"The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979)
Excerpts from — "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), pp. 112-114 :
The Jain traditions do not mention Porus and Alexander, and about the Mauryas, they say that they were peacock tamers! This connection with peacocks (mor in Hindi) is quite widespread. Even the Buddhist records say that when the Mauryas, a branch of the Śākyas, were driven out of Magadha, they went to a hilly region where there were many peacocks. They built a city there and, because the colour of the bricks used in the city palaces was that of the neck of a peacock, they were known as Moriyas and their city was called Moriya-nagar. Peacocks were found engraved on the Nandangarh pillar, the Sanchi stupas etc. Peacocks were also known to have been kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pāṭaliputra. Therefore, Foucher, John Marshall and Grunwedel concluded that the peacock was the dynastic emblem of the Mauryas! Even in the Great Epic Mahābhārata, when it was revised during the Gupta period, their name was Sanskritised into Mayūraka, meaning `peacock tribe'.
All these peacock theories are mere fairy tales, without any grain of truth in them. The Mauryas had no connection whatsoever with the peacock; nor was it their dynastic or favourite symbol or bird. Pillar Edict V of Aśoka gives a list of protected animals and birds which were not to be killed, but the peacock is not one of them. So, the Mauryas were "peacock eaters, rather than peacock tamers" (Buddha Prakash, Studies in Indian History and Civilization, SIHC, p.73). Otherwise also, how is the son of a `peacock tamer' found getting education in Taxila, the greatest seat of learning for princes, situated a thousand miles away from Pāṭaliputra?
These stories came to be concocted because the clan name of these people was Mor (pronounced as English more) and, coincidentally, Mor also meant a peacock in Indian languages. But the name is not Indian at all, it is from Central Asia, and means `head' or `crown', which is the meaning of practically all the clan names of the Jats. It is this word which is mentioned as Moḍa, the crown worn by the bridegroom at the time of marriage even today. As r is pronounced by the Central Asian people with a slight sense of ḍ or rh (as in the word `Chandigarh'), it was also, erroneously again, thought to mean the Sanskrit moda, meaning `happiness' or `rejoicing'.
The Brahmanical writers knew it as mor. They wanted to declare these people as śūdras and therefore invented yet another story, viz, that Chandragupta Maurya was born of a woman named Murā who was a śūdra lady and hence he was called Maurya, being the son of Murā! But they failed to bother themselves about the fact that it is impossible to derive Maurya from Murā, with a long ā. It can be derived only from Moor or Mūra. Mor, has only a soft `o' and does not give the sound of `u' or `oo'. It is sounded as `poll'; and not as `pool' in English. Therefore, the theories `associating them with the tribe of the peacock-tamers are superficial' (SIHC, p.77). The appearance of the peacock on certain monuments of the Mauryas only reflect human admiration for the beauty of the bird. Even Alexander was so much charmed with their beauty that he threatened the severest penalties against anyone who should kill a peacock (Arrian, Indica, vol.15, p.218).
Other theories say that Mauryas were connected with the Nandas, Mura being taken to be the wife of a Nanda king, and, so the grand-mother or mother of the first Maurya. Similar is the claim of Mudrārākshasa and Bṛhat-kathā. These connections with the Nanda dynasty are manifestly absurd. Buddha designated these stories as `fallacious'. It is well known that Mauryas were a patronymic people who derived their name from their father and not from their mother. The Buddhist writers do not regard Maurya as a metronymic. They invariably represent it as the name of a clan (Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ANM, by K.A.N.Sastri, p.141), the members of which ranked as kshatriyas since the days of the Buddha. Their kshatriya status is further testified by several medieval inscriptions (Epigraphia Indica, Vol.II, p.222). The Greek accounts, too, do not suggest a blood relationship between Chandragupta and the Nandas. The former is mentioned by Justin as born in humble life (Invasion, p.327). This also shows that Chandragupta was not born in the royal family of the Nandas and was not the scion of the royal line which he overthrew (ANM, p.141).
Excerpts from — "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), pp. 116-117 :
Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mūra or Moor by adding the śyan suffix (Mahābhāṣya, 8.2.1). Therefore, the original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayūra etc. The last word Mayūr or Mayūraka is a Sanskrit translation of the original clan-name Mor, which was unfortunately found to be the same as the Hindi word Mor meaning peacock. It is worth noting that the Greek writers mention the word as Moores or Mories. (Invasion, p. 108, 225 etc.). As is well known, the affix s, us, es, os etc. are generally added at the end of the personal names by the Greek writers. Dropping these affixes, there remains the word Moer or Morie. To clinch the issue, we have the Rock Edict No. 1 of Aśoka himself which mentions the word as Mora and not Maurya. Buddha Prakash seems to have evaded the issue by saying that "the meaning of the word Mora, occurring in R.E.I of Aśoka is not quite certain". (Op. cit., p. 73, note 3.). The meaning is absolutely clear and it is the name of the dynasty to which Aśoka belonged. Curtis described the word as the title of the king of Patala, supposed to be somewhere in Sind. He must have been led to believe so because Mor must have been used as the designation of more than one king of the royal family of Patala because it was their clan name. R. K. Mukerji (Chandragupta and his time, p. 24). Nilakanta Sastri (op. cit, p. 142, note 1) and others agree that the Greek term Moer has to be identified with the Maurya. The Buddhist texts invariably mention the name as Mor or Moriya, the latter being a derivative of the former. We must note here that many Jat clan names are similarly derived. E.g.
Gul : Guliya
Katar : Katariya
Potal : Potaliya
Sahi : Sahiya
Sibi : Sibiya/Sibia
Dahi : Dahiya
Pauna : Pauniya
According to the extended Mahāvaṁśa, (Ed. by G. P. Malakasekara, vol. V, 95-101, p. 60), which says:
[ .... Devanagari line ....]
the word was known in the entire Jambūdvīpa as Mor and Aśoka was known as Mor Rājā (SIHC, p.71). Here, it should be noted that in the extract given by Buddha Prakash, the word Mor, Mayūraka, Mayūr as well as Moriya Nagar appear togetherṛ This shows that Mor is not a Prākṛt or Pāli form of Mayūra. The author of Mahāvaṁśa knew all the words mentioned above. If Mor was an Indian word and a Prākṛt form of the Sanskrit Mayūra, `peacock', then it would not have been mentioned along with the latter. Mor is not an Indian name. It is the name of the Jat clan which still exists. We have also to note that this was the word used in this very form in Central Asia when the Mor clan of the Jats scattered in various directions. People came to India and who belonged to this clan used and pronounced the word as Mor. Their brothers who went to Europe and England, similarly used the word as Mor or More. If this was an Indian word and the Mauryans were an Indian clan, then the same clan name would not have been found in Western Europe, where its supposed original form, Mayūra, was unknown, as also the word Maurya.
Excerpts from — "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), pp. 112-114 :
The Jain traditions do not mention Porus and Alexander, and about the Mauryas, they say that they were peacock tamers! This connection with peacocks (mor in Hindi) is quite widespread. Even the Buddhist records say that when the Mauryas, a branch of the Śākyas, were driven out of Magadha, they went to a hilly region where there were many peacocks. They built a city there and, because the colour of the bricks used in the city palaces was that of the neck of a peacock, they were known as Moriyas and their city was called Moriya-nagar. Peacocks were found engraved on the Nandangarh pillar, the Sanchi stupas etc. Peacocks were also known to have been kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pāṭaliputra. Therefore, Foucher, John Marshall and Grunwedel concluded that the peacock was the dynastic emblem of the Mauryas! Even in the Great Epic Mahābhārata, when it was revised during the Gupta period, their name was Sanskritised into Mayūraka, meaning `peacock tribe'.
All these peacock theories are mere fairy tales, without any grain of truth in them. The Mauryas had no connection whatsoever with the peacock; nor was it their dynastic or favourite symbol or bird. Pillar Edict V of Aśoka gives a list of protected animals and birds which were not to be killed, but the peacock is not one of them. So, the Mauryas were "peacock eaters, rather than peacock tamers" (Buddha Prakash, Studies in Indian History and Civilization, SIHC, p.73). Otherwise also, how is the son of a `peacock tamer' found getting education in Taxila, the greatest seat of learning for princes, situated a thousand miles away from Pāṭaliputra?
These stories came to be concocted because the clan name of these people was Mor (pronounced as English more) and, coincidentally, Mor also meant a peacock in Indian languages. But the name is not Indian at all, it is from Central Asia, and means `head' or `crown', which is the meaning of practically all the clan names of the Jats. It is this word which is mentioned as Moḍa, the crown worn by the bridegroom at the time of marriage even today. As r is pronounced by the Central Asian people with a slight sense of ḍ or rh (as in the word `Chandigarh'), it was also, erroneously again, thought to mean the Sanskrit moda, meaning `happiness' or `rejoicing'.
The Brahmanical writers knew it as mor. They wanted to declare these people as śūdras and therefore invented yet another story, viz, that Chandragupta Maurya was born of a woman named Murā who was a śūdra lady and hence he was called Maurya, being the son of Murā! But they failed to bother themselves about the fact that it is impossible to derive Maurya from Murā, with a long ā. It can be derived only from Moor or Mūra. Mor, has only a soft `o' and does not give the sound of `u' or `oo'. It is sounded as `poll'; and not as `pool' in English. Therefore, the theories `associating them with the tribe of the peacock-tamers are superficial' (SIHC, p.77). The appearance of the peacock on certain monuments of the Mauryas only reflect human admiration for the beauty of the bird. Even Alexander was so much charmed with their beauty that he threatened the severest penalties against anyone who should kill a peacock (Arrian, Indica, vol.15, p.218).
Other theories say that Mauryas were connected with the Nandas, Mura being taken to be the wife of a Nanda king, and, so the grand-mother or mother of the first Maurya. Similar is the claim of Mudrārākshasa and Bṛhat-kathā. These connections with the Nanda dynasty are manifestly absurd. Buddha designated these stories as `fallacious'. It is well known that Mauryas were a patronymic people who derived their name from their father and not from their mother. The Buddhist writers do not regard Maurya as a metronymic. They invariably represent it as the name of a clan (Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ANM, by K.A.N.Sastri, p.141), the members of which ranked as kshatriyas since the days of the Buddha. Their kshatriya status is further testified by several medieval inscriptions (Epigraphia Indica, Vol.II, p.222). The Greek accounts, too, do not suggest a blood relationship between Chandragupta and the Nandas. The former is mentioned by Justin as born in humble life (Invasion, p.327). This also shows that Chandragupta was not born in the royal family of the Nandas and was not the scion of the royal line which he overthrew (ANM, p.141).
Excerpts from — "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), pp. 116-117 :
Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mūra or Moor by adding the śyan suffix (Mahābhāṣya, 8.2.1). Therefore, the original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayūra etc. The last word Mayūr or Mayūraka is a Sanskrit translation of the original clan-name Mor, which was unfortunately found to be the same as the Hindi word Mor meaning peacock. It is worth noting that the Greek writers mention the word as Moores or Mories. (Invasion, p. 108, 225 etc.). As is well known, the affix s, us, es, os etc. are generally added at the end of the personal names by the Greek writers. Dropping these affixes, there remains the word Moer or Morie. To clinch the issue, we have the Rock Edict No. 1 of Aśoka himself which mentions the word as Mora and not Maurya. Buddha Prakash seems to have evaded the issue by saying that "the meaning of the word Mora, occurring in R.E.I of Aśoka is not quite certain". (Op. cit., p. 73, note 3.). The meaning is absolutely clear and it is the name of the dynasty to which Aśoka belonged. Curtis described the word as the title of the king of Patala, supposed to be somewhere in Sind. He must have been led to believe so because Mor must have been used as the designation of more than one king of the royal family of Patala because it was their clan name. R. K. Mukerji (Chandragupta and his time, p. 24). Nilakanta Sastri (op. cit, p. 142, note 1) and others agree that the Greek term Moer has to be identified with the Maurya. The Buddhist texts invariably mention the name as Mor or Moriya, the latter being a derivative of the former. We must note here that many Jat clan names are similarly derived. E.g.
Gul : Guliya
Katar : Katariya
Potal : Potaliya
Sahi : Sahiya
Sibi : Sibiya/Sibia
Dahi : Dahiya
Pauna : Pauniya
According to the extended Mahāvaṁśa, (Ed. by G. P. Malakasekara, vol. V, 95-101, p. 60), which says:
[ .... Devanagari line ....]
the word was known in the entire Jambūdvīpa as Mor and Aśoka was known as Mor Rājā (SIHC, p.71). Here, it should be noted that in the extract given by Buddha Prakash, the word Mor, Mayūraka, Mayūr as well as Moriya Nagar appear togetherṛ This shows that Mor is not a Prākṛt or Pāli form of Mayūra. The author of Mahāvaṁśa knew all the words mentioned above. If Mor was an Indian word and a Prākṛt form of the Sanskrit Mayūra, `peacock', then it would not have been mentioned along with the latter. Mor is not an Indian name. It is the name of the Jat clan which still exists. We have also to note that this was the word used in this very form in Central Asia when the Mor clan of the Jats scattered in various directions. People came to India and who belonged to this clan used and pronounced the word as Mor. Their brothers who went to Europe and England, similarly used the word as Mor or More. If this was an Indian word and the Mauryans were an Indian clan, then the same clan name would not have been found in Western Europe, where its supposed original form, Mayūra, was unknown, as also the word Maurya.
Last edited: