Enemies in Family

The Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ: "A father in debts to others is enemy." Ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ. Because according to Manu-saṁhitā, the son inherits the property of the father. That is everywhere. So Manu-saṁhitā also makes responsible the son for the father's debt. Nowadays, if my father is debtor, I am not responsible. But according to the Vedic laws, the son is responsible the father's debt. Because he inherits the property, why he shall not inherit the debts of the father? According to Manu-saṁhitā law he is obliged to pay the debts of the father.

We have seen one very practical example. Even fifty years ago, in Calcutta, there was a very big barrister. He was a political leader. He was Mr. C. R. Das. So his father died insolvent. His father was also very respectable man, but later on he became so much debtor that he died insolvent, declared. This Mr. C. R. Das, he did not get any property from the father, but by his practice as a barrister he became very rich man. In those days his monthly income was fifty thousand rupees. So he called all the creditors of his father and paid paisa to paisa, that "My father died in debtor. Now I have got money, you can take." So this is the duty of the son. But if one is poor man, he cannot pay. So he becomes a subject matter of criticism. Under the circumstances the father becomes the enemy. So therefore the Cāṇakya Paṇḍita's enunciation, ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ. And mātā śatrur vyabhicāriṇī: and if the mother, either she becomes prostitute or marries for the second time in the presence of elderly children, she is enemy. Ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatrur mātā śatrur vyabhicāriṇī. And Cāṇakya Paṇḍita had very bad experience with his wife. So he says, rūpavatī bhāryā śatruḥ: "If the wife is very beautiful, she is enemy." And putraḥ śatrur apaṇḍitaḥ: "And if the son is a rascal, no education, he is enemy." So these are the family 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.7.32-33
Type: Srimad-Bhagavatam
Date: Sept. 27, 1976
Location: Vṛndāvana

 

Buy my book Rule of Saintly Kings

 

A kingdom, state, or empire must be governed under the instructions of saintly persons and brahmaṇas like the Kumaras. When monarchy ruled throughout the world, the monarch was actually directed by a board of brahmaṇas and saintly persons. The king, as the administrator of the state, executed his duties as a servant of the brahmaṇas. It was not that the kings or brahmaṇas were dictators, nor did they consider themselves proprietors of the state. The kings were also well versed in Vedic literature and thus were familiar with the injunction of Sri isopanisad: isavasyam idaṁ sarvam — everything that exists belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In Bhagavad-gita Lord Kṛṣṇa also claims that He is the proprietor of all planetary systems (Sarva-Loka-maheśvaram). Since this is the case, no one can claim to be the proprietor of the state. The king, president, or head of the state should always remember that he is not the proprietor but the servant.

 

https://amzn.to/46axtOR