जानन्नपि समर्थं मां रक्षसां विनिवारणे।
अनेन क्रोधवाक्येन मैथिल्या निःसृतो भवान्॥
jānann api samarthaṁ māṁ rakṣasāṁ vinivāraṇe
anena krodha-vākyena maithilyā niḥsṛto bhavān
jānan = knowing; api = despite; samartham = am capable; mām = that I; rakṣasām = the rākṣasas; vinivāraṇe = of restraining; anena = [just] because of these; krodha-vākyena = angry words; maithilyāḥ = of Maithilī; niḥsṛtaḥ = have left [her]; bhavān = You.
Despite knowing that I am capable of restraining the rākṣasas, You have left [her just] because of these angry words of Maithilī!1
1 As already indicated in texts 2.31.2 and 3.15.6, Lakṣmaṇa had accepted Mother Sītā as His spiritual authority to mediate between Him and Rāmacandra. In the current scenario, Lord Rāma had ordered Him to stay and His spiritual authority had ordered Him to leave. What should He have done? According to Lord Rāma, He should not have disobeyed His instruction, though He could have intelligently disobeyed Sītā-devī’s instruction, and therefore He was angry with Lakṣmaṇa. This brings to mind the basic principle that all forms of bhāgavata-sevā should always be within the boundaries of bhagavat-sevā.