पश्य सौम्य नरेन्द्रस्य जनकस्यात्म सम्भवाम्।
मम भार्यां शुभाचारां विराधाङ्के प्रवेशिताम्।।
अत्यन्तसुखसंवृद्धां राजपुत्रीं यशस्विनीम्॥
paśya saumya narendrasya janakasyātma-sambhavām
mama bhāryāṁ śubhācārāṁ virādhāṅke praveśitām
atyanta-sukha-saṁvṛddhāṁ rāja-putrīṁ yaśasvinīm
paśya = look; saumya = gentle one; nara-indrasya = of King; janakasya = Janaka; ātma-sambhavām = at the daughter; mama = My; bhāryām = she is wife; śubha-ācārām = and her behavior is auspicious; virādha-aṅke = on Virādha’s lap; praveśitām = has been placed; atyanta-sukha-saṁvṛddhām = who grew up in extreme happiness; rāja-putrīm = princess; yaśasvinīm = [that] illustrious.
Gentle one, look at the daughter of King Janaka! She is My wife and her behavior is auspicious. [That] illustrious princess who grew up in extreme happiness has been placed on Virādha’s lap!
1 In Kṛṣṇa-līlā, just before Rukmiṇī-devī was kidnapped by the Lord, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.53.51-55 states that kings hostile to Lord Kṛṣṇa lusted after her. Prabhupāda’s disciples note: “Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī [...] points out that since the beautiful form of Rukmiṇī is a manifestation of the Lord’s internal energy, the nondevotees cannot perceive her. Thus the heroic kings assembled in Vidarbha were agitated with lust upon seeing the Lord’s illusory potency, an expansion of Rukmiṇī. In other words, no one can lust after the Lord’s eternal consort, since as soon as one’s mind is contaminated with lust, the covering of Māyā separates one from the pristine beauty of the spiritual world and its inhabitants.”
NOTE. It should be understood that Sītā-devī has a sac-cid-ānanda body and as such no materialist can even see her, what to speak of touch her. So the “Sītā” grabbed by Virādha should be understood to be a replica of her, like her replica who was later kidnapped by Rāvaṇa.1 And Lord Rāma’s lamentation [both here and later] should be understood to teach us, the conditioned souls, the necessity of developing detachment and renunciation from the material world, a place of unavoidable misery. This is indicated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.10.11.
In Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 9.191, 192 and 194), Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu notes:
īśvara-preyasī sītā-cid-ānanda-mūrti
prākṛta-indriyera tānre dekhite nāhi śakti
“Sītādevī, the dearmost wife of the Supreme Lord Rāmacandra, certainly has a spiritual form full of bliss. No one can see her with material eyes, for no materialist has such power.”
sparśibāra kārya āchuka, nā pāya darśana
“To say nothing of touching mother Sītā, a person with material senses cannot even see her.”
aprākṛta vastu nahe prākṛta-gocara
veda-purāṇete ei kahe nirantara
“Spiritual substance is never within the jurisdiction of the material conception. This is always the verdict of the Vedas and Purāṇas.”
Śrīla Prabhupāda has commented on these statements of Lord Caitanya as follows:
As stated in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.3.9, 12):
na sandṛśe tiṣṭhati rūpam asya
na cakṣuṣā paśyati kaścanainam
hṛdā manīṣā manasābhikḷpto
ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanti
naiva vācā na manasā prāptuṁ śakyo na cakṣuṣā
“Spirit is not within the jurisdiction of material eyes, words or mind.”
Similarly, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.84.13) states:
yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke
sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ
yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij
janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ
“A human being who identifies his body made of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of his body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of his birth worshipable, and who goes to a place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than to meet men of transcendental knowledge there is to be considered like an ass or a cow.”
These are some Vedic statements about spiritual substance. Spiritual substance cannot be seen by the unintelligent, because they do not have the eyes or the mentality to see the spirit soul. Consequently they think that there is no such thing as spirit. But the followers of the Vedic injunctions take their information from Vedic statements, such as the verses from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam quoted above.