1& 2: Vali & Ocean King

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

We take a couple of the most popular controversies surrounding Srimad Valmiki

Ramayana (i) one relating to the killing of Vali by Sri Rama and (ii) the

anger of Rama towards the Ocean king. Let us address these topics.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

==============================================================================

====

1. Whether Rama was justified in killing Vali hiding behind a tree?

 

Rama was none other than Lord Narayana, the Almighty but since he had taken a

human form, he had to go through the experiences and feelings of a human being

in intriguing circumstances. Not only in this, but we see often that human

elements buoy up in the heart of Rama as he was in the garb of man and we see

him acting like any ordinary person. In fact, he declares that he considers

himself as a human being- ' Aatmaanam Maanusham Manye'.

 

If God remains as God, there is no need for an Avatar and no occasion to show

how to establish Dharma among common people. As God, he had no need to grieve

over anything, no need for him to inquire every tree and every creeper whether

it had seen Sita (when Sita had been separated from him).

 

Since he had put on the role of man, he had to act his part as a man. If by

such acting, he had roused feelings of revulsion in our minds in his treatment

of Vali, it goes to prove his success in acting as a man - a role which he had

taken upon himself. Let us now see the circumstances:

 

Explanations given by Srimad Andavan Swami of Poundarikapuram Asramam,

Srirangam

 

( i ) Long before the Putrakameshti yaga conducted by Dasaratha, he performed

an Aswamedha yaga. At that time the celestials who came to accept the ' havis

offerings promised to descend to earth in the form of monkeys and bears when

the Lord descends( Avatar ) as Sri Rama and help him.

 

One of the foremost among them was Vali. He was to have been inducted as Sri

Rama's Commander- in - Chief in the fight against Ravana. When even a cadet

double-crossed his master and turned a traitor, he was to be punished with

instant death. More so, in the case of a would be Chieftain. Vali

treacherously joined hands with Ravana the arch enemy. Sri Rama meted out the

punishment which he eminently deserved.

 

(ii ) Chronologically, Rama had met Sugriva, Vali's brother - first and as a

part of their alliance package, Rama had pledged to kill Vali and install

Sugriva as the king of Kishkinda.

 

And, if he had appeared before Vali, Vali might surrender in which case Rama

would not be able to keep up his word to Sugriva. The response to a later

'Saranagathi" can be effective only when is not repugnant to the earlier

'Saranagathi'. This would be impossible in this case and there will ensue a '

Dharma Sankatam'- a clash of Dharmas.

 

(iii) Vali had snatched Sugriva's wife and had to be punished for this.

 

(iv) As king, Rama had the duty to punish evil doers and Vali deserved the

punishment.

 

(v) As Rama was King and hunting was a legitimate pastime of kings and Vali

was an animal, Vali became an easy kill in the game. Just like hunters killing

tigers, if need be, by hiding themselves or like catching elephants through

'geddah' operations, which are not considered as acts of cowardice on the part

of the hunters, Rama's hunting Vali cannot also be faulted.

 

(vi) Since Vali had obtained a boon that he would acquire the strength of any

adversary facing him in fight, Rama could not present himself before him and

had necessarily to resort to the strategy of hiding himself out of Vali's

sight

 

(vii) As the saying goes," Anything is fair in love and war"

 

According to the epic, Vali himself had accepted Rama's explanation and he and

his wife Tara sang paeans of praise on Rama's sense of justice and fairplay

but critics go on arguing the point even today.

 

Even if Rama was not justified, it only proves that when God takes a lowly

form

(even by his own Sankalpa), limitations to which a human being is heir to,

becomes his lot too.

 

The contrast between Vali and Sugriva convey a moral each in its own way. It

shows how a mind confused by unjustified anger could mean destruction to

oneself as in the case of Vali. And, Sugriva was so thoughtless that he could

not resist the temptation to becoming king thinking that Vali was no more and

this put him into lot of difficulties with Vali, who was still alive. So,

neither of them could be singled out for blame or exoneration

 

Critics indulge in criticism for its own sake without understanding the facts

of circumstances. It would be well if these critics could avoid similar faults

in their own lives and indeed improve upon the conduct of Rama.

 

2. Was Rama justified in getting angry with the Ocean King?

 

The wrath of Rama towards the Ocean king who delayed in coming to help Rama as

promised prompts some to question how Rama could behave like 'an ordinary man

in the street' and get angry with one whose only fault was a little delay in

helping in a mission of searching Sita (Rama's wife) - which anyway was Rama's

own

personal affair.

 

Explanations given by Srimad Andavan of Poundarikapuram Asramam

 

( i ) Prapatti can succeed only when it is done to one who is capable of

granting he result sought for through Saranagathi- being possessed of Gnana,

Sakti, Karuna and other qualities. Surrendering to a worthless person will be

useless. Sri Rama in his role as a human being demonstrates this by

surrendering to Samudra Raja to please Vibhishana (who himself had

experienced the efficacy of Saranagathi ! ).

 

( ii ) The Ocean king was one of those bound by the pact with the Lord when

the Devas promised to help the Lord in his Avatar as a human being. In fact,

Samudra Raja should have kept himself in readiness to rush to do his duty at

the first call itself. This being so, his callousness in not responding to the

call for help especially when it came quite unnecessarily in the form of a

Saranagathi and that by Sri Rama himself earned for him the wrath of Sri Rama.

 

(iii ) Keeping up a promise was considered the supreme duty and failure to do

so a heinous crime in the days of Rama. At one stage, Rama tells Sita that he

would rather prefer to give her up and even Lakshmana (his brother) than to

breaking a promise he had held out to the sages who had surrendered to him.

 

Today, keeping up promises is of no consequence and breaking the plighted word

does not qualm the conscience any more since it is considered a normal stance

not to be seriously bothered about.

 

( iv ) Also, it should be remembered that Rama was God himself and had no need

for anybody's help but since he had incarnated himself in the role of a human

being, he showed to the world how a human being would react in such

circumstances.

 

( v ) The critics do not know how Rama controlled his anger and excused the

Ocean king when he appeared before him seeking to be excused, again showing

to the world how one should control one's anger.

 

(vi ) The success of an actor depends on the measure of feelings aroused

among the audience. Judging by this standard, the feeling of revulsion at his

rage felt by those who find fault with him only proves that Rama had not only

acted his part - but had also acted admirably well.

 

In the skewed up attitudes, the salutary morals of everlasting validity

contained in the regard and respect for the plighted word are lost on the

modern enthusiasts who in their half-baked knowledge find them a mere

unintelligible babble.

 

This is because what were considered as virtues in the bygone days are no

longer regarded so today; And, many of what were deemed vices in the past have

become not only acceptable but also adorable.

 

More to follow

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy