Fwd: are canakya and kautilya are one?

[Guest guest]

IndianCivilization, "kishore mohan"

<kishore_future> wrote:

It is widely aknowledged that Maurya's empire owes its birth to

canakya. On the other hand, there is one Kautilya who has written

Arthasashtra.

 

I have received a querry whether both are same or not.

 

Artha sastra was discovered by Pt Shama Sastry(of Mysore) in 1905

and was published first in "Indian Entiquery'. AS was first published

as a book in 1908-09.

 

There are several western historians who have raised doubts over the

authorship of this great work and said Kautilya was a fictious

character. They have tried to attribute the period of this book at

around 300 AD. However Dr Jaiswal and Jayachandra Vidyalankar have

refuted these claims, rather successfully.

 

On the other hand, AS was not really mentioned in any of the

classical works, including Mudra Rakshasa of Visakadatta. However,

the Niti sara of Kamandaka makes a mention of AS and identifies the

author with the one who has brought down the Nanda's empire. (400 ACE)

 

While Pancatantra makes a mention of Kautilya, there is no mention of

AS and Kalidas, Bharavi and Magha seem to be heavily influenced by

the ideas of this work.

 

Dr Sivaprasad's rather authentic, if dramatic, historic

novel "canakya" in telugu mentions canakya retiring during the reign

of chandragupta himself, so as to complete Arthasastra in peace. This

seemed to have been influenced by the drama of Mudra raksasa.

However, history tells us that canakya continued to be a minister

well into the period of Bindusara who has killed him later.

 

Bindusara might have put an end to canakya due to his overplayed

intervention in the politic or jealousy, though revenging of his

mother's death is also mentioned as a reason.

 

Such tragic ends of machiavellian preceptors of huge empires do seem

to be a fad (and perhaps, poetic justice)- since I assume that these

kind of anecdotes are only pieces of imagination of the bard.

Another example in the case pertains to Thimmarusu or Appaji, who has

been put to heinious punishments in the hands of his ward Krishna

deva raya , to meet a pathetic death.

 

No such stories will ever be thought of with regard to the spiritual

preceptors of any of the empires, say for eg, Vidyaranya or Samardha

Rama, telling much about the Indian culture.

 

kishore

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

The puranas like Bhagavata, Vishnu,vayu,matsya and perhaps, Bhavishya

talks of Vrishala and Canakya @ vishnugupta but no artha sastra.

 

Shama sastri,Ganaptsastri,N N Law, VA Smith and KP Jayaswal held that

the work was indeed authored by the prime minister of chandra gupta

maurya.

 

But, Dr Winternitz, Jolly, Dr Keith and DR Bhandarkar negated this

but later had been overcome.

 

Dowson's encyclopaedia of religion and mythology talks of canakya as

a law giver and his work, Canakya sutra. But I do not think that this

is identical with Artha sastra.

 

 

In any case, most of the , historians agree to the identity, atleast

because the work acts as an important source about Mauryan Kingdom.

 

But who knows really?

 

 

kishore

[Guest guest]

JatHistory, "Ravi Chaudhary"

<ravichaudhary2000> wrote:

JatHistory, "Mahavir" <msanglikar> wrote:

>

> re 1480

 

 

 

Chanakya the advisor to Chandragupta is depicted in our Histories as

a Machiavellian " Brahmin priest, who connived and conspired to bring

about the down fall of the Nandas, is also, said to have actually

been a Jain from the Punjab

 

Is this really the case?

 

Satyalketu Vidyalkar, is his book " Maurya Samrajya ka Ithihas" in

Hindi (History of the Maurya Empire) 5th edition, 1996, Sri Saraswati

Sadan New Delhi, draws our attention to the tradition re Chanakya.

 

" He tells us, that in the Puranic lore there is little if any not

much information on the early life of Chanakya.

 

It is only in the `Mudra Rakshas' that Chanakya is given a " life".

 

The " Mudraraksha" is an 8th /9th century play/drama composed by one

Visakhdatta, some 1000+ after these events are supposed to have

occurred.

 

This is not the case with the Buddhist and Jain traditions.

