What's new

Exploring India

An interesting reaction. In my view, universities were a Buddhism phenomenon, not Hindu. I cannot think of a Hindu university. This is not a studied or informed response; anybody with facts to the contrary is welcome to cite those.

I want to correct this skewed view...Takṣasila (Taxila) one of the oldest universities in the world and India was a Hindu University. Kautilya (Chanakya of Arthashastra fame) a Brahmin was already a teacher in Taksasila university when he trained Chandragupta Maurya.

Charka, father of Ayurveda studied in Taksasila and even taught there. Each of his student published their own Samhita out of which Agnivesha Tantra taught by Rishi Bharadwaja was revised by Charka in Taksasila to be now know as Charaka Samhita and was taught in Taksasila.

Charaka Samhita was later used as teaching text in Nalanda University. Taksasila became Buddhist only during the reign of Emperor Ashoka. It is not hard to imagine other universities of those age would have turned Buddhist under the patronage of one of the most powerful Emperor Indian had seen.
 
. .
@KRAIT do you really think Aliens are myth? i given majority of evidence.... Why didnt you debunk it? Just because world goverment tells a lie doesnt mean Aliens are Myth.... i can ask u few questions which i bet you cant answer.... But it aint worth it.... i done giving all evidences. From today No more explaining to people whose 3rd eye and brain is blocked....
@curioususer that goes for u too.... From now on i wont reply to any people who here to make fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
whats the purpose of thread ?
To know more about our country, culture, history from ancient times, influence of India in other countries and vice versa, and a comprehensive collection of information for people who are interested in India.

I have learnt so many things in few days because of knowledge of people that all poured in here. Read the posts of our Chinese friends and you will see the commonality which neither of us knew, most of the people.
 
.
@KRAIT do you really think Aliens are myth? i given majority of evidence.... Why didnt you debunk it? Just because world goverment tells a lie doesnt mean Aliens are Myth.... i can ask u few questions which i bet you cant answer.... But it aint worth it.... i done giving all evidences. From today No more explaining to people whose 3rd eye and brain is blocked....
@curioususer that goes for u too.... From now on i wont reply to any people who here to make fun.

Where have I made fun of you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Can you expand on that ? .......or even point me in the right direction...

Is this still a question? I ask because even a preliminary reply is likely to take time and be of some length.

An historian would look at the dates relevant to Hindu philosophical development, and the dates of the Buddha and the development of his philosophy, and would cautiously conclude that their period of efflorescence were both in the same period, the 5th to the 9th century AD; an anthropologist would consider the social and cultural conditions of Indian society at the time, and point - smugly - to the common matrix from which both sprang; someone mildly familiar with the term 'yoga' would feel puzzled that there was any controversy, since systems of philosophy belonging to both religions use the term, and apparently use it in the same context; another person deeper conversant with the philosophy and practice of yoga in both religions would be alarmed at this superficial identification, and point urgently to the radical differences between the conception of both sides; a student of comparative religion would look at the basic concepts of the two faith systems and find irreconcilable differences, differences first enunciated by the Buddha himself; but the final word would belong to the philosopher, even more, to the student of the differentiated philosophy of the two religions.
 
.
I want to correct this skewed view...Takṣasila (Taxila) one of the oldest universities in the world and India was a Hindu University. Kautilya (Chanakya of Arthashastra fame) a Brahmin was already a teacher in Taksasila university when he trained Chandragupta Maurya.

Charka, father of Ayurveda studied in Taksasila and even taught there. Each of his student published their own Samhita out of which Agnivesha Tantra taught by Rishi Bharadwaja was revised by Charka in Taksasila to be now know as Charaka Samhita and was taugh,t in

.....'so little is known about what went on there. There is doubt even that there was a physical focus to the learning that went on there. It is possible that scholars and learned men were found there in abnormal numbers, and aspiring students went there from all over to learn. However, what is really dubious and questionable is the association of famous names from legend with this legend of a university.

Chanakya, for instance. There are literary references in four places of his role as Chandragupta's advisor. These are not historically proven, although cited by many texts as the best possible information that we have about the reign and the circumstances of coming to power of Chandragupta Maurya. There is no evidence that the Arthasastra was composed by him.

One can go on.

There is no evidence of historical worth about Charaka having taught at Takshashila, other than an overheated account by Radhakumud Mukherjee, in his books on education in early India and on Ashoka and his times, followed by another author, little known by himself, who makes similar claims. The following is dead flat wrong:

Charka, father of Ayurveda studied in Taksasila and even taught there. Each of his student published their own Samhita out of which Agnivesha Tantra taught by Rishi Bharadwaja was revised by Charka in Taksasila to be now know as Charaka Samhita and was taught in Taksasila.

Most of these claims go back to literary references which are obscure and difficult to interpret. A news report that Amartya Sen delivered a lecture at Kolkata need not go on to prove that he was an eminent teacher of economics at Kolkata University.
 
.
... 'so little is known about what went on there. There is doubt even that there was a physical focus to the learning that went on there. It is possible that scholars and learned men were found there in abnormal numbers, and aspiring students went there from all over to learn. However, what is really dubious and questionable is the association of famous names from legend with this legend of a university.

Chanakya, for instance. There are literary references in four places of his role as Chandragupta's advisor. These are not historically proven, although cited by many texts as the best possible information that we have about the reign and the circumstances of coming to power of Chandragupta Maurya. There is no evidence that the Arthasastra was composed by him.

One can continue to insinuate all this is legend and not facts. But truth is those 4 independent references does speak about Chanakya-Chandragupta story and also places chanakya as an Acharya (Teacher) in Taksashila during rule of Hindu Nanda Empire.

Those text also mention the following:
Chankya came from magadha to Takshila university along with one reference letter as well as 50 gold coins after death of his father.
He was one of excellent student in that university and that he spent 10 years in that university.
Chankya has three close friends in that university.
1. Siharan belongs to Mallapriya kingdom
2. Mehar belongs to persia.
3. Saranga Rao distinction student in that university.

Arthashastra mentions its author who’s gotra name is Kautilya and personal name is Vishnu Gupta. Worst insinuation against him is that Arthashastra is not an original work but is a compilation of texts of those age and edited by Kautilya. Now if you are going to tell us the Chankya was not Kautilya then it’s a whole new ball game.


There is no evidence of historical worth about Charaka having taught at Takshashila, other than an overheated account by Radhakumud Mukherjee, in his books on education in early India and on Ashoka and his times, followed by another author, little known by himself, who makes similar claims.

Most of these claims go back to literary references which are obscure and difficult to interpret.

History puts 4 distinguished Hindus in Taksashila, Panini (famous Sanskrit grammarian), Kautilya (Chanakya), Chandragupta Maurya and Charaka (Ayurveda).

You choose to believe these are fake legends and Taksashila was a Buddhist institution even though it was built 100 years before Buddha was born, and existed in a 4000 year old Hindu civilization. To each to his own.
 
.
An historian would look at the dates relevant to Hindu philosophical development, and the dates of the Buddha and the development of his philosophy, and would cautiously conclude that their period of efflorescence were both in the same period, the 5th to the 9th century AD;

This is absurd. Two Brahmanas i.e. Aitareya and Kausitaki itself is dated between 900 -700 BC. i.e. almost a 1000 years before the date you gave for development philosophy in Buddhism. Aranyakas which deals with metaphysical questions is dated 600 BC. The Satapatha Brahamana which spoke of reincarnation and Atmavidya Upanishad that dealt with similar metaphysical questions is also dated between 900-600 BC.


..... an anthropologist would consider the social and cultural conditions of Indian society at the time, and point - smugly - to the common matrix from which both sprang; someone mildly familiar with the term 'yoga' would feel puzzled that there was any controversy, since systems of philosophy belonging to both religions use the term, and apparently use it in the same context; another person deeper conversant with the philosophy and practice of yoga in both religions would be alarmed at this superficial identification, and point urgently to the radical differences between the conception of both sides; a student of comparative religion would look at the basic concepts of the two faith systems and find irreconcilable differences, differences first enunciated by the Buddha himself; but the final word would belong to the philosopher, even more, to the student of the differentiated philosophy of the two religions.

