We are
possessed of mighty arms; we are accomplished in knowledge and endued
with great energy. Yet we are obedient to the words of a eunuch as if we
were entirely helpless. We are the refuge of all helpless persons. Yet,
when people see us so, why would they not say that in respect of the
acquisition of our objects we are entirely powerless? Reflect on this
that I say. It has been laid down that (a life of) renunciation should be
adopted, only in times of distress, by kings overcome with decrepitude or
defeated by foes. Men of wisdom, therefore, do not applaud renunciation
as the duty of a Kshatriya. On the other hand, they that are of clear
sight think that the adoption of that course of life (by a Kshatriya)
involves even the loss of virtue. How can those that have sprung from
that order, that are devoted to the practices of that order, and that
have refuge in them, censure those duties? Indeed, if those duties be
censurable, then why should not the Supreme Ordainer be censured?[15] It
is only those persons that are reft of prosperity and wealth and that are
infidels in faith, that have promulgated this precept of the Vedas (about
the propriety of a Kshatriya's adoption of a life of renunciation) as the
truth. In reality, however, it is never proper for a Kshatriya to do so.
He who is competent to support life by prowess, he who can support
himself by his own exertions, does not live, but really falls away from
his duty, by the hypocritical externals of a life of renunciation.
Pages:
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043