go4harish

There is a mistake in my words in the 7th line. "Though Vishnu is an avathar of Rama" need to be corrected for "Though Rama is an avathar of Vishnu"

Avinash. Thanx for the correction. I was not pretty sure of the third cause and not sure whether it was Indra and/or Surya.

'Lord Rama is parabrahma". That is absolutely true. Parabrahma means ultimate/superior to L. Brahma. But superior to what in Brahma. It is not shakthi (physical strength) but knowledge (mental strength) b cos L. Brahma is more for knowledge/sristi than for strength. It doesnt mean, L. Brahma is powerless or has lesser shakthi, b cos he is one among d the 3 murthis. Ulimate strength (both physical and mental) of the 3 worlds is the cumulative strengths of L.Vishnu, L. Shiva and L. Brahma (as their astras). "LORD RAMA is SARVOTAMA". I m not pretty sure of the context. LORD HARI/VISHNU is SARVOTAMA. And LORD HANUMAN is JEEVOTAMA. There is a lot of difference between Lord Vishnu and Rama. But I do realise that devottess consider Rama and L.Vishnu to be the same and may b acceptable. Though Vishnu is an avathar of Rama, Vishnu completely is not Rama. Rama is Vishnu by heart, mind and soul, Bharatha by chakra, Satrugna by another weapon of vishnu (not sure). Lakshmana doesnt come here b cos he is the Naag (devottee), right on which Vishnu takes rest. Meaning: he has the knowledge superior to brahma but devoid of the real shakthi's of Vishnu. Hidden meaning: No body is born with everything, Rama is born as a Parabrahma and very well knows this. He very well knew that everything cannot be learned and everything cannot be obtained and if one has the max., victory/success is only to persons who also seeks help from other people to hold dharma. He does seek help from Lakshmana, Hanuman and lot of Vanars in a lot of circumstances. Mentally, Rama is more powerful than Valli and by parabrahma knowledge he knows that vali is undefeatable in wars and hence he has to use a special astra to kill Vali. "Boons of Vali given by Brahma wont affect Lord Rama as Rama himself is Parabrahma". I m not sure of this context as well. If boons of brahma doesnt work against Rama, then if u can recall, Indrajiths brahmastra should have not work on Rama. But, Rama and Lakshmana faints against brahmastra but doesnt die. This too has lot of significance. The significance of Bramastra is to destroy the opponent completely whomsoever it is. But, if Rama is destroyed, then the creator of the 3 world is destroyed. Meaning: If the creator is destroyed, all the 3 worlds r destroyed and brahma himself is destroyed and there would be nothing left out. Laksmana also doesnt die, b cos, according to Lord Vishnu, he has not left his true devotees and/or innocent people die. (This is wat happens in Mahabharath when ashvatama hits brahmastra at Arjunas grandson). I had no intentions of degrading the powers of Rama. Eventhough, he is very skilled in archeries & gained lot of astras and is supreme in knowledge, against certain persons like Vali, he cant fight directly, due to the precious boons. Boons are to be respected as they r given by Great Peoples for Great Works. Literally, I dont think there is any sin. Sorry for my big replies. I really dont know to xplain in few words as each and everything inch of God's act is a big ramayana and mahabharath.

I wd like to add some more information on all the comments give earlier. The only person who can be win against Vali head to head is Hanuman, not even RAMA. Vali has the boon that he will get 1/2 of his opponents strength when they faced head to head and which in addition to his strength will logically win any war against any opponent. Likewise, Hanuman has the boon that against whomever he faced as an opponent, Victory is sure for him. That is why it is still believed that Hanuman has not died because for him to die "DEATH" is the opponent and he wins against it. In addition, there r many books which suggest that hanuman still exists. He also gives his presence in Mahabharath once when BHEEMA attempts to lift his tail. If Hanuman and vali has faced head to head, definitely Hanuman would hav won because his boon is direct form of victory than Vali's. Meaning: Comparing the two boons, One who looses half of his strength or one who gains half of opponents strength not necessarily should loose the battles. But one who is sure of victory against any body is a definite victory. There cd b an immediate question then: Why did hanuman not face Vali? U hav 3 reason: 1. Firstly, Hanuman is not a King. Tho he is the son of a king, he was not brought up like a chatriya but committed himself more to Rama as a devotee. Hindu mythology suggest that anybody who is born in a chatriya family doesnot become a chatriya, their brought up is what which makes him/her a chatriya or others (Brahmins, Vaisyas and Sutras) eg. Karna in Mahabharath...born in chatriya...eventhough was brout up in Sutras family practiced himself like a chatriya...and that is why he was praised by duriyodhana with the anga kingdom. Another eg is Vishwamitra, tho born in chatriya and led his life as a chatriya for some time turned himself as a Vendhyan (brahmana) through his keen prayers. Meaning: yr caste is decided by the way u live and not by birth. So, hanuman felt that eventhough he can win bali admidst his strength, he is not a king and felt either sugriva or rama sd b the rit person. 2. Secondly, Hanuman and vali's boons both are from brahma, he felt that devotees sd not fight among themselves. 3. Thirdly, there is another saying that once when hanuman went to get blessing from Indra, he was requested by Indra not to attack his sons for any cause (both sugriva and vali) and incase if enemity exists among them, he sd support only sugriva since vali is powerful. And may be due to the first reason, he did not fight against ravana as well.

Nice to c all the comments on vallis vadham. It has been a pretty old topic but a very sensitive responses from many people. I m new and whatever i hav read along this page, some are new/different reasons and others are known. Anyway I wd like to add my comments which may be overlapping and/or controversial to others. Valli death and the rightness of Rama: I m portraying as a written dialogue between Valli and Rama with some comments. Valli: Why did u shoot an arrow by hiding? Rama: Why u abduct Sugriva's wife? Valli: Abducting another man's wife is only a crime and adharma in non-animals (humans) and not in animals life., i.e., if I abduct yr (Rama, human) wife, that is a crime while if I abduct Sugriva's (animal) wife who was infact my wife (previously before his assumed death), I m not commited to crime (by animals law). It is felt that animals by nature hav the right to abduct anything or anybody for self adv. because they dont have the 6th sense and hence dont have "self-control". eg. A monkey will take yr banana without an attempt to ask u to fill up its stomach...ha ha. A lion (king of animals) can hunt for its prey/anything for its own self...this holds good for other animals also...and this is the essense and sense of vali. Rama: 1. When u admit u r self as an animal, then I m a king and I hav all the rights as a king to shoot an arrow by hiding, as kings either go to kill a wild animal or as a "hobby"...The word hobby is used not in a casual sense. In hindu mythology, it is believed that king has the right to kill any animal (except "cow" which is considered as "mother"-the server), without any cause, as hunting is a method of practicing their archeries. Also, it is felt that kings confidence, sharpness and keeness can be seen while shooting an arrow at either a fighting/attacking animal rather than a calm/unattacking animal. Meaning: Hunting an animal during its motion reveals Kings skillness in handling difficult circumstances because he needs to concentrate on the motion of the animal and other obstracles, the attitude of which will help the king in war circumstances. He adds that I found it very difficult to shoot an arrow at you, since it can mishit sugriva due to circumstances. (Moreover, it should be known that Vali and Sugriva are twin brothers as well and hence during their first war meet, Rama himself got confused. Vali was killed only in the second meet where sugriva ll wear a garland in his neck to aid Rama). Valli: I aggree to yr wordings but I m not just an animal but a King also. Is it not correct for a King like you to shoot an arrow at another king by hiding? Rama: If u r a king, then it is not dharma for a king to abduct ones (Sugriva) wife or c abducting others (Rama's) wife and the most important quality of the king is "SELF CONTROL". U committed both the crimes and dont have the self control and because of the second reason which happened unnoticed in Vali's land. Moreover, in hindu mythology, a woman should not be compelled for marital status. Still in addition, Vali and sugriva are not truly monkey/ape but are humans who has hairs throughout the body due to some cursings. Also, it should also be known that Vali also curses Rama that he will be responsible to his death. For which Rama shows his vishwaroop and commits himself that he doesnt have death or he is "selfkilled" in this yug and his curse will happen only in next yug where he takes the form of a hunter who shoots Krishnas back foot (which is supposed to have the power of the "Creator of the three world' and the part is more often referred to be one of the pancha boothas (land/earth)) I m not pretty sure about the death of Rama but I hav read and heard that he self sinks in water because of his inability to live without her beloved wife, Sita. Hence, I wd like to add that Arjuna is no more a successor of Vali in the next yug. He's the son of Indra for sure...Generally, devas hav multiple wifes and hence multiple children. Arjuna should be one among them but not Valis successor...thats for sure.