2

I have been stuck at the Vali sarga for over a week now because there was something here that was bugging me the cause of whom I now seem to have recognised.

Rama justifies the reason of killing Vali as the sexual acts he committed against Ruma:

तत् एतत् कारणम् पश्य यत् अर्थम् त्वम् मया हतः | भ्रातुर् वर्तसि भार्यायाम् त्यक्त्वा धर्मम् सनातनम् || ४-१८-१८

Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you... you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]

He further justifies his act of attacking while hiding as sinless by indicating to Vali that he’s just an animal and animals can be hunted in any manner:

यान्ति राजर्षयः च अत्र मृगयाम् धर्म कोविदाः | तस्मात् त्वम् निहतो युद्धे मया बाणेन वानर | अयुध्यन् प्रतियुध्यन् वा यस्मात् शाखा मृगो हि असि || ४-१८-४०

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. [4-18-40]

Here’s my qualm. From the way Rama killed Vali it is clear that he considers Vali to be just an ape, then why is Vali subjected to the morals of humans?

vishwamitras100aunts
  • 337
  • 10
  • Vali has to be fine with either options, put forth by Lord Rama, becos either of the two options holds true/ there arent other cases apart from those (two).If Vali counters Lord Ram, that he is a an animal hence can act by impulse unbound by human rules (dharma), then the second option holds true.It should be noticed that Lord Rama did postion Vali in the strata of human , thus presented the first option as a potential choice. – Athrey Sep 16 '23 at 18:14
  • In 4.18.46 *Vali offered obeisance with folded palms to Rama, saying, 'O best among men whatever you have spoken is undoubtedly true.* There is no contradiction, as the accused admittd/confessed his guilt – Athrey Sep 16 '23 at 18:15
  • Here it is not about what Rama considers vali to be , rather it is what Vali considers himself to be.. – Athrey Sep 16 '23 at 18:17
  • @Athrey no what you’re saying is incorrect. If Vali puts forth the argument that he’s an animal then Rama’s justification to kill him vanishes away as he’s not going to eat Vali’s meat. And if Rama considers Vali to be human then his way of killing Vali is wrong. It is one or the other. It doesn’t matter if Vali doesn’t see the contradiction. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 02:13
  • And again, can the downvoter leave a feedback as to how I can improve my question? – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 02:14
  • Does this answer your question? Why did Lord Rama strike from behind to kill Vaali? – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Sep 18 '23 at 03:29
  • @ArtistFormerlyKnownAsCSD no it does not. The accepted answer there does not see any contradiction in the reasoning of Rama. The other answer is not Valmiki Ramayana and another one uses the boon as an answer which isn’t validated in the text. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 19 '23 at 07:07
  • First of all just because answers are incorrect does not imply a question cannot be marked duplicate. Seconsly in this case it so happens that it is answered. Rama replies based on how Vali positions himself in question. Vali said he is an animal so ofcourse Rama will then reply with rules of engagement with an animal – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Sep 19 '23 at 18:01
  • @ArtistFormerlyKnownAsCSD the auto prompt asks if that question already answers my question. I have indicated as to why it doesn’t. My question is also very specifically about decisions Rama took to reach the stage of killing Vali. Not about particularly his answers to Vali. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 20 '23 at 02:21
  • How will you know decisions Rama took took to kill Vali if they have not been stated. All that has been stated are his reasonings when Vali tried to make him feel guilty. – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Sep 20 '23 at 03:57
  • Your point is a good one but I am assuming the Rama is the ideal man thus all his actions are according to dharma. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 20 '23 at 05:07

3 Answers3

1

These are two different issues that Sri Rama is addressing.

Using the translation of Sri Bibek Debroy -

Abandoning eternal dharma, you had intercourse with your brother’s wife. The great-souled Sugriva is still alive. Ruma is like your daughter-in-law. Falling prey to desire, you have committed a wicked act by having intercourse with her. O ape! You followed kama and transgressed dharma. You have touched your brother’s wife and I have accordingly punished you.

Rama killed VAli because of VAli's behavior towards the wife of Sugriva. Rama is implying that rules of dharma pertaining to not having intercourse with Sugriva's wife when Sugriva is alive, are also applicable to apes.

Later, Rama says -

We are subject to our own norms and have thought of dharma when killing you. Hiding themselves, men are seen to capture a large number of animals with snares, nooses and various other hidden means. This is irrespective of whether they are running away, terrified, roaming around without fear, distracted, undistracted or retreating. Men who desire flesh will certainly kill them and there is no sin in this. Therefore, royal sages who know about dharma engage in hunting. O ape!

Accordingly, using an arrow, I have slain you in an encounter. Whether you are fighting or you are not fighting, you are no more than an ape.

Rama killed VAli indirectly because VAli is just an ape and rules of combat do not apply to animals like apes (when humans kill them).

So, in summary -

  1. Rules of not engaging in adhArmic kAma apply to apes like VAli.

  2. Rules of combat do not apply for humans killing animals (including apes like VAli).

Edits responding to comments

Among vAnara-s, only VAli was treated as sub-human by Sri Rama. This is because of the adharma of VAli.

Sri Rama had great respect and concern for vAnara-s. At the end of the war with Ravana, Sri Rama requests Indra to bring back all the dead vAnara-s to life.

...... the great Indra, the chastiser of Paka, spoke in an extremely happy voice to Raghava, who was standing there, his hands joined in salutation. ‘O Rama! O scorcher of enemies! Your seeing us should not be fruitless. I am full of affection for you. Tell me what you desire.’ Kakutstha was addressed in this way. With his brother, Lakshmana, and his wife, Sita, he joined his hands in salutation and said, ‘O lord of all the gods! O supreme among eloquent ones! If you are full of affection for me, I will tell you. Please act accordingly and make my words come true. There are valiant ones who have gone to Yama’s abode on my account. Let all those apes regain their lives and stand up. Devoted to me and seeking to ensure my pleasure, they did not think about death. Through your favours, let them be united again. This is the boon I ask for. Let them be free of their pains. Let them be free of their wounds. Let them be full of strength and manliness. O one who grants honours! I desire to see the golangulas and the Indras among the bears. Wherever the apes are, let there be sparkling rivers and the best of roots and fruits, irrespective of the season.’

  • Thank you for the answer. What I am stuck with is that the implication of dharma of humans being applied on vanaras by Rama. If the vanaras are meant to follow all the dharma of humans, why then are they sub-human? – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 15:28
  • @vishwamitras100aunts I cannot answer your question, but Sri Rama never treated dhArmic vAnaras as sub-humans. Only adhArmic vAnara like vAli is treated like that. Sri Rama did not even challenge vAli directly because doing that meant according some respect to vAli. On the other hand, vAnara-s like Sri Hanuman, Angada, Sugriva are treated with great respect by Sri Rama. –  Sep 17 '23 at 18:26
  • Sugriva broke his pledge to Vali of standing by the hole by leaving before Vali returned. To me that seems adharma by human standards, yet Rama let that one slide which made me conclude (maybe incorrectly) that Vanaras have a different code of conduct. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 18:40
  • @vishwamitras100aunts There was a genuine misunderstanding on the part of Sugriva, who thought that VAli was killed in the cave. –  Sep 17 '23 at 18:47
  • Be that as it may, he still broke the pledge. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 18:50
  • @vishwamitras100aunts That is fine if you think it is adharma. My understanding is different. –  Sep 17 '23 at 18:52
  • Thank you for your time and points. It made me think about things that I hadn’t considered earlier. I genuinely appreciate it and I hope you can see where our opinion differs. My disagreement with you is in no way meant as a disrespect to you. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 17 '23 at 19:01
  • @vishwamitras100aunts Of course, disagreement does not mean disrespect! –  Sep 17 '23 at 19:03
  • @vishwamitras100aunts - sugriva did not break the pledge. he only left after seeing blood from the cave, which he assumed to be vali's blood after a long time of waiting. – ram Sep 20 '23 at 17:26
  • @vishwamitras100aunts - you are mixing 2 arguments about vanara & manushya dharma. if you know what purva-paksha (devil's advocate) method of argument is, you won't have the doubts. when rama gives reasons for killing vali - he is giving ALL possible reasons, so that vali has no counter argument. IF vali considers himself to be human, Rama explains how Vali broke human dharma. IF vali considers himself to be vanara, Rama explains Rama can kill animals without explaining why. – ram Sep 20 '23 at 17:30
  • @mar I think this comment is the closest to the answer. Perhaps you can post it as such so I can ask my queries there? Also, the pledge didn’t have any contingency in case Vali didn’t return, Vali was confident that he would get back. – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 21 '23 at 02:20
  • @mar but how can avtar kill animals, mahabharat seems to suggest non violence – Sophie Clad Sep 26 '23 at 14:15
  • @SophieClad - lol what ? entire mahabharat was about violence. violence against those who commit violence against the innocent - is not really violence - that is the whole message. – ram Oct 04 '23 at 21:01
  • @mar there are many verses of non violence in mahabharat. – Sophie Clad Oct 13 '23 at 23:36
1

Rama is not implying that human's morals, i.e he is not applying human dharma to vanaras. It was Sugreeva who did.

