DOTW: If Ram's killing of Vali was justified...

RamKiSeeta thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 16 years ago
#1
Sorry, I'm not really good at coming up with DOTW questions, but no one else was posting one, so I did. I hope you all don't mind.😳
After Shri Rama killed Vali, Vali asked Shri Rama why he killed him, and Shri Rama gave a beautiful explanation. My question is, if Shri Ram was justified in killing Vali, why was Angad reborn as Jara to kill Shri Krishna?
Here's the conversation between Vali and Rama.

On seeing the brave Vali fallen like that, who by now is like fire with extinguished tongues of flames, and who is seeing droopily, those two valiant brothers, Rama and Lakshmana, neared him with due honour.

On seeing Rama and the great mighty Lakshmana as well, he who fell to ground flatly hurt by arrow, and whose energy and lives are trifling and vigour trivialised thereby, that Vali spoke these sarcastic words in his proper pride to Rama, who is taking pride in this conflict as a victor, which words at the same time have meaning, politeness, and self-righteousness.

"You are a renowned prince with pleasing looks' but, which kind of death I am getting now, that too when I was in the commotion of conflict with another, alas, that ignoble death is owing to you, and what merit is achieved by you in this undertaking of yours to kill someone who is facing away from you'

"Rama is high-born, they say, gifted with mightiness, resplendent, pursuer of vows, mindful of mercy, delighter in people's welfare, sympathetic, greatly enthusiastic and assertively committed in doing good deeds, knower of time-and-action, all these living-beings on earth are thus relating your renown, aren't they.

"To be able to control senses and will, forgiveness, conscientiousness, resoluteness, truthfulness, and adventurousness, oh, king, are the aptitudes of a king, and even punishing the wrongdoers, too. Concluding that those kingly characteristics will be obtainable in you, and even judging by the noble dynasty of yours, I have confronted Sugreeva though Tara dissuaded me.

"When you have not appeared before me when I confronted Sugreeva my concept was, 'it will be inapt of Rama to hurt me while I am combating with another combatant, besides, when I will be unvigilant in that fight' Not known that your soul is put to death, not known that you are the unrighteous flag bearer of righteousness, to me not known that you are insidious like straw covered well.

"I have no knowledge that you are a sinner, one in the garb of a benign soul, and explicitly mantled under the garb of probity like ash covered fire.

"I am non-guilty as I have not committed any misdeed either in your country or in your city, nor I have taunted you; I am a vanara subsisting on fruits and tubers and always moving in forests alone; such as I am, what made you to torture me when I was not combating with you en face, furthermore, when I was involved with another?

"You are renowned to be a prince with charming looks, oh, king, and indications agreeable to rectitude are also appearing on your body. Will anybody born in Kshatriya's family, a learned one in Veda-s, thereby who is rid of ambiguities with respect to right and wrong, and who is cloaked in an air of probity, execute such a ruthless deed like this? Though born in Raghava's dynasty and renowned as a moralist you are actually amoral, and for what purpose you run around with this moral aspect?

"Influencing, largesse, forbearance, probity, candour, and conquering are the attributes of the kings, oh, king, and even punishing the wrongdoers.

"We as animals live in forests while you are city dwellers, we live by eating fruits and tubers while you enjoy feasts and banquets, our nature is such to kill and get killed, thus you and me have no correlation. And you, even if you are a man and a prince for humans, you resorted to this animalistic way of killing me lying in the wait, thus your action is worse than that of an animal, if not subhuman or un-princely.

"Territory, gold, and silver will be the causes while counteracting somebody, in that case, by what you are decoyed into these forests of mine or in the fruits of mine.

"In the pairs of propriety and compliance, punishment and pardoning, no admixture is exercised in kingcraft, for the kings do not conduct themselves volitionally.

"But, to you your self-interests are primary, and you are a wrathful, capricious, contriver of kingcraft, and an impetuous shooting-happy archer. Oh, king, you have no devotion to probity, nor your mind is firm about material gains, but as a free-willed one you are distracted by senses.

"How you are answerable to gentlemen, Rama, when you have done this detestable deed of killing an unoffending one like me with your arrow?

"A regicide, a Brahman-cide, a cow-slayer, a thief, an inveterate killer, an atheist, and an younger brother who marries before his elder, all of them will go to hell. A slander-monger, skinflint, friend-killer and one who makes love with his teacher's wife, they all go to the worlds of evil-souls, no doubt about it.

"My skin is unwearable, holy people forbid my hair and bones, and uneatable is my meat for your kind of reputable people.

"Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. Sensible people will not touch my skin and bones, oh, king, nor meats from my body are to be eaten, such as I am, a five-nailed animal, I am killed.