 

According to the Vansthakaliani (Sinhali edition pp 119, Chanakya was

born in Taksashila (Taxilla) - north West Punjab, now in Pakistan).

There is no doubt that he spent much of his younger life in

Taksashila, where he taught `Dhanda-niti'- the ethics of governing.

 

Chandragupta was a student of his.

 

The Buddhist tradition is silent.

 

According to the Jain tradition, Chanakya was born in the Janpada

(republic" of Goll", in a village called Charnye, where Brahmin

called Charnak used to live. Charnak's wife was Charnkekshawri.

 

They were both inclined towards the teachings of the Jain rishis

(sages), and were followers of the Jain religion. Many Jain Sages

would stay at their residence. Charnekswari had one son who was named

Charnakaya. His child had one tooth existing since birth. Seeing this

the Jain Rishis foretold that when he grew up he would be a King. On

hearing this Charnak was very disturbed for he wished his son to

become a Jain Muni (Sage). He then had this birth tooth broken off.

 

The result of this was that Charnakaya himself did not become king,

but became a King- maker.

 

In another Jain Granth (text) Charnakaya's father is given as Kapil.

and his birthplace is given as Pataliputra ( Barhatkathakosa,

cxliii,3). The Goll republic is mentioned in another written text,

(see Cunningham – Stupa of Bharhut pp 140), however no geographical

location is given.

 

Though he was a follower of the Jain religion, he studied all

branches of knowledge and became an expert. When he came of age he

married a Girl of a Brahmin family, named Yashomati according to the

text, ` Brahatkatha Kosh' (cxlii, 5). The Jain texts are silent on

whether Chanakya had any children by this marriage.

 

The Jain texts also refer to Chanakya being instrumental in the

downfall of the Nanda Dynasty, and putting Chandragupta on the

throne. (Brahatkatha Kosh, cxliii, 5). In the final stages of his

life Chanakya became a Jain Muni (or sage), and he died by consuming

himself in a sacrificial fire. His fellow minister of state lighted

this fire.

 

It is clear that Chanakya was a follower of the Jain religion and

tradition. It is then curious that in the "Kautilya Arthashastra",

the work ascribed to Chanakya, there is no reference to Jainism, and

there is much emphasis on the " Triad" religion, of the three Vedas "

Rig, Yajur, Sam," and the Varanasharam (caste) system."

 

 

Comments:

 

1. Chanakya and Charnkay are used interchangeable. In the Hindi

script, the sound " rn' is usually avoided in the English texts, and

only the letter n is used. There is a difference an the `rn' sound

should be properly used.

 

 

2. Dr Vidyalkar's book is a prescribed text in U.P. He was a D.Litt

( Paris). . He was also the Vice Chancellor of . the Gurukul Kangri

University, Haridwar, and was the winner of many wards including the

Motilal Nehru award, Gobind Ballabh Pant award etc.

 

Dr. Vidhyalkar is not the only one to note the discordance between

the Arthasatra , its ambience, and its alleged authorship, and the

equivalence made of Kautiliya = Charnakya( Chanakya)

 

K D Setha wrote a rather interesting little book" Ancient India In

a new light" Voice of India , New Delhi, which questioned the time

period allocated to Chandra Gupta the 1st( allocating it to the 2nd

Chandragupta, who lived some 600 years later).

 

The same critical analysis showed that the `" Arthasastra' could not

have been composed in the time of the Ist Guptas circa 325 BCE, and

was not an account of the governing system of those times. Rather it

was a document composed in the 4th/5th century AD, and did not really

have an historical basis per se. and could not be ascribed to the

famous " Chanakaya/charnakya"

 

This is one of the reasons Dr. Vidyalkar expresses his puzzlement

that the Arthasasthra doe not refer to Jainism, but to the

Varanashrama, and the triad of the three Vedas, and not the quartet

of the four Vedas which would be properly be expected.

 

This would naturally also throw more confusion in the current

version of the " history of the Maur or Maurya rulers.

 

Ravi

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology, "kishore mohan"

<kishore_future> wrote:

Several people have concluded that canakya, the chief minister of

mauryans (word used by britannica ency , dmitriyji) has indeed

written the artha sastra. But all of them have agreed that this is a

controversial issue and the conclusions were often due to benefit of

doubt.

