Shloka 20
वंशवर्णनम्, अनिरुद्धविवाहः, तथा बलराम-रुक्मी द्यूतविवादः
त्वयोक्तो ऽयं ग्लहः सत्यं न मयैषो ऽनुमोदितः एवं त्वया चेद् विजितं मया न विजितं कथम्
tvayokto 'yaṃ glahaḥ satyaṃ na mayaiṣo 'numoditaḥ evaṃ tvayā ced vijitaṃ mayā na vijitaṃ katham
Truly, this wager was proposed by you; I did not assent to it. If, as you claim, you have won, how could I not have won as well?
Uncertain from the isolated verse (likely a royal or disputing party within the dynastic narrative of Ansha 4; speaker identification requires adjacent verses).
Vishnu Form: Krishna
FAQs
Here the wager becomes a test of legitimacy: the speaker challenges the fairness of a claimed victory by pointing out the absence of consent, reflecting how royal outcomes must align with dharma, not mere assertion.
Victory is treated as something that must be mutually intelligible and ethically grounded—if the conditions are not agreed upon, the claim of “I won” is questioned as incomplete or invalid.
Even when Vishnu is not named, Ansha 4’s royal histories are read as dharma in action under Vishnu’s supreme governance—political order and rightful rule ultimately depend on the cosmic order sustained by the Supreme Reality.