Shloka 39
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
Gayunman, O mapagkakatiwalaang Akrūra, manatili nawa ang hiyas sa iyong pag-iingat, sapagkat mahirap itong bantayan ng iba. Ngunit ang aking nakatatandang kapatid ay hindi lubos na naniniwala sa sinabi ko tungkol sa hiyas; kaya ipakita mo ito kahit minsan lamang. O pinagpala, sa gayon ay mapapawi ang alinlangan ng aming mga kamag-anak; sapagkat batid ng lahat na ikaw ay walang patid na nagsasagawa ng mga yajña sa mga dambanang ginto.
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 shows that transparency and a willingness to clarify doubts—here, displaying the Syamantaka jewel—can restore peace among relatives and protect harmony.
Because suspicion about the Syamantaka jewel created tension, and she wanted Krishna’s elder brother (Balarama) and the wider family to be reassured by openly seeing the jewel.
When misunderstandings harm trust, offer clear evidence, communicate respectfully, and prioritize reconciliation over ego—so that relationships and shared duties can continue peacefully.