 

(I cannot go further on this question unless mr yashwant malaiya

replies to my querry)

 

On the other hand, these contradictions could be ironed out-atleast to

some extent- if we consider the following possibilities:

 

1. Canakya is the chief minister of mauryans and has written artha

sastra

 

2. But mauryans ( and hence, canakya and his artha sastra) belonged to

times much before what is being assigned now. In other words, the

greek sandro cottus is not chandra gupta maurya.

 

3. chandra gupta maurya did not build a very huge kingdom as being

believed now. it is a small kingdom,probably survived due to the

stratagem of canakya and opportunistic love-hate relationship with

neighbouring kingdoms.

 

 

I invite the valuable comments from the members.

 

 

kishore

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the very detailed reply.

 

While I ignore the snubs, I welcome you to please develop the

themes which you have offered in the post.

 

Now, it is not without a substantiation that I have mentioned my

conclusions:

 

Almost all the books I have read have concluded that it is

Canakya/vishnugupta/kautilya who has written the KA.

 

But, they have not left it at that.

 

for eg., a seminar by ICHR (mentioned by Rangarajan) has concluded

that KA has been written in 150 ADE.

 

I have a paper of 1929 (available on online) which talks of

Asvaghosa's and other references to KA but all the same concludes

that it has been written in post christian era.

 

There are several other references, which I do not mind listing, to

substantiate this theory.

 

Thus, it seems only plausible that though KA has been originally

written by Canakya, it is been recompiled in post christian era by

one musaraksa (mentioned as vyasa's name in Vayupurana in one of the

later manvantaras. )

 

Some how, the later centuries have taken a deep interest in Mauryans

and their times- references and venerations to canakya(or by any of

his other two names) have suddenly become galore and dramas are

written on mauryan times, one of them being the celebrated

Mudraraksasa. This sudden spurt of interest went on for some time.

 

Now, if Kautilya really belongs to only 327 bce, you would have to be

agreeing that he had been recompiled in 150 ADE- a meagre 500 years

later. For a sanskrit text, I am sure this is unheard of. (annexures

or prakshiptas (illegal inclusions) are not uncommon though)

 

This only has to mean that he had to belong to much earlier period,

for the text to become substantially extinct or archaic in language.

 

Since he is undisputedly of Mauryan times, we have to rethink on

chronicling the mauryan times too along with that of Kautilya.

 

Now, coming to size of mauryan kingdom,I want you to ref RC

Majumdar,a celebrated historian of India, who has passed this

comment.

 

I hope my'fantasies' are clear and become more rational to you.

 

 

 

 

kishore

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the reply.

 

ICANAS has ended and also we can return to a subject of our correspondence

to try to define a subject of discussion, that till now it has not been

made.

 

In my opinion, we have forgotten a subject of discussion, therefore I remind

your "assumptions".

1. Canakya is the chief minister of Mauryans and has written Arthashastra

2. But Mauryans (and hence, Canakya and his Arthashastra) belonged to

times much before what is being assigned now. In other words, the

greek Sandrocottus is not Chandragupta Maurya.

3. Candragupta Maurya did not build a very huge kingdom as being

believed now. it is a small kingdom, probably survived due to the

stratagem of Canakya and opportunistic love-hate relationship with

neighbouring kingdoms.

(I only have corrected your negligence - nevertheless it is necessary to

write names from the capital letters).

 

I at once have suggested to result even one fact for the benefit of such

"imaginations".

You have not resulted any fact again.

Without the proofs, such approach is usual for the newspaper, but is

absolutely unacceptable for scientific discussion. If you put forward the

assumption - please, prove it by facts.

 

(This is my opinion - DL)> >I consider as neglect to own history - the

> extremely free manipulation with the facts and chronology.

>

(This is your opinion - DL)> > %The greatest manipulation of Indian

chronology was done by

> imperialists and now, the facts are being misintrepreted by ideology

> backed India observers. This is true of all ideologies, irrespective

> of their political colors. This is unfortunate and polemics should

> have nothing to do with academics. More so because, the chronology

> and intrepretations suggested by these vested interests are taken as

> gospel truth even by unbiased.

