View source for This sarcastic remark pointed out that Dhrtarastra was falsely claiming the throne on hereditary grounds. Actually Pandu had been the rightful king, and in the presence of Pandu's sons, the Pandavas, Dhrtarastra should not have occupied the throne

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"This sarcastic remark pointed out that Dhṛtarāṣṭra was falsely claiming the throne on hereditary grounds. Actually Pāṇḍu had been the rightful king, and in the presence of Pāṇḍu’s sons, the Pāṇḍavas, Dhṛtarāṣṭra should not have occupied the throne"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|HanumanIC}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2017-04-04T13:31:57Z}}
{{last|2017-04-04T13:31:57Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=1|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:This]]
[[Category:Sarcastically]]
[[Category:Remark]]
[[Category:Point Out]]
[[Category:That]]
[[Category:Dhrtarastra]]
[[Category:Was]]
[[Category:False]]
[[Category:Claim]]
[[Category:Throne]]
[[Category:Hereditary]]
[[Category:Ground]]
[[Category:Actually]]
[[Category:Pandu]]
[[Category:Have Been]]
[[Category:Right (Correct)]]
[[Category:King]]
[[Category:Presence]]
[[Category:Pandu]]
[[Category:Son]]
[[Category:Five Pandavas]]
[[Category:Dhrtarastra]]
[[Category:Should Not]]
[[Category:Have]]
[[Category:Occupy]]
[[Category:Throne]]
[[Category:Krsna Book Chapter 49 - I'll-motivated Dhrtarastra]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Other Books by Srila Prabhupada</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
When a child was begotten in the wife by the husband’s brother, the child was claimed by the husband, but of course the child was not begotten by the husband. This sarcastic remark pointed out that Dhṛtarāṣṭra was falsely claiming the throne on hereditary grounds. Actually Pāṇḍu had been the rightful king, and in the presence of Pāṇḍu’s sons, the Pāṇḍavas, Dhṛtarāṣṭra should not have occupied the throne.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:KB 49|Krsna Book, 49]]
</div>
<div class="text">
Although Kṛṣṇa was not present before her, Kuntī offered her prayers to Him as if she were in His presence face to face. This is possible for anyone following in the footsteps of Kuntī. Kṛṣṇa does not have to be physically present everywhere. He is actually present everywhere by spiritual potency, and one simply has to surrender unto Him sincerely.

When Kuntī was offering her prayers very feelingly to Kṛṣṇa, she could not check herself and began to cry loudly before Akrūra. Vidura was also present, and both Akrūra and Vidura became very sympathetic to the mother of the Pāṇḍavas and began to solace her by glorifying her five sons, namely Yudhiṣṭhira, Arjuna, Bhīma, Nakula and Sahadeva. They pacified her, saying that her sons were extraordinarily powerful; she should not be perturbed about them, since they were born of great demigods like Yamarāja, Indra and Vāyu.

Akrūra decided to return home and report on the strained circumstances in which he found Kuntī and her five sons. He first wanted to give good advice to Dhṛtarāṣṭra, who was so favorably inclined toward his own sons and unfavorably inclined toward the Pāṇḍavas. When King Dhṛtarāṣṭra was sitting among friends and relatives, Akrūra began to address him, calling him Vaicitravīrya. Vaicitravīrya means “the son of Vicitravīrya.” Vicitravīrya was the name of Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s father, but Dhṛtarāṣṭra was actually the begotten son not of Vicitravīrya but of Vyāsadeva. Formerly it was the system that if a man were unable to beget a child, his brother could beget a child in the womb of his wife (devareṇa sutotpattiḥ). That system is now forbidden in this Age of Kali. Akrūra called Dhṛtarāṣṭra Vaicitravīrya sarcastically because he was not actually begotten by his father. He was the son of Vyāsadeva. When a child was begotten in the wife by the husband’s brother, the child was claimed by the husband, but of course the child was not begotten by the husband. This sarcastic remark pointed out that Dhṛtarāṣṭra was falsely claiming the throne on hereditary grounds. Actually Pāṇḍu had been the rightful king, and in the presence of Pāṇḍu’s sons, the Pāṇḍavas, Dhṛtarāṣṭra should not have occupied the throne.

Akrūra said, “My dear son of Vicitravīrya, you have unlawfully usurped the throne of the Pāṇḍavas. Anyway, somehow or other you are now on the throne. Therefore I beg to advise you to please rule the kingdom on moral and ethical principles. If you do so and try to please your subjects in that way, your name and fame will be perpetual.” Akrūra hinted that although Dhṛtarāṣṭra was ill-treating his nephews, the Pāṇḍavas, they happened to be his subjects. “Even if you treat them not as the owners of the throne but as your subjects, you should impartially think of their welfare as though they were your own sons. But if you do not follow this principle and act in just the opposite way, you will be unpopular among your subjects, and in the next life you will have to live in a hellish condition. I therefore hope you will treat your sons and the sons of Pāṇḍu equally.” Akrūra hinted that if Dhṛtarāṣṭra did not treat the Pāṇḍavas and his sons as equals, surely there would be a fight between the two camps of cousins. Since the cause of the Pāṇḍavas was just, they would come out victorious, and the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra would be killed. This was a prophecy told by Akrūra to Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

Akrūra further advised Dhṛtarāṣṭra, “In this material world, no one can remain an eternal companion to another. Only by chance do we assemble together in a family, society, community or nation, but at the end, because every one of us has to give up the body, we must be separated. One should not, therefore, be unnecessarily affectionate toward family members.” Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s affection was also unlawful and did not show much intelligence. In plain words, Akrūra hinted to Dhṛtarāṣṭra that his staunch family affection was due to his gross ignorance of fact or his blindness to moral principles. Although we appear combined together in a family, society or nation, each of us has an individual destiny. Everyone takes birth according to individual past work; therefore everyone must individually enjoy or suffer the result of his own karma. There is no possibility of improving one’s destiny by cooperative living. Sometimes it happens that one’s father accumulates wealth by illegal ways, and the son takes away the money, although it is hard-earned by the father, just as a small fish in the ocean eats the material body of a large, old fish. One ultimately cannot accumulate wealth illegally for the gratification of his family, society, community or nation. An illustration of this principle is that many great empires which developed in the past are no longer existing because their wealth was squandered away by later descendants. One who does not know this subtle law of fruitive activities and who thus gives up the moral and ethical principles carries with him only the reactions of his sinful activities. His ill-gotten wealth and possessions are taken by someone else, and he goes to the darkest region of hellish life. One should not, therefore, accumulate more wealth than allotted to him by destiny; otherwise he will be factually blind to his own interest. Instead of fulfilling his self-interest, he will act in just the opposite way for his own downfall.
</div>
</div>
</div>