[Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Bali Vadham

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinod,

 

It is a good topic to discuss. Appreciate your initiative for an open discussion.

I too have this doubt from childhood onwards like

 

Why Lord Rama had killed Bali, who was a great devotee of Vishu?(To get Sugreeva’s help??)

Why he adopted the method of hide and attack, when Bali was fighting with Sugreeva (any normal person can do such an act )

 

I was asking this question to many, but could not get a proper answer. Often my elders used to get angry at the end .

I am a strong believer of Hinduism and undoubtly believes in the power of god. But as a member of new generation I need this doubts to be cleared, so that my bhakti is not adulterated .I too agree with your point on “I like rama when he marries sita and dislikes

When he leaves her”.

 

I will be thankful to the members in this group who can help me in clearing those doubts.

 

Thanks,

Anoop Menon "PS, Vinod K (GE Energy)" <vinod.ps wrote:

 

 

 

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

It was a pleasant morning in Bangalore today & as usual I was tuned to Asianet TV at 7am listening to "Ramayana" parayanam by Sri M G Radhakrishnan, our musical maestro. Today he started with "Bali Vadham" & that did attracted me a lot. "Bali Vadham" is one among the two top accusations (second being "Sita Tyagam") raised against Ramavataram & it has been widely talked/discussed over generations & ages. The subject of interest in these events of this great epic vests not in their happening as such, instead the connection of these events to a personality known as MARYADA PURUSHOTTAMA RAMA generates the whole attraction & the associated relevance. If these events were connected to any other incarnation other than Ramavataram, it may not have gained that attention, I assume, over the history of time & civilization.

Because "RamO Vigrahavan Dharmah !" as it goes, never allows any body (especially a Rama bhakta) to digest such events so easily. What to talk abt ordinary beings, even great saints like Sri Melpathur Bhattathiri did not hesitated to raised his sorrow in front of Guruvayurappan reminding the Lord abt "Sita Tyagam" in his Ramavataram. Those feelings of a devotee are appreciable to a good extent, though it indirectly diminishes the radiance of Lord's glory. This becomes a serious issue when we elaborate such instances in front of somebody who is not a matured devotee or at the worst who is an athiest by nature.

Therefore, as a dedicated servant of the Lord it becomes the responsibility of each devotee to understand the exact implication & consequence of such vital events associated with Lord's nara lila, as Rama or as Krishna, in particular.

Civilization starts at home & parents are the first Guru(s). Therefore, in those houses where such holy discussions falls under a normal routine it becomes severely important for the parents to understand to real relevance of such accusations raised against our beloved Lord. Invest a good time in finding answers to such querries which shields our complete devotion to Lord, becoz acceptance cannot & shud not be incomplete. We shud not say "I like Krishna when he delivers Gita & I dislike when he robs clothes of the Gopikas." or "I like Rama when he marries Sita & I dislike when abandons her into the jungle." etc. etc.

If we have such attitude in our mind, remember our devotion unto Krishna/Rama is still incomplete. We have to travel a long way to reach him.

"Bali Vadham" is a very sensitive issue & so has manifold dimensions. Understanding it may be difficult, but not impossible.

I wish to have an open talk on it ( & not an argument) & let's see how it goes.

By Guruvayoorappan's ultimate grace, hopefully we will be able to judge this event in a much better fashion & advise it to our coming generations.

 

I invite all interested devotees of this forum to join & have an active participation.

 

Thanks.

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinod,

 

 

I too have the same doubt which Anoop asked.I am a devottee of Lord Rama and I would like to know why my Rama done so.Could you please reply to his questions...

 

 

 

Why Lord Rama had killed Bali, who was a great devotee of Vishu

Why he adopted the method of hide and attack, when Bali was fighting with Sugreeva ...Was it a violation of Dharma...?

Ratheesh

Bangalore

 

"PS, Vinod K (GE Energy)" <vinod.ps wrote:

 

 

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

It was a pleasant morning in Bangalore today & as usual I was tuned to Asianet TV at 7am listening to "Ramayana" parayanam by Sri M G Radhakrishnan, our musical maestro. Today he started with "Bali Vadham" & that did attracted me a lot. "Bali Vadham" is one among the two top accusations (second being "Sita Tyagam") raised against Ramavataram & it has been widely talked/discussed over generations & ages. The subject of interest in these events of this great epic vests not in their happening as such, instead the connection of these events to a personality known as MARYADA PURUSHOTTAMA RAMA generates the whole attraction & the associated relevance. If these events were connected to any other incarnation other than Ramavataram, it may not have gained that attention, I assume, over the history of time & civilization.

