வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்கள

[bmbcAdmin]

ஶ்ரீ:
வாலி வதம் செய்யப்பட்டது சரியா தவறா? என்ற வாதம், பட்டி மன்றம் நிறைய கேட்டிருப்பீர்கள்!
இன்னமும் ஶ்ரீராமன் வாலியை மறைந்திருந்து கொன்றது சரி என்றும் தவறு என்றும்
வாதிட்டுக்கொண்டுதான் இருக்கிறார்கள், நல்ல சமாதானம் கிடைத்திருந்தால் முடிந்து போயிருக்கும்.

நல்ல சமாதானம் - பதில் உங்களுக்குத் தெரிந்தால் பதிவு செய்யுங்களேன்!

தமிழ் - ஆங்கிலம் எதில் வேண்டுமானலும் கருத்துக்களை பதிவு செய்யுங்கள்.

என்னிடம் ஒரு சமாதானம் இருக்கிறது அது என்னவென்று அனைவரது அபிப்ராயத்தையும் தெரிந்துகொண்டு
இறுதியாகப் பதிவு செய்கிறேன்.
நன்றி
என்.வி.எஸ்

[anantha_chennai@yahoo.com]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

Vaali himself admitted that what Lord Ram has done is correct. Thaarai also acknowledged that. More than anything else, Lord Ram cannot do an act which is not dharmic.

ஶ்ரீ:
வாலி வதம் செய்யப்பட்டது சரியா தவறா? என்ற வாதம், பட்டி மன்றம் நிறைய கேட்டிருப்பீர்கள்!
இன்னமும் ஶ்ரீராமன் வாலியை மறைந்திருந்து கொன்றது சரி என்றும் தவறு என்றும்
வாதிட்டுக்கொண்டுதான் இருக்கிறார்கள், நல்ல சமாதானம் கிடைத்திருந்தால் முடிந்து போயிருக்கும்.

நல்ல சமாதானம் - பதில் உங்களுக்குத் தெரிந்தால் பதிவு செய்யுங்களேன்!

தமிழ் - ஆங்கிலம் எதில் வேண்டுமானலும் கருத்துக்களை பதிவு செய்யுங்கள்.

என்னிடம் ஒரு சமாதானம் இருக்கிறது அது என்னவென்று அனைவரது அபிப்ராயத்தையும் தெரிந்துகொண்டு
இறுதியாகப் பதிவு செய்கிறேன்.
நன்றி
என்.வி.எஸ்

[pcram]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

I would like to say that Rama's killing of Vali was in order for the following reasons.
At the outset Rama felt convinced that Vali was completely ignorant of Dharma and that had led him to denounce His actions with harsh words.

Then Rama went on to explain that the kings of Ikshvaku ruled the entire globe including all the forests,mountains and rivers. Their sovereignty extended to all inhabitants like humans,animals,beasts,trees,plants etc. And Rama himself was acting on behalf of the king Bharata who had the responsibility to punish sinners and establish Dharma.

He then told Vali without mincing words that he had committed a grave sin by coveting his brother’s wife who was to be treated like his daughter-in-law. Such a sin was punishable by death as per Dharma.

PC RAMABADRAN

[nrprabha]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

More than this god showed whatever we do will come back to us.In Ramayana Ram acca killled valli by hiding behind the tree the same bow in krishna avatar killed lord krishna so according to Hinduism we are responsible for our sin and punya

[bmbcAdmin]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

ஶ்ரீ:
ரொம்பச் சரியா சொன்னிங்க!
இதப் படிச்ச உடனே எனக்கு ஒரு ஸம்பவம் ஞாபகத்துக்கு வரது!
அக்பர் பீர்பாலிடம் கேட்டாராம். உங்க இந்து மதத்துடய தத்துவத்தை ஒருவரியில சுருக்கமாச் சொல்லுன்னாராம்.
பீர்பால் யோசிச்சு இதத்தான் சொன்னாராம்.
"நாம்ப அடுத்தவங்களுக்கு என்ன செய்யறமோ அதுதான் நமக்குக் கிடைக்கும்" என்றாராம்.
உடனே அக்பர் பீர்பால் கன்னத்தில் பளார் என்று ஒரு அறை விட்டாராம். பீர்பால் காரணம் கேட்டவுடன்,
அக்பர் "நான் மஹா ராஜா, உன்னை அடிச்சிருக்கேன் இது எனக்கு எப்படி திருப்பி வரும்?" என்று கேட்டாராம்.
உடனே பீர்பால் ஒண்ணும் சொல்லாம வெளியில வந்தபோது, வாசற்படியில நின்ன காவலாளியை அதுபோல்
ஒரு அறை விட்டாராம். அவன் கேட்டதற்கு, இது மஹாராஜா ஆரம்பிச்சு வைத்த விளையாட்டு,
யாரை நாம் முதன் முதலில் பார்தாலும் அவர்களை ஒரு அரை அறையவேண்டும் என்று ஒரு ஸம்ப்ரதாயத்தை
ராஜா ஏற்படுத்தியிருக்கிறார் என்று சொல்லிவிட்டு வீட்டுக்குப் போய்விட்டாராம்.
உடனே அவன் அந்த விளையாட்டை ஆரம்பிக்க, டெல்லி முழுவதும் ஒருத்ததை ஒருத்தர்
இதுபோல் அறைந்துகொள்ள தொடங்கிவிட்டார்களாம்.

மஹாராஜா மதிய உணவை முடித்துக்கொண்டு அந்தப்புறத்துக்கு ஓய்வெடுக்கச் சென்றாராம்,
சற்றும் எதிர்பாராமல் மஹாராணி ராஜா கன்னத்தில் அறைந்தாளாம். ராஜா என்ன இப்படிச் செய்துவிட்டாய்
என்று கேட்க, ராணி சொன்னாளாம், உங்களுக்குத் தெரியாதா? டெல்லி முழுக்க எல்லோரும்
இப்படித்தான் செய்கிறார்களாம், நான் காலையிலிருந்து உங்களை இப்போதுதான் முதன் முதலாகப்
பார்கிறேன் அல்லவா அதனால்தான்" என்றாளாம்.
ராஜா, பீர்பாலைக் கூப்பிட்டு, கன்னத்தைத் தடவிக்கொண்டே, "உங்கள் இந்துமதக் கோட்பாட்டை
நான் ஒத்துக்கொள்கிறேன்" என்றாராம்.

[raguramrajagopal]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

A few notes of a humble mortal, trying to understand the ways of the lord.

Vali vadham happened a few thousand years ago. What we read generally is one version of Ramayana. if you read other versions you may not find the mention of Rama actually killing Vali from a hidden perch. For example, Ramayana by Ashok banker, a compilation from many versions of Ramayana will give a totally different perspective on how Vali was killed. There is even a mention of Vali linked with Ravana and Ravana having transferred some magical powers to Vali.

On the other hand - Let us look at some instances in Ramayana as we read in popular versions:
a) A king needs to have the support of the people and the approval of people when he is affecting major changes. Especially in case of people's prince Rama. A wise king like Dasaratha cannot throw away his kingdom into anybody's hands at the will and wish of his wives. It is not his personal property. What part of Dharma is that?
b) Vali Vadham
c) Rama supposedly asking Sita to walk across the fire
d) Rama sending his pregnant wife sita into the jungle just because a washerman said something

These are projections from one writer's perspective and for the lack of any known other source we are simply following it. if you ignore these small cases or twists in the epic and look for the lessons in the Avatara, you will find aplenty.

Look at the bigger picture, Rama Avatar is supposedly an Avatar of Vishnu in the form of a mere Mortal, full of emotions, physically not as strong and put to stress on every bend. We have to always remmember that without Hanuman or Sugreeva or Lakshmana, there is no way Rama would have won the war against Ravana. He was Born as a Mortal, he used Mortal methods to survive and win and possibly make Mortal mistakes. If one looks to see Rama win against Magic, Sorcery and evil using his super-human strengths, the purpose of avatara would have been defeated. The next Avatara of Vishnu did exactly that.

In my opinion, there is really no point debating on the topic.

[gowriputran]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

Dear All,

I have become a meber in this group recently and I have seen this only today. Still I felt I should share my opinion on this and hence giving below the same.

I have heard Mr. Keerans Upanyasam on Kamba Ramayanam. He had given a very good reason for Rama's action of killing Valli staying behind a tree.

Before Lord Maha Vishnu had taken Birth in this world to reduce the Weight of the earth ( for Ravana Vatham) all the demi Gods have taken birth in this world. Among them Indra has come to this world as Vali.

Ravana was once defeated by Vali and Ravana was always afraid of Vali. Hence once Vali had told Ravana not to afraid of Him and had made friendship with him. By doing so he had slipped from the purpose of his avatar.

