Mbh 12.10.1b

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.