You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Feb 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00055 Feb 2003

 
Feb 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Sri:
Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

SriRama's first argument against VAli's accusation is "the land 
belongs to the IkshvAkus and honouring Bharatha's commandments,we 
shall consider how we shall punish them who go astray."

ikshvAkUNAmiyam bhUmih sashai lavanakAnana |
mrgapakshi manuShyANAm nigrahApagra hAvapi || IV.18.6

"Do you consider why I have killed you. You have ravished your 
brother's wife renouncing that ever existing virtue"

bhrAthr bhAryAbhimarshE 'smin dhaNdO 'yam prathipAdhitha: IV.18.20

na hi Dharma viruDhdhasya lOkavrththAdhapEyuSha: |
dhaNdA dhanyathra pashyAmi nigraham hariyUThapa || IV.18.21

na hi thE marSha yE pApam kshathriyO'ham kulOdhbhava: |
au rasIm bhaginIm vApi bhAryAm vApyanujasya ya: || IV.18.22

O monkey,you have thus violated the path of virtue and thus I have 
punished you who have ravished younger brother's spouse. I find no 
other alternative than to punish him who acts against humanity and 
violates the sacred sanctions of customs. I am kshathriya,I can not 
put up with your immoral action. The ShAstras sanction the 
destruction of one who under the influence of passion ravishes his 
own daughter,sister and younger brother's wife.

So far as the first justification of Rama's action in killing VAli is 
concerned,we find it is not convincing because VAli himself was a 
king of no mean order and KiShkinDhA in no way was the protecting 
region of the IkshvAkus. Secondly,Rama was an exiled person with no 
delegation of royal power in him. Therefore to say that the land 
belonged to the IkshvAkus and he could administer favour on all the 
subjects is an argument which ignores the facts.

The second justification of Rama's action on moral grounds,viz., that 
VAli had ravished the spouse of his younger brother and it is 
kshathriya Dharma to punish all those who violate such customs and 
commit heinous crime,is again a clever ruse to get rid of a person of 
doubtful allegiance. There is no internal evidence which proves that 
VAli ever desired RumA-the wife of SugrIva. On the otherhand it 
appears that the boot is on the other foor;it wsa SugrIva who desired 
his elder brother's wife. There are many references which mention 
SugrIva sporting with ThArA.

"svAm ca pathnIm abhiprEthAm thArAm cApi samIpsithAm" IV.29.4
(Having attained all his desires and his own wife and the much-
desired ThArA)

Similarly Angadha says that SugrIva has kept the wife of the elder 
brother equal to a mother to the younger brother.

"bhrAthur jyEShTasya yO bhAryAm jIvathO mahiShIm priyAm |
DharmE Na mAtharam yasthu svIkarOthi jugupsitha: ||" IV.55.3
(he that while her son is living wrests the beloved queen of his 
elder brother,mother unto him by morality,is hated by all)

Neither HanumAn,nor ThArA nor Angadha has thrown such a reflection on 
VAli's character. On the other hand,SugrIva himself praises Vali's 
character in the following words:

"He did not desire to slay me fearing that his greatness might be 
soiled,but alas through my wickedness I performed an iniquity by 
taking the life of my brother. Being struck by him with branches of 
tree when I fled away and wept,he consoling me said only,'Do not do 
this again'. He all along maintained his fraternal feelings,his 
honesty and piety,but I displayed my wrath,passion and monkeyhood" 
[Cf. IV.24.10-12] Here SugrIva makes no mention of RumA,but on the 
other hand,clearly makes mention of his own motives and intentions to 
occupy the throne.

krODhAdhamarShAdhathi vipraDharShAdh 
bhrAthur vaDhOmEnumatha: purasthAth |
hathE thvidhAnIm hariyUThapEsmin 
suthIvram ikshvAkukumArA thapsyE || IV.24.6
(O Rama,out of anger and passion and on account of my being insulted 
by him(VAli) I did formerly desire to bring ab out his destruction 
but now I am truly pierrced by his death)

ThArA commenting on VAli's moral character says,"O this hero VAli 
departed to the celestial abode and not beholding me there,shall not 
be delighted in the company of heavenly damsels wearing diversified 
garments;even in the celestial land the hero VAli shall turn pale 
with grief in my separation"[Cf IV.24.35]

svargEpi shOkam ca vivarNathAm ca
mayA vinA prApsyathi vIra! vAli IV.24.35

We have reasons to think that SugrIva should have been killed on 
moral grounds rather than VAli if SriRama's own admission is to be 
taken seriously. Rama's pretence of killing VAli on moral grounds 
lacks all moral support.

In the third argument SriRama justifies his killing of VAli from a 
place of concealment in the following manner:

"O monkey,there is another argument for your destruction:Many persons 
living on flesh either lying in ambush or openly catch and pierce by 
means of net,noose and trap, many a deer. They are not to blamein 
this and I do not cherish any mortification for this. And I am 
justified in killing you,whether you do fight or not since you are a 
monkey"[Cf. IV.18.39-43]. What Rama says is that in hunting a shaft 
can be hurled on an animal from behind and there is nothing immoral 
in it. As VAli was only an a nimal his killing from behind a tree was 
morally justified. This argument is most illogical because in the 
second moral argument VAli has been raised to a rational being and 
therefore his so called ravishing of younger brother's wife has been 
condemned and suddenly in the third argument he has been lowered to 
the level of an animal. If he is only an animal then any moral 
judgement on his character is not warranted by any law and if he is a 
rational being then Rama's killing him from behind a tree can never 
be justified being contrary to Kshathriya Dharma.

The author Benjamin Khan feels that all these answers put forward as 
justification(above) for the killing of VAli by Rama are an 
interpolation at a later date by some one of an inferior intellect 
than Valmiki,who forgot that Rama was an exiled prince,a 
kshathriya,whose beloved wife was abducted by another king of the 
south who bore a political enmity towards the kings of the north. 
The abduction was an insult which had to be avenged,and so SriRama 
says to SIta[Cf VI.115.5,6]

"yA thvAm virahithA nIthA calaciththEna rAkshasA
dhaivasampAdhithO doShO mAnuShEna mayAjita: 
samprApthamavamAnam yasthEjasya na pramArjathi
kasthasya pauruShENArThO mahathApy alpa cEthasa:"

(This accidental misfortune under the influence whereof you were 
carried away by the fickle minded Rakshasa in my absence,has been 
avenged today by me as a man. What is the use of his manliiness who 
when insulted can not remove it. Even if he be a great man,he may be 
called mean). 

PS:There is some mistake in the reference quoted as I didn't find the 
above mentioned slokam in that particular reference VI.115.5,6. So I 
will search for the correct one when I get some time(there are 131 
sargas in the yuDhdha kANdam). I found some errors in other 
references but that was located very easily.

It becomes quite clearthat Rama waged a war against RAvaNa to wipe 
off the insult:

"sIthA snEha pravrththEna" IV.6.17

Now to accomplish this purpose,Rama needed powerful allies who could 
help him in this great task and therefore he was constrained to enter 
into negotiations with those chiefs who were desirous[Cf. VI.18.13]of 
kingdom but were driven away,or who wished to join Rama in the hope 
of securing a kingdom in return. The killing of VAli could be 
justified on the following grounds... 

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE sharaNam
NC Nappinnai




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list