h death before tasting it. Or, it is like that
of a person who having set out on a long way comes back in despair
without having reached his destination. Or, it is like that of a person
who having slain all his foes, O thou of Kuru's race, at last falls by
his own hand. Or, it is like that of a person afflicted with hunger, who
having obtained food, refuses to take it, or of a person under the
influence of desire, who having obtained a woman reciprocating his
passion, refuses to meet with her. We have become objects of censure, O
Bharata, because, O king, we follow thee that art of feeble
understanding, in consequence of thyself being our eldest brother. 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. That
man only is capable of leading a solitary life of happiness in the woods
who is unable to support sons and grandsons and the deities and Rishis
and guests and Pitris. As the deer and boars and birds (though they lead
a forest life) cannot attain to heaven, even so those Kshatriyas that are
n