Vali Vadham 36

From the Bhakti List Archives

• December 16, 2002


You expect too much out of me, My Lord


Vali heard the arguments of Rama charging him with offences for which he was punished.  'aiya, nungaL arung kulak karpin ap poi il mangayarkku Eyndha puNarchi pOl seydhilan emaith thE malar melavan.'  Modesty and chastity were specified by Brahma, the creator, specified only to humans Sire, and your women who are supposed to be faultless.  It does not apply to animals like us.  'eidhin eidhiyadhu aaga iyatrinaan.'  He left us to lead our life as we please.  What is applicable to you, human beings, will not be applicable to us, mere animals.  

'maNam illai.'  We are not wedded to each other, as you do.  'maRai neRi vandhana guNamum illai kula mudhaRkku othana.'  We do not have the qualities that are specified in the Vedas, nor do we any kind of pedigree.     'uNarvu sendruzhich chellum ozhukku alaal.'  We are guided by our instincts and what comes out of our own inclination of the moment.  That is our inherent quality.  

'petri matru idhu petradhu Or petriyin kutram utrilan.'  Because this is the quality of the species to which I belong, I cannot be measured against your laws.  Where then is the question of my violation of Dharma, O Rama?  I have not committed anything wrong by animal standards.  'nee adhu kOdiyaal.'  Think over it and please understand it.

I would once again like to stress that these arguments of Sri Rama and Vali are specific only to Kamba Ramayana and are not found in Valmiki.  In Valmiki, Rama makes just three statements.  Number one.  He has the authority of Bharata to establish Dharma on this earth.  It was therefore his duty to punish a wrongdoer.  Number two.  Vali cohabited with his own daughter-in-law and therefore deserved to be punished.  Number three.  He was a mere animal and could be hunted.  

"No agony is felt by me nor any remorse for what I have done, O bull among monkeys!  Remaining concealed or open to view, people catch by means of nets and nooses as well as by means of traps of various kinds numerous deer that have run away alarmed or remain firmly rooted, fearless as they are.  Met-eating people hit with violence deer, which are unwary, or circumspect, nay even those which have their faces turned away (from the hunters) and no blame attaches to this.  Nay, (even) royal sages, well-versed in the principles of righteousness, go a hunting.  Hence, O monkey, you were mortally wounded by me with an arrow in the course of your encounter (with Sugriva) no matter whether you were not fighting (with me) or fighting (with another); for you are but a monkey."  (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Canto 18, Sloka 37-39)  All the other arguments are put forward to support and substantiate these three main standpoints.  

But that does not adequately answer the question of Vali raised earlier (discussed under the heading 'When 'My Lord' becomes the accused...II').  'I am an animal with five-claws, who is precluded from being hunted; nor my skin, bones or flesh is useful in any way.'  There is no reason given in the answer of Rama to substantiate his stand against what Vali said earlier.  More over, if Vali is considered as an animal then the question of the applicability of laws would arise.  Would the laws applicable to humans be applied to animals as well?  How can the laws prescribed for animals of a higher order - humans - be applied to animals?  

However, Vali does not argue any further in Valmiki Ramayana.  He does not raise any further questions.  He is satisfied with what Rama says, or rather pronounces as his judgement.  Let's move on to Kamban.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/