 

Again newspaper publicism not having any relation to studying a history.

Especially - it has no any relation to the designated questions. The

impression is created, that you simply have no other answer. Replacement of

scientific arguments with publicism harms to discussion (if discussion is

the main object).

 

> In any case, the purpose of !groups

> is limited for discussion and formation of ideas. I do not know

> whether you are a moderator of this group, but the posting guidelines

> are clear that there should not be any journal type postings.

 

Excuse me, certainly, but it causes a smile. The idea cannot arise from air.

To use such "argument" instead of the facts for a reinforcement of the

imagination is not serious.

 

 

> %I thought my comments are self explanatory. They are backed by facts-

> opinions of researchers based on logic and facts. I do not mind

> substantiating them,provided you give me some time.

 

Comments cannot be self explanatory, the opinion of the researcher is not

the fact (I shall remind, you have not resulted any fact supporting your

assumptions), opinions are different, including erroneous.

 

> % This is where the basic problem arises. The chronology plays an

> important factor here. I strongly consider that Maha bharat has

> occurred in 3102 BCE (it is a mistake that we are not going ahead

> with archaeology in a big way on mbh sites) and Nandas have come

> onto the scene 1500 years there after.

 

Such assumption - a subject of belief of many indians and here is not

present a subject for discussion.

And it makes clear essense of promotion of your assumptions. It is just

necessary to fill a huge time interval from 3012 by any events, kings, etc.

Hardly it is necessary to remind, that it is the next imagination.

 

> While you would be asking me what is the proof, especially if you do

> not consider various literature references as reliable basis of

> chronology, I think that the basic lacunae is with the lack of

> archaeological research in India. I can be corrected or confirmed

> only if there is extensively substantial efforts in this arena. In

> other words, while I show Puranas (unfortunately, only Puranas and

> nothing else )as basis for my argument, the detractors can not show

> any Concrete proof for condemning my chronology.

 

Though many from the basic puranas, in my opinion, remain rather poorly

investigated, does not cause doubt that they are rather complex and late on

time of drawing up texts. Also does not cause doubt, that literally use the

evidences of puranas and, especially, their chronology, follows very

cautiously. And being based only on puranas simply it is impossible to

reconstruct of a history of India. I think you exaggerate value of your

assumptions.

In a science it is accepted to prove all over again the assumptions, and

then to write so:

>while I show Puranas (unfortunately, only Puranas and

> nothing else )as basis for my argument, the detractors can not show

> any Concrete proof for condemning my chronology.

 

> If you accept this chronology, then there will be a substantial

> deviation from the readings and conclusions that are being made

> today. For eg., in the above case, we will have to reject artha

> sastra as an ideal of aryan (or varna based, more appropriately)

> community , since by the times of mauryans, the thoughts of varna

> and dharma were in a dilapidated state. As I have been harping, by

> the times of Buddha and perhaps, later, the main classification for

> status was tribe. The formations of castes were in primitive state

> at that time, ( ie the varna system has collapsed and the new

> classification of castes are yet to start in a big way. The interim

> period has been taken over by hierarchy of tribes)

 

The social history obviously is not a subject of your occupations - what for

to write about it ?

 

> >Before, you write about 1000 AD

>

> sorry, please come again, I did not understand this sentence.

 

You write about Vishakhadatta, in which drama only (!!) we can meet name

Canakya=name Kautilya

 

And at the end I want to exclaim the amazement, which does not leave me last

years which I look through Indic traditions and Indology. In a history of

India (in the real history, not legendary, in a history of India from

Mauryas up to Guptas, from Guptas up to Harsha and later) owing to features

of the sources which have reached our time remains huge amount of lacunas,

there is a lot of texts till now remain not investigated. Why the attention

of participants of electronic conference involves only limited circle of

questions with that concerning mainly in that period, data about which

practically was not kept. Really own real history is not interesting for

indians ? Really in this area for researchers and simply interested did not

remain, in their opinion, unresolved questions?

 

DL

[Guest guest]

I know we are working on different premises. But, I strongly believe

that you are unbiased and open to new ideas. Being a professional

historian yourself, I am sure you would work on any new idea to

substantiate or reject it with ease.

 

Let me make clear what I have concluded on KA for the sake of

recalling.

 

1. MBH war took place in 3138 bce. 1600 years hence, the Mauryan

kingdom has started.

 

2. Kautilya, vishnugupta or canakya is a preceptor of the king.

(probably, chief/prime minster may be misnomers)He has written no

less than three books on material and political sceinces. One of them

is arthasastra.

 

3. During the first half of the first millennium ADE, there was a

heightening of interest in the Mauryan times. As I said, KA was

repeatedly accessed and referred. People wrote books on mauryan

times, atleast one of them being a drama. Kadamba kings took KA as a

reference point. (if I am not mistaken, there is a page by you , DL,

on kadamba kings and KA, though you have mixed up subandhu and

vasubandhu) why, the chandela kings dedicated temples to vatsayana's

work, who was almost after kautilya.

 

4. Some where in the process of all this interest, KA was rewritten ,

perhaps during 150 AD by one Masuraksa.

 

{ Masuraksa has been referred to in puranas as vyasa taking rebirth.

(ref Vayu purana) Thus, just like the legendary vyasa who has

organised , recompiled and reconstructed where necessary, the ancient

scriptures, Masuraksa must have worked on the classical texts of his

times and must have recompiled/reconstructed KA as part of his

projects.

 

There is a 1929 paper which mentions Masuraksa and concludes that he

has rewritten KA. On the other hand, there is an unavailable paper

and a book (on Masuraks's works) by DR Hugh Flick who has written to

me that Masuraksa has been placed at the outer limit of 900 CE, as

nothing definite could be found out about him. How ever, he has

confessed that he really don;t know.

(INDOLOGY/message/4556)

 

Culturally, 150 CE is same as 1000 CE. (that is the culture is same

through out the first millennium, hope I am clear in this statement)

and hence, it is possible to mistake the dates on the basis of social

history. }

 

5. This is the KA we are reading today and not the original one.

 

6. You have asked about the gap from 327 bce.

 

After Greeks have left this country, Samudra gupta got coronated.

After the guptas, India has been ruled by small satraps for several

years till the times of Harsha. There are several forgotten kings

whose names are taken to be mythical just because the western

historians cannot fit them in to the abridged chronology. One

suitable example will be of Vikramaditya.

 

Similiarly, western historians have clubbed personalities-

chandrames, sandrocottus and his son into one king. there are nine

kings in Nanda dynasty, but all of them are clubbed together and

shortened the time of Nanda dynasty.

 

 

There are no less than three Kalidasas (which is clearly a pseudonym,

based on which we talk of only one Kalidasa)

-one belonging to AGnimitra's times, another to that of Vikramaditya

and the third , to that of Raja Bhoj.

 

Coming to talk of filling gaps after 327 bce, the kings were neither

united nor were they very good to people. Culturally or religiously,

they must have done great things- but they were very bad kings.

 

For eg., sandro cottus ( samudra gupta) was a very bad king as per

greeks and also, as per either Jaina or Buddha texts. The guptas

were so bad that there is a Saka(era) which has marked the end of

their kingdom.

 

This could be also seen from the fact that even though, Samudra gupta

has done so many yagas etc,(ie he has followed the vaidic principles

very tightly), he has putdown the age old kingdom of Arjunakas

(vaishnavas) even before he became a king. The same kingdom has been

cruelly annihilated by Alexander later. (Defeat has got to precede

the total annihilation. This is one strong reason why sandro cottus

is samudra gupta and not CGM)

 

Similiarly, there is a 150 years gap in the accepted chronology in

the history of SAtavahanas, since they could not reconcile the known

dates (such as 78 CE) and the assumed dates of early Satavahanas.

This gap could not be explained by historians.

 

But the truth is there is a much longer gap between the Early

SAtavahanas and the later Satavahanas.( And truly speaking, all that

they shared is only language and nothing else. )

 

Now, there are certain subastantiation that has to be done on almost

all the points above. Let me reassure you, DL, that I am not writing

anything without substantiation. I will unfold the Indian history in

the coming days.

 

But, meanwhile, I am waiting for your comments.

 

regards,

 

kishore