“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 (Prabhu) 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

“Okay, we all know that Shri Rama is supposed to be the ideal man. That is the appeal to the Ramayana poem, if you are looking for a sales pitch. Otherwise, the work kind of speaks for itself. If you even accidentally come across the sacred sounds, either in the original Sanskrit version of Valmiki or derivative works like the Puranas and the works of Goswami Tulsidas, you receive a benefit. It is something like acquiring merits by chance, ajnata-sukriti.

“Rama is Vishnu, but showing the way for others. The manner in which an adult leader should act. The example they set for others. The priorities they assign. The way in which they go about dealing with difficulty, in resolving conflicts of interest. If even there is complete lack of self-interest, the associates tend to pull a single man in many different directions. There are bound to be contradictory viewpoints.

“What should be crystal clear to any decent human being is the need for honesty in a conflict. Especially with a brave and chivalrous prince like Shri Rama, there should be the utmost care taken when fighting others. This was the example set by both the father, King Dasharatha, and the ancestors appearing before him, in the Raghu dynasty.

“Under such an analysis, the incident with Vali and Sugriva is something like a black mark, then. This is according to established priority for Shri Rama to behave as the ideal man. The way Rama killed Vali is underhanded, cunning, deceitful, and not at all fair.

“In modern parlance, we could compare it to a fight in the schoolyard. Two people are going at it. When the weaker kid knows they are doomed, they call for reinforcements. They might bring in their father. Not only does the father strike fear into the aggressor, but they also decide to take part in the affairs.

“Could not Sugriva be criticized along these lines? He had to bring his daddy in to help him. He couldn’t be a big boy and handle himself against Vali, who was his brother. It was such a cowardly move. How could Sugriva ever show himself in public? Should not his man-card have been revoked?”

This is a legitimate criticism. The derisive words are usually meant to cause corrective action. It is a kind of motivation to step up, to do something and be self-sufficient. For instance, if the adult child should happen to still be living at home, their friends may mock them for it.

“Do your mommy and daddy know that you are going out tonight? You better not get into any trouble or you will be grounded! You might have to make breakfast yourself in the morning. When was the last time you flipped a pancake?”

Goswami Tulsidas goes so far as to highlight the hypocrisy to the situation. When Rama shot Vali in the back, with an arrow the enemy was not suspecting, from a foe the enemy was not aware of, the justification was that Vali had taken Sugriva’s wife.

In the past, there was an unfortunate dispute between the two brothers. Vali was so incensed that he was going to kill Sugriva. The younger brother had to flee the kingdom of Kishkindha, leaving his wife behind. Vali essentially stepped in. He took something that wasn’t his. He took it by the threat of force.

Because that was such an egregious transgression, Rama was justified in providing the punishment. These words from Rama essentially silenced Vali. Nothing meaningful could be said in response. The logic was sound. The approach was reasonable.

Except for one thing. Sugriva was basically doing the same thing. He went a step further in getting a more powerful entity to intervene. Rama did not hold this transgression against Sugriva. There was nothing said. There was no mention of the change in possession, with the wife now under the care of Sugriva.

We can highlight the sinfulness to the incident. We can criticize Rama for what He did. We can make fun of Sugriva for being so afraid. We can lament the plight of Vali, in how he was basically double-teamed, like losing the title through a handicap match in professional wrestling.

Tulsidas brings this up for a reason. There is something important to be learned. Sugriva can be made fun of, but so what? Does it really matter? Rama does play favorites. He does breach the boundaries of so-called etiquette and righteousness. He does this for the benefit of His friends.

Should not the wise take note? Should not they try to become friends with Rama? We can say that it is not fair, but who decides what is fair and what is not? The tragedy of life takes shape with birth. Is it fair that I form attachments and then lament the guaranteed separation that takes place later on? Should I really be upset at death when I knew all along that the end would arrive?

जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्
ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च
तस्माद् अपरिहार्ये ऽर्थे
न त्वं शोचितुम् अर्हसि

jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur
dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca
tasmād aparihārye ‘rthe
na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi

“For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 2.27)

If Rama helps Sugriva, then maybe I should try to follow what Sugriva did. Maybe I should make friends, in the manner that Hanuman arranged for the alliance between Rama and Sugriva. Maybe it is better to have a superior force protecting me, supplanting my abilities, and intervening on my behalf when necessary. Maybe I should acknowledge that I am really not the doer and that the sanction of the highest authority of all benefits me in the long run.

प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि
गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः
अहङ्कार-विमूढात्मा
कर्ताहम् इति मन्यते

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
kartāham iti manyate

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 3.27)

In Closing:

Not all by myself done,
Helping in the long run.

Since ultimately weak,
And a protector to seek.

Like Sugriva from Rama to ask,
For regaining kingdom task.

For him even shooting in the back,
Giving to devotees what they lack.

Categories: dohavali 121-160, questions

Tags: dohavali, god, hare krishna, hinduism, poem, poems, poetry, ramayana, religion