Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! 1 of 1 File(s) Mudrarakshasa_source_for_Gupta_times.doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Kishoreji,Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other?Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " , " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology > Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji,Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other?Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment]"" <>, "indiaarchaeology" <IndiaArchaeology>Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji, Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " <>, " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology> Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Kamlesh, The internal evidence of MR shows that it was written during the times of Chandragupta (not Mauryan). It has been discussed in my attachment. Hence, it is impossible that it belongs to 6th C. However,can you please enumerate your reasons for this dating? regards, Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji, Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " <>, " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology> Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! .. -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Kishore ji, After sending my last letter, I did find my source- ‘The Study of Indian History and Culture’, Vol 4, BHISHMA publication. On page 109 and 110, the book gives the date for Vishakhadatta as 7th century. It also gives details of the events relating to the overthrow of the Nandas and the influence and the role of Chanakya in that. I am now going over the book again to find the references to the Guptas. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of kishore patnaik Monday, April 20, 2009 12:05 PM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kamlesh, The internal evidence of MR shows that it was written during the times of Chandragupta (not Mauryan). It has been discussed in my attachment. Hence, it is impossible that it belongs to 6th C. However,can you please enumerate your reasons for this dating? regards, Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji, Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " <>, " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology> Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! .. -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Kishore ji, I read the play Mudrarakshasa couple of times. Below are my comments: “About Mudrarakshasas I reread the drama. I also read the translation by Michael Coulson. The drama does not refer to the Guptas at all. In the Act- 5. 120 and the act- 5.140, Vishakhadatta mentions the names of the various republics/kingdoms which helped Chandragupta Mourya’s coup to overthrow the Nandas. The fact that the writer mentions the Huns as a part of the groups helping Chandragupta means that Vishakhadatta belonged to a period after the Hun attacks on the northwest of India. We also know that Sakandagupta spent most of his years fighting with the Huns, he contained them and later Yashodharmana defeated the Huns. In the last act, there is not a single hint or mention that Vishakhadatta was addressing the Gupta audiences. Finally, no matter, what dates, centuries we assign to the Mouryas, Guptas and Buddha, the sequence of these dynasties remain unchanged. Mouryas to Kushanas to Guptas to Vardhanas are considered as the major dynasties in northern India. And yes there were many other dynasties in between. Vishakhadatta belonged to the period when the Huns had already been there or had been wiped out by Yashodharman. Based on the internal evidence from the play itself, we cannot place him in the Gupta period especially when Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty was the ruler. Huns were not the foes then. Vishakhadatta can be considered in the times of Ramgupta who was unable to face the Hunas. Huns by that time had made inroads in the western parts of modern day U.P. There was a chaos, destruction and massacres everywhere from the northwest, Punjab to U.P. These are detailed by the later Chinese visitor Hieun-Tsang in the 7th century. Creative work is mostly done in times of peace and stability. Perhaps when the dust settled, there were many writers during the Vardhana period including Vishakhadatta.. Coming back to another interpretation given in Mudrarakshasa_source_for_Gupta_times .doc does not explain anything clearly. Whoever posted this link had only page 4 and then pages from 50 to 52 and then some quotes. These pages have a commentary (author’s name not clear) and a suggestion that the drama should be read along with another drama – Devicandraguptam. According to this author, this exercise will place Vishakhadatta during the period of Chandragupta II of the gupta dynasty. The translation of the word Malechha as Muslims or foreigners is inaccurate. The word denotes those clans who followed barbaric practices or were outside the Vedic dharma. The reference to Vishnu and Boar incarnation in the last speech of Rakshasa only is a comparison of Chandragupta as also his wish that Chandragupta may like the Boar Avatar of Vishnu maintain a strong empire safeguarding his subjects. It does not mean any reference to the Boar as emblem of the Guptas. The information given at the link sited is really warbled. Perhaps the whole book if read might lead us somewhere. In conclusion, it is very clear that the internal evidence from the play Mudrarakshasa is not about Guptas or their polity or their times. In no way it is a source book for the Gupta times. Mudrarakshasa and Arthasastra were not written during the same time period, however the theme of the play and Kautilya- the author of Arthasastra belong to the same period. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Kamlesh Kapur Friday, April 24, 2009 10:30 PM Cc: 'kishore patnaik' RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, After sending my last letter, I did find my source- ‘The Study of Indian History and Culture’, Vol 4, BHISHMA publication. On page 109 and 110, the book gives the date for Vishakhadatta as 7th century. It also gives details of the events relating to the overthrow of the Nandas and the influence and the role of Chanakya in that. I am now going over the book again to find the references to the Guptas. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of kishore patnaik Monday, April 20, 2009 12:05 PM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kamlesh, The internal evidence of MR shows that it was written during the times of Chandragupta (not Mauryan). It has been discussed in my attachment. Hence, it is impossible that it belongs to 6th C. However,can you please enumerate your reasons for this dating? regards, Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji, Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " <>, " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology> Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! - .. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Kamlesh Kapur [kamleshk] Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:04 AM ' '; 'kishore patnaik' RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, I read the play Mudrarakshasa couple of times. Below are my comments: “About Mudrarakshasas I reread the drama. I also read the translation by Michael Coulson. The drama does not refer to the Guptas at all. In the Act- 5. 120 and the act- 5.140, Vishakhadatta mentions the names of the various republics/kingdoms which helped Chandragupta Mourya’s coup to overthrow the Nandas. The fact that the writer mentions the Huns as a part of the groups helping Chandragupta means that Vishakhadatta belonged to a period after the Hun attacks on the northwest of India. We also know that Sakandagupta spent most of his years fighting with the Huns, he contained them and later Yashodharmana defeated the Huns. In the last act, there is not a single hint or mention that Vishakhadatta was addressing the Gupta audiences. Finally, no matter, what dates, centuries we assign to the Mouryas, Guptas and Buddha, the sequence of these dynasties remain unchanged. Mouryas to Kushanas to Guptas to Vardhanas are considered as the major dynasties in northern India. And yes there were many other dynasties in between. Vishakhadatta belonged to the period when the Huns had already been there or had been wiped out by Yashodharman. Based on the internal evidence from the play itself, we cannot place him in the Gupta period especially when Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty was the ruler. Huns were not the foes then. Vishakhadatta can be considered in the times of Ramgupta who was unable to face the Hunas. Huns by that time had made inroads in the western parts of modern day U.P. There was a chaos, destruction and massacres everywhere from the northwest, Punjab to U.P. These are detailed by the later Chinese visitor Hieun-Tsang in the 7th century. Creative work is mostly done in times of peace and stability. Perhaps when the dust settled, there were many writers during the Vardhana period including Vishakhadatta.. Coming back to another interpretation given in Mudrarakshasa_source_for_Gupta_times .doc does not explain anything clearly. Whoever posted this link had only page 4 and then pages from 50 to 52 and then some quotes. These pages have a commentary (author’s name not clear) and a suggestion that the drama should be read along with another drama – Devicandraguptam. According to this author, this exercise will place Vishakhadatta during the period of Chandragupta II of the gupta dynasty. The translation of the word Malechha as Muslims or foreigners is inaccurate. The word denotes those clans who followed barbaric practices or were outside the Vedic dharma. The reference to Vishnu and Boar incarnation in the last speech of Rakshasa only is a comparison of Chandragupta as also his wish that Chandragupta may like the Boar Avatar of Vishnu maintain a strong empire safeguarding his subjects. It does not mean any reference to the Boar as emblem of the Guptas. The information given at the link sited is really warbled. Perhaps the whole book if read might lead us somewhere. In conclusion, it is very clear that the internal evidence from the play Mudrarakshasa is not about Guptas or their polity or their times. In no way it is a source book for the Gupta times. Mudrarakshasa and Arthasastra were not written during the same time period, however the theme of the play and Kautilya- the author of Arthasastra belong to the same period. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Kamlesh Kapur Friday, April 24, 2009 10:30 PM Cc: 'kishore patnaik' RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, After sending my last letter, I did find my source- ‘The Study of Indian History and Culture’, Vol 4, BHISHMA publication. On page 109 and 110, the book gives the date for Vishakhadatta as 7th century. It also gives details of the events relating to the overthrow of the Nandas and the influence and the role of Chanakya in that. I am now going over the book again to find the references to the Guptas. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of kishore patnaik Monday, April 20, 2009 12:05 PM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kamlesh, The internal evidence of MR shows that it was written during the times of Chandragupta (not Mauryan). It has been discussed in my attachment. Hence, it is impossible that it belongs to 6th C. However,can you please enumerate your reasons for this dating? regards, Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Sunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji, Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes's Account agree with each other? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment] " " <>, " indiaarchaeology " <IndiaArchaeology> Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! - .. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Dear Kamleshji, Mahabharata of Vedavyasa also mentions the Huns. It is therefore possible that date of a text mentioning the Huns could be more than a millennium prior to the times of Alexander. Puranic chronology shows that the Mudrarakshasha was composed at the time of Chandragupta Maurya in the 16th century BCE. The Jonesian lobby ridicules the Puranic evidences but Vincent Smith in his book on Indian History gave credence to the Puranic lineage calling them authentic but being a Jonesian historian he conveniently accommodated (or should we say misfitted?) the puranic lineology to the Jonesian chronology. This is so far as the integrity (or should we say lack of integrity?) of the western historians of the 19th and 20th century goes. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 5/23/09, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshkFW: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta timesindianarchaeology , Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 7:14 PM Kamlesh Kapur [kamleshk@ cox.net] Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:04 AM''; 'kishore patnaik'RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, I read the play Mudrarakshasa couple of times. Below are my comments: “About Mudrarakshasas I reread the drama. I also read the translation by Michael Coulson. The drama does not refer to the Guptas at all. In the Act- 5. 120 and the act- 5.140, Vishakhadatta mentions the names of the various republics/kingdoms which helped Chandragupta Mourya’s coup to overthrow the Nandas. The fact that the writer mentions the Huns as a part of the groups helping Chandragupta means that Vishakhadatta belonged to a period after the Hun attacks on the northwest of India. We also know that Sakandagupta spent most of his years fighting with the Huns, he contained them and later Yashodharmana defeated the Huns. In the last act, there is not a single hint or mention that Vishakhadatta was addressing the Gupta audiences. Finally, no matter, what dates, centuries we assign to the Mouryas, Guptas and Buddha, the sequence of these dynasties remain unchanged. Mouryas to Kushanas to Guptas to Vardhanas are considered as the major dynasties in northern India. And yes there were many other dynasties in between. Vishakhadatta belonged to the period when the Huns had already been there or had been wiped out by Yashodharman. Based on the internal evidence from the play itself, we cannot place him in the Gupta period especially when Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty was the ruler. Huns were not the foes then. Vishakhadatta can be considered in the times of Ramgupta who was unable to face the Hunas. Huns by that time had made inroads in the western parts of modern day U.P. There was a chaos, destruction and massacres everywhere from the northwest, Punjab to U.P. These are detailed by the later Chinese visitor Hieun-Tsang in the 7th century. Creative work is mostly done in times of peace and stability. Perhaps when the dust settled, there were many writers during the Vardhana period including Vishakhadatta. . Coming back to another interpretation given in Mudrarakshasa_ source_for_ Gupta_times .doc does not explain anything clearly. Whoever posted this link had only page 4 and then pages from 50 to 52 and then some quotes. These pages have a commentary (author’s name not clear) and a suggestion that the drama should be read along with another drama – Devicandraguptam. According to this author, this exercise will place Vishakhadatta during the period of Chandragupta II of the gupta dynasty. The translation of the word Malechha as Muslims or foreigners is inaccurate. The word denotes those clans who followed barbaric practices or were outside the Vedic dharma. The reference to Vishnu and Boar incarnation in the last speech of Rakshasa only is a comparison of Chandragupta as also his wish that Chandragupta may like the Boar Avatar of Vishnu maintain a strong empire safeguarding his subjects. It does not mean any reference to the Boar as emblem of the Guptas. The information given at the link sited is really warbled. Perhaps the whole book if read might lead us somewhere. In conclusion, it is very clear that the internal evidence from the play Mudrarakshasa is not about Guptas or their polity or their times. In no way it is a source book for the Gupta times. Mudrarakshasa and Arthasastra were not written during the same time period, however the theme of the play and Kautilya- the author of Arthasastra belong to the same period. Kamlesh [ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Kamlesh KapurFriday, April 24, 2009 10:30 PMCc: 'kishore patnaik'RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, After sending my last letter, I did find my source- ‘The Study of Indian History and Culture’, Vol 4, BHISHMA publication. On page 109 and 110, the book gives the date for Vishakhadatta as 7th century. It also gives details of the events relating to the overthrow of the Nandas and the influence and the role of Chanakya in that. I am now going over the book again to find the references to the Guptas. Regards, Kamlesh [ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of kishore patnaikMonday, April 20, 2009 12:05 PMRe: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kamlesh, The internal evidence of MR shows that it was written during the times of Chandragupta (not Mauryan). It has been discussed in my attachment. Hence, it is impossible that it belongs to 6th C. However,can you please enumerate your reasons for this dating?regards, Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote: The play written by Vishakhadatta was written 6th century A.D. about a thousand years after the Mouryan Chandragupta’s time. Unless, we have some evidence to prove otherwise, we accept this date. Arthasastra was written by Kautilya in the 4th century B.C. Kamlesh [] On Behalf Of Sunil BhattacharjyaMonday, April 20, 2009 2:14 AM Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishoreji, I think that Mudrarakshasha and Arthashastra are contemporary writings. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 4/19/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com>Re: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta timesSunday, April 19, 2009, 1:21 AM There are two factors here: 1. Arthasastra belongs to Mauryan times but the version we read today is a faithful reproduction of the original but it has been compiled much later. 