Talk:Chanakya: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:39, 15 December 2024 editJoshua Jonathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,155 edits →AH#2: add← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:23, 28 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers39,524 edits rv 2022 test edit
(26 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{archivebox\|]}}		{{archivebox\|]}}
	{{PageViews graph}}		{{PageViews graph}}

	== Social ==

	Chanakya ] (]) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023 ==		== Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023 ==
Line 111:		Line 107:
	by D. G. Apte, (2019)}}<br> ] <small><small>]</small></small> 19:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)		by D. G. Apte, (2019)}}<br> ] <small><small>]</small></small> 19:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

	:Why is it {{tq\|irrelevant to claim that statements and analyses by scholars before Olivelle's 2013 work are incorrect}}? I think you should read the relevant recent literature, that is McClish and Olivelle; the idea of a single author, the identification with Chanakya, and the dating to 300 BCE are untenable, given the stylistic diffefences within the text, and the historical facts reflected in the text which are anachronistic for the Mauryan period. Compiling quotes from authors who seem to rely on older scholarship, or note that it "is believed" and "was said," without offering any original analysis. ~~Craig~~ ~~Benjamin~~, for ~~example~~, ~~refers~~ to the ''Mudrarakshasa'' as his "source" - that is, a play written centuries after the events.		:Why is it {{tq\|irrelevant to claim that statements and analyses by scholars before Olivelle's 2013 work are incorrect}}? I think you should read the relevant recent literature, that is McClish and Olivelle; the idea of a single author, the identification with Chanakya, and the dating to 300 BCE are untenable, given the stylistic diffefences within the text, and the historical facts reflected in the text which are anachronistic for the Mauryan period. Compiling quotes from authors who seem to rely on older scholarship, or note that it "is believed" and "was said," without offering any original analysis, is insufficient. ''None'' of these sources provide a reference for their 'info', except for Craig Benjamin, who refer only to the ''Mudrarakshasa'' as his "source" - that is, a play written centuries after the events. Let alone that they address McClish or Olivelle, or even Trautman. And Apte is actually from 1961, even before Kangle published his study.
	:As stated before, I don't doubt that you can compile a large amount of such quotes, but none of this bypasses the experts on the topic. ] - ] 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)		:As stated before, I don't doubt that you can compile a large amount of such quotes, but none of this bypasses the experts on the topic. ] - ] 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Eh, the discussion seems to center on whether Olivelle's analysis of the dating and authorship of the Arthashastra should be considered empirical. Upon thorough research, I found that disagrees with Olivelle's conclusions:
			::{{talk quote\|As the most recent English-language translator, Patrick Olivelle, puts it, “The story of the discovery of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra reads like a thriller, one of the few exciting, Indiana Jones-like moments in the rather drab history of ancient Indian scholarship” (1). '''Although the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous, he has been identified as a real historical figure—Chanakya''', the chief adviser to the great Indian ruler Chandragupta. Together, Chanakya and Chandragupta founded the Maurya Empire the first time that Indian subcontinent was united politically. According to the political philosopher Roger Boesche, “It is probably most accurate to describe Kautilya as an early Bismarck, a chancellor who helped Chandragupta unify India into an empire”}}
			::Therefore, the rationale provided by Joshua Jonathan—that no one has challenged or bypassed the conclusions of Olivelle and McClish—appears to be incorrect. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Olivelle does not state that the attribution to Kautilya is erroneous, on the contrary. According to who is this attribution erroneous? Strand? And if not Kautilya, then who? And: identified with Chanakya by who? Does Strand agree with that identification? The Boesche-quote is from 2003... And what's the field of scholarship of Eric Strand? English literature? I'll take a closer look later, but "challenged" is an overstatement, I'm afraid. See, on the other hand, for support for Olivelle, and for some appraisal for Olivelle (that was only the first page with Google-hits). ] - ] 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, well...
			:::* Strand p.72: "the historical figure of Kautilya and his treatise on politics, Arthashastra (circa 150 BCE–300 CE)"
			:::* p.73: "the Arthashastra, a two-thousand-year-old work of political and social theory, and the legend surrounding it"
			:::* p.73: "Ostensibly written by the chief adviser to Chandragupta"
			:::* p.76 "the first time that Indian subcontinent was united politically" has a note: "2. Olivelle argues that the historical Chanakya did not play any part in writing the Arthashastra, which in any case went through several revisions. It was only during a later empire that Chandragupta’s adviser, Chanakya, was identified as the Arthashastra’s author, in order to legitimate the authority of the new regime, which, like the government of Chandragupta’s empire, was based in the city of Pataliputra."
			:::Regarding Strand's comment "the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous," note that Olivelle argues trhat Kautilya was the compiler of the first text, which was extensively enlarged and redacted by an anonymous edutor; McClish, on the other hand, argues that the first compiler was anonymous, while the major redaction and enlargement was done by Kautilya. So, what exactly is Strand referring to, or arguing for? Regards, ] - ] 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::Some more: Allessandra Petrocchi (2017), ''The Coinage System in the Arthasastra and Commentarial Strategies in the Canakyatıka by Bhiksu Prabhamati: Issues on the Textual Authority of Manu’s Code'', JRAS, Series 3, 27, 3 (2017), pp. 477–500, ignores the traditional identification with Chanakya, and only references recent scholarship :
			:::* p.477: "the Arthasastra (1 st– 3rd century ce)
			:::* p.480: "Although the tradition ascribes to Kautilya the composition of the Arthasastra, the name of its author is unknown as are any details of his life."
			:::* p.480: "Scharfe, who dates the Arthasastra ca. 150 ce"
			:::* p.481: "Willes cites archaeological and textual evidence to place the ''Arthashastra in the middel of the 4th century CE."
			:::* p.481: "In his book on early Brahmanical thought, Bronkhorst emphasises that Trautmann’s investigations indeed support multiple authorship and that in its present shape, the Arthasastra post-dates the Candragupta era."
			:::* p.481: "Regarding the chronology, this author suggests that a historical person named Kautilya composed his treatise between 50 and 125 ce and that the Sastric Redaction occurred in 175–300 ce."
			:::] - ] 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Seems same to me, The problem syarts with the introductory lede info well which starts from "According to legendary .."? Which suggests a boew that is somehow just related to Mythological character and not hostorical; totally vice versa od the current view or any person like Buddha, Chanakya or Chandragupta,the rationale doesnt seem right. Dont know why the statement would even be taken that much over those removed one. There has been veey little established facts over just different proposed hypothesis. ] (]) 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Hmm.... that should be ''semi''-legendary, actually. The aþribution of the Arthashastra to Chanakya doesn't seem to be an academic question anymore, as 'early CE' is quite acceptable; the academic question is single authorship versus multiple major authorship. ] - ] 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::But lede should not be like that , starting with "according to"rather it should be in simple verbal phrase or so, I dont think there is currently major established facts like this or currently ongoing issues. Also, I think its important to emphasize the attribution of Arthashastra to Chanakya aka Vishnugupta and Kautilya i.e is widely.. ] (]) 18:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Regarding Strand's comment "Although the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous, he has been identified as a real historical figure—Chanakya," see also Schlingloff (2012; orig. 1967): "The traditional attribution to the minister Kautilya is hardly historical, and the compendium probably arose in the first half of the first millennium AD." Strand is not refering to Kautilya-the-author, but to Kautilya-meaning-Chanaky, and thus rejects the attribution to Chanakya. ] - ] 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::This is what Strand's write "''Arthashastra'', an ancient work of political theory that was ostensibly written by the chief adviser to Chandragupta, who unified the Indian subcontinent." referring to the same Vishnugupta or Chanakya we know undoubtedly here although he suggest's oter writer's suggestion.
			:::::::There are much recent works than Schlingoff's work which discusses these explictly in much detailed analysis , one of them is Roshen Dalal's work in much detailed view describimg Arthashastra in Hinduism an Alphabetical guide(2010):-
			:::::::"Arthashastra A Sanskrit text, primarily on politics and economics, that has references to religion and deities. It is assigned to Chanakya or Kautilya, the minister of the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta (ruled 321-297 BCE), though some parts are considered to be later.
			:::::::The Arthashastra has fifteen adhikaranas or large sections, with 180 subdivisions known as prakaranas..
			:::::::She identifies Kautilya same as Chanakya later as well though she states some parts are considered as late but attribute to Chanakya, the advisor.] (]) 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Strand does ''not'' identify Chanakya as Kautilya; on the contrary. The usage of "Kautilya" when rdferring to Chanakya is confusing, but Schlingloff does the same. "Ostensibly" means "in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else" ().
			::::::::Regarding Dalal (2010), "It is assigned to Chanakya or Kautilya" - assigned by whom? Scholarship, or tradition? And does Dalal agree with that attribution?
			::::::::Dalal too is pre-2010, but states "some parts are considered to be later" - considered by whom? To what extent does Dalal ignore Schlingloff, Schalfe and Trautmann. Kankle, Schlinglof, Scharfe, Trautman, Olivelle, and McClish are the relevant authors here - say Olicelle and McClish. Only one of these sources, with the oldest publication date, does not reject the attribution to Chanakya. The other five date the Arthashastra to the first centuries CE. ] - ] 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Ostesnibly means appearing true but not necessarily ..https://www.google.com/search?q=ostensibly&rlz=1C1JJTC_enIN1138IN1138&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8,
			:::::::::From Collins dictionary-'''Ostensible''' is used to something that seems to be or is officially stated to be true, but about which you or other people have doubts.
			:::::::::Dalal and other are themselves a scholars, Dalal's work is 2010 not pre and even later date than 2010 as stated provide association of Kautilya with Chanakya. It's not rejected at all or even replaced in mass. There are a tons of ood publication far after 2000s who explictly associated the identification of Kautilya with Mauryan Chanakya.
			:::::::::Needless not to provide all those here..It will be filled ] (]) 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			There's a huge difference between publications in which an analysis is made of the possible dating and authorship of the Arthashastra, and publications which mereley state, in an ambiguous way, without providing references, that the Arthshastra is attributed to Chanakya. ] - ] 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			:! but their publication works are indirectly based upon those creful studies or analysis without providing those(we can say) I can recall there were more authors who stated these similar things, can't neglect that. ] (]) 19:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:23, 28 December 2024

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Military history: Biography / Historiography / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military historiography task force
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

India: Bihar / Patna / History Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Patna (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in August 2013.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Eastern / Ancient High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy
	Eastern philosophy
	Ancient philosophy

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Talk:Chanakya/Archive_1

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Plays--Adityatejwani (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Indian television actor Manoj Joshi has been doing the role of Chanakya in the play that goes by the same name since 1990 . Initially starting in Gujarati language , it was enacted in Hindi since 1993-94 and since then it has been enacted more than a thousand times till 2018 across various Indian cities and platforms in theatres and colleges . Today Joshi who is now a padmashree still plays the lead role in the play inspiring millions across India.

Source https://m.rediff.com/amp/movies/special/he-has-played-chanakya-1039-times/20180310.htm

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/manoj-joshi-has-grand-plans-for-silver-jubilee-of-play-chanakya/lite/

https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/manoj-joshi-has-been-playing-chanakya-since-24-years/articleshow/45660396.cms

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/File:Chankay_Play_Manoj_Joshi.JPG] Adityatejwani (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

IP edit request

This is an edit request that an IP left on my user-talk page. But I'm not clear (at all) on what the IP is asking for. Can anyone help? – S. Rich (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"== Chanakya == Please! correct an information about chanakya he belongs to "Bhumihar Brahmin" not "Brahmin" caste. ] (]) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)"

Dates of birth and death

Hello dear Misplaced Pages, After consulting the cited sources I couldn’t find any proof for the given dates of birth and death. The dates itself lack any citation. Where did the dates come from and is there a source? Many publications give random dates somewhere around the time given in the article. But I couldn’t find a source yet to illustrate how these dates came to be. Flaverius (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Arthashastra author

AH#1

@Joshua Jonathan Could you explain this edit ? Nxcrypto Message 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I already did, what don't you understand about it? The text was written after Chanakya's life, so these attributions are baseless, aren't they? And: WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this is not in the article. So, why would we have this here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, The sources you have removed are reliable. Many scholars attribute the Arthashastra to Chanakya, though some parts may have been later additions. Nxcrypto Message 08:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Olivelle dates the earliest parts to 150 BCE, and rejects the identification of Kautilya with Chanakya. That's a very solid source. Other authors also reject the identification; see here and here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Only Olivelle doesn;t hold full scholarship. Most of the source I think references Trauttman, who proposed the hypothesis, However they aren't all-knowing and so, in my information, the current edits doesn't convey what we calls a Fact and therefore be restored to earlier version. Don't know why the lede information be mentioned like these and someo fthe reliable sources be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.35.27.223 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Even Olivelle associates him as an advisor of Chandragupta; Trauttman says him same historical figure as "Chandragupta or Nanda" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:3F:100B:DD84:67EE:22DD:8439 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, the identification you provided regarding Chanakya/Kautilya and the dating of the Arthashastra is supported by some scholars but not universally. There are several other scholars who present differing views on this matter.

It is widely accepted that Chanakya and Kautilya are the same individual, credited as the author of the Arthashastra. Numerous reliable scholarly sources support this conclusion :

Pg 151 : The Arthasastra or 'Manual of Politics' which may possibly be the real work of Chanakya or Kautilya and therefore written about 300 B.C.
—The Cambridge history of India, Volume I

Pg 7 : Perhaps the most esoteric work was the Arthasastra of Kautilya (Chanakya, believed to be prime minister of Chandragupta in southern India, circa 300 B.C.), translated by Shamasastry (1909).
— Studies in Machiavellianism by Richard Christie & Florence L. Geis

Pg 1416 : Such departures were made since the sixth century BC, first, by heretical movements within religion, namely, Buddhism and Jainism, and, second, by the radically new, secular pragmatic theory of the state and government contained in the Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya the mentor and minister of Chandragupta Maurуа (с. 321-298 BC), the founder of the Mauryan empire.
—The Oxford India companion to sociology and social anthropology by Veena Das

Pg 2 : This period (c. 320-185 в.с.) produced the Machiavellian system of statecraft associated with the name of the minister Kautilya, the reputed author of the famous Arthaśāstra
Pg 39(ref. note) : Kautalya, alternatively known as Kautilya and Chanakya, was the chief minister of Chandragupta Maurya and a work on political economy, the Arthasastra, is attributed to him.
—A Cultural History of India by Arthur Llewellyn Basham

Pg 1353 : In c.324/21 BC, with the help of Chanakya sometimes known as Kautilya an experienced brahmana statesman to whom is ascribed a comprehensive book on political economy and statecraft, the Arthashastra, he overthrew the Nanda king of Magadha (part of the modern Bihar State).
—The Oxford classical dictionary by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth

Also read :

Pg 521 : He was advised by Kautilya (also called Chanakya) a very able but unscrupulous Brahman, to whom is attributed the Arthasastra, a guide to statecraft.
—The Columbia encyclopedia

Pg 64 : One of the individuals shaken by the debacle at Alexander's hands in northwest India was Chanakya, or Kautilya, a most highly regarded scholar at Takshashila University (near Rawalpindi).
—Historical Atlas, A Comprehensive History Of The World by Geoffrey Wawro

Pg 51 : His agent in effecting the revolution was Chanakya, also called Kautilya or Vishnugupta, a wily Brahmin, who became his minister.
—Oxford Student History of India by Vincent A. Smith

