गच्छ पुत्र त्वमेकाग्रो भद्रं तेऽस्तु सदा विभो।
पुनस्त्वयि निवृत्ते तु भविष्यामि गतक्लमा॥
gaccha putra tvam ekāgro bhadraṁ te ’stu sadā vibho
punas tvayi nivṛtte tu bhaviṣyāmi gata-klamā
gaccha = go; putra = son; tvam eka-agraḥ = with a resolute mind; bhadram = auspiciousness; te = unto You; astu = may there be; sadā = always; vibho = my powerful; punaḥ tvayi nivṛtte tu = when You return; bhaviṣyāmi = I will be; gata-klamā = relieved of my distresses.
My powerful son, go with a resolute mind. May there always be auspiciousness unto You. I will be relieved of my distresses when You return.1
1 After Lakṣmaṇa’s elaborate monologue in the previous chapter, Rāmacandra simply disposed of it in summary without even bothering to refute His arguments point by point. Lakṣmaṇa’s arguments, as already indicated in “An Analysis of the Cardinal Teachings of Śrī Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa” in the first volume, were not based on the scriptures regarding the nature of dharma and so on. Lakṣmaṇa, representing the views of the common people, had simply presented a “practical” plan of action on what He thought needed to be done. Rāma’s central point in Chapter 22 was very simple: Daśaratha’s instruction to Rāma to go to the forest are in line with dharma because they are based on truthfulness and because he has not instructed Rāma to engage in any scripturally forbidden activity; therefore, his instruction was dhārmika, regardless of the circumstances due to which it might have been issued. Since Lakṣmaṇa evaded this central point of Rāma, it is clear that Rāma didn’t bother to go point by point over Lakṣmaṇa’s emotional outburst. However, in Chapter 21, we notice that Rāmacandra does refute the arguments, point by point, made by his mother in Chapter 20 because they have a scriptural basis. On the other hand, Kausalyā’s argument (if it is one at all) in this chapter in texts 2 to 9 are, unlike her earlier scripture-based argument, similar to Lakṣmaṇa’s non-scriptural impassioned lecture. And so, Lord Rāma didn’t bother to refute Kausalyā’s argument here. Following Vedic dharma does in reality involve having to tolerate the extremities of material happiness and unhappiness—this is common to the puṇya-karmīs, brahma-jñānīs, paramātma-yogīs and bhagavad-bhaktas—only sinful adhārmika people obsessed with attaining artha and kāma in this very lifetime are allergic to developing such tolerance. Therefore, Kausalyā-devī’s argument that Rāma’s adherence to dharma will involve great austerities on His part simply didn’t appeal to Him, because that is the whole thrust of His instructions here. This is indeed the second lesson in Bhagavad-gītā. (The first lesson is that we are spirit souls who reincarnate according to the laws of karma.)