Did Lord Ram forsake Mother Sita?

By editor - 6.1 2016

“Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah”

Dharma protects those who protect Dharma. (Manu Smrti, Ch8,v15)  Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of Unity. ... If you protect it, it will  protect you. ­
His Holiness Swami Shivananda­ji.  

Unfortunately there is no equivalent word for the Sanskrit term Dharma in a limited language   like   English.   “Dharma   is   generally   defined   as   righteousness   or   duty. Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of Unity. If you protect it, it will protect you. It is your sole companion after death. It is the sole refuge of humanity. That which elevates one is Dharma. This is another definition. Dharma is that which leads you to the path of perfection and glory. Dharma is that which helps you to have direct communion with the Lord. Dharma is that which makes you divine. Dharma is the ascending stairway unto God. Self­realisation is the highest Dharma. Dharma is the heart of Hindu ethics. God is the centre of Dharma.” ­ His Holiness Swami Shivananda­ji.

DO   NOTE:­
In   this   article   we   not   only   cover   the   reasons   behind   Lord   Ram forsaking His wife Sita Devi, but also the question “did Lord Ram actually appear on   this   planet?”,   the SATYA  katha's   behind   Bhishmadeva,   Harishchandra,   the Pandavas  and  Srimati  Draupadi,  and  also, “why did  Lord  Ram  kill  Vali   from behind?” and much more. This article is very thought provoking and is not intended to create further questions but rather to view it from different points of view. Jai Sita­Ram. There are so many interpolations of our Holy Vedic Shastras especially from the West about this highly sensitive topic that now we feel obliged to comment about it and right the wrongs  that has truly marred our understanding of this extremely delicate and misunderstood subject.

DO NOTE:­
Ramayana is NOT a Story. A Story means “an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment…”www.oxforddictionaries.com . The Ramayan are kathas ­ NOT a story. There is no perfect word for Katha in such a limited language like English. The closest we can translate Katha to in English is “A true event/ narrative that actually took place”. So do we have proof of Ramayana taking place? Yes we do ­ and plenty of it as well. So before we explain “why did Lord Ram   forsake   Mother   Sita”   you   need  to   read   the   following   important   piece   of information first. When was the appearance date of Lord Ram?

Lord Ram made His most auspicious appearance many millions of years earlier, in the Treta­yuga in the 24th Maha Yuga. We are at present at the end of the 28th Maha Yuga. The Srimad Bhagavatam Maha Purana clearly states that Lord Ram became king   during   Treta   yuga   (Srimad   Bhagavatam   9.10.51).   I   have   done   a   little calculation below to take into account the exact figures of the time period I've tried to elaborate on above to show how long ago Lord Ram made His appearance... 1 Maha yuga = 4,320,000 solar years  24th Maha yuga = 1,296,000 (Treta Yuga 864,000 solar years + Kali Yuga 432,000 solar years) 25th Maha yuga = 4,320,000 solar years  26th Maha yuga = 4,320,000 solar years  27th Maha yuga = 4,320,000 solar years  28th Maha yuga = 3,893,000 (Satya Yuga 1,728,000 solar years, Treta Yuga 1,296,000 solar years, Dwapara Yuga 864,000 solar years, Kali Yuga 5,000 solar years) Do note that when Lord Krishna appears in a Maha yuga, Treta and Dwapara Yugas exchange places, because Lord Krishna appeared in this Maha yuga, Treta and Dwapara exchanged places. So from the above calculations we can deduce that Lord Ram appeared around  18,149,000 solar years ago. And this is exactly what is corroborated in the Vayu Purana. In the Vayu Purana (70.47­48) [published by Motilal Banarsidass] there is a description of the length of Ravana’s life. It explains that when Ravana’s merit of penance began to decline, he met Lord Ram, the son of Maharaja Dasharath, in a battle wherein Ravana and his followers were killed in the 24th Treta­yuga. The Roman transliteration of the verse is:

