This was regarded as one of the four
approved forms of marriage (prashasta
marriages) but fell out of favor because
of the stigma of accepting any sort of gift
for the bride, even one explicitly desig-
nated for sacrifice. The form was named
after the rishis(sages) because of the
implicit sacrificial rites. See also mar-
riage, eight classical forms.
Artha
In Indian philosophythis is one of the
four purusharthas, or aims of life, with
the others being kama(desire), dharma
(religious duty), and moksha(final liber-
ation of the soul). The word arthahas dif-
ferent shades of meaning in various
contexts, but all of these meanings center
on the definitions “aim,” “goal,” or “end.”
The word can thus refer to any goal of
human life, but as one of these
purusharthas, artha refers to riches,
power, and worldly prosperity. These are
the material things that allow one to ful-
fill one’s temporal goals, and unless one
gains them in some measure, any sort of
worldly happiness becomes problematic.
Hindu culture has traditionally sanc-
tioned wealth and power as a legitimate
human goal, although this endeavor
must be governed by a commitment to
dharma. When controlled by an overall
orientation to righteous action, the
quest for wealth is part of an integrated
life. Without this commitment the drive
for wealth becomes an all-consuming
desire that ultimately destroys a person.
Arthapatti
(“presumption”) All Indian philosophical
schools concern themselves with codify-
ing the pramanas, that is, the means by
which human beings can gain true and
accurate knowledge. Almost all schools
consider perception (pratyaksha), infer-
ence (anumana), and authoritative testi-
mony (shabda) as pramanas; the Purva
Mimamsaschool, one of the six schools
of traditional Hindu philosophy, posited
two others: abhava (“knowledge from
absence”) and arthapatti.
Arthapatti is an inference from cir-
cumstance in which a judgment is
made about one case based solely on
similarities to related cases. An
example would be when a traveler is
presumed to have reached her destina-
tion, since the train’s arrival time has
passed. According to Indian philoso-
phy, this is not a true inference since
the judgment must always be con-
firmed by direct perception, in this
case that the train had actually
reached its destination. The Purva
Mimamsas justified this new pramana
by arguing that this knowledge could
not be accounted for by any of the
existing pramanas and thus required
this new one to explain it. The other
schools were not inclined to accept it,
since its presumptive nature could
often lead to error.Arthashastra
(“Treatise on Power”) Text on power and
politics attributed to Kautilya, the
Machiavellian prime minister said to
have orchestrated the rise to power of
Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297
B.C.E.), the founder of the Maurya
dynasty. The Arthashastrawas intended
as a guidebook for the king, to help him
control both the people in his kingdom
and the surrounding states.
The Arthashastra’s fundamental
assumption was that the king wanted to
remain in power and should do whatev-
er it took to retain it.
Within the kingdom, Kautilya advo-
cated a strict and authoritarian govern-
ment aided by an extensive network of
spies to gather intelligence and assess
the popular mood. These spies included
men posing as wandering ascetics, who
could move about without suspicion.
The book also advised the king to assign
special spies to his closest advisers
to monitor their ambition, and to
have these spies report only to the
king himself.
In regard to neighboring countries,
the Arthashastra assumed that each
king wanted to increase his kingdom atArthashastra