Canto 3 -
Araṇya-kāṇḍa
Chapter 6: The Sages Inform Rāma About the Rākṣasas Torturing Them
Text 3.6.22

नैवमर्हथ मां वक्तुमाज्ञप्तोऽहं तपस्विनाम्।
केवलेनात्मकार्येण प्रवेष्टव्यं मया वनम्।
विप्रकारमपाक्रष्टुं राक्षसैर्भवतामिमम्॥

na evam arhatha māṁ vaktum ājñapto ’haṁ tapasvinām
kevalenātma-kāryeṇa praveṣṭavyaṁ mayā vanam
viprakāram apākraṣṭuṁ rākṣasair bhavatām imam

na = not; evam = in this manner; arhatha = [therefore] you should; mām = to Me; vaktum = speak; ājñaptaḥ = have already ordered; aham = Me; tapasvinām = ascetics; kevalena = just; ātma-kāryeṇa = for My own purpose; praveṣṭavyam = have entered; mayā = I; vanam = forest; viprakāram = the tortures inflicted; apākraṣṭum = to avert; rākṣasaiḥ = by the rākṣasas; bhavatām = you; imam = this.

You ascetics have already ordered Me. [Therefore] you should not speak to Me in this manner. I have entered this forest just for My own purpose, to avert the tortures inflicted by the rākṣasas.1

Lord Rāma considered that the ascetics had already ordered Him to protect them when they surrendered unto Him.1 So He did not think it fit that they request Him, “O prince, protect all of us from the rākṣasas!”2 He had entered the forest [just] to avert the tortures inflicted upon these ascetics by the rākṣasas.

It is implied that His own purpose in entering the forest was to ward off their obstacles because the maintainer’s purpose is to protect the maintained.3

Then what about the saying that Rāma had entered the forest to carry out His father’s orders? Lord Rāma explains that in the next verse.


1 Rāmāyaṇa-bhūṣaṇa: praveṣṭavyaṁ praviṣṭam. “tayor eva kṛtya-kta-khal-arthāḥ” iti karmaṇi tavya-pratyayaḥ.

1 A commentator has unintelligently remarked that Rāma wanted to protect these ascetics in order to accumulate pious credits! Where is the question of the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s need to accumulate pious credits when He has explained His own ever-transcendental position in plain language in Bhagavad-gītā, an explanation which has been reinforced in the topmost Vedic scripture Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam? Such a remark is similar to the proverbial question, “Who was Sītā the father of?” after studying the seven cantos of Rāmāyaṇa.

2 This is a reference to the second half of text 20.

3 Rāmāyaṇa-bhūṣaṇa: śeṣa-bhūta-rakṣaṇasya śeṣi-prayojanatvād iti bhāvaḥ