difference between chanak and chankya - Page 3

Originally posted by: lucykaede

mom ne kaha hain alag alag theories hain,durdhara ke baare mein agar jaana chaho to authentic baat sirf ye hain ke wo bindu ke mom the par wo dhana ke bete nahin ho sakti.

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

but if ur mom said she cant be then she must have reason yah koi aisa proof haath lag gaya😆 ask ur mom why she said that

Originally posted by: lucykaede

proof to unhone kuch bataya nahin.maine pucha bhe to kaha padhai par dhyan do,durdhara ka ques nahin aane waala exam mein.so...

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

that is so funny. u should have said pehle aap kuch kehta ho aur jab hum kuch pooche toh uska sahi uttar dene ke bajaai yeh.

provoke her say that means u not sure kya pata gusse main akar kuch bolde😆 just joking.

chalo when u exams done then ask phir dekhte hain kya bolti hain. u history student arent u lucy. then say yeh humara haq hain to know truth. and she professor so uska kaam hain gyaan baantna.

BTW does ur mom watch CGM? coz if so u must have to hear her commentary going on😆

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

k lucy did bit of research

yes there were other nandas after mahapadma and dhanananda didnt come staright after. yes but they say mahapadma ruled for 12 years out of dynasty 100 yrs.

plus dhana cant be his brother as mahapadma killed all his step brothers. he may have sons how many am not sure myself.

only way to find out is to get right dates

mahapadma came into rule 424bc and before dhana mahendra nanda ruled. dhana came in much later. but we dont know how many yrs he was king. i can only assume that chanak was born at time when mahapadma sons start ruling some tim in 380 bc. and they say chanakya was born 360bc. now what i have seen they show chanakya as kid so he must be 15 yrs old. so chanak may have been killed in 345 bc. and dhana may have come into power in 350 bc. coz dhana cant have been in rule for that long if there were 6 other nandas ruling before him. and i know nandas ruled for 100 yrs so mahapadma must have been dhana great grandfather.

so back to point chanak must have been older than dhana. and dhana must have been abt 10 yrs older than chanakya.

so this means acharya chanak got killed just 5 yrs before CGM was born who came into this wilrd in 340 bc. again these dates can be a bit up and down.

can u confirm this theory lucy some of it is just my assumption but this goes to prove dhana was mahapadma grandson not son u still right there😉

Originally posted by: bhaiyyaji

k lucy did bit of research

yes there were other nandas after mahapadma and dhanananda didnt come staright after. yes but they say mahapadma ruled for 12 years out of dynasty 100 yrs.

plus dhana cant be his brother as mahapadma killed all his step brothers. he may have sons how many am not sure myself.

only way to find out is to get right dates

mahapadma came into rule 424bc and before dhana mahendra nanda ruled. dhana came in much later. but we dont know how many yrs he was king. i can only assume that chanak was born at time when mahapadma sons start ruling some tim in 380 bc. and they say chanakya was born 360bc. now what i have seen they show chanakya as kid so he must be 15 yrs old. so chanak may have been killed in 345 bc. and dhana may have come into power in 350 bc. coz dhana cant have been in rule for that long if there were 6 other nandas ruling before him. and i know nandas ruled for 100 yrs so mahapadma must have been dhana great grandfather.

so back to point chanak must have been older than dhana. and dhana must have been abt 10 yrs older than chanakya.

so this means acharya chanak got killed just 5 yrs before CGM was born who came into this wilrd in 340 bc. again these dates can be a bit up and down.

can u confirm this theory lucy some of it is just my assumption but this goes to prove dhana was mahapadma grandson not son u still right there😉

Originally posted by: prekssha1

stupid1337933831567

Originally posted by: subarna01

Kajol1341745969265

Originally posted by: faardein

Kajol1345625270575