इत्येवं विलपन्राजा जनौघेनाभिसंवृतः।
अपस्नात इवारिष्टं प्रविवेश पुरोत्तमम्॥
ity evaṁ vilapan rājā janaughenābhisaṁvṛtaḥ
apasnāta ivāriṣṭaṁ praviveśa purottamam
iti evam = in this manner; vilapan = while lamenting; rājā = the king; jana-oghena = by a crowd of people; abhisaṁvṛtaḥ = surrounded; apasnātaḥ = a man who had performed the final rites for a dead relative, then completed his ritual bath 2; iva = he resembled; ariṣṭam = and then [entered] a place of contamination 3; praviveśa = entered; pura-uttamam = [his] excellent city.
The king, surrounded by a crowd of people, entered [his] excellent city while lamenting in this manner. He resembled a man who had performed the final rites for a dead relative, then completed his ritual bath and then [entered] a place of contamination.1
1 In Vedic civilization, if a relative such as one’s son dies, that home becomes contaminated, that is, it becomes a place of contamination. His father would then have to perform his final rites and then take a ritual bath before entering that place of contamination, that is, his home.
1 There is nothing questionable in this as alleged by a later commentator. The Rāmāyaṇa statement under consideration is an instance of para-darśana-bhāṣā. See Śrī Madhva’s Mahābhārata-tātparya-nirṇaya 22.372-375 on samādhi-bhāṣā, darśana-bhāṣā (of the para and loka varieties) and guhya-bhāṣā. The first refers to the language of those scriptural statements that express unsublatable truths directly intuited during spotless samādhi. The second refers to the language of those scriptural statements that present the understanding of others or the common people. The third refers to the language of those scriptural statements that present truths in a cryptic manner that can be correctly deciphered only by a qualified paramparā representative.
2 This eventually turned out to be true. Rāvaṇa kidnapped her.
3 This also turned out to be true. Rāma had to go on war with Rāvaṇa.
4 This is consistent with Śrī Vālmīki’s description of Daśaratha’s particular type of love for Rāmacandra. In the First Canto, Chapter 20, we saw Daśaratha becoming extremely frightened of fighting with the rākṣasas. His anxieties were gone only when Vasiṣṭha assured him that Rāma was safe with Viśvāmitra. (Currently, Rāma is not going to the forest with a powerful sage like Viśvāmitra.) In Śrī Rāmacandra’s encounter with Paraśurāma, as described in Chapters 74 to 77 of the First Canto, Daśaratha had become so disturbed when Paraśurāma threatened his son that he didn’t even attend to their conversation.
One might object, “How is it that the author, in an obscene manner, compares Daśaratha who had followed Rāma and was about to enter his city to a man who had completed his ritual bath after performing the final rites for a dead relative [entering] a place of contamination?”
In answer, it can be pointed out that this comparison is appropriate as reflecting the thoughts of the king.1
In text 20 he expressed his fear that Sītā-devī would face various calamities.2 Consequently, he was frightened that Rāma would face various calamities while dealing with Sītā’s calamities.3 Furthermore, he feared that he would die when Rāma faced such calamities.4 Therefore, he spoke text 21.