Jump to content

Talk:Arthashastra

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

Re Attention tag

[edit]

The article currently focuses strongly on the kingship and statecraft angle. The Arthashastra also has amazing cultural and technical description of the society for which it was written (see [1]). I think the article needs abridging and cleanup of the Rajarishi section (which is about Book I) and expansion of these other aspects.

The Rajarishi text comes from an article by Navendu Shirali - it can be found elsewhere on the Web, but he did write it, so no need for copyvio alerts (especially once it's copyedited). Tearlach 01:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding?

[edit]

"He should be just in regarding and punishing."

'Regarding', or 'rewarding'? TheMadBaron 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya says that artha (Sound Economies) is the most important; dharma & karma are both dependent on it.

Presumably kama, not karma - in line with dharma, artha, kama? Tearlach 03:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Artha

[edit]

Artha has many meanings, and this text touches on most of them. Some of the appropriate ones would be "power" and "wealth", so I have to disagree with the translation of the title as "The Science of Material Gain", especially considering that this is a treatise concerned with how a king should rule, not how an individual should pursue material gain. It is different from other texts such as the Kama Sutra in that way. I would personally translate the title as "The Science of Power" or as a compromise "The Science of Power/Wealth". Unlike our corresponding words, Artha implies both of these simultaneously, and that should be reflected in the title.

I agree. Academic sites and book intros divide between three translations: "Science of Wealth", "Science of Material Gain" and "Science of Polity" - "polity" being the form and process of civil government or state. WP:NOR guidelines stop us creating an original translation, but mentioning the alternatives would be good. Tearlach 10:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Handbook of Profit is sufficiently common to go up-front as the implied dominant translation. I found about three Google hits. The Arthashastra entries in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions don't mention it. I can only find it in the Britannica Online, where two articles use it ("Carvaka" and "Artha-sastra") but seven others use the usual Science of Material Gain and Science of Polity. Tearlach 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a cognate or Arta (Asha)? Is Artha Shah-stra a cognate of Artaxerxes (Ardeshir)? Which is roughly translated Arta Kinghip, "he who rules through arta"? I would love to see a scholarly addressment of this concept.173.173.20.99 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versions in other languages

[edit]

It should be noted that there are not many versions of the Arthashastra in other languages. However, there is a Telugu version of Kautilya’ Arthashastra by an eminent Professor of History and Political Science, from Andhra Pradesh, M. Venkatanrangaiya and Akundi Venkatashastry. The version was first published in 1923. There is no reprint of this, however, a copy of the same is available upon request at vmamdipudi@yahoo.com. The book starts with an introduction highlighting the expertise of Kautilya. The divisions of this version are the same as in Samashastry’s 1915 edition of the book in English.

Trivia

[edit]

'what's the problem? explain at talk'

Perhaps the briefest of glances at the article's history would provide you with the answer

And most especially, this:

In addition, a quick glance at the contributions of what is clearly a single troll--one whose existence you're already aware of, given that you've already warned him:

and quite probably

Included are the following highlights:

This adds nothing to the article, is wildly out-of-tone with the article as a whole, is unverified, and isn't even believed by the person adding it. Other than that, not much.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty silly to me, but it's not completely out-of-kilter with WP. It is, in principle, verifiable by reading the book. If it were being added under more normal circumstances, I'd probably suggest it be left in. Given the behavior of the editor(s?) adding it, I am biased against. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a section on the Arthashastra's contribution to economics

[edit]

This treatise is considered as one of the earliest known work (if not the earliest) that considers economic theory that is a forerunner of modern economics.

See here:

L. K. Jha, K. N. Jha (1998). "Chanakya: the pioneer economist of the world", International Journal of Social Economics 25 (2-4), p. 267-282.

Waldauer, C., Zahka, W.J. and Pal, S. 1996. Kautilya's Arthashastra: A neglected precursor to classical economics. Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pp. 101-108.

Tisdell, C. 2003. A Western perspective of Kautilya's Arthasastra: does it provide a basis for economic science? Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper No. 18. Brisbane: School of Economics, The University of Queensland.

And The issue 'Modern perspectives on Kautilya's economics' in the journal Humanomics, Vol. 25, issue 1 (2009).


It contains information on the sources and prerequisites for economic growth, and obstructions and incentives for economic growth.

See here:

Sihag, B.S. 2007. Kautilya on institutions, governance, knowledge, ethics and prosperity. Humanomics 23 (1): 5-28.


Therefore please create and write about the Arthashastra's contribution to economics by referring to the above-mentioned economic papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford Dictionary (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language in which Arthashastra

[edit]

If anyone know the language in which the Arthashastra is originally written, they are requested to update that information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anacronistic Language

[edit]

Please change "professor" and "university" into different terms. These are anachronistic and serves to undermine the contents sense of factuality. Also they might mislead uneducated readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.232.106 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Arthashastra in modern literature

[edit]

I have seen a modern literature section in here off and on. Keeps getting reverted in the name of trivia. However, the author Brad Thor has an article, the mentioning of Arthashastra is an uncommon topic in modern literature and in the book several true recipes for poisons, bio-warfare and chemical warfare are mentioned. All gleaned from Arthashastra. I do not care to get into a silly edit war and considering the people watching this article for this fact Modern Literature "trivia nonsense" alone, I would also ask for an outside opinion. 98.214.81.82 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man leave me alone! Stop following me! I don't want to get into it with you again. I am asking for a neutral party to talk to me. And you are most definitely NOT neutral. You are trolling and looking for drama. If you feel the need to advise people, do it were at least you know you will receive a warm welcome, eh? Seriously, please stop following me, OK? I am asking as nicely as I am able too without resorting to vulgarity and incivility. 98.214.81.82 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am talking to you very nicely too. What is it with you? Correct me if I got it wrong, but if you have something that's troubling you in real life, I'd suggest that you take care of it first before coming to Wikipedia to release your pent-up energy/frustration, this is hardly the place to do so. And if you enjoy editing article(s) but not for the sake of bettering it, why do so? Do it because you like it and not because you want it. There is a difference between a need and a want, ya'know? --Dave1185 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys don't start this again. Dave.. You do appear to be shadowing him. That is curious behavior in itself. Anon IP (a relative of mine) is interested in this article because of me. I originally made the inclusion of the Modern Literature section, and the section was promptly removed by another editor making much the same claims. However, I have come across NUMEROUS articles including one that I linked to on your talk page... Republic of Singapore Air Force that include popular culture "trivia" and have read many discussions related to this topic. It seems that most of the reverts on this page come from editors, who have a disagreement with either myself, my friends whom have read the Brad ThoR novel, or my relative (who also read the novel). Mind you I am not reverting anything, just cluing you into the Anon's perspective as well as my own. And Dave it is a little creepy that you are following my brother around and watching what he edits. You have to admit he is not a malicious editor, he is simply rude. He is not edit warring and he is asking the community (via the talk page) (and minus your opinion which he considers biased) for advice. Leave it alone man, let him find out on his own. Cheer up fellas!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm not shadowing your brother, all I was doing was making some recent changes patrol when I saw his IP popped up and so I check it just in case he got into trouble again. Also, trivial section are not encourage on Wikipedia but if there is another article that can accomodate that, by all means go add it there instead, and that includes the page of RSAF. If Brad had wrote a book with reference to this article, it's best to mention it there since it is modern literature, which has totally nothing to do with this Indian literature page, agreed? Do you mix business with pleasure? I think not, right? --Dave1185 (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hay chill out you lot, I am shadowing everyone on Wikipedia, and as soon as I clone myself I will be at your front door. Seriously can someone provide something about what you are talking about? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weber´s quote

[edit]

I tried to find Weber´s quote in various places, but I didn´t. It seems to be another example of apocryphal quotes in wikipeida. I´ll remove it. You can personally check it here.--Knight1993 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is sourced to Politics as a Vocation, in which the quote can be found. An English translation (probably different from the one used in the article) is here; you can search for "really radical" or "harmless". Shreevatsa (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it now. Thanks for that! --Knight1993 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources by @Wujastyk

[edit]

@Wujastyk: The source you added is already in the article. I have standardized the format, and updated the links to sources you added. I am puzzled by your proposed changes to the lead. Why delete the Olivelle's source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I expect I was just clumsy. Apologies! Wujastyk 17:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I would have liked to see Wujastyk's response to this. In my view, the prevailing view of Kautilya/Chanakya/Vishnugupta should be labelled as such (as "prevailing") and the questions raised by Olivelle et al. should be mentioned alongside as recent research. Ergo, we don't have scholarly consensus at present. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3: If you read Olivelle's research you will see that it is much more than "questions raised." He presents a thorough discussion of previous theories, especially Kangle's, and then presents fresh evidence and compelling reasoning for a new view of the history of the Arthaśāstra. This isn't a little spat amongst pedants, it's a major shift in historical knowledge. Wujastyk 17:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps so. But note that we don't determine whether a shift has taken place. We can only note whether there is a consensus or not, and the evidence is that there is not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I concur with @Wujastyk. Olivelle does a comprehensive review and it is the best out there, and it is a recent WP:RS. If you provide another WP:RS within last 25 years contesting Olivelle with page numbers, we can add it as a note or something. The article already acknowledges the surviving manuscripts "likely include the work of several authors, over the centuries". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have weakened the lead right now. If you want to weaken it further, please go ahead. But I am afraid both of you are taking liberties in interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source. We need secondary sources to authenticate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I will check one more time if it is primary, or is this part from the review he does. I will leave it your way for now, may be move it to the main article after check, if need be, as it feels undue in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misunderstanding what is going on. I saw that Wujastyk made some edits to the lead [3], which you reverted [4]. I am proposing a middle way, already implemented in the lead, which basically says there is no agreement among scholars about the situation. But, now, you say you concur with Wujastyk. So I am perplexed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I concur with @Wujastyk's comment at 17:51, 4 February 2016 above that Olivelle "presents a thorough discussion of previous theories". Olivelle is a recent reliable review RS for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the debate is really about what Wujastyk has called a "new view of the history" and "shift in the historical knowledge." Are you concurring with that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I avoided, and we must avoid, taking sides and presenting only primary research or only the "new view of the history" in this article. See Sushruta Samhita talk page, where @Wujastyk and I have been having a similar discussion. Your critical view and comments there are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Ghatus: Read the bottom disclaimer in the opinion piece on IDSA website. The opinion piece is WP:Primary and I can't figure out who wrote that opinion piece (his or her qualifications). So, the burden is on you to prove it WP:RS. The link is also inappropriate because the linked article is a stub full of OR, that I can't verify what you added there. Please don't edit war. Get consensus here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you people realize that you are warring over a box called "Avoid war?" The irony! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDSA is financed by GoI. Do you think GoI or IDSA will endorse any such article? This is the standard norm. It's always a privilege to get the opportunity to have one's article published in IDSA. IDSA gives intellectual inputs to world's third largest military!!! Further, the writer himself referred to sources like "The Four Upayas of Hindu Diplomacy” in The Indian Year Book of International Affairs published by The Indian Study Group of International Affairs, University of Madras in 1954 and also a passing comparison to "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace" (1966) . It also quotes historian Kaushik Roy in an article “Just and Unjust War in Hindu Philosophy”, in the Journal of Military Ethics (Vol. 6, No. 3, 2007, pp. 232-45). More, A Norwegian scholar from PRIO, Ashild Kolas, in her article “ What up With Territorial Council” in the December 2012 issues of The Seminar, on selective peace talks with various insurgents by Indian negotiators in Assam, writes: “...it is obvious that Kautilyan tactics remain popular with India’s security establishment.” A book written by a former intelligence officer, Asoka Raina, titled Inside RAW: The Story of India’s Secret Service (1981) alludes to ancient Indian scriptures and the laws of Manu and Kautilya on intelligence. In his journalistic account of the Sino-Indian rivalry titled Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier (2012), Bertil Lintner picks up from Raina’s work and a similar work by former BBC correspondent Subir Bhaumik’s Troubled Periphery: Crisis of India’s North East (2009). Nani Gopal Mahanta, in his book Confronting the State: ULFA’s Quest for Sovereginity (2013) again puts forward an idea at page 142 and writes that the basic premise of Kautilyan statecraft of four upayas is: “...that longer the negotiations, the easier it is to wear down rebel leaders.”
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?Ghatus (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:, thank God you found a book. Now, this journal war will stop as I said before. :-)Ghatus (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that is the way to "avoid war." - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian text

[edit]

@Nightbat: Welcome to wikipedia. We summarize what reliable sources state, see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing and presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, per WP:WWIN. Please do not edit war and explain your edit here, "after reviewing the content policies and guidelines". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah. I've been on Wikipedia nearly a decade longer than you. So, hey, welcome to Wikipedia. Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing, presenting your wisdom/prejudices/opinions, or cherry-picking data points to suit your conclusions as you are repeatedly doing. Nightbat (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightbat: How about we state both, that it is a Hindu text and an Indian text? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Stating that the Arthashastra is an Indian text is both necessary and sufficient. The term "Hindu" presupposes a religious context. The Arthashastra cannot be termed a Hindu text as it is not religious in nature. It deals with statecraft, economic policy and military strategy, among other topics, as I am sure you must be well aware. It is therefore incorrect to term it a Hindu text. I trust this clarifies matters sufficiently. Nightbat (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the scholars that Ms Sarah Welch cited presuppose that it is a "religious" text? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightbat: No, it does not clarify matters. A text can be a Hindu text for any number of reasons. Regardless, we are no one to pick sides. Some WP:RS, which I provided, and you have removed, call Arthasastra a Hindu text.[1][2][3] The five sources you added do state it is an Indian text, which I have no objections keeping in. But, if a text is Indian text, that does not rule it out from being a Hindu text. WP:NPOV requires that we don't take sides, we present all sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stephen Peter Rosen (1996). Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies. Cornell University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0801432101., Quote: The most important single text in Hindu political philosophy is Kautilya's Arthasastra.
  2. ^ R. Chadwick; S. Henson; B. Moseley (2013). Functional Foods. Springer Science. p. 39. ISBN 978-3-662-05115-3., Quote: During the same period, an ancient Hindu text (the Arthashastra) included a recipe...".
  3. ^ Arvind Sharma (2005). Modern Hindu Thought: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-567638-9.; Quote: "Arthasastra, the major surviving Hindu text on polity, attributed to Chanakya (also known as Kautilya)..."
@Ms Sarah Welch: Since you want me to spell it out for you.
extended OR discussion
What is Hinduism? Is it an economic theory? Is it a science? Is it a military strategy? No. Hinduism is none of these. Hinduism is a RELIGION.
Now, what does studying Einstein's general theory of relativity enable you to do? It enables you to understand gravitation at classical scales. Does it enable you to understand Hinduism? No. It is therefore NOT a Hindu treatise.
What does studying Sun Tzu's "Art of War" enable you to do? It enables you to understand conflict, strategies & tactics. Does it enable you to understand Hinduism? No. It is therefore NOT a Hindu treatise.
What does studying Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" enable you to do? It enables you to understand classical economics. Does it enable you to understand Hinduism? No. It is therefore NOT a Hindu treatise.
What does studying the Rig Veda enable you to do? It enables you to understand Vedic Hinduism. It therefore IS a Hindu treatise.
What does studying the Bhagavad Gita enable you to do? It enables you to understand Hinduism. It therefore IS a Hindu treatise.
Now, what does studying the Arthashastra enable you to do? It gives you insights into statecraft, economic policy and military strategy. It does NOT enable you to understand Hinduism. It is therefore NOT a Hindu treatise.
Isaac Newton was Christian. Does that make his Principia Mathematica a "Christian treatise"???
Albert Einstein was Jewish. Does that make the Photoelectric effect & Relativity "Jewish science"???
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightbat (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how many "scholars" you present who call the Arthashastra a "Hindu treatise". They are WRONG. It has NOTHING to do with the Hindu religion. It is a treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy, NOT on Hinduism. For every 10 scholars you present, I will present 20 who call it an Indian treatise.
It is YOU that insists on TAKING SIDES. You insist on categorizing a treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy as a HINDU treatise, when it clearly is NOT one. It is an INDIAN treatise. I will NOT allow you to misrepresent my civilization's heritage. Nightbat (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightbat: I am presenting both sides, you are taking sides by presenting only "it is Indian", and "I don't care how many scholars you present who call....". Your arguments are OR and FORUM-y. I doubt you have read the sanskrit manuscript of Arthasastra, it is obviously a Hindu text. It mentions Hindu deities (Prajapati, for example), mentions Hindu ideas (vedas /dharma /artha /kama /moksha / samkhya /etc), mentions and cherishes Hindu practices (the king should start the day by revering / circumambulating a cow), etc. Your OR above is unacceptable basis for your edit. You are attacking WP:RS. Why isn't "I will NOT allow you to misrepresent my civilization's heritage" WP:Soap? You have not answered @Kautilya3's remarks above. "Hindu" as he hints, is more than a religion, it refers to a culture/tradition/ideas/etc. But, set that aside, because at wikipedia we must summarize all sides from WP:RS with NPOV. Would you like to take this dispute to DRN / ANI? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightbat: It appears that you have years behind you but not the experience. Battling WP:RS with WP:OR is what the POV-pushers do and that is what you are doing. Wikipedia documents what the scholars say, not what we-the editors-think. You need to get off you high horse and discuss the matter in a policy-based way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise I suggest a wording along the lines of "Indian text representing Hindu political philosophy." Calling it simply a "Hindu text" is likely to be misleading because it is not clear in what sense it is "Hindu."

I do not want to go down the level of Nightbat's level of OR debates, but he doesn't seem to know that all religions have evolved a variety of philosophies guiding all aspects of human life. His knowledge of religion is superficial, and not scholarly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing considerable scholarly discussion dealing with the issue of whether the Arthashastra is a Hindu text or a secular text. There are arguments on both sides. I will try to hunt for them when I get time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Kautilya3} Ok so you want me to "get off my high horse". Let me do that for a moment and speak with you at your level of intellect. You accuse me of OR. Did you see the FIVE scholarly references I provided? These are not blogs or forums. They include one book, and 4 peer-reviewed, academic papers from international journals. How is that OR? Do you define OR as anything that you don't agree with? Nightbat (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: first removed my edit & asked me to "stick to the references". After I provided 5 references, she removed my edit again, without reason. Is this what you call a "policy-based approach"? This is a completely arbitrary approach. Finally, {{ping|Kautilya3}, you threatened me with a ban on my talk page. Don't you threaten me, buddy. I have done nothing wrong. Nightbat (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Same as above. I have presented high-quality, reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly references, not OR. I can present more. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to take this dispute to DRN / ANI. Nightbat (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightbat: Don't misrepresent me, and please include diffs if you cast aspersions, per WP:TPNO. I did not remove your "edit again" here. I accepted your sources, merged your edit and mine, for NPOV, and this is how the lead sentence looked after a combination of the two versions. But it is you who has deleted the three WP:RS sources calling Arthashastra a "Hindu text", here and here. Please explain why you have deleted the scholarly sources that call it a "Hindu text". @Kautilya3: I am open to alternate wording that is consistent with the WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
Let us calm down and take it slow. I think we are all grown-ups here. Please refrain from making mainspace edits until we reach a consensus.
@Nightbat: The references you have added don't demonstrate anything because calling it an "Indian text" doesn't contradict it being a "Hindu text." The two are not opposites. On the other hand, you can probably look for and find sources that call it as a "secular text." As I said, I have seen discussion of this kind. Since I believe we have sources that take both the positions, both of them should be represented in the article as per WP:NPOV. What you personally think about the issue has no bearing on what goes into the article. (The ARBIPA warning I have given on your talk page is standard practice when we see POV-pushing going on. It alerts you that you should refrain from doing it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support @Nightbat:'s stand that it was an Indian text.Ghatus (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Indeed, let us give @Nightbat a bit of time to reflect and understand the NPOV perspective. The text is not Buddhist nor Jaina, given the reverence for the Vedas, other Hindu philosophies /traditions /culture themes /ideas in Arthashastra. I am fine with mentioning "Indian text", as well as "Hindu text / Hindu political philosophy / etc", for clarity. FWIW, Hindu history is also found in southeast Asia, and modern Bali Indonesia and Nepal, so mentioning India is fine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: POV-pushing? What are you talking about? I've cited 5 scholarly articles. Is that what you call POV-pushing? You may want to get out of this little boys' club mindset of yours, buddy. Nightbat (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Apart from the countries/regions you mentioned, Hindu history is also found in present-day Afghanistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Korea, China, and Japan. Nightbat (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I am open to alternate wording that is consistent with the WP:RS. Something like "Indian text that references Hindu philosphy" for example. I'm happy to refrain from editing the article until we reach a consensus. Nightbat (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightbat: I am glad you are now willing to include "Indian" and "Hindu" adjectives, if that is consistent with the WP:RS. Do you have any WP:RS for "references Hindu philosophy" part you propose? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant "Hindu political philosophy", a term used in one of your cites.
