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 ||
Wika ni Bhīṣma: “May ilang asceta ang nagsabi, ‘Ibalik siya sa bahay ng kanyang ama.’ Ang iba namang asceta ay nagpasyang sawayin ako—itinutok ang kanilang isip sa pagsisi sa aking ginawa.”
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.