नाहं धर्ममपूर्वं ते प्रतिकूलं प्रवर्तये।
पूर्वैरयमभिप्रेतो गतो मार्गोऽनुगम्यते॥
nāhaṁ dharmam apūrvaṁ te pratikūlaṁ pravartaye
pūrvair ayam abhipreto gato mārgo ’nugamyate
na = not; aham = I; dharmam = “dharma”; apūrvam = and new; te = to you; pratikūlam = a perverse; pravartaye = am introducing; pūrvaiḥ = by all the predecessor authorities; ayam = the; abhipretaḥ = and accepted; gataḥ = that was followed; mārgaḥ = path; anugamyate = I am following.
I am not introducing a perverse and new “dharma” to you. I am following the path that was followed and accepted by all the predecessor authorities.[1
1 The principle of following the path that was followed and accepted by all the predecessor authorities is also applicable to practitioners of bhakti-yoga. During a morning walk in Los Angeles on 23 July 1975, Prabhupāda instructed his disciples that (1) the whole process of devotional service to the Supreme Lord is based on the principle of following the example of the predecessor authorities in the paramparā, (2) a devotee of the Lord should do nothing independent of the teachings of these paramparā authorities; (3) he should not accept any precept from anyone who does not accept the authority of these paramparā authorities, (4) the secret of devotional service is to do nothing independent of the teachings of the predecessor mahājanas, and (5) if these principles are observed, the practice and dissemination of pure devotional service to the Lord will be alright.
1 The point is this: Rāma only wanted to follow those activities that have been both followed and accepted by all predecessor authorities. Some activities by great souls like Candra have been perverse and hence not followed and accepted by all predecessor authorities; Rāma was not interested in following these activities. Following the dhārmika instruction of one’s father was an activity followed and accepted by all of His predecessor authorities, and so Rāma wanted to carry it out.
2 The verse appears in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s edition of Mahābhārata as a supplementary text with the number 14.4.2530. Samudra, alluded to in text 29 of this chapter of Rāmāyaṇa, did not carry out his father’s dhārmika order and unintentionally and incidentally displeased his mother.
3 And the son of Kaśyapa mentioned in text 25 served his mother with profit.
4 So, in case the father and mother both order their son (of course within the bounds of Vedic dharma), the father’s order supercedes the mother’s order.
Rāma was only interested in following the path accepted by all predecessor authorities, setting aside [perverse] activities like Candra’s abduction of Bṛhaspati’s wife Tārā.1
A mother is meant to be more respected than one’s father:
pituḥ śata-guṇaṁ mātā gauraveṇātiricyate
“One’s mother is a hundred times more worthy of respect than one’s father.”2
This means that one should serve one’s mother more than one serves one’s father.3 It does not mean that one should obey her more than one obeys one’s father, for a son is under the control of his father.4 Such an understanding is in line with the following scriptural injunction:
mātā bhastrā pituḥ putro yena jātaḥ sa eva saḥ
“A son actually belongs to his father, whereas the mother is only a container, like the skin of a bellows.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.20.21)
NOTE. In his purport to the above-quoted verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Prabhupāda clarifies the relationship between a son, his mother and his father:
The mother is simply like a storekeeper, because the seed of the child is placed in her womb, but it is the father who is responsible for maintaining the son.