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?