Nxcrypto Message 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

See the talkpage of Arthashastra. The identification of Kautilya with Chanakya is rejected by recent scholarship, as also noted by User:Fowler&fowler. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have initiated the discussion on this page. Please provide your response here. Nxcrypto Message 18:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat everything I've written there, or engage into two similar discussions. Your point is: It is widely accepted that Chanakya and Kautilya are the same individual, credited as the author of the Arthashastra. Numerous reliable scholarly sources support this conclusion. Incorrect; the attribution to Charnakya is often repeated, without a proper analysis or arguments. This in contrast to Trautmann, Olivelle and others; arguments which point to multiple authorship, and elements in the text which are incomptabile with a Mauryan time-frame (forbidding wooden defense works, while Pataliputra was defended with a wooden pallisade; the use of choral, which was imported, an import which started in the second century BCE). Olivelle also points out that most authors start with the traditional attribution to Charnakya, which automatically implies a date of composition at ca. 300 BCE; yet, the name Charnakya is not mentioned in the Arthashastra itself, nor in other texts until a couple of centuries after Charnakya and Chandragupta. The traditional attribution to Charnakya is precisely that: a traditional attribution, not a gistorical fact. It probably developed in Gupta-times, when the Guptas tried to present themselves as the heirs of the Mauryas. the AS was a popilar text then, and attributing it to Charnakya further fostered this identification of the Guptas with the Mauryas. See also this note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: please also provide the year of publication for those sources; most are probably pre-2013.

Ah yes, all of them:

The Cambridge history of India, Volume I, 1922
Studies in Machiavellianism by Richard Christie & Florence L. Geis 1970
The Oxford India companion to sociology and social anthropology by Veena Das 2003
A Cultural History of India by Arthur Llewellyn Basham 1975
The Oxford classical dictionary by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth 2003
The Columbia encyclopedia 2000
Historical Atlas, A Comprehensive History Of The World by Geoffrey Wawro 2008
Oxford Student History of India by Vincent A. Smith 1908

I don't doubt you can compile a long list of such quotes, but quantity does not guarantee state of the art scholarship. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of them are still comprehensive till date and only one or two sources seems to be old enough even thought it's still relevant here. 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:B1A3:CC92:C8B4:B3CE (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The all predate Olivelle's publication. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me you’re joking. What kind of argument is this? Were there any groundbreaking discoveries between 2008 and 2013 that we don’t know about? Repeating the same unoriginal arguments made decades ago, without any solid new evidence coming to light, does not give scholarly work published at a later date enough weight to negate all the scholarship that came before it. It simply adds to the diversity of views. Man, this is crazy. 103.92.120.14 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Olivelle's 2013 translation. If you ignore that publication, you're outdated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

New method of translation developed in 2013? Were scholars unable to translate before that? Did Olivelle acquire some new magical power in 2013? As I indicated earlier, diverse translations are welcome, but unless some new empirical evidence is discovered, no newly dated study can negate older studies. It only contributes to the diverse viewpoints that have already been discussed for ages. I fail to understand the need to push one point of view with such intensity. Perhaps some personal stakes are involved 2409:40C1:25:D954:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, "state-of-the-art scholarship" because it’s approved by the great Joshua. Countless other scholars are just idiots, not worth considering. Only the works that Joshua approves matter, even if they repeat the same unoriginal arguments made decades ago without any new evidence coming to light. There’s no cure for motivated stubbornness. But that’s what happens when you don’t care about what others have to say and consider yourself the ultimate authority. Pointless. It’s not even worth replying because you only hear what you want to hear. I can’t keep repeating myself over and over. I’m out. Others can handle it if they must. 103.92.120.14 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

"I'm out" - again? You'll be back... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Not for this topic but for you of course. Dont forget we have karmic bond. 103.92.120.14 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@103.92 .120.14 you are editing from a dynamic IP address, which changes over time. To ensure your contributions are saved and properly attributed, I recommend creating an account. Nxcrypto Message 09:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

They probably already had one; I forgot if they were blocked, or just gave up on that account. Anyway, this is a phoenix for sure. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@NXcrypto I did what I could. Not just on this page, but for a long time, I have been challenging Joshua for his edits, which I think are problematic and involve POV pushing in certain areas. Sometimes I get my way, but most of the time, he does (he's more supported and permanently active). I don’t have that much free time anymore; Joshua edits continuously all day. Maybe he’s just at that point in his life. On the other hand, I’ve just started my career. The most I can do is provide my input once in a while when the POV pushing gets out of hand, but that’s my limit. I look like an idiot—an IP fighting alone with an established editor, while other editors and admins eat popcorn and enjoy the show.

Also, the only reason I was able to argue with Joshua for this long as an IP is because I’m using an IP. Accounts are targeted much quicker, which tells you how flawed Misplaced Pages and its admin community are. As I said, I am done with this topic of the Mauryas, Chanakya, and Arthashastra. The more I discuss on the talk page, the more charged Joshua gets, and he keeps editing the page while the discussion is ongoing. You handle it if you want to. I don’t like to take useless stress in life. If you can’t do it without me, it’s better to give up now and leave Joshua alone. 2409:40C1:25:D954:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have reworded the second paragraph of the lead a little. I have removed the word "rejected" as it turns a nuanced opinion, weighing varied lexical, semantical, historical, and archaeological probabilities into something black and white. I have also added a rationale for backdating the work by several centuries. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler Seems good Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

AH#2

It is irrelevant to claim that statements and analyses by scholars before Olivelle's 2013 work are incorrect or unauthentic. Pinging @Garudam: also for futher discussion. Many modern scholars also agree that Chanakya and Kautilya refer to the same individual and authored Arthashastra:

Pg 517 : This Vishnugupta is believed to be the same as Kautilya Chanakya, the famed author of the Arthashastra, among the earliest and most brilliant treatises in the world on statecraft and empire building. He is also believed to be the wily but moralistic prime minister of Chandragupta Maurya.
—The Cambridge World History, Volume IV by Craig Benjamin, (2015)

Pg 710 : (ref.) Author of the Arthashastra, the ancient Indian textbook of political science; a notoriously amoral author, whose nickname, Kautilya actually means "Crookedness." He was also called Chanakya and Vishnugupta, and was said to have been prime minister to the emperor Chandragupta Maurya, in the third century B.C.E.
— The Norton anthology of world religions, Volume I by David Biale and Wendy Doniger, (2015)

Pg 128-129 : Kautilya, who was also called Chanakya or Vishnugupta, was born into a family of Brahmins (the priestly or scholarly caste), but much of what is known about his life is derived from legend. It is believed that he was educated in Taxila, in present-day Pakistan, and his writing displayed an understanding of Greek and Persian texts, and he was well-versed in medicine, astrology, and military strategy.
—The ancient world (2700 B.C.E. - c.500 C.E.) by Michael Shally-Jensen, (2015)

Pg 49-50 : The Arthashastra is a manual on statecraft allegedly written by Kautilya, also known as Chanakya. Kautilya was an adviser to Chandragupta, the first king of the Maurya Empire, in the third century BCE. The Arthashastra is a "mirror of princes," a book of secret advice given directly to a ruler by one of his advisers. As such it is a contribution to the same genre as Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Both books describe politics as a ruthless game of power, yet the Arthashastra is by far the more cynical
— History of International Relations: A Non-European Perspective by Erik Ringmar, (2019)

Pg 16-17 : Arthashastra, sometimes translated as the "science of wealth", credited to have been written by the Indian philosopher Chanakya around 300 BC, is a treatise on economics, policy and military strategy.
— An Economic Philosophy of Production, Work and Consumption - A Transhistorical Framework by Rodney Edwinsson, (2023)

Pg 73 : In the 4th century BCE, Kautilya the chief minister of Emperor Chandragupta, referred in his book on the art of government, the Arthashastra, to the low morals of players and advised the municipal authorities not to build houses in the midst of their villages for actors, acrobats, and mummers.
— Pramod Chandra, 'South Asian Arts' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Published April 16, 2024

Pg 20-21 : .... so also was Chanakya, (known also as Kautilya) the minister of Chandragupta Maurya, who reduced the Nanda dynasty of Magadha to ashes.
— Universities in ancient India by D. G. Apte, (2019)

Nxcrypto Message 19:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant to claim that statements and analyses by scholars before Olivelle's 2013 work are incorrect? I think you should read the relevant recent literature, that is McClish and Olivelle; the idea of a single author, the identification with Chanakya, and the dating to 300 BCE are untenable, given the stylistic diffefences within the text, and the historical facts reflected in the text which are anachronistic for the Mauryan period. Compiling quotes from authors who seem to rely on older scholarship, or note that it "is believed" and "was said," without offering any original analysis, is insufficient. None of these sources provide a reference for their 'info', except for Craig Benjamin, who refer only to the Mudrarakshasa as his "source" - that is, a play written centuries after the events. Let alone that they address McClish or Olivelle, or even Trautman. And Apte is actually from 1961, even before Kangle published his study.

As stated before, I don't doubt that you can compile a large amount of such quotes, but none of this bypasses the experts on the topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Eh, the discussion seems to center on whether Olivelle's analysis of the dating and authorship of the Arthashastra should be considered empirical. Upon thorough research, I found that Eric Strand p.76 disagrees with Olivelle's conclusions:

As the most recent English-language translator, Patrick Olivelle, puts it, “The story of the discovery of Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra reads like a thriller, one of the few exciting, Indiana Jones-like moments in the rather drab history of ancient Indian scholarship” (1). Although the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous, he has been identified as a real historical figure—Chanakya, the chief adviser to the great Indian ruler Chandragupta. Together, Chanakya and Chandragupta founded the Maurya Empire the first time that Indian subcontinent was united politically. According to the political philosopher Roger Boesche, “It is probably most accurate to describe Kautilya as an early Bismarck, a chancellor who helped Chandragupta unify India into an empire”

Therefore, the rationale provided by Joshua Jonathan—that no one has challenged or bypassed the conclusions of Olivelle and McClish—appears to be incorrect. Garuda 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Olivelle does not state that the attribution to Kautilya is erroneous, on the contrary. According to who is this attribution erroneous? Strand? And if not Kautilya, then who? And: identified with Chanakya by who? Does Strand agree with that identification? The Boesche-quote is from 2003... And what's the field of scholarship of Eric Strand? English literature? I'll take a closer look later, but "challenged" is an overstatement, I'm afraid. See, on the other hand, this note for support for Olivelle, and this note for some appraisal for Olivelle (that was only the first page with Google-hits). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, well...

Strand p.72: "the historical figure of Kautilya and his treatise on politics, Arthashastra (circa 150 BCE–300 CE)"
p.73: "the Arthashastra, a two-thousand-year-old work of political and social theory, and the legend surrounding it"
p.73: "Ostensibly written by the chief adviser to Chandragupta"
p.76 "the first time that Indian subcontinent was united politically" has a note: "2. Olivelle argues that the historical Chanakya did not play any part in writing the Arthashastra, which in any case went through several revisions. It was only during a later empire that Chandragupta’s adviser, Chanakya, was identified as the Arthashastra’s author, in order to legitimate the authority of the new regime, which, like the government of Chandragupta’s empire, was based in the city of Pataliputra."

Regarding Strand's comment "the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous," note that Olivelle argues trhat Kautilya was the compiler of the first text, which was extensively enlarged and redacted by an anonymous edutor; McClish, on the other hand, argues that the first compiler was anonymous, while the major redaction and enlargement was done by Kautilya. So, what exactly is Strand referring to, or arguing for? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Some more: Allessandra Petrocchi (2017), The Coinage System in the Arthasastra and Commentarial Strategies in the Canakyatıka by Bhiksu Prabhamati: Issues on the Textual Authority of Manu’s Code, JRAS, Series 3, 27, 3 (2017), pp. 477–500, ignores the traditional identification with Chanakya, and only references recent scholarship :