tretayuge chaturvinshe ravanastapasah kshayat

ramam dasharathim prapya saganah kshayamiyavan

The   Ramayana   also   gives   us   the   planetary   descriptions   (on   which   the   above calculation is based) and also states that Lord Ram appeared in the 24th  Tretayuga. The Matsya Purana (47/240,243­246) is another source that also gives more detail of various Avataras and says Lord Ram appeared at the end of the 24th Tretayuga. It is calculated that we are presently in the 28th cycle of the four yugas (called divya­yugas, which is a cycle of the four yugas, Satya­yuga, Treta­yuga, Dvaparayuga, and then Kali­yuga) of Vaivasvata Manu, who is the seventh Manu in the series of 14 Manu rulers who exist in one kalpa or day of Brahma. Each Manu lives for 71 such divya­yuga cycles. So, without getting too complicated about things, from the 24th Treta­yuga to the present age of this 28th cycle of Kali­yuga, there is obviously a difference of millions of years when Lord Ram manifested here on earth. This gives the period of Lord Ram approximately 18,149,000 solar years ago. Furthermore, the planetary positions mentioned in the Ramayana would also have occurred multiple times in history prior to the calculated date. Of course, few people may believe this unless they are already familiar with the vast lengths of time that Vedic literatures deals with.

Nonetheless, maybe there are further reasons why we should accept that Lord Ram appeared millions of years ago. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara­Kanda (Book 5), Chapter 4, verse 27, [Gita Press, Gorakhpur, India] it explains that when Shree Hanumanji first approached Ravana’s palace, he saw the doorways surrounded by horses and chariots, palanquins and aerial means of transport, beautiful horses and elephants, nay, with four­tusked elephants decked with jewels resembling masses of white   clouds.   Elsewhere   in   the   Valmiki   Ramayana,   Sundara­Kanda   (Book   5), Chapter 27, verse 12, an ogress named Trijata has a dream of Lord Ram, which she describes to the other demoniac ogresses upon awakening. In that dream she sees Lord Ram, scion of Raghu, united again with Sita­devi. Shree Ram was mounted on a huge elephant, closely resembling a hill, with four tusks.

The question is how could there be a mention of the elephants with four tusks unless Valmiki and the people of his era were familiar with such creatures? A quick search on   the   Encarta   Encyclopedia   informs   us   that   these   four­tusked   elephants   were known as Mastodontoidea, which are said to have evolved around 38 million years ago and became extinct about 15 million years ago when the shaggy and two tusked Mastodons increased in population. Now there’s something to think about, eh? So this would mean that the specific planetary configuration that is described in the Ramayana, and is verified by Pushkar Bhatnagar, may have indeed happened, but at a time millions of years prior to merely 10,000 years ago.

Apologies for the deviation but coming back to the main subject at hand, lets move forward.   But   before   that   let   me   state   here   categorically,  when   the   Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Ram performs an act, it should NEVER be questioned. Yes, this will not go down well with many so called “new­aged” “ I want the truth” people out there, but honestly what right does one have to question the Lord in what He does? He is God, He can do what ever He pleases and He is not accountable to no being... The Lord has a reason for everything He does, and who gives one the right to question our Dear Lord... His Lila (pastime) is beyond human comprehension but I will try to explain a little (with my miniscule intelligence) as to why the Lord acted in this regard.

Furthermore it seems to be human nature for many humans to want to hear and talk about the “juicy” issues rather than the main kathas at hand. People love to hear about why Did Lord Ram forsake Mother Sita? But very reluctantly seem to want to hear about Bharata begging Lord Ram to take the Ayodhya's Throne as Supreme Ruler... Lord Ram followed “Satya ­ Truth” and said “NO” because He had promised   to   fulfil   His   vow   to   Their   late   Pitaji   (qualified   father)   Maharaja Dasharatha, hence He could not. The Lord could have easily said “yes” and not went in exile to the forest for 14 years, but to uphold Dharma our amazing Lord said “NO”.  Well   its   seems   to   me   many   humans   tend   to   have   selective   reading   and hearing.

For those who observe the vrats religiously and regularly, there are great lessons to be learned from the 'kathas' (narrations). Lord Ram appeared on this planet (thus we should all feel tremendously blessed) to display to humankind HOW A HUMAN BEING SHOULD LIVE IDEALLY, AS A SON, BROTHER, HUSBAND, FATHER, DISCIPLE AND AS A KING.

