अर्जुनस्य अन्त्येष्टि, द्वारकाप्लावनम्, कलिप्रवेशः, कालोपदेशः
भुङ्क्ते ऽप्रदाय विप्रेभ्यो एको मिष्टम् अथो भवान् किं वा कृपणवित्तानि हृतानि भवतार्जुन
bhuṅkte 'pradāya viprebhyo eko miṣṭam atho bhavān kiṃ vā kṛpaṇavittāni hṛtāni bhavatārjuna
“Có phải con một mình hưởng món ngon mà không dâng cúng trước cho các Bà-la-môn? Hay, hỡi Arjuna, con đã đoạt lấy của cải tích trữ của kẻ keo kiệt?”
Uncertain from single-verse excerpt (a reproaching speaker addressing a royal figure styled ‘Arjuna’ within the Ansha 4 dynastic narration, related by Sage Parāśara to Maitreya).
The verse treats dana as a visible marker of dharma: a ruler’s enjoyment is censured if it is not preceded by rightful giving, especially to those associated with learning and ritual maintenance.
Through genealogical stories and sharp moral rebukes like this, Parāśara frames royal prosperity as legitimate only when aligned with dharma—charity, protection, and restraint—rather than isolated indulgence.
Even when Vishnu is not named, the moral order being defended is ultimately grounded in Vishnu as the sustainer of dharma; the verse implies that sovereignty must reflect that sustaining principle through righteous giving and governance.