Jump to content

Talk:Arthashastra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

arthashastra book vs philosophy

[edit]

i listened to one scholar stating arthashastra has originally seventeen texts, all except one have been lost, when we observe it, the name seems more about science/shastra of artha/ livelihood/sustenance etc than the book. i think that a separate article should be made on arthashastra and this one labelled as book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.72.188 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthashastra on war

[edit]

Arthashastra on war, or similar titles, Arthashastra on military affairs, can be new articles. This single paragraph helps explain why there could and should be a separate article on war:

Kautilya offers wide-ranging and truly fascinating discussions on war and diplomacy, including [...] his willingness to make treaties he knew he would break, his doctrine of silent war or a war of assassination against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, the spread of disinformation, and his humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects. (source:The Journal of Military History)

Also, a simple comparative study shows similarities with The Art of War; this comparison can also be taken up, even in this article and with other texts. DTM (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Arthashastra a written text?

[edit]

If Arthashastra were a written text and was written in BCE the. few questions that need to be answered:

1. Which language it was written originally? 2. How can original work be less popular than its translations? 3. Ever sanskrit been written in any script other than Devnagari? 101.114.64.41 (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP-revert

[edit]

AH#1

[edit]

Regarding this revert, which undid a number of corrections, there are a number of problems. The following changes were made:

  • author = multiple authors; main author Kautilya; later additions and traditions also mention Vishnugupta and Chanakya.{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|pp=1, 34-35}}

was changed into

author = [[Kautilya]] (also known as Vishnugupta and Chanakya)<ref>https://archive.org/details/oxfordconcisedic00iain/page/290/mode/1up?view=theater</ref><ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Artha-shastra</ref><ref>https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_ARTHASHASTRA/3jbzZkoR36QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Chanakya+arthashastra&printsec=frontcover</ref>

This is patently incorrect. The Arthasastra developed in stages, as explained by Trautman (1971) and Olivelle (2013), among others; Kautilya was the main author. Kautilya may be 'popularly known' as Vishnugupta and Chanakya, but that's not exactly correct. It's not clear who this Vishnagupta was, and several theories have been proposed.

  • period= 1st – 3rd century CE{{sfn|Olivelle|2013}}

changed into

period= 3rd century BCE – 3rd century CE

That is, sourced info changed into unsourced unlikely text.

  • Later traditions, starting during the Gupta reign (c. 240–c. 579), who identified themselves with the Mauryas,{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|p=34}} have identified Kautilya with Chanakya (375–283 BCE), the counsellor of Chandragupta Maurya,{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|pp=31-38}} an identification rejected by modern scholarship.{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|pp=1, 34-35}}{{efn-la|name="rejected_identification"}}{{efn-la|name="date"}}

changed into

Later traditions, starting with the Gupta reign (c. 240–c. 579) who identified themselves with the Mauryas,{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|p=34}} have identified Kautilya with Chanakya (375–283 BCE), the counsellor of Chandragupta Maurya,is generally regarded as the author of this treatise, which is however disputed{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|pp=31-38}} by multiple modern scholarship.{{sfn|Olivelle|2013|pp=1, 34-35}}{{efn-la|name="rejected_identification"}}{{efn-la|name="date"}}

  • "during" is better than "with"; the IP undid my own self-correction;
  • Olivelle does not state that 'Chanakya is generally regarded as the author of this treatise'; he explains that this is a misidentification , which probably arouse during the Gupta-times, due to a forgery of the original text;
  • To say that this identification is "disputed" is an understatement; it is outricht rejected, not only by Olivelle, but also by other authors; see; again, the links above to two notes.
  • Addition of

There were several book on this treatise, however, all earlier works have been lost and only Kautilya's text is the oldest surviving which he himself mentions.<ref>https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_ARTHASHASTRA/3jbzZkoR36QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Chanakya+arthashastra&printsec=frontcover</ref>

That's Rangarajan again, who does not state that "There were several book on this treatise," but that there were 'several treatises on the science of artha', which were all lost. That Kautilya's text is the oldest surviving one is correct, but that Kautilya says so is nonsense, of course. I have re-inserted this text in the correct form diff.

The IP doesn't give up; their latest additon diff re-inserted "Kautilya (also known as Vishnugupta and Chanakya)," which is less correct than "several authors" etc. They added Boesche (2003) as a source, who starts with 'Kautilya was the key advisor to Chandragupta'. They also changed, again, "1st c. CE" again to "3rd c. BCE," which is not what Olivelle writes. The IP clearly doesn't care about relevant scholarship, but is pushing an outdated pov. WP:NOTHERE, pinging Doug Weller for assistance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AH#2

[edit]
I am holding for now since you have taken the issue in talk pages which I just noted, however, for the recent edits, I have already showed some of the scholarships that have well taken the consideration of modern scholarship. I don't put that time on Wiki, hence for the reason I did put some bare url .
"This is patently incorrect. The Arthasastra developed in stages, as explained by Trautman (1971) and Olivelle (2013), among others; Kautilya was the main author. Kautilya may be 'popularly known' as Vishnugupta and Chanakya, but that's not exactly correct. It's not clear who this Vishnagupta was, and several theories have been proposed."

According to the established facts as mentioned in those booksThe concise Oxford dictionary of politics, says the same thing, as discussed in the book, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3jbzZkoR36QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+arthashastra&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjM5pKnoKCKAxWgTmwGHU0cJNMQ6AF6BAgIEAI ″? All sources of Indian tradition-Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain-agree that Kautilya (also referred to as Vishnugupta in a stanza traditionally included at the end of the work) destroyed the Nanda dynasty and installed Chandragupta Maurya on the throne of Magadha. The name 'Kautilya' denotes that he is of the kutila gotra; 'Chanakya' shows him to be the son of Chanaka and 'Vishnugupta' was his personal name.. "

The dating kautilya at ca. 300 BC. doesn't start off wrong but tends to show him of that period (Mauryan). To say at the end, Scholar didn't outrightly deny the Arthashastra dating to 300BC rather proposed their hypothesis , it will be better to mention those dates as established one, as said in the journal article "The Date of the Arthaśāstra"https://www.jstor.org/stable/597102"

"" ....What emerges is that there is no necessary incompatibility between the essential claims that Canakya was responsible for the doctrines of the Arthasastra, and that the text we know is a product of the later time. These do not conflict. The work could have been written late on the basis of earlier teachings or writings..."" "A particular passage may be held to be an interpolation if external evidence has already satisfactorily shown that the work as a whole must be of an earlier date than this passage, or if the way in which it appears in the context suggests by itself alien authorship. Both these conditions are lacking in the present cases. There is nothing to prove that the bulk of the text is not an interpolation. Those who favour a later date usually admit the probability that the work draws on traditional material. The controversy is therefore spurious. It is entirely possible that the Mauryan Kautilya wrote an arthasastra and that a later editor rewrote his work, or compressed it, or compiled a text from the teachings of his school."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40e4:3f:100b:dd84:67ee:22dd:8439 (talk • contribs) 11 december 2024 (UTC)

What a mess... Use full titles etc., instead of bare url's. If you "don't put that time on Wiki," then just don't edit. What you call "the established facts" is outdated; those first two sources are from 2003 and 1998. And yes, Olivelle does reject 300 BCE; it's a nonsense date, based on a forgery from the Gupta times. The quote "there is no necessary incompatibility between the essential claims that Canakya was responsible for the doctrines of the Arthasastra, and that the text we know is a product of the later time" is wishfull thinking from a source from 1964. You're completely denying what recent scholarship has to say. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hypothesis wasn't projected out in a recent years by Olivelle, It's a long history; by Trauttman and few others by early-mid 20th century so, yourelying solely on Olivelle, neglecting the publication of those early sources fully is not-understable or pretty useless here. Even the books published in 2008 -A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century (PB)

By Singh Upinder, doesn't neglect: 

 "Although the Arthashastra does have a certain element of unity, it is very likely that there were later interpolations and remouldings. The crux of the problem is: In view of the debate over its age and authorship and its normative nature, how is this text to be used as a source of history? There do not yet seem to be sufficient grounds to abandon the idea that some part of the text was composed in the Maurya period by a person named Kautilya, allowing for later interpolations stretching into the early centuries CE. Since it has some moorings in the Maurya period, the Arthashastra can be used as a source for certain aspects of the period..."

Certainly there are more publication to even recent dates, aside which mentions both.. . Again, Kautilya’s Arthashastra: Strategic Cultural Roots of India’s Contemporary ... By Kajari Kamal 

.. Kautilya's Arthashastra is an ancient Indian theoretical treatise that presents a comprehensive discussion on statecraft. While there is little consensus on the periodization and authorship of the text, a large number of scholars believe that the compositional history of the text dates back to the Mauryan period (321 BCE-185 BCE), with later redactions and interpolations stretching up to the early centuries CE. Kautilya is also identified as Chanakya, the minister of Changragupta Maurya (321-296 BCE)..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:3F:100B:DD84:67EE:22DD:8439 (talk • contribs) 11 december 2024 (UTC)

Olivelle (2013) is indeed more recent than the publications you're referring to; that's what "outdated" means. Singh's comment "There do not yet seem to be sufficient grounds to abandon the idea that some part of the text was composed in the Maurya period by a person named Kautilya" is from 2008, predating Olivelle, so: outdated. Kamal's book is not an analysis of the text of the Arthashastra, but an application to another field. His statement on the dating is unsourced, but he does refer to Olivelle, which means that he completely ignores Olivelle's research. You may be right that many people still think that the Arthashastra was written by Chanakya, but it does not mean the're right; it means they're ignorant of the relevant literature. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about outdated sources? Even after being clarified by Avantiputra7 [1] that Tarn 1922 is outdated, you went ahead and literally inserted it everywhere as one of the primary sources for the Chandragupta and Maurya pages. Also, this is not how "outdated" works—context matters. In Tarn's case, it was outdated because no additional edicts were discovered. Here, that logic doesn't apply. Olivelle's hypothesis is not empirical evidence (Also the hypothesis wasn't projected out in recent years by Olivelle as stated above). A study done, for example, in 2005 does not automatically replace or outshine a study done on the same subject in, say, 1992 unless serious refutations or irrefutable new evidence is obtained. I have also noticed you neglect Olivelle in favor of other scholars on different pages when Olivelle doesn’t suit your narrative. It’s shocking how you edit. And you have the audacity to feel proud that chatgpt uses your edits. shocking! 103.92.120.14 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Outdated" because those Afgan inscriptions were not discovered yet. Yet, contemporary scholarship has raised questions what the presence of those inscriptions actually mean: full control, or some kind of maximum contact. And Smith, often referred to by more recent authors, draws more or less the same western line. So, that's quite different from sticking to a point of view which neglects Trautmann and Olivelle, sticking to a narrative that suits Indian nationalism, as we see here again and again and agagain, ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has the right to remove viewpoints or studies they think might bolster some kind of nationalist tendencies. Just because you hate Indian nationalism, that is not a solid ground to suppress others' viewpoints (or, in your case, completely eliminate them) and promote only one side. It's immoral. This tendency is actually called fascism, which you associate with nationalism. I’m not going to give you a lecture on the types, forms, and differences between various nationalisms, but one thing I will say is this: please try to achieve a neutral(shunya) mindset. It's beautiful. But maybe i am hoping for too much. Good day! 2409:40C1:25:D954:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marika Vicziany, Jayant Bhalchandra Bapat (2024), South Asian Goddesses and the Natural Environment, p.8, writing about a post-Mauryan dating with Gupta-influences, referring to Olivelle and Trautman: "This rough estimate of the date of the Arthashastra is broadly agreed on despite debates about its precise composition." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does it mean Olivelle is completely right just because he has his perspective ,as I already discussed earlier he isn't omniscient and prone to question, Relying solely on just Patrick Olivelle besides the fact there a large number of scholars who believe The text was written by Chanakya in Mauryan period, doesn't seem right to it.

For ex. Intelligence Elsewhere: Spies and Espionage Outside the Anglosphere Book by Philip Davies on pg. 51 

""..empire to consolidate the lion's share of the subcontinent under its third ruler, Ashoka the Great. Kautilya, also known in various contexts as Vishnugupta and more commonly Chanakya, supposedly mentored Chandragupta in establishing the empire, then subsequently served as his prime minister. The Arthashastra, which means roughly "science [shastra] of politics [artha]," was one of three texts attributed to Kautilya as manuals for Chandragupta and his successors on the conduct of government and the economy. The other texts..″″

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:3F:100B:DD84:67EE:22DD:8439 (talk • contribs) 11 december 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence Elsewhere: Spies and Espionage Outside the Anglosphere, a book from 2013, serious? Please find books which actually engage with Trautmann and Olivelle, instead of showing how this outdated notion of 300 BCE is mindlessly repeated again and again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Singh (2008), this what he later wrote:
  • Singh 2021, p. Chapter 1: "Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a brilliant treatise on statecraft which discusses how a king can acquire, maintain, and enhance his power. At one time, it was thought to belong to the Maurya period, but recent research suggests a later period of composition, between c. 50 and 300 CE."
  • Singh 2017, p. 98: "Patrick Olivelle has suggested that while the prehistory of the work may go back to the mid-first century BCE, the first major redacton was composed between circa 50 and 125 CE, and the second one between circa 175 and 300 CE. In view of the continuing debate over its age, it is best to treat the Arthashatra as a text whose composition ranged over several centuries, before and after the turn of the millennium. ... When I refer to "Kautilya," I use the name as a short-hand for the various authors (including , probably, one named Kautilya) who must have contributed to creating the text that has come down to us."
See Mauryan Empire, note on the Arthashastra, already given before for full reference. So, Singh obviously did find "sufficient grounds" to change his opinion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't a clue about this. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arthashastra by Chanakya (Kautilya): New Modern Edition by Jeff McNeill https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZfOBDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s, mentions both of them,

"Possibly the strongest scholarship and the basis for modern translations is R. P. Kangle's three volume work publshed in 1961-1965. The heavily edited and reorganized abridged version translated by L. N. Rangarajan's is possibly the most commonly known version. Patrick Olivelle's is the most recent." While he discussed Olivelle and Trauttman and others, he dates something around 300bc 

"Arthashastra was ostensibly written around 300 BCE which puts this work 200 years after Confucius and Sun Tzu in China, and 1,800 years before Machiavelli in modern day Italy.″

Also not to mention, Trauttman has been even discussed earlier and the view was not accepted by many including Rangrajan and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40e4:1105:c8e2:ad5b:4ae0:db30:5ad4 (talk • contribs) 12 december 2024 (UTC)

Who's Jeff McNeill, and why does he use 300 BCE? Amazon: "Jeff Mcneill is a translator and publisher, specializing in classic literature, language, and culture." Education, credentials? He also translated "The Little Prince." 300 BCE: no reference given. Maybe he relies on Boesche (2003)? McNeill: "Olivelle's is an exceptional edition." McNeill's edition is a simplified, non-scholarly edition; it isn't even indexed by Google Scholar. To compare: Olivelle (2013) is cited 316 times. Non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: preface to Rangarajan (1988): "This translation is made by a political economist." He does comment on Trautmann's work, but does not give any concrete argument when rejecting it: "the exercise stands on flimsy theoretical grounds," without giving concrete arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably because Olivelle dating hasn't been convincing enough to shift the date to other than Mauryan period, which is widely .....LN Rangarajan is anyway, important scholar in the Arthashastra context and is well known and published by The Penguin , and university of California press, and others. Nonetheless, the important part is that he didn't reject that date even though he mentioned that "some scholar has expressed the doubts about the authorship of what we now know as Kautilya's Arthashastra and the date of its composition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:AD5B:4AE0:DB30:5AD4 (talk • contribs) 12 december 2024 (UTC)
PS2: K.S. Padhy (2011), Indian Political Thought, p.32: "Kautilya, the greatest authority on science of polity, was, to some, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta. But this view is rejected by many historians and critics like H. Jacobi, E.J. Johnston and T. Burrow. To them, Kautily, the author of Arthashastra, and Chanaky, the prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Maurya dynasty, were two different persons [...] nowhere was it stated in these earlier works that Chanakya was the author of the Arthashastra [...] two different persons who not only lived in different regions of the country, but also with a gap of five hundred years."
Marc McClish (2019), The History of the Arthashastra, Cambridge University Press, chapter six: "This chapter presents an argument that the Arthaśāstra, which was probably originally called the Daṇḍanīti, was composed around the first century BCE and redacted by Kauṭilya around the third century CE."
McClish, p. 151: "We must look elsewhere to establish the date of the Dandanīti. Our best hope comes not from assumptions about its political context, but from archeology and textual witnesses.53 Sylvain Lévi noted a reference in the text to a variety of coral called ālakandaka, meaning coral originating from Egyptian Alexandria.54 References to ornamental coral do not begin to appear in Indic literature until the early centuries of the Common Era.55 Archaeological studies suggest that trade in Alexandrian coral to India began at the end of the second century BCE, being conducted in earnest by the early decades of the first century BCE.56 The reference to ālakandaka comes in a passage that I have deemed to be original to the Dandanīti (KAŚ 2.11.42). This would mean that it cannot have been composed before about the second century BCE at the earliest, and points to the first century CE as a more likely lower limit.57"
Available via the Wikipedia Library; I'll read it further. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have read part of McClish paper, just like Olivelle , he has his own hypothesis and opinions, however there is still no consensus and between 1950s and 2012, especially Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World one more source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/kautilya-foreign-policy-and-international-system-in-the-ancient-hindu-world/420394317B9D9C4C04E6C031DD72CC39 here states:
The authorship of the Arthasastra has been a subject of debate among Indologists.' However, no proof having been established that Chanakya Kautilya did not write it, little is to be gained here from pursuing the controversy. If he is accepted as the author, the work itself may be dated at about 300 B.C. Also don't think, there are any more consensus work on Olivelle published paper. 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:AD5B:4AE0:DB30:5AD4 (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite there are more recent sources who attributed Arthshastra to Kautilya or Chanakya 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:AD5B:4AE0:DB30:5AD4 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For mention, even here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09700161.2013.847135, he writer while reviewing the author does only mentions, "..The Arthasastra is an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy. In the book, the author identifies Kautilya and Viṣhṇugupta, names traditionally synonymous with a certain Chaṇakya (c. 350–283 BC). Chaṇakya was a teacher at the Takshashila..″

AH#3

[edit]

Propose the following edit to current in certain Part, as follows :-

The Arthashastra (Sanskrit: अर्थशास्त्रम्, IAST: Arthaśāstram; transl. Economics) is an Ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, politics, economic policy and military strategy. The text is typically credited to Chanakya or Kautilya , who has been associated with the advisory of Chandragupta Maurya in the Mouryan Empire.[1] [2][3][4] Though some recent scholarship considers this to be post-Gupta date and likely the work of several authors over centuries and composed, expanded and redacted in the 2nd c.BC to 3rd CE.[5]

References

  1. ^ Dalal, Roshen (2014-04-18). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin UK. ISBN 9788184752779.
  2. ^ McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair (2003-10-23). "The concise Oxford dictionary of politics".
  3. ^ "Arthshastra".
  4. ^ Boesche, Roger (2003-01-30). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington. p. 8. ISBN 9780739106075.
  5. ^ Olivelle 2013.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:AD5B:4AE0:DB30:5AD4 (talk • contribs) 12 december 2024 (UTC)

If he is accepted as the author, the work itself may be dated at about 300 B.C. - that's precisely what Olivelle writes (I'll add the exact quote later): because of the traditional association with Chanakya, scholars have tended to date the Arthashastra to ca. 300 BCE. Yet, Olivelle, like other authors, notes inconsistencies. For example, the text forbids the construction of defense-works with wood - yet, Pataliputra was surrounded witha wooden pallisade... And Olivelle also points to the mention of choral, which was imported - starting in the 2nd century BCE.... So, a Mauryan origin is impossible.
Regarding the author identifies Kautilya and Viṣhṇugupta, names traditionally synonymous with a certain Chaṇakya (c. 350–283 BC), that's quite different from The text is typically credited to Chanakya or Kautilya , who has been associated with the advisory of Chandragupta Maurya in the Mouryan Empire. The text is traditionally attributed to Chanakya, a name not mentioned in the text itself. Your proposal is poorly formulated, and does not explain why it is associated with Chanakya, nor when this association developed. And it is not "some scholarship"; it is scholarship by accomplished scholars, published by highly reputed publishers. And that the text was developed by multiple authors is not even a recent notion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, these types of detailed discussions and arguments are what I truly appreciate. Yes, your point of view is perfectly valid, and there is a general consensus that there are inconsistencies in the Arthashastra. However, I would argue that it still does not outright reject the possibility of some initial Mauryan tradition (perhaps oral? It was quite common in Indian traditions).
We should treat the Arthashastra as a general guideline rather than a fixed "word of God" that had to be followed during that time, or else everyone would face dire consequences. It is a vast piece of literature that covers various aspects beyond just military strategy. Many of its teachings are not region-specific like other ancient works but rather universal. For instance, in the case you mentioned above, maybe the empire lacked sufficient access to certain resources, so wood was used as a substitute in Pataliputra at a certain point in time. Or perhaps that part of the text is simply a later interpolation by the Guptas.
That said, we should also consider the possibility that great minds don’t necessarily limit themselves to only the resources readily available around them for formulating optimal strategies. The presence or import of resources and their dates are also speculative. But these are also my own speculations, no different from those of "highly reputed" scholars who are also without any proper evidence and keep citing each others speculation to furthur their own speculation.
Also, let’s give scholars with different (not necessarily opposing) viewpoints some credit. Many of them are also highly reputed (though "reputation" itself is subjective). Anyways, the current lead isn’t bad, although it focuses more on giving credit to multiple authors rather than just one Kautilya (who may or may not be the Mauryan Chanakya but still after all those studies is widely considered to be the main author). The reliance on dating, especially Olivelle’s hypothesis, should not be taken too heavily.
Maybe the person(ip) you’re engaged with in this thread will come up with something satisfactory. Otherwise, continue what you’re doing—you are largely unopposed by any editor or admin of consequence. Good for you. 2409:40C1:25:D954:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if scholars see inconsistencies does only means a Parr of them to be interpolate or a later edition, isnt diminishing the original point of view, very much the other sources that I saw you mention very much of it.
The text very much associates himself from the one who rescued people from nanda kings, as an advisory of Chandragupta though. 2409:40E4:1105:C8E2:B1A3:CC92:C8B4:B3CE (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthashastra&oldid=1264689567"