Sri Ram Part - II

In my previous blog I have shown two allegations on Sri Ram, and discussed on the truth of these two allegations. Last night a man from Pakistan raised two more questions on Sri Ram. Interestingly these two allegations had been shown by B. R.  Ambedkar too. He has shown the story of Bali and Shambuka.

First lets understand his stand.

1. Bali was killed by Ram, when he was unarmed. Being Maryada Purushatam, he should not have done this. Again he killed him when he was engaged in a fight with some one else. The reason for killing Bali was just to get help of Sugriva to conquer Lanka. This is a coward. 

 

2. A brahman boy died at a very early age. Ram find the reason that Shambuka a shudra was reciting Vedas. As per Veda, a shudra can not read it. Hence he killed Shambuka, and the brahman kid came alive. 

These two questions have been answered by me many a times, I will be repeating the same words. But I think this time the answer should be very specific.

1. Regarding Bali : 

a) Bali was not unarmed : Bali was very powerfull. His hands were his arms. It is said that he was able to absorve all the powers of arms and weapons of the enemies who come before him. Hence, in practical view he was not unarmed. Hence Sri Ram did not kill some one when he was unarmed.

b)Bali was not killed when he was engaged in fight with some one else : In Ramayan, it is very clearly written that, Ram waited till Sugriva is grounded by Bali. Hence in practical view, the fight was over, hence this allegation is base less too.

c) Reason of Killing Bali: Ram went to Sugriva for help. He came to know that Bali had forcefully taken wife of Sugriva, and he was engaged in disturbing the kingdom in many ways. So it was for the betterment of the kingdom to kill Bali. And the method of killing Bali was a well planned war. So nothing wrong in it. Sri Ram saved a kingdom.

2. Regarding Shambuka

a)  A brahmin boy died and came alive : Practically if we think, this is an impossible thing happened. Veda says there is no miracle, because God and his laws are unchangeable. What ever happens at a particular situation, will always happen in similar situation when eve it occurs. So, according to Veda, this is impossible too. In such times, we have to understand the hidden message of the story. The word used is a brahmachary, means a student of Vedas died. This can be interpreted as a social problem of that time that, people were not interested in studies, its the process of education amongst the children. Not a particular human being.

b) Reason Shambuk was engaged in reciting Vedas : Again this statement is an impossible one. Shudra means some one who has never got education. Every one is born a Shudra, and those who acquire knowledge of Vedas become Brahmin (if they practice teaching), Khatriya (if they join armed forces) or Vaishya (if they engage in business). So some one who never learned Vedas, who don't know how to read and write can not read any text. Hence this statement is to be again analyzed to know the hidden message in it. This incidence is described in two to three ways in different Ramayans, in some language it is said, he was practicing Vedas like a brahman, in some language it is said, he was reading vedas, in some language it is said that he was doing tapasya. What ever it may be, one thing is clear a shudra was engaged in interpretation of Vedas. Now some one who does not have any knowledge of Vedas was saying the essence of Vedas. Think logically, if some one who does not have MBBS degree will practice medicines, if some one who does not have LLB degree will interpret Law, some one without basic knowledge will become teacher,  then what will happen to the society ? What should the ruler do in this situation ? 

When Sri Ram killed Shambuk (means when he closed such practices), the brahman child (means the proper education) came alive. 

Sri Ram was right for what he did. It is said in Ramayan that, he then opened a lakhs of schools to teach. He was the first man who said only knowledge can give us bliss.