Why Sugriva not Vali?

Link to Slokas in this Page

In order to understand Vali Vadh we need to get all our data clear. The first person who introduces Vali and Sugriva to Rama is Kabandha. Let us see what he says (or what and all he says). Kabandha when incinerated turns into celestial body (3-72-4). Immediately, he advices Rama as to how he should overcome his misfortune. First he says people who are in difficulties can easily join together in solving their problems (3-72-7b,8). You cannot solve your problem by another method (3-72-10). So clearly he says if you do not befriend Sugriva you will not be able to solve your problem. Then he introduces Sugriva and Vali and says Sugriva has been (निरस्तः क्रुद्धेन) outcast derisively. Note there is no derogatory reference to Vali. Then Sugriva has qualities required immediately to solve your problem What are they? They are as follows. Sugriva is a masterful one among vanaras, 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). What stands out is reliable, efficient and Expert( see also (3-72-14) . None of these qualities can be attributed to Vali. Hence Rama is commanded to go to Sugriva immediately. And advised, to enter into a friendship bond with Sugriva. Then most important Do not underestimate this monkey (3-72-18b-19) .Then he says how to find Sugriva and how search for Seetha has to be launched
So the instructions are very clear and Rama just implicitly follows it.

List of Slokas

Sanskrit English
स विधूय चिताम् आशु विधूमो अग्निर् इव उत्थितः |
अरजे वाससी बिभ्रत् मालाम् दिव्याम् महाबलः ||
In a trice that highly dynamic Kabandha zoomed up shoving off that pyre, and he is now attired in lily-white vestments and angelic garlands, and appeared like a fumeless fire. Back
शृणु राघव तत्त्वेन यथा सीमाम् अवाप्स्यसि || ३-७२-७
राम षड् युक्तयो लोके याभिः सर्वम् विमृश्यते |
परिमृष्टो दश अन्तेन दश आभागेन सेव्यते || ३-७२-८
Oh, Raghava, how you will regain Seetha, that you listen from me in its essence… oh, Rama, by which and which analyses everything will be analysed, six of such ideations are available in this world… and when a person is touched down by a spell of nemeses, he shall adore one who is equally in such spell of nemesis… Back
तत् अवश्यम् त्वया कार्यः स सुहृत् सुहृदाम् वर |
अकृत्वा न हि ते सिद्धिम् अहम् पश्यामि चिन्तयन् ||
Oh, best among kind-hearted ones, thereby you have to certainly befriend such a soul in similar dire straits… however deeply I may think, I am not able to perceive your accomplishment if you do not befriended with such a soul… Back
वानरेन्द्रो महावीर्यः तेजोवान् अमित प्रभः |
सत्य संधो विनीतः च धृतिमान् मतिमान् महान् ||
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… Back
दक्षः प्रगल्भो द्युतिमान् महा बल पराक्रमः |
भ्राता विवासितो वीर राज्य हेतो महात्मना || ३-७२-१४
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… Back
न च ते सो अवमन्तव्यः सुग्रीवो वानर अधिपः || ३-७२-१८
कृतज्ञः काम रूपी च सहाय अर्थी च वीर्यवान् |
You shall not look down on that lord of monkeys taking him as a lowly simian, why because that Sugreeva is a valiant one, a guise changing wizard and presently he is in the need of a bolsterer, and if you render help he will be obligated to you for ever… Back

                                              Back To Vali Vadh Topics List

All Sloka Translations are from the site Valmiki Ramayana


34 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. m.k.subramanian
    May 18, 2011 @ 19:51:39

    Good. Noted and true!


  2. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 03, 2011 @ 23:57:11

    Why Sugriv, not Vali is a clear subject. What Lord Ram required is secondary. Primarl, Sugriva was badly in need of a super power to visit his residence and save him from the threats of Vali. Dont consider Sugriva so capable and valiant. Instead he was hiding in the mountains of rishyamukh just to save his life. He badly needed a power to save him and his free life could restart which was confined due to the threats of Vali. It was his fortune that Lord Ram visited his residence during his search for sita and inspired & encouraged him to challenge and fight Vali. According to slokas mentioned at 3-72-13, Sugriv has been praised quite nicley which stands false. Soon after regaining Kishkindha command, he forgot all the promises he made to Lord Ram and was busy in running his kingdom untill he was reminded / warned by lakshmana and 3-72-13 slokas say he is truth-bound and culture-bound. Total false. Forgetting all the helps of Lord Ram and not keeping his words/promises are not at all a symbols of truth/culture bound.


