स सत्यवचनाद्राजा धर्मपाशेन संयतः।
विवासयामास सुतं रामं दशरथः प्रियम्॥
sa satya-vacanād rājā dharma-pāśena saṁyataḥ
vivāsayām āsa sutaṁ rāmaṁ daśarathaḥ priyam
saḥ = he; satya-vacanāt = because wanted to be truthful to his word; rājā = king; dharma-pāśena = by the noose of dharma; saṁyataḥ = was bound; vivāsayām āsa = and [so] he exiled; sutam = son; rāmam = Rāma; daśarathaḥ = Daśaratha; priyam= his dear.
Because he wanted to be truthful to his word, King Daśaratha was bound by the noose of dharma and [so] he exiled his dear son Rāma.1
quote [36] rājā prakṛti-rañjanāt.
1 Throughout this edition, we have generally left the expression dharma untranslated as there is no single English expression that can bring out all of the senses and shades of meaning of this important word, as it is used in the Vedic scriptures. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.1.40 defines dharma and its opposite adharma thus—veda-praṇihito dharmo hy adharmas tad-viparyayaḥ / vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt svayambhūr iti śuśruma: “That which is prescribed in the Vedas constitutes dharma, the religious principles, and the opposite of that is irreligion. The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, and are self-born. This we have heard from Yamarāja.”
Rājā here indicates that Daśaratha had pleased his subjects. A king is one who pleases his ministers and other subjects [36]. Daśaratha was a king [in this sense too] because he had promised to coronate Rāma as the heir apparent after discussing the subject with his ministers.
Now, he was bound by the noose of dharma; out of his desire to maintain his promise to a woman, he exiled his dear son.
[Sage Nārada’s intention was as follows:] Firstly, Daśaratha carried out his supreme obligation [of preparing to coronate Lord Rāma] with the understanding that [will be later expressed as] rāmo vigrahavān dharmaḥ, “Rāma is the very personification of Vedic dharma.” (Rāmāyaṇa 3.37.13) Then, he rejected that very supreme obligation and took shelter of his insignificant obligation to a woman. This is like giving up a proven reliable means of accomplishment and taking shelter of a means of accomplishment that is both unreliable and as insignificant as a blade of grass. Those who desire to attain liberation in order to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead should note that they should not follow Daśaratha by giving up their supreme obligation in order to carry out their insignificant obligations.
NOTE. The Mahābhārata (1.77.16) notes:
śarmiṣṭhovāca
na narma-yuktaṁ vacanaṁ hinasti
na strīṣu rājan na vivāha-kāle
prāṇātyaye sarva-dhanāpahāre
pañcānṛtāny āhur apātakāni
“Śarmiṣṭhā said: ‘Joking words do not break a promise, nor do words spoken to women, O king, nor at the time of a wedding, nor in a life-threatening situation or when one is about to lose all of his wealth. [Authorities] declare these five forms of falsity to be nondegrading.’”
A similar verse, spoken by Bhīṣma, appears later in the Mahābhārata (12.159.28).
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (8.19.43) also notes:
strīṣu narma-vivāhe ca vṛtty-arthe prāṇa-saṅkaṭe
go-brāhmaṇārthe hiṁsāyāṁ nānṛtaṁ syāj jugupsitam
“In flattering a woman to bring her under control, in joking, in a marriage ceremony, in earning one’s livelihood, when one’s life is in danger, in protecting cows and brahminical culture, or in protecting a person from an enemy’s hand, falsity is never condemned.”
In light of the above, when King Daśaratha had a scripturally permitted recourse to prevent his son Rāmacandra, the very personification of dharma, from leaving his kingdom, to not have done so was a true blunder, and such blunders should not be performed by those who seek liberation from material existence. This is the point in the commentary.