the king’s forces are decreased. The king
should, therefore, fill his treasury (by any means)
like to one creating water in a wilderness which is
without water. Agreeably to this code of quasi-morality
practised by the ancients, the king should, when the
time for it comes,[391] show compassion to his people.
This is eternal duty. For men that are able and
competent,[392] the duties are of one kind. In
seasons of distress, however, one’s duties are
of a different kind. Without wealth a king may
(by penances and the like) acquire religious merit.
Life, however, is much more important than religious
merit. (And as life cannot be supported without wealth,
no such merit should be sought which stands in the
way of the acquisition of wealth). A king that
is weak, by acquiring only religious merit, never
succeeds in obtaining just and proper means for sustenance;
and since he cannot, by even his best exertions, acquire
power by the aid of only religious merit, therefore
the practices in seasons of distress are sometimes
regarded as not inconsistent with morality. The
learned, however, are of opinion that those practices
lead to sinfulness. After the season of distress
is over, what should the Kshatriya do? He should
(at such a time) conduct himself in such a way that
his merit may not be destroyed. He should also
act in such a way that he may not have to succumb
to his enemies.[393] Even these have been declared
to be his duties. He should not sink in despondency.
He should not (in times of distress) seek to rescue
(from the peril of destruction) the merit of others
or of himself. On the other hand, he should rescue
his own self. This is the settled conclusion.[394]
There is this Sruti, viz., that it is settled
that Brahmanas, who are conversant with duties, should
have proficiency in respect of duties. Similarly,
as regards the Kshatriya, his proficiency should consist
in exertion, since might of arms is his great possession.
When a Kshatriya’s means of support are gone,
what should he not take excepting what belongs to ascetics
and what is owned by Brahmanas? Even as a Brahmana
in a season of distress may officiate at the sacrifice
of a person for whom he should never officiate (at
other and ordinary times) and eat forbidden food, so
there is no doubt that a Kshatriya (in distress) may
take wealth from every one except ascetics and Brahmanas.
For one afflicted (by an enemy and seeking the means
of escape) what can be an improper outlet? For
a person immured (within a dungeon and seeking escape)
what can be an improper path? When a person becomes
afflicted, he escapes by even an improper outlet.
For a Kshatriya that has, in consequence of the weakness
of his treasury and army, become exceedingly humiliated,
neither a life of mendicancy nor the profession of
a Vaisya or that of a Sudra has been laid down.
The profession ordained for a Kshatriya is the acquisition
of wealth by battle and victory. He should never
beg of a member of his own order. The person