    • mghariharan
      Aug 04, 2011 @ 09:43:10

      There is difference between strategy and tactics. Tactically Sugriva slipped not failed. Tara explains it beautifully. When Lakshmana says I will kill Sugriva and make Angada as king Rama clarifies he has slipped in time only dont kill him just warn him. Rma himself had no complaint against Sugriva why you are making it a big issue. These are what you can call hapenstance. Ramayana explains how to handle such situations. Finally he delivers to Rama what Rama wanted. That is strategic masterstroke. That is what is expected from Sugriva and Kabandha says it without it Rama will not get Seetha.


  3. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 04, 2011 @ 22:35:02

    Your logics, be it dharma or lust, are always based on one common factor “INSTANT EMOTION/TIMELY REACTION/SLIPPING OF PROMISES”. Dont you have any other factor to support your statements. You are talking like a tamed parrot who only repeats one-two words which he is taught like you are doing by repeating only one logic instant emotion/timely lust. When i have proved that sugriva failed to keep his promise, you are again talking like that parrot what you said in the case of Ravana, kaikeyi (in the previous debate), the factor of timely lust/instant slipping of promise and other instant reaction. None of the acts of Ravan and Kaikeyi were instant but were well planned crook acts. Sugriv was busy in his kingdom not for an instance but for a long period. He forgot to keep his words/promises thus doesnot him stand as valiant, truth-culture bound. A total failure in his life, ready to accept the hell of his life by living knowingly that his wife is withheld by his elder brother and still just to save his life, he was living as one of the greatest coward in the rishyamukh mountain. Instead he should have fought Vali and died like a VEER. But he chose the path of cowardice and left his wife as a gift for Vali. How can you accept such a coward as highly mettlesome, self-resplendent, and illimitable (as per slokas 3-72-13). A person who himself needs help, what he will help Lord Ram. Sugriv insisted many times to Lord Ram not to appear in front of Vali or Vali should never know that Lord Ram is with Sugriva. He was afraid that Vali will offer Lord Ram to help search Sita as he had better sources and assets than Sugriva. Sugriva was badly in need of a superpower to get rid of the threats of Vali. He was a mere coward saving his life just on the curse given to Vali for staying away from rishyamukh mountain. The slokas at 3-72-13 stand false at this situation.


    • mghariharan
      Aug 06, 2011 @ 13:37:12

      I am only quoting from Valmiki Ramayana. Many of your objections are arising because it is inconvenient if you assume Rama is God. If you assume Rama is an individual who is determined to follow dharma under difficult situations then everything will be clear. The message to us also will be clear. Most of the people like father, Mother, stepmother, wife brother all demand from him unreasonable things. But he follows Dharma under all conditions. Lots of people like Lakshmana give him advice. He refuses to take advice if it is just convenient and asks him to do Adharma. All through Valmiki Ramayana this is what is the message. Ravana when warned by Maareecha returns but after Shuurpanakha induces a craving for lust in him he gets trapped. So also when Mandharai tells Kaikeyi Rama is going to become Prince she gives her a pearl necklace saying it is good news. But after 2 sarga of hammering by Mandarai then only Kaikeyi becomes a vamp as you have said. Similarly Lakshmana advices Rama to kill his father but Rama refuses to take such adharmic advice. This is what Ramayana teaches us. Don’t do adharma even if seems to be correct. There are no evil persons. There are evil thoughts and some people advice us and justify such actions please read the portion where Mandarai convinces Kaikeyi that she should ask bharatha to be anointed. It is a slow process of convincing that is why it takes 2 sargas. Then only Kaikeyi falls for it. We are also hammered by such advices daily by people less knowledgable than Lakshmana etc. If we follow Rama we will keep ourselves away from friends and such advices .Even Great persons like Jabali advices Rama wrongly. Ravan is advised rightly by Kumbhakarna that he is doing wrong but Ravana does not take it so he pays with is life.
      You have just classified all those who did wrong to Rama is Villain and Rama is god. Then all the message of Valmiki Ramayana will be lost.


      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 07, 2011 @ 22:43:55

        What you are telling is an answer to your doubt only. As you said (in last lines) when Shuurpanakha induces a craving for lust in Ravan he immediately gets trapped and kidnapps Sita. But when Kumbhakarna advises Ravan that he has done adharma and he should return Sita, there is no effect on Ravan, why? Why this time Ravan overlooks advice full of dharma and executes on advice of Shuurpanakha? Why Ravan doesnot overlook this time as in case of kimbhakarna? Because Ravan was an evil and a crooked, negative nature demon. Why such ill feelings do not develop in Lord’s Ram mind as he was also advised wrongly by Jabali? Because Lord Ram is Lord Ram full of dharma and karma. So again it is proved that criminal attempts/sins/thoughts develop in mind of adharmi/negative people only.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 07, 2011 @ 23:01:53

        Yes I agree. Adharma does not develop in Rama’s mind even if advised by Lashmana etc. The only difference is Ravana is an evil person.. Ravana according to me is ordinary person who falls for Adharma. That he is evil is not exactly correct. As he is a great Samaveda exponent and shiva bhaktha. Evil is some exageration. Othewise I am agreeing with you.

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 08, 2011 @ 14:07:37

        Ravan was indeed an evil person and there is no exageration in the level of his being evil. He deserved the title of a demon and he was indeed. Exageration is what you are calling him as Shiv Bhakta. He cannot be called as Shiv Bhakta. If you disagree with my ideas, carry on, i will clear this point also that Ravan was not Bhakta of Lord Shiv.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 08, 2011 @ 15:21:29

        What about comments of Hanuman and Rama himself that he was a great king? refer to http://wp.me/p15n02-Vn
        Rama also tells Bhibhishna that Ravana deserves respectful send off as he was a great person

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 08, 2011 @ 18:31:25

        No, Ravan was not a man of respect. If Lord Ram gives him respectful send off then it is the greatness of Lord Ram and not that Ravan is great. If at all Ravan was great, he could have been left alive just like your great Sugriva did in the case of Vali by leaving his wife for Vali. But Lord Ram fought Ravan, punished and killed him not only for kidnap of Sita but also for spreading and forcing people to accept the NISHACHAR DHARM. If at all it was the matter for Sita only, then Hanuman was only enough to bring Sita from the capture of Ravan. But it was mandatory to kill the ADHARMI Ravan and his NISHACHARI ARMY to save the civilisation. Evil Ravan was not great instead being so powerful, he has shown a very high level of cowardice by kidnapping Sita when she was alone, just like your great Sugriva who inturn left his wife for Vali.

  4. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 04, 2011 @ 23:52:26

    Further, what you said that when Lord Ram had no complaint then why i am making it a big issue. From your views it feels that you are a total anti Ram person which has no effect on his existence. What you talk you dont know yourself. You start comparing anyone with Lord Ram. Earlier you compared Lord Ram with a normal human being and sometimes you declare Ravan greater than Lord Ram. In between you brought Lord Krishna in comparison with Lord Ram who are same and “AKS TO EACH OTHER” (AKS stands hindi word). And now you are comparing thoughts of a small human being like me with that of Lord Ram. What Lord Ram did in his era were all supreme deeds and unmatchable. Sugriva was the greatest coward of all times and knew only to plea people to bring his wife back from Vali and you say it was all due to Sugriva that Lord Ram succeded in defeating Ravan. Sugriva was given a nice kick and thrown away by Ravan when he attacked Ravan as soon as they reached the main gate of lanka. What a great personality Sugriv is. He knows only to get kicks be it from Ravan or Vali. According to you Ramayan should be renamed as SUGRIVAYAN and it will be widely accepted by those who follow and accept the data given by your blog. I will also request Gita Press to print Ramayan/Ramcharitmanas with new titles called SUGRIVAYAN/SUGRIVCHARITMANAS. And the writer of these two great epics will be printed as “MG HARIHARAN” superseding Valmiki/Tulsidas. You are no one to compare deeds and thoughts of Lord Ram. You are very very small instead negligible to comment / compare Lord Ram.


    • mghariharan
      Aug 05, 2011 @ 09:04:05

      Purpose of different avatars are different. I am not asking you to compare Krishna with wild Boar. I am asking you to learn from Rama Avathar. Rama lives a human life suffers like us but all through come what may follows dharma. Dharma wins. That is our country moto also. “satyameva jayate”.
      You are comparable to Ram if you always follow Dharma
      In advaita philosophy we are all god. We have to realise it.
      Sugriva’s help was sought by Ram and he got it. without Sugrivas help Ram will not get seetha says Kabandha. kabandha also says to Ram do not insult Sugriva. if Ram cannot insult who are we to insult him


  5. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 08, 2011 @ 19:06:55

    According to me purpose of all the incarnations is to save humanity/dharma. How you are saying that they have different purpose? Yes it was you who compared Lord Krishna with that of Lord ram by lifting the mountain and all. I have only submitted more logics over it. Further you have again commented “Dharma wins”. I know this but it is incomplete without powers. Tell me how could Lord Ram defeat and kill evil Ravan just by remaining on the dharma side and not using his powers and arms. Let us finish this topic only because you are repeatedly inserting these topics without any base. Then only we will discuss on the other points. Common sir, first we will kill the issue of “dharma with power or without power”. Tell me a single war which has been won without powers and merely by quoting the dharma factor.


    • mghariharan
      Aug 08, 2011 @ 20:00:58

      I agree to what you are saying. But the way Valmiki has written see what everbody says about Ravana:
      Bhibhishana says गतः सेतुः सुनीतीनां गतो धर्मस्य विग्रहः || ६-१०९-६
      गतः = has gone; सुनीतीनां = of well-conducted person; गतो धर्मस्य विग्रहः = Gone embodiment of Dharma.
      Surely such epithets are not used to Evil person.
      And more “He maintained a perpetually sacred fire. he practised great religious austerities. He completely mastered Vedas, the sacred scriptures. He was highly proficient even in the ritual acts. I desire to do, with you graciousness, that which is to be performed to him, who has departed to the other world.”[6-109-23].
      Rama says: “There is no occasion to grieve for him having fallen into death in the battle-field and by whom the development of his country was wished for, while remaining steadfast in the duty of Kshatriya the warrior.”[sloka 15]
      “Hostilities end with death. Our purpose has been accomplished. Let his funeral rites be performed. He is even as good mine, as yours.”[sloka 25]


      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 09, 2011 @ 14:23:42

        You are replying to your own points. You said “Hostilities end after death”. This is answer to your own point. But this nowhere shows the greatness of evil Ravan. It was greatness of Lord Ram who conducted all funeral rites. If Indian Army conducts the same for the enemy soldiers it doesnt mean enemy is great. It is the Indian Army’s greatness who gave respect to the dead bodies of the enemy just following the dharma path (as guided by Lord Ram). I have seen in my village people buryin dead dogs and bluebulls who have caused problems for the villagers and were killed by the vilagers. But the villagers burried them. Nowhere it shows that the dogs and bluebulls are greater than human sams as evil Ravan not a great person.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 09, 2011 @ 16:03:01

        I agree but what about He is mine? There are more sloka’s . You have to prove he is an evil. definitely there is no such thing. He is hreat but did a blunder.Give me some proof that he was evil.

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 16:54:19

        We will come to slokas afterwards, but let me give you a very basic and logical proof. Suppose a pandit (brahmin) after studying all the grahnakshatras of your son and says that your son’s name will start from alphabet ‘R’ and only two names are left over Ram and Ravan. Which name you will select for your son? This answer will show your fundamental attitute towards society and will also reflect your ultimate character. Dont divert this by saying that how only two names can be offered. I am saying if only these two names are left, which one you will select? React in a mature way as you are and dont skip this question.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 18:24:20

        Rama never does Adharma. Ravan did adarma so I will Name my son Ram.

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 20:37:13

        Now why are you on backfoot? Once you consider Ravan as great person then he should be great in all sense and you should accept him in all the ways as i do for Lord Ram. You told Ravan did adharm but Lord Ram never did. Both were kings and powerful but evil of lust only grew in Ravan’s mind. I will compare now the main difference on being a god/dev and evil on one common factor “WOMAN AND LUST”. Shuparnakha saw Lord Ram, got attracted, offered him all the joys of youth but Lord Ram refused her clearly. Here a woman offers herself to Lord Ram but no lust grows in Lord Ram’s mind. In opposite, Shuparnakha tells about Sita, Ravan disguises into sage, visits Sita’s kutiya and by false means kidnaps her. Why lust grew in Ravan on first sight of Sita and same lust had not effect on Lord Ram though having been offered by a woman herself. This is a proof. How can you refuse your son being named Ravan / Because you know it is an evil name.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 20:53:22

        Even great persons have weakneses. That is why Ravana paid by life. Lust is something that comes to ordinary person also. In Gandhi’s biography He has an oppertunity to have sex and says he would have fallen for it but Rama came and saved him.
        Ravana’s action is wrong But to push the story to extreme and say that Ravana is a evil a Dracula etc. is wrong Our religion does not recoginize such forces.

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 11, 2011 @ 00:10:48

        No,great persons may have weakness but not crookedness/criminal attitude. What all ravan did were neither weakness nor instant lust, they were well planned criminal acts which a criminal or an evil minded person can only attempt. Killing of innocent sages is very well act of evil. Day by day your topic is being driven to very new path. But it is interesting to see that when you dont have logics you switch over to probalities / fiction and now you have inserted a new character dracula. I think you are more referring to phantom comics of kids than ramayan. That is why you come across such characters like dracula and miracles (which is basic criteria for being a god, according to you only). I think you have made your own dictionary by which you have derived new character dracula. Because synonyms of evil are as follows:- bad, wrong, depraved, immoral, iniquitous, sinful, impious, wicked. Better you switch over to phantom comics where you will find dracula and all because you are totally diverted from your basic topic “why sugriva not vali”. But it is interesting to see you helpless and trying to continue debate on basis of senseless, baseless topics/characters. Your blog is not to understand ramayan, you actually want to teach ramayan the way you are liking. And just to upkeep your ego of not losing the debate, you have shifted from “why sugriv not vali” then to “greatness of sugriva”then to “shuparnkha inducing craving in Ravan” then to “Mandharai and kaikeyi” then to “funeral rites to ravan” then to “emulating krishna” then to “samundar manthan”then to “ahailya & indra”. It seems a drunken man is driving a car in a zigzag way. Where he will crash he himself doesnt know. So as you are doing. But it is interesting.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 11, 2011 @ 11:50:02

        I have given many evidences to show that Ravana though did Adharma, was appreciated by Hanuman, Rama, Bhibhishana etc. It is greatness of Valmiki that when he wrote the story he has answered your question. First time when Akampana comes to him Ravana goes to Mareecha and is disuaded by Maareecha from attempting to fight with Rama. But Shurpanaka twists the story plants the idea of Lust in him. It is then that Ravana stops Mareecha from talking and says I did not come for advice, but do as instructed. He was aware of Rama’s strength so schemes to kidnap Seetha.
        But the point under discussion is Both Ravana and Kaikeyi did Adharma against their nature, due to wrong advice. Such people cannot be called as Evil. All the proofs that I have given are not to say Ravana did not do Adharma, but a reasonably well behaved person falls for momentary weaknesses and ruined himself and his clan.

