Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Vali Vadham 27

From the Bhakti List Archives

Hari Krishnan • December 13, 2002 


Was it a dilemma?


Here is how Rt. Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar quotes the great and revered commentator of Valmiki, Govindaraja.  "Govindaraja really says that Rama certainly could have known who was Vali and who was Sugriva but he did not care for the moment to do so.  So says a great commentator.  Rama had some other thing in his mind.  We do not know exactly what.  We are unable to define it.  But he gave this excuse that he was unable to distinguish the brothers.  It was a false excuse.  So say both the commentators and it was an extraordinary thing that that should be done.  As a matter of fact, to ascribe to Sri Rama this inability to distinguish the two brothers one of whom was so much stronger that he always beat the other hard is difficult no doubt.  But at the same time, ladies and gentlemen, I have a suggestion to make.  It is bold of me to make it but I believe it is supported by the words of the Poet.  When the brothers were first locked in combat, Rama had not finally made up his mind whether he would go out and 

Most likely.  We cannot impute motives to Sri Rama.  There is absolutely no reason as to why we should do so.  There is an answer given by Valmiki, through Rama himself, as to why he did not let his arrow loose, even though he had promised that Vali would be dispatched the very same day.  'That is not convincing,' feels the greatest of commentators and is coming out with an explanation, which reads far deeper into the text, reaches beyond it and touches the heart of Rama.  When the Poets have not given any clue as to why this happened, the only other course left is to go by what the great stalwarts have to say.

The person who feels that Rama had a conflict in his mind and that was why he could not kill Vali in the first encounter, is the most respected of all commentators.  And the person who quotes it is considered to be one among the best of orators that the country has produced.  Above all, the audience.  Srinivasa Sastriyar delivered these lectures under the auspices of the Madras Sanskrit Academy, in the Sanskrit College grounds, in the august presence of scholars of Valmiki Ramayana.  That cannot go wrong. There is reason to accept this notion.  We will take it up for discussion a little later.

Coming back to Kamban.  As we have already seen, Kamban puts Rama in the role of a protector.  Sugriva has sought asylum in him.  It is not possible for one who has sought his protection to speak in the language of an ally.  We saw earlier how even the doubts lurking in the mind of Sugriva were not expressed by him explicitly anywhere and Hanuman, reading his mind suggested that his mind would be set at rest when he sees Rama shooting his arrow through one of the sal trees.  Therefore, Kamban restricts himself to just one verse when he describes the plight of Sugriva who came running to Rama, beaten by Vali.

Think of it.  Kamban wrote his Ramayana in 10500 verses.  He showed all his skills in portraying the human mind elaborately in hundreds of instances.  Why should he restrict himself to a single verse - just two lines of a four-line verse to be precise - when speaking of how Sugriva came back to Rama?

Walking on the sword's edge.  That is it.  We will see the verse in question, in detail in our next instalment.


[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/