[Y-Indology] Fwd: are canakya and kautilya are one?

[Guest guest]

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.

 

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

[Guest guest]

You already in second time send the similar letter. I did not consider

necessary to answer for the first time, but as you have sent it secondly,

that's why I am compelled to answer.

The common remarks.

1. Work of the historian-researcher differs from the work of the literary

man by that - in his assumptions (and for those who is engaged in an early

history, it it is necessary to come out with assumptions frequently) he is

obliged (!!! sic.) to be based on facts, to take into account all known

information about this or that phenomenon.

But your "possibilities" are based only on your imagination, fantasy and not

on anything else.

2. Any assumption should be based on research, have any purpose, have a

problem something to explain. You try, probably, following mr. Goyal, simply

to state your point of view only, without research of the facts. Regarding

the Indian historiography of 20-60 years in XX century really there is a

contradiction - dating of text KA by time of Maurya, a legend about " the

centralized Maurya empire" and " an image of the state " reflected in

Arthashastra. However the decision of it is possible not by violence over

the facts and chronology, but by research of a problem of structure of the

Indian state. If it is interesting to you, I can develop this theme more in

detail. By the way - on the congress in Bangalore in 1997 a theme of my

message was " the Ideal of the state " in Arthashastra of Kautilya.

 

> "kishore mohan"

> wrote:

> Several people have concluded that canakya, the chief minister of

> mauryans (word used by britannica ency , dmitriyji)

 

About chief minister and britannica ency. Cief minister - is not the simple

word. It is the term, the characteristic for your understanding (or

not-understanding) of structure of the Ancient Indian state, it is extreme

eurocentric (chief minister, departments, bureaucracy, etc.). Indians, by

the way, in the field of a history sometimes considerably huge eurocentric,

than other researchers. If it is interesting, this theme can be developed

more in detail.

It is impossible to justify not understanding by the reference to other

work, especially to britannica, intended for a wide range of people and far

from being always correctly using special terminology. In one of the largest

researches of Arthashastra (B. Breloer, Kautaliya-Studien, Bonn, 1936),

considerably more authoritative among researchers, than "britannica" the

text is considered as reflection "an ideal of Aryan state" (i.e.

national-socialist, nazi state). Whether it is necessary to use such

characteristic of the text?

 

> 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.

 

I at once suggested you to address to widely accessible researches where all

is told. You should get acquainted with them, before coming out with the

assumptions. How it is possible to offer something not knowing the basic

information and not reading the text? Such facts, as a mention of coral

"Alakandaka" (from Alexandria), a mention of a word suruNgA (a derivative

from Greek syrigx, for the first time used by Polybius in 180 BC) and many

others are widely known. Whether you know it? I understand, that to be

engaged in research of the Sanskrit text is difficult. But it would be

possible to read, even the accessible literature.

Whether you know, that name CANakya, which you use, mentioned only in later

literature, the author of arthashastra names itself KauTilya or ViSNugupta?

As far as I know, for a long time is proved, that already in time of

Vishakhadatta and Hemachandra CANakya became the legendary personage in

which image features of many historical personages were kept.

 

Your second "possibility" amazes. The author simply does not want to know

perfectly known facts of a history of India. Where, in that case we shall

put all other known personages of Indian history, for example Ashoka? May be

he is simple did not exist? At such approach it is possible to approve, that

CANakya and Mauryas have simply arrived from space.

>

> 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 shall repeat. What is considered as the contradiction (very huge kingdom /

little kingdom) - is not contradiction. As research testifies, Maurya

sources (Ashokan edicts) and "an ideal of the state" reflected in

Arthashastra do not fix existence of the large centralized state. See, for

example, my paper "The term "adhyaksha" in the Indian tradition." from

(http://indepigr.narod.ru/index_1.htm) or any other research. Ashokan

materials will be published here 1-2 month later. This question also can be

discussed more in detail at desire.

[Guest guest]

> 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:

 

You are absolutely wrong. In my letter is not present any shadow of neglect.

More soon on the contrary. I consider as neglect to own history - the

extremely free manipulation with the facts and chronology. It is possible to

write about your neglect, including to those who reads materials of

conference, being based that you frequently mention names without a capital

letters, you mix up various names (for example indian entiquerry), you allow

not clear reductions. It is necessary to think about readers.