“Ramo Vigrahavaan Dharmah” ­

 Lord Ram is the embodiment of Dharma (righteousness). A king should always be blemish­less and value the public image first. He should be uncorrupted and have an IDEAL CHARACTER. Otherwise, he loses moral grip and His subjects and the people in the kingdom will look down upon him. They will be also corrupted and the King consequently can not impose Law and order, if he is not PERFECT. To truly understand Ramayana can be quite an effort indeed  hence It requires a Guru to explain the intricacies and the secrets it has in It. Every event conveys some noble secrets in some indirect way. You have to understand It with one's inner self and not like a novel. The personalities in Ramayana are not worthy of comparison to the characters we come across in a novel. Each personality in the Ramayana is there to convey message(s) to us. Lord Ram and Sita Devi both knew the truth. Lord Ram was king and Sita devi was in Sri Lanka, abducted by Ravana. It was not Her fault that She was forcibly taken away to Lanka. But the subjects of Lord Ram did not know that Mother Sita came out of the AGNI PAREEKSHA, pure and sacred. From the Shree Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya­lila, Chapter 9 “ Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu then went to Setubandha [Rameshvara], where He took His bath at the place called Dhanustirtha. From there He visited the Rameshvara temple and then took rest. There, among the brahmanas, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu listened to the Kurma Purana, wherein is mentioned the chaste woman's narration. Srimati Sitadevi is the mother of the three worlds and the wife of Lord Ramachandra (Lord Ram). Among chaste women she is supreme, and she is the daughter of King Janaka.

When Ravana came to kidnap mother Sita and she saw him, she took shelter of the fire­god, Agni. The fire­god covered the body of mother Sita, and in this way she was protected from the hands of Ravana. Upon hearing from the Kurma Purana how Ravana had kidnapped a false form of mother Sita, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu became very satisfied. The fire­god, Agni, took away the real Sita and brought her to the place of Parvati, goddess Durga. An illusory form of mother Sita was then delivered to Ravana, and in this  way Ravana  was  cheated. After Ravana  was killed  by  Lord  Ramachandra, Sitadevi was brought before the fire and tested. When the illusory Sita was brought before the fire by Lord Ramachandra, the fire­god made the illusory form disappear and delivered the real Sita to Lord Ramachandra. When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu heard this katha, He was very pleased, and He remembered the words of Ramadasa Vipra. Most of Lord Ram's subjects did not know this vital piece of information and there were of course some narrow minded subjects that spread rumours. Lord Ram's incarnation was aimed at teaching people how to lead a self­less, noble and religious life. Due to the unwarranted rumours and for the sake of His people, Lord Ram had to leave Sita­devi whom He truly and utterly loved for the sake of Dharma. Of course Lord Ram felt the pain of leaving Sita­devi. Many don’t realise just for the sake of Dharma   Lord   Ram   could   not   enjoy  being  with  His  soul­mate   nor  His   beloved children. The Lord sacrificed everything for the sake of Dharma and yet people bad mouthed   our  Supreme   Lord.  How   quick   are   people   to   criticize   another   without delving into that situation open mindedly? – well it's worse now that we're in this day and age. So one shouldn’t really be blaming Lord Ram for all this, one should really be blaming the washer man (dhobiwala – no offence to Dhobiwala's around the world) for interfering into someone else’s' personal issues. Lord Ram had from the beginning accepted His most inner personality as Maryada Purushottam  Ram and not as an Avatar of love like Lord Krishna. Hence when the devas, other heavenly beings and Rishis worshipped and addressed Lord Ram, they addressed the Lord as Maryada Purushottam Ram. Satya is a Sanskrit word that loosely translates into English as "truth" or "correct". It is a term of power due to its purity and meaning. Satya is usually followed by heavenly beings and very high spiritual   personalities   like  Bhishmadeva,   Harishchandra,   the   5   Pandavas,   Lord Ram etc.

