The king should always publicly take away the wealth of such a person as
does not practise charity, by acting in this way the king earns great
merit. Listen again to me. That Brahmana who has been forced by want to
go without six meals,[472] may take away without permission, according to
the rule of a person that cares only for today without any thought of the
morrow, only what is necessary for a single meal, from the husking tub or
the field or the garden or any other place of even a man of low pursuits.
He should, however, whether asked or unasked, inform the king of his
act.[473] If the king be conversant with duty he should not inflict any
punishment upon such a Brahmana. He should remember that a Brahmana
becomes afflicted with hunger only through the fault of the
Kshatriya.[474] Having ascertained a Brahmana's learning and behaviour,
the king should make a provision for him, and protect him as a father
protects the son of his own loins. On the expiry of every year, one
should perform the Vaisvanara sacrifice (if he is unable to perform any
animal or Soma sacrifice). They who are conversant with religion say that
the practice of an act laid down in the alternative, is not destructive
of virtue. The Viswedevas, the Sadhyas, the Brahmanas, and great Rishis,
fearing death in seasons of distress, do not scruple to have recourse to
such provisions in the scriptures as have been laid down in the
alternative. That man, however, who while able to live according to the
primary provision, betakes himself to the alternative, comes to be
regarded as a wicked person and never succeeds in winning any felicity in
heaven.
Pages:
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693