Ram and Vali

[Guest guest]

Why did Ram shoot Vali, an un suspecting victim behind a tree?

Why did Krishna kill Bheeshma,drona,karna using un fair means?

 

Because anything done in defense of dharma is dharma.When the other side follows adharma in war, you need not hesitate to use adharma. Everything becomes fair in war.Prithvi raj chauhan followed dharma when he let off Mohammed ghauri the first time. India still hasnt recovered from that mistake.

Vijayanagar empire defeated bhamini sultans for 3 centuries in many wars.But it did not destroy them and let them off.It lost one war in 1565.Just one war.Just visit humpi today to know what happened then.

Gandhi fasted to force Nehru to give pakistan 55 crore rupees as share from reserve bank.He cited dharma as the reason.pakistan waged a war against India with that mony.

 

Ram and krishna showed the way to fight a war.Prithvi raj chauhan and gandhi did not understand it.

 

Had satrapathi shivaji followed dharma in war with aurangazeb, history would have been different

[Sephiroth]

When good people argue with us fairly, we must argue back fairly as well - Law of Dharma and Fair Combat.

 

When bad people argue with us unfairly, do we have to argue back fairly, hoping they could change their ways?

[aqua3]

I am giving here a version on vali vadham and its symbolism that I posted in another group some time ago.

 

Faith forms the basis of any search or research into why the Lord behaved as He had.The assumptions arising from this faith is what is important, for, without getting our assumptions right we can not get the right solutions.The assumption is that Rama who is a perfect embodiment of Dharma can never be wrong. He can never be thought to have slipped from dharma at any time in Ramavadhara.

 

 

Even otherwise as Brahman, He can not be said to have faltered in dharma. “Not even on accountof the peculiarity of situation can the two-foldcharacteristics (v,z., positive and negative) belongto the Highest” (Ved Sutra III-2-11). He is Positive,Pure, Auspicious and Right always. But in spite of being the embodiment of Dharma, Rama had slipped in Vali vadam. How can that be?

 

A person can be a‘perfect’ embodiment of dharma only if he had adhered to dharma at all times and despite challenges to such adherence. If he had slipped once, how can He be called as a ‘perfect’ embodiment of dharma. Once slipped, it is slip for ever. If in spite of valivadam, Rama were to be regarded as a ‘perfect’embodiment of dharma by a long list of enlightened ones starting from sages of yore, the inference is that Rama can not have done anything adharmic in valivadam.

 

We have on record the reasons to substantiate thatRama’s act was indeed dharmic. But that they (the reasons) have done precious little is borne by the fact that the issue still remains.

 

The most often cited reasons are two. (1) Vali was adharmic in having driven out his younger brother who was to be treated as his own son and in having taken his wife for sam-bhogam. (2) It was only natural for a warrior like Rama to have hunted him as he happened to be a monkey.

 

The first reason is not a strong one though this is what Rama Himself says. If younger brother is like a son and his wife the daughter-in-law, what do we say about elder brother and his wife? Father and mother,rightly. If Rama intended to punish Vali for what he did to Ruma (Sugreeva’s wife), why did he spare Sugreeva who took up Tara later? He didn’t admonish him the least. So this can not be the real reason.

 

Taking up the second reason, that Rama decided to kill Vali was a foregone one (by virtue of the pledge he made with Agni as witness) But why did he choose the mode that was not fitting to the stature of one like Him? He could not be said to have hunted Vali, as Vali himself had noted that monkeys were not hunted.So this reason also is not a sound one.

 

There are other reasons cited , but each one of them stands to be countered. That is why the controversy continues.The issue is not why he killed. It is why he killed while not being in direct combat. Though Vali accuses Rama initially, he gets convinced later that Rama was perfectly dharmic in His action. He recalls the Hitopadesam by Tara on Rama’s greatness, before he set out for the second combat with Sugreeva.

 

Rama also says that He has been perfectly dharmic in what He had done. (ramO dwir na api bhaashathe). So the nuances of how this act was dharmic lies somewhere in between the Hitopadesa part of Tara and Rama’s reply to Vali.Let us analyse the scenario step by step.

 

When Tara cautioned Vali, Vali was too confident that he would not be harmed by Rama who knows Dharma. He least believed that Rama would harm him because he(Vali) had been ‘innocent’ and that he had not done any offence (aparAdam) to Rama. He repeats the samething to Rama after he was hit by Him. “I didn’t offend you in any way in your country or your town. I didn’t humiliate you in any way.” Just by applying logic found in this defence of Vali,shall we say that had he not offended Rama, if not in Rama’s place, but in his own place (vali’s territory)and humiliated Rama in some way, could Rama had given him the end in the way as it was? In order to understand the nuances, let us remind ourselves that there was no going back on killing Vali as far as Rama was concerned. The moment He went around the fire and pledged to sugreeva that he would kill Vali, Vali’s fate was sealed. So the issue was not why He killed. The question whether Vali committed any offence or not as to attract a death sentence from Rama is irrelevant (based on the pledge that Rama gave to Sugreeva). But that he was killed in a particular fashion alone gets connected with some cause, probably an offence to Rama.

 

 

And Vali himself has acknowledged the fact that Rama would not kill unless one has offended Him. As until long Vali was not in any way connected with Him, the offence must have taken place later. Since the killing was in an indirect mode, the offence must also have been in an indirect mode.If we proceed with this line of reasoning, we get ample evidence to show that Vali had indeed offended Rama in an indirect way. He seemed to have come into grasp of this indirect offence gradually as he continued to talk to Rama. One can see a palpable shift in Vali’s tone from being accusative to submissive thereby indicating that wisdom had dawned on him slowly and lately.

 

It starts with Vali’s talks on Raj-dharma. As he continued to speak of raj-dharma, Rama’s commitment to‘dhushtah nigraha- sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind and wonders “you have to do something, but you have done some other thing”.What is that something and some other thing is again spelt by Vali himself.

 

“You have failed to show your paraakramam on the one who had offended you, namely Ravana, but instead you have shown your paraakramamon me who had not offended you’”Is Vali right when he said that he had not offended Rama? Vali himself does not think so.

 

For he proceeds to ask (unprovoked) “If only you have asked me to restoreSita, I would have got her back within a day. If only you had approached me, I would have killed Ravana in combat, pulled him to you and got back Sita. If only you had commanded me I, like Hayagreeva who restored Vedas from Madu-kaidapa, would have gone after Ravana, searched for Sita even if she had been hidden inside the oceans, and restored her back to you.”

 

So Vali himself thinks that there is some cause for grouse by Rama about him. Vali knows what Rama requires. Vali knows that he (vali) is quite capable of fulfilling that requirement. But he has not done that. He had not risen to the occasion. Why should he,is the question that comes to our mind. In what way he is bound to help Rama when Rama had not sought his help. This is the message conveyed by Vali.

 

He thinks that because of his not rising to the occasion, Rama had killed him unseen. He expresses this in his talk(that continues from the above mentioned one).“ It is perfectly legitimate for Sugreeva to aspire for the throne after me. It is perfectly legitimate for him to kill me to attain the throne. But Rama, it is not legitimate on your part to hit me when I am fighting with another”, says Vali.

 

“If you think it is legitimate, tell me how”, says Vali before he collapses.So the issue now centres around whether Rama considered the non-rising to the occasion of Vali asan offence. The answer is yes, going by what Rama says in the beginning and at the end of his defence. Rama replies that He had been perfectly dharmic in what He had done by having done that in the land belonging to Ikshvahu dynasty (He says that the entire Bhoo mandalam is under His dynasty (Ram Rajya?)) By this does He point out to Vali that he had failed to carry out the dharma in his (Vali’s) land? Vali spoke of all Raj-dharma that included protecting the dharmain one’s land and punishing the offenders. Did he follow that Raj-dharma? He knew that Sita had been abducted. He knew the one who had abducted her was once defeated by him. He was more valiant than the abductor and could have easily overpowered him if he had made an attempt. Further the abduction was carried out in a land that belonged to beings like him.

 

And Sita was carried across his kingdom.Sugreeva had seen the abduction. So did Vali.Sugreeva did not do anything to stop it, he being incapable of doing that. But Vali could have stopped it, he being capable and in his capacity as a king who has to stop crimes in his land and punish the offenders.Vali had known that Sita had been abducted and as a king must have been well aware that she had been carried right across his land. But he didn’t do anything about it, despite being powerful enough to stop it or restore her. He didn’t do anything later -to even go after Ravana for having unauthorisedly crossed his land and committed a crime.

 

Rama didn’t wait for Bharatha’s command to execute Raj-dharma.For whose command did Vali wait to go after Ravana?Or for that matter for whose command the bird, Jatayu waited to take on Ravana? The sense of duty that a pakshi (bird) had, a monkey king didn’t have.Vali need not have offended Rama directly. But that he had failed in his duty has indirectly offended Rama. By remaining passive, he has allowed Ravana get away with Sita across his territory.

 

This passiveness amounts to assisting the crime which in today’s jargonis known as abetting. The one who turns away his face when a crime is being committed is not spared by lawof any land. He, as an abettor is liable for punishment equivalent to that awarded for the actual crime committed. By his act of abetting and by being indifferent in his duty as a king, Vali has offended Rama. Since his offence is not of direct nature, the hit he received from Rama was not of direct nature.

 

This can further substantiated by what Rama says aboutthe slaying. Never even once did Rama say that he punished him. He said that he only gave him a‘praayaschittham’ (atonement). He repeats the same to Tara when she appears in the scene. His repeated reminders about stealing another man’s wife (though outwardly seeming to refer to Ruma) in effect is aimed at reminding vali the real kind of stealing, which is the abduction that Ravana committed. (We are led to believe that Rama meant only this for the following reason.

 

In Ruma’s case and in Tara’s case, the winning of the women happened after winning a combat. And such exchange seemed to have happened smoothly with the acceptance of the women themselves – something applicable to the dharma of the species in which they were born. Sugreeva did not abandon Ruma after Vali was slayed, nor did Ruma think it necessary to demonstrate her pathi vradhai quality. The abduction of a married woman and the consequence of the same are of serious dimensions for humans and no need to say that this applies to the divine couple. That Vali had failed to contribute his might in stopping it happen or restoring Sita by his own volition seems to be the factor being reminded by Rama repeatedly.

 

Now let us see the symbolism of this episode.It is ‘Dharma is not seen to the eyes of the one who is steeped in adharma.”Vali could not see Rama, the embodiment of Dharma, ashe (Vali) was adharmic (in ways explained). For such a person, any punishment or ‘haany’ would seem to originate from nowhere – unable to be predicted by the person.

 

 

Vali was groping in the dark because the adharmaic thinking stoped him from seeing what was dharmic.Any release from such a predicament is possible by atonement only. This is what Rama did to Vali. This is what Bheeshma did on the arrow-bed. To elaborate on this, history records only three persons as capable ofunderstanding Dharma, the course of which is complex and which is of different nature under different circumstances. They are Bheeshma, Yudhishtra andVidura. ( We don’t include Rama here for He is acomplete embodiment of Dharma, not just one who has understood dharma)

 

Of these three, Bheeshma stuck to swadharma at the expense of para-dharma and allowed vasthra –haaran to take place. Yudhishtra sacrificed swadharma to aid inthe victory of Dharma when he eliminated Drona from the battle field. Vidura hardly faced dilemma of this sort, but stuck to dharma always.

 

Of the first two Bheeshma had to do atonement for having sacrificed dharma at the altar of his swa-dharma. He could not save the cause for which he sacrificed dharma, nor did the factors connected to his swa-dharma came to his help at a crucial juncture.I refer to the boon he received about choosing the time of his death which was related to his(swa-dharma) vow of protecting the throne.

 

In the war when he was continuously hit, initially he hears the vasus and rishis saying him that his end has come.Listening to them he decides to leave out his pranan.But as that was happening, Ganga devi sends rishis and others as swans who came to tell the falling Bheeshma not to leave the pranan as it was dhakshinayana. Why did this confusion occur? Were the rishis who intially said that he may die wrong? How can such a confusion occur? The only plausible reason is that Bheeshma who was willing to listen to the voice of the divine at the last moments, did not listen to the voice of dharma at a crucial juncture. That is why what he heard at the end confused him (he lost the power to decipher correctly keeping other factors such as the season in mind) and laid him on a bed of arrows.

 

During every moment on that bed he was recollecting how for the one on the side of adharma, dharma can not be seen. The atonement got itself manifested in his kind words to karna. What he failed to do, he requested Karna to do.A search like this on the question of dharma is what Rama has perhaps expected us to do. It is perhaps to drive home hard lessons in an effective way, He made Vali vadam a controversial (only seemingly) one!!

 

 

[Guest guest]

To all, let me ask..

 

Would it have been ok for sugreeva, hanuman or someone else to have done the same to Vali and kill him by hiding behind a tree.. Would any of you go and hide behind a tree and kill someone ? Would any of you activate a bomb and kill someone by hiding.

 

It is the same logic. But because it was Rama and he was supposed to be the embodiment of Dharma and an avatara, we find justifications for the act.. So lets not kid ourselves.

 

[Guest guest]

Here's another example of twisted logic. Rama's justification for killing Vali was because Vali did not stop Ravana from abducting Sita over his land.

 

Again, lets not kid ourselves. Rama killed Vali because he had promised Sugriva that he would do so and not otherwise. He did not go to Vali's kingdom to exact revenge on Vali. Furthermore, Vali is not beholden to Rama. Did Vali deliberately allow Ravana to fly past his kingdom ? I do not recall such a line in the ramayana. Even if he did, there is no reason for Rama to engage Vali from hiding. He could have confronted Vali or demanded an explanation. what we are seeing here is aqua3's attempt in justifying Rama's behavior when no such justification is necessary. In fact, in the latter life Vali became Arjuna and Rama as Krishna became his best friend. So in the context of Gita, there are no victims.

[Guest guest]

 

Here's another example of twisted logic. Rama's justification for killing Vali was because Vali did not stop Ravana from abducting Sita over his land.

 

Again, lets not kid ourselves. Rama killed Vali because he had promised Sugriva that he would do so and not otherwise. He did not go to Vali's kingdom to exact revenge on Vali. Furthermore, Vali is not beholden to Rama. Did Vali deliberately allow Ravana to fly past his kingdom ? I do not recall such a line in the ramayana. Even if he did, there is no reason for Rama to engage Vali from hiding. He could have confronted Vali or demanded an explanation. what we are seeing here is aqua3's attempt in justifying Rama's behavior when no such justification is necessary. In fact, in the latter life Vali became Arjuna and Rama as Krishna became his best friend. So in the context of Gita, there are no victims.

[Avinash]

Suppose Rama had not hidden behind a tree. Suppose he had fought Bali by being in front of him and then killed him. Do you think that would have been OK? Please give your reasons.

[Ayodhya]

 

Suppose Rama had not hidden behind a tree. Suppose he had fought Bali by being in front of him and then killed him. Do you think that would have been OK? Please give your reasons.

 

Ultimately, we are not debating whether Rama killed Vali or not. If Rama had a reason to do so, he would've. The original poster asserts that the reason Rama had for killing Vali is not sufficient and not befitting of his charitable character.

 

The action is not the problem, but only the motivation behind it.

[maragatham]

Hi,

 

Aqua3's posting is quite interesting. But why rama was silent when sugriva took vali's wife post vali's death? Is that not breach of dharma? when he was ready to forgive even ravana and sent couple of messengers, why did he not give that chance to vali?

 

maragatham

[Guest guest]

I would like to support Rama's action against Vaali with the help of the following.

 

Anything against dharma, need not be given with any chance to reason its actions.

That has been the Major message all over Mahavishnu's Avathars.

 

If you take Vamana avatharam, Mahabali may be bad to rishees and devas. But have not started fighting with Mahavishnu. But to save his devotees, he moved Maavali out of this world.

 

Take Nrisimha avathar! Hiranyakasipu was against the devotees of Vishnu and he has been promptly killed by Vishnu.

 

In Krishnavathar , we could get more reasons.

Gouravas' have been killed, not by Arjunan's talents, but only by Krishna's thanthrams. Eg. Dronacharyar, Karnan etc

 

Likewise, Ramavathar goes! Sugriva is Rama's devotee and to help sugriva, he destroyed vaali for valid reasons!

 

The following reasons have been explained by U Ve Vellukudi Krishnan during his discourse on "Kamba Ramayana" in KothandaRamar Koil" in WestMambalam.

I try to redescribe it.

 

-When Kings go to forest for hunting, they will not give a sword to the animal and fight with them. They will hide behind a tree or upon a tree and will kill that animal.

Vaali is actually an animal ie., rude monkey. There is no reason for Rama to fight with Vaali. (Eg. Ravana is a "Man" and a real good devotee of Shiva and good to all the people in his country. Hence, Rama gave him a chance to fight)

 

So, killing an Animal - hiding behind a tree is not a mistake.

 

-Dharma says, it is a great sin , even to think bad about Brother's wife.

 

But Vaali has chucked Sugriva out of the country and he was not even ready to listen to Sugriva. Ok. He should have sent Sugriva's wife also along with Sugriva, but he did not follow dharma.