I am sorry, but this kind of baseless insinuation is not acceptable.

I appreciate the effort you took to reply to me and I thank you for it. I withdraw my earlier question seeking directions from you.
 
.
One can continue to insinuate all this is legend and not facts. But truth is those 4 independent references does speak about Chanakya-Chandragupta story and also places chanakya as an Acharya (Teacher) in Taksashila during rule of Hindu Nanda Empire.

Those text also mention the following:
Chankya came from magadha to Takshila university along with one reference letter as well as 50 gold coins after death of his father.
He was one of excellent student in that university and that he spent 10 years in that university.
Chankya has three close friends in that university.
1. Siharan belongs to Mallapriya kingdom
2. Mehar belongs to persia.
3. Saranga Rao distinction student in that university.

Arthashastra mentions its author who’s gotra name is Kautilya and personal name is Vishnu Gupta. Worst insinuation against him is that Arthashastra is not an original work but is a compilation of texts of those age and edited by Kautilya. Now if you are going to tell us the Chankya was not Kautilya then it’s a whole new ball game.

Now, now, we mustn't get hysterical.

There is no question of insinuation. There is not a single historical record. Not one. If you have ne to cite, please do so.

You are evidently citing the four distinct references listed in Wikipedia, which says the following:


There is little purely historical information about Chanakya: most of it comes from semi-legendary accounts. Thomas R. Trautmann identifies four distinct accounts of the ancient Chankya-Chandragupta katha (legend):

Version of the legend Example texts

Buddhist version Mahavamsa and its comentary (Pali language)
Jain version Vamsatthappakasini, found in Parisistaparvan by Hemachandra
Kashmiri version Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva, Brihat-Katha-Manjari by Ksemendra
Vishakhadatta's version Mudrarakshasa, a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta

The following elements are common to these legends:
The King Dhana Nanda insults Chanakya, prompting Chanakya to swear revenge and destroy the Nanda Empire.
Chanakya searches for one worthy successor to the Nanda and finds the young Chandragupta Maurya.
With the help of some allies, Chanakya and Chandragupta bring down the Nanda empire, often using manipulative and secretive means.

If this is history to you, no doubt in a future reference, you will not find it difficult to cite the TV serial and its bizarre narrative. But such accounts, indirect references in plays and religious books, do not count towards historical evidence, except when we seek to glorify one aspect of India and put it on a pedestal above the others. The detailed circumstances that you quote so credulously have as little basis as the original reference.

And you apparently are familiar with the weaknesses of the historical narrative about Chanakya, and that there is not a single reference in contemporary accounts, or by himself, to the identity of Chanakya with the author of the Arthashastra, who calls himself Kautilya, elsewhere Vishnugupta. If he was Chanakya, why would he not say so?

History puts 4 distinguished Hindus in Taksashila, Panini (famous Sanskrit grammarian), Kautilya (Chanakya), Chandragupta Maurya and Charaka (Ayurveda).

History does no such thing. There is no record of Panini having taught at Takshasila, and he was among the first residents of Takshasila, which was a camp, then a trding centre, then a town and a city long before it hosted a university. The references to Kautilya do not exist, and I am glad that you had the decency to place Chanakya in brackets after Kautilya, since there are those four references to Chanakya and none to Kautilya.

Chandragupta Maurya was never a student at Takshasila, except in this concocted account that you seem to have made up on the fly; at best, they met each other there.

Charaka may or may not have resided at Takshasila, leave alone taught there. There is not a shred of evidence that he either lived there or taught there, although there is information about his work, disconnected from any place.

You choose to believe these are fake legends and Taksashila was a Buddhist institution even though it was built 100 years before Buddha was born, and existed in a 4000 year old Hindu civilization. To each to his own.

I never said that Takshashila was a Buddhist institution from the outset. You seem to be confused about Takshasila the town and Takshasila the supposed university. The town is ancient, and we know from hearsay, not from historical evidence, that Panini may have lived there.

Or he may not. Xuan Zang reports that a statue of him stood in his birthplace, Pushkalavati, and we may hope that even propagandists know that Pushkalavati is not Takshasila. Panini's dates vary; in the absence of concrete information, we have to speculate about his dates. These may have been the later part of the sixth century BC, which puts him roughly contemporary with the Buddha; on the other hand, he may have lived as late as the fifth century BC.

Takshasila itself may have been later than either Panini or the Buddha. It is difficult to decipher your reference to the town being built one hundred years before the Buddha. How does a place dated to the 5th century BC precede a religious figure dated the 6th century BC? Except to those who have forgotten that in this form of dating, the 6th century is older than the 5th century.

So you see, there is nothing to prevent Takshasila from having been Buddhist from the inception. I neither said so, nor do I think so; you just concocted that bit for popular effect, and I am glad you did, so that other readers can evaluate the quality of your inputs. As it happens, I do not think that there was any Buddhist influence in that institution until the time of the Kushans, whom the Chinese called the Yueh Chi, and who ruled those parts long after the Mauryas.

The reference to a 4000 year old Hindu civilization is baffling; how is it relevant, other than as a roll of the drums?
 
.
This is absurd. Two Brahmanas i.e. Aitareya and Kausitaki itself is dated between 900 -700 BC. i.e. almost a 1000 years before the date you gave for development philosophy in Buddhism. Aranyakas which deals with metaphysical questions is dated 600 BC. The Satapatha Brahamana which spoke of reincarnation and Atmavidya Upanishad that dealt with similar metaphysical questions is also dated between 900-600 BC.

LOL.

Running out of apoplectics, are we? For starters, you evidently suffer from the tendency to push things back a couple of centuries which is a tendency engrained in a nation of clerks and government servants whose productive lives were governed strictly by their own dates. You mentioned the Aitareya and the Kaushitaki; where is your source for the dates you have mentioned?

It is alleged that the Aitareya, Taittiriya, Kausitaki, Mundaka, Prasna, and Katha Upanishads show Buddha's influence, and must have been composed after the 5th century BCE, but it could just as easily have been the other way around. It is also alleged that in the first two centuries A.D., they were followed by the Kena, Mandukya and Isa Upanishads





I am sorry, but this kind of baseless insinuation is not acceptable.

What baseless insinuation was that? The thought that you were putting up baseless assertions?

I appreciate the effort you took to reply to me and I thank you for it. I withdraw my earlier question seeking directions from you.

Ah, the facts as they emerge do not please.

Facts often do not.
 
.
@Joe Shearer: This is what your said “There are literary references in four places of his role as Chandragupta's advisor”

Kindly spell out those literary references that places Chnakya as chandragupta’s advisor, unless of course you are free to insinuate and are not required to provide any authenticated references.

Your condescending attitude to gain credibility is funny. You build a classic straw man argument by again insinuating wiki and further go on to insinuate my ‘future’ belief if TV serials. It’s frankly disgusting.

In absence of historical text, Mudrarakshasa based on Buddhist text Mahanamthero is also acceptable evidence. Similarity between Chanakya Niti sastra, Chanakya Sutra and Artha Shastra is another reason why Chanakya is considered same as Kautilya. And yes, I would give credence to even such ancient records and tradition where chanakya is identified with Kautilya. It is also possible chanakya and Kautilya were different people living in different age.

Again you choose to believe Panini, who lived near Takshashila, had nothing to do with the Takshashila university. I choose to believe otherwise.

Taksashila had other famous Alumni as well, Jyotipal the commander of armed forces of the king of Varanasi, the physician Jeevak of King Bimbisar, Prasannajeet king of the state of Kaushal. Jeevak was also the physician for Gautama Buddha …putting Taksashila university in a time before Buddha.

LOL.
Running out of apoplectics, are we? For starters, you evidently suffer from the tendency to push things back a couple of centuries which is a tendency engrained in a nation of clerks and government servants whose productive lives were governed strictly by their own dates. You mentioned the Aitareya and the Kaushitaki; where is your source for the dates you have mentioned?

What baseless insinuation was that? The thought that you were putting up baseless assertions?
Ah, the facts as they emerge do not please.
Facts often do not.

LOL back at you ....you can start by giving evidence of what your have stated before asking for some. You can start to reclaim your credibility by those proofs before claiming to be different from "citizen of a nation of clerks and government servants whose productive lives were governed strictly by their own dates".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
To know more about our country, culture, history from ancient times, influence of India in other countries and vice versa, and a comprehensive collection of information for people who are interested in India.

I have learnt so many things in few days because of knowledge of people that all poured in here. Read the posts of our Chinese friends and you will see the commonality which neither of us knew, most of the people.

You are correct, we need more threads that promote understanding between people instead of fighting and trolling. I enjoy going through this thread. Thanks also for being a reasonable voice from India.
 
.
If you trace back the journey Siddhartha took to become Buddha we can see how he visited the Hindu religious places in search of knowledge. (..not surprising since he was a hindu)

Banaras (Varanasi) was then and even today one of the most renowned seats of religious learning in India.

buddha_pilgrimage_3.GIF
 
.
@Joe Shearer: This is what your said “There are literary references in four places of his role as Chandragupta's advisor”

Kindly spell out those literary references that places Chnakya as chandragupta’s advisor, unless of course you are free to insinuate and are not required to provide any authenticated references.

Oh, certainly. They are the same four that you yourself cited, after I mentioned them in my own post.

The difference is that these are not authenticated references, which is why I referred to them as literary references, not as historical references.

Clearly, you neither know nor understand the difference.


Your condescending attitude to gain credibility is funny. You build a classic straw man argument by again insinuating wiki and further go on to insinuate my ‘future’ belief if TV serials. It’s frankly disgusting.

Why? If you quote a reference in Mudrarakshasa, what stops you from citing the TV serial next?

In absence of historical text, Mudrarakshasa based on Buddhist text Mahanamthero is also acceptable evidence.

Oh? Based on your decision to change how an entire discipline views its sources and authorities? When do you propose to introduce the Ramayana as an history text?

Similarity between Chanakya Niti sastra, Chanakya Sutra and Artha Shastra is another reason why Chanakya is considered same as Kautilya.

If you are happy to jump to such conclusions based on 'similarities' that you detect, and perhaps on the identification made in the Panchatantra, all the best to you. I doubt that this decision of yours will cause any earthquakes in academic circles, to be quite honest. You are aware that the disconnect between Kautilya and Chanakya has been established, and that the Chanakya Niti Shastra is of doubtful provenance.


And yes, I would give credence to even such ancient records and tradition where chanakya is identified with Kautilya. It is also possible chanakya and Kautilya were different people living in different age.

I quite understand and deeply sympathize. You will, then, use either contradictory position depending on your need of the moment. Very sound.

Again you choose to believe Panini, who lived near Takshashila, had nothing to do with the Takshashila university. I choose to believe otherwise.

When we know he lived in Pushkalavati, why are we dragging him off to Takshashila? On what authority?

Taksashila had other famous Alumni as well, Jyotipal the commander of armed forces of the king of Varanasi, the physician Jeevak of King Bimbisar, Prasannajeet king of the state of Kaushal. Jeevak was also the physician for Gautama Buddha …putting Taksashila university in a time before Buddha.

If they were contemporaneous, that need not be a given. It is clear that you are conflating the town and the university.

LOL back at you ....you can start by giving evidence of what your have stated before asking for some. You can start to reclaim your credibility by those proofs before claiming to be different from "citizen of a nation of clerks and government servants whose productive lives were governed strictly by their own dates".

Unlike others, I am not a hedge scholar. After years spent in business management, I am now back in academics, serving as Dean of Humanities at a university. You will agree that it gives me some credibility in academic matters.

And in case your annoyance and irritation have completely overwhelmed you, you might care to remember that I stated that most of your claims had no foundation.

It is difficult to understand how you wish me to substantiate, or prove, that your statements have no foundations. How do I prove the absence of something other than by pointing to the absence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom