Shvu Speaks

August 19, 2004

Was going through some old messages when I chanced upon this rare gem. Basically, it amounts to a certain Hindu named Shivakumar giving a commentary on a text he obviously did not read. Or possibly, he did read it but just did not concern himself with the basic standard of honesty which would require representing it properly.

Here follows the full text of the 2 messages in question, followed by the text annotated with my replies.

Message #1:

When one looks into the Ramayana more closely, there is nothing extra-ordinary about Rama. Rama killed Vali hiding behind a tree, because he knew he could not hope to win aginst him directly. That is hardly a sign of a Kshatriya. He sent his wife away to the forest based on a washerman's statement. What he should have ideally done was to correct the washerman of his opinion and set an example.

So to say that Rama was the perfect man and everyone should live like Rama is not a good idea. Hanuman, Bhishma, Karna etc are much better people than Rama that way. If one says pick only the good qualities of Rama, then that logic can be extended to everyone.

Cheers

Message #2:

Hi Animesh,

Here is my analysis of the Vali episode. Correct me if I am wrong.

Vali sends Sugriva to the forest out of misunderstanding.

Sugrive now wants to kill Vali so that he can become king again. Note that Sugriva is not a better guy than Vali nor is Vali an evil person. Rama is looking for an army to help him get his wife back. He is approached by Sugriva who offers his army inturn for becoming king. They both plot to kill the invincible Vali and the way Rama kills him is treachery and back-stabbing, no less.

Vali while dying tells Rama, "If you had only approached me, I would have single-handedly gone to Lanka, destroyed Ravana and rescued your wife. Why did you have to do such an act which is against Kshatriya dharma?"

Rama says, "You should have protected your brother..."

That in my opinion is an empty argument to save face. If Rama felt that way, he should have talked to Vali and resolved the misunderstanding. Killing him from hiding was not the way out. However it is clear that Rama had vested interests and was not concerned about Sugriva or Vali. He wanted an army to go to Lanka and that was his motive for killing Vali. Which is why he is not an ideal man as some think.

The Pandavas were not fighting the Kauravas because they were evil. They were fighting them because they wanted to be kings. Yudhistira should have stuck to his policy of truth and not lied about Ashwathaama. But out of greed for his kingdom, he resorted to lying. Nothing great about him either. There was a Harishchandra who did not lie even when he lost his son. Where ideals are concerned, he is better than Yudhistira.

Note however, that this has nothing to do with worshipping Rama as a God. This is strictly about whether Rama can be considered an ideal person and should people live like him.

Cheers

August 19, 2004

Hi Animesh,

Here is my analysis of the Vali episode. Correct me if I am wrong.

Vali sends Sugriva to the forest out of misunderstanding.

Here is where my "Shvu never read it theory" probably has some support. No problem with Shvu not reading the text, of course, but it stands to reason that if he is going to engage in literary criticism, then he ought to be familiar with the literature in question.

Well, that is the standard honest men would follow.

The actual story is as follows: vAli and sugrIva both went into the forest while tracking a rAkshasa. The rAkshasa made it into a cave, and vAli followed it in after advising sugrIva to wait outside. A fierce combat ensued, which sugrIva could not actually see. After seeing blood emanating from the cave, the fearful sugrIva wrongly concluded that vAli had perished, and so he sealed the cave to keep the rAkshasa from coming out, and then left to assume the kingdom (thinking vAli to be dead).

This is described in the Kishkinda kANDa, 9th sarga. If you are interested in facts, please kindly consult the source material.

Sugrive now wants to kill Vali so that he can become king again. Note that Sugriva is not a better guy than Vali nor is Vali an evil person.

The part that you left out is the one that contradicts your premise. vAli returned from the cave, assuming SugrIva had conspired to dethrone him. SugrIva explained his misunderstanding in thinking vAli dead and offered the kingdom back to him (kishkindha kANDa, 10th sarga, shloka 9). However, vAli, maddened with anger, would have none of it.

vAli took back his throne by force, and to boot, he stole sugrIva's wife ruma and made her his own after exiling him.

Shvu, most civilized human beings consider it a despicable crime for one to exile one's brother and steal his wife. Well, I don't know what your values are, but those are the values of civilized human beings.

Your contention that vAli was just as innocent as sugrIva is simply wrong. sugrIva's act of assuming vAli dead could be characterized as foolish, or perhaps lacking in faith in his brother's strength. But vAli's act was motivated by anger, which clouded his judgement and led him to performing the adharmic act of stealing his brother's wife.

Rama is looking for an army to help him get his wife back. He is approached by Sugriva who offers his army inturn for becoming king. They both plot to kill the invincible Vali

The important point you neglected to mention was that vAli wronged sugrIva by stealing the latter's wife. rAma agreed to help sugrIva after the latter told Him this (see kishkinda-kANDa 8.17). rAma, being an ideal king, was duty-bound to restore dharma. There was nothing selfish in the assistance He gave to sugrIva. After all, since He is the omnipotent Vishnu, He could have just finished off RAvana Himself.

and the way Rama kills him is treachery and back-stabbing, no less.

And the way Shvu critizes the rAmAyana is like that too - underhanded and dishonest, rather than an honest appraisal of what the text actually says.

An honorable kshatriya warrior deserves an honorable death - in battle with a worthy foe. A rascal on the other hand gets no such privilege. rAma's killing of vAli just underscores the disgusting position vAli had fallen to. vAli's conduct did not merit an honorable battle. I do not believe this is something Shvu can understand, because it requires a more sophisticated mind capable of understanding such abstract concepts as honor.

Vali while dying tells Rama, "If you had only approached me, I would have single-handedly gone to Lanka, destroyed Ravana and rescued your wife. Why did you have to do such an act which is against Kshatriya dharma?"

Rama says, "You should have protected your brother..."

Would it be too much to ask you that check your facts before spewing mistruths? rAma's response to vAli was far more complex. Please see sarga 18 for His in-depth lecture on dharma to the dying vAli. The central point which rAma made to vAli was that sugrIva, being his younger brother, should have been treated like a son (see 18.14), thus making sugrIva's wife like a surrogate daughter to vAli (see 18.19). Thus, rAma's punishment of vAli was quite appropriate, for vAli was not only an adulterer but guilty of incest as well.

This may not be something Shvu considers improper, but one must consider the point that NRI Hindus brainwashed by the glamor of the American dollar sign are hardly in any position to pontificate on civilized culture. If Shvu feels that having conjugal relations with his son's wife is acceptable behavior, then that is his right. Let him kindly realize however that such belief in animalia is not shared by bhAgavatas.

By the way, if one reads the rest of that chapter, one can see that vAli actually accepted Lord rAma's arguments justifying his killing. When vAli, the one who was allegedly "wronged," left this world with praise for rAma's activity, why do people like Shvu cry foul?

That in my opinion is an empty argument to save face. If Rama felt that way, he should have talked to Vali and resolved the misunderstanding. Killing him from hiding was not the way out. However it is clear that Rama had vested interests and was not concerned about Sugriva or Vali. He wanted an army to go to Lanka and that was his motive for killing Vali. Which is why he is not an ideal man as some think.

As mentioned previously, rAma agreed to help sugrIva after the latter told him of his brother's nefarious deed in robbing him of his wife. That rAma did not help sugrIva for selfish reasons is amply born out by the fact that He did not beseech any other king for this assistance, despite His extensive travels. Also, as previously mentioned, rAma was none other than the Supreme Lord Vishnu (this fact is confirmed in multiple places in the rAmAyana), so there was no question of Him "needing" an army for this task. Furthermore, vAli's sin merited punishment, not talk.

If someone were to steal Shvu's wife, one wonders if he would follow the standard of response he advocates for SugrIva. Of course, the situation is different, since in USA you cannot go around killing people even for adultery. But take away that law and replace it with a culture which approves of ritual combat, and then ask the question! I very much doubt that Shvu, in his mind, would favor a nonviolent approach to dealing with one who had absconded with his wife.

The Pandavas were not fighting the Kauravas because they were evil. They were fighting them because they wanted to be kings.

No, they were fighting because Lord Krishna instructed them to.

Yudhistira should have stuck to his policy of truth and not lied about Ashwathaama. But out of greed for his kingdom, he resorted to lying.

Actually he resorted to lying because that was Krishna's instruction. In effect, to surrender to ParamAtmA, he had to reliquish his otherwise spotless reputation for honesty. The purAnic tradition is full of many such examples of devotees situated in sattva, who had to give up the pride of their reputation for goodness in their process of surrendering unto the Lord. And as you may know, the Lord promises to deliver them from all sins -- sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharanam vrajA.... etc.

Nothing great about him either. There was a Harishchandra who did not lie even when he lost his son. Where ideals are concerned, he is better than Yudhistira.

Harishchandra's situation was different. You are comparing apples and oranges without due consideration for historical context, or the fact that Divine Intervention was involved in Yudishthira's case.

Note however, that this has nothing to do with worshipping Rama as a God. This is strictly about whether Rama can be considered an ideal person and should people live like him.

When one takes into account all the facts, instead of ignoring them whenever convenient for propping up one's deluded theses, one can definitely see that rAma was an ideal kshatriya. No problem with that.

In the long run, however, one has to accept that rAma is the para brahman Himself in order to understand the deeper meaning of what is told. But that is something shvu has a problem with it seems.

Another point to realize is that being brainwashed by Marxist propaganda is no substitute for acquainting oneself with the facts. Shvu cannot justify his atheism on the basis of any alleged flaw in rAma's behavior.

gHari · August 19, 2004

That fell in rather bad tsste.

Of course you didn't know; only a few of us here did.

August 27, 2004

That fell in rather bad tsste.

Of course you didn't know; only a few of us here did.

I did not know that.

In any case, one would think that a person suffering from the bad karma of a previous life (by being left mute), would learn to use his remaining faculties of communication for endeavors other than spewing venom at Lord Vishnu and His devotees.