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

[Guest guest]

Yes, i am indeed looking for the kangle's version, since i do know

that it is authentic. I neither follow shamasastry's version. I

follow a telugu version, which is quite modern and authentic,

written by Prof Pullela Ramachandrudu. So far as I know, he is

famous in national circles.

 

On the other hand, I only mentioned that (so far as I know) it is

shama sastry who has discovered Artha sastra.

 

Thnx for the spelling correction, which was inadvertent.

 

As I mentioned on this forum, I am also looking for S.R.

Goyal's "Kautiliya Arthasastra Its Author

Date and Relevance for the Maurya Period".

 

If u have read it, please post about it.

 

 

kishore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, "Dmitriy N. Lielukhine" <lel@L...>

wrote:

> > What is KA? if it is artha sastra, it is discovered by shama

sastry

> > in mysore and published fully in 1908/09. (published perhaps in

parts

> > in 1905 in indian entiquerry)

> May be better Indian Antiquary ?

> >

> > though it is agreed by every one that Kangle has written more

> > authentic version /commentary.

> >

>

> It is very strange, that I should write it. For the expert the

difference

> between the publication based on one manuscript and the critical

> publication, based on all known manuscripts and on all known

comments is

> simply obvious. It is not the "version" and not the "comment"

(Kangle did

> not publish comments, he gives only the basic text). This is

critical

> edition of the text, the unique authoritative edition. So, for

example,

> hardly there will be a Sanskritist who will write about a

Mahabharata, using

> the Bombay edition considering as the "version" the Pune critical

edition.

> Though from the letter it is visible, that you did not use the

Sanskrit

> text. By the way there are also other publications and

translations of

> Arthashastra (for example, J.Jolli, Meyer), based on the other

manuscripts.

> By the way, again, text of Nitisara mentions not Chanakya, but

Vishnugupta,

> naming its treatise as nitishastra etc.

> About Shamashastri translation, which is used. To this translation

it will

> be fast hundred years. It is considerably obsolete. Many features

of this

> translation - " passport system ", etc. were natural for the

beginning XX

> centuries, but now they look fondly, also, as well as " the Prime

minister

> ". Except for obvious mistakes, there is still a set of others. It

only

> sometimes is used by the separate Indian authors who are not

engaging in the

> Sanskrit text. Translation of Kangle, though it not without lacks,

now

> unique authoritative translation.

> But I wrote not about it. In 3 vol. R.P.Kangle's work (300 pages)

discusses

> all questions about which it is spoken in your letter, to it I

recommended

> to address, as to the most accessible source of the information.

Still it is

> possible to address to work of P.V. Kane.

>

> DL