Uttarā-vilāpaḥ and Kṛṣṇasya satya-vacanenābhi-mañyu-jasyābhijīvanam
Uttarā’s Lament and the Revival of Abhimanyu’s Son by Krishna’s Truth-Act
अजानतीमिषीकेयं जनित्रीं हन्त्विति प्रभो | अहमेव विनष्टा स्यां नैतदेवंगते भवेत्
ajānatīm iṣīkeyaṁ janitrīṁ hantv iti prabho | aham eva vinaṣṭā syāṁ naitad evaṁgate bhavet ||
Vaiśampāyana dit : «Ô seigneur ! Ô Puṇḍarīkākṣa ! Si Dharmarāja, ou le noble Bhīmasena, ou toi-même aviez dit : “Que cette iṣīkā frappe à mort la mère sans méfiance de l’enfant plutôt que l’enfant”, alors je seule aurais péri ; en telle situation, ce malheur ne se serait pas produit.»
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Even a seemingly small directive—especially from revered authorities—can carry grave moral weight. The verse highlights ethical restraint: do not redirect violence onto an innocent, and recognize that a single wrongful command can trigger wider calamity beyond the immediate victim.
A speaker addresses Kṛṣṇa (Puṇḍarīkākṣa), reflecting on a hypothetical command: if Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma, or Kṛṣṇa had ordered the iṣīkā to kill the boy’s unaware mother instead of the child, then only the speaker would have suffered, and the larger misfortune would have been avoided. The passage frames a moral counterfactual about blame, authority, and the spread of harm.