But we are not merely quibbling about wording. There is the more serious issue of explaining in what sense it was "Hindu". Does it mean evolved by the Hindu community? Or, does it mean part of Hindu religious thought (even as it expands into secular affairs)? Or, really, part of religion itself? I see huge diversity among scholars:
  • according to Panikkar, "a purely secular theory of state of which the sole basis is power."... the Arthashastra did undermine the theoretical basis for the promotion of religion by the state.... but it never replaced the old ideas of rajadharma.[1]
  • Unlike other ancient Indian texts, which are primarily religious and ethical inorientation, the Arthashastra is largely secular and practical.[2]
  • The modern scholars like Ram sharan Sharma says that `Kautilya makes a [deliberate] and conscious attempt to free politics from the influence of religion and morality."[3]
  • the king's demanding pace in Arthashastra is a commitment to `secular ascetisism' a term that Max Weber... used to characterize Protestant entrepreneurs....[4]
  • the overall spirit of the work suggests that material well-being must be subordinated to spiritual good. Such a view was in fact already a thousand years old.[5]
  • Arthashastra is pre-eminently a document of brahmanically controlled state and a popular religion.[6]
  • On artha as means of dharma [see] R. Dikshitar, `Is Arthahastra secular?' 1925... [7]
We have our work cut out for covering such diversity of view. We should also be careful not to back-project the present day ghettoisation of religions back into ancient times. Religions in the old days were merely "schools of thought" from which people freely borrowed and gave to. All religions produced universalist ideas that were intended to be applicable to everybody, not merely to their own flock. So, calling something "Hindu" doesn't mean segregating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Donald Eugene (8 December 2015), India as a Secular State, Princeton University Press, pp. 61–, ISBN 978-1-4008-7778-2
  2. ^ Law, Randall (26 April 2013), Terrorism: A History, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 25–, ISBN 978-0-7456-5821-6
  3. ^ Das, Arbind (1996), Arthashastra of Kautilya and Fatawa-i-Jahandari of Ziauddin Barani: An Analysis, Pratibha Prakashan, p. 120, ISBN 978-81-85268-45-3
  4. ^ Trautmann, Thomas R. (1 January 2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin Books India, pp. 18–, ISBN 978-0-670-08527-9
  5. ^ Wuthnow, Robert (4 December 2013), The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion: 2-volume Set, Routledge, pp. 320–, ISBN 978-1-136-28493-9
  6. ^ Dube, S.C..; Basilov, V.N.., Secularization in Multi-religious Societies Indo-soviet Perspectives, Concept Publishing Company, pp. 11–, GGKEY:ERERFKLZ3E7
  7. ^ Dumont, Louis (January 1980), Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, University of Chicago Press, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-226-16963-7

@Kautilya3: Indeed. Since @Nightbat sounds to be also agreeing, we may have a general consensus, I will make a couple of changes. Please reword it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

[edit]

Dear reader, thanks for taking time to review this suggested edit.

Please change: "The colonial era scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"

To: "The scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"

Because: 1) Grammar: "a" few years. 2) Qualification of Weber as a "colonial era scholar" is inaccurate and normative.

And please change: Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[124]"

To: A really radical 'Machiavellianism,' in the popular sense of this word, is classically represented in Indian literature, in the Kautaliya Arthasastra (long before Christ, allegedly dating from Chandragupta's time). In contrast with this document Machiavelli's Principe is harmless.[124]"

Because: Translation of citation is not the same as translation in referenced source (https://web.archive.org/web/20100131051351/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html) Sandervanhaperen (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandervanhaperen: Thanks for the suggestions. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthashastra&oldid=1204969750"