Ram killed the vaanara king Vaali while hiding behind a tree. He had to do so, because Vaali had got a boon from Indra which gave him power to absorb the strength of his opponent when seen in sight. Therefore Raama had no choice but to kill him while not being seen himself. Vaali as such was a good king. But he had ego and his ego made him drive his own brother Sugreeva out of his kingdom. Sugreeva wanted to redeem his honour and his wife which all Vaali had captured, without any real wrong done on the part of Sugreeva. Raama had entered into friendship with Sugreeva and promised Sugreeva to get back his kingdom and wife. Therefore, Vaali had to be killed first. Here is how the author explains this:
Owing to the protective virtue of Indra’s necklace, Raama could not have met Vaali face to face and vanquished him, just as Raavana could not be conquered by the gods. Raama could kill Vaali only when himself unseen. And still the question stands, why should Vaali have been killed at all?
Perhaps the answer is to be found in what Kabandha said to Raama in gratitude for being released from his curse. “Through Sugreeva’s friendship you will recover Seeta” – Sugreeva’s help, not Vaali’s. And so Raama went in search of Sugreeva, found him and pledged his friendship and consecrated by fire. Sugreeva had committed no unforgivable offence against Vaali; yet vaali, with his supernatural strength, persecuted his brother. Hearing the latter’s complaint, Raama had pledged his word to kill Vaali and restore to Sugreeva his wife and make him king as his part of the contract of alliance. Thereafter, Raama had no alternative. To kill Vaali from cover became an inevitable necessity.
Raama erred in running after the magic deer to please his wife. Consequent to this, difficulties and sorrows and conflicts of duty pursued him. If we keep in mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own ordinance, limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This is my humble view as against other explanations propounded by the pious.
(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XLIII, The slaying of Vaali; P281)
Owing to the protective virtue of Indra’s necklace, Raama could not have met Vaali face to face and vanquished him, just as Raavana could not be conquered by the gods. Raama could kill Vaali only when himself unseen. And still the question stands, why should Vaali have been killed at all?
Perhaps the answer is to be found in what Kabandha said to Raama in gratitude for being released from his curse. “Through Sugreeva’s friendship you will recover Seeta” – Sugreeva’s help, not Vaali’s. And so Raama went in search of Sugreeva, found him and pledged his friendship and consecrated by fire. Sugreeva had committed no unforgivable offence against Vaali; yet vaali, with his supernatural strength, persecuted his brother. Hearing the latter’s complaint, Raama had pledged his word to kill Vaali and restore to Sugreeva his wife and make him king as his part of the contract of alliance. Thereafter, Raama had no alternative. To kill Vaali from cover became an inevitable necessity.
Raama erred in running after the magic deer to please his wife. Consequent to this, difficulties and sorrows and conflicts of duty pursued him. If we keep in mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own ordinance, limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This is my humble view as against other explanations propounded by the pious.
(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XLIII, The slaying of Vaali; P281)
No comments:
Post a Comment