Is Rama giving contradictory justifications for killing Vali?

Question

I have been stuck at the Vali sarga for over a week now because there was something here that was bugging me the cause of whom I now seem to have recognised.

Rama justifies the reason of killing Vali as the sexual acts he committed against Ruma:

तत् एतत् कारणम् पश्य यत् अर्थम् त्वम् मया हतः | भ्रातुर् वर्तसि भार्यायाम् त्यक्त्वा धर्मम् सनातनम् || ४-१८-१८

Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you... you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]

He further justifies his act of attacking while hiding as sinless by indicating to Vali that he’s just an animal and animals can be hunted in any manner:

यान्ति राजर्षयः च अत्र मृगयाम् धर्म कोविदाः | तस्मात् त्वम् निहतो युद्धे मया बाणेन वानर | अयुध्यन् प्रतियुध्यन् वा यस्मात् शाखा मृगो हि असि || ४-१८-४०

In this world even the kingly sages well-versed in virtue will go on hunting, and hunting is no face to face game, as such, oh, vanara, therefore I felled you in combat with my arrow because you are a tree-branch animal, whether you are not combating with me or combating against me. [4-18-40]

Here’s my qualm. From the way Rama killed Vali it is clear that he considers Vali to be just an ape, then why is Vali subjected to the morals of humans?

Answer 1

These are two different issues that Sri Rama is addressing.

Using the translation of Sri Bibek Debroy -

Abandoning eternal dharma, you had intercourse with your brother’s wife. The great-souled Sugriva is still alive. Ruma is like your daughter-in-law. Falling prey to desire, you have committed a wicked act by having intercourse with her. O ape! You followed kama and transgressed dharma. You have touched your brother’s wife and I have accordingly punished you.

Rama killed VAli because of VAli's behavior towards the wife of Sugriva. Rama is implying that rules of dharma pertaining to not having intercourse with Sugriva's wife when Sugriva is alive, are also applicable to apes.

Later, Rama says -

We are subject to our own norms and have thought of dharma when killing you. Hiding themselves, men are seen to capture a large number of animals with snares, nooses and various other hidden means. This is irrespective of whether they are running away, terrified, roaming around without fear, distracted, undistracted or retreating. Men who desire flesh will certainly kill them and there is no sin in this. Therefore, royal sages who know about dharma engage in hunting. O ape!

Accordingly, using an arrow, I have slain you in an encounter. Whether you are fighting or you are not fighting, you are no more than an ape.

Rama killed VAli indirectly because VAli is just an ape and rules of combat do not apply to animals like apes (when humans kill them).

So, in summary -

1. Rules of not engaging in adhArmic kAma apply to apes like VAli.

2. Rules of combat do not apply for humans killing animals (including apes like VAli).

Edits responding to comments

Among vAnara-s, only VAli was treated as sub-human by Sri Rama. This is because of the adharma of VAli.

Sri Rama had great respect and concern for vAnara-s. At the end of the war with Ravana, Sri Rama requests Indra to bring back all the dead vAnara-s to life.

...... the great Indra, the chastiser of Paka, spoke in an extremely happy voice to Raghava, who was standing there, his hands joined in salutation. ‘O Rama! O scorcher of enemies! Your seeing us should not be fruitless. I am full of affection for you. Tell me what you desire.’ Kakutstha was addressed in this way. With his brother, Lakshmana, and his wife, Sita, he joined his hands in salutation and said, ‘O lord of all the gods! O supreme among eloquent ones! If you are full of affection for me, I will tell you. Please act accordingly and make my words come true. There are valiant ones who have gone to Yama’s abode on my account. Let all those apes regain their lives and stand up. Devoted to me and seeking to ensure my pleasure, they did not think about death. Through your favours, let them be united again. This is the boon I ask for. Let them be free of their pains. Let them be free of their wounds. Let them be full of strength and manliness. O one who grants honours! I desire to see the golangulas and the Indras among the bears. Wherever the apes are, let there be sparkling rivers and the best of roots and fruits, irrespective of the season.’

Answer 2

Rama is not implying that human's morals, i.e he is not applying human dharma to vanaras. It was Sugreeva who did.

In sargas 8 & 10 of Kishkinda Kanda (later too), Sugreeva tells Rama multiple times that Vali stole his wife; and in sarga 10 tells Rama that he is saddened by it, implying that such an event is considered a sad event in their society. i.e. Sugreeva clearly is informing Rama that this seemingly human dharmic construct also applies to vanaras. He prepared Rama well on what to say to Vali if necessary:)

Sarga 8 -

अहम् विनिकृतो भ्रात्रा चरामि एष भयार्दितः | ऋष्यमूकम् गिरि वरम् हृत भार्यः सुदुःखितः || ४-८-१७

"My brother calumniated me and stole my wife, with his fear and my anguish haunting me I am moving about this best mountain Rishyamuka. [4-8-17]

हृता भार्या च मे तेन प्राणेभ्यो अपि गरीयसी | सुहृदः च मदीया ये संयता बन्धनेषु ते || ४-८-३३

"My wife who is loftier than my lives is stolen by him, and those that are my sympathisers they are also captivated and imprisoned by him. [4-8-33]

Sarga 10 -

तेन अहम् अपविद्धः च हृत दारः च राघव | तत् भयात् च महीम् सर्वान् क्रान्तवान् स वन अर्णवाम् || ४-१०-२७

"Thus he threw me away and even stole my wife, oh, Rama, and owing to his fear alone I roamed all over the earth with its forests and oceans. [4-10-27]

ऋश्यमूकम् गिरि वरम् भार्या हरण दुःखितः | प्रविष्टो अस्मि दुराधर्षम् वालिनः कारणान्तरे || ४-१०-२८

"I who am saddened by stealing of my wife have entered this safest mountain Rishyamuka, which is impenetrable for Vali by another reason. [4-10-28]

Such repeated complaints of Sugreeva pretty much all but openly-declared that Vali taking Sugreeva's wife for himself was clearly a no no in their society. Rama simply remembered it and thus used that connotation with Vali later.

Answer 3

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/kish/sarga18/kishkindharoman18.htm#Verse40

As noted by the translator on valmikiramayan.net, the reasoning offered by Rama ('you are an animal so I can kill you however I want') doesn't make a lot of sense. He writes:

'Whether you face this way or that you are an animal, as you alone said, besides being an enemy of my friend...' For this Griffith says - I cannot understand how Valmiki could put such an excuse as this into Rama's mouth. Rama with all solemn ceremony, has made a league of alliance with Vali's younger brother whom he regards as a dear friend and almost as an equal, and now he winds up his reasons for killing Vali by coolly saying: 'Besides you are only a monkey, you know, after all, and as such I have every right to kill you how, when, and where I like.'

Answer 4

Namaste friends, Regarding Vali debate my point is: Read definition, eligibility criteria of key terms like Moksa, Nirvan, getting siddhis from Siva etc. These don't happen as result of evil deeds, nor can one use them to do evil deeds. Yogasutra says siddhis r possible only after chittashuddhi, full sattvik cleansing, gene evolution. Hence even thought of evil will b eradicated. Ahamkar refers to the original concept during creation explained in Samkhya philosophy. When tapasvi reaches state of removing connections with maya things and only connection with divine remains. Not petty ego.

People shouldn't distort actual dharmik theory, which is like science, to fit in with their fantasy tales. Uneducated superstitious people often tell tales where anything good is attributed to divine intervention, but shouldn't b taken too literally. Eg: even today when we complete a difficult task, we say we were helped by devis devas. Doesn't mean we literally saw them or that we r saints, rsis. It's more important to understand ancient society, rather than try to bend backwards to defend or justify any famous katha or blindly following any kathakar. We should consider all possibilities, but based on other historic texts. Ramayan is a tale of ancient warriors.Their lives, psyche, training r different from ours so we shouldn't judge them with same yardstick. Even in recent history, doing prayaschit by suicide is norm. All classes of people did it. Eg: Kumaril Bhatt, Sant Gyaneswar parents. Now it's crime so do we judge them as criminals? No! Fighting for desh dharm r considered noble ventures, was done by both genders. Many warriors pledged to fight till death for their rajya when defeated, no surrender. U find this worldwide. Like Sepukku in Japan. Ancients were dharmik. Vali went in inner gufa did meditation. Raksas are guardians of dharma, a qualification. Vali metaphorically killed or overcame that stare of mind, became advanced. Pati originally meant leaders not hubby. Since women too did svadharma, Tara is karmic partner, not wife. As senior tapasvi Vali,is entitled to selected suitable mentees like Tara. Training others is also part of dharmik duties. Because he completes that task successfully he qualifies to get moksa by divine Ram, (not human). Moksa is a state of evolution, tapasvi leaves maya samsara after finishing karmic debt. It does not happen to evil people. Poets have misinterpreted misguided. No need to blindly believe them. More important to understand dharmik points correctly.