***The above mentioned great personalties are discussed at great length at the end of this article. When Sita devi was pregnant, Lord Ram sent Her to the forest and He gave instructions to Shree Lakshman­ji to leave Sita­devi near Valmiki Rishi's Ashram. Why did he perform such an act ­ one may ask. Well Lord Ram knew when Sitadevi delivers Her babies, the children She was going to deliver will be taken care in the Ashram of Valmiki Rishi. And Lord Rama knew that Valmiki Rishi will educate His children in the appropriate Vedic manner and educate them on the moral ethics and kathas correctly so that His children will not see Their father as an enemy, immoral husband or an irresponsible husband. And rightly so because both Lava and Kusha personally learnt the Ramayana from Valmiki Rishi correctly and therefore loved Shree Ram dearly so. Mother Sita never hated Her husband Lord Rama as She knew the reason why Herself and Lord Ram had incarnated on this planet. She already knew the Ramayana well before it happened. So one should not come to a conclusion by reading the Ramayana a few times or  by viewing and basing one's judgement solely on some watered­down and distorted view of the epic adapted into a Television series for the casual viewer. Also one should remember Lord Ram completely respected females. The following katha is based on the Ramayana, but does not actually come in the Ramayana text of Valmiki Rishi but is instead found in various Puranas. When Lord Ram was about to cross the ocean, some texts state that Lord Ram performed worship to Mother Durga to inform Matashree of His intentions of invading Shree Lanka. The reason for this is that Mother Durga was the protector of Kuvera's island of Shree Lanka before it was taken by Ravana. As such, it was the appropriate etiquette for Lord Ram, acting as a human king, to inform Durga Devi that He was about to invade her area of control. In this katha, Lord Ram acts as a yajman, and Lord Brahma acts as a priest who performs the sacrifice to please Durga Devi. In the Puranas, the katha is described that Lord Ram prays to Mother Durga, and Mother Durga replies, "I am your external shadow energy. What ever you wish to do, I am your servant." This is along the lines of the text "shrishti­sthiti­pralaya­sadhanashaktir eka chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga" found in the scriptures. Durga Devi   (Maha   Maya)   is   the   shadow   energy   of   Lord   Narayana.   The   Ram­lila   is performed every Treta­yuga, and as such it has occurred thousands of times with many variations.

We do not know from which time period the kathas are recorded in each   book.   Thus   there   are   many   seemingly   contradictory   descriptions   in   the Puranas. It is described that Jambavan, the vanara devotee of Lord Ram, takes part in each and every incarnation of Lord Ram in the same body. The cosmic cycles of time are moving like seasons, and these Lila's are played out in every age on schedule.  Lord Ram was so faithful and loving to Sita­Devi that He slept on the floor after Her banishment, and never even considered marriage again even though it was quite usual in those days to do so, especially for a powerful king. Many will feel naturally sad for Mother Sita due to what She went through but what about Lord Ram, can anyone even fathom what our dear Lord went through? Lord Ram loved Sita­devi so much and it of course pained him  infinitely because His soul­mate wasn’t with Him. About twelve years passed on and Lord Ramachandra, inspired by His   family   priest   Vashishta   Muni,   decided   to   conduct   an   Ashwamedha   Yagna ceremony.

He invited all of the kings to attend this grand ceremony. Even though this ceremony required a wife, Lord Ram had a golden statue of Sita­devi especially made to sit next to Him and accompany Him. Their love was full of tears, pain and separation, but it is the most exalted Lila!  So coming back to this katha it shows the respect Lord Ram had towards females, so those who claim that Lord Ram had no respect for women and just discarded His wife, well their claims are truly and certainly unfounded.  Finally   the   great   Poet   Kalpa   Vrikham   who,   after   40   years   of   translating   the Ramayana   in   Telegu,   himself   said   that   he   “does   not   fully   understand   the Ramayana”. Then, taking the prior statement into account, kindly explain to me how much could we really understand? What is the depths of our knowledge? Are we really fit to comment about the Ramayana? I think not. Please read again, again and again... and if Shree Sita­Ram and Mother Sarasvati blesses you then you may understand.

*** Additional information about the great personalities mentioned above. Bhishmadeva:­ Bhishma was the eighth son of Kuru King Shantanu who was blessed with a boon which granted him a long life and the privilege of choosing his time of death. He had sworn to serve the ruling Kuru king. Bhishma means he who took a terrible oath, referring to his vow of life­long celibacy. Originally named Devavratha, he became known as Bhishma after he took the bhishana pratigya ('terrible oath') — the vow of life­long celibacy and of service to whoever sat on the throne of his father (the throne of Hastinapura {New Delhi}). He took this oath so that his father, Shantanu could marry a fisherwoman named Satyavati. Satyavati's father had refused to give his daughter's hand to Maharaja Shantanu on the grounds that his daughter's children would never be rulers as Shantanu already had a son (Devaratha).  Bhishmadev   is   one   of   the   12   mahajanas,   or   great   authorities   in devotional service to the Supreme Lord, and an eternal companion of the Lord. As such, there is no question of him making a mistake or undergoing painful situations; such apparent mistakes or difficulties in the lives of pure devotees carry instructions for the conditioned souls or they are meant for enhancing the pastimes of the Lord and glorification of His pure devotees. All these different reasons are true in the enigmatic life of Bhishmadeva. Having lived his entire life in a spirit of pure sacrifice and devotion ­ Bhishmadeva attained liberation (moksha) and pure bhakti even as he leaves his body. Harishchandra:­ In Vedic history there was a great king named Harishchandra who never lied and always kept his promise(s).

He was the ruler of Ayodhya and ruled his Kingdom wisely. His subjects were happy and prosperous. He was wellknown for his truthfulness. Thereafter the  devas decided to test him. They asked Vishwamitra Rishi  to help  them. One  day, Harishchandra went  hunting in the forest. Suddenly, he heard the cries of a woman. As he went to help her, he entered the   ashram   of   Vishwamitra   Rishi.   Vishwamitra   Rishi   was   disturbed   in   his meditation and became angry. To cool his anger Harishchandra promised to donate his kingdom to Vishwamitra rishi. Vishwamitra rishi accepted his donation but also demanded dakshina (fees) to make the act of donation successful. Harishchandra, who had donated his whole kingdom, had nothing to give as dakshina. He asked Vishwamitra rishi to wait for one month before he paid it. A man true to his word, Harishchandra left his kingdom and went to Kashi (Varanasi) along with his wife, Shaivya, and son, Rohitashwa. In Kashi, he could not earn anything. The period of one month was about to end. His wife requested him to sell her as a slave to get the money. Harishchandra sold Shaivya to a Brahmin. As she was about to leave with the Brahmin her son began to cry. Harishchandra requested the Brahmin to buy Rohitashwa as well. The Brahmin agreed. But the money was not enough to pay the dakshina and so Harishchandra sold himself as a slave to a chandala (a person who works in a cremation ground). He paid Vishwamitra rishi, and started working in the cremation ground. Shaivya worked as a servant in the Brahmin's house. One day, when Rohitshwa was plucking flowers for the Brahmin, a snake bit him and he died.   Shaivya   took   her   son's   body   to   the   cremation   ground.   There   she   met Harishchandra. He was filled with grief to see his only son dead. To perform the cremation, he asked Shaivya who didn't have any money. Harishchandra, who was duty bound, could not cremate his son's body without tax. Shaivya was a devoted wife and she did not want her husband to give up his duty. She said, "The only possession I have is this old sari that I am wearing. Please accept half of it as the tax." Harishchandra agreed to take the sari. They also decided to give up their lives on their son's cremation fire. As Shaivya tore her sari, Lord Vishnu himself appeared with all the other devas. The chandala, who was actually Yama, showed his real form and brought Rohitashwa back to life. Harishchandra and his family passed the test; they had demonstrated great virtue and righteousness. All the devas blessed them. Lord Indra asked Harishchandra to accompany him to heaven. But he refused saying that he could not go to heaven when his subjects were suffering without him. He asked Lord Indra to take all his subjects to heaven. Lord Indra said that it was not   possible   because   people   go   to   heaven   or   hell   depending   on   their   deeds. Harishchandra said that he would donate all his virtues to his subjects so that they could   go   to   heaven   and   he   would   bear   the   consequences   of   their   sins.   Seeing Harishchandra's love for his subjects, the devas were very pleased. They took all the citizens of Ayodhya Dham to heaven. Mean while, Vishwamitra rishi brought new citizens to Ayodhya Dham and made Rohitshwa the king. The 5 Pandavas and Srimati Draupadi devi:­ In the great Epic Mahabharata, the Pandavas with their mother Queen Kunti were in exile for 12 years.

