CS Che @CheSunkara

@DrDavidMiano I understand your eagerness to claim India as your forefathers or your paymasters fiefdom. You are not welcome......

@tathvamasi6 Source of this. Please

@kirubaakaran @TVMohandasPai Congratulations ......

@sacredbharat_ @grok what book is this

@IndoKatholic Dear Ex Hindu. How many Hindu scriptures have you read to conclude that Hinduism is stupid. Dear Neo Catholic. You are disrespecting fellow religionists like Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Hans Peter Durr etc.

@thefynprint That's confusing.

@Jijith_NR Please do write a separate book on this topic.

@Jijith_NR @devduttmyth Mr Distortionist. Is this also myth.

Deep Evidence for Chanakya! Recently Devdutt Pattanaik created a storm questioning the existence of Chanakya! Devdutt Pattanaik’s core claim is simple: Chanakya never existed. According to him, “Kautilya,” “Chanakya,” and “Viśnugupta” are three unrelated figures fused together by later Brahmin writers; the Arthaśāstra is a much later text (post-Gupta or even 500 CE); and the entire story of Chanakya overthrowing the Nandas is a retrospective Brahminical invention. As part of this, he repeatedly questions or trivialises Chandragupta Maurya’s historicity! He insinuates that the Mauryan period is exaggerated or misunderstood, and treats the entire Mauryan political revolution as myth rather than documented history. While this author doesn't mind scrutiny of ancient figures, his argument hinges on multiplying names, alleging interpolations, and late-dating the Arthaśāstra in order to detach it from the Mauryan period and declare Chanakya a myth. This is problematic for every student of history. The evidence for Chanakya, however, is sufficient and span across traditions. The Arthaśāstra itself names its author repeatedly as Viśnugupta Kautilya, reflecting the standard ancient Indian practice of using a personal name, a gotra/scholarly name, and a patronymic for the same individual - precisely how Chanakya, Kautilya, and Viśnugupta function across the textual record. The administrative system described in Ashoka’s 3rd-century BCE edicts — Mahāmātras, welfare oversight, judicial ethics, regulated slaughter, and civil administration — aligns so closely with the Arthaśāstra that the Mauryan state could not have been built on its framework unless the treatise predated Ashoka by at least a century, placing Kautilya exactly in the time of Chandragupta. The Spitzer Manuscript (1st–2nd century CE), the oldest extant Samskrit manuscript, contains unambiguous references to the Arthaśāstra and was discovered in a Buddhist monastery in Kizil, Xinjiang, demonstrating that Buddhists studied the text centuries before Devdutt’s proposed date and far from any Brahminical environment — an impossibility if it were a late Brahmin invention. The 4th-century CE Buddhist political manual Kāmāndakīya Nītiśāra explicitly identifies Viśnugupta/Kautilya, author of the Arthaśāstra, as the same strategist who destroyed the Nandas and installed Chandragupta Maurya, providing a direct link between the textual author and the historical kingmaker. Independent traditions across the subcontinent — Buddhist (Mahāvaṃsa, Divyāvadāna), Jain (Nisītha Cūrṇi, Pariśiṣṭaparvan), Hindu and Gupta-era literature (Mudrārākṣasa), and Kashmiri narrative sources (Tantrākhyāyika) — all preserve the same storyline: a Brahmin strategist named Chanakya/Kautilya guiding Chandragupta to overthrow the Nandas. These traditions were often rivals and frequently hostile to Brahmin authority, which makes their unanimous agreement impossible to explain as coordinated propaganda. Even the linguistic objections collapse: “Cina” in the Arthaśāstra refers to the Himalayan Śina region, located by this author adjacent to Ladakh, not Han China. The presence of later interpolations like Roman Dīnāras is no different from the interpolations known in Homer or the Pentateuch, none of which erase authorial identity. When thousands of years of Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, and political-literary traditions independently attest to the same personality performing the same historical actions under the same set of names, we are not dealing with myth-making but with historical convergence of the highest evidentiary value. Chandragupta Maurya’s historicity is in fact far better attested than many ancient kings whom Devdutt never questions. Greek, Roman, Buddhist, and Jain sources independently record his life, reign, and empire. Greek ambassadors like Megasthenes, writing in the 3rd century BCE.

If Chanakya were here, Devdutt’s fantasies would last about as long as the kūśa grass he ripped out when he vowed to destroy the Nandas. Devdutt’s entire thesis rests on one illusion: if he can confuse you with multiple names, shout “interpolation!” a few times, and wrap it in modern caste-politics, maybe just maybe, he can make 1,000 years of evidence of Chanakya’s existence disappear. But the moment you actually look at the sources, his narrative collapses flat. Let’s start with where he doesn’t want you to look: the Arthaśāstra itself. In multiple verses it explicitly names Viśnugupta Kautilya as its author: “विष्णुगुप्तेन आर्यकौटिल्येन च सम्पादितम्” (“Compiled by Viśnugupta the noble Kautilya”) “समाप्तं कौटिलीयम् अर्थशास्त्रम्” (“Here ends the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya”). Devdutt’s primary deception rests on creating two doubts in the reader's mind: first, that since the Arthaśāstra names “Kautilya,” Chanakya must be fictional; second, that if he can push the Arthaśāstra to a later date, then Chanakya couldn’t have existed in Mauryan times or guided Chandragupta. But the moment you place the Arthaśāstra’s author in time, things get murky for Devdutt. Ashoka’s edicts (3rd c. BCE) describe an administrative system of mahāmātras, welfare officers, anti-animal-slaughter days, judicial ethics - all straight out of the Arthaśāstra. The Mauryan empire cannot be founded on a Kautilyan framework if the text didn’t exist until 500 CE. The empire itself proves Kautilya predates Ashoka to at least 4th c. BCE as tradition says. Then comes the Spitzer Manuscript, the oldest Sanskrit manuscript found so far (1st–2nd c. CE), which contains unmistakable references to the Arthaśāstra. And where was it found? A Buddhist monastery in Kizil, Xinjiang - 1000s of miles away from any “Brahmin power structure.” This alone demolishes Devdutt’s claims. Buddhists were studying Kautilya centuries before his imaginary “500 CE Brahmin invention.” Why would Buddhists preserve such “Brahminical propaganda”? They preserved it because it was already an established, authoritative, valuable text. Next comes the knockout punch: the Kāmāndakīya Nītiśāra (4th c. CE) is a political treatise in the nīti-śāstra tradition, written by Buddhist scholar Kāmāndaki (कामान्दकि). He explicitly & admiringly states that the great Viśnugupta/Kautilya who authored the Arthaśāstra was the exact same strategist who overthrew the Nandas and guided Chandragupta Maurya to victory. This is the same storyline attributed to Chanakya in later literature. Why would a Buddhist writer like Kāmāndaki, with zero incentive to glorify a Brahmin minister, directly attribute Kautilya with the same glorious achievements as those of Chanakya the revolutionary? Because they were the same person. The Kāmāndakīya Nītiśāra text is the bridge which conclusively links : Arthaśāstra's Viśnugupta = Kautilya = Chanakya (in later Buddhist/Jain/Hindu sources) Several other Buddhist sources specifically identify Viśnugupta/Kautilya as Chandragupta’s kingmaker. Jain sources like the Nisītha Cūrṇi and Hemacandra’s Pariśiṣṭaparvan identify Chanakya as the very same kingmaker overthrowing the same Nandas for the same Chandragupta. Gupta-era dramas like Mudrārākṣasa assume everyone already knows Kautilya as Chanakya. Kashmir’s Tantrākhyāyikā tradition immortalizes “Chanakya” as the archetype of political strategy. Across all traditions - Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Kashmiri, Gupta - it is the same man performing the same deeds under different names.That is not myth-making. That is historical convergence, the strongest form of evidence when history spans 1000s of years. As for the multiple names? In ancient worlds, it was perfectly normal. Confucius was also called Kong Qiu, Kongzi, Zhongni. In India: Viśnugupta is the personal name, Kautilya the gotra/scholarly name, & Chanakya the patronymic. One man. Many names. Total consistency. Pretending these names represent three different people is like claiming “Zhongni disproves Confucius.” Devdutt also relies on the mention of “China” and “Roman coins” to push the Arthaśāstra centuries forward. But historian K. P. Jayaswal has already demonstrated that “Cina” here refers to the Śina/Shina Himalayan region of Gilgit, not Han China, which is why the Arthaśāstra uses kauseya and chinapatta, neither of which are Chinese words. And yes, references to Roman dīnāra are probably later interpolations - just like the many interpolations in Homer, the Pentateuch, or Euclid. No scholar ever claimed that these interpolations proved the authors never existed. Devdutt deploys this strategy only because he needs the text to look late, so that he can detach it from Chanakya and declare him a “Brahmin myth.” Then comes the collapse of Devdutt's obsessive caste narrative. The earliest sources calling Chanakya a Brahmin are Buddhist and Jain works not Hindu ones - traditions which historically resisted Brahmin power. The Mahāvaṃsa (Buddhist), the Divyāvadāna (Buddhist), the Nisītha Cūrṇi (Jain), and Hemacandra’s Pariśiṣṭaparvan (Jain) all identify him as a Brahmin minister centuries before Hindu traditions elaborated the narrative. If “Brahmins invented Chanakya,” why do rival traditions repeat the same identity independently? Because they were recounting historical memory, not mythic propaganda. So to make it crystal clear: Chanakya, Kautilya, and Viśnugupta are not three different people - they are simply three traditional names for a single historical strategist. This is exactly how ancient India named its great thinkers: a personal name (Viśnugupta), a gotra or scholastic name (Kauṭilya), and a patronymic (Chanakya). Tradition even preserves additional variants like Dramila, Draumina, Vishamashila & Anśula. Every independent source - Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Gupta-era, Kashmiri all uses these names interchangeably for the same individual performing the same political revolution. This is not ambiguity; this is unanimity. One mind. One statesman. One architect of empire. Three names, one genius - exactly as ancient Bharat preserved its greatest figures. Bottom line: three competing religious traditions which often competed as rivals, sometimes even hostile to each other - all remembering the same brilliant strategic genius of Magadha, overthrowing the same Nanda for the same Chandragupta Maurya in the same century CANNOT be coincidence. Devdutt winning the lottery while filming a TikTok and getting struck by lightning inside a volcanic eruption is statistically more likely. There is no “Brahmin propaganda.” There's only history refusing to bow to Devdutt's nauseating political biases and casteist agenda. When such an overwhelming number of Bharatiya traditions, texts, chronicles, and political manuals over 2000 years point to the same genius - Chanakya/Kautilya/ Viśnugupta with the same narrative, then you don’t get to call him a myth and get away with it! Devdutt’s article isn’t researched scholarship; it’s the same old casteist provocation wrapped in pseudo-history which crumbles instantly like a soggy biscuit in hot tea - the moment primary sources are allowed to speak.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Devdutt Pattanaik @devduttmyth

7 months ago

There is no historical evidence that a man called Chanakya ever lived during Mauryan times. What we have is a story based on later Buddhist & Jain chronicles & Sanskrit plays like Mudra-rakshasa, all imagined after 500 AD... Read more... newindianexpress.com/magazine/2025/…

1K 962 3K 1.0M 1K

@acharyaveda_ PDF

@sesthegreat_ 48

@Hinduism_sci Yes

@IndianSinghh Add me

@SwipeSaga @Chandra4Bharat Agree.

@manasasirivaram @Chandra4Bharat True

"Most investors get this maths wrong: 1) 10% loss needs an 11.3% gain 2) 50% loss needs a 100% gain 3) 95% loss needs a 1900% gain to break even"

@stockifiabhijit How? Please help with the calculation

A Salary Doesn’t make Anyone Rich I have Created a list of - 45 Passive Income Ideas for 2025 Just need - Mobile / Pc - Internet - 2 to 4 hours a day To get for free , Just Retweet and reply “ Money ” [ Must be following ]