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 11, 2011 @ 16:05:00

        Again the momentry lust / crime is inserted. On which ground you are saying that it was momentary weakness? Ravan held Sita in custody for almost one year. Is it a momentary weakness. He could have returned Sita when his momentary excitement got settled down. Or you want to say that particular momentary weakness continued continued for year. Then how is it a momentary weakness? It is a permanent presence of lust in one’s mind. Dont submit the same logics again and again just like the parrot. Everytime this momentary weakness/lust has been proved false but you are sticking to that particular point like a small kid crying for a particular toy. According to you momentary weakness may last for years. But my logics are very clear that momentary weakness can stay for minute/hour/a day/even a week but not a year. Momentary lust dont follow plans, they are attempted instantly. What made shuparnakha attempt lusting of Ravan? Because she knew Ravan was lusty and evil. He will definitely react if she provokes him. Shuparnakha provoked a lot to Lord Ram offering all the joys of youth, Lord Ram didnot have any momentary weakness. Why this momentary weakness hit only the evil Ravan? Because he was an evil.

    • mghariharan
      Aug 08, 2011 @ 20:14:53

      There is an english saying: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Ravana was corrupted by power and lust. but how did he get power through Dharma.


      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 09, 2011 @ 14:38:14

        Same point is being dragged again and again. Hence my reply is same again which you dont undersatnd or dont want to accept because you are taking the debate personally and dont want to loose it at any cost, doesnt matter you even try to prove evil Ravan as god and Lord Ram as coward. Dont you understand that why after owing powers, this lowest level of lust didnot grow in Lord Ram, his brother Bharat, his father Dashrath and many? Why such criminal thoughts develop in mind of these criminal persons? Power is the support which encourages them to attempt crime and sins. These type of people are basically criminal in nature and soon after possessing power, they do what all their criminal mind has accumulated. You are running this blog on the basis of Valmiki’s Ramayan, how did you switch over to an “english saying”. This means you dont consider Ramayan the complete epic for any debate or possibilities of losing the debate has diverted your mind to refer other books just to support your logics. I think your Ramayan data is not so enough to continue the debate. This is not accepted Sir, because till now you always quoted the following statement “as per Valmiki Ramayan sloka no. ….” But this time you have jumped over to some other source to give some logic that could support your debate.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 09, 2011 @ 16:11:00

        I agree Rama is great but not god. He is a person whom we should emulate. We cannot emulate krishna? Can we? Rama is closer to us and worth copying. If he is projected as god we will only pray to him. Not understand his actions.
        His (Rams’s) father Dasaharath Rama himself says sensuous. Rama condemns the action of sending him to forest listining to Kaikeyi.
        English saying! Probably in Ramayana also same thing is said. If you follow it closely that is what is said about Ravana. You can acuse me of quoting from outside but it fits the bill.

  6. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 09, 2011 @ 21:56:30

    In which way you accept सुनीतीनां = of well-conducted person about Ravan. I think you like the following acts of your Lord Ravan:
    (a) Kidnapping a woman
    (b) Kicking off his younger brother on an advice full of dharma
    (c) Killing the sages and saints brutally when NISHACHARI DHARM is not accepted by them.
    (d) Allowing his complete army to be killed by Lord Ram’s army for such third class and low level acts.
    So these acts have driven you a big fan of your Lord Ravan and you will always guide your next generation to follow your Lord Ravan. Because i always guide my kids to follow Lord Ram. Moreover, as you said we cannot follow Lord Krishna but you will definitely follow your Lord Ravan. This is the first proof i am giving about Ravan’s being evil. Let me see, will you guide your generation to follow Ravan telling about his achievements. Dont again submit your tamed logic “one mistake/instant lust and all. If you consider him great than you have accept all his deeds because he is great for you and probably inspiration for your life.


    • mghariharan
      Aug 09, 2011 @ 22:18:01

      You are questioning Bibhishana’s comment about his brother.
      (a) Kidnapping other’s wife wrong he was punished for that.
      (b) Nobody kicked anybody.
      (d) The fight between Asuras and Sages is different business. Both have faought. There is no logic behind it. It is those days activities. The Asuras have fought in favour od Devas also. Bhibhishana is also Asura who is good. In Samudra madan Both deva and Asra jointly work to get Amrut. devas cheated asuras and took away everything good.
      (d) Bothe the armies died. For the sake of Rama many monkeys perished. There are some more bad news After the War Rama’s Army Plundered Lanka.
      Well those are different items. the point is Calling Ravan Evil is very extreme.


      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 16:41:30

        Your point no (c) the figth between asuras and sages, let me see what you think the asuras were? First let us see your ideas about asuras. Now you will start searching some points that support asuras by any means. Still iwould like to know what you think about asura and what is the difference between sur and asur. Further, i am talking about the asuras Khar, Dushan and Subahu who killed the sages who continued their yagyas though being warned by Ravan. I am talking about this particular killing and not the killing that took place before and after Ramayan. This type of orders for killing sages definitely impresses and inspires you as a great achievement. You will also feel sometime to regulate this type of law for those people who pray or conduct pooja & yagya because according to you evil Ravan was a great person. So definitely his deeds and attitudes must be regulated in a society created by you which may get spoiled by the dharm factor taught by Lord Ram.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 10, 2011 @ 20:02:44

        This is difficult question. Because everybody thinks that Asura are bad people and Devas are good people. Hiranyakashapu was bad asura. His son was Prahalada. Prahalada’s son was Mahabali. Vishnu took the avatara of Vamana( Pigmy) and pushed him to patala. But you will notice that Mahabali stood by his promise of giving 3 steps of Lands. Even today In Kerala the most important festival is Onam where Mahabali comes to see if people are happy. All Malayalees celebrate by organising a group lunch attended by other religious people like Christians. etc.
        Any way coming to Ramayana Please let me know Who is bad?
        Indra (the King of Devas) who has sex with Ahalya and ruins himself and her and her husband Gautama or
        Ravana who kidnaps Seetha and gives her 1 years time to change her mind and marry him.
        Of course both are bad but who is worse?

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Aug 11, 2011 @ 16:26:40

        First Vaman- Mahabali was son of Prahalad. Prahalad was one of the greates devotees of Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu promised Prahalad that his 21 generations will be care of me. The very next generation, Mahabali though being a devotee of Vishnu, had diverted to asura activities and captured the earth & heaven. When vamana appeared and took 3 promises, he was told by shukracharya that he is Lord Vishnu himself. To enlarge his level of “YASH” he attempted to fulfill his 3 promises. And only due to the promise of Lord Vishnu made to Prahalad, Mahabali was given a respectful send off to Patal and was also given command of one of the layers of Patal. Vamana didnot just push Mahabali to Patal.
        Second-Ravan and Indra. No doubt Ravan was worse than Indra and probably than anyone. What Ravan did was kidnapping Sita by force (though he could not attempt any further sin due to sati power of Maa Sita). What happened between Indra and Ahailya was a mutual understanding and no force was applied on Ahailya hence it is no where a crime/sin done by Indra. But where is your hero Sugriva who actually needed help from Lord Ram but claims that he has done all the super activities of Ramayan? Any way you can continue with Indra and Ahailya. It is also an interesting topic. Like in other topics, in this case also you will learn a lot more.

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:10:37

        Mr writer ”After the War Rama’s Army Plundered Lanka.
        Well those are different items. the point is Calling Ravan Evil is very extreme.”

        I’m not trying to be rude but this is nonsense . Kindly suffice a sarga to prove your arrogate . There is no evidence of this allegation in any of the four primary sources
        Three narration in Mahabharata and in VR

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:30:08

        I have quoted from 75th sarga of Yudha kanda entire sarga is about plundering or burning of lanka. Please clarify what is your doubt.

  7. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 09, 2011 @ 22:03:48

    Now you have left the facts of slokas and shifted over to “probalities and english saying”. May i know what english book you are referring? Because till the time you were quoting the slokas of Ramayan, it was ok and accepted for debate. Now you have started using probabilities and fitting of logics by hook or crook just to continue the debate. Is that “english saying” derived from bible or mechant of venice or some other story? If not then probably it must be your own “english saying”. If it so then it will be easy for me also to submit all rubbish and call it as “english saying”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: