Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.83.9
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
abhiśāpam
—
condemnation, false accusation
Abhi (toward) + śāpa (curse). The word names what Bhagavān bore for the sake of His own reputation among devotees: a public abhiśāpa. The act of going to the cave was nirmāṇa — repair — of His own kīrti, not for His sake but for the bhaktas' confidence.
-
ṛkṣa - rājam
—
king of the bears (Jāmbavān)
Ṛkṣa (bear) + rāja (king). Jāmbavān is the same companion who served Lord Rāma — Kṛṣṇa is fighting His own previous-līlā servant. The fight ends when Jāmbavān recognizes the voice of his Rāma. The chapter will pick up this thread in the next verse from Jāmbavatī's side.
-
ratnam
—
the jewel (Syamantaka)
Ratna — a precious stone. Kṛṣṇa returned it though He could have kept it. Gauḍīya commentators highlight that the gem was nothing to Him — He came for the kīrti, not for the gold.
-
adiśata
—
offered, gave directively
Imperfect of ā + √diś. Satrājit had already promised Satyabhāmā elsewhere, but his fear made him 'redirect' her. The verb captures the abrupt re-allocation — and Kṛṣṇa accepts it without comment, knowing the underlying eligibility was always His.
-
dattām
—
(already) given
Past participle feminine of √dā — given. The bracket is striking: she had already been given to others. Gauḍīya reading: Kṛṣṇa overrides the worldly contract because the inner contract — her bhakti — predates it. The Lord rearranges destinies when bhakti is in play.
As described in Chapter Fifty-six of this canto, King Satrājit had already compromised himself by promising his daughter’s hand first to Akrūra and then again to a number of other suitors. But after the return of the Syamantaka jewel, he felt impelled by his shame to offer her to Lord Kṛṣṇa instead. According to Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, the word prabhave (“unto the Lord”) answers any doubt as to the propriety of offering Kṛṣṇa a bride who had already been promised to others. It is perfectly proper to offer Him everything one owns, and improper to withhold anything from Him.
In order to remove the ill fame, created by my father (tatena) who, aggrieved by the killing of his brother (sanabhi) prasena, accused Krsna of the deed, Krsna defeated Rksaraja and brought back the syamantaka jewel. Then he gave the jewel to my father. My father, fearing his offense, gave me, already promised to Akrura (dattam) to Krsna (prabhave).
“That she was given because of fear is not proper.” He gave me, though given to others, to the Supreme Lord (prabhave). Actually everything belongs to him. It is proper to give everything to him. Giving to others is wrong. Or, my father gave me, promised but not given to others, to Kṛṣṇa out of fear of Kṛṣṇa so he could protect himself. Her father’s offense was removed. Because my father was insane with grief for his brother, he accused the Lord. This was not intentional. The Lord who took the jewel to remove the accusation, the Lord to whom my father gave me, gave the jewel back to my father. This verse has a grammatical construction similar to the last verse. Or, my father gave me to the Lord who took the jewel and gave it to my father. Like Rukmiṇī who prays to be a servant, most of the queens had prominent dāsya attitude, but Satyabhāmā had prominent sakhya because of strong feelings as a lover.
He gave me, though given to others, to the Supreme Lord (prabhave) who is capable of doing anything. Or he gave me to he who is my lord, being king of the Yadus (prabhave). Or he gave me to the lord of my life. For the very beginning she had love for him. Or “It was improper to give her since she had been given to others.” But he is the supreme Lord. It is proper to give me to him, since by doing so all faults are removed. Thus her father’s offense was annulled. Because my father was insane with grief for his dead brother, he accused the Lord. She does not pray like Rukminī, because of her strong prema or great shyness.
A jeweller wrongly accused of theft does not argue; he walks into the cave, fights the bear-king for twenty-seven days, retrieves the stolen gem, and quietly places it on the accuser's table. Satrājit's accusation could have been answered with anger; Kṛṣṇa answered it with effort. Satyabhāmā, given in atonement, is the dākṣiṇa of His patience.
In SB 10.56-57, the gem Syamantaka given to Satrājit by Sūrya produced eight bhāras of gold daily but only for a pure-hearted owner. Satrājit's brother Prasena wore it hunting, was killed by a lion, the lion in turn killed by Jāmbavān, and the jewel passed into the bear-king's cave.
Satrājit publicly accused Kṛṣṇa of the theft. To clear His name, Kṛṣṇa entered Ṛkṣa-bila, fought Jāmbavān twenty-seven days, won both Jāmbavatī and the gem, and returned the gem to Satrājit. Ashamed, the father offered his daughter Satyabhāmā along with the jewel. The verse compresses all of it. Gauḍīyas read the episode as Kṛṣṇa's tolerance — He could have struck Satrājit dead but instead bore the slander and walked into the bear's cave.
My note
Source: vedabase.io