p.477: "the Arthasastra (1 st– 3rd century ce)
p.480: "Although the tradition ascribes to Kautilya the composition of the Arthasastra, the name of its author is unknown as are any details of his life."
p.480: "Scharfe, who dates the Arthasastra ca. 150 ce"
p.481: "Willes cites archaeological and textual evidence to place the Arthashastra in the middel of the 4th century CE."
p.481: "In his book on early Brahmanical thought, Bronkhorst emphasises that Trautmann’s investigations indeed support multiple authorship and that in its present shape, the Arthasastra post-dates the Candragupta era."
p.481: "Regarding the chronology, this author suggests that a historical person named Kautilya composed his treatise between 50 and 125 ce and that the Sastric Redaction occurred in 175–300 ce."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems same to me, The problem syarts with the introductory lede info well which starts from "According to legendary .."? Which suggests a boew that is somehow just related to Mythological character and not hostorical; totally vice versa od the current view or any person like Buddha, Chanakya or Chandragupta,the rationale doesnt seem right. Dont know why the statement would even be taken that much over those removed one. There has been veey little established facts over just different proposed hypothesis. 2409:40E4:2013:58E0:69F5:3867:383E:21AF (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm.... that should be semi-legendary, actually. The aþribution of the Arthashastra to Chanakya doesn't seem to be an academic question anymore, as 'early CE' is quite acceptable; the academic question is single authorship versus multiple major authorship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But lede should not be like that , starting with "according to"rather it should be in simple verbal phrase or so, I dont think there is currently major established facts like this or currently ongoing issues. Also, I think its important to emphasize the attribution of Arthashastra to Chanakya aka Vishnugupta and Kautilya i.e is widely.. 2409:40E4:4E:51ED:C4D8:9EE5:60E8:5641 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Strand's comment "Although the attribution of the Arthashastra to Kautilya is most likely erroneous, he has been identified as a real historical figure—Chanakya," see also Schlingloff (2012; orig. 1967): "The traditional attribution to the minister Kautilya is hardly historical, and the compendium probably arose in the first half of the first millennium AD." Strand is not refering to Kautilya-the-author, but to Kautilya-meaning-Chanaky, and thus rejects the attribution to Chanakya. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what Strand's write "Arthashastra, an ancient work of political theory that was ostensibly written by the chief adviser to Chandragupta, who unified the Indian subcontinent." referring to the same Vishnugupta or Chanakya we know undoubtedly here although he suggest's oter writer's suggestion.

There are much recent works than Schlingoff's work which discusses these explictly in much detailed analysis , one of them is Roshen Dalal's work in much detailed view describimg Arthashastra in Hinduism an Alphabetical guide(2010):-

"Arthashastra A Sanskrit text, primarily on politics and economics, that has references to religion and deities. It is assigned to Chanakya or Kautilya, the minister of the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta (ruled 321-297 BCE), though some parts are considered to be later.

The Arthashastra has fifteen adhikaranas or large sections, with 180 subdivisions known as prakaranas..

She identifies Kautilya same as Chanakya later as well though she states some parts are considered as late but attribute to Chanakya, the advisor.2409:40E4:1101:49A2:ECE6:A16B:83FA:8FA9 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Strand does not identify Chanakya as Kautilya; on the contrary. The usage of "Kautilya" when rdferring to Chanakya is confusing, but Schlingloff does the same. "Ostensibly" means "in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else" (Cambridge Dictionary).

Regarding Dalal (2010), "It is assigned to Chanakya or Kautilya" - assigned by whom? Scholarship, or tradition? And does Dalal agree with that attribution?

Dalal too is pre-2010, but states "some parts are considered to be later" - considered by whom? To what extent does Dalal ignore Schlingloff, Schalfe and Trautmann. Kankle, Schlinglof, Scharfe, Trautman, Olivelle, and McClish are the relevant authors here - say Olicelle and McClish. Only one of these sources, with the oldest publication date, does not reject the attribution to Chanakya. The other five date the Arthashastra to the first centuries CE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ostesnibly means appearing true but not necessarily ..https://www.google.com/search?q=ostensibly&rlz=1C1JJTC_enIN1138IN1138&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8,

From Collins dictionary-Ostensible is used to describe something that seems to be or is officially stated to be true, but about which you or other people have doubts.

Dalal and other are themselves a scholars, Dalal's work is 2010 not pre and even later date than 2010 as stated provide association of Kautilya with Chanakya. It's not rejected at all or even replaced in mass. There are a tons of ood publication far after 2000s who explictly associated the identification of Kautilya with Mauryan Chanakya.

Needless not to provide all those here..It will be filled 2409:40E4:1104:1389:B07C:8648:9516:E1D9 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between publications in which an analysis is made of the possible dating and authorship of the Arthashastra, and publications which mereley state, in an ambiguous way, without providing references, that the Arthshastra is attributed to Chanakya. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

! but their publication works are indirectly based upon those creful studies or analysis without providing those(we can say) I can recall there were more authors who stated these similar things, can't neglect that. 2409:40E4:1104:1389:BDCD:F6F4:703C:9AF2 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: