefore seems to be a false quote (if anyone can prove differently I would love to hear from you):

"Mahavamsa :Geiger Trans p 27, Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya: "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata". (Geiger Trans p 27). It means "Mauryas are Kshatriyas of Jat clan"."

John Hill 01:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

......A kshatriya tribe known as the Maurya's are referred to in the earliest texts Buddhist texts, Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, any conclusions are hard to make without further historical evidence. Chandragupta first emerges in Greek accounts' .......

Above observation doesnot seem to make any convincing suggestion with regard to origin of Maurya dynasty becouse Budhist texts can contain any reference to Maurya tribe only after adoption of Budhism by Ashoka. This may naturally ignore the fact that the founder of Maurya dynasty ever belonged to any lower or middle group. Everybody is Kshatria when in a warring mood therefore each human being is Kshatria during most of one's life. Having illicit relations with other's woman, enjoying a luxurious life by pushing others into poverty, looting, cheating, barbarianism and criminal tendencies are not at all related to Kshatriyas as believed by many misguided tribes.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.41.26 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC). This computer has been traced to New Delhi

Why is it so in case of people from lower and middle classes?

Why is it in the case of people from lower and middle classes that any extrordinary excellence finally push a person out of his lower ladder to upper one. A person from lower classes is always taken to be of poor qualities and capabilities and a person with notable excellence in any field is either stated to be a 'najayaj aulad' (unethical offspring) of the sinister intentions of upper class people or (in case when it is not at all accepted that he has a upper class origin) he might have certainly been a upper class person in his fictious previous birth. Everybody claims to be a distinguished researcher while arguing history of an excellent person belonging to lower classes. The Hinduism was founded on the basis of the principles laid down by dalit philosophers and maharishies. Valmiki, Ved Vyas, Narad, Viswamitter, Kabir, Ravidas, and almost everybody who's wrote is the basis of sensible Hindu philosophy, was a Dalit. What others wrote was fictious, unethical literature simply to introduce extremely superstitious thoughts among the general masses.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.41.26 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC). This computer has been traced to New Delhi.