difference between chanak and chankya - Page 2

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

thanks you very much lucy😊 i get to learn from u. someday i will come india to do full research. maybe u can explain when i come😆

so all this gyaan is from ur mother who is professor. i have no doubt abt it then i was just wondering if its only from serial u are saying then it can be debated.

but a professor nobody can beat that. dhanananda was his descendent then u answered ur own question agar brother hota then that means either he was too old which i dont think or he would have died by time chanakya was born

now u know why i call u wikipedia😆 u got the knowledge and u apply with logic i really like that

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

no problem lucy we all mistakes thats why we are human beings😉 so what u saying is dhana was maha padma brother then is that it so he was not descendent. i had doubt as well i mean 7 descendent that would take lot of time

dhana got throne after maha padma but didnt u say all his brother got to rule that means dhana had to wait long time then and does that mean he was very old ruler must be in 50-60 if all his brother got to rule before him

Originally posted by: lucykaede

yeah sry for confusing you as you believe in me so its my duty to give you right information.the truth is that my dear is that no one knows the history of rulers of this dynasty except of ugrasena mahapadma nanda and dhanananda,dhana's name was not his real name,it was his nick name as he used to be in love with money.there is no evidence or story which suggests that mahapadma ever meet chanak or chanakya so chanak was killed by dhanu.its written in mudraraksha,i think because it is shown in older chanakya.maybe.conclusion drawn is that chanak was killed by dhana not ugrasena.puranas don't consider mahapadma as a good ruler,they call him very bad rulers but scholars praise him for being a daring ruler and extending empire.

sorry again lucy so dhanananda was descendent of mahapadma nanada. maybe mahapadma nanda was his grandfather. dhanananda didnt come that late in history. nanda rule was only for 100 years in those 100 years mahapadma rules as well as dhana. i read it somewhere nanda rule was for 100 yrs before CGM took over. we need to take acoc**t of how many yrs mahapadma ruled and dhana's rule

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

sorry again lucy so dhanananda was descendent of mahapadma nanada. maybe mahapadma nanda was his grandfather. dhanananda didnt come that late in history. nanda rule was only for 100 years in those 100 years mahapadma rules as well as dhana. i read it somewhere nanda rule was for 100 yrs before CGM took over. we need to take acoc**t of how many yrs mahapadma ruled and dhana's rule

the brother theory true or not is hard to believe coz if dhana had to wait till all his bro ruled then he would be really old died before he got throne😆. so he cant be mahapadma brother

this also means chanakya was young compared to dhana who must have been really old if he was there during chanak time as he killed him. but that is understood.

and can u ask ur mom about dhara as she said she cant bt dhana daughter plz find that out and post it here. and ask for references coz khushi gave 3 textbooks from where its proven she was? atleast yeh confusion toh door hoga😆