रक्षोऽधमेन वृकवद् विपिनेऽसमक्षं
वैदेहराजदुहितर्यपयापितायाम् ।
भ्रात्रा वने कृपणवत् प्रियया वियुक्तः
स्त्रीसङ्गिनां गतिमिति प्रथयंश्चचार ॥११॥

raká¹£o-'dhamena vá¹›kavad vipine 'samaká¹£aá¹
vaideha-rÄja-duhitary apayÄpitÄyÄm
bhrÄtrÄ vane ká¹›paṇavat priyayÄ viyuktaḥ
strÄ«-saá¹…ginÄá¹ gatim iti prathayamÅ› cacÄra

 raká¹£aḥ-adhamena - by the most wicked among RÄká¹£asas, RÄvaṇa; vá¹›ka-vat - like a tiger; vipine - in the forest; asamaká¹£am - unprotected; vaideha-rÄja-duhitari - by this condition of mother SÄ«tÄ, the daughter of the King of Videha; apayÄpitÄyÄm - having been kidnapped; bhrÄtrÄ - with His brother; vane - in the forest; ká¹›paṇa-vat - as if a very distressed person; priyayÄ - by his dear wife; viyuktaḥ - separated; strÄ«-saá¹…ginÄm - of persons attracted to or connected with women; gatim - destination; iti - thus; prathayan - giving an example; cacÄra - wandered.


Text

When RÄmacandra entered the forest and Laká¹£maṇa was also absent, the worst of the RÄká¹£asas, RÄvaṇa, kidnapped SÄ«tÄdevÄ«, the daughter of the King of Videha, just as a tiger seizes unprotected sheep when the shepherd is absent. Then Lord RÄmacandra wandered in the forest with His brother Laká¹£maṇa as if very much distressed due to separation from His wife. Thus He showed by His personal example the condition of a person attached to women.

Purport

In this verse the words strÄ«-saá¹…ginÄá¹ gatim iti indicate that the condition of a person attached to women was shown by the Lord Himself. According to moral instructions, gá¹›he nÄrÄ«á¹ vivarjayet: when one goes on a tour, one should not bring his wife. Formerly men used to travel without conveyances, but still, as far as possible, when one leaves home one should not take his wife with him, especially if one is in such a condition as Lord RÄmacandra when banished by the order of His father. Whether in the forest or at home, if one is attached to women this attachment is always troublesome, as shown by the Supreme Personality of Godhead by His personal example.

Of course, this is the material side of strÄ«-saá¹…gÄ«, but the situation of Lord RÄmacandra is spiritual, for He does not belong to the material world. NÄrÄyaṇaḥ paro ’vyaktÄt: NÄrÄyaṇa is beyond the material creation. Because He is the creator of the material world, He is not subject to the conditions of the material world. The separation of Lord RÄmacandra from SÄ«tÄ is spiritually understood as vipralambha, which is an activity of the hlÄdinÄ« potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead belonging to the śṛṅgÄra-rasa, the mellow of conjugal love in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world the Supreme Personality of Godhead has all the dealings of love, displaying the symptoms called sÄttvika, sañcÄrÄ«, vilÄpa, mÅ«rcchÄ and unmÄda. Thus when Lord RÄmacandra was separated from SÄ«tÄ, all these spiritual symptoms were manifested. The Lord is neither impersonal nor impotent. Rather, He is sac-cid-Änanda-vigraha, the eternal form of knowledge and bliss. Thus He has all the symptoms of spiritual bliss. Feeling separation from one’s beloved is also an item of spiritual bliss. As explained by ÅšrÄ«la SvarÅ«pa DÄmodara GosvÄmÄ«, rÄdhÄ-kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-viká¹›tir hlÄdinÄ«-Å›aktiḥ: the dealings of love between RÄdhÄ and Kṛṣṇa are displayed as the pleasure potency of the Lord. The Lord is the original source of all pleasure, the reservoir of all pleasure. Lord RÄmacandra, therefore, manifested the truth both spiritually and materially. Materially those who are attached to women suffer, but spiritually when there are feelings of separation between the Lord and His pleasure potency the spiritual bliss of the Lord increases. This is further explained in Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ (9.11):

avajÄnanti mÄá¹ mÅ«á¸hÄ
 mÄnuṣīṠtanum ÄÅ›ritam
paraá¹ bhÄvam ajÄnanto
 mama bhÅ«ta-maheÅ›varam

One who does not know the spiritual potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead thinks of the Lord as an ordinary human being. But the Lord’s mind, intelligence and senses can never be affected by material conditions. This fact is further explained in the Skanda PurÄṇa, as quoted by MadhvÄcÄrya:

nitya-pÅ«rṇa-sukha-jñÄna-
 svarÅ«po ’sau yato vibhuḥ
ato ’sya rÄma ity ÄkhyÄ
 tasya duḥkhaá¹ kuto ’ṇv api
tathÄpi loka-Å›iká¹£Ärtham
 aduḥkho duḥkha-vartivat
antarhitÄá¹ loka-dṛṣṭyÄ
 sÄ«tÄm ÄsÄ«t smarann iva
jñÄpanÄrthaá¹ punar nitya-
 sambandhaḥ svÄtmanaḥ Å›riyÄḥ
ayodhyÄyÄ vinirgacchan
 sarva-lokasya ceÅ›varaḥ
pratyaká¹£aá¹ tu Å›riyÄ sÄrdhaá¹
 jagÄmÄnÄdir avyayaḥ
naká¹£atra-mÄsa-gaṇitaá¹
 trayodaÅ›a-sahasrakam
brahmaloka-samaá¹ cakre
 samastaá¹ ká¹£iti-maṇá¸alam
rÄmo rÄmo rÄma iti
 sarveá¹£Äm abhavat tadÄ
sarvoramamayo loko
 yadÄ rÄmas tv apÄlayat

It was actually impossible for RÄvaṇa to take away SÄ«tÄ. The form of SÄ«tÄ taken by RÄvaṇa was an illusory representation of mother SÄ«tÄ â€” mÄyÄ-sÄ«tÄ. When SÄ«tÄ was tested in the fire, this mÄyÄ-sÄ«tÄ was burnt, and the real SÄ«tÄ came out of the fire.

A further understanding to be derived from this example is that a woman, however powerful she may be in the material world, must be given protection, for as soon as she is unprotected she will be exploited by RÄká¹£asas like RÄvaṇa. Here the words vaideha-rÄja-duhitari indicate that before mother SÄ«tÄ was married to Lord RÄmacandra she was protected by her father, Vaideha-rÄja. And when she was married she was protected by her husband. Therefore the conclusion is that a woman should always be protected. According to the Vedic rule, there is no scope for a woman’s being independent (asamaká¹£am), for a woman cannot protect herself independently.