Shloka 32
The Kuru Line, Bhīṣma and Vyāsa; Pāṇḍavas, Parīkṣit, and Future Kings
Chandravaṁśa Continuation
करेणुमत्यां नकुलो नरमित्रं तथार्जुन: । इरावन्तमुलुप्यां वै सुतायां बभ्रुवाहनम् । मणिपुरपते: सोऽपि तत्पुत्र: पुत्रिकासुत: ॥ ३२ ॥
kareṇumatyāṁ nakulo naramitraṁ tathārjunaḥ irāvantam ulupyāṁ vai sutāyāṁ babhruvāhanam maṇipura-pateḥ so ’pi tat-putraḥ putrikā-sutaḥ
કરેણુમતીના ગર્ભથી નકુલને નરમિત્ર નામનો પુત્ર થયો. તેમ જ નાગકન્યા ઉલૂપીના ગર્ભથી અર્જુનને ઇરાવાન અને મણિપુરની રાજકુમારીના ગર્ભથી બભ્રુવાહન થયો; તે મણિપુરપતિનો પુત્રિકા-સુત, એટલે દત્તક પુત્ર બન્યો.
It is to be understood that Pārvatī is the daughter of the king of the very, very old mountainous country known as the Maṇipura state. Five thousand years ago, therefore, when the Pāṇḍavas ruled, Maṇipura existed, as did its king. Therefore this kingdom is a very old, aristocratic Vaiṣṇava kingdom. If this kingdom is organized as a Vaiṣṇava state, this revitalization will be a great success because for five thousand years this state has maintained its identity. If the Vaiṣṇava spirit is revived there, it will be a wonderful place, renowned throughout the entire world. Maṇipuri Vaiṣṇavas are very famous in Vaiṣṇava society. In Vṛndāvana and Navadvīpa there are many temples constructed by the king of Maṇipura. Some of our devotees belong to the Maṇipura state. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, therefore, can be well spread in the state of Maṇipura by the cooperative efforts of the Kṛṣṇa conscious devotees.
FAQs
This verse states that Arjuna begot Irāvān through Ulūpī, and Babhravāhana through the Maṇipura princess (Citrāṅgadā), who was the daughter of the king of Maṇipura.
“Putrikā-suta” refers to a son born to a daughter under an arrangement where the maternal grandfather (here, the king of Maṇipura) is legally regarded as the child’s father for lineage purposes; thus Babhravāhana is counted as the king’s son as well.
It highlights how the Bhagavatam carefully preserves sacred genealogies and social-dharma contexts, reminding readers that lineage, responsibility, and duty were traditionally understood within well-defined ethical and familial frameworks.