त्यक्तभोगस्य मे राजन्वने वन्येन जीवतः।
किं कार्यमनुयात्रेण त्यक्तसङ्गस्य सर्वतः॥
tyakta-bhogasya me rājan vane vanyena jīvataḥ
kiṁ kāryam anuyātreṇa tyakta-saṅgasya sarvataḥ
tyakta-bhogasya = when I have given up the enjoyment [of sense objects]; me = I; rājan = O king; vane = in the forest; vanyena = on forest produce; jīvataḥ = and when I live; kim = what; kāryam = should do; anuyātreṇa = with an army following Me; tyakta-saṅgasya = and attachment; sarvataḥ = to all [those sense objects].
O king, what should I do with an army following Me when I have given up the enjoyment [of sense objects] and attachment to all [those sense objects], and when I live in the forest on forest produce?
1 One might give up sensual enjoyment of sense objects, but his mental attachment to such sense objects might remain.
2 Some foolishly consider verses such as this as “proof that Rāma was self-realized by then.” Rāma was, is, and will never ever be a conditioned soul (baddhātmā) or even a liberated soul (muktātmā) for He is the Supreme Personaliy of Godhead—para-brahma-bhūta-puruṣottama—ever distinct from every jīvātmā, even after its final liberation, as is clear from the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
In the world it is seen that a person may give up enjoyment [of sense objects] but his attachment [to them] may persist.1 But Rāma did not have such attachment too.2
NOTE. Bhagavad-gīta (2.59) talks about such attachment to sense objects even after externally giving them up:
viṣayā vinivartante nirāhārasya dehinaḥ
rasa-varjaṁ raso ’py asya paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate
“Though the embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.”