“By bringing up the fact that Vali desired his brother’s wife, Rama silenced Vali. But Tulsi says that for the same sinful deeds of Sugriva, Rama did not mind.” (Dohavali, 157)

Download this episode (right click and save)

बंधु बधू रत कहि कियो बचन निरूत्तर बालि
तुलसी प्रभु सुग्रीव की चितइ न कछू कुचालि

baṃdhu badhū rata kahi kiyo bacana nirūttara bāli
tulasī prabhu sugrīva kī citai na kachū kucāli

“If you ever browse the literary genre of biography, there is a certain approach that the authors tend to take. Even in the case of effusive praise, of idolatry, of appreciation reaching to the heights of the skies and beyond, there is some attention to balance. That is to say, the authors try to be critical, to some degree.

“If they cannot think of anything negative to say on their own, they will reference other material. For instance, if they are presenting a work on a figure from history who was prominent several hundreds of years ago, part of the research process involves looking for any published works from that time that are negative in nature. Things that would cast the main character in a different light.

“This approach satisfies several obligations. This is from the perspective of an honest person. For starters, it brings a level of respectability to the presentation. Balance is a byproduct of sobriety. Clear thinking. Rational consideration. Avoiding fanaticism. Being careful not to follow blindly. Not becoming an acolyte; as showing yourself as a fanboy would not be well-received within scholarly circles.

“The other benefit is for the consuming public. They get a balanced viewpoint of the subject in question. They can make up their own minds as to the merits or demerits. They do not have to be swayed by a one-sided presentation.

“Do you feel this is one of the glaring gaps within the culture of Vedic literature? It seems that the Vedas themselves are unidirectional. They point only in the direction of praise. They urge others to follow ‘guna-gao.’ Sing the transcendental glories, gunas, of the one who is both nirguna and saguna simultaneously.

“Would not a balanced approach be more helpful? Is that not one of the reasons people tend to turn away from religion? They do not want to fanatically follow this person or that. They are not ready for the regular prostration, for paying attention to offenses, for living in fear of pointing out obvious flaws.”

It is understandable that there would be such a misunderstanding in this area. On the surface, if placed on a scale, the praise is overwhelming. We take a celebrated work like Mahabharata and marvel at the sheer volume. The amount of Sanskrit verses to consume. Simply to read through the entire book in one lifetime is an achievement.

We hear that the author, Vyasadeva, who is more like a compiler, actually had everything committed to memory. Those complex Sanskrit words, perfectly arranged in a specific meter, were retained within memory. Since people cannot believe that a single person could produce such a volume of verses, let alone have them written down, they erroneously attribute the origin to some other source, such as mythology or a gradually morphing tradition.

If we study closely, we will see that every side is already covered. It is not that Vyasadeva and others operate with their eyes closed. It is not that they are blind to perceived blemishes in relation to the origin of everything. They indeed refer to Him as Achyuta, or the one who is flawless, but this is only after careful consideration.

We have an interesting couplet from the Dohavali of Goswami Tulsidas. The poet remarks how the celebrated avatara of the Supreme Lord named Rama once silenced an opponent with a specific accusation. This relates to the pastime of Shri Rama slaying Vali, who was a powerful Vanara.

The incident itself breaches several moral boundaries that have long since been followed by civilized individuals. Rama struck Vali in the back. The victim was not suspecting the attack. Moreover, Vali was already engaged with another fighter, who happened to be his brother.

The strike was intentional. It was the plan all along. Sugriva was living in deadly fear of Vali. They had a previous argument that turned too violent to settle properly. Sugriva essentially had to flee for his life. Vali then took over the Vanara kingdom in Kishkindha. He also took possession of Sugriva’s wife.

This was the justification for the backhanded attack. Rama said that this was a sin, for Vali to desire the wife of the younger brother. In essence, Vali was merely getting the rewards to his deeds. In this case, it was a punishment, but in the grand scheme all actions in karma have a corresponding punishment, arriving either in this life or in a future one.

The irony is not lost on Tulsidas. Rama singled out Vali for this sinful desire, but the same was ignored with Sugriva. Through the death of Vali, Sugriva regained his kingdom. He also appropriated Vali’s widow.

In a magnificent display of hypocrisy, Rama did not punish Sugriva. The reason was obvious. Sugriva was a devotee. He was aligned with Rama. He had promised to help. He would assist in finding Rama’s missing wife, Sita Devi.

This incident confirms the principle presented in Bhagavad-gita. The Supreme Lord is always neutral. He does not wish ill upon anyone. Everything in the material world is based on personal desire. Kama is like the fuel to pump the engines of karma, which operates in the land of birth and death.

समो ऽहं सर्व-भूतेषु
न मे द्वेष्यो ऽस्ति न प्रियः
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या
मयि ते तेषु चाप्य् अहम्

samo ‘haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu
na me dveṣyo ‘sti na priyaḥ
ye bhajanti tu māṁ bhaktyā
mayi te teṣu cāpy aham

“I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 9.29)

There is a distinction for those who are friendly towards God. They essentially get an assist. They receive help because they have reached for it. They are no longer in competition with God. Tulsidas has assessed both sides of the story. He considers this hypocrisy to be wonderful, to be noteworthy, and to be worthy of mention and honor. The incident gives further insight into the nature of the relationship between the individual and the Almighty. Even hypocrisy can be something to celebrate, when there is association with transcendence.

In Closing:

When Shri Rama to view,
The negative assessing too.

How shooting Vali in the back,
In most cunning attack.

But no reason for shame,
To assist devotee came.

Negative reactions assuming,
Sugriva as king resuming.

Categories: dohavali 121-160, questions

Tags: dohavali, hare krishna, poem, poems, poetry, ramayana, sugriva, vali