In sargas 8 & 10 of Kishkinda Kanda (later too), Sugreeva tells Rama multiple times that Vali stole his wife; and in sarga 10 tells Rama that he is saddened by it, implying that such an event is considered a sad event in their society. i.e. Sugreeva clearly is informing Rama that this seemingly human dharmic construct also applies to vanaras. He prepared Rama well on what to say to Vali if necessary:)

Sarga 8 -

अहम् विनिकृतो भ्रात्रा चरामि एष भयार्दितः | ऋष्यमूकम् गिरि वरम् हृत भार्यः सुदुःखितः || ४-८-१७

"My brother calumniated me and stole my wife, with his fear and my anguish haunting me I am moving about this best mountain Rishyamuka. [4-8-17]

हृता भार्या च मे तेन प्राणेभ्यो अपि गरीयसी | सुहृदः च मदीया ये संयता बन्धनेषु ते || ४-८-३३

"My wife who is loftier than my lives is stolen by him, and those that are my sympathisers they are also captivated and imprisoned by him. [4-8-33]

Sarga 10 -

तेन अहम् अपविद्धः च हृत दारः च राघव | तत् भयात् च महीम् सर्वान् क्रान्तवान् स वन अर्णवाम् || ४-१०-२७

"Thus he threw me away and even stole my wife, oh, Rama, and owing to his fear alone I roamed all over the earth with its forests and oceans. [4-10-27]

ऋश्यमूकम् गिरि वरम् भार्या हरण दुःखितः | प्रविष्टो अस्मि दुराधर्षम् वालिनः कारणान्तरे || ४-१०-२८

"I who am saddened by stealing of my wife have entered this safest mountain Rishyamuka, which is impenetrable for Vali by another reason. [4-10-28]

Such repeated complaints of Sugreeva pretty much all but openly-declared that Vali taking Sugreeva's wife for himself was clearly a no no in their society. Rama simply remembered it and thus used that connotation with Vali later.

Vijay Sharma
  • 1,191
  • 8
  • 16
  • But the fact that Rama killed Vali as if in a hunt clearly implies Rama considered Vali to be an animal. If I understand you correctly he only said the bit about Ruma because of what Sugriva told and not necessarily what he thought? – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 24 '23 at 02:20
  • You seem to believe that Rama was being subjective about Vali's biological classification. By your logic, if Rama's main reason to kill Vali was that he was an animal, then he first would have also killed off Hanuman, Sugreeva & other such animals there. See the issue with your presumption? Rama was not being subjective, Vali (& Sugreeva, Hanuman, Jambavan et al) was an animal, in objective reality, which has nothing to do with Rama's opinion. So where is the issue of Rama considering an animal, as an animal? – Vijay Sharma Sep 24 '23 at 16:41
  • You should be worried if he called an animal a human, or a human an animal, which he didn't. Also, in Kishkinda Kanda, before Hanuman first ventures out to meet Rama & Lakshmana, when Sugreeva gets anxious and does things that anxious monkeys do, Hanuman also rebukes Sugreeva's behavior saying that Sugreeva's falling into his animal nature, and asks Sugreeva to stop it! i.e. Vanaras clearly held that being animalistic in behavior is a bad thing. Which notion Sugreeva & Hanuman influenced Rama with. Thus Rama was very careful in applying whatever Vanara notions he saw, to a fellow Vanara, Vali. – Vijay Sharma Sep 24 '23 at 16:41
  • No, my reasoning isn’t about why Rama killed Vali (as an animal). It is from the how I say that that’s how he considered Vali. But I get what you are saying. You are saying that Rama understood the code of conduct among Vanaras from what he was told by Sugriva (and Hanumantha) who are, still technically “animals” – vishwamitras100aunts Sep 25 '23 at 03:33
0

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/kish/sarga18/kishkindharoman18.htm#Verse40

As noted by the translator on valmikiramayan.net, the reasoning offered by Rama ('you are an animal so I can kill you however I want') doesn't make a lot of sense. He writes:

'Whether you face this way or that you are an animal, as you alone said, besides being an enemy of my friend...' For this Griffith says - I cannot understand how Valmiki could put such an excuse as this into Rama's mouth. Rama with all solemn ceremony, has made a league of alliance with Vali's younger brother whom he regards as a dear friend and almost as an equal, and now he winds up his reasons for killing Vali by coolly saying: 'Besides you are only a monkey, you know, after all, and as such I have every right to kill you how, when, and where I like.'

nirishvaravadi
  • 29
  • 3