Shloka 38
The Murder of Satrājit and the Recovery of the Syamantaka Jewel
तथापि दुर्धरस्त्वन्यैस्त्वय्यास्तां सुव्रते मणि: । किन्तु मामग्रज: सम्यङ्न प्रत्येति मणिं प्रति ॥ ३८ ॥ दर्शयस्व महाभाग बन्धूनां शान्तिमावह । अव्युच्छिन्ना मखास्तेऽद्य वर्तन्ते रुक्मवेदय: ॥ ३९ ॥
tathāpi durdharas tv anyais tvayy āstāṁ su-vrate maṇiḥ kintu mām agrajaḥ samyaṅ na pratyeti maṇiṁ prati
Namun begitu, wahai Akrūra yang setia pada nazar, permata itu biarlah tetap dalam jagaanmu, kerana orang lain sukar memeliharanya dengan selamat. Tetapi abangku tidak sepenuhnya percaya akan kata-kataku tentang permata itu; maka tunjukkanlah sekali sahaja. Wahai yang amat bertuah, dengan demikian engkau menenangkan kaum kerabatku; kerana semua mengetahui engkau kini berterusan melakukan yajña di atas altar-altar emas.
Although technically Satyabhāmā’s sons had a right to the jewel, Lord Kṛṣṇa decided to leave the jewel in the care of Akrūra, who was using the jewel’s wealth to continually perform religious sacrifices. Indeed, Akrūra’s ability to perform such rituals on altars of gold was an indication of the jewel’s potency.
FAQs
This verse states the jewel is “durdhara”—not easily obtained by others—and is to remain safely with Satyabhama, emphasizing its extraordinary potency and the caution required in handling it.
Within the Syamantaka narrative, suspicion and rumor arise around the jewel; Satyabhama notes that Balarama (Krishna’s elder brother) is not fully satisfied about Krishna’s position in the matter, so the jewel must be shown to restore confidence.
When misunderstandings arise, clarity and transparent proof—offered respectfully—help restore trust and protect relationships, just as the jewel’s situation required open resolution.