2. Megasthanese belongs to days of Sandrocottus. It depends on who you believe to be Sandrocottus- whether Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. If you run through my messages in the group, you will know that I strongly feel Sandrocottus is Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. I have infact calculated the puranic dating. Please go throught the archievs of the group. regards, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Kishoreji,Do you think the Chanakya's Arthashastra and Megasthenes' s Account agree with each other?Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> wrote: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times [1 Attachment]"" <>, "indiaarchaeology" <IndiaArchaeology>Saturday, April 18, 2009, 8:26 AM The attached file discusses Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta as a source for Gupta times. More after hearing from the group, regards, Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! - .. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Agreed. The question of chronology is yet to be settled. However the sequence of the events and dynasties is more or less agreed upon. If Mahabharata mentions the Hunas, it is quite possible that some interjections were made later on; just as entire Utterkaand of Ramamyana was added much later. The century or the millennium of any given event is yet to be satisfactorily determined. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45 AM Re: FW: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Dear Kamleshji, Mahabharata of Vedavyasa also mentions the Huns. It is therefore possible that date of a text mentioning the Huns could be more than a millennium prior to the times of Alexander. Puranic chronology shows that the Mudrarakshasha was composed at the time of Chandragupta Maurya in the 16th century BCE. The Jonesian lobby ridicules the Puranic evidences but Vincent Smith in his book on Indian History gave credence to the Puranic lineage calling them authentic but being a Jonesian historian he conveniently accommodated (or should we say misfitted?) the puranic lineology to the Jonesian chronology. This is so far as the integrity (or should we say lack of integrity?) of the western historians of the 19th and 20th century goes. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 5/23/09, Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk wrote: Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk FW: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times indianarchaeology , Saturday, May 23, 2009, 7:14 PM Kamlesh Kapur [kamleshk@ cox.net] Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:04 AM ''; 'kishore patnaik' RE: Mudra rakshasa as a source for Gupta times Kishore ji, I read the play Mudrarakshasa couple of times. Below are my comments: “About Mudrarakshasas I reread the drama. I also read the translation by Michael Coulson. The drama does not refer to the Guptas at all. In the Act- 5. 120 and the act- 5.140, Vishakhadatta mentions the names of the various republics/kingdoms which helped Chandragupta Mourya’s coup to overthrow the Nandas. The fact that the writer mentions the Huns as a part of the groups helping Chandragupta means that Vishakhadatta belonged to a period after the Hun attacks on the northwest of India. We also know that Sakandagupta spent most of his years fighting with the Huns, he contained them and later Yashodharmana defeated the Huns. In the last act, there is not a single hint or mention that Vishakhadatta was addressing the Gupta audiences. Finally, no matter, what dates, centuries we assign to the Mouryas, Guptas and Buddha, the sequence of these dynasties remain unchanged. Mouryas to Kushanas to Guptas to Vardhanas are considered as the major dynasties in northern India. And yes there were many other dynasties in between. Vishakhadatta belonged to the period when the Huns had already been there or had been wiped out by Yashodharman. Based on the internal evidence from the play itself, we cannot place him in the Gupta period especially when Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty was the ruler. Huns were not the foes then. Vishakhadatta can be considered in the times of Ramgupta who was unable to face the Hunas. Huns by that time had made inroads in the western parts of modern day U.P. There was a chaos, destruction and massacres everywhere from the northwest, Punjab to U.P. These are detailed by the later Chinese visitor Hieun-Tsang in the 7th century. Creative work is mostly done in times of peace and stability. Perhaps when the dust settled, there were many writers during the Vardhana period including Vishakhadatta. . Coming back to another interpretation given in Mudrarakshasa_ source_for_ Gupta_times .doc does not explain anything clearly. Whoever posted this link had only page 4 and then pages from 50 to 52 and then some quotes. These pages have a commentary (author’s name not clear) and a suggestion that the drama should be read along with another drama – Devicandraguptam. According to this author, this exercise will place Vishakhadatta during the period of Chandragupta II of the gupta dynasty. The translation of the word Malechha as Muslims or foreigners is inaccurate. The word denotes those clans who followed barbaric practices or were outside the Vedic dharma. The reference to Vishnu and Boar incarnation in the last speech of Rakshasa only is a comparison of Chandragupta as also his wish that Chandragupta may like the Boar Avatar of Vishnu maintain a strong empire safeguarding his subjects. It does not mean any reference to the Boar as emblem of the Guptas. The information given at the link sited is really warbled. Perhaps the whole book if read might lead us somewhere. In conclusion, it is very clear that the internal evidence from the play Mudrarakshasa is not about Guptas or their polity or their times. In no way it is a source book for the Gupta times. Mudrarakshasa and Arthasastra were not written during the same time period, however the theme of the play and Kautilya- the author of Arthasastra belong to the same period. Kamlesh .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.