Do not copy-paste anything from google. kindly write in your own language.

In the answer, Must Give 5/6 bullets points. Each bullet point should have a paragraph within (40 to 50 words)

The answer should be based on the paragraph below. I will upvote after getting the answer :) thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give Answer by reading the paragraphs below:Question:

broadly_talk_about_how_the_author_defined_the_concept_of_dharmashastra_and_arthashastra.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give Answer by reading the paragraphs below:

Some two thousand miles to the East, another set of people thought they possessed revelation from god, but they could hardly have been more different. Social and political thought developed in India somewhat later than in Mesopotamia or Egypt, during the late second and first millennia BCE, after the Indo-Europeans had invaded the subcontinent. But it went on developing over a much longer period. At first, it was embedded in ritual and philosophical texts: the Rig Veda (c.1300c.1000 BCE), the Mantric Vedas (c.1200c.1000 BCE), and the early Brahmanas (c.1000c. 800 BCE)explanations of ritual (Roy 1994: 1314; KR 34). There was an outburst of creative thinking from c. 800 to c. 500, which produced the Upanishads (c. 800c. 600 BCE) and Buddhism. The dharmashastras (writings on ethics) were composed from the third century onwards. These were commentaries on the sacred texts, a branch of Brahminical sacred literature dealing with civil and religious law (Ghoshal 1959: 528). They expanded the ritualistic universe of the vedas into every corner of everyday life (Smith 1994: 27). The duties of kingship (rajadharma) were expounded in the dharmasutras, following the sacred revealed texts (Ghoshal 1959: 189). The Laws of Manu were compiled from c. 200 BCE to c. 200 CE. Dharma meant morality, piety, virtue, the social order. Dharma did not, however, lay down general moral principles according to which one could judge a rulers action.1 In this it differed from natural law in Graeco-Roman and European thought.2 Rather, it specified the duties of individuals and groups, and was thus integrally related to caste.3 The distinctive feature of the Indian moral code was that dharma varied according to ones social position and stage of life (Derrett and Duncan 1975: 1278). In the dharmasutras, the authors conceive dharmain the sense of the sum total of the distinctive duties of the constituent units of the social system comprising the four castes (varnas) and the four orders (asramas) (on which see below), including the king (Ghoshal 1959: 43, 83). These religious texts were written by brahmins (see below, p. 68), and were generally regarded as the basis of all valid knowledge. The characteristics of political thought in India were thus for the most part defined by its religiophilosophical culture. Like the Hebrew scriptures, these texts were thought to

have been revealed by the godhead (Brahma) (though not through specified individuals). Absolute, transcendent authority[was] vested in the Veda (Heestermann 1998: 33); the truth so revealed was the law that governs the universethat operates in ritual and sacrifice, and finally the moral law. 4 These truths were handed down from teacher to pupil. Such an attitude determined the form and content of mental life: what was best had been discovered by ancestors long agodebate was confined to the question whether current versions correctly appraised what the past had achieved (Derrett and Duncan 1975: 135). The approach to moral questions was quite similar to that of the revealed monotheistic religions. This body of religious thought also dealt, implicitly or explicitly, with power relationships: power in the universe, power in the social order, power over peoples hearts and minds. If anyone imagined political thought could not be more religiocentric than in Egypt and Mesopotamia, they were wrong. But there was also a separate genre of writings on politics and economics: the arthashastras. These were the product of independent schools and independent teachers working more or less on lines distinct from the Brahmanical canon (Ghoshal 1959: 802). Thus ancient Indian political thought developed in two directions, broadly expressed in the genres of dharmashastra and arthashatra. Kautilya, author of the sole surviving example of arthashastra (KA), writing in the second century BCE, defined artha as the subsistence of men or the land supplied with men, arthashastra being the branch of knowledge which treats of the means of acquiring and guarding these.5 Arthashastras discussed how to achieve security and prosperity, the well-being and expansion of the state (meaning both the king and the people). In particular, they discussed the distinct skills needed for the use of coercive power (the Rod: danda) and for the maintenance of law and order by the use of punishment (KA 1.4.3 and 1.2.19). They may have been composed for particular rulers or states, but they were summaries of knowledge rather than pieces doccasion. Arthashastras in general relied on observation, analysis, and deduction.6 Their method of argument and subject-matter may be called secular. Kautilya preferred experience and observation to earlier textual authority. Frequently, especially on foreign affairs, he rejected the views of earlier teachers. He said that philosophy is ever thought of as the lamp of all sciences, as the means of all actions (and) as the support of all laws (and duties) (KA 1.2.12); this has been seen as a rare subordination of religion to critical reason. 7 He was adamant that the king should be educated in philosophy and religion (which he should learn from brahmins) as well as in economics (which he learns from government ministers) and politics (which he learns from theoretical exponents of political science and practising politicians) (KA 1.5.710). The Arthashastras concern is with the terminology, arguments and method that should articulate debate and help in reaching appropriate decisions. 8 It was appropriate, therefore, that Kautilya stressed the need for

counsel (mantra) in taking political decisions. Rulership can only be carried out with the help of associatestherefore (the king) should appoint ministers and listen to their opinion (KA 1.7.9; 1.15.414). One is more likely to take the right decision after a debate. But Kautilya disagreed with those who say that ministers are more important than the king; for it is the king who appoints the councillors (KA 8.1.12). Knowledge (or counsel) is preferable to might (the treasury and the army) and to valour or energy (moral and psychological influence) (KA 6.2.33). Discussing the relative weight that should be given to each of these in preparing for a military campaign, Kautilya noted that earlier teachers had said that energy is superior to might. No, says Kautilya. And they said that might is superior to counsel. No, says Kautilya. Rather, the power of counsel is superior. For the king with eyes of intelligence and science, is able to take counsel even with a small effort and to over-reach enemies possessed of energy and might, by conciliation and other means and by secret and occult practices (KA 9.1.1415). In the Dharmasutras, too, reasoning was a recognized means of applying the sacred tradition to current situations. When there was no clear ruling in scripture, a council of ten qualified persons could decide. Public sentiment was also invoked. The Mahabharata, a massive epic poem composed between the eighth century BCE and the third century CE (KR 45), contained a wider variety of ideas. It drew on both the religious canon and the arthashastras; and it contained a great deal of original thought by its own author(s). Political ideas expressed by the sage in the Mahabharata blend the old (brahmanical) tradition with the teaching of the technical arthashastrasSome duties are based on truth, others on reasoning and still others on good custom and expediency (Ghoshal 1959: 468, 99, 189, 227). But the Mahabharata focused on kingship rather than the brahmins. The epic ends in triumph for the forces of good, when Yudhishthira, the king of righteousness (dharma-raja), becomes the actual king.9 Here the conflicts of lineage are transcended by the monarchical state (Thapar 1984). The Buddha also engaged in independent thought. In fact, he produced a radical alternative to the vedic, brahminical order. That there was no philosophy or science in the Graeco-European, or again the Chinese, senses open-ended argument from logical propositions and empirical observation without regard for current beliefsdid not mean there was no original thought.