Are chanakya and kautilya the same?

[Guest guest]

I am writing this seeing the messages posted in this group.I have a Malayalam treatise which is based on the Arthasastra. It has a forward by Mahakavi Ullur S. Parameswara Iyer. He has written this as the President of Language Reformation Committee. I am referring to some points mentioned by him.Kautilya is known by several other names viz.Vishnugupta, Chaanakya, Draamila, and Angula. In a treatise called Naanaarthaarnava-samkshepa there is mention of a Gotra Rishi called Kutala. Because Chanakya was in that Gotra he was called Kautalya which got corrupted as Kautilya. He has also accepted the argument that Chanakya’s father was Chanaka and that is how was also called Chaanakya. He was born in Kancheepuram in Tamil Nad and was a Brahmin with a front tuft. He migrated to Pataliputra the capital city of the Nandas in search of employment. He has quoted among other things from

Panchatantra as follows – “tato dharmashastraani manuaadiini, arthashastraani chaanakyaadini, kaamashastraani vaatsyayanaadiini”Mahakavi Ullur further discusses that the author himself has Stated 72 times in the arthasastra ‘iti kautilyah”. This shows that Kautilya was the author. Inancient days it was the practice touse the author’s name when giving his opinion. He has quoted that Patanjali also called “gonardiiya” says “gonardiiyastvaaha” while he was commenting on a Panini sutra. PKRamakrishnan

 

 

[Guest guest]

Several people have concluded that canakya , the chief minister of

mauryans 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. (ref R C Majumdar)

 

 

I invite the valuable comments from the members.

 

 

kishore