Do not copy-paste anything from google or any previous solves. 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

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

Question:

In_the_paragraph_below_it_is_written_that_Arthashastra's_method_of_argument_and_subject_matter_may_be_called_secular._To_what_extent_do_you_think_this_claim_is_correct?

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

Give Answer by reading the paragraphs below:

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.