Because "RamO Vigrahavan Dharmah !" as it goes, never allows any body (especially a Rama bhakta) to digest such events so easily. What to talk abt ordinary beings, even great saints like Sri Melpathur Bhattathiri did not hesitated to raised his sorrow in front of Guruvayurappan reminding the Lord abt "Sita Tyagam" in his Ramavataram. Those feelings of a devotee are appreciable to a good extent, though it indirectly diminishes the radiance of Lord's glory. This becomes a serious issue when we elaborate such instances in front of somebody who is not a matured devotee or at the worst who is an athiest by nature.

Therefore, as a dedicated servant of the Lord it becomes the responsibility of each devotee to understand the exact implication & consequence of such vital events associated with Lord's nara lila, as Rama or as Krishna, in particular.

Civilization starts at home & parents are the first Guru(s). Therefore, in those houses where such holy discussions falls under a normal routine it becomes severely important for the parents to understand to real relevance of such accusations raised against our beloved Lord. Invest a good time in finding answers to such querries which shields our complete devotion to Lord, becoz acceptance cannot & shud not be incomplete. We shud not say "I like Krishna when he delivers Gita & I dislike when he robs clothes of the Gopikas." or "I like Rama when he marries Sita & I dislike when abandons her into the jungle." etc. etc.

If we have such attitude in our mind, remember our devotion unto Krishna/Rama is still incomplete. We have to travel a long way to reach him.

"Bali Vadham" is a very sensitive issue & so has manifold dimensions. Understanding it may be difficult, but not impossible.

I wish to have an open talk on it ( & not an argument) & let's see how it goes.

By Guruvayoorappan's ultimate grace, hopefully we will be able to judge this event in a much better fashion & advise it to our coming generations.

 

I invite all interested devotees of this forum to join & have an active participation.

 

Thanks.

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

Free antispam, antivirus and 1GB to save all your messages Only in Mail: http://in.mail.

[Guest guest]

Dear vinod,

 

Even though i'm not a scholar in this matter i think i just know the correct answer to it. For the first question it can be said as followes.:

 

In Bali's previous birth he was the hunter who shot the arrow at krishna's lotus feet which caused him to leave the human body. So in return in his next birth i'e, as Bali he was killed by krishna/Rama.

 

For the second question,

 

Since Bali in his previous birth had shot the arrow hiding in bushes, krishna too decides to kill him the same way bali did to him in his previous birth.

OM NAMO NARAYANYA>>>>ratheesh v <ratheeshvnair20 wrote:

 

 

Dear Vinod,

 

 

I too have the same doubt which Anoop asked.I am a devottee of Lord Rama and I would like to know why my Rama done so.Could you please reply to his questions...

 

Why Lord Rama had killed Bali, who was a great devotee of Vishu

Why he adopted the method of hide and attack, when Bali was fighting with Sugreeva ...Was it a violation of Dharma...?

Ratheesh

Bangalore

 

"PS, Vinod K (GE Energy)" <vinod.ps wrote:

 

 

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

It was a pleasant morning in Bangalore today & as usual I was tuned to Asianet TV at 7am listening to "Ramayana" parayanam by Sri M G Radhakrishnan, our musical maestro. Today he started with "Bali Vadham" & that did attracted me a lot. "Bali Vadham" is one among the two top accusations (second being "Sita Tyagam") raised against Ramavataram & it has been widely talked/discussed over generations & ages. The subject of interest in these events of this great epic vests not in their happening as such, instead the connection of these events to a personality known as MARYADA PURUSHOTTAMA RAMA generates the whole attraction & the associated relevance. If these events were connected to any other incarnation other than Ramavataram, it may not have gained that attention, I assume, over the history of time & civilization.

Because "RamO Vigrahavan Dharmah !" as it goes, never allows any body (especially a Rama bhakta) to digest such events so easily. What to talk abt ordinary beings, even great saints like Sri Melpathur Bhattathiri did not hesitated to raised his sorrow in front of Guruvayurappan reminding the Lord abt "Sita Tyagam" in his Ramavataram. Those feelings of a devotee are appreciable to a good extent, though it indirectly diminishes the radiance of Lord's glory. This becomes a serious issue when we elaborate such instances in front of somebody who is not a matured devotee or at the worst who is an athiest by nature.

Therefore, as a dedicated servant of the Lord it becomes the responsibility of each devotee to understand the exact implication & consequence of such vital events associated with Lord's nara lila, as Rama or as Krishna, in particular.

Civilization starts at home & parents are the first Guru(s). Therefore, in those houses where such holy discussions falls under a normal routine it becomes severely important for the parents to understand to real relevance of such accusations raised against our beloved Lord. Invest a good time in finding answers to such querries which shields our complete devotion to Lord, becoz acceptance cannot & shud not be incomplete. We shud not say "I like Krishna when he delivers Gita & I dislike when he robs clothes of the Gopikas." or "I like Rama when he marries Sita & I dislike when abandons her into the jungle." etc. etc.

If we have such attitude in our mind, remember our devotion unto Krishna/Rama is still incomplete. We have to travel a long way to reach him.

"Bali Vadham" is a very sensitive issue & so has manifold dimensions. Understanding it may be difficult, but not impossible.

I wish to have an open talk on it ( & not an argument) & let's see how it goes.

By Guruvayoorappan's ultimate grace, hopefully we will be able to judge this event in a much better fashion & advise it to our coming generations.

 

I invite all interested devotees of this forum to join & have an active participation.

 

Thanks.

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

Free antispam, antivirus and 1GB to save all your messagesOnly in Mail: http://in.mail.

[Guest guest]

Om Namo Narayanaya.

Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".

Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).

Re Vali's death I will share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:

1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.

Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill him and as long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest.

To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him.

 

2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail

 

 

Om Namo Narayanaya.

[Guest guest]

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.

 

I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more

pracical aspect of this event.

 

=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?

 

1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect.

Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the

south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to

shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the

rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid

these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to

Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this

tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body

dared to speak a word against Bali. But there was one other mighty

ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he

was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve

the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than

Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari.

 

This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled

all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like

Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of

Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta.

 

This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not

able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This

reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost.

 

2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme

Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by

Ravana did not made Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly

supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering

his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to

attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.

This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva

without even listening to Bali's explanation.

 

3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra &

Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to

free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to

be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support

to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-

fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali

in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's

execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).

 

4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much interested in his

provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his

departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali

never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by

God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is

strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the

kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the

fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.

 

Hope this helps ...

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

guruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:

> Om Namo Narayanaya.

> Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency

to like " Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He

abandons her " .

> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to

Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).

> Re Vali's death I will share what I have read in the Valmiki

Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:

> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was

not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past

karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands.

But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada

Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust?

Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali

know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he

did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva

was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.

> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle

with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But

Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will

show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill him and as

long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the

heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to

killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also

not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki

Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous

sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali

doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest.

> To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the

vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning

for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that

Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva

by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali.

But " vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi " It is just that Vali's time had

come but he bravely faced what was in store for him.

>

> 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail

>

>

> Om Namo Narayanaya.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

Vinod you have indeed come up with a very good topic to discuss

during this Ramayana masam. I recently got one old book of Amma

giving answers to various questions from devotees which were

complied in a book. In this she had answered both the questions we

have in this forum in a very simple manner.

 

The answer to the first question of why Rama sent Sita to forest,

she says Rama had in fact abandoned only Maya Sita, since Sita is

pativartha she is one with Ram and cannot be singled out. To Quote

her `Sita, Ramel-ninu binam alla'. Ram had done this for the good of

the society in general, otherwise it would you affected

the `sadacharam' of the society for generations to come.

 

In case of Bali vadam, she gave a even simpler reason stating that

it was his duty as a king to banish adharma and for this he an can

seek any method to get rid of.

 

Hare Rama

Hare Krishna

 

Pravin

 

guruvayur , " vinod_ps77 " <vinod.ps@g...> wrote:

> !! Sri Rama Jayam !!

>

> Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.

>

> I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much

more

> pracical aspect of this event.

>

> => Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed

Vali....?

>

> 1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this

respect.

> Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the

> south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to

> shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless

the

> rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid

> these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to

> Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though

this

> tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body

> dared to speak a word against Bali. But there was one other mighty

> ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he

> was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to

serve

> the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than

> Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari.

>

> This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote

controlled

> all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like

> Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of

> Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta.

>

> This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were

not

> able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This

> reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any

cost.

>

> 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme

> Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita

by

> Ravana did not made Bali realize abt his serious mistake of

blindly

> supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt

offering

> his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to

> attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.

> This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva

> without even listening to Bali's explanation.

>

> 3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra &

> Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried

to

> free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to

> be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of

support

> to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-

> fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than

Bali

> in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's

> execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).

>

> 4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much interested in his

> provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his

> departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali

> never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception

by

> God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This

is

> strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so

the

> kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened

the

> fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.

>

> Hope this helps ...

>

> Hare Krishna

> Hare Rama

>

>

> guruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:

> > Om Namo Narayanaya.

> > Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our

tendency

> to like " Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He

> abandons her " .

> > Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop

to

> Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).

> > Re Vali's death I will share what I have read in the Valmiki

> Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:

> > 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it

was

> not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past

> karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's

hands.

> But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada

> Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything

unfair/unjust?

> Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't

Vali

> know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he

> did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva

> was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.

> > Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to

battle

> with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But

> Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will

> show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill him and

as

> long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in

the

> heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to

> killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is

also

> not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki

> Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a

tremendous

> sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali

> doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest.

> > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in

the

> vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient

warning

> for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that

> Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to

Sugreeva

> by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to

Vali.

> But " vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi " It is just that Vali's time had

> come but he bravely faced what was in store for him.

> >

> > 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next

mail

> >

> >

> > Om Namo Narayanaya.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks Vinod for such wonderful insights about Ramayana.These facts i never known about the epic (Political reason etc )

 

I don’t want to sound skeptical, but shall I ask you a query.

There was only a small misunderstanding between Bali and sugreeva, instead of killing Bali, Rama should have acted as a negotiator between them and sorted out the problem. As Bali already knows that Rama was the avatar of Maha Vishnu, he would have surely agreeded.

And it was sure that Bali would never kill Sugreeva as he promised with Tara before going for the fight .And we should not forget that Bali has his own reasons to dislike sugreeva.

Then he would have got both of their helps.

 

Anyway a good discussion on the subject and thank everyone for their valuable inputs.

vinod_ps77 <vinod.ps wrote:

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more pracical aspect of this event.=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect. Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body dared to speak a

word against Bali. But there was one other mighty ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari. This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta. This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost. 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by Ravana did not made

Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva without even listening to Bali's explanation.3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra & Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much interested in

his provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.Hope this helps ...Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:> Om Namo Narayanaya.> Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).> Re Vali's death I will

share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill him and as

long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest. > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him. >

> 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail> > > Om Namo Narayanaya.> > > > >

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

Dear Anoop,

 

As such these informations are very rare to read & I got these from a very interesting discussion on "Nara-Vanara samskruti" delivered by saints like Morari Bapu, Ramkinkar, Pandurang Athvale & Ramesh Bhai Oza etc. on SANSKAR/ASTHA TV. These saints in particular have done a very deeper study on Sri Ramayanam & Sri Ramcharit Manas.

 

Anoop, as you wrote "There was only a small misunderstanding between Bali and Sugreeva.." does not hold true, if u have really tried to understand this crucial episode. Sugriva, having confirmed abt Bali's death to the citizens to Kishkinta enjoys the empire (as per the poll of citizens & ministers...for no country shud be free of it's king anytime) & drives the administration in accordance with the best laws of vanara civilization. There was absolutely no any signature of dissatisfaction raised by the citizens, in particular by Bali's wife (Tara) & even Angada. Tara, still enjoyed all the freedom & respect of a Queen in the absence Bali & so also Angada as the prince. Sugriva never tried to fix a wrong eye on Tara anytime. Tara's advices were always appreciated by Hanuman & Jambavan (the principal ministers). Hanuman gave a very gud company to Angada as his best playmate & as a partial-guru. Thus the absence of Bali was well respected in Sugriva's kingdom. If this was not so, never wud have Sri Rama (Dharma Vigraha) gave protection & lifelong friendship to a guy like Sugriva. The presence of Hanuman & Jambavan nourished Sugriva's innocence in front of the Lord.

 

Now, look at Bali. He was never ever prepared to forgive Sugriva for his sure-forgiveable misunderstanding, even after he heard the suggestions of Tara & Angada. He openly discarded the words of Hanuman & Jambavan also. Furthermore, he captivated Sugriva's wife & forced her to accept his hell-will. Now, a question arise, why did not Hanuman & Jambavan fought against Bali that very time ? ..... Answer is these great souls never wished to dissociate that great civilization of vanaras for a mere cause of misunderstanding between 2 brothers. Moreover, Hanuman's trust on Tara that Sugriva's wife will always be safe as long Tara is alive, drove them to depart from Kishkinta & opted to wait for some more time so that futher negotiations cud be settled in the nearest future. Hanuman was always an optimistic person. But the consequences were quite bitter, as we all know. Bali never sounded like he will be forgiving Sugriva.

 

It's during that time, our beloved Lord steps into Rishyamuka hill. Having understood all the pros & cons of Bali-Sugriva tug-of-war, Lord decided to grant a final chance to Bali. Lord, having persuaded Sugriva for an open battle against Bali, indirectly informed him that - "Now Sugriva is under my protection & be cautious dont dare to bring any harm to him.." Tara was wise enough to understand this notification of Lord & tried her best to advice Bali. Burning with anger, Bali did not hesitated to attack Sugriva. Unfortunate Bali failed to understand Lord's will. Still, Lord decided to extend one more chance to his confused devotee.

 

What better negotiation can we expect from Lord Rama than this ??

 

But, Bali was now far away to understand any indication for his well-being.

Lord had no other chance than to put an end to Bali's wickedness.

 

"Ore oru Banam...eduthu Bali thann Pranam !"

 

Hope that this explanation is sufficient !

------------

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

guruvayur [guruvayur ]On Behalf Of Anoop MenonMonday, August 01, 2005 11:32 AMguruvayur Subject: Re: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Bali Vadham

 

Thanks Vinod for such wonderful insights about Ramayana.These facts i never known about the epic (Political reason etc )

 

I don't want to sound skeptical, but shall I ask you a query.

There was only a small misunderstanding between Bali and sugreeva, instead of killing Bali, Rama should have acted as a negotiator between them and sorted out the problem. As Bali already knows that Rama was the avatar of Maha Vishnu, he would have surely agreeded.

And it was sure that Bali would never kill Sugreeva as he promised with Tara before going for the fight .And we should not forget that Bali has his own reasons to dislike sugreeva.

Then he would have got both of their helps.

 

Anyway a good discussion on the subject and thank everyone for their valuable inputs.

vinod_ps77 <vinod.ps wrote: !! Sri Rama Jayam !!Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more pracical aspect of this event.=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect. Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body dared to ! speak a word against Bali. But there was one other mighty ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari. This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta. This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost. 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by Ravana did not! made Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva without even listening to Bali's explanation.3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra & Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much intere! sted in his provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.Hope this helps ...Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:> Om Namo Narayanaya.> Two very interessting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).> Re Vali's death! I will share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill hi! m and as long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest. > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him. > & nbs! p; > 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail> > > Om Namo Narayanaya.> > > > >

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Dear vinod,

 

I've read your view on the subject, But in your text u have mentioned that "Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required", But then why deoe Bali while lying wounded on Sri Ramas lap say that ,"Rama u could have asked for my help instead of joinin hands with Sugreeva, I alone could have brought Sita mata back from Lanka." Can you please clarify my doubt regauding this.

With regards,

Krishna.

vinod_ps77 <vinod.ps wrote:

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more pracical aspect of this event.=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect. Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body dared to speak a

word against Bali. But there was one other mighty ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari. This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta. This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost. 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by Ravana did not made

Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva without even listening to Bali's explanation.3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra & Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much interested in

his provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.Hope this helps ...Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:> Om Namo Narayanaya.> Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).> Re Vali's death I will

share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill him and as

long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest. > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him. >

> 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail> > > Om Namo Narayanaya.> > > > >

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

Dear Shri Krishna Shetty,

 

I hope, I have indicated my opinion on this in the 2nd point of my response(plz read). Still, I am happy to attempt in clarifying something more to you.

 

Bali, who is nearing his death, is enjoying the supreme bliss of Lord's association. The life full of anger, envy, confusions & agitations have finally attained it's perfection by the soft vision of Rama once for all. Bali's inner realization is rising as the morning sun. Remembering his deeds at the dying stage, Bali confesses for every mistakes he has committed with an open & happy heart. The question he has put in front of Lord is nothing but the hidden form of Bali's actual devotion to the supreme. But the very question - "Oh Rama, why did not you reached out for my help to uproot Ravana than to go & seek for Sugreeva's help ?" indicates that Bali is/was not fully aware of Rama's valour prior to his downfall.

 

Here, it is to be remembered that Rama is not relying on Sugreeva's shoulders for any help or benefit. Otherwise, later, Lord wud not have declared - "I will send Sugreeva thru the same route by which Bali has gone !". The only reason to have an association with Sugreeva is 'Dharma' & nothing else. Bali always lacked that & hence Rama answered his querries with reference to Vedas. This was not a new experience to Bali as he'd heard this many times from his dear wife Tara. But, it was none other than the all-potent Lord who is explaining to him now. Pacified Bali surrenders his son Angada at Lord's service. This was perhaps the best 'Dharma' Bali wud have practised in his life. Compassionate Lord granted him onspot 'Kaivalyam', as Valmiki Ramayanam unfolds. This shud remove all such confusions that the hunter who shot arrow at Lord Krishna's holy foot was the next birth of Bali.

 

Let us imagine, if Rama had (otherwise) opted to take Bali's help in his mission, then what wud have been the glory of this supreme avataram !! ..... I fear.

 

Why to think of Sugreeva also, Lord did not even ordered Hanuman (his ultimate & dearmost servant) to uproot Ravana or to bring Sita back, though Hanuman was an all-eligible character. The same too, mother Sita had also suggested Hanuman to do at the first meet. This is a perfect display of 'MARYADA' as illustrated by Sri Rama & mother Sita. That is why still 'Ramayanam' deserves the highest position when it comes to organized social life.

 

Thanks.

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

 

guruvayur [guruvayur ]On Behalf Of krishna shettyMonday, August 01, 2005 5:35 PMguruvayur Subject: Re: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Bali Vadham

 

Dear vinod,

 

I've read your view on the subject, But in your text u have mentioned that "Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required", But then why deoe Bali while lying wounded on Sri Ramas lap say that ,"Rama u could have asked for my help instead of joinin hands with Sugreeva, I alone could have brought Sita mata back from Lanka." Can you please clarify my doubt regauding this.

With regards,

Krishna.

vinod_ps77 <vinod.ps wrote:

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more pracical aspect of this event.=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect. Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body dared to ! speak a word against Bali. But there was one other mighty ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari. This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta. This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost. 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by Ravana did not! made Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva without even listening to Bali's explanation.3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra & Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much intere! sted in his provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.Hope this helps ...Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:> Om Namo Narayanaya.> Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).> Re Vali's death! I will share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill hi! m and as long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest. > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him. > & nbs! p; > 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail> > > Om Namo Narayanaya.> > > > >

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

A beautiful query raised by Krisha.The explanation that Vali was not aware of Rama's ability does not hold water as Vali knew the capabilities of Rama as pointed by Veena.Though I am not for any argument as the same is not the motive as I hv already made it clear, it is not correct that Vali did not know the valour of Rama.The only thing that can be taken into account is that Sugreeva first approached Rama for help and Rama too did agree to the same and also promised that he will finish Vali as the elders of Sugreeva camp wanted the help of all the vanaras in Rama's mission.In case Vali would hv approached Rama in the first instance might be Rama would hv agreed to take his help but becoz of the karmic deeds of Vali and his desire to get liberation from the Lords hands Rama came to Sugreeva in the first instance by the time factor of which nothing could simply be guessed as nobody knew the actual position apart from the texts written whether by Valmiki or

anybody else.It was the desire of Vali who was in his earlier births a deva and by some curse he might hv born as a vanara and it was his wish to get moksha from Lord and the same was granted to him when the Lord took avatar as Sri Rama.As there was an agreement between Vali and Ravana ,Vali never interfered in the activities of Ravana and that can't be taken as flouting of dharma concepts as he had promised he won't interfere in Ravana's activities unless the vanaras were affected.So on his part he kept his word.It is just like the non interference of the people who were doyens of dharma like Bhishma,Drona,and others in the court of Duryodhana when Draupati was offended.Why they kept quiet though they were the incarnations of dharmas as they were living at the mercy of Duryodhana and just to show their gratitude they kept quiet of the activities of Duryodhana.What they shuld hv done was to go out of the court of Duryodhana knowng fully well that he was doing

adharmic deeds to Draupadi.But they expressed their helpness.Why?just to show their gratitude for the living given to them by Duryodhana though they knew he was doing things against the natural laws.If they did then the Mahabharatha would not hv proceeded further.So it is all due to the imagination of Vyasa or they might hv known that the end of Duryodhana and his supporters including them shuld happen by the karmic deeds and get liberation from Krishna.It is natural for any person to apologise for the misdeeds he had committed at the time of death.The net effect is there can be many opinions on such episodes which can't be given clear cut answers by anybody and whatever one gives can be only on the basis of surmises.It is also not known why Rama shuld show special favour to Sugreeva as he was introduced to Rama only by Hanuman.Why Hanuman did not try to make a rapproachment between Vali and Sugreeva if there was some misunderstanding is also not known.In what way Vali

offended Rama for His interference in a tussle between Vali and Sugreeva?It was only from the sayings of Hanuman ,Rama might hv thought of helping Sugreeva as Vali was not his enemy.So there is some force in what Krishna Shetty has raised the question.It was possible for Hanuman to bring Sita and he too offered but was denied by Sita as she wanted Rama to come and rescue her.Otherwiswe Rama's mission won't be fulfilled and hence Hanuman was used as a tool.In case Hanuman rescues Sita again the question of doubt raised by the washerman about the integrity of Rama and Sita would hv arisen there also..Further since Rama as the avatar had to rescue his wife Sita asking Hanuman to bring her would glorify Hanuman more than Rama and such a concept won't go well.In fact if Rama desired he could hv finished Ravana singly without seeking any help from anybody and since he wanted to face Ravana personally he took the help of others.As Ravana,Kamsa and other renowned rakshasas

though well versed took that form becoz of curses from sages who also gave the salvation the rakshasas would get in such and such avatar of Lord Vishnu.In this way Akalya though not a rakshasi got salvation but cursed by the sage to remain as a stone got liberation by getting the feet of Rama on the stone.How Rama knew this?Since He was an avatar of Vishnu the knower of everything.So too Rama knew that Vali had to get liberation from Him and taking Sugreeva's help and asking him to fight with Vali was only a drama in scheme of God as Vali was a great Bhaktha and wanted moksha from the Lord.If that is not accepted then what Rama did also could not be digested as Vali was not an enemy of Rama and just to help Sugreeva, Rama would not hv taken the trouble of killing Vali as it goes against the dharma of Rama.

So what we had to infer from this is that Vali must be given moksha from Lord Vishnu's hands as desired by him and hence this drama enacted by Rama as

Vali cld not get his ambition fulfilled without such a leela from Rama,an avatar of Lord Vishnu.In turn Vali also cursed Rama to get Himself out of the world in His next avatar by a hunter and Rama too gladly accepted the same.If Vali was not a man of wisdom he culd not hv cursed Rama like that.So in those days whether sages or animals did possess the powers to curse anybody,it seems,and that might be due to their penances done in earlier births.So there is nothing to find fault with Rama as he did what His devotee requested though the means might be different and that need not be counted seriously as the same shuld be taken as part of the leelas of God which is beyond the human comprehension.What Vali did on his deathbed is immaterial.

 

Hare Krishna."PS, Vinod K (GE Energy)" <vinod.ps wrote:

 

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!

 

Dear Shri Krishna Shetty,

 

I hope, I have indicated my opinion on this in the 2nd point of my response(plz read). Still, I am happy to attempt in clarifying something more to you.

 

Bali, who is nearing his death, is enjoying the supreme bliss of Lord's association. The life full of anger, envy, confusions & agitations have finally attained it's perfection by the soft vision of Rama once for all. Bali's inner realization is rising as the morning sun. Remembering his deeds at the dying stage, Bali confesses for every mistakes he has committed with an open & happy heart. The question he has put in front of Lord is nothing but the hidden form of Bali's actual devotion to the supreme. But the very question - "Oh Rama, why did not you reached out for my help to uproot Ravana than to go & seek for Sugreeva's help ?" indicates that Bali is/was not fully aware of Rama's valour prior to his downfall.

 

Here, it is to be remembered that Rama is not relying on Sugreeva's shoulders for any help or benefit. Otherwise, later, Lord wud not have declared - "I will send Sugreeva thru the same route by which Bali has gone !". The only reason to have an association with Sugreeva is 'Dharma' & nothing else. Bali always lacked that & hence Rama answered his querries with reference to Vedas. This was not a new experience to Bali as he'd heard this many times from his dear wife Tara. But, it was none other than the all-potent Lord who is explaining to him now. Pacified Bali surrenders his son Angada at Lord's service. This was perhaps the best 'Dharma' Bali wud have practised in his life. Compassionate Lord granted him onspot 'Kaivalyam', as Valmiki Ramayanam unfolds. This shud remove all such confusions that the hunter who shot arrow at Lord Krishna's holy foot was the next birth of

Bali.

 

Let us imagine, if Rama had (otherwise) opted to take Bali's help in his mission, then what wud have been the glory of this supreme avataram !! ..... I fear.

 

Why to think of Sugreeva also, Lord did not even ordered Hanuman (his ultimate & dearmost servant) to uproot Ravana or to bring Sita back, though Hanuman was an all-eligible character. The same too, mother Sita had also suggested Hanuman to do at the first meet. This is a perfect display of 'MARYADA' as illustrated by Sri Rama & mother Sita. That is why still 'Ramayanam' deserves the highest position when it comes to organized social life.

 

Thanks.

 

Hare Krishna

Hare Rama

 

 

 

 

guruvayur [guruvayur ]On Behalf Of krishna shettyMonday, August 01, 2005 5:35 PMguruvayur Subject: Re: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Bali Vadham

 

Dear vinod,

 

I've read your view on the subject, But in your text u have mentioned that "Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required", But then why deoe Bali while lying wounded on Sri Ramas lap say that ,"Rama u could have asked for my help instead of joinin hands with Sugreeva, I alone could have brought Sita mata back from Lanka." Can you please clarify my doubt regauding this.

With regards,

Krishna.

vinod_ps77 <vinod.ps wrote:

!! Sri Rama Jayam !!Thank you Veena for covering some very good points on Vali vadham.I wud like to add on some more points, which will give us a much more pracical aspect of this event.=> Political reason for Valivadham : What for Rama executed Vali....?1. Bali-Ravana friendship is a very IMP happening in this respect. Bali's empire stood as a roof over many other Ape colonies in the south. According to this new friendship deal, Bali was supposed to shut his eyes of Ravana's activities in Arya land untill & unless the rakshasas were to disturb any vanara. Furthermore, Bali shud aid these rakshasas as & when required. This was a new beginning to Vanara-Rakshasa tie up never having occured in the past. Though this tie up was not admired uniformly around the ape community, no body dared to ! speak a

word against Bali. But there was one other mighty ape named 'Kesari' who did not accepted this imposition, though he was in the ally of Bali. This great ape dedicated his life to serve the innocent & great sages near Pampa.He was none other than Hanuman's father. But Bali did not bothered much abt Kesari. This was ofcourse a strong support for Ravana who remote controlled all such activities from Lanka having his best associates like Taraka, Trishira, Khara, Dushana & Marich commanding the forest of Dandaka connecting Arya kshetram & Kishkinta. This was a big trouble for all the past kings of Ayodhya & were not able to have any support from Bali on this, unfortunately. This reason was a sufficient cause for Rama to execute Bali at any cost. 2. Bali was well aware that Rama was none other than the Supreme Godhead himself incarnated on earth. Even the kidnapping of Sita by Ravana did not! made

Bali realize abt his serious mistake of blindly supporting Ravana. Why did not Bali, who talked so much abt offering his services to Rama (at the time of his death) even tried once to attempt the same... ? Rama knew all this.This was the second IMP reason for why Rama took side of Sugriva without even listening to Bali's explanation.3. Literature says that Bali is the 'Aurasa putra' of god Indra & Sugriva of god Surya. If this is so, then why not Bali ever tried to free his father from the clutches of Meghanada who claimed to be 'Indrajit' ? The kings of Ayodhya were the only point of support to Indra in the warfare on earth anytime. Bali really brought ill-fame to his birth as a son then. Ravana looks much better than Bali in this respect. This turned out be the 3rd reason for Bali's execution by Lord Rama (who is the unmatched parent-devotee).4. Unlike Ravana, Bali was ofcourse not much intere! sted in

his provincial expansion. But, he was never so kind at leaving his departing opponent walk away with life. Ramayana unfolds that Bali never allowed his opponent to stay alive (Ravana was an exception by God's grace !). Sugriva was always under the terror of Bali. This is strictly against warfare rules. On the otherhand, Lord Rama & so the kings of Ayodhya were very careful abt such Dharmas. This opened the fourth cause to Bali's execution by Rama banam.Hope this helps ...Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur , Veena Nair <vee_1807> wrote:> Om Namo Narayanaya.> Two very interesting aspects: 1) Vali's death and 2) our tendency to like "Shri Ram when he marries Sita and be disappointed when He abandons her".> Thanks to both Shri Raman (a very detailed historical backdrop to Vali's death) and Shri Sunil (a very nice analogy to life).> Re Vali's death! I will

share what I have read in the Valmiki Ramayan Darshan by Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavale:> 1) It is said that Rama killed Vali from behind a tree and it was not fair of him to do so; as Shri Raman pointed out, with his past karmas, the stage was already set for Vali's death at Rama's hands. But we do need to stop and think if our ideal of a Maryada Purushottam that is Shri Rama could have done anything unfair/unjust? Didn't Vali know that Rama was around? Of course he did. Didn't Vali know that Sugreeva had obtained Rama's help and protection? Yes he did..! Did Vali know that in his battle with Sugreeva, if Sugreeva was in danger Rama wd step in? Yes he did.> Vali's wife, Tara, tried to stop him from venturing out to battle with Sugreeva because she knew he was under Rama's protection. But Vali also relied on Rama's sense of justice. He told Tara, I will show Sugreeva my strength in battle, but I will not kill hi! m and

as long as I don't kill him, Rama will not do anything to me. But in the heat of the battle, Vali forgot his resolution and was close to killing Sugreeva. Rama had no choice but to kill Vali. And it is also not true that Rama killed Vali on the sly, because the Valmiki Ramayana states that when Rama strung his bow, there was a tremendous sound that shook the seven worlds. How is it possible that Vali doesn't hear that? Also the arrow pierced Vali's chest. > To my mind the fact that Vali was fully aware of Rama being in the vicinity and Rama's resolve to help Sugreeva was sufficient warning for Vali to make amends and unite with his brother. The fact that Rama had broken Shiva's bow, had demonstrated his powers to Sugreeva by shooting an arrow through seven trees etc. was all known to Vali. But "vinaashkaale vipreet buddhi" It is just that Vali's time had come but he bravely faced what was in store for him. > & nbs!

p; > 2) Rama marrying Sita and Rama abandoning Sita....contd in next mail> > > Om Namo Narayanaya.> > > > >

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends n family photos for FREE with Photos. http://in.photos.