 

In spite of the fact that I suggested to you three times earlier to write

about the new known facts or these, which can be interesting, which

interpretation could be discussed - you have not cite any facts.

 

Your obvious unwillingness to use the facts in discussion is typical for

many, especially, for last decade. It is much easier to juggle with opinions

of various researchers. Being based on them you think possibly to draw

conclusions. But these conclusions cannot be scientific because conclusions

can be based first of all on interpretation of the concrete facts. To

discuss opinions of various researchers (not having defined at all , what

work to discuss, for what purpose) - senseless occupation. In particular, I

personally do not think expedient and interesting to discuss work of mr.

Goyal. To use another's researches opinions as arguments, not owning of the

material - a dangerous way (I wrote you about classical work of B. Breloer,

Kautaliya-Studien which counted Arthashastra an ideal of Aryan, i.e. the

nazi state). There is a special science, historiography which is engaged in

studying of a history of ideas as well as why they appeared in concrete

researches.

 

Chronology of a history of India - a complicated question. With reference to

Arthashastra - both dates which you allow (150 AD and 327 BC) are equally

incorrect and indemonstrable. But the main is the other problem. What is the

task for your definition of the date of Arthashastra? This is the main.

 

The point of view, that the text has been made during the time of Mauryas

(so-called "old-Arthashastra"), and in the first centuries recompiled,

expressed long time before. This idea is erroneous, not proved and cannot be

proved (here I argue, as the expert). The problem of authorship, dating,

structure of the text always interested for researchers and was discussed

always. Unfortunately, the qualified studying and the analysis of the text

drew considerably smaller attention. Can it is necessary to address to the

text?

 

I shall write only one example. Numerous "constructions" of mandalas are

known as those that are published for the first time by N.N. Law. And it in

spite of the fact that in text VI.2.24-27 is quite clearly opened, what is

understood as the term "mandala". It turns out, that the most of researchers

preferred to speak about various political ideas of Kautilya, following to

constructions of N.N. Law, referring to him, instead of reading the text of

the treatise.

 

As well in the field of a history. For some reason the maximal attention of

public is occupied with the earliest history of India. It is in spite of the

fact that till our time about this time was kept not enough information. And

it is very complex and specific information. The analysis of this

information demands set of knowledge, a serious scientific level.

Nevertheless, everyone counts himself enough serious expert to judge about

the problems of a history of India in the time of Vedas.

Thus, the impression, that history of India of Gupta and especially

Post-Gupta time, as though does not exist for those who participates in

conference. Anyway it interests for them much less.

 

You write, that text Arthashastra " is undisputedly of Mauryan times ". It

is wrong. Please write though one proof of it, except for references to

mentions in later texts, in drama of Vishakhadatta about which you wrote,

not using identification of Kautilya and Canakya (who not mentioned in

Arthashastra, I write this again). By the way, you mention only as the fact,

a place from Vayu. Please, specify number of a verse and the chapter, I

shall look it. (I use edition Choukhamba Sans. Ser.).

 

About what work R.C. Majumdar you write ?

Probably, this is The History and Culture of Indian People where he is the

author of chapters about Mauryas. He really does not use Arthashastra when

writes about the state of Mauryas. However, read this book more attentively.

The same R.C. Majumdar when the question is about an economic history of

Mauryas time - almost literally reproduces the text of Arthashastra. This

question is long, I shall not continue therefore.

 

 

> and dramas are

> written on mauryan times, one of them being the celebrated

> Mudraraksasa.

Before, you write about 1000 AD

 

DL

[Guest guest]

In my opinion any discussion it is impossible. You simply have not answered

any question, have repeated once again your fantasies, having named their as

new ideas. Also you has added new fantasies. I want you afflict - that what

you name as ideas - not ideas, as are taken from air, have no any relation

to a history of India. From this I can draw only one conclusion - you are

simply badly familiar with a history of your own country. And despite of it

you try something to impose to participants of conference. To me it is the

extremely surprising, why anybody except for me does not make comments on

your fantasies - whether it means, that the history of own country became

indifferent for indians ?

I shall last time answer for your letter because I do not think serious to

write more .

 

You write:

> I know we are working on different premises.

 

No, you are not working - You only try to state your fantasies.

 

You write:

>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.

 

In last letter I write: If you put forward the

assumption - please, prove it by facts. (This is the norma for scholars) I

am not find any ideas and facts, only fantasies.

 

You write again:

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

> recalling.

> 1. MBH war took place in 3138 bce.

 

In last letter your write about 3102 BCE, you change your strong opinion ?

This is not your idea.

 

>1600 years hence, the Mauryan

> kingdom has started.

On what basis you assert it ? Why 1600, instead of 1500, 1400, 1200 or 50 ?

What is your date for Ashoka and his edicts ? Whether it means, that he

occured from other Maurya dynasty ?

 

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

> (probably, chief/prime minster may be misnomers)

 

Kautilya, vishnugupta or canakya ?

 

>He has written no

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

> is arthasastra.

 

Whence you have taken this information? I hope not from article which is

inaccessible to anybody? Please make reference to a concrete source. About

what books there is a speech? Why anybody about it till now does not know

anything? This is new findings? (About it certainly would know P.V. Kane and

R.P. Kangle).

 

> 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.

 

You inattentively read the article. In an inscription from Gudnapur is

mentioned Subandhu. Some researchers consider possible to identify him with

Vasubandhu. I personally think, that any bases for this purpose are not

present. But the time of rule of Ravivarman - the end of V century AD.

Vishakhadatta drama dated more later time. Which other books (???)

You try to assert, that growth of interest to Mauryas has led to that

Arthashastra "has been rewritten" in 150 AD. But all references to texts

where are mentioned Mauryas concern to time considerably later. Thus - the

text has

been recompiled till that time, when as you write, heightening of interest

in the Mauryan times. And, the most important, how interest to a history of

Mauryas and Arthashastra is connected? You probably do not know, that in the

text nor Mauryas, nor other historical kings simply are not mentioned.

 

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

> perhaps during 150 AD by one Masuraksa.

 

Whence you have taken this information? Why 150 AD and not 500, 900 or 1500

?

 

> { Masuraksa has been referred to .....know.

> (INDOLOGY/message/4556)

 

Again Masuraksa without any references, only to unavailable paper (but in

you letter you write about 1985, not 1929).

Being based on the name of article and that the author names the date

considerably later, than you, and speak about nitishastra, there is clear

for me a sense of expression "has rewritten". The question is about

occurrence in V-VIII AD a new genre, nitishastra. First of such texts known

to us was Nitisara of Kamandaki. You probably simply do not know about

distinctions of Arthashastra and nitishastras. These are essentially various

texts.

 

> 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. }

 

Fantastic !!!! Whether you understand, what have written??? It seems, you

have surpassed all "imperialists" and "colonial historiography ".

 

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

?????????

 

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

You inattentively read my letter. I write:

And it makes (3102BC as the date of MBH war) clear essense of promotion of

your fantasies. 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 fantasy.

 

> 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.

 

It seems for me, that it is necessary for you to read anything, may be even

the school textbook before to write.

You show, that you is completely unfamiliar with a history of India.

 

> 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.

 

Why sandrocottus means samudra gupta and not Aurangzeb ? Do you know, that

Samudragupta lived in IV AD, established Gupta era (320 AD) after

establishing Shaka era (78 AD) etc? Again, you is completely unfamiliar with

a history of India.

 

> 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)

 

You at all do not read attentively, what write yourself. See, above. So in

your fantasies Samudragupta ruled before or after Macedonian which you name

Greeks?

 

> 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.

 

You are deeply mistaken. On the contrary, you have shown, that you simply

not familiar with a history of India. Once again I shall repeat, that I do

not think possible to answer subsequent your letters.

 

DL

[Guest guest]

Dear Dmitriy,

 

I'm exactly sharing your opinion:

it's simply wasting ones time to respond to such postings...

 

All the best

Volker

 

 

At 12:25 02.09.2004 +0400, you wrote:

 

>In my opinion any discussion it is impossible. You simply have not answered

-------------------- snip --------------------------

 

 

-----------------------

Dr. Volker Thewalt

http://www.bamiyan.de

Kapellenweg 8, D-69257 Wiesenbach

fon: 06223/970122 fax: 06223/970123

Deutschland

-----------------------

 

----------

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release 24.08.2004