"Though Tara appraised me with truthful and favourable words, I just disregarded her advise owing to my own delusion, and gone into the control of Time.

"Had you been in combat with me en face oh, prince, you would have been killed by me and by now you would have seen the death-god Yama.

"For which purpose I am killed, intending to do good to Sugreeva is incidental to it, you should have assigned me for that purpose in the first instance itself, and I would have brought that evil-minded demon Ravana, the abductor of your wife in one day, that too without killing him in any fight, but by fastening him by neck, and I would have presented Maithili to you.

"I would have brought Maithili at your order even if she is lodged in oceanic waters or in nether worlds, as with the White Horse of Vedic lore.

"The fact of Sugreeva's getting the kingdom after my going to heaven is proper, but the fact of your killing me in war, unrighteously, is improper.

That great-souled son of a vanara king Vali, whom the arrow impaled and agonised, on keenly seeing Rama whose resplendence equals the brightness of the sun, said that much and remained silent when his mouth has dried up.

Edited by akhl - 16 years ago

Created

Last reply

Replies

14

Views

8.5k

Users

6

Frequent Posters

RamKiSeeta thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 16 years ago
#2
Ram's reply to Vali...

Thus, Vali who is hit down by arrow and who is collapsing humbly spoke exacting words that contained probity, meaningfulness, and expedience, to Rama.

Then to him who is rendered like a lusterless sun, fizzling out like a cloud that released its water, and who became like a quenched fire, to such a best monkey and an unexcelled lord of monkeys who has just now imputed Rama with words that are abounding with righteousness and meaningfulness, Rama spoke subsequently.

"Uncaring for probity, prosperity, pleasure deriving, and even for the social conventions, now how do you rebuke me childishly in this matter? Unconsulted are the doyens of your race that are intellectually well off and agreeable to your mentors about rights and wrongs about your deeds, oh, gentle one, how do you wish to debate with me in this matter with your primate's caprice.

This earth with its mountains, woods, and forests, even along with the authority to condone or condemn the animals, birds, and humans on it belongs to Ikshvaku-s.

"He who is virtue-souled, truth-abiding, plain-speaking, and the knower of the import of probity, pleasures, and prosperity, and the one who is concerned in controlling or condoning his subjects, that Bharata is the ruler of earth. In whom both scrupulousness and benignancy are there, truthfulness is firmed up, and valour as evinced by scriptures is evident, and he who is the knower of time and place is the king, namely Bharata. Holding his virtuous decree desiring to keep up the continuum of righteousness, we and some other kings are wayfaring this earth in its entirety.

"While that Bharata, the kingly-tiger and a patron of virtue, is ruling the earth in its entirety, who is there to conduct himself in an unacceptable way to morality on it? Abiding in our own pre-eminent righteousness, and even abiding by the order of Bharata we punish him who deviated from the path of morality, according to custom.

"As for you, you brought virtue to a state of decadence, rendered yourself reprovable by your own decadent behaviour, for carnality alone has become your primary doctrine, and thus you have not abided by the conduct meetly to a king.

"It is to be known by him who treads the way of righteousness that he has three fatherly personages, namely his own father, his elder brother, and the one who accords education to him. An younger brother, a son, and a disciple with good characteristics, these three are to be deemed as one's own sons, for such matters take base on rectitude alone.

"The probity practised by principled people is very subtle and highly imponderable, and the soul that abides in the hearts of all beings alone can differentiate between just and unjust.

"Like a blind by birth counselling with similarly blind, you being a vacillant, on your counselling only with frantic minded vacillant monkeys, what can you really fathom about right and wrong?

"I will clarify about the words I have said, but I tell you that it is indeed inapt of you to disdain me just out of your outrage. Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you… you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition.

"While the great-souled Sugreeva is still alive, you with your habit of sinful acts have lustily misbehaved with Sugreeva's wife Ruma, who should be counted as your daughter-in-law.

"Thereby, oh, vanara, this punishment is imposed on you, for your dissolute sinning in abusing your brother's wife, thereby for your transgression of tradition and virtue.

"I foresee no other kind of control other than punishment to him who conducts himself contrary to the society and who is deviant of conventions.

"As a Kshatriya emerged from a best dynasty I do not tolerate your wrongdoing, and the punishment to the one who lustfully indulges with his daughter, or with his sister, or with the wife of his younger brother is his elimination, as recalled from scriptures. While Bharata is the lord of land and we are his proxies adhering to his orders, and while you too have overstepped the bounds of rightness, then how is it possible to be lenient? While ruling righteously sensible Bharata punishes him who oversteps the momentous virtue, and he is poised to put down lustful ones.

"As for us, oh, monkey's lord, we effectuate our brother's orders and our duty, and we stand for curbing your kind of shatterers of ethics. My association with Sugreeva is as good as that with Lakshmana, nevertheless it betided with an understanding to regain Sugreeva's wife and kingdom, and he will give succour to me.

"I gave a promise to Sugreeva at the time of befriending him in the presence of vanara-s, and how is it possible for my kind to dishonour a given promise?

"Thereby you have to infer that a befitting punishment is given to you, owing to all these great reasons that abound with virtue and with supreme value. Anywise, you have to regard the punishment given to you is legitimate, and he whom rectitude guides has to render assistance to his friend, in any event. Had you pursued rightness you too would have done the same deed in imposing such a punishment, and we hear two verses that are given to the advocacy of good conventions, which the experts of rightness have also accepted, and which are said to be coined by Manu, and I too conducted myself only as detailed in those verses of law.

" 'When kings impose proper punishment on the humans who have sinned, they become sinless and enter heaven as with the pious souls with good deeds.' So says one verse of Manu.

" 'Either by punishment or by clemency a thief will be absolved from sin, but the king who does not impose proper punishment will derive the blot of that sin.' So says the other verse of Manu.

"When a renouncer has committed sin like that of the one committed by you, my venerable ancestor Maandhaata has given punishment which he desired.

"Such sin is acquired even by other kings who are unobservant in imposing proper punishment, and those kings had to make amends for it at appropriate time, by that propitiation they used to mitigate that filth of that sin.

"Thereby, enough with your annoyance, oh, tigerly vanara, as your elimination is devised righteously, and we too are not independent.

"Oh, brave and best one among monkeys, further listen to another cause, and on listening that important cause you will not be infuriated. I have neither angst nor ire in this matter of my eliminating you, or, your reviling me, oh, best monkey, but listen to the other point I wish to make clear. People will be capturing several animals, either covertly or overtly, with snares, springes and even with numerous contrivances.

"Meat eating people will undeniably kill animals, either they are speedily sprinting or standing steadily, fully dismayed or undismayed, vigilant or unvigilant, and even if they are facing away, in that there is no sacrilege. In this world even the kingly sages well-versed in virtue will go on hunting, and hunting is no face to face game, as such, oh, vanara, therefore I felled you in combat with my arrow because you are a tree-branch animal, whether you are not combating with me or combating against me.

"Kings are the bounteous benefactors of the unobtainable righteousness and propitious lifestyles, oh, best vanara, no doubt about it. They are not to be harmed, also not to be reproved, not disparaged and nothing displeasing is spoken to them, as they are the divinities conducting themselves in human form on the plane of earth. I am abiding by the ethicalness practised by my father and forefathers, but you revile me without the knowledge of rightness, just by clinging to your rancour." Thus said Rama to dying Vali.

Vali is much distressed at heart of hearts when Rama has said categorically in that way, whereby, deriving certitude about rightness he found no incorrectness with Rama.

That lord of vanara-s then replied Rama with adjoined palms, "oh, best one among men, what all you have said is that way proper, undoubtedly. Indeed an ignoble cannot disprove a nobleman, Raghava, and with regards to the undesirable and improper words I have unwittingly spoken earlier, in that mater too it will be truly unapt of you to make me blameworthy, as I spoke them in anguish and ignorance.

"You alone are the knower of recourses and their real nature, namely probity, prosperity, pleasure seeking, and emancipation; dharma, artha, kaama, moksha ; and you take delight in the welfare of subjects, and your faultless intellect is clear in accomplishing ends by judging the causes and effects.

"Oh, Rama, the knower of probity, I am the one who digressed from the rightness and a forerunner among such transgressors, such as I am, give absolution even to me with words abounded with rightness." Vali is thus saying to Rama.

Source:http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga18/kishkindha_18_prose.htm
rupalip thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 16 years ago
#3
Thanks lalita
I dint know of Angad reborn as Jara ...
Thnks for the detail ...
Will read and reply....
Even I prepared a topic for DOTW , i ll post that one aftr this one...
akhl thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Fascinator 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 16 years ago
#4
Some scriptures say that Vali was reborn as Jara. Some say that Angad was reborn as Jara. And some do not support any of these two stories. But, consider these two stories and let us see how they can be understood.
God has made a law that as you sow, so shall you reap. If you kill anybody from hiding, then you will be killed from hiding. No matter why you killed from hiding - what is important is that you killed from hiding.
Lord Ram is not bound to any laws unless he himself wants to apply these laws. Indeed, he wanted to apply the law upon himself. That is why he was killed by Jara (from hiding) in Krishna incarnation.
This is like law of gravitation. If we bring two objects closer, then the gravitational force between them will increase. It does not matter whether we bring them closer for good purpose or bad purpose - as per law, the force will increase.
coolpurvi thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 16 years ago
#5
Yes He was justified. Vali deserved it. Lord Ram set a good example by punishing Vali
Omshanti1111 thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail
Posted: 16 years ago
#6

Thanks for starting this logical discussion.

As far as scriptures go and many eminent scholars like Srila Prabhupadji also states that Vali was rebron as Jara. Even the worst critic also can never find a tiniest black spot in Lord Ram's character except the Vali badh. We know pretty well how much Lord Rama is justified in killing Vali, who was a sinner.
But since there is always a question about the way Lord killed Vali, the Lord himself cleared this debt to Bali by Himself being killed in a similar way by Jara during HIS KRISHNAVTAR. He himself set an example that one needs to repay his/her karma whether good or bad.
Vr15h thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail IPL 2024 Participants Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 16 years ago
#7
Akhl

Why did Rama transfer the punishment to a subsequent avatar instead of taking it himself, if he actually wanted to apply that law to himself? One would have thought that after Sita's passing, it would have been a good opportunity for him to go that way, particularly since his happiness was all but gone.

Also, it was Krishna who was 'hiding', or more accurately unseen, not Jara. Jara mistook his foot for that of a deer, and shot him accidentally, almost like Dasharath killing Shravan Kumar. That's different from Rama killing Vali, where Rama hid and deliberately (justified or not) did the killing.

P.S. I too have read about Vali being the one reborn as Jara, but otoh, it was said that anyone killed by Vishnu himself would be free of further rebirths (exceptions being Jaya and Vijaya's incarnations). Given that factoid, Angad being the one seems to make more sense.
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 16 years ago
#8

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Yes He was justified. Vali deserved it. Lord Ram set a good example by punishing Vali

I too strongly believe Shri Ram was justified in killing Vali, but Purvi, the question here is not whether Ramji was justified or not, but why Angad (or Vali) was reborn to kill Shri Krishna. If Shri Ram was justfified in killing Vali, and no sin went to him, why did Angad (or Vali) get reborn as Jara to kill Shri Krishna?
RamKiSeeta thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 16 years ago
#9

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Akhl

Why did Rama transfer the punishment to a subsequent avatar instead of taking it himself, if he actually wanted to apply that law to himself? One would have thought that after Sita's passing, it would have been a good opportunity for him to go that way, particularly since his happiness was all but gone. That's a good question. Honestly, I don't know the answer, but I think because only a son has a right to avenge a mother or father's death. Only Angad had a right to avenge his father's death, but since he was a Rama devotee, he would never even think of killing Rama. But it is a son's Dharma to avenge his parent's death (only if their parent was killed in a fashion deemed unfair by society), so whether he wanted to or not, he had to avenge his father's death. But Rama, knowing the dilemma Angad faced, probably told him that he will be reborn as Shri Krishna in the Dwapara Yuga and he (Angad) will be reborn as Jara to fulfill a son's Dharma. That's the only explanation I could think of. If I'm wrong, please correct me.😳

Also, it was Krishna who was 'hiding', or more accurately unseen, not Jara. Jara mistook his foot for that of a deer, and shot him accidentally, almost like Dasharath killing Shravan Kumar. That's different from Rama killing Vali, where Rama hid and deliberately (justified or not) did the killing. I guess it's more or less the same thing. Jara was a Nishada hunter, and he killed animals hiding behind trees/bushes. But it is the duty of a Nishada hunter to make sure the target he is hitiing is an animal, and not a human, but Jara did not make sure Shri Krishna's foot was a deer or not, and shot his arrow. So I guess the two deeds balanced each other that way. I could be wrong...

P.S. I too have read about Vali being the one reborn as Jara, but otoh, it was said that anyone killed by Vishnu himself would be free of further rebirths (exceptions being Jaya and Vijaya's incarnations). Given that factoid, Angad being the one seems to make more sense.

Honestly, all the accounts I read of Shri Krishna's death said that Angad was Jara. Maybe it was Vali, I don't know, but what you said is true. Anyone killed by Lord Vishnu is given moksha (but like you said, Jaya and Vijaya's incarnations were exceptions), and in the Valmiki Ramayana, doesn't it say that Vali was given moksha for feeling regret for his mistreatment with Ruma and Sugreeva, and also for being killed by Shri Rama, the image of Lord Vishnu? Why would Vali be reborn as Jara then? For me, Angad being reborn makes more sense, but I don't know...I guess it could be Vali also.
akhl thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Fascinator 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 16 years ago
#10
Chandraketu,
I think "hiding" is not the correct word. So let us put it differently.
Ram killed Vali when Vali did not see Ram and was not ready for the attack.
Likewise, Jara killed Krishna when Krishna did not see Jara and was not ready for the attack.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".