Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

The brahmana should give advice to the ministers or the legislators. They should be all qualified brahmanas, not paid man. Paid man has nothing to do... Even during the time of Maharaja Candragupta, emperor, he had a brahmana minister, prime minister, Canakya Pandita. He was not taking a single farthing as salary. When once explanation was called for from Canakya Pandita by Candragupta, immediately he resigned. "You cannot call any explanation. Then I resign." And he was living in a cottage, not that palatial building. He was living in a cottage. That was the system. Brahmana lived very humbly. He was not poor. Not that they are poor men.
(SB 1.7.34-35, Vrindavan, September 28 1976)

From the context its clear that the explanation referred to why C.P. doesnt take anything from the king (who wanted to give him charity).

>Why did Canakya Pandita resign after Maharaja Candragupta wanted some explanation for an instruction Canakya had given him?
>(Namely, in everyday life, things tend to be just the opposite: If one is given an instruction but then asks for an explanation, the instructor more or less dismisses the student.)

There are many other factors also which need to be considered. For example, the relationship between teacher and student and the most important the manner in which explanation was asked. In above situation of Chanakya and chandragupta, we have got no idea how Chandragupta asked for explanation? Did he go there to him personally and asked in a humble way or did he send a messanger and asked in an ordering way(he was a king) which might have offended Chanakya and he decided to resign.I feel it will be wrong to make statements without knowing the whole thing.

Before this story Prabhupad tell another story:

Not very long ago, say about two hundred or three hundred years ago, in Krishnanagara there was a big zamindar named Raja Krishnachandra. He went to a learned scholar, a brahmana pandita, who had voluntarily accepted poverty and asked him, '93Panditji, can I help you in some way?'94

The pandita replied, '93I don'92t require any help from you.'94

'93But I see that you are very poverty-stricken.'94

'93No, I am not poverty-stricken. My students get some rice for me, and my wife cooks it. I get some tamarind leaves. So it is very nice. I don'92t require any help.'94

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]The brahmana should give advice to the ministers or the legislators. They should be all qualified brahmanas, not paid man. Paid man has nothing to do... Even during the time of Maharaja Candragupta, emperor, he had a brahmana minister, prime minister, Canakya Pandita. He was not taking a single farthing as salary. When once explanation was called for from Canakya Pandita by Candragupta, immediately he resigned. "You cannot call any explanation. Then I resign." And he was living in a cottage, not that palatial building. He was living in a cottage. That was the system. Brahmana lived very humbly. He was not poor. Not that they are poor men.
(SB 1.7.34-35, Vrindavan, September 28 1976)

From the context its clear that the explanation referred to why C.P. doesnt take anything from the king (who wanted to give him charity).[/quote]

[br]From the passage you quoted, the explanation indeed has to do with the salary issue / charity.

[br]But the sentence in the OP that I am inquiring about says:
[br][b]And as soon as Maharaja Candragupta wanted some explanation for an instruction Canakya had given him, Canakya resigned.[/b]

[br]This sentence says that C.P. resigned over being requested an explanation for an instruction he had given. Its not clear what that instruction was.

The natural position of chanykya pandit is hard to fathom in our present polluted society.However in the past a brahamana of such incredible astute material and spiritual knowledge,was indeed a huge benediction upon a lower status king.He had such a profound influence on political and spiritual knowledge within indian culture that srila Prabhupada used to regularly quote his expert and revealing texts hundreds of years later.Still being relevant today provides us with a willing testimony of their authentic basis in spiritual and political sciences.

Sri chanakya pandit had a relationship with emperor chandragupta as his prime minister.But also there was present the formalised arrangement similar to the guru~disciple relationship present within Iskcon.Hence when the emperor asked for a explanation of his recomendation this was indeed out of character in the context of their relationship.Since maharaja chandragupta had succeeded beyond his personal expectations as a result of following the super excellent council of his minister~brahmana,it was indicative indeed of an offensive attitude which displeased chanakya pandit.Since when such a brahmana speaks it is accepted that the supreme lord vishnu is speaking through him for ones benefit.

Without knowing all the details of the story, one thing that comes to my mind is that once the King had questioned Chanyakas advices this could indicate that the King considered Chankyas advice to be tainted with some form of ambition or ulterior motive. This is not a good situation for Chanyaka because historically kings generally dispose of ministers they suspect of ulterior motives.

From the Kings side, he should not consult a Minister who he doubts. There are many warnings in Artha-sastra and similar texts instructing kings to not keep any advisor close or take their advice if there is some suspicion as to their motive, and there are also several stories as to how a Minister has defeated a king by using the trust placed in him.

From Chanyakas side, if there is suspicion or doubt on the part of the King, then the relationship of Minister and King cannot function properly as the King should intimately trust the Minister. If not, it is best a Minister leave such a situation. The detachment of Chanyaka is seen in that if he did have some ulterior motive, being the expert he was, he could have certainly provided the King with some satisifactory explaination as to why he gave a particular advice, but he did not. He walked away.

Accordingly chanakya pandit was indeed familiar with his maxim,that even a learned pandit comes to grief by instructing a foolish disciple,maintaining a wicked wife,and excessive familiarity with the miserable.Exhibiting detachment which is indeed one of the glorious qualities of such brahmanas, chanakya pandit chose to terminate the emperors association.

Since SP gives two slightly different versions, wed have to see the actual details in C.P.s biography or wherever this info is found.

Chanakya pandit was within a very prestigious royal court,and as the prime minister~brahminacal adviser he definitely enjoyed a powerful position which is indeed attractive within the material environment.Along with this he also enjoyed a certain adoration and special distinction while performing his service.So by refusing the wealth of his emperor he was able to exhibit his sublime renunciation,and although enjoying some sutle enjoyment in the form of adoration and distinction he eventually even chose to renounce these, further embellishing his saintly reputation which lasts almost eternally.

The guy lived some 3000 years ago. Are you trying to read mind of someone who lived that long ago, he is a legend, while a real person and there is quite a range of views on him (obviously). Some say he was an atheist, some Vaisnavas claim him as a vaisnava. When Prabhupada was asked if he was a devotee, he said no.

No my friend ccd,he explains it himself,Chanakya Pandit says sarinam ksana vidhamsi kalpanta~sthayino guna.The duration of ones life is temporary within the material world,however if one does something worthy ,that quality is depicted in history eternally....Srila Prabhupada also cofirms this in the srimad bhagavatam 9,13 chapter verse 3.

The key answer is independence. Brahmana must be independent according to Srila Prabhupada, even never calling Canakya a Vaisnava would cite him a lot, and said that his name is still celebrated even he was not a pure Vaisnava (my dear sri_govinda_das may have a vivid imagination on that, maybe read again your ref), but a great politician, very learned scholar, brahmana and great moralist. There must be brahmanas who are independent. Canakya Pandita, whose name is still, still celebrated, he was prime minister of Maharaja Candragupta, but he was not accepting a single paisa as salary. That was the, formerly, although there was monarchy, still there was a council of learned brahmanas and sages. They used to advise the king. The brahmanas did not take part in politics, but they gave advice, instruction to the kings, rajarsi. Imam rajarsayoh viduh. The rajarsi used to understand what is the values of life under the instruction of brahmanas, and they execute the order of the brahmanas. The people were happy. And because at the present moment such system is lost, people are confused and they are in frustration.

Just because Chanakyas (or Shankaracharyas worshipable deity) could be Vishnu, it does not make them Vaishnavas. There are different records of him in Jains (who claim him) and Vaidic records is brahmana, Jat or Ajivika (Ajivika adherents followed a strict regimen of asceticism, similar in many ways to practices undertaken by the Jains). While Chozhiars claim he was one of them. According to Jains Chandragupta gave up the throne and followed the Jain saint Bhadrabahu and died of starvation according to Jain tradition. But in any case there is no evidence of Prabhupada saying he was a devotee or a Vaishnava.

Baker, here is an interesting GBC esolution relating to asking for explainations:
GBC Resolutions 2004

404. Explanations for Resolutions

WHEREAS:

The GBC deliberates for many hours prior to making a decision, but devotees generally do not understand the rationale behind the decision,

In the future, evidence for why decisions were made will help ISKCON better implement decisions,

When revisited years later, GBC resolutions are often unclear as to their original intention,

Without evidence of support from guru, sadhu, and sastra, GBC decisions are subject to undue challenge,

RESOLVED:

The GBC Secretary shall, wherever possible, include in the minutes an explanation of the reasoning and purpose for any new laws.

To demonstrate the correctness and authority of resolutions relating to spiritual or philosophical standards, the GBC shall provide for each such resolution a written explanation detailing its logic and purpose, with available evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra.

(end)