GREAT SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE SOIL ... 2. CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA

Chandragupta Maurya renounced his throne after reigning for 27 years (324 BCE - 297 BCE) and took to the ascetic's life. And this was in keeping with the Indian tradition for we must remember the repair of the Pandavas to the Himalayas en route to their final destination when they had ruled over their earthly terrain for a good 36 years, if I recall right, and seen the futility of human dreams to pass on the reins of administration to their grandson, Parikshit, I think. The Varnashrama Dharma seems to be ingrained in the Indian soul and manifested in the Maurya to his ascetic end. What I meant was that this was not, I believe, a novelty introduced by Jainism but was, perhaps, the Vedic tradition running through its system in practice, the same tradition which otherwise it had rejected. Clearly an indication how cultural overlaps take place in diverse traditions despite apparent divergences and downright antithesis in terms of superficial representations of spiritual or philosophical principles, for essentially all systems spring from the eternal Akash Ganga of singular inspiration and, so, must necessarily converge from time to time in keeping with this cosmic truth of spiritual integration.
You say that Chandragupta Maurya did not follow the Varna Dharma but he did follow, nonetheless, the Ashrama Dharma. I contradict you, Swami, here and maintain that the monarch did observe the Varnashrama Dharma throughout his tenure as emperor. After all, was he a Jain while he was a monarch? No. It was after following the Varnashrama Dharma throughout his life that he finally abdicated his throne in old age in keeping with the same Hindu tradition in favour of his son, Bindusara, and, embracing Jainism thereafter, took to his ascetic's life, a la sannyasa of the Varnashrama Dharma. Hence, it seems my thesis is right, that Chandragupta practised the kshatriya dharma throughout his tenure as emperor under the tutelage initially and guidance thereon, of his Brahman mentor and adviser, Chanakya. What may be contested here is rather the opposite of what you and I are, perhaps, saying, that he did follow the Asharama Dharma of the Hindu tradition in the final phase of his life in sannyasa for it was in observance of the Jain tradition that he took to the ascetic's garb. But here, as I have aforementioned, he was following the age-old tradition of Bharatvarsha, call it what you may, and as I reiterate that cultural overlapping cannot be wished away by theoretical dissensions for history follows the laws of time and nature and not man-made stipulations.
Absolutely so. I get your point. You are cautioning me against confusing the spiritual tradition of the Sanatan Dharma with the societal traditions deriving thereof having little or no bearing on the essentials of the former. But then I have only mentioned the word Hindu in respect of tradition and not ascribed the Varnashrama Dharma as being essential to the Vedic lore, or, have I, Maharaj? Where I am right you need not bother but where I err, do point out the pertinent mistakes made. However, I was merely rebutting your earlier averment that Chandragupta Maurya did follow the Asharama Dharma but not the Varna Dharma and you let the discussion thereafter drift in a different but significant direction which will be an eye-opener for those who confuse the Hindu society to which dharma belongs with the Hindu spiritual tradition which transcends it. Hence, I humbly refuse to drag the discussion on by a continued series of rebuttal and counter-rebuttal.
So, there we converge, Avisek, but I go with Bhaskar's choice as well for the Chandragupta-Chankya duo contained and then repelled the Greeks from the soil of Aryavarta to save India from her earliest would-be-then colonisation by a European power. The Europeans had to wait another 2000 years before they finally managed to conquer India, and herein lies the glory that was Chandragupta Maurya. One only wishes Gandhiji had the sagacity of a Chanakya when it came to countering the alien enemy in the British instead of pursuing India's greatest son, Subhas Chandra Bose, with a vicious vengefulness, quite unlike a Mahatma which he was by appellation, though, and to a distant degree in practice, perhaps.
And wonder of wonders, @Surya Kumar Bose, there are still so many gullible fools who subscribe to fictitious tales of the freedom struggle, unwittingly buying into the Anglo-American conspiracy at recounting of the terrible historical heresy in regard to Netaji's role in the freedom struggle. And there are the deliberate dastardly types also who are not 'made of the stuff of which the thunderbolt is made', as Swamiji used to say, to be able to feel the pulsations of the hero's heart or to conceive beyond superficial sterile misapprehension of the beloved leader as a fascist dictator in the making, and it is these 'heartless so-called intellectuals', again to quote Swamiji, who hurl invective against India's priceless pearl but for whom we would be not deliberating here freely in open discourse but would have been cooped up in our kennels for that is what the British thought of us. Woe unto those that denounce Netaji for theirs is a deceitfulness, dastardly and undivine. If the patriot in us dies in the death of Netaji from our minds, know for sure national death is fast to follow. So, beware, how you deal with your heroes who died for you!