Queen Kunti often advised her 5 sons that they share everything they have (or obtain through Bhiksha i.e. alms) equally amongst themselves. Upon returning home with Draupadi, Maharaja Yudhisthira addresses his mother first ­ "Look mother, I have brought   Bhiksha   (alms)!".   Queen   Kunti,   unmindful   of   what Yudhisthira   was referring to, unassumingly asked her son to share whatever it is with his brothers. Thus, in order to obey their mother's order all five accepted Srimati Draupadi devi as their wife. This is unprecedented in Vedic culture. When the Supreme Personality of Godhead Shree Krishna visits the family, he explains to Draupadi devi that her unique position as the wife of five brothers results from a certain incident in her previous birth, She was born as Nalayani (daughter of Nala and Dhamayanthi) She had in that lifetime prayed to Shree Shiva to grant her a husband with fourteen desired qualities. Lord Shiva, pleased with her devotion, tells her that it is very difficult to obtain a husband with all fourteen qualities that she desired. But she insists and asks for the same. Then Lord Shiva grants her wish saying that she would procure her wish in her next birth with fourteen husbands, she was shocked and asked Lord Shiva is it a boon or curse, and Lord Shiva replied back saying "My child do not be alarmed, due to my boon you will regain your virginity every morning as you take your bath, till the end of your life you will live with virginity" Thus in her next birth she marries the Pandavas who has a combination of the fourteen qualities: The just Yudhisthira Maharaja for his wisdom of Dharma; The powerful Bhimasena for his strength that exceeded that of a thousand elephants combined; the valiant Arjuna for his courage and knowledge of the battlefield; the exceedingly handsome Nakula and Sahadeva, for their love. The five Pandava brothers were said to have the fourteen qualities desired by Draupadi devi in her previous birth. So in order to protect Mahadeva's (Lord Shiva) boon, Lord Krishna, who never fails His true   devotee,   granted   this   boon   of   Lord   Shiva’s   to   be   true   and   binding.   

Also, interestingly enough  ­ but  from  a different  maha­yuga  and  as per The   Garuda Purana, Draupadi devi is the incarnation of Bharati­Devi, The Consort of Lord Vayu. As per Narada and Vayu Puranas, Draupadi is the composite Avatar of Goddesses Shyamamala (wife of Dharma), Bharati (Wife of Vayu), Sachi (wife of Indra) & Usha (wife of Ashwins­twins) and hence married their earthly counterparts in the form of the five Pandavas. The Mahabharata proceeds to give several fantastic reasons in justification of Draupadi's marriage. Draupadi obtained five husbands in this life because in one of her previous existences she had uttered five times the prayer to God, 'Give me a husband' (Mbh 1:213). Of course the Lord never fails His devotee. Lord Ram and Vali's death:­ So why did Lord Ram shoot Vali, an unsuspecting victim, from behind a tree? This is against  the ethics of warfare.  This has been a rather controversial topic and one should remember that anything done in defence of Dharma is Dharma. When the opposing side follows adharma in war, you need not hesitate to use adharma. Lord Ramachandra was hiding behind the tree watching the fight between Vali and Sugriva. When Sugriva was just about to be strangled to death by his elder brother Vali, Sugriva made a desperate plea to the Lord to help to save him, in which Lord Ramachandra promised earlier. As there was no time to lose, Lord Ram shot Vali with an arrow from where He stood, behind the tree. It was not face to face combat between them. Vali was given a boon that he would procure half the strength of the opponent whom he faced during combat. Lord Ram was fully capable of proving this boon invalid (He is after all God) and thus would be very capable of easily killing Vali in a face­to­face combat. But the merciful Lord Ram did not want to nullify the benediction given by His devotee Lord Indra to Vali to be proved invalid because that would have been an insult to His devotee. After the war, Lord Ram said to Agastya Muni that Hanuman was more powerful than Vali. Agastya Muni asks as to why Shree Hanumanji could not save Sugreeva from Vali then.

In answer, Lord Ram explains about the curse Shree Hanumanji received in his childhood i.e he will forget his power and strength until he meets the person that will be able to see the jewel necklace around his neck. Only Shree Ram could see this necklace and when Shree Ram saw this and told Shree Hanumanji, Shree Hanumanji seemed to have snapped out of a spell and immediately knew this and the fact that Lord Ram is the Lord he should dedicate his life to. So how could Shree Hanuman­ji be more powerful than Vali, given the boon that Vali received? Shree Hanumanji is an eternal associate of the Lord in Vaikuntha, so he is not at all bound  by limitations such as material strength. For the sake of the Lord's lila (pastimes), Shree Hanumanji behaves as though he is a mortal, and sometimes the Lord's yogamaya covers him so that he will even think that he is mortal. This increases his enjoyment and excitement when participating in the Lord's lila. But in reality he is equally beyond the limit of a material boon granted to Vali, just as Lord Ram was. Vali was given a necklace by Lord Indra, and that granted him his material strength.

Vali was adharmic in having driven out his younger brother who was to be treated like  his   own  son  and  in  having  forcibly  taking  Sugriva's  wife   (Ruma)  for  sambhogam. If one's younger brother is like a son and his wife the daughter­in­law, what does one say about elder brother and his wife? Father and mother, I would rightly think so. Lord Ram intended to punish Vali for what he did to Ruma. So it was only natural for a Kshatriya (warrior) like Lord Ram to restore dharma. In Ruma’s case and in Tara’s case as well, the winning of the women happened after winning a combat. And such exchange seemed to have happened smoothly with the acceptance of the women themselves – something applicable to the dharma of the species in which they were born in. Sugreeva did not abandon Ruma after Vali was slayed, nor did Ruma think it necessary to demonstrate her pathi vradhai quality.  Lord Ram's decision to kill Vali was a foregone conclusion (by virtue of the pledge he   made   with   Sugriva   were   Shree   Hanumanji   and   Agni­deva   were   the   two witnesses). There are many reasons that can be cited, and each one of them can be countered. That is why this controversy continues. The issue is not why Vali was slain, rather it is why he was slain while not being in direct (face­to­face) combat. Though Vali accuses Lord Ram initially, Vali is convinced later that Lord Ram was perfectly Dharmic in His actions. He recalls on Lord Ram’s greatness, before he set out for the second combat with Sugriva. Lord Ram also says that He had been perfectly Dharmic in what He had done. (Ramo dwir na api bhaashathe). So the nuances of how this act was definitely Dharmic. Never, even once, did Lord Ram say   that   He   punished   Vali.   He   said   that   he   only   gave   him   a‘praayaschittham’ (atonement). He repeats the same to Tara when she appears in the scene. His repeated reminders about stealing another man’s wife (though outwardly seeming to refer to Ruma) in effect is aimed at reminding Vali of the real kind of stealing, which is the abduction that Ravana committed. Personally, I can't understand why people ­ in general ­ are complaining about Lord Ram killing Vali, because Vali achieved total moksha from this material world due to being killed by the Supreme Lord Himself. So Vali can be considered extremely fortunate. *** DO NOTE due to space on this article, which is rather lengthy, we did not insert pictures  save   the   header  picture.  On  DIPIKA   we  have   inserted   many   pictures, depicting each katha.

DISCLAIMER:­

Do note that Dipika is not affiliated to any Hindu group or organization. We at Dipika choose to remain an independent repository of spiritual advice. We appreciate that there are variances between organisations and humbly request that if our views differ from yours that you respect our decision not to conform to the prescripts of your particular organisation. We remain committed to spiritual advice which is based on scripture. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this article. We pray that this article will assist you in some way and we also pray that it helps you to appreciate the beauty and remarkable foresight of our ancient Hindu culture. We wish to educate all readers and demystify the path of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma). Please feel free to share these articles with friends and family who do not have direct access to our website or articles. If you use the articles in any form including blogs and/or  as part of other articles kindly credit our website as a source. We hope that the articles serve as a reference to you and your family when you need clarification of certain topics. ... Jai Shree Sita­ Ram.