Shloka 2
Amba approaches the Paraśurāma context; Hotravāhana’s counsel and Akṛtavraṇa’s report (अम्बोपाख्यानम्—रामदर्शनप्रसङ्गः)
केचिदाहु: पितुर्वेश्म नीयतामिति तापसा: । केचिदस्मदुपालम्भे मतिं चक्रुर्हि तापसा:,कुछ तपस्वी यह कहने लगे कि इस राजकन्याको इसके पिताके घर पहुँचा दिया जाय। कुछ तापसोंने मुझे उलाहना देनेका निश्चय किया
kecid āhuḥ pitur veśma nīyatām iti tāpasāḥ | kecid asmad-upālambhe matiṁ cakrur hi tāpasāḥ ||
ភីṣ្មៈបានមានព្រះវាចា៖ «មានតាបសខ្លះនិយាយថា ‘ចូរនាំនាងត្រឡប់ទៅផ្ទះបិតារបស់នាងវិញ’។ តាបសខ្លះទៀតវិញ បានដាក់ចិត្តសម្រេចថា នឹងតិះដៀលខ្ញុំ—ផ្ដោតចិត្តលើការរិះគន់អំពើរបស់ខ្ញុំ»។
भीष्म उवाच
Educational Q&A
Moral authority in the epic is not limited to kings: ascetics also judge conduct. The verse highlights accountability—when an action appears to violate propriety or dharma, society (here, tapasvins) may demand restitution (returning the maiden) and may openly censure even a revered elder like Bhīṣma.
Bhīṣma reports the divided reaction of the ascetics: one group urges that the princess be returned to her father’s home, while another group prepares to blame Bhīṣma himself, indicating a brewing ethical dispute around how she has been handled.