Fwd: are canakya and kautilya are one?

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

Dear Kishore,

 

Please read R.P. Kangle critical publication (I vol), translation

(II) and

research part (III vol), 1961-64 many times reprinted in India. For

the

first time there enough information about Arthashastra.

 

-

kishore mohan <kishore_future>

<INDOLOGY >

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:28 PM

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

 

 

>

> 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]

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

wrote:

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

--- End forwarded message ---