History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c18.10.7

v2.c18.10.7

Kauṭilya says²⁰ 'one may enjoy *kāma* provided there is no conflict with dharma and artha, one should not lead a life of no pleasures' and then true to his role of a writer on arthaśāstra, he proclaims that his own opinion is that *artha* is the principal of the three, as *dharma* and *kāma* both spring from *artha.*' Manu (II. 224)²¹ after setting out several views about which of the three is principal states it as his own opinion that one should strive for all the three, but adds that if *artha* or *kāma* is in conflict with *dharma* one should give up *artha* or *kāma* as the case may be. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (71. 84) and Bhāgavata I. 2. 9 say the same. The Kāmasūtra²² of Vātsyāyana defines the three and says that out of dharma, artha and kāma each preceding one is superior to each following one and that to the king artha should be the highest goal. This teaching shows that there are proximate ends or motives and ultimate ends or motives, that the ultimate ends are really the most valuable and that the whole teaching of dharmaśāstra points to this that all higher life demands discipline both of body and mind and requires the subjection of lower aims to aims of higher value. Manu II. 4 (like Aristotle in the first sentence of his Politics) says that the end of all activity is some presumed good. Manu further says (V.