Rama would have solved the problem with ease if Vaali had just sent Sugriva and his wife out. But taking Sugriva's wife...... how could you give any chance for vaali to live.

 

Rama could have won easily if he had started fighting against vaali as per rules and regulations. Because he is the ultimate sarveshvaran!

 

But, since he was too busy to waste time in killing an animal, he closed the issue in minutes.

 

Even many reasons are there to support Rama's action, he himself felt a bit different after killing vaali. Only because of that he has given him a chance in his next avathar to set the account right and to respect the feelings of Vaali's supporters.

 

Krishna was killed by a Hunter, unknown, while taking rest under a tree.

That hunter was vaali in his previous birth. Here, Sarveshvaran has set the accounts right.

[go4harish]

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.

[Avinash]

It was hunter Jara (and not Arjuna), who was Vali's rebirth.

[go4harish]

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.

[gokulkr]

<--

The only person who can be win against Vali head to head is Hanuman, not even RAMA.

--->

 

It is a sin to say lord RAMA cant win against Vali. Of course, i agree Lord Hanuman could have easily killed vali and ravana. We should remember Lord Rama is Parabrahma. Boons of Vali given by brahma wont effect Lord Rama as Rama himself is Parabrahma.

LORD RAM is SARVOTAMA, whereas LORD HANUMAN is JEEVOTAMA

 

OM NAMO NARAYANAYA

[Avinash]

go4harish,

Vali was Indra's son and Sugreev was Surya's son.

[ARJ]

 

For such a person, any punishment or ‘haany’ would seem to originate from nowhere

Beautiful.

 

 

LORD RAM is SARVOTAMA, whereas LORD HANUMAN is JEEVOTAMA

Lord Ram and Lord Hanuman are one & the same.

[Amlesh]

 

To all, let me ask..

 

Would it have been ok for sugreeva, hanuman or someone else to have done the same to Vali and kill him by hiding behind a tree.. Would any of you go and hide behind a tree and kill someone ? Would any of you activate a bomb and kill someone by hiding.

 

It is the same logic. But because it was Rama and he was supposed to be the embodiment of Dharma and an avatara, we find justifications for the act.. So lets not kid ourselves.

Like you said, it's twisted logic.

[go4harish]

'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.

[go4harish]

Avinash.

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

[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"

[Visitor]

Awesome posts aqua3

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana!

 

Dear Mr. Venkatesan,

 

You said...

 

 

 

-When Kings go to forest for hunting, they will not give a sword to the animal and fight with them. They will hide behind a tree or upon a tree and will kill that animal.

Vaali is actually an animal ie., rude monkey. There is no reason for Rama to fight with Vaali. (Eg. Ravana is a "Man" and a real good devotee of Shiva and good to all the people in his country. Hence, Rama gave him a chance to fight)

So, killing an Animal - hiding behind a tree is not a mistake.

-Dharma says, it is a great sin , even to think bad about Brother's wife.

But Vaali has chucked Sugriva out of the country and he was not even ready to listen to Sugriva. Ok. He should have sent Sugriva's wife also along with Sugriva, but he did not follow dharma.

Rama would have solved the problem with ease if Vaali had just sent Sugriva and his wife out. But taking Sugriva's wife...... how could you give any chance for vaali to live.

 

So, when Rama killed Vali from behind a tree it is justified as killing an animal, so nothing wrong. But, applying the same logic why cant it be pardonable if one animal taking another animals (may be a brother) wife. May be because the degree of the sin of taking another's wife doesnt reduce just because it is an animal.

 

Any thoughts?

[Krishna747]

Regarding this topic I liked Gandhi's reply. He said accept the fact that nothing is perfect in this world.take what is good and acceptable to ur conscience and move ahead...no point in justifying what is not perfect. Rama had no choice but to kill vali that way because of the boon which vali had....and by character Vali is a bigger rogue than Ravana.u can't reason with him. I learned 2 things from ramayana. 1.one may be exceptionally learned person but if He does not have basic qualities of being a good human being he is still a rakshasa....both Ravana and vali are exceptionally learned in scriptures but not good human beings. 2.god wanted to show by example to humans how to handle hopeless situations and tough times.there are no short cuts.....Rama being narayana himself withstood the temptation of short cuts.....some of the ways Sita Devi and Rama handled problems are by being focused(shradda) and having patience(saburi) ,then make friends with right people....I could go and on.ramayana is the biggest gift I have ever received from my mother