If an actor in a play (drama/Theru Koothu) makes a mistake in the stage the Director will be blamed as he is responsible and hence the director will pull him out from the stage from behind the screen.

Similarly Rama had removed him from the scene from play from behind.

There is a boon to Vali that he will get half of the power of the person fighting with him. And people say this is the reason for Rama to attack him from Behind. This is not correct because Rama has got a bon that Rama Banam will never miss its target.

To know more on this you can searh in google and hear the Kamba Ramayanam discourser by Pulavar Keeran.

With Best Regards

S. Sankara Narayanan

[Padmanabhan.J]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

Sri NVS Sir

Great Answers have already been given; I would like to share one more answer to your question:

1) Ramayana is a great epic and incidents are interconnected. When Rama enters forest great Rishis charted the route plan one by one in Aranya Kanda for Rama. At the end of Aranya Kanda it was Kabandha who told Rama to become friend of Sugreeva.

Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Chapter 72, Verses 13 to 15:

He that Sugreeva is a masterful one among vanara-s, highly mettlesome, self-resplendent, and illimitable is his self-radiance... and he is also truth-bound and culture-bound... a mastermind, master-hand and a taskmaster... [3-72-13]

He is a capable adventurer, a courageous exploiter and incomparable one in intrepidity and a brave one in incursions, and his personality will be coruscating ever and anon, for he is the son of Sun-god... but he is banished by his self-conceited brother owing to the reasons of kingdom... [3-72-14]

Oh, Rama, he will be your associate and an aid in searching for Seetha, and he conducts himself in your wellbeing, hence let not your heart yield to agony... [3-72-15]

Sugreeva is the son of Riksharaja, and the direct son of the Sun, but Vali trespassed against him. Wary of Vali's onslaughts Sugreeva is wandering around Pampa... [3-72-20b, 21a]

Kabandha could have advised Rama to become friend of Vali, who is in power and a powerful one too, instead of Sugreeva. It is not so, is the reply from the viewpoint of dharma. But he advised Rama to go on a right path and to a right personality as Vali is already established as a pursuer of wrong path.

Hanuman met Rama and Lakshmana. Lakshmana explains about Seetha's abduction and their inability to trace her whereabouts. This abduction was unknown to Hanuman and all at Kishkindha! Jatayu was the only eyewitness and that is because a bird can fly high altitudes!

Hanuman fetches Rama and Lakshmana to Sugreeva, and advises him to befriend Rama. Accordingly Rama and Sugreeva take the oath of friendship before an altar of fire and Rama assures to eliminate Vali.

2) Vali's killing is dharma:

Vali when talking to Rama at his death time says that 'I would have brought Maithili in a single day, I would have roped Ravana and brought him like an animal tide with roe around its neck...' etc. But they are all his expressions at death-time-wisdom. He did not care for Tara's advices nor bothered to talk to Rama, as to why Sugreeva is instigated upon him.

Actualy Vali overstepted in his activities. All vanaras took birth to help Rama. Vali not only had infight but also started fighting Ravana directly and over powered him. Then they had a friendship agreement. Vali took birth only as the leader of the army but he functioned as the king. Compare this when Hanuman offers Sita Matha to carry her on his back to Rama's presence at Prasravana Mountain in Sundara Kanda.

Then Sita Matha's answer was;

"If Rama kills Ravana here along with his relatives and departs taking me from here, it would be proper for him" (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Chapter 37, Verse 62)

What all Rama wanted is the 'search for Seetha...' not bring her to his fore. Elimination of Ravana is to be done by Rama alone, for which Seetha is to be located first. If a truce is struck between Vali and Rama, Vali straightway goes to Ravana and asks for Seetha. If Ravana yields Seetha there is no cause left for his elimination. Ravana for sure refuses to yield her. Then a combat ensues between Ravana and Vali. But Vali can combat one-to-one in a duel and he may not encounter a magical war of Indrajit or Kumbhakarna. Then all the demons will combine to eliminate Vali, thus the epic concludes there haphazardly.

There is none to say that Vali is 'unkillable...' or 'not to be killed...' But to every one a doubt occurs as to why Rama did not come face to face with and killed him? Why hit him from a remote place? For these doubts, the above said arguments may not suffice or satisfactory, either to Vali or to us, the readers. Dharmaakuutam, the only commentary on Ramayana explains that for us.

When it is said by Rama that 'today only I will kill Vali...' then it may be countered by saying, 'then why killing him from distance, why not confront him?' If Rama comes to fore, fear may grip Vali, then he may take Ruma, Sugreeva's wife, and to insult, Sugreeva further, Vali may go to a distant place with her. Or, he may seek shelter with Ravana. Or, he may even take refuge in Rama like Sugreeva. Or, on seeing Sugreeva with enough support, he may summon all his Vanara army to fight with Sugreeva and his supporters. Then it will prolong for a time. Then the promise of Rama made to Sugreeva to accord his wife and his kingdom by killing Vali, also prolongs. Justice delayed is denied. Otherwise, if Vali surrenders to Rama, as the killing of a refugee is not a merited act, Rama has to pardon Vali. Whether Vali takes refuse or not, killing Vali on that day itself, and establishing Sugreeva in Kishkindha are the promises made by Rama, at the time of befriending Sugreeva. The word given is to be kept up. So Rama did it and there is no unrighteous deed done by Rama.

Vali said;
"An unassailable one, such as I am, I am killed by you while you remained invisible on the field of fight, as with a sinner bitten by a snake while he is asleep. [4-17-48]

'In my own drunkenness of unassailable might, I could not see and confront you in fight, and had I been sober, though dead at your hands, I would have been victorious in going to heavens...'

It is not Rama that has not shown himself up, it is Vali who did not try to find where Rama is. Rama is aware of the boon given by Brahma to Vali

Summoning Vali, Brahma gave an unexcelling boon. ' any combatant will loose half of his strength to Vali shall he confront Vali...'

Knowing this through Sugreeva, and honouring Brahma's boon Rama did not come face to face with Vali. The same is the situation when Hanuma is bound by Brahma missile in Sundara Kanda, where he obliges Brahma's decree.

This is to say that dharma is far beyond mere politics, whether monarchical or otherwise. To up hold that dharma, one has to undergo certain painful processes.


3) Vali said to Rama,


"You have firm convictions about practicable and impracticable procedures, and you alone are the protector of the good and punisher of the bad, hence treat both Sugreeva and Angada with equal compassion. [4-18-53]

4) Endnote:

There are three kinds of giving. Grudge giving, duty giving, and thanksgiving. Grudge giving says ' I have to...' Duty giving says " I ought to...' Thanksgiving says " I want to...' The first comes from constraint; the second from a sense of obligation; the third from a full heart.

This being the saying by an unknown, Vali gave torture to Sugreeva because he had to, Rama gave punishment to Vali because he ought to, and Sugreeva given himself to Rama, because he wanted to. Rama befriends Sugreeva only to take his help in searching Seetha, because Danu (Kabandha), the demon, after release from his curse advises Rama to do so.

The killing of Vali is incidental to that befriending. To take help of Sugreeva, he is to be uplifted from his nasty state, and the abuser of tradition Vali is to be resolved.

'dinasya sugreevasya raksanam ramasya dharmah |
rajna dina jana raksnasya parama dharmatvat |
vastuah tu mukhya dharmanusarena eva vali hananam |' -- dharmakutam

In Ananda Ramayana, Sara Kanda, another treatise of Ramayana, tells that Rama not only accords salvation to Vali but accords a boon to become a tribal in Krishna's incarnation, and kill Krishna at the end, as retaliation to the present killing.

'yadi api tvam duracaro nihato asi rane maya |
tatha api bhilla rupena dvapara ante anghri mama |
bhitva prabhase banena purva vairena vanara'

But bhagavata purana or padma purana do not quote this sort of sanction by Rama. It is said in Anada Ramayana only to extol Rama's kind-heartedness.

Also Please read from these links :

http://www.heritagewiki.org/index.ph...2%80%93_Part_3

Which isexplaining from Kamba Ramayan

Sources:

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishki...a_18_frame.htm

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishki...a_17_frame.htm

Sri. Vidya Rajagopalan

[soundararajan50]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

All the six have hit sixers in the above discussion about Vali vatham. Indeed everyone have excelled in their own way. There is a saying that better late than be never which exactly suited me now . It happened to be today that i have seen this thread. Even though late i've enjoyed.Thanks to all who have participated in this thread.

[gowriputran]

Re: வாலி வதம் சரியா? கருத்தை பதிவு செய்யுங்க&a

Dear NVS Mama,

I am eagerly waiting to know your view/statement on VALI VADHAM. You have said in the beginning that after hearing/receiving the view of others you will give yours.

With Namaskarams

S. Sankara Narayanan