Canto 3 -
Araṇya-kāṇḍa
Chapter 18: Śūrpaṇakhā Disfigured
Text 3.18.3

अनुजस्त्वेष मे भ्राता शीलवान्प्रियदर्शनः।
श्रीमानकृतदारश्च लक्ष्मणो नाम वीर्यवान्॥

anujas tv eṣa me bhrātā śīlavān priya-darśanaḥ
śrīmān akṛta-dāraś ca lakṣmaṇo nāma vīryavān

anujaḥ = younger; tu = but; eṣaḥ = here is; me = My; bhrātā = brother; śīlavān = who is of good character; priya-darśanaḥ = pleasant to see; śrīmān = prosperous; akṛta-dāraḥ = He is not accompanied by His wife; ca = and; lakṣmaṇaḥ = Lakṣmaṇa; nāma = named; vīryavān = heroic.

But here is My younger brother named Lakṣmaṇa who is of good character, pleasant to see, prosperous and heroic. He is not accompanied by His wife!1

Akṛta-dāraḥ [which literally means “unmarried”] means “He is not accompanied by His wife” because of the following statements:

na vitathā parihāsa-kathāsv api

“[King Daśaratha] never spoke untruth even in a joke.”1 (Raghu-vaṁśa 9.8)

anṛtaṁ nokta-pūrvaṁ me na ca vakṣye kadācana

“[Lord Rāma said:] I have never spoken untruth and I shall never ever speak untruth.” (Rāmāyaṇa 4.7.22)

NOTE. There is a similar statement in the Mahābhārata by a powerful brāhmaṇa who effectively cursed five apsarās to become crocodiles:

anṛtaṁ noktapūrvaṁ me hasatāpi kadācana

“I have never ever spoken untruth, even in a joke.”2

One might object, “If Daśaratha never spoke untruth even in a joke, how is it that he spoke untruth to Kaikeyī’s father when he married Kaikeyī by saying that he would enthrone her son as the next king, as reported in Rāmāyaṇa 2.107.6?”

It should be noted in answer that Daśaratha did not intentionally speak untruth to Kaikeyī’s father. He didn’t have any sons till then and so it was not an issue. Later, when Rāma was born and was all-pleasing in the kingdom, the King of Kekaya also did not press the issue. The supreme virtue accrued by installing Śrī Rāma on the throne far outweighed the questionable danger of breaking a  promise made at the time of a wedding—which is a form of falsity that doesn’t degrade according to śāstra.3

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śukrācārya tells Bali Mahārāja that there are eight forms of falsity that are not abominable:

strīṣu narma-vivāhe ca vṛtty-arthe prāṇa-saṅkaṭe
go-brāhmaṇārthe hiṁsāyāṁ nānṛtaṁ syāj jugupsitam

“In flattering a woman to bring her under control, in joking, in a marriage ceremony, in earning one’s livelihood, when one’s life is in danger, in protecting cows and brahminical culture, or in protecting a person from an enemy’s hand, falsity is never condemned.”

Note that speaking untruth while joking appears in the above list.

And yet, Bali Mahārāja refuses to take advantage of these allowances quoted by Śukra. The great devotee Bali states:

na hy asatyāt paro ’dharma iti hovāca bhūr iyam
sarvaṁ soḍhum alaṁ manye ṛte ’līka-paraṁ naram

“There is nothing more sinful than untruthfulness. Because of this, mother earth once said, ‘I can bear any heavy thing except a person who is a liar.’”

Indeed, Prabhupāda comments on this Bhāgavatam verse as follows:

On the surface of the earth there are many great mountains and oceans that are very heavy, and mother earth has no difficulty carrying them. But she feels very much overburdened when she carries even one person who is a liar. It is said that in Kali-yuga lying is a common affair: māyaiva vyāvahārike (SB 12.2.3). Even in the most common dealings, people are accustomed to speaking so many lies. No one is free from the sinful reactions of speaking lies. Under the circumstances, one can just imagine how this has overburdened the earth, and indeed the entire universe.

It should be noted that Bali Mahāraja is one of the twelve mahājanas representing the teachings of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.3.20, but Śukra is not considered to be on that platform.

The Bhāgavatam thus clarifies the import of the Vedas. We request seasoned readers of Śrī Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa to carefully read through the great Bhāgavatam with the translation and purports of Śrīla Prabhupāda to properly grasp its teachings.

1 Rāmāyaṇa-bhūṣaṇa: akṛta-dāraḥ asahakṛta-dāraḥ ity arthaḥ.

1 Why does the commentator refer to Daśaratha while the text discusses Rāma’s truthfulness? Because Lord Rāma was guṇair daśarathopamaḥ, “similar to Daśaratha in His traits.” (Rāmāyaṇa 2.1.9)

2 This appears in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s edition of the Mahābhārata as the second half of text 1.209.10.

3 See the note to Rāmāyaṇa 2.40.48.