Vali Vadham 40

From the Bhakti List Archives

• December 18, 2002


The hidden point


'Agreed,' said Vali.  But it doesn't look like he is convinced with the arguments of Rama, completely.  'Okay.  Let it be.  I have committed a mistake and you punished me.  I agree with you.  I do not question your authority or your act.  But you should have killed me in a straight fight.  'av urai kEtta ari kulathu arsum maaNda sevviyOi, anayadhu aaga' The king of Vanaras listened to those words (of Rama) and said, 'O righteous one! Let it be so.'  'seruk kaLathu eriyaadhE,' You should have shot that arrow, facing me in the battlefront; 'vevviya puLingyar enna vilangiyE maraindhu villaal evviyadhu ennai endran' instead you stood hidden (behind a tree) and killed me as a hunter would kill a mere animal.  

'I agree with you.  You killed me because I could not be forgiven under the rules that grant exemption to animals and my fault should be measured against human standards.  But you killed me from behind a tree, like a hunter would kill an animal.  How do you explain this?'  'ilakkuvan iyambalutraan,' says Kamban.  Rama did not answer this question.  Lakshmana started answering, instead.  

'munbu nin thambi vandhu saran puga,' Your younger brother took refuge in him, earlier and 'murai ilOyai then pulathu uippen endru seppinan' he took a vow to kill you, who has gone away from what is right.  'seruvil neeyum anbinai uyirukku aagi,' In case he engaged you in a one-to-one battle, (you will inevitably be pushed into defeat against him) and for the sake of love of your own life, 'adaikkalam yaanum endri enbadhu karudhi' you would fall at his feet and ask for his refuge (and that would put him in a very difficult situation for he would not be able to say 'no' to you and if he accepts you, he would be failing in his words given to Sugriva already) 'aNNal maraindhu nindru eidadhu endraan.'  That is why he did not appear before you when he let his noose, loose.  

The nature of the response is such that this could not be put into the mouth of Sri Rama, as it would sound like shameless boasting, had he uttered these words.  That is why Kamban shifts it to Lakshmana, making him speak on behalf of Rama.  In fact Lakshmana is the closest and fittest person to answer this question in this situation, as he is the very alter ego of Rama.

But how valid is the reason that Lakshmana gave?  How far is it true that Vali would have also taken refuge in Rama?  It is theoretically possible that Vali would have done so.  There is no doubt about it.  If there was a straight fight, there is no second question about who would be the winner and who would be the loser.  But it would have been a very difficult war that Rama would have had to wage.  It was not that easy even for Rama to establish a clear win over Ravana.  It took a long battle, even after the killing of all the valiant second-rankers that Ravana sent and even after obliterating the reserve force.  Agasthya had to come and teach Rama 'aaditya hrudaya,' and Indra had to send his chariot and his charioteer, Mathali to give his wise counsel to Rama during the war.  It was Mathali who insisted that Rama should use the Brahmastra to finish off Ravana.  And think of it.  This was Vali, who was more valiant than Ravana, who had actually won Ravana.  The battle with Vali, if it had taken place, woul

And Vali would have without doubt surrendered unto him.  Let us see the reasons why we come to this conclusion.  And let us also examine the validity of the other - hitherto unexplored - question of the so-called boon of Vali, to acquire half the strength of